Why Am I An Agnostic Muslim?
Mubashir Butt February 2, 2005
#206 Posted by Romair on February 6, 2005 11:26:44 am
warpster #191: Thanks for the info by Paul Kurtz.
However, it doesn`t answer the question. Kurts simply describes the basic points of human ethics. He does not describe their origination. How in the world did they come into existence?
He says they are necessary to run a successful society. This is actually not true. Infact quite untrue. Darwin`s theory, as I understand it, has no room for these human ethics. They completely contradict Darwin. Darwin`s survival of the fittest concept applies to human physiology, but not to social ethics.
Everything that Kurtz has stated is designed to help the least fittest survive, in the same manner as the most fittest. This is the opposite of natural selection. Yet this is what he presents (correctly) as the basis of a successful ethical society. Even though all the ethical concepts have built in inefficiences in letting the fittest survive.
So obviously, human ethics are not based on Natural Selection. What are the based on, then?
Why should I pay taxes to support the poor? Why should people with lower IQs be allowed to survive? When, in effect, they are simply lowering the human gene pool, and not allowing the species to evolve at a fast rate. Why isn`t it ethical to just let the poor in Pakistan simply die off. The society would become successful much faster, with them dead.
After all, in Darwin`s natural selection, stronger species aren`t supposed to help out the weaker ones. They are supposed to either allow the weaker species to die or actually go and kill them. This happens amongst humans also, but it is considered extremely unethical.
In Darwin`s naturally selected world, a island where food exists at a certain height from the only ground, will not allow animals with long necks survive. After x number of generations, the whole species will have tall necks. However, human ethics does not work like this. Human ethics does not allow those with smaller necks to just die off. Ethical humans with tall necks actually get the food and try to pass it on to those with shorter necks, thereby going against natural selection, i.e. they are deliberately polluting the gene pool, by ensuring those who are less suited to survive, still end up surviving.
Granted human beings have attacked and killed weaker civilizations. But ethically speaking, those acts are considered barbaric and unethical. Nowdays, even those committing such acts, try to hide behind an ethical stance, much like Bush`s reasonings for killing weaker Iraqis. In pure natural selection (with no human ethics), everyone would have accpeted that the strong can kill the weak to get their resources, as and when they want.........
So human ethics, as listed (correctly) by Kurtz, is one area, where Darwin`s natural selection fails. Why does it fail? Here is my answer: Because people question the meaning of life, as something more than just a Survival of the Fittest random biological phenomenon. They think there is something more out there. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe not.
But I can say with quite a bit of certainity that a world based purely on the Survival of the Fittest ethics would not look like the world Kurtz is describing............
However, it doesn`t answer the question. Kurts simply describes the basic points of human ethics. He does not describe their origination. How in the world did they come into existence?
He says they are necessary to run a successful society. This is actually not true. Infact quite untrue. Darwin`s theory, as I understand it, has no room for these human ethics. They completely contradict Darwin. Darwin`s survival of the fittest concept applies to human physiology, but not to social ethics.
Everything that Kurtz has stated is designed to help the least fittest survive, in the same manner as the most fittest. This is the opposite of natural selection. Yet this is what he presents (correctly) as the basis of a successful ethical society. Even though all the ethical concepts have built in inefficiences in letting the fittest survive.
So obviously, human ethics are not based on Natural Selection. What are the based on, then?
Why should I pay taxes to support the poor? Why should people with lower IQs be allowed to survive? When, in effect, they are simply lowering the human gene pool, and not allowing the species to evolve at a fast rate. Why isn`t it ethical to just let the poor in Pakistan simply die off. The society would become successful much faster, with them dead.
After all, in Darwin`s natural selection, stronger species aren`t supposed to help out the weaker ones. They are supposed to either allow the weaker species to die or actually go and kill them. This happens amongst humans also, but it is considered extremely unethical.
In Darwin`s naturally selected world, a island where food exists at a certain height from the only ground, will not allow animals with long necks survive. After x number of generations, the whole species will have tall necks. However, human ethics does not work like this. Human ethics does not allow those with smaller necks to just die off. Ethical humans with tall necks actually get the food and try to pass it on to those with shorter necks, thereby going against natural selection, i.e. they are deliberately polluting the gene pool, by ensuring those who are less suited to survive, still end up surviving.
Granted human beings have attacked and killed weaker civilizations. But ethically speaking, those acts are considered barbaric and unethical. Nowdays, even those committing such acts, try to hide behind an ethical stance, much like Bush`s reasonings for killing weaker Iraqis. In pure natural selection (with no human ethics), everyone would have accpeted that the strong can kill the weak to get their resources, as and when they want.........
So human ethics, as listed (correctly) by Kurtz, is one area, where Darwin`s natural selection fails. Why does it fail? Here is my answer: Because people question the meaning of life, as something more than just a Survival of the Fittest random biological phenomenon. They think there is something more out there. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe not.
But I can say with quite a bit of certainity that a world based purely on the Survival of the Fittest ethics would not look like the world Kurtz is describing............
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#210 Posted by teshah on February 6, 2005 5:59:30 pm
Re: # 206
To me Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest is a shear nonsense, as it conveys nothing. Who is fit, who survives. Who survives, who is fit. In Punjabi they would call it ‘GooN naiN billi hugga e’.
Darwin forgets that there is a ‘Rab’ also, not the religious Allah, Bhagwan or God, but an intrinsic power in nature making fit an unfit or helping the weakest to survive. It’s so obvious. For instance, human child is one of the weakest creatures but it usually survives its parents. Why? Because Rab created conditions for its survival. In fact nature is not static but in a flux wherein a fit is becoming unfit and unfit is becoming fit every moment. It is the question of becoming and not merely of being as Darwin thought.
To me Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest is a shear nonsense, as it conveys nothing. Who is fit, who survives. Who survives, who is fit. In Punjabi they would call it ‘GooN naiN billi hugga e’.
Darwin forgets that there is a ‘Rab’ also, not the religious Allah, Bhagwan or God, but an intrinsic power in nature making fit an unfit or helping the weakest to survive. It’s so obvious. For instance, human child is one of the weakest creatures but it usually survives its parents. Why? Because Rab created conditions for its survival. In fact nature is not static but in a flux wherein a fit is becoming unfit and unfit is becoming fit every moment. It is the question of becoming and not merely of being as Darwin thought.
#209 Posted by warpster on February 6, 2005 5:38:43 pm
Re: # 206 Romair
You appear to be conflating Social Darwinism with Darwin`s theory of evolution. I would recommend Richard Dawkins books (The Selfish Gene and The one on Memes). The point re altruism is a tricky one but is handled well (in the context of natural selection) by Dawkins.
As far as human societies are concerned we are operating in terms of cultural fitness. The time scale of cultural evolution is much more rapid than natural selection; humans change the environment far more rapidly than nature. Here co-operation (and efficient mechanisms for communication are essential to make cooperation work) has marked benefits. Essentially, for humans, darwinian selection due to environmental pressures has long ceased to be relevant. Instead what seems to count more is stuff thats not encoded in DNA (technology, cultural memes). So co-operation in many contexts is a win-win strategy and ensures cultural fitness. You only have to contrast present day Africa and Asia to see how this is playing out. From the viewpoint of DNA, the differences are trivial. But culturally there is a huge gulf. In east asia, subordination to the cultural good is an embedded value.
Bottomline: cultures that learnt how to cooperate survive and cumulate knowledge. Those that havent are stuck at some minimal level of cooperation.
Maybe you are asking how did co-operation come about? It probably came about as ancestors of homosapiens were developing spoken language which freed them from the attachment to the immediate present. Once we have a better understanding of language (and this is not encoded in DNA but in the brain; it is likely that language is an opportunistic use of brain mechanisms that evolved for some other reason). Our ancestors made the most of this new brian hardware which happened along with the ability to speak (use their vocal cords). Its not clear if evolutionary pressures forced these things to happen.
So most present day cultures are descendants of a single group that learnt to cooperate (if we accept the out of africa hypothesis) . But within the current cultures, those that can cooperate better will do better.
#205 Posted by arjun_m on February 6, 2005 10:04:03 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#204 Posted by echoboom on February 6, 2005 9:54:17 am
You can listen & read at the same time by flipping one page back.
#203 Posted by echoboom on February 6, 2005 9:46:56 am
Kis nay? yeh subb khail rachayaa?
Kis nay yeh sub saath sajaaya
apnay aap subhhee kuchh kr kay
Upnaa Aap chhipayaa
Kis ney?
komal komal pyaaray pauday
dhaan paan mUtvaaray pauday
in kay ooper aa kr chhiRRkee
rUnG roop kee mayaa
--Upnay Aap..
Undhairay meiN soatay thhay yeh
bilkul baisuDhh hotay thhay yeh
NeeNd puri kay md maatoaN ko
NeeNd sey aan jagaaya
--Upnay Aap..
kis nay?
haraa bharaa gulzaar khilaa hai
sarsoaN kaa sansaar khilaa hai
daikh daikh mUnn meiN khush hovat
ankhiyaaN noor samayaa
--Upnaa aap..
Kis ney?
#202 Posted by nasah on February 6, 2005 9:19:23 am
``Its about time though, when Gabby really does something about that lethargic God, may be letting iblees take over the Heaven Inc. ;)``
Hush -- what makes you think Iblees has not taken over the presidency of the Heaven on Earth....?
Hush -- what makes you think Iblees has not taken over the presidency of the Heaven on Earth....?
#201 Posted by echoboom on February 6, 2005 9:14:13 am
Hamidm: 197
I believe Islam will be less if you ever become a muslim. How else would we then enjoy such great humour. I am seldom this appreciative of literature but please don`t let this go to your head.
It is never blasphemy, if it has literary merit. Our arabic & persian literature is rife with it.
Only a closet-mullah can achieve such art. It`s only a matter of time.
I believe Islam will be less if you ever become a muslim. How else would we then enjoy such great humour. I am seldom this appreciative of literature but please don`t let this go to your head.
It is never blasphemy, if it has literary merit. Our arabic & persian literature is rife with it.
Only a closet-mullah can achieve such art. It`s only a matter of time.
#200 Posted by nasah on February 6, 2005 9:13:53 am
``Human ethics is not based on survival of the fittest,`` -- my dear Umer it is -- items in all 10 commandments have survival value -- despite human weakness for the meek, weak and the defective among them....
that`s how the species has become so diseased.....
that`s how the species has become so diseased.....
#197 Posted by hamidm2 on February 6, 2005 7:23:07 am
revelations -1
[ god and gabriel are sitting in his heavenly chamber, reclining on pillows of rather damp clouds, eating peyote and mushrooms and sipping the nectar brewed by iblees and his crew of ex-malangs from bari imam ........ they are discussing the big bang theory, evolution and the need to send down another prophet or maybe just blowing up earth ]
god: gabby, what time is it ?
gabriel [ flipping a peyot into the air with his wing and catching it smartly in his beak ]: what do you mean ? time, where ?...... al-lah mian, are you coming down with something again.... i thought you had decided a long time ago that time really was no concern to us since we have been here from the beginning and will be here forever ........ although,, i must admit i am a little confused since i am not all-knowing like you ..........
god: gabby, gabby, gabby ......... i meant time on earth ?
gabby: you should be more specific ..... i just got back from universe-35A where time hasn`t even started yet - it is still a big cloud of gas that is coming together ......when do you plan to have the big bang over there ?......... they are a lot of fun and i thought maybe i can take a few eons off to go see it ......... in any case, i haven`t had much to do since you stopped sending messages down to earth - what were you thinking?......... you know i feel quite useless, unwanted, inadequate ..........
god: will you just shut up! ... what time is it on earth ?
gabby: boy, did we wake up on the wrong side of the elysian valley today !.......... it is 5005 ........ that stupid rock has made 5005 circles around the sun since you created that first two-legged creature and sent down iblees to mess with his mind ......... i still don`t understand why you gave them two arms only - i think four would have been better ......... now they are struggling with trying to drink a can of bear, eat pork rinds and fondle their women at the same time ....... oh, but you know everything!
god: i thought i forbade them to eat pork ?....... did you garble my message again ..... and for my sake, don`t tell me that same old story about the goat ........... 5005?......... i hear things are not going too well over there - the evolution process has gotten a little out of hand since i stopped interfering, there is global warming, there are too many people with facial hair trying to blow themselve up and there are two many homosexuals who are endangering the survival of the species ......... it seems to have turned into one big mess ......... makes me wonder if the concept of evolution and free will was such a good idea after all ...........
gabby (preening his wings]: i told you so ......no, but you know everything!......... we don`t have this kind of trouble on other planets in other universes where we have stuck to the original grand design ......look at planet gomez in universe-4A21 .......... it is ten times as big as earth, it is flat, when you get to the horizon you hit a big invisible wall and have to turn back, no evolution, no free-will, people don`t lie or cheat, the weather doesn`t change, we didn`t have to send down a single prophet, the dodo bird is around and everyone is happy.... and they have only three arms .......... so what was the big idea about evolution and free will !
god [ looking a little irritated] : gabby, you don`t have to rub it in ...... so i made a mistake.......... now let`s figure out how to fix it ........ i think peyotes give me gas ........
gabby: [ rolling his eyes ]:......... maybe we can use the gas to create another big bang ........ i have a suggestion - why don`t we just stop that universe from expanding and let it implode into one big black hole that we can use later ........ didn`t you promise armagedon and the day of reckoning?......... let`s do it - the earth is not worth saving .... let`s cut our losses and start all over again .........
god: you know i can`t do that - i cannot interfere with nature, free-will and an expanding universe ......... eventually, it will stop and you will have your big black hole - but not now ........ i think for now we have to send down another prophet to patch things up a bit ..........
gabby: okay, you are ominwhatever, but let me tell you, it is not going to work, we have tried one lakh and ninety nine thousand times before and, sooner or later, they mess things up ....... this free will stuff is a bad idea and combined with evolution it is a disaster ....... people are too clever now and any prophet we send down will put his own spin on it ........ remember mo of mecca ..... we told him to clean things up a little bit, stop the people from burying their daughters alive, stop his uncle from destroying his liver and restore some law and order .......... but no, talk about scope creep, the man decided to take on the whole world ........
god: gabby, i still think you messed that one up .... too many mushrooms, maybe? ....... but, in any case, that`s when i decided no more prophets ....... i think it is time again .......
gabby: no more prophets!........ what about guru nanak !....... what about him?!.....i know what you did! ..... while i was on vacation you sent down mikail to put hanuman`s people on the right path ......... that angel is an imbecile, he is a novice, a neophyte, he doesn`t know how to talk to prophets and make some sense out of your message ....... look at what he has created !........ do you think men walking around in underwear with turbans on their head is something to be proud of ? ..... you know, i was deeply hurt by that !
gawd [looking a little sheepish]: i am sorry, gab........ that was a mistake...... but let us find another suitable candidate and give it another shot .....
gabriel [looking solemn, shrugging his wings]: there is a man who is already living in a cave somewhere in afghanistan - how about him ?
god: no, i don`t think so ...... firstly he is not very photogenic and i don`t think he will last too long - the man has made too many enemies ........
gabby: why don`t we just make it implode .....
god: gabby !
gab: okay, okay........ how about this guy named hamidm ....... he seems to be a good old chap ...... a little ornery at times, but seems to get along well with people and has good communication skills ........
god: how`s his liver ?..... we don`t want to invest in somone who is going to keel over before the mission is completed ........
gabby: but you can fix that .... make him stop drinking and he will be fine ........
god : you know i can`t interfere with free will ......... i make the laws, and if i start breaking them just imagine the havoc malaik like iblees the rascally djinns can create ......... so who else ?
gabby : i am afraid there is no one ...... there is a guy over in canada who has some potential, but he thinks he already knows everything ......... so i guess it is time for armageddon
god [popping another mushroom and sighing]: armageddon it is ........ let`s get on with it
gabby [walks away muttering]: why do i have to do everything ....... you made the mess, you clean it up ......
god: what was that ?
gabriel: nothing ..........
[ god and gabriel are sitting in his heavenly chamber, reclining on pillows of rather damp clouds, eating peyote and mushrooms and sipping the nectar brewed by iblees and his crew of ex-malangs from bari imam ........ they are discussing the big bang theory, evolution and the need to send down another prophet or maybe just blowing up earth ]
god: gabby, what time is it ?
gabriel [ flipping a peyot into the air with his wing and catching it smartly in his beak ]: what do you mean ? time, where ?...... al-lah mian, are you coming down with something again.... i thought you had decided a long time ago that time really was no concern to us since we have been here from the beginning and will be here forever ........ although,, i must admit i am a little confused since i am not all-knowing like you ..........
god: gabby, gabby, gabby ......... i meant time on earth ?
gabby: you should be more specific ..... i just got back from universe-35A where time hasn`t even started yet - it is still a big cloud of gas that is coming together ......when do you plan to have the big bang over there ?......... they are a lot of fun and i thought maybe i can take a few eons off to go see it ......... in any case, i haven`t had much to do since you stopped sending messages down to earth - what were you thinking?......... you know i feel quite useless, unwanted, inadequate ..........
god: will you just shut up! ... what time is it on earth ?
gabby: boy, did we wake up on the wrong side of the elysian valley today !.......... it is 5005 ........ that stupid rock has made 5005 circles around the sun since you created that first two-legged creature and sent down iblees to mess with his mind ......... i still don`t understand why you gave them two arms only - i think four would have been better ......... now they are struggling with trying to drink a can of bear, eat pork rinds and fondle their women at the same time ....... oh, but you know everything!
god: i thought i forbade them to eat pork ?....... did you garble my message again ..... and for my sake, don`t tell me that same old story about the goat ........... 5005?......... i hear things are not going too well over there - the evolution process has gotten a little out of hand since i stopped interfering, there is global warming, there are too many people with facial hair trying to blow themselve up and there are two many homosexuals who are endangering the survival of the species ......... it seems to have turned into one big mess ......... makes me wonder if the concept of evolution and free will was such a good idea after all ...........
gabby (preening his wings]: i told you so ......no, but you know everything!......... we don`t have this kind of trouble on other planets in other universes where we have stuck to the original grand design ......look at planet gomez in universe-4A21 .......... it is ten times as big as earth, it is flat, when you get to the horizon you hit a big invisible wall and have to turn back, no evolution, no free-will, people don`t lie or cheat, the weather doesn`t change, we didn`t have to send down a single prophet, the dodo bird is around and everyone is happy.... and they have only three arms .......... so what was the big idea about evolution and free will !
god [ looking a little irritated] : gabby, you don`t have to rub it in ...... so i made a mistake.......... now let`s figure out how to fix it ........ i think peyotes give me gas ........
gabby: [ rolling his eyes ]:......... maybe we can use the gas to create another big bang ........ i have a suggestion - why don`t we just stop that universe from expanding and let it implode into one big black hole that we can use later ........ didn`t you promise armagedon and the day of reckoning?......... let`s do it - the earth is not worth saving .... let`s cut our losses and start all over again .........
god: you know i can`t do that - i cannot interfere with nature, free-will and an expanding universe ......... eventually, it will stop and you will have your big black hole - but not now ........ i think for now we have to send down another prophet to patch things up a bit ..........
gabby: okay, you are ominwhatever, but let me tell you, it is not going to work, we have tried one lakh and ninety nine thousand times before and, sooner or later, they mess things up ....... this free will stuff is a bad idea and combined with evolution it is a disaster ....... people are too clever now and any prophet we send down will put his own spin on it ........ remember mo of mecca ..... we told him to clean things up a little bit, stop the people from burying their daughters alive, stop his uncle from destroying his liver and restore some law and order .......... but no, talk about scope creep, the man decided to take on the whole world ........
god: gabby, i still think you messed that one up .... too many mushrooms, maybe? ....... but, in any case, that`s when i decided no more prophets ....... i think it is time again .......
gabby: no more prophets!........ what about guru nanak !....... what about him?!.....i know what you did! ..... while i was on vacation you sent down mikail to put hanuman`s people on the right path ......... that angel is an imbecile, he is a novice, a neophyte, he doesn`t know how to talk to prophets and make some sense out of your message ....... look at what he has created !........ do you think men walking around in underwear with turbans on their head is something to be proud of ? ..... you know, i was deeply hurt by that !
gawd [looking a little sheepish]: i am sorry, gab........ that was a mistake...... but let us find another suitable candidate and give it another shot .....
gabriel [looking solemn, shrugging his wings]: there is a man who is already living in a cave somewhere in afghanistan - how about him ?
god: no, i don`t think so ...... firstly he is not very photogenic and i don`t think he will last too long - the man has made too many enemies ........
gabby: why don`t we just make it implode .....
god: gabby !
gab: okay, okay........ how about this guy named hamidm ....... he seems to be a good old chap ...... a little ornery at times, but seems to get along well with people and has good communication skills ........
god: how`s his liver ?..... we don`t want to invest in somone who is going to keel over before the mission is completed ........
gabby: but you can fix that .... make him stop drinking and he will be fine ........
god : you know i can`t interfere with free will ......... i make the laws, and if i start breaking them just imagine the havoc malaik like iblees the rascally djinns can create ......... so who else ?
gabby : i am afraid there is no one ...... there is a guy over in canada who has some potential, but he thinks he already knows everything ......... so i guess it is time for armageddon
god [popping another mushroom and sighing]: armageddon it is ........ let`s get on with it
gabby [walks away muttering]: why do i have to do everything ....... you made the mess, you clean it up ......
god: what was that ?
gabriel: nothing ..........
#199 Posted by ballukhan on February 6, 2005 7:44:44 am
Re: # 197
Great Stuff Hamidmia...........I am tempted to start a `Hamid Mia Fan Club` right now.......registrations start now.............
Great Stuff Hamidmia...........I am tempted to start a `Hamid Mia Fan Club` right now.......registrations start now.............
#198 Posted by hush on February 6, 2005 7:41:03 am
Re: # 197
Good thoughts .
Its about time though, when Gabby really does something about that lethargic God, may be letting iblees take over the Heaven Inc. ;)
Good thoughts .
Its about time though, when Gabby really does something about that lethargic God, may be letting iblees take over the Heaven Inc. ;)
#196 Posted by echoboom on February 6, 2005 6:10:00 am
Romair:
If you missed my post # 171, I reproduce it:
Romair:170
The lUbbaik(tr: here I am) to your ``Hulal-min-Nsr`` (tr: Is there any one to come to my help?)
``JuuZ Qais aur koi naa aaya broo-ay kaar.``--Ghalib.
[tr: But for Qais, no one else proved himself useful]
Here is an excellent dictionary. It may take you a while to get used to the romanised panjabi because of some unfamilar phonetics.
www.punjabidictionary.com
If you missed my post # 171, I reproduce it:
Romair:170
The lUbbaik(tr: here I am) to your ``Hulal-min-Nsr`` (tr: Is there any one to come to my help?)
``JuuZ Qais aur koi naa aaya broo-ay kaar.``--Ghalib.
[tr: But for Qais, no one else proved himself useful]
Here is an excellent dictionary. It may take you a while to get used to the romanised panjabi because of some unfamilar phonetics.
www.punjabidictionary.com
#195 Posted by pal_2ie on February 6, 2005 3:23:06 am
now on to my take :
Mubashir, I liked the article very much. Always question, always seek - a very good attitude to have in life.
As to the Q you asked,
I personally, do not believe in ``GOD``. But I do believe that there is something mystic that runs through all creation - call it Brahman/God/Allah/God(the Christian one)/Life (with the capital L) or whatever. I also believe that we and all other living/non-living are different manifestations of this same `life`.
So in one sense I reject the existence of the seperate being called `God` who has all this power to rule my life and condecsendingly grant me a good life or bad one.
But I do believe that by realising (feeling?) my own spirituality (goodness) which is that same life within me - cause I AM one with it - I can live my life by choosing right and wrong based on the understanding that all creation and me are interdependent and thus my happiness increases by helping those around me, by respecting all living and non-living around me etc. I cannot be happy if the environment around me is unhappy, all good that I do will come back to me - so in fact I m helping myself when I help others...and so on so forth.
The theory of this, I picked up while growing up in India from grandparents, elders, all those who discussed religion, the nature of life etc. The practice of this in my daily life, I picked up when I started practicing Buddhism. Its the same thing when the Vedas talk about `Brahman` (I am not well versed with the Vedas. Correct me if I am wrong).
Now what would you call me - Naastik or Aastik/believer or non-believer/gnostik or agnostik ?
Mubashir, I liked the article very much. Always question, always seek - a very good attitude to have in life.
As to the Q you asked,
I personally, do not believe in ``GOD``. But I do believe that there is something mystic that runs through all creation - call it Brahman/God/Allah/God(the Christian one)/Life (with the capital L) or whatever. I also believe that we and all other living/non-living are different manifestations of this same `life`.
So in one sense I reject the existence of the seperate being called `God` who has all this power to rule my life and condecsendingly grant me a good life or bad one.
But I do believe that by realising (feeling?) my own spirituality (goodness) which is that same life within me - cause I AM one with it - I can live my life by choosing right and wrong based on the understanding that all creation and me are interdependent and thus my happiness increases by helping those around me, by respecting all living and non-living around me etc. I cannot be happy if the environment around me is unhappy, all good that I do will come back to me - so in fact I m helping myself when I help others...and so on so forth.
The theory of this, I picked up while growing up in India from grandparents, elders, all those who discussed religion, the nature of life etc. The practice of this in my daily life, I picked up when I started practicing Buddhism. Its the same thing when the Vedas talk about `Brahman` (I am not well versed with the Vedas. Correct me if I am wrong).
Now what would you call me - Naastik or Aastik/believer or non-believer/gnostik or agnostik ?
#194 Posted by pal_2ie on February 6, 2005 2:52:17 am
#189: amrita
agree with you completely
#3: kaurasach
Buddhism is not very different from what you have written here about Sikhism.
I believe that all faiths that grew out of the omnipresent Hinduism in India - jainism, buddhism, sikhism, are a evolution over the commonly practiced form of Hinduism that over a looooong period of time - naturally - has become quite dogmatic/ritualistic. Its natural for any society to go into regress over time and also natural for it to emerge out of it too. And in the Indian subcontinent this happenned through the various religions that emerged and also through the various movements that did not declare themselves as seperate religions : namely, Ram Mohan Roy`s Bramho Samaj, Vivekanad and the thought processes he started not to mention the Ramkrishna Mission, Swami Dayanand Saraswati and his Arya Samaj, lots of others .... but it`s been a long time since I read those history books.
In the olden days, the Bhakti movement, the Sufi movement all were examples of the same thing.
agree with you completely
#3: kaurasach
Buddhism is not very different from what you have written here about Sikhism.
I believe that all faiths that grew out of the omnipresent Hinduism in India - jainism, buddhism, sikhism, are a evolution over the commonly practiced form of Hinduism that over a looooong period of time - naturally - has become quite dogmatic/ritualistic. Its natural for any society to go into regress over time and also natural for it to emerge out of it too. And in the Indian subcontinent this happenned through the various religions that emerged and also through the various movements that did not declare themselves as seperate religions : namely, Ram Mohan Roy`s Bramho Samaj, Vivekanad and the thought processes he started not to mention the Ramkrishna Mission, Swami Dayanand Saraswati and his Arya Samaj, lots of others .... but it`s been a long time since I read those history books.
In the olden days, the Bhakti movement, the Sufi movement all were examples of the same thing.
#193 Posted by pal_2ie on February 6, 2005 2:11:05 am
#38
Ralph,
It is only when enough number of people start associating openness and goodness with a religion (usually the one they were born in) that religion changes from within. ShoreSahib maybe a minority today - but it is this attitude of not breaking away from the religion that may encourage someone else to take up a questioning attitude too while not breaking away themselves... and eventually (in a looong time probably) create a grassroots consensus that the way a religion is practiced needs to be questioned/changed etc. This is how IMHO society changes in the long run. It doesn`t happen out of nothing as if by magic.
ShoreSahib needs to be supported rather than denounced for this attitude. It`s a good thing happenning to Islam.
Modern medicine (ellopathy?) cures the symptoms but not necessarily the disease. Homeopathy takes time but it cures the root cause. Of course that`s not to say that it is the one and only cure. or that modern medicine does not have it`s merits.
Ralph,
It is only when enough number of people start associating openness and goodness with a religion (usually the one they were born in) that religion changes from within. ShoreSahib maybe a minority today - but it is this attitude of not breaking away from the religion that may encourage someone else to take up a questioning attitude too while not breaking away themselves... and eventually (in a looong time probably) create a grassroots consensus that the way a religion is practiced needs to be questioned/changed etc. This is how IMHO society changes in the long run. It doesn`t happen out of nothing as if by magic.
ShoreSahib needs to be supported rather than denounced for this attitude. It`s a good thing happenning to Islam.
Modern medicine (ellopathy?) cures the symptoms but not necessarily the disease. Homeopathy takes time but it cures the root cause. Of course that`s not to say that it is the one and only cure. or that modern medicine does not have it`s merits.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- qyousuf: Homosexuals have been around... Nothing Queer About It
- qyousuf: Eklavya, Thank for your reply,... I Am A Pakistani
- neembu: Thanks for this piece!... Nothing Queer About It
- khakiflash: I've got so much... Nothing Queer About It
- Saleem_Chauhan: the whole world is... The Future of Indo
- laddu: Re: # 40. it is... The Future of Indo
- tahmed32: and as for this... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #173 GT: In other... Pleas For Sanity as
