Why you should read the Vedas, and why the religious will never understand them
by neo
The most intriguing thing about the Vedas is their relative unpopularity among the religious; Google offers three times as many search results for “why you should read the Gita” as it does for “why you should read the Vedas”. And if you ask the religious (approach as gingerly as a cat approaching a flock of birds) for advice on reading the Vedas, they will basically tell you why you shouldn’t read the Vedas.
The religious will tell you that you need to be spiritually advanced before you can learn anything from the Vedas. They will tell you that even if you spent a lifetime learning Sanskrit, you wouldn’t know it well enough to understand the Vedas, and most English translations of the Vedas have a sinister political agenda. Besides, they say, the real wisdom of the Vedas is hidden (ironic for a text that is supposed to be “revealed wisdom”); without a “real” guru you can’t possibly crack the code. And you need to be spiritually advanced before you can hope to recognize a real guru. (Criticize the religious all you want, but they had perfected circular reasoning long before science invented the wheel.)
The religious aren’t keen on you reading the Vedas because they know—or at least the few among them who’ve actually read the Vedas know—that you’re probably not going to find any new wisdom or concept in the Vedas; a thousand philosophers have already integrated most of the key Vedic ideas into modern philosophy. The religious would rather you not read the Vedas and think they contain earth-shattering revelations than to have you read them, be disappointed and write an “emperor has no clothes!” post on your ungodly blog.
The truth is, the Vedas don’t meet the needs of the religious as well as other, later Hindu texts do. The religious want two things from any holy book: prescriptions for life (they don’t have to be moral, correct or even logical; they just need to be prescriptions), and a justification for them to invent new prescriptions for other people to follow. The Koran offers clear directives for the religious (e.g. clear Earth of anyone who is irreligious and/or annoying); the Gita outlines four plausible-sounding paths to enlightenment (Bhakti Yoga is currently trending in the Indian Twitter community); the Bible gives you lots of ways to judge what other people do in their bedrooms; but the Rigveda … well, the Rigveda offers lots of oblations to Agni and Indra (both apparently took an extended sabbatical from Hinduism after their award-winning performances in the Rigveda).
(And the Samaveda is basically a remix of the Rigveda, the Yajurveda is a soporific encyclopedia of rituals, and the Atharvaveda … no spoilers here, but it’s not hard to guess which gender is favored by the Atharvaveda‘s “choose your baby’s sex” mantra (Puṁsavana Saṁskāra))
What the religious really love about the Vedas, what sends them into a tantric trance, is how old the Vedas are. The religious apparently believe that the older the Vedas, the easier their “fight” for religious supremacy—”The Rigveda is ten thousand years old you say? That’s it; I won’t ridicule you guys any more; sign me up for Hinduism! (Can I be a Brahmin, please?)”
(Thought experiment: A thousand years from now, the Vedas will be a thousand years older. Will they then contain any more wisdom than they do now?)
Yes, all of the ambivalence the religious feel for the Vedas is justified; you probably shouldn’t be reading the Vedas as a holy book, as a book of answers, or as a book of spirituality. No—you should be reading the Vedas as something far simpler and deeper: as literature.
__
The most striking feature of the Vedas is that the Vedas are not the word of god*; the Vedas mostly consist of hymns addressed to the gods. This might seem like a mere literary detail, but it is refreshing to read a religious book where, for a change, mankind is the author and not the target audience.
(* The religious believe the Vedas to be of divine origin, but the Vedas themselves are written in first person, i.e. I, the man, talking to god. The Rigveda starts with “I glorify Agni …”, which is not exciting but hard to argue against. The Gita starts with “Dritirashtra said …”, which is the sort of statement that provokes an “Oh, really? You were in the room?” reaction in the reader. Well, at least it did in Neo.)
Equally striking, the Vedas offer very few crass rewards (such as eternal enlightenment) for believers, no punishments for straying from the path, no specific reasons why you should believe. The Vedas were probably the last time mankind, and certainly Indians, had an honest religious thought (if you can imagine a time when “honest religious thought” was not an oxymoron). Most later Hindu books feel like those creepy me-too tweets, blogs, books and lives that are “inspired” by someone else’s originality.
Let the religious obsess about the precise—i.e., Indian vs. European—zip-code of the authors of the Vedas; you should read the Vedas because they were written by a people who weren’t obsessed with zip-codes. (The Vedic authors seem to be the kind of people Thomas Friedman would love to write about.)
Let the religious bear the burden of proving the Vedas perfect; let them defend the terrible ideas that were first outlined in the Vedas. You should read the Vedas because they show us how we reached our current predicament, how we became a nation of religious people who lost all morality in a vulgar search for holiness; you should read the Vedas because they are the Gangotri of India’s social problems.
Let the religious claim that every language on Earth (except Tamil, of course) is an ugly derivative of Sanskrit; you should read the Vedas because Sanskrit is a beautiful language.
Let the religious search for the hidden meaning (“There must be! Something must be there!”) of the Vedas; you should read the Vedas for the Brahmandic atmosphere its poetry creates, because their authors felt that same honest, un-self-conscious wonderment at a universe as you do, because they had that same visceral reaction to the sun and water and wind as you do, because they loved nature the same way you do (except they probably had a lot more nature to love than you.)
Let the religious chant the Vedas on auto-pilot; you should read the Vedas because somewhere in them—in a place that the tone-deaf religious can never reach—is the reason we get goosebumps when we hear the komal re for the first time during an alaap of Raga Ahir Bhairav.
You should read the Vedas because they are deeply real, deeply flawed, and because they describe the first and perhaps the most genuine of human epiphanies: that there might be no answers, only beautiful questions.
“… But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows – or maybe even he does not know.”
—Nāsadīya Sūkta, 129th sūkta of the 10th mandala, Rigveda
__
P.S.: For all the “answers,” you will have to read the sequels to the Vedas: the Upanishads, which, like most sequels, ruin the mood by trying too hard to explain too much. Not surprisingly, the religious love the Upanishads.
P.P.S.: If you’re even moderately religious, you should read the Vedas as soon as possible, ideally before you get married—if you’re going to have a religious awakening, you’re better off having it now rather than ten years and two kids into a marriage. The sages say that ascending into the metaphysical plane and escaping the cycle of birth and death is much easier without your wife reminding you how much more fun you were in college, how you would have gotten that promotion if only you had marketed yourself better, and how she’d almost rather you had an affair (no, don’t try it; she’s just being dramatic.)
__
Epilogue:
If Mrs. Neo was worried when she saw Neo reading the Rigveda on the treadmill, she didn’t let it show. But when Neo took a day off from work to read, poor Mrs. Neo panicked. At dinner that night, she reminded Neo that it had been a long time since he had had a guys’ night out. It had been less than a week but Neo still took her up on the offer—anything to reassure Mrs. Neo that his sudden Vedic interests were not foreshadowing a mid-life crisis.
As Neo sipped some yucky hipster-brand beer with the guys and tried to laugh along with their clichéd jokes—Neo would rather have a beer with Baba Ramdev than listen to jokes about him—Neo wondered: what would Mrs. Neo’s offer have been if Neo had not spent the day reading the Rigveda, but instead a certain other holy book of a Religion That Must Not Be Named? Perhaps Mrs. Neo would be scared enough to finally let Neo cash in that rain-check Neo got instead of his bachelor’s party?
(Not that the bachelor’s party would be worth it.)






I think Baba Ramdev doesn’t drink beer!
So did you read the Vedas in English or in Sanskrit?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18
8
Hi Rachna,
I tried to read both. For as many as I could, I first read the Sanskrit verse—I’ve taken a few classes on introductory Sanskrit, which helps somewhat—and then the English translation. (I used a really old translation by H.H. Wilson)
-n
Hot debate. What do you think?
7
5
Which English translation do you suggest, if you think you can, for Vedas (all 4) and Upanishads (main ones)?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
1
I’m going to read the Rigveda because apparently people who read it can write like this.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
62
20
3 dislikes??? do people even have a sense of humor?
Hot debate. What do you think?
14
16
i_r_squared,
Haha, thanks. :)
-n
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12
15
Thanks, Sandeep!
-n
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3
11
I love it you filed this under “atheism” :). I want to say something profound here – but my general lack of intelligence in this area prevents me from saying it ;).
Keep writing, Neo.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9
5
Anand,
Thanks for the encouragement. Although if I thought like you, I’d never write anything. :P
-n
Hot debate. What do you think?
6
3
“and the Atharvaveda … no spoilers here, but it’s not hard to guess which gender is favored by the Atharvaveda‘s “choose your baby’s sex” mantra (Puṁsavana Saṁskāra))”
Hi Neo – What is this mantra and what does it say ? I never knew abt this..does it kinda sorta “justify” the sex selection practice which has led to our current abysmal sex ratio?
Hot debate. What do you think?
6
6
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the whole point of this post was that the Vedas don’t ‘justify’ anything. They raise a lot of questions, and sometimes just say uncomfortable things. That’s why it should be read as ‘literature’ and not as a sanctimonious tome. I am also sure it hasn’t led to the “current abysmal sex ratio?” On the other hand, you seem to be looking for something sensational instead of sensible from this post. Oh well, to each his/her own.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
2
Hi DR,
Well, Puṁsavana literally means “engendering a male child”. If you google for “Pumsavana Samskara”, you’ll find many English translations and interpretations.
And it’s not that the mantra justifies, or causes the desire for sex selection—sex selection is facilitated by this mantra. I have a feeling that the customer demand for sex-selection has always been strong; the mantra is just the Vedic authors responding to the market demands. “We get the mantras we deserve.”
-n
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
2
This is good. Real good. There is nothing religious about the Vedas. Many people confuse this simple fact. Vedas are about the life, not the religion.
A wonderfully written piece Sirjee!
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
7
Thanks, Aurindam! :)
-n
Like or Dislike:
1
1
And btw Raag Ahir Bhairav is just too good. Looked it up after you mentioned it.
PS:From a avid hindustani enthusiast
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Incredible. I’m totally religious about your writing.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
11
lava,
Haha! Thanks :))
-n
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1
5
I agree.
I haven’t read the Vedas. But the I’ve read some of the “answers” – gita, which I believe is an upanishad. It’s important to know what to take away from those books and what to conveniently leave out. Most of the problems with religious people is that they take away all the wrong parts.
Plus, it’s like reading LOTR and Silmarillion all over again. Quite fun.
If only these silly books were put in a better way, we’d have been a better people. Yet, it seems that even though they evolved well and fast in the early stages of their existence, they haven’t continued doing so, causing all kinds of conflicts with the modern Indian. In the end, people are being forced to reject culture and tradition just because they reject some of it’s outdated philosophy. That is the sad Indian condition.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6
6
Ahem,
You’re echoing the same argument—take the good parts, leave out the bad parts—that the religious make for any holy book. The argument is flawed because how is one to know what to “leave out”? Why didn’t the rishis—who the religious believe were way smarter than us—leave out the parts that were meant to be left out? Is it a test to see if you’re smart enough to know what parts to leave out? This whole line of thinking is on logical thin ice.
-n
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7
11
Hmm… Think you are completely wrong. Hinduism doesn’t do that at all or atleast never intended to. I think you should read ‘Jaya’ from Devdutt Patnaik. He explains how well the Women were treated as per hindu dharma. Only may be last few centuries..the society has become like this but think its an extreme view to blame hinduism and that too Manu.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
3
Wonderful piece, true to reason. Thanks for posting this. I never thought I’d find it in me in recent years to attempt something like a reading of the Vedas. However, this gets me thinking.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5
7
So after intriguing others to read Veda, may be you can say which version you read? That is, which translation, author, publication,…Or if there is good credible online version? I am sure Vedas are out of copyright by now :)
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Ashish,
There is no translation that seems to be universally respected. I read H.H. Wilson’s translation (he was the first to translate the entire Rigveda into English), available online at http://bit.ly/llRzK2
For the Atharvaveda I used T. H. Griffith’s translation, available online at http://bit.ly/kNXIMx
-n
Like or Dislike:
5
2
You should read the Vedas because they are deeply real, deeply flawed, and because they describe the first and perhaps the most genuine of human epiphanies: that there might be no answers, only beautiful questions.
Thats the clincher. You’ve sold the idea to me! Up until then, I was reading this post as a sarcastic, (funny even) post, but this statement impressed some truth on me :)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4
12
There. Disliked your comment. :P
Hot debate. What do you think?
4
5
‘A thousand years from now, the Vedas will be a thousand years older. Will they then contain any more wisdom than they do now?’
Captures the essence of the article. Really liked it. Found it on my Twitter TL.
I always believed Vedas are interpreted differently by different people after a friend taught me the ‘real’ meaning of a verse.
If it is science for one, it is religion for other. If it is force for one, it is god for another.
This article is another reason why I should read the Vedas.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
0
There never is an absolute truth. Even truth/knowledge has a context. The content of Veda’s made sense to ppl 1000 years back in a different way. Every knowledge has a context, Our opinions are formed only by the facts we know. From 1000 years from now, if this world exists and evolves and if they read the same text, they might understand the contents in a different way!
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9
32
er..paleo Indian..three comes after four.
Did all the cave man eating (I presume from the word Paleo) dumbify you?
Maybe time to throw away the steak and eat some Badam (almonds). I hear they are good brain food.
Repeat after me 1,2,3…
Peace out
American Indian
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
1
Excellent piece of work. Keep them coming Neo :)
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Great post, thanks for writing.
Love the creation hymn. Open ended, curious, humble.
We have lost the meaning of the word “religious” to the religious unfortunately. In its true sense, I do feel “religious” often when I am looking at my garden or hiking up a mountain surrounded by incredible nature or what’s left of it. So I guess I can relate to those early folks.
Btw, this statement got my attention:
“you should read the Vedas because they are the Gangotri of India’s social problems”.
May be you will write a blog post about this. May be you won’t.
May be I will read the damn Vedas myself to understand what this means. (Or may be I won’t.)
Hot debate. What do you think?
5
3
You said “damn” Vedas? HAAAWWWWW!
Like or Dislike:
2
1
riffraaf,
You’re so true when you say that the religious have hijacked the word “religious.” It’s actually even worse. Many people experience perfectly scientific transcendent moments (like the examples you cite, or when listening to a favorite piece of music), and then claim that they are now “religious”. But what Raga Khamaaj has in common with “women on their period must be physically isolated from society” remains a mystery to me.
-n
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
0
I would think that secluding women undergoing ‘periods’ has something to do with hygiene, as they were not as medically advanced as we are now…
Also, it would be to force the women to take rest during this time as their health would be a bit fragile at this point. Thus, it forces men to take on the work of the women at this time, and not let the women do Any work…
Of course, with times changing, we are now medically far advanced, and need no ‘seclusion’, nor do we need to give the women a forced rest, as the ‘work’ has undergone metamorphosis. Thus, the modern concept would be to let the woman decide if she wants rest or not, there’s no point forcing it on her!
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Another reason tangentially related to the custom is the understanding that women’s energy bodies were “weak” during menstruation, leaving them vulnerable to “malefic” and negative energies around them.
Like or Dislike:
3
2
This post puts the way in Veda. Okay. Not exactly but still, at least for the religious, non-religious and so-called atheists like most of us (who carry the heavy burden of lethargy disguised as snobbish ignorance), it’s an eye-opener, sort of.
Beautiful read, as usual.
Keep writing, sir.
Like or Dislike:
2
3
Thanks, Shakti. :)
-n
Like or Dislike:
1
1
very well written
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2
6
He was pointing out to birth control
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
0
Leviticus 18:22 – ‘Thou shall not lie with mankind; as with womankind. It is abomination’
The Bible tells you homosexuality is wrong. This is among the things he is pointing to.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12
0
Who was the author of the book ? I mean who was the translator.
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1
4
Thanks, Narendra!
-n
Like or Dislike:
1
1
A few months from now, when I do pick up the Vedas, it will be because of this post…and of course, you know, it’s been on my radar for a long time. Don’t ask me why it will take a few months to go into the next room and pick up a book. It just will! :-p
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Pundit Comment,
Haha. Well, after a few pages you will see the Vedas are not a book you can read from start to finish like a novel. The best way is to read it a few pages at a time, in parallel with some other—hopefully non-religious—book so you don’t get bored or feel the pressure to finish it.
-n
Like or Dislike:
1
3
[...] Here’s one by Neo Indian titled Why You Should Read The Vedas, And Why The Religious Will Never Understand Them. [...]
Like or Dislike:
1
0
The creation hymn is the most beautiful of them all. I think Vedas were written by stoners. There are so many verses upon reading which my first reaction was – ”This is what I was thinking on the hostel terrace the other day. When I was… Oh wait that explains it”. Lovely post. Thank you for this.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10
1
voyeur,
Many people say many things when they are stoned. But the Vedic authors managed to say something that a lot of people thought was worth spending their lifetime preserving, memorizing and reciting. :)
-n
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Did you read the Griffith translation. Haw! Didn’t they tell you it is full of evil? No wonder you think that it doesn’t contain detailed instructions for time travel.
No but really is there one apart from the Griffith one? No one from our emerging superpower has done a translation after that bloke?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
1
Shrimatiji,
I read H.H. Wilson’s translation of the Rig Veda. I think the reason there aren’t as many translations is that the risk/reward ratio isn’t worth it. Mess up a key verse and the illiterate goons will be out to put you on a donkey. Get everything right and maybe nine people will buy it.
-n
Like or Dislike:
3
1
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing Hindus that Bhakti Yoga is the way to moksha. Bhakti Yoga is the easy way out for the intellectually lazy; you don’t have to think about anything. Jnana Yoga is where it’s at and that’s where the rishis of the Vedas shone at their most brilliant.
But wait. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater of the Upanishads. The Upanishads don’t teach you how to do puja-paadam, which is really what Hinduism has been reduced to. For instance, in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkya tells his wives Gargi and Maitri (*cough*namesake*cough*) about Advaita and the true nature of jiva and Brahman (not to be confused with Brahmin, which even Indian Hindus infuriatingly do). This is the beginning of Vedanta, which is then distilled in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna’s long saw to Arjuna on the battlefield right in the middle of the Mahabharatha. (No, the Gita is not an Upanishad, to whomever asked earlier.)
And, if you read Krishna, too, he has been misrepresented as saying that all paths lead to him. No, it is only by jnana yoga that we achieve zen. I’m down with karma yoga, too, because you’re performing concrete action in this world, instead of swimming around in metaphysical soup you haven’t really wrapped more than two brain cells around.
The older the religion, the longer it has to twist, rot and lose meaning in the hands of the herd. Think then of any grassroots organization that starts with the best of intentions and drowns in the bureaucracy of who is going to be elected secretary of the association’s East Little Rock chapter.
If there is anything I blame the true Brahmin intellectuals of yore for, it’s that they didn’t share because they didn’t think anyone else would get it but them. Reminds me of academia.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21
4
Maitri, what makes you say Jnana Yoga is more superior to Bhakti Yoga. I think even the notion of Jnana yoga is a fallacy. Also, you are very arbitrarily promoting your favorite ideas about “Jnana Yoga leading us to zen” without providing any support material for such philosophical but empty ideas. You seem to have a liking for the “Advaita” word as some kind of a superset of all philosophical ideas. However, I must remind you that these are just blank words that do not mean anything in the scientific realm. If you are quick to debunk “Bhakti yogis” as being lazy then it is automatically incumbent upon you to provide the evidence for your notions of ‘higher knowledge’.
I think it is a material world out there. That is what science has evidence for (at least till now). So, one should not promote “zen” or “Advaita” as some kind of semi-relief idea for the materiallistically naive- “I am still very spiritiual” -types.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10
2
This debate has been around for time immemorial. You just seem to support analytical philosophy over the continental school of philoshophy . I guess the fact that the answers dont exist is what makes it beautiful.
The material world out there is a perception and science is based on objective reality . So the evidence itself part of the assumption of objective reality . Relgiion looks at the question of the nature of self . Like “what is my real nature ? what am i ” . Science looks at what is out there .
I am not saying science is wrong or anything. There is no way to know and there is so side to take . Rather believing in anything would be intellectually lazy . These questions have been around for as much as human history .
Like or Dislike:
3
0
To say Jnana Yoga is superior is a bit of a “let them have cake”. The form of worship prescribed by Bhakti Yoga became popular precisely because the people did not have access to Jnana Yoga. Like you say, the secretiveness is to blame.
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Good answer. In many ways, I felt Karma or Gyana Yoga is the best. I am, however, not so sure about secretive part.
Just look at what intellectuals of today can achieve with Rigveda (while reading it on treadmill after a few “introductory” Sanskrit classes, WOW!). While “sex selection” measures in Atharva veda is apparent, the multiple wishlist for “Putra” in Rigveda are missed along with few lost breathes in the treadmill I guess. After all said and done, Gita became Upanishad, Yajurveda became a remix and Atharva-veda is, as we can guess, a manual for herbal pre-historic abortion clinic which performed the miracle of achieving abysmal sex-ratio along with a high growth rate of population simultaneously for the last (historically verifiable) 5000 years. Alas, had I known the intellectual outputs treadmills are capable of triggering, I would have bought one long back.
If this is the situation, our enlightened forefathers did a huge favor by being secretive about Gyana yoga. By being great yogis they probably realized how worthy we would become for that sort of stuff.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5
3
Being an advaita fan myself, i did like the comment. But i believe every path is suited to an individual depending on what they are. The advaita /jnan yoga path works for the intellectuals. At the same time bhakti yoga ,though it works for the intellectually lazy ,( and more emotionally perceptive ) , has its difficulties. The pinnacle of bhakti yoga is a complete surrender which discards the individual , which dissolves the worshipper and the worshipped and hence leading to the advaita truth . India’ s issues may stem from the bhakti yoga following but a jnan yoga cult would trigger of an intellectual community which again really dont get “it”. Every path is suited for an individual depending on the persons tendencies. ( though i secretly wish that hindus traded more on the path o f knowledge) .
The great advaitins like ramana and shankara were devotees as well.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
0
Hi Maitri,
Haha, well said. I spilled my coffee at “East Little Rock chapter.” :P
But on a more serious note: even putting aside the elephant in the room—whether there is any such thing as enlightenment—this metaphor of four different paths seems to be flawed.
Clearly you need lots of Jnana before you can—or indeed should—do any non-trivial Karma, and you need lots of Bhakti so you can make it through college so you can get some Jnana.
True story, I swear: At a recent “family function”, an aunt was waxing eloquent about how her life has changed after reading the Gita. I asked, “So which path have you chosen, among the four?” She says, in all seriousness, “Well, it’s hard to decide. Actually I’m down to three—Raja yoga is out because my yoga teacher left town.”
My mouth was full of tamasik food when I heard that; it took all my willpower and a “oh no don’t you dare; she’s eighty!!” glare from my wife to not burst out laughing.
-n
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
1
Yeah good post and all that, but it’s a bit contradictory if you post on atheism, and then write like this, set a new bar with each post and still outdo yourself all over again.
g
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22
1
g,
:)
Thanks for reading, thanks for the encouragement. I promise to disappoint with my next post. :P
-n
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16
2
Yes. I
I am very informal to read your article.
I am continue to further proceeding as shown in your article.
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Absolutely stunning post! Made me wonder of the incredible amount of intelligence, wisdom and curiosity you must possess to put things the way you did. :)
Loved your thought experiment on wisdom content in Vedas a thousand years from now.
Ironically, I was told by a Temple priest that Vedas were mostly about hymns and how to carry out rituals. Despite my specifically asking if they had contained any directions on how to lead life or ‘answers’ on the nature of the Universe, he had categorically denied. Loved his honesty as well. :)
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Ketan,
Great point about priests.
Yes, many temple priests can be surprisingly forthcoming. One such priest introduced his son (who was also a priest) to me and instructed him to keep in touch with me so that maybe in the future he could become a software engineer instead of “doing all this.” (his words.)
-n
Like or Dislike:
3
1
My answer to your thought experiment: The wisdom contained in the Vedas will certainly be different a 1000 years from now.
A lot of religion and myth is based on context. And as the context evolves, so does the meaning of the text. I think it’s a bit presumptuous to believe that mankind will only “evolve” and that all religious texts will only be more and more irrelevant. Or the converse.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
0
I seriously doubt as to whether there retrospection in our religious community. Science has widened our understanding of the universe but we still seem to cling to the thought of a elephent head god, concept of heaven etc…
The literatures of the past were written with narrow view of the universe. It was flawed bcoz of the very fact that it was believed that we held center stage in the universe. We clearly know today that we are but a miniscule part of the ever extending universe and we need to reconsider our beliefs and notions of enlightment in light of what science has taught us.
Science offers us the platform to address to our ageold questions and while it may be time consuming and gruelling process it is the only forum which encourages retrospection rather than condemning them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5
6
The literatures of the past were written with narrow view of the universe.
– this is not true :) , May be some people in recent times understood it with a narrow view. Without reading any of the old literatures and knowing half truth is was made the indians lose respect of their own cultures.
The science till few hundred years back thought that earth was center of universe, Their is nothing to be so proud of. Think you should read more books.. Our literature talks about ever expanding universe. We know of the 4 headed brahma in our understanding of 4-dimentional world that we perceive. Our literature talks of 5 headed brahma and goes upto 32-headed brahma. Just becuase you didnt read all this and we are taught the science in school make the litereture from past irrelevant :)
Chill.. have an open mind.. thats all. Love science but dont discard and hate our literature ;)
Like or Dislike:
2
1
You started with 4 headed brahma…then moved on to 5 headed brahma and then if that wasnt sufficient 32 headed brahma…I always have believed that our ancient literature is invaluable because it helps us understand the earliest attempts made by our ancestors at understanding the cosmos and philosophy with it. However, you need to take them with a pinch of salt…
Just to understand what i mean to say, take an example of the wonderful essay on “300 ramayans” by AK Ramanujan…it explains to us how our epic of Ramayan itself has been explained differently by different regions and during different timelines, with events contradicting some aspects of the other. Under such circumstances how do you define which one is the absolute true version?
Also, the vedas were just one of the attempts made by our ancestors…do u know that Atheism had its roots India and that it had its own set of literature on materilism…the vedas hold a bigger importance to other non sanskritic scriptures because of the inherent caste system that India followed and at the time Brahmins looked at vedas for their philosophy…Similarly if u look into the upanishads, it refutes the vedas and are tilted towards monoism…in such cirmcumstance we can only understand these as literature and nothing more…
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Sublime piece of writing!!!!
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Enlightening!!
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Good one!!
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I am not sure why I am saying this. But.
I am proud of you!
Always had this in my ‘To Do’ list. But I guess now I would pick it up.
Meanwhile, keep enlightening!!
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Thanks Mugdha. I hope you will post your findings too. :)
-n
Like or Dislike:
1
0
They say that real wisdom is in the Upanishads. This post is incomplete if neo has not taken the trouble of finding the real source of the knowledge.
Once neo is done with Upanishads, it will be important to determine the branch of Vedanta Philosophy neo must pursue, debate and defend, Advaita or Dvaita? We can then have meaningful debate on this topic.
I must say though, it is encouraging to young people taking time to read the vedas. May the knowledge be with neo.
BR
Acharya @Digital_Post
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
2
P.S.: For all the “answers,” you will have to read the sequels to the Vedas: the Upanishads, which, like most sequels, ruin the mood by trying too hard to explain too much. Not surprisingly, the religious love the Upanishads.
Like or Dislike:
4
2
I’m waiting for Neo’s review of the sequels too. Hurry up, Neo-ji. And then you can have that bachelor party.
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Sir, I approached your post with caution – it’s controversial as I’m sure it was intended to be. But I felt quickly at ease with your writing. You won me over with the clever parallel you drew between religious thinking and the wheel.
Just as I was beginning to let your words flow without the skeptic filter, I stumbled upon your deeply unsettling “paraphrase” from the Koran. The Koran does not instruct it’s followers to harm the irreligious. That irresponsible statement left me with no choice but to approach your thoughts with as much skepticism as I could muster.
Frankly, you lost me there. I wish you hadn’t because I found your language to be rather poetic.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
3
G. Bhat,
I’m truly sorry to lose you, but I console myself with the feeling—skeptics might call it sour grapes—that our association was always destined to be short-lived.
I do want to thank you for posting this comment despite your disappointment, and for your kind words on my language. It takes a big heart to do what you did, and you won my respect for that.
-n
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8
3
neo, i have the same reservations as Mr. Bhat.
I loved your post like most others, but the references to Bible and Quran made me pick up both books from my book shelf and dust them and read them again.
I get your point about directions about judging other people’s bedroom business in the Bible, though, having read and referenced the Quran time and again, i am not quite sure where you get the idea that it in anyway promotes or even justifies killing or violence.
Please elaborate.
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Singh:
Wikipedia provides a great starting point for researching the issue: http://bit.ly/pZgm2Y
-n
Like or Dislike:
0
0
To the contrary, I found the author quite honest to have said what he did about The Quran. :)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
0
‘Hinduism’ includes Atheism, agnosticism, nihilism and even endorses individualism, but i get uncomfortable when such brilliant posts are shown as the apostles of athiests.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10
0
If you know your history, then you would know where you’r coming from.. Then you wouldn’t have to ask me, who the hell you think I am – Bob Marley
…how we became a nation of religious people who lost all morality in a vulgar search for holiness; you should read the Vedas because they are the Gangotri of India’s social problems. – Neo
Now, how good are you with the guitar?
To this post, I say – http://youtu.be/Vh78T–ZUxY
It is amazing how you pick my ideology and fit it nicely in a blog post! There is a girl in my office I would like to send a nice note to…. :D
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Hi Dhaval,
I’d help you, but we wouldn’t want her response to be “We’re not worthy”. :P
-n
Like or Dislike:
1
0
There’s got to be a better way to write Veda, raga without the immensely irritating and vexing “aaa” at the end. Oh wait, rag and ved…..epiphany. All due to neo’s post I say.
Like or Dislike:
2
1
1. You do not ‘read’ veda.
You experience/realize veda.
2. The division/categorisation of people as ‘religious’ and neo-like, evident in the title of the post, goes against the veda. There is only dharmik actions and adharmik actions.
3. “Thought experiment: A thousand years from now, the Vedas will be a thousand years older. Will they then contain any more wisdom than they do now?”
Thought experiment: Will infinity become bigger infinity if more is added to it ?
Thought experiment 2: What is time ?
4. “The most striking feature of the Vedas is that the Vedas are not the word of god*;”
‘Gawd’, is a western concept. Not applicable in the context of veda.
In a different sense, veda are the words of people who realized. who realized themselves as brahma. In that sense, yes, veda are the words of the brahma.
5. “let them defend the terrible ideas that were first outlined in the Vedas. You should read the Vedas because they show us how we reached our current predicament, how we became a nation of religious people who lost all morality in a vulgar search for holiness; you should read the Vedas because they are the Gangotri of India’s social problems.”
Wendy doniger’s own words.
congratulations, you’ve been a good disciple to her, even though unconsciously.
6. “they had that same visceral reaction to the sun and water and wind as you do, because they loved nature the same way you do”
No.
They realized the purusha that animates this prakriti. They realized this prakriti for what it is.
7. “You should read the Vedas because they are deeply real, deeply flawed,…
reflecting the flaw in your comprehension.
8. As much use as there is in a well with water in flood on every side, so much is there in all the Vedas for the Brahmana who has the knowledge(of self).- Bhagavad Gita Ch 2 sloka 46
For the one without that knowledge, without the thirst for that knowledge, for him too, there is no use of that well.
So, abandon the reading of veda. It is meant only for the brahmana, the one who thirsts for knowledge of brahma.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18
6
Neo Indian,
I forgot to mention in my original comment that the best thing I liked about your writing was the indication that you did not have an agenda while writing the post. You were not writing ‘for’ or ‘against’ Vedas despite being an ‘atheist’ – and that kind of neutrality if I may call it that for want of a better term is not possessed by many. :) That is what had impressed me the most about your, but I had not been able to quite place it. And I had to look up ‘epiphany’. Now that I looked it up, I guess, with regard to your article at least what I liked about it is in itself an epiphany. :)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
1
I agree. There are those who cling on to the most untenable religious beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And then there are those who lazily trash Scripture despite knowing neither Science nor Scripture. There are only a few who take the effort to study both, and only then make up their mind. Very rare in a country of annoyingly dogmatic Piety equally dogmatic ‘Freethinking’ ( oxymoronic, but true!).
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Just started reading the vedas and totally agree with your opinion. Good point on reading it before getting married! :)
Like or Dislike:
1
0
First, perhaps you need a post that details your view of what being religious means? Do you mean a) right wing nuts b) tambrams c) anyone who believes in God d) a threshold value of belief?
Second, a dubbed Rajini movie is not the same as a Rajini movie. You know?
Third, one flaw (in our opinion) does not reflect the entire essence of the text. I’m no expert on the text-that-must-not-be-named but I personally found your one line summary in poor taste.
Fourth, I would think that reading a religious text as literature takes away some of the context. How does it help to take away the single most important context of the text? (prepares to be lynched by mob of Neo’s devoted followers). I’m not being indignant or sarcastic here. Just curious. Don’t you need to believe for just as long as you’re reading the book?
But mostly, I’m kind of confused. Call me an idiot, but I sort of missed the point of this post. A sequel is in order, perhaps? (winks)
ps: On a tangent, I personally feel that being atheist doesn’t really mean that you get to get all fundamentalist about it, no?
pps: On yet another tangent, religion is not the same as God. Everyone knows at some level that humans made up religion. But as long as the rules work in your favour, why would you want to mess with them? Especially when you get to make the rules?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
1
Hi Simbly,
1. Being religious is like porn—it’s hard to define scientifically, but everyone knows it the moment they see it.
2. A dubbed rajini movie is not the same rajini movie. But it’s still a rajini movie and not a satyajit ray movie. you know?
3. I provided an example and not a summary. I could provide a longer and much more detailed summary too, but you might like that even less. :)
4. No, you don’t need to believe while you’re reading it, just like you don’t have to be a Nazi to understand Hitler’s autobiography, or be be a cricket fanatic while reading a cricket lover’s blog. We’re all smart enough to understand a point of view that we don’t share. We do it all the time.
4b. “Believing for just as long as you’re reading the book” sounds suspiciously like “Oh honey I am in love with you, but only while we are having sex.”
Sorry you missed the point of the post. I tried hard to be as clear, forthcoming and logical as I possibly could, starting with the title.
-n
PS: You think atheists like me are fundamentalists? Maybe I missed the news where droves of atheists took over a temple and threatened to kill anyone who didn’t accept the laws of thermodynamics. Or maybe you’re just offended with terrible slogans like “Public library yahi banaayenge.”
PPS: “Everyone knows at some level that humans made up religion” — not everyone knows this. And the rules are not working in our favor. They are killing us. Somewhat literally.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12
2
Hmmm…
1. When you read LOTR, you really believe in Middle Earth, don’t you? Just for a second, you suspend all rational thought, you forget all about scientific fact, forget everything you learned about ancient history and just believe. Once you shut the book, you don’t believe anymore. It’s just a great story.
And then, one day, you watch the movie(s). And as you watch it, you can see some bits that you don’t quite agree with. The balrog doesn’t quite look the way you imagined it. The lidless eye isn’t as frightening. And you don’t quite agree with all the dialogue. It’s the same story all right. But it isn’t quite the same. It’s the director’s vision you’re watching.
For me, reading religious texts (and almost all fiction) is also a little like that. Reading the translation is a little like watching the movie. It’s great for those who haven’t read the book. But if you really want to get goosebumps when Aragon, son of Arathon, steps into battle, you gotta read the book.
And oh, please don’t compare reading fiction and non-fiction. It’s a bit like comparing reading the newspaper and reading a good novel. They’re two completely different things.
2. Musclemen are a symptom of fundamentalism. Not its definition. Just because an atheist happens to be more civilized and law abiding it doesn’t mean s/he can’t be fundamentalist. I’m not judging you here – I don’t even know you – but I’m just saying that it’s possible for atheists to be fundamentalists.
Please don’t use the violent actions of fundamentalists as conclusive proof that religion is irrelevant. Religion may be irrelevant, but the argument is flawed nonetheless (not to mention a bit tired).
3. Irrespective of whether or not everyone appreciates it, the difference between God and religion exists and must be accounted for when trying to judge one or the other.
4. It might just be me, but I like my definitions to be a little more rigorous and a little less subjective. I mean, I’d like to know for sure if you’re talking about me so that I can be appropriately outraged. :)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
0
U mentioned that Aetheist to be fundamentalist…in a way i would need to agree with u, coz if he wasnt a fundamentalist, he would fall in the agnostic category….throughout history the onus has been always on the aetheist to disprove the existance of god, rather when it should have been the other way round with the religious coming with logical arguments for the existance of god…
Quoting Bertrand Russel, if u were told that there is a teapot that orbits around the Sun in the solar system, it would be very difficult to disprove it, but to accept it just bcoz it cant be disproved sounds totally insane.
R we aetheist fundamentalist coz we have been drawn into ur game of disproving something, or r the religious fundamentalist for snubbing science inspite of contributing far more to our understanding of life than our religious scriptures ever did…while science asks the question “HOW”, religion continues to obsess itself with “WHY” without first asking the question “HOW”…
Like or Dislike:
2
0
No, an atheist who is not fundamentalist would fall in the humanist category. Fundamentalism doesn’t just mean that you believe you’re right. It extends to believing that anyone who disagrees with you must be a {insert expletive of choice}.
Science always allows for the possibility that you may be wrong. That is different from how probable it is that you are wrong. The essence of the difference between atheists and agnostics somewhere lies here.
I could speculate more but I’m still a few decades away from Vanaprasthashram yet.
Like or Dislike:
3
1
I do not think any atheist can dare to claim that religion is irrelevant.
Religion is all-powering and all-consuming. It’s all around us.
If anything, atheists and agnostics know only too well that religion is anything but irrelevant to the vast majority.
I would personally also agree that religion can be a great source of validation and meaning to many.
As an agnostic, all I seek, is the freedom and the right to not believe.
I do not care if others worship a million gods or fast on particular days or worship, as Richard Dawkins puts it, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I just want to be allowed to lead a life free of any religious meaning and ritual, because these don’t sit well with my belief system.
I suspect most atheists and agnostics are, like me, not really interested in world domination and in Being Right.
I don’t see atheists and agnostics forcing their beliefs and convictions down the throats of the religiousy inclined.
Right now, we have our backs against the wall. The burden of proof lies with us, not the believers.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
0
LOVE the response :)
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I am tempted to quip here about what my friend asked out of the blue while we were looking at ‘RubberMaid’ garbage can in Costco. He asked, “Do you know why god created man?”. While I nodded in surprise(for a no), he said ” Because then man can create plastic” . Sensing his streak for the ” profoundness” that eve, we shopped the rest of the time speechless.
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bharat desh mein public library? Nahi, kabhi nahi.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Really liked it, thanks!
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Neo,
Nice to see a new post after a really long time….this post is guaranteed to have your comments section filling up for a while :)
About the “priest”, who wanted his son to do something other than “all this”, hey, nothing wrong there….if you ask me. Why not? He probably became a priest bcoz that was the only option available to him @ the time, and maybe he wants something different for his son.
Thought I detected a hint of sarcasm/smugness on your part :) hence this comment.
Also about “the vedas will be 1000 yrs older , but will they contain more wisdom”, I thought this was beside the point. The vedas and other similar texts really show that the “more things change the more they remain the same”.
That’s more than my 2 bits there.
Keep ‘em coming.
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Read Babasaheb Ambedkar’s works you might like them. While you’ve been tactful and diplomatic, he took the issues head on and laid the foundations of modernism into hinduism. Another great socialist was Mahatma Phule and his wife Savitribai Phule. These great philosophers/activists are very underrated even today.
Like or Dislike:
1
2
If you haven’t already, after the Vedas, try the Yoga Vashishtha. Very interesting (some would call weird) stories and concepts :)
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Your writing makes me want to worship you ;)
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Absolutely … Perfect !!!
One thing to be noted here.. Whoever has created it, the focus was on the LIFE. One should read it to take an example while living the life.
One should read Veda’s to search the “Way of living the Life” :) Its our tradition that Somebody who changes our life we worship him like a god.. :)
Veda’s never talk abt Good/Ugly/bad language as such.. :)
Veda’s are not abt religion but Life !!
Somebody please change the mindsets of religious ppl.. :)
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Hi Neo
Swami Gulagulaananda said:
“Half knowledge and extrapolating with that is extremely dangerous”
We like to think of ourselves as modern. We like to think of ourselves as people who have a scientific bent of mind. The problem is that, we have reached great levels of complacency in this area – of our confidence to extrapolate our minuscule knowledge to areas that we don’t even understand and even go to levels of judging them.
Alright, one approach to this is to accept what you say is right. Perhaps it is. However, let’s take another approach – The Vedas have always been considered to be the greatest literature of all time. If it was not, there would not be so many great geniuses in the past such that each was writing his own interpretation of the Vedas and related scriptures. If it was as easy as you are saying, then my belief is that everyone should have been writing same conclusions. It’s like watching a movie or reading yet another novel and asking for their conclusions. Should be the same.
However, it is not always the case – at least not in Hinduism. For one, most of the information is stored in code. (Don’t roll your eyes yet – read on) The simplest and best example to be given in this respect is the idol of Lord Ganesha. If I were to explain to you, a very complex concept which involved terms like transcendental and metaphysical, you would be blown off by the jargon. Leave alone the concept. However, if you put all of this into a picture (A picture is worth a thousand words) it is easier to remember the concept. The idol of Ganesha is supposed to indicate a lot of concepts – why His eyes are shown small, why He has one tusk, why He ties a snake around His belly, what does the snake represent, and so on. However, talking about things like Kundalini and other things are very confusing to an average person. So the ancient Hindus decided to make stories – mythological stories that tell you that Ganesha’s belly exploded because he overate and thus he tied a snake. It’s a simple story for everyone to remember… The underlying concept is now no longer known directly to a person who reads the story.
Note what happened here. Now people only know the stories, not the actual concept that was originally hidden inside for remembering. Or at least inducing faith. Now, the modern Hindu would perhaps denounce it as idol worship or perhaps make fun saying that Hindu Gods were mutants because of their out-of-the-world appearance. Even Vishnu’s four arms, what is held in each hand has a great deal of symbolic representation. Similarly Brahma and Shiva.
Another example – there is a hymn which is to Lord Krishna. Yes, at the outset, it is just a hymn. But, in Sanskrit, each letter is given a numeric value (used in Vedic mathematics) and if that is used in the hymn, you get the value of pi up to 61 places. Now tell me, do you think any ordinary guy who reads that hymn will decode it? He will obviously think this is a praise to Krishna.
Now you tell me – do you think you know how many things have been encoded in the Vedas? Do you know which part is encoded and which is literal? And this, perhaps is the very reason why there are so many different interpretations of the same text. Only people who have a vast understanding of concepts can truly appreciate it. Otherwise anyone who knew basic Sanskrit (like you) would be reading it. Reading it is not a big deal, understanding is. So what you are reading as mere hymns to Indra and Agni may be so at the outset. You may have to do more research before rubbishing the Vedas as yet another literature.
P.S. – I am not a religious guy, though I really get put off by people who conclude without knowing much
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21
2
Nikhil, while what u have stated is a common argument, it fails for the reason that people dont go by the hidden meaning in these scriptures. The symbolism fails to capture the readers mind and often people fight over what has been states literally in these scriptures.
If man is moral enough to pick and choose what one needs to embed in ones life and what to ignore then the scriptures would never be required, since it is their own moral judgement that does the picking and choosing.
A few yrs back we had people trying to feed milk to ganesh idols, it wasnt just the common man but also saints who have studied these scriptures that were doing it. Our understanding of the universe consisted of the solar system that we could see. However, with the advent of modern powerful telescopes we have begun understanding that the universe is far more vast and diverse than what was thought to be before. We have seen not all stars are the same, not all planets follow the same principle, and that not all the galaxies are spiralled.
In the light of modern discoveries we need to study these literatures just how we study other documents of ancient times that helps us better understand the times and lives of those times. Nothing more.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
2
Batman – Yes, I agree that man should be moral enough to not need scriptures. He is not in reality, and faith was a great way to keep men within boundaries. “If you sin, you will go to hell” and paint a scary picture of hell – done. People will follow rules for the fear of an all powerful entity. Or this was how it was designed.
Regarding people’s minds and them not getting captured, that’s not the flaw of the Vedas. It’s like asking an average man to understand something complex like quantum mechanics or DNA. So, just because it does not capture his mind, doesn’t make the literature poor or flawed. It shows that most ordinary men can’t understand it. And that’s why subsequently, literature like Puranas rose, to capture minds of ordinary people with stories… The Hindu scholars of yore knew what the problems were.
Regarding men and saints feeding milk to an idol – Like I said before, again, people who dress up like saints are not necessarily saints and don’t necessarily understand. The idol of Lord Ganesha is something way more complex. Personifying of God often allows people to connect with God, rather than leaving it abstract.
Which is why when you do serious research, you will see people start talking about concept of Nirguna Brahman and say that Vishnu is a form given to Brahman and so on. Those people who tried to feed milk clearly don’t understand what true concepts behind each of them are. Therefore, you have to do a lot more research before concluding Vedas as just some book that was written by some people of the past. Apparently they have found a lot of references to machines, gadgets and missiles that very closely resemble modern day spacecrafts, nuclear weapons and other devices. So what do you have to say for that?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15
2
Hi Nikhil,
Thanks for articulating your views so well. I have a few questions for you (all genuine, none sarcastic; hope you will not be evasive)
1. I’m guessing from your comment that you’ve classified me as an “ordinary” person. I’m genuinely curious, and I hope you will answer this question as honestly for yourself as you have for me: how do you classify yourself? Surely you have to accept that you are somewhat above ordinary?
2. What specific recommendations do you have for ordinary people like me, and the other readers of my blog? Is there any hope for us to glimpse the hidden meaning at all? Or should we resign ourselves to being ordinary?
3. A guy comes to your house and says he has a complex financial investment scheme that a non-financial person like you cannot possibly understand, but you should invest large sums of money into it. How will you decide whether he’s telling the truth?
4. Clearly something went horribly wrong. All the advanced Vedic wisdom has been lost because, as you say, although we have the literal text, we’ve lost the “key”. Every code designer (or lock manufacturer) has to deal with the possibility of the key being lost. Why did the Vedic authors not foresee this possibility? What went wrong?
-neo
Hot debate. What do you think?
7
6
Hi Neo,
Excellent questions.
Reply to point 1: Frankly, I think of myself as an ordinary person, and I don’t have adequate knowledge to judge you nor the Vedas. Which is why I started off my first post by saying you could be right, and began an alternate path of thought. You see, I feel that everything in the original Hinduism was extremely clever – but they felt that common man wouldn’t understand the significance, which was why they were made customs, traditions, taboos and so on. An example is spreading of cow dung water in front of your house early morning, a practice still seen in villages. The early morning sun rays contains UV rays of a wavelength that split the cow dung into formaldehyde, and that mixed with water gives formalin, a known disinfectant that keeps your surroundings germ free.
This is beautiful, don’t you think? Knowledge such as this is hidden in a day-to-day life practice. How many of us know this sun ray splitting to formaldehyde concept? People now will simply bullshit it (no pun intended) saying cow dung stinks, it’s a silly archaic practice. Or some other believers might end up spreading a slurry a little later, by when the rays don’t have the necessary wavelength.
Regarding point 3: Yes, you are right. There is no way of knowing what he says is truth. You don’t know what your parents were teaching you was truth or not when they taught you to walk and talk. Maybe you were intended to fly, but you believe that walking is the way. And the language you speak is taught to you. It need not be the correct language (if there was something like that) How do you know this is correct? You don’t.
It’s only when you grow older, you start thinking rationally. You learn that there are other languages. However, because you don’t understand Swahili by yourself doesn’t make Swahili wrong. When a Swahili tutor teaches you, you learn it under the assumption he is teaching you correct things. This is faith…
Regarding points 2 and 4, like I said, I myself am ordinary. So, I am not smart nor learned enough to be giving you recommendations. But I feel that knowledge is out there. You should just do more research and find out. No, you don’t have to resign thinking you can’t understand the Vedas or that it is too darn complex. There are several scholars who do detailed study on Vedas and associated literature. Maybe you can talk to them. I know this part seems evasive, but that’s just due to my ignorance. Regarding the keys, valid point. Again, when a good lock or password system is created, and people lose the key or forget password, doesn’t mean that the system was flawed :-) However, from what I understand, people of yore had Gurukulas where people who were interested to learn Vedas, learnt it under a preceptor, while the rest didn’t bother to take it up. Maybe there still are people learning it in some Mutts (Perhaps the ones started by Shankaracharya?) I don’t think the key is lost. However, some people did try to document “the key”. Which Shankaracharya also did, and some other scholars did. They are their interpretations of the Vedas. Perhaps reading them can be starters. Maybe…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24
2
(Ok, I know I am terribly late to the party, but want to leave a few words here nevertheless)
Well said, Nikhil!
This is like picking up a random Std. XII Physics text book without having learnt anything methodically from the lower classes, (obviously) getting it all wrong and then trashing its contents!
Just like there is a proper means and method to learn any subject, these too have to be learnt systematically to be properly understood and appreciated. Unfortunately not doing so has resulted in our ancient systems being reduced to incoherent mumbo jumbo.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8
3
kyjym:
Can you please point me and others like me to the “properly means and method” that we should use to prepare us for the Vedas? We’d be more than happy to study the prerequisites.
-n
Like or Dislike:
2
1
It is very similar to how you’d approach academics. And remember it requires interest, faith and a lot of hard work. When a Physics teacher in Std. VI introduces the concept of electrons for the first time, that forms the basis of all your further studies in the field.Your choices at that time would be: 1) accept it, understand it, get your doubts addressed and continue studying Or 2) dismiss it as BS (obviously because you dont get to see electrons spinning in orbits rightaway) and spread the word that electrons dont exist!
So here’s my recommendation, Neo.
1. First of all, shed the skepticism and be open to the possibility of “something” being right in what was prescribed. All our ancestors couldn’t have all been wrong at once? (like how physicists aren’t, I assume, you accept!)
2. If #1 is difficult or impossible, dont proceed, we stop here, agree to disagree and leave it at that
3. If #1 is taken care of, seek out a credible source (a Guru) and start from scratch, put in time and efforts to understand the framework (what is Hinduism-what exactly is Veda- what is Vedanta etc.) and what they say, put forth all your doubts and try and get them answered.
See if that helps :) and all the best!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
1
About the formaldehyde comment – I will accept that our forefathers were truly brilliant people that hid the sublime in the divine when it is proven that:
1. They knew what formaldehyde was
2. They knew the various processes of producing formaldehyde and then selected one process that was easy for daily following
3. They knew and had studied the disinfecting properties of formaldehyde or they atleast knew that something happened to cowdung in sunlight that made it become a disinfectant (which is kind of unbelievable since they relied on elements/balance theory rather than germ theory)
Otherwise, it is just a lucky coincidence that worked out for them! I like how people tend to pick out very specific examples that suit their cause when obviously there are glaring holes throughout.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6
5
Clueless:
I just wish they had “invented” gunpowder instead of formaldehyde. At least we wouldn’t have been caught strutting around on elephants when the bloody british showed up.
-n
Hot debate. What do you think?
6
3
Neo..
Gun powder? Really? Thats the solution to everything? ok and what do you think would have happened? British would have got scared seeing our gun powder and would have done nothing. England would have become the colony of India :)
All indians would have read Veda’s and world would have become a better place…Gosh!!! Why did indians invent stupid disinfectant and why not a weapon of mass destruction.. Stupid indians :)
Wait a minute.. We would still be calling ourself indians? Would their be an actual India or some assorted kingdoms with some kings sitting on elephants? all having weapons of mass destruction? I wonder how gun powder would have changed the course of history.
Like or Dislike:
4
1
:D Loved this! I sincerely tried reading Vedas and Upanishads and we also named our son after the boy-protagonist, the questioner from Kathopanishad,thinking that it really must mean something profound , which we are yet to get :D!
Now I am unsure. too many yagnas and sacrifices and cows and sons being offered in all hymns to make any sense..Like Ayn Rand said, ‘It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.’.. The reason Brahmin’s didnt let anyone else read Vedas.. because everyone’ll realize, like you said, The emperor has no clothes!!..I see the emperor with extremely skimpy clothes right now..not a bad sight though…
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
7
>>>The reason Brahmin’s didnt let anyone else read Vedas..
considering Vyasa, who compiled veda was son of fisherwoman… and therefore, not a ‘Brahmin’ that you speak of, your statement doesn’t hold water, does it.
But, there is a reason why veda were recommended only for brahmana- there is the story of Raikva who refused to reveal life’s truths to one King(Janasruti), he in fact ridiculed the king who had approached him- the reason is that any other person, who is not seeking realization of brahma, would never understand veda. in fact, may misunderstand, like what the blogger here has done.
There is a time and space for everything. when you are ready, that knowledge will be revealed to you.
Before you receive the waters of the ocean, you must have the space required to receive them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
1
Why do people club religious fundamentalist with Atheist fundamentalist…there is a whole lot of difference, while we go soft on religious fundamentalist’s, atheist fundamentalist’s are looked down upon…
How is an atheist wrong in questioning the validity of faith based on nothing but the word of a few people who claim to have had a conversation with god in private memories or of an afterlife that defies all logic and has cannot be validated scientifically…
I would say being a atheist fundamentalist doesnt rule out the person from being a humanitarian…
There has been a lot of bloodshed on the name of religious fundamentalism, whereas i dont think atheist have ever shed a drop of blood of another human being on the basis of their faith…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
0
Simbly bored, just by not being a atheist fundamentalist a person wouldnt qualify for being a humanitarian, that is a very narrow and shallow point of view…
There are several other facets to being a humanitarian that transcends faith…
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I’m pretty sure there’s a difference between a humanist and a humanitarian but if there isn’t then I guess I was wrong.
Just for reference, I’m going by the following definition of humanist picked up from a dictionary:
“The doctrine emphasizing a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural”
Also, you can disagree with my opinion without judging it, no?
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Simbly Bored, i am sorry I mistook the part of humanist…probably my backlash had to do with the loads of criticism that i encountered in my personal life from my dear and near ones who never could come in terms with me being an atheist…never have i heard from any of my friends nor family that i could be right…
Everytime i try to get into a discussion on religion and put forward the doubts that exist in my own mind, they shrug me off saying u r not supposed to question faith and to leave it at that…
Even the answers that religion have to offer contradicts all logic and our understanding…for now i would like to say that i am an atheist and probably very close to being a fundementalist too…
Like or Dislike:
1
0
As for the article, top notch…
Like many who stated it before, one of the things to do before i die…but getting hold of an english copy with perfect translation and no editing of the uncomfortable portions is gonna be difficult…
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Hi Neo…
A few years back, I tried reading the Atharvaveda. I was in my late teens then. And I swear that I could not fathom the depth of though in the Vedas.
But after reading your post, I think I can give it another try. There is a lot of wisdom out there, searching for me. ;-)
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Interesting events reminded me of this post.
1. “Were you there when this happened?” A religious asks in this piece..
ttp://t.co/pAZ0KAp
2. Religion is vague, does not specify what to accept and what to reject- How Science, just like the vedas did not clarify what to take and what to leave. :
Indore Sex change operations. No links, everyone knows the story.
3. Fundamentalist Atheist: Yes, they do exist (and for the better, only on the internet) do not allow honest questioning to surface. As suggested if they rallied, as suggested “library yeahi banegi” I would happy that they put their energies to better use.
Religion for all its flaws has built schools and temples (Where even the hardest of criminals has a positive thought, lets call it positive thought place!). I am yet to see a atheist movement say HOW they plan to make the world a better place, give commoners a sense of belief and false (yet, much needed) hope.
I don’t believe in a god, or as best put, lack the gift of faith. This does not make me want to burn down churches and advocate that we should do away with religion. I have seen the power of faith and believing how an unknown higher entity gives people strength. One of the most successive form of de-addiction, the AA also professes believing in a higher power. This is how most people have dealt with troublesome and unfair life.
As Indians we are at an interesting bent in time. Most of us are independent enough to question religion or embrace it completely. We are now at a place where we could filter out and cleanse our religious practices. Surely at some point we thought sati was unfair and we did away with it. Sure lot of killing happened before that but just like you can’t blame Alexander Fleming for waiting till 1928 to find penicillin, you can’t blame people for understanding sati is unfair faster. The idea is to have a relentless pursuit to make ourselves better. If we pick sides over every issue (like in the NASA story above) the fundamentalism is just going to increase on both sides.
If you have skipped through my entire ramble until now, all i am trying to say is, it is okay to not be religious, religion is culture, constantly evolving. Please don’t advocate other people give up religion completely. Be the watchdogs and say ‘this’ in religion is incorrect, change it. Hinduism tweaked itself to accept Buddha as one of the vishnu avatars, Jesus travelled through India is another great marketing manoeuvre. Let’s take this flexibility and make it better.
Like or Dislike:
2
2
dhaval,
“Religion for all its flaws has built schools and temples”
From my point of view the “flaws” (what a mild word) like the superstition, killing, torture, censure, humiliation, raping, beheading, honor killing, war, genital mutilation isn’t worth it. It’s like saying “Hey the holocaust had its flaws but at least we got some nice aircraft”, or “The British empire had its flaws but at least we got our railways.”
We’d have built our aircraft, railways and schools much earlier had it not been for the religious burning them down, thank you very much.
“Be the watchdogs and say ‘this’ in religion is incorrect, change it.”
We don’t need a watchdog. We need a cure.
-n
Hot debate. What do you think?
5
4
Neo,
I am yet to hear of a society that got any development done without religion being involved. Not that it was always a good thing, but that’s how it went about.
History is violent, unfair and bloody. It’s in the past now. Humans have evolved. There is no alternative to faith. If not religious, political. Mao and third reich are shining examples of how political ambition took their believers faith and caused much damage.
Faith is what keeps the masses going and that is how leaders back in the day used to get work done. Still do.
We need a cure you say, if there is one, sign me up. I’d happily swallow the red pill Morpheus has to offer. Is there any?
What we need is a curve – Corrective steps in the right direction. Atheist are well read informed individuals. Ahead of the herd, if they refuse to set course for the others, refuse to participate, how will you expect things to change? I am sure you are not suggesting something in the lines of 1984(book).
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Dhaval,
History shows that development has taken place despite the religious and not because of them. For starters, read up on Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Alan Turing, Tycho Brahe and Darwin. The “evolved’ life you live today is thanks to the brave scientists and philosophers who stood up to the religious authorities; many of them died so you can have the technology that lets you use your computer to argue in favor of the same system which killed them.
At every step of the way, religion has opposed social and technological progress (the catholic church still opposes condoms, and don’t get me started on the other religions). Don’t take any of our “evolution” for granted. Even now, the religious will not hesitate, given the opportunity, to take us right back to our primitive past.
And atheists are trying to set the course. That was one of the goals of this post. Now will you please read the whole post? :)
-n
Hot debate. What do you think?
4
4
neo,
Tad disappointed if I interpreted your “And atheists are trying to set the course. That was one of the goals of this post” correctly, because one of the strongest reasons I was impressed with your line of thinking was because you were speaking on a personal level, in other words, for yourself, and not a larger heterogeneous group like the ‘atheists’. So, am I right in getting a tad disappointed? :)
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Hi Ketan,
I wasn’t speaking for atheists, not even for myself “as an atheist”. I was speaking for myself. There are many reasons to be disappointed with me, but this isn’t one of them. :P
-n
Like or Dislike:
3
0
All that Atheists have been arguing is that dont enforce ur moral standards on others…Dhaval u argued abt the crimes that has been witnessed under Communism, Mao and reich. Let it be made clear that the reason these crimes were committed had nothing to do with their religious ideology. Holocaust hadnt anything to do with religion, even thou it was a group of people belonging to a particular faith that were harmed. The reason that it happended was bcoz at the time these people formed part of the affluent businessmen who had the reputation of not having done sufficiently for the World War I. It was both the atheist as well as the catholics under the third reich that were harming Jews.
On the other hand history has witnessed enough crimes committed solely in the name of religion. In the middle ages there were millions of women burnt on stake just bcoz they were suspected of witch craft. Why talk abt middle ages, crimes committed in the name of religion still exists in current times. Denying their existence too is a crime.
Neo, have u read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins…fantastic read, which provides expanation to most commonly raised questions by religious fundementalists as well as agonostics.
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Who Am I,
Of course I’ve read Richard Dawkins! Who hasn’t—oh, I know: everyone who needs to. :P
-n
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Here, i see you have put forth a neo- veda, which seems to have it’s own considerable following, where you extoll the vedas and frown upon the upanishads.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
0
these comments are very heavily moderated. that is amusing.
Like or Dislike:
5
2
foreigner,
No moderation; only spam filtering.
-n
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Loved the following lines…personally heard it so many times…
“What the religious really love about the Vedas, what sends them into a tantric trance, is how old the Vedas are. The religious apparently believe that the older the Vedas, the easier their “fight” for religious supremacy—”The Rigveda is ten thousand years old you say? That’s it; I won’t ridicule you guys any more; sign me up for Hinduism! (Can I be a Brahmin, please?)”
-TOO GOOD!!!
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Those do not know Sanskrit, try following good work,
THE SECRET OF THE VEDA
http://sriaurobindoashram.info/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobindoAshram/-09%20E-Library/-01%20Works%20of%20Sri%20Aurobindo/-01%20English/-01_SABCL/-10_The%20Secret%20of%20the%20Veda_Volume-10/-00_Contents.htm
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“we hear the komal re for the first time during an alaap of Raga Ahir Bhairav.” —- where can I listen to this?
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Very true. But one cannot be too careful in writing such stuff.
Suppose you knew one day that nothing can be trusted. Let us cut down a few of these quickly.
1. Religion, Morality and Culture. These three can be immediately identified as being very personal and highly subjective. So lets discard these things. They are not absolute. You can live without believing in these.
2. There are enough number of people who have had paradoxical experiences. At least one such thing happens to each one of us before we leave this world. You think you have seen it, but later you realize you have not. You think you have heard it, but later you realize you have not. Similar with other kinds of perceptions.
So what to rely on?
3. Reason or Rationality also is not absolute. You need to believe to be rational.
4. Despite this, we can live without depending on the Mind driven by instinct just like an animal.
However, animals cannot imagine how they can be stripped of instincts. We can.
If you cut down finer aspects such as these, then you will realize there is nothing left.
Suddenly, you feel insecure realizing there is nothing that is something absolute, solid, something that acts as a support for an individual to move on without much thinking until he/she dies.
One thought about how/what/where will lead to another question, another thought. If one is weak (say), then he might have as well take the support of some concept, some thought, some idea and stay away from being insecure.
Suppose one is strong (say – opposite of weak), then one will proceed as fast as he can from one question to the next to the next, processing, if possible, many of them parallelly.
So the first ‘weak’ fellow started all this about religion and all.
Not that only ‘strong’ people existed previously but that they are always delinked from the ‘weak’ in a way they are.
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Hi,
Great post as always, just wanted to point out something about the thought experiment you mentioned since I recently had this discussion..
Thought experiment: A thousand years from now, the Vedas will be a thousand years older. Will they then contain any more wisdom than they do now?
The reason most religious folks like to point out (brag) about this is that they think the books have ‘stood the test of time’ since if they weren’t accurate they would’ve been abandoned by now.
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Neo, isnt it amazing how confidently people seem to defend their religions…however, they never seem to follow what it preaches…if nirvana is ultimate way of being one with god and the path for escaping the suffering that the circle of reincarnation brings, y not just quit ur daily miserable existance and direct all ur energies to acheiving nirvana…y do people still persist to endure the comforts(or curse) that Science provides them…
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Who am I:
This is what happens when you read bits and pieces here and there, and don’t learn learn concepts methodically. Half baked and improperly understood ideas lead you to think that nirvana means giving up everything and renouncing your duty.
Infact it is just the opposite, you can continue to exist in your environment and can/should strive to excel in whatever it is that you do everyday and still pursue the ultimate goal of releasing yourself from the cycle of birth and death.
Sounds contradictory? It is not!
Like or Dislike:
1
0
In our scriptures it has been pretty clearly defined that nirvana is the state that you achieve by successfully freeing onself from all attachments and desires…
Man has evolved into the being it is today precisely coz it is a complex being with multitude of different emotions…
Desire is one of the most basic of human emotions & to say that we are to achieve happiness by freeing ourselves from all desires would render our life useless…what is life if one is to exist without any desire…is this truly the path to achieving ultimate happiness & peace?
Desire is not an emotion that is restricted to just human beings…even by german spitz has this emotion…it is the quality to feel and react which seperates us from single cell organisms…
Science has pretty clearly proved that human beings are the result of evolution which happened over millions of years and who is to say that we are the ultimate beings in the universe, there may be other more complex beings elsewhere at a more advanced stage evolution on other galaxies where the understanding of life & afterlife may be totally different from what is followed here…
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Who am I:
You are right that “desire is one of the most basic of human emotions” and also that “according to scriptures, nirvana is the state that you achieve by successfully freeing onself from all attachments”.
According to Hindu scriptures, you can have as many desires as you want as long as they are legitimate. Have you heard of the rituals that satisfy your desires? For example, in the epic Ramayana, the king Dasharatha does a yagna called putra kama ishti yagna. It is for begetting sons! Whether he got sons because of this yagna or not is a debate, but let’s not get into it. The point I want to make is that scriptures does not say one should leave out all desires. As you rightly point out, if one leaves out desires, you are called a machine and not a human being.
The point I think you are missing is that the scriptures says you can have as many desires as you want, but do not get “attached” to them. Practicing this detachment is what nirvana is, and this can be done even when you are pursuing your interests.
So, to answer your question:
“Desire is one of the most basic of human emotions & to say that we are to achieve happiness by freeing ourselves from all desires would render our life useless…what is life if one is to exist without any desire…is this truly the path to achieving ultimate happiness & peace?”
According to Hindu scriptures, the path to ultimate happiness & peace is not to leave out desires, but leave out the attachment to the object of desire. It is subtle, I find it profound!
Like or Dislike:
2
0
(On behalf of C R who wasn’t able to post)
Who am I:
You are right that “desire is one of the most basic of human emotions” and also that “according to scriptures, nirvana is the state that you achieve by successfully freeing onself from all attachments”.
According to Hindu scriptures, you can have as many desires as you want as long as they are legitimate. Have you heard of the rituals that satisfy your desires? For example, in the epic Ramayana, the king Dasharatha does a yagna called putra kama ishti yagna. It is for begetting sons! Whether he got sons because of this yagna or not is a debate, but let’s not get into it. The point I want to make is that scriptures does not say one should leave out all desires. As you rightly point out, if one leaves out desires, you are called a machine and not a human being.
The point I think you are missing is that the scriptures says you can have as many desires as you want, but do not get “attached” to them. Practicing this detachment is what nirvana is, and this can be done even when you are pursuing your interests.
So, to answer your question:
“Desire is one of the most basic of human emotions & to say that we are to achieve happiness by freeing ourselves from all desires would render our life useless…what is life if one is to exist without any desire…is this truly the path to achieving ultimate happiness & peace?”
According to Hindu scriptures, the path to ultimate happiness & peace is not to leave out desires, but leave out the attachment to the object of desire. It is subtle, I find it profound!
Like or Dislike:
1
0
My point is that scriptures are modelled to our understanding of life as we see and experience it…
In other worlds elsewhere there may have been more complex diverse forms of organisms in totally unimaginable environments with its own understanding of right & wrong and different desires and inter relationships with other organisms, how do you fit in our model of religion and afterlife there…also we seem to take it for granted that these concepts are absolute and cannot be challenged…the universe has been around for atleast 13.7 billion years of which our sun has been around for only about 4.5 billion yrs and the modern homosapien for less than 50,000 yrs…how do we know how the universe was when the dinosaurs looked up into the sky and who is to say how it would be a million yrs from now…
And as for all the praise being garnered upon the scriptures, why do we often only pick and choose only pleasant stuff from them and easily avoid the fallacies….
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Nice post. I would like to think that the people who wrote the Vedas did not plan on them being the “final version”, but to let them evolve and grow with the insights of future generations – a never ending process (kinda like the Metro construction in Bangalore, but in a more positive context).
Like or Dislike:
1
0
You should read Aurobindo’s “Secret of the Veda”. I agree that we have almost secluded the samhitas to the background and should read them for the freshness of thoughts. Otherwise I do not agree much with your opinion here as you are ignoring the big picture to amuse a certain audience.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
0
haha seriously man!!
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Love it!
Like or Dislike:
1
1
What I love about this post –
1. The P.P.S – > Why?
a) I can identify with most of what you wrote there – I am already “ten years and two kids into a marriage”.
b) not sure about the metaphysical plane or the cycle or birth and death but sue know about the cycle of ‘wake-up-kids-get them-ready-for-school’ and ‘get-kids-to-eat-dinner-in-under-one-hour-and-get-them-to-bed’!
c) I am the wife! and though I do not know about how DH was at college, I am certainly just kidding about “how she’d almost rather you had an affair”
2. everything else too..
You are now in my list of fav funnies on the www and I think a frequent stop in my travels online
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Don’t tell me you fell for that old trick of “don’t read the Vedas.” It is usually used as a ploy to distinguish between those with genuine philosophical questions and those who are there just to find new excuses to mock at anything desi.
It is like studying the writings of Issac Newton, to understand the importance of Newtonian theories on physics. You’ll definitely come back disappointed.
For, the original documents essentially just set the thinking along in some direction, by asking some “beautiful questions.” The richness of the science or philosophy or spiritual thought comes from the enormous number of theories that came subsequently, that tried to answer these beautiful questions.
Like or Dislike:
3
1
I have a feeling that this comment might ramble on to become a blog post, so I will try to be succinct.
1.’Religion’ as a social identity vs. ‘religion’ as a personal philosophy –
First point – operational definitions. I don’t have much value set by religion as a social identity – the reason people wear threads or head scarves, eat meat or more kali, you get the drift. But it is inevitable, because our biology conditions us to seek similarity and associate with it. Tying up social/cultural constructs with religion and then blaming religion for the ensuing evils – that I see as a different debate. The issue is not about the social constructs religion propogates (which is really little different from other social constructs – nationalism, for example) – there is little difference between dying for one’s country and dying for one’s God. The question is what it mean to have one’s own God, the personal ishta-devata some are ready to die for. And if that is really personal, whether it is possible to share it.
2. The argument that religion was scientific
Post hoc analyses – that segregating menstrual women was was ‘rest’, rangoli is food for ants and cow dung protects against nuclear weapons – are fallacious for the simple reason that for every ritual that one can come up with a ‘rational’ explanation, there are twenty others which were arbitrary constructs. People standing by religion, please do so by all means. If it’s your faith, state it as such – the bad logic only serves to shoot yourself in the mouth. These are things people do because that’s the way it has always been done, because that’s familiar, and we find comfort in familiarity. That is a perfectly valid reason to embrace rituals, so long as they are not forced upon anyone else. Point is, religion, personal, private religion, does not need a rational explanation.
3. Bhakti Yoga vs. Gnana Yoga vs. Karma Yoga
Caveat – I have not read the Vedas myself. Nor am I very good with interpreting Sanskrit. What I say here is based on my limited understanding based on interactions with some friends who have considerably better understanding of these things than I do.
Adi Shankara was probably the example Gnana Yogi, and after much enquiry and research, he did say “Bhaja Govindam, moodamathe”. Is Bhakti intellectual laziness? What if you know something axiomatically, deep down, like Euclid’s parallel postulate
for planes? You might use the axioms for your proofs, without necessarily proving it – either because you don’t know how, or because you don’t care – you are so sure that you know. There are people who invest their future with another person after a glance, calling it love at first sight. Statistics of success apart, the human brain does seem to have a propensity for intuitions of this sort. It’s a compelling voice, sometimes the silence of the mountains – and that is enough for some people.
Karma Yoga – the rut of the day-to-day, performing actions without expecting this outcome or that, the actions performed as Her, to Her, for Her. Is this intellectual laziness? When one’s mind vacillates all the time, searching for answers, searching for truth, how much more control one needs to file the taxes instead of reading the Rig Veda! Karma Yoga reminds me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance – the author experiences something akin to peacefulness when he is completely involved in something, including tuning his motorcycle. Is that the God, the Nirguna Parabrahmam that the Vedas talk about? If something is defined formless, yet all-pervading, it does not exist with a form, period. So it can be everywhere, in the heart of everything, pervading all forms, because it is formless.
4.God was conceived as a fear relieving factor/security blanket
The primitive Hindu Gods – Indra, Varuna, Surya, Agni, Vayu were personifications of the things that people feared. They were to be revered and feared and propitiated, the hymns of the Rig Veda do that. In that sense it makes sense to read the text as history/literature. But I believe it is the Upanishads (I could be wrong) which provide commentary on principles – what drives Prakriti, Nature, the-way-things-are, our material world we can probe with science. It is not something offered as a security blanket to propitiate our own fears. It is described as all the things it is, or rather it is not. Adi Shankara’s Atma Shatakam verses are some of the most scintillating lines I have read.
5.No answers, only beautiful questions
Maybe. Maybe not. All I know is I will be dead and gone in another 60 years’ time. Human beings, past and present, have figured out ingenious ways to make sense of their living condition, to face the inherent insecurity of lack of predefined meaning. And it’s beautiful, what’s out there. It makes sense for me to live my life in pursuit of deeper and richer understanding of what it is that makes us so human, so uniquely vulnerable. There’s always rasmalai and tiramisu.
6. How do you learn about the Vedas, if you need to be qualified to learn?
My question, precisely. I have come to the conclusion, that just like in every line of research, there are more people out there who claim to know more than they actually do know, and that’s dangerous. Picking a good teacher is probably like picking a good PhD advisor. It’s a question of good planning and careful scrutiny to find the teacher right for you and for whom you would be a right student – or some faith. :-) Best wishes.
~S
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
0