From: fafat@aludra.usc.edu (Vijay Fafat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Do we need a religion?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:35:59 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Virendra Verma writes:
>	Belief is what is heard and constitute a starting point for an inquiry.
>	For example, the sum of angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.
>
>	Understanding the truth is arguing about the belief, proving through
>	other known facts and beliefs. Here a proof constitutes that does
>	It is still the belief. For example, one can go about proving that
>	the sum of angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. It is still a
>	belief.

		Now one sec. If you are going to say something about either
		Science or Maths, I would either expect you to check your
		facts or if you are truly mistaken, to look them up. You
		CANNOT prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle is
		180 deg. That's an axiom (or maybe replaced by an equivalent
		one)

>
>	Realization is experiencing the truth for oneself. For example,
>	I can actually measure the sum of all three angles of a number of 
>	triangles and see for myself that the sum of angles is indeed 
>	180 degrees.

		NO! What you are indulging in is a vicious circle. The
		calibration of your protractor is based on the assumption 
		that there are 2 rightangles in a straight line. So you
		really cannot prove it. Infact, it's not necessary to do that.
		Change that axiom and you get a completely different
		Geometry which is equally "true".


>	In religion, belief through scriptures and intuition are well known
>	as the first stage. Most religious people stop at that and do not go
>	beyond 'turtle' to identify dogma from truth. Understanding requires
>	to question the scriptures and throw the trash that is not logical
>	to the mind. 

		One sec. Whether the mind finds it "logical" is irrelevant.
		Logic is shaped by experiences which are necessarily
		restricted to the domain over which your physical senses
		are active. If something goes against your logic but agrees
		with experiments, then the logic has to be modified. So the
		trashing process has to be done thru experiments and not
		thru cerebration alone.



>	The aspirant talks and argues about truth of scriptures
>	and refines his/her understanding of meta-physical truth. 

		Pray, define your terminology. I'm cowmpletely ignorant
		about things like "metaphysical truth". What's the basis
		for such a belief?


>	It is only
>	through the practice of Yoga that the aspirant relaizes the truth
>	of scriptures for himself. He has to raise his consciousness to
>	a supramental level where he can see the truth of scriptures.
>	Meditation of the Yoga is that state of mind where the aspirant
>	enjoys the true knowledge.

		What's the basis for such a claim? What's "true knowledge"?
		And what if I cownter your argument by saying, " You have
		to raise your conscious to a super-supramental level to see
		the falsehood of scriptures" ? You make an unsupported 
		statement, I make an unsupported statement.


>>	depends again on what you mean by "rational". You've never answered
>>	my question about that turtle. Is the turtle idea rational? 
>
>	Yes turtle idea is not rational according to what I know through
>	my own arguments. A belief that cannot stand logical and rational
>	argument is indeed a dogma.

		I'll not talk about what dogma really is. What I'll ask is,
		why do you say the turtle idea is illogical and irrational
		whereas the scripture idea about eclipse-courtesy-demons
		is? Or do you want to tell me that that's just good imagery?


>	But, sometimes it is important to know why such dogmatic practices
>	came into being. There might be a wonderful idea behind all these
>	dogmas. Closing the mind from dogma is not scientific either. 

		Sure. But you don't go around looking at what every Tom
		and Dick says just because it might have some insightful
		gem. 

>	Cultures
>	and religions have long history and it is equally important to 
>	capture the temporal mentality which goes behind in building these
>	dogmatic practices.

		True. But do you expect a civilization capable of aircraft
		not to have electricity? temporal etc not withstanding, one
		would atleast expect automobiles. Or were the horses a part
		of elaborate imagery, too?? 

		FFT




Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian