Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

Sankhya philosophy uses the "purush-prakriti" duality. As a metaphysical system it seems to be very complicated although it has a pretty good theoretical structure. It is atheistic in nature as it does not assume any existence of God.  "Purush" which is absolute is pure consciousness. I am not sure if it can be equated with God by any interpretation. In Sankhya philosophy the concept of "prakriti" is also very complicated. Again I am not sure if this can be equated with nature as we see it. But it seems to be true that creation or evolution happens when absolute "purush" gets "polluted" and gets bonded with "prakriti". Looks like Sankhya does focus on an individual "jeeb", not on the entire universe when it talks about creation or evolution. It seems to be more about breaking vicious circle of life and death and recommends "moksa" or "mukti" or liberation of an individual so that it can retain it's state of absolute consciousness. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

 

  Religion, by it's broad definition, is anything that holds a society together.  Anarchism,Atheism, Communism, Marxism etc. are religions by this definition.  By the narrow definition, however, it is a set of beliefs that need God as the final explanation of all the riddles.  These sets of beliefs were not supposed to change with time, though they did.  Science grows at the expense of religion.  My statement that many leading scientists couldn't question religious beliefs is to point at their limitations.  In no way it subscribes to the view that 'religion and science can coexist in this world'.  Nature, in the religious view, is not the creator of all the species; it requires the intervention of God(s) for creation, propagation, and destruction of anything according to them.  Recall the concepts of Purush and Prakriti, the latter is nature while the former is God.

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

Dr. Das Said: Many leading scientists retain their belief in the religious traditions they were born in, e.g.,  Newton So, you are saying that - religion and science can coexist in this world. Then, which part of my previous statement is not true? In fact, historically science and religion has been existing side-by-side. When we can free our mind from the sphere of the religious blind-faith, we can explain religious views with the scientific knowledge. As I said before - nature is the creator of all species, and if I interpret nature as the God, where am I going wrong? Jiten Roy --- On Sat, 7/28/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote: From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 28, 2012, 9:09 PM   "In this world - science and religion can coexist at ease, and we can find scientific explanation of what we believe in. "   The first half of this sentence is historically untrue, and the second half is not totally true either.  As the religious institutions grew weaker fighting each other, and science went on producing marvels, common people like us dared to raise questions on religions.  Many leading scientists retain their belief in the religious traditions they were born in, e.g.,  Newton was a believer in Arian heresy, Einstein wouldn't accept the logic behind Quantum Mechanics and say "God does not play dice" etc. Good common sense of  logical persons gets drowned by gospels of mystics.  I also like the GBS comment quoted by Mr. Deeldar, though I would like to know which 'great truths' he referred to.  I would also like to place Oscar Wilde's observation on him for the consumption of muktomonas. "Bernard Shaw is an excellent man; he has not an enemy in the world, and none of his friends like him" On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:   That was my counter question to you, Dr. Das. Anyway, the best quote is the one Shah Deeldar is using regularly. I like it very much.   A scientist's job is to seek the truth; if it leads to questioning a faith or raising the question in the mind of a believer, so be it. That consideration shall not stop discovery. That was the essence of my questioning.    Characteristics that make us different from animals are our intelligence and ability to express our mind. Therefore, there should not be room for blind-faith in the minds of intelligent species. Terms 'believer' and 'non-believer' do not mean much to me. I think everybody is believer. Most important point is - what we believe in. In this world - science and religion can coexist at ease, and we can find scientific explanation of what we believe in. People who work in the field of Theology are questioning their faith all the time to find the truth about their belief. That's how we can get to the truth. As I have mentioned before - the term 'blasphemy' was introduced to protect the vested interest of a religious class by maintaining the status quo forever.   Thanks.   Jiten Roy    --- On Sat, 7/28/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote: From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 28, 2012, 8:14 AM   "blasphemy to question a faith with a scientific discovery?" This is a misquotation.  What I wrote was, " It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith."  A scientist and a researcher always questions his observation, a believer sticks to observations made by others ages ago.  Efforts of a researcher to spread his 'non belief' to a believer may be compared to casting pearls in a marshy grass land. I hope, I have made my comment comprehensible. On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:   Is it blasphemy to question a faith with a scientific discovery? If it is, you have to stop all scientific discoveries, as most of discoveries go against religious beliefs.

I gave my realistic interpretation of God, and, in the end, I concluded that scriptures may be right, but - our interpretation may be wrong. Frankly, I do not know what Dr. Das meant by his comment.

Jiten Roy

 

--- On Fri, 7/27/12, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, July 27, 2012, 6:35 PM

 

I would not turn the observation of "it is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith" by Dr. Das into an advice to be followed.

 

I would rather turn George Bernard Shaw's observation of "all great truths begin as blasphemies", as quoted by Mr. Deeldar, into an advice. That is, commit blasphemies, if you have to, to uncover the truths.

 

However, since blasphemy is such a sensitive matter for the believers, I think rational people could avoid publicly questioning beliefs that look innocent. Proactive attacks on hateful beliefs can also be avoided. However, actual acts of hatred should be corrected and/or punished; there arguments like, "oh I (or we) did it because my (or our) religion taught me (or us) to do it" should not be accepted.

 

Sukhamaya Bain

 

=======================================

From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 

"It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith."

 

I think that is a great advice!

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS