The term "Hinduism" was coined by Greek and Persian travelers to the Indus Valley in the 16th century. Though many Hindus have adopted the name for themselves, they also use the terms "Veda," or "Vedic religion," which refer to the ancient texts at the core of the tradition, or Sanatana Dharma (Eternal Law).

Hinduism originated in the Indus Valley in modern Pakistan. The Vedic texts were not written by any single person, but "heard" by rishis, or seers, and passed down orally until they were recorded in writing. The oldest of the texts is the Rigveda (Wisdom of the Verses), a collection of 1028 hymns thought to have been recorded around 1500-1200 BCE. Other important Vedic texts include the Yajurveda (Wisdom of Sacrificial Formulas), Samaveda (Wisdom of Chants), and Ataravaveda (Wisdom of Atharvan Preists) were also recorded. The Upanisads, secret teachings concerning cosmic equations, were recorded from 1000-600 BCE. From the 2nd century BCE to the 4th century CE two great Hindu epics were recorded: the Ramayana and the Mahabarata. The Mahabarata contains the Bhagavad Gita ("Song of the Lord") that describes three paths to salvation: the path of duties (karma-marga), the path of knowledge (jnana-marga), and the path of devotion (bhakti-marga). Though the Upanisads emphasized renunciation and asceticism, these later dharma texts emphasize that these three paths can be used simultaneously for the maintenance of the world order (dharma) and release from the the world (moksha). Thus the goal for many Hindus is an equilibrium between social and ritual duties and the stability of the cosmos.

For a long time it was popularly believed that the Vedas originated from an Aryan people who invaded the the ancient Harappan civilization of India around 1500 B.C. However, there is no literary or archeological support for the theory and it has become associated with the racist ideology of colonialism.

kanhanna,

No, I do not agree that the term ‘believing’ is exclusive religious terminology! What distinguishes religion is not "belief", but belief in something, without evidence -- or in the face of contrary evidence; and more specifically, the belief in a non-material entity that can manifest intent, foresight has memory of the past and so on.

It is hardly fair to say that I am "advocating or propagating a new belief (religion) called ‘Good And Bad Reasons For Believing’ in order to realize the eternal and ultimate truth."

I am positively denying that I, you or anyone else know (or can ever know) "the eternal and ultimate truth". All that we can ever know are partial aspects of reality in a way that these are modelled by our brains. (Newtons Laws and Quantum Mechanics can coexist for use under distinct circumstances!)

I am afraid that the "Hindus" blundered badly when they "stopped searching the ‘Absolute truth’ externally and began searching the same inwardly". Insight that we can obtain from within our minds can have no assurance of being the truth UNLESS we are able to confirm this by looking at the world external to us.

To restate, we can easily be fooled into accepting deluded beliefs -- and this is particularly so when we look "inwards" for truth! This is a "bad" way of seeking the truth. It is much more reliable to open your eyes and other senses and look around you. You may still be deluded by optical and other illusions in false belief. Which is why we need to understand the "good reasons for believing". If that make me religious, it is fine with me!

No, all paths do NOT lead to the same truth! Most paths lead to error. How do I know that my "good reasons for believing" lead to the truth? Actually I do not know. I may still be in error. Yet, given the circumstances, I am least likely to be in error, compared to the other paths to truth!

Richard Dawkins would have misled his daughter had he written to her about “Nethi, Nethi” -- and went on to advise her to search inwards for truth. This is an extremely unreliable method to search for truth!

You said, "So naturally the ‘available evidence’ depends on the visthruthi of the person who visualizes it."

If this was always true, we could never have made an aircraft that flies! The point is that we CAN arrive at valid knowledge when we rely on external evidence that we can share with other people, and which can be confirmed using our other senses. (While I dream, I may see a horse. But if I try to touch this, or to ride on it go to some other place, this will not work. And when I wake up and find that I am still in bed, I have little doubt that I merely dreamt about a horse that was not there in the room with me).

Which is why mere availability of evidence is NOT sufficient reason to believe in any thing. Additionally, we should be able to make "predictions" based on our evidence based beliefs. If any of these predictions turn out false (through future observation), then the belief will need to be revised.

Which religion would permit the revision of "sanatana" truths based on a failed prediction? What you strangely describe as my "religion" does exactly this. In fact it is this aspect that makes my beliefs not eligible to be called religious beliefs!

You asked some questions,

1. "what happens to us in deep sleep?"

Nothing happens to us. Sleep is simply a mode of our living brain -- a mode of reduced awareness of our surroundings. Remember that we breathe etc even in deep sleep, and that we can be woken up by loud noise etc.

2. "Where were we before Adam, the first man, was created on earth?"

The biblical story of Adam as the first man is not an accurate account of history. There was no "first man" who was "created" on earth. This is false belief that is contrary to available evidence against "creation".

3. "Is our existence meaningful? Why should we exist and what goes wrong if we prefer not to exist?"

To each of us, there is an illusion of meaning in our existence as individuals. Nothing will happen to the world if we prefer not to exist! Preference apart, there was a time when we did not exist. And there will certainly come a time in future when we will not exist. So what?

4. "Do we have some gain or loss being in existence?"

So long as we are alive, there is an illusion of gain and loss to ourselves and to our near and dear ones.

5. "Are we our own creations or is there a third force created us, for whose benefits?"

All available evidence suggests that there is no need to postulate a "third force" nor even a "second force". The world is indeed advaita -- or non-dualistic as the vedanta said.

Where vedanta probaly erred is in thinking that the external world is illusory. What would seem to be illusory is the "self". We (who are mere creatures of matter) wrongly imagine that we possess a non-material "self" that would survive our death.

You went on, "In the science itself we find the Newtonic laws are not applicable to the Quantum laws".

Right! And we have hardly any use for the quantum theory, in our every day lives. In the atomic world, quantum theory works -- and so we use this. And in our "mid-world", Newton's laws work -- and we use these. Why not? Remember that we are NOT religious people who are in search of eternal truths, or the only truth!

Anand

Sri Anand Nair ji,

Look at the title of Richard Dawkin’s work: “Good And Bad Reasons For Believing”

The term ‘believing’ is a religious terminology that literally emphasizes the subjection of the human intelligence in its perception of truth. In fact Sri Anand Nair is advocating or propagating a new belief (religion) called ‘Good And Bad Reasons For Believing’ in order to realize the eternal and ultimate truth.

Krishna did this: Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed, Confuscius, Lao Tzu, Bahaulla, Mirza, Anton Lavey (Church of Satan) also did the same, and now Mr. Nair has also discovered a way to realize the truth.

I think Mr. Nair is not aware of the “Nethi, Nethi” (truth is not this, not this) tradition of the Hindus that was prevalent in the Vedic period. .The Hindus checked the veracity of the truth by employing this “Nethi, Nethi” tradition. This is how the Hindus stopped searching the ‘Absolute truth’ externally and began searching the same inwardly. Richard Dawkins would have happily written to his daughter about “Nethi, Nethi” instead of “Good And Bad reasons for Believing” if he had some glimpses of Vedha.

#In the following Mr.Anand Nair’s writing is shown in blue text and my comments are in red.

Good reasons for believing:-

a) Belief must be based on available evidence. (‘Evidence’ will vary from people to people and time to time. When a disciple asked Acharya Sri Kaladi Shankara about the area (Visthruthi ) of the universe, he answered that the area of the universe is directly proportional to the Visthruthi of the mind of the man who envisages it. So naturally the ‘available evidence’ depends on the visthruthi of the person who visualizes it. According to the vedhas time and place has nothing to do with the truth. Truth does not belong to the observer, but to the one who realizes it.

b) When observed evidence is not complete, we form theories that are consistent with what little evidence is available. (This is applicable to the eye-conscious world, but can we study the distant past with the limited present. In a pot we may cook rice or some vegetables but we cannot cook a mountain in it. What I am trying to put across  here is  ‘observation, evidence and theories’ are only the part of the eye conscious world and  are largely applicable only to the external reasonings but become  invalid when we go for deeper reasonings.

Eg. what happens to us in deep sleep?

Where were we before Adam, the first man, was created on earth?

Is our existence meaningful? Why should we exist and what goes wrong if we prefer not to exist?

Do we have some gain or loss being in existence?

Are we our own creations or is there a third force created us, for whose benefits? The questions might prolong..

How can we analyze all these through ‘Good and bad reasonings’of Richard Dawkins.

In the science itself we find the Newtonic laws are not applicable to the Quantum laws.

Om Shanthi

kanhannaa,

Why should people (of any religion, or with no religion) "stick to their fundamentals whole heartedly"? Why not accept that "truth" (yours, mine or some one else's) can only be tentative -- and that this must be consistent with currently available evidence?

Why do we get so attached to our own version of the "truth"? Why are we reluctant to abandon what we once regarded to be "truth" -- now that  available evidence does not support this?

No, all paths do NOT lead to "truth". Some paths lead to gross error. Our own path may be erroneous. We need to be prepared to base our beliefs on available evidence.. Or else we risk falling into error and superstition...

Anand

kanhanna,

You are quite free to to stick steadfast to the "fundamentals" of your religion -- and never apply your own mind, nor ever say anything of your own!

My own preference is to question the "truths" postulated by all religions based on facts as available to man today. All my views are tentative, being grounded on available evidence. If fresh evidence falsifies something that I regard today as "true", I will readily revise the most cherished of my beliefs!

You may like to read my blog, "Good and bad reasons for believing".

Anand

Dear Anand Nair ji,

I have never spoken anything of my own.  I rather made the fundamentals of the religions to speak for themselves.The problem is in the observer,so the observer must be observed.
Well ,as regards fundamentalism ,I want all the religions to stick to their fundamentals whole heartedly.If they can't stick on to theirs ,let them throw those  away and follow your "truth" or their "own truth".

OM Shanthi

kanhanna,

You seem to be cocksure about the "truth" of your own religious beliefs! Fundamentalism is definitely not the  monopoly of semitic religions....

Anand

Bagavan Krishna says “Kun faya Kun”

RSS Chief  Poojaniya Sri Sudharshan ji who knows to the core that Bagavan Krishna is the Supreme Godhead, was really aiming at the Muslim vote banks in favour of BJp.His intention was to sell Lord Krishna as a mere prophet to the Muslims who are utterly ignorant of Vedhopanishad.

Bagvan Krishna is not a mere prophet of Abrahamic-monotheistic type, but the supreme lord (Purushothama) of all that exists, born on earth by his mysterious power (atmamayaya).

The term ‘ prophet ‘is absolutely Semitic and an inerrant misfit for Vedic Krishna. Presently there is a ravenous tendency among the Muslim scholars of India to identify Krishna as one of the prophets among the one Lakh twenty four thousand, sent across the nations in the past by the Quranic God to preach His Thouheedic(One God) theory. The effort to degenerate Lord Krishna as a prophet of the Semitic nature is is utter mockery of the Vedic essence and the heritage. Neither the Muslim intellegentia nor the Quran is capable of churning a prophet out of Krishna, who is, primarily, the supreme Consciousness and Internal bliss.

Krishna is not what the Muslim scholars ,the Islamic scriptures or Sri Sudharshan ji want him to be .He is what He says He is.

Geetha, chapter 9,verse 11

Foolish men without an understanding of My higher nature as the supreme Lord of all that exists, disregard Me manifested in the human body.

Chapter 4, 6th verse.

Though I am birthless and deathless, and Lord of all beings as well, Yet I take birth by my inherent mysterious power(atmamayaya).

Let us cast a cursory glance at some more verses from Bagvad Geetha.

Krishna is the creator of creator. (11/37)

Of all beings, I am the seed whatever exists in the world. (10/39)

I am the origin and the dissolution of this entire world. (7/6)

I am the Beginning, middle and the end. (10/20)

There is no being higher than me. (7/7)

To this world, I am the father, mother and the grand sire. (9/17)

Those who teach Geetha will go to God, and he is dear to God. (18/68)

God is existence as well as non-existence. (11/38)

There is none higher than the Supreme Being. (8/3)

All objects subsist in Me and not I in them. (9/4)

Bagvan Krishna is essentially not a prophet of semitic outfit because none of those prophets in the Abrahamic tradition ever claimed that they were ‘ creator of creators’, ‘birthless and deathless’ and the supreme being of all that exist.

We understand the predicament of the Muslims :ascribing partnership along with Allah is the gravest of all sins that one could commit on the earth.But fortunately Krishna is not a human who turned to God, but God, first, then human second in appearance and not in essence.

 (Geetha 9/4 : All objects subsist in me and not I in them) I don’t envisage any difficulty in accommodating Krishna as God, simply because God is Omnipotent and All-powerful. He can assume myriads of shapes and forms at the same time with His mysterious power as mentioned in Geetha.It is not up to humans to limit the power of God for our convenience and to balance our scriptures.

Let’s also consider one of the verses from Quran. ‘ Kun Faya kun’ which means-‘Be and it is.’ Parathma says “ let Me assume the human body and He is.

Harish,

I repeat my claim that Sudarshan (the RSS sarsangchalak) was taunting the Muslim community when he asked "Muslims" to recognise Krishna as one of the prophets of Islam. This is the intelligent interpretation towards this incident.

If a non-Sikh asks "Sikhs" to accept Mohammed as the 11th Guru, this would definitely amount to taunting. If a non-Hindu asks "Hindus" to accept Christ as the 10th avatar of Vishnu, this would definitely amount to taunting. I have no doubts about this! 

Addressing a community (rather than a specific individual), is a nasty and racist practice -- whoever indulges in this.

I am definitely attributing the vilest of motives to Sudarshan for having asked "Muslims" to recognise Krishna as one of the prophets of Islam. Don't you? Why not?

You went on to ask, "And why should muslims be provoked..."

If Sudrashan was a smart man he would not have addressed such a poser to a community. If he was clever, he would not have ended up looking like an idiot with egg on his face!

You went on, "If I work harder I could produce the original link where Sudarshan himself says Rama and Krishna are like prophets."

Please get back AFTER you have succeeded in this search. Then give the link so that I can check up on the context and veracity, and respond accordingly.

But the question is NOT whether or not Sudarshan said that "Rama and Krishna are like prophets". Your original claim was that Sudarshan had said that "Rama and Krishna are like prophets of Islam and Christianity" -- and that because of this, you do not support the RSS. Now, it is you with egg on your face!

Anand

It is now clear (from the article in the link you gave) that Sudarshan did NOT say this. The RSS sarsangchalak was merely taunting Islam by "asking Muslims" to recognize the divine icons of  Hindus as the "prophets of Islam". Something that this xenophobe thought would provoke Muslims.

(There is a problem which prevents me from posting in regular font. Everything is coming in bold.)

On what basis do you say he was taunting them (again attributing motives)? And why should muslims be provoked by it when their claim is that there were other prophets before and Mohammad was the last one ? Essentially he is stating only the Islamic position and he wants a formal recognition from Mullahs and Scholars . Many of my muslims friends also recognise that Rama and Krishna are Prophets. Infact this belief is widespread amongst moderate muslims. He wants formal recognition.


Plus by asking for it he has certainly equated hindu Avatars and semetic prophets. If I work harder I could produce the original link where Sudarshan himself says Rama and Krishna are like prophets. But by deductive logic it is obvious when you ask others for membership in their club you are equating one and all.


That his request (termed by Nair as taunt) was rejected proves that at least the fundoos dont take it kindly and they go against their own tradition which holds several thousand prophets have come before and Mohammad is the last one.