From: Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [india-unity] Vijaya Dasami musings
You are right Bhasker. I cannot disprove the existence of God and you cannot prove the existence of god. So the most logical/scientific answer to the question whether there is a god or not is a resounding "I do not know" This attitude of "I do not know" in matters reg the supernatural is called agnosticism. So there is no point in debating on something about which we do not know. Theoretically I am an agnostic and as an agnostic I see two possibilities 1. There is a god 2.There is no god. If there is no god our debate ends there. However there is considerable scope for carrying on our debate if there is a god.
So let us assume there is a god and get on with our discourse. The most basic thing when carrying out a discourse such as ours is to define the words we use. So if our debate is to be meaningful we have to agree upon a common definition for the word god. This is where there-is-a-god theory crumbles in that we cannot identify the true god if it exists at all.
There are hundreds of thousands of definitions of god world-wide and most if not all of them are at odds with each other or contradict each other. Obviously all the gods of all the religions cannot be the true god. Only one of them can be or none of them can be. If none of them can be the true god then agnosticism boils down to atheism.
If one of the hundreds of thousands of god/s is true then how do we identify that one true god? T
All religions are variance as to the attributes of the gods and goddesses they promote. The Hindus have Devas as the gods and Assuras are enemies of the gods. On the other hand things are the other way round for the Zoroastrians who worship the Assura as the god and the Devaas as the arch-enemies of the gods. Christians believe Jesus is god incarnated whereas Muslims deny this though they accept Jesus as a prophet. Jews though they proclaim that there will be messiah, they do not agree that Jesus is the last prophet whereas the Muslims claim that Mohammad is the last prophet.
If that were not enough the same religions disagree as to the nature of their god. Thus Christians boast they worship the same god. However there are some 40000 sects of Christianity and each of these sects define their god in slightly different ways. Thus Catholics say that their god appointed the Pope as god's representative on earth. But the other sects do not accept it and say that god has not appointed the pope as his rep. Lutherans and Catholics say that the bread and wine converts into the real body and blood of Christ the god. But most other denominations deny this aspect of the Christian god. As stated above most Muslims claim that Mohammad is the last prophet. However there are some Muslim sects that believe that in addition to Mohammad there was Ali and a long line of Mahdis who are also prophets appointed by the one true god.
Obviously it is pandemonium out there as regards the gods of the different religions as well as the different sects of the same religions.
So even if there is a god it is impossible to say which religion or sect promotes the one true god. So even if there is a god, for all practical purposes there is no god as we cannot come to a common agreement as to who he is and/or what his attributes are. So logically speaking atheism is the only option open to a rational man even if he wants to believe in a god like I do.
See there is your logical fallacy. Xavier, God is divine, your logic is manmade, his is divine, by definition, it is not possible to prove existence of God on the basis of manmade laws of mathematics. Then again, it is also impossible to prove the non existence of God.
That's where your arguments fall down, mate. Best of luck in trying to provide the impossibility of God, lol
--------------------------
Bhaskar Dasgupta
http://dailysalty.blogspot.com/ (for shorter daily comments)
http://piquancy.blogspot.com/ (for longer weekly essays)
http://expresscharity.blogspot.com/ (charity talk)
http://piquantphotos.blogspot.com/ (photo essays)
http://sepiaset.blogspot.com/ (group photos)
---------------------------
On 17 October 2010 11:07, Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com> wrote:
It is for you to provide evidence in favor of your superstitious propositions such as rebirths and divine vendetta. The way of reason is to disbelieve rather to believe. Even if there is speck of irrationale in your arguments/propositions it is liable to be rejected even if the rest of your arguments/propositions are viable.
So start giving evidence of rebirths, divine vendetta etc - yes solid evidence which can be measured in kg, meters, acres, tons or in terms of symbolic logic such as 3x4=8 All that cannot be measured is mere speculation
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Bhaskar Dasgupta <bdasgupta@gmail.com> wrote:So lets see, you have no idea about the guilt or not of actual people who died so your assertion is not logical. Your assumption about babies also falls apart on the basis of the concept of rebirth where sins and good deeds are carried on.
On what basis you do assume that that the temple destruction was not part of the overall divine plan? And how are you assuming that you have full knowledge of the divine plan?
Try to split up your logical argument between causes, motivation, symptoms, results. Or if you will, explanatory variables, dependent variables, independent variables & coefficients. You are mixing up the whole lot which means your assumptions are unsupported.
--------------------------
Bhaskar Dasgupta
http://dailysalty.blogspot.com/ (for shorter daily comments)
http://piquancy.blogspot.com/ (for longer weekly essays)
http://expresscharity.blogspot.com/ (charity talk)
http://piquantphotos.blogspot.com/ (photo essays)
http://sepiaset.blogspot.com/ (group photos)
---------------------------
On 17 October 2010 08:17, Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com> wrote:
Even babies die in stampedes on pilgrimages. What is more temples, churches, mosques etc are destroyed by forces of nature. How is that the so called omnipotent gods/goddesses cannot protect their own homes let alone their devotees.
Finding faults/sins of devotees as causes for such tragedies is sheer naivete. Sometime back two girls were drwoned in Kerala in a car which was being taken to the church for blessings. Every year so many including innocent babies die in accidents on pilgrimages.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Bhaskar Dasgupta <bdasgupta@gmail.com> wrote:Your rationality has a bit of a hole in there, ol chapWhen you ask why didn't the goddess protect the 4 who got trampled, you assumed that the 4 were innocent and the goddess was unable or unwilling to protect them? On what basis do you make that assumption?
---------Sent via iPhone. Apologies for formatting and typo errorsToday is Vijaya Dasami celebrating the vicotory of good over evil. But the men and women representingf good and evil on the occasion are confusing.
In Bengal Kali represents the good and Mahishasuran the evil one. But if I am right Kali is a primordial goddess whereas Mahshasuran is by his very name an Asura who is of Indo Aryan origin. The Devas and the Asuras were probably cousins who lived beyond the Hindukush. They fell out with each other and a war ensued as is common. We really do not know who won out the violent struggele. But according to the Hindu myths Devas were the good people and the Assuras were the evil ones. But according the Persian/Zoroastrian traditions things are the other way round - the Devaas are evil and the Assuras (Ahuras in Zoroastrianism) are the good. Obviously good and evil are a question of your bloodline. Whatever our ancestors did was good and whatever their enemies did was wrong though these enemy-ancestors were cousins of our own ancestors.
Anyway the story of Kali and Mahishasura do not gel in with conclusions drawn from Indo-Persian myths.
Tail end of this story: Some four have died in a stamped in a temple in Calcutta during today's celebraions. How can a goddess who cannot protect her own devotees in her own temple protect them outside in the wide wide world. Not withstanding fools go on worshipping gods and goddesses everywhere while boasting they are rational Homo Sapiens.
Vijayadasami has another version of good triumphing over evil in Ram triumphing over Ravan. People say that Ramayan depicts the vicory of the Aryans over the Dravidans and as such it represents the victory of the Aryans over the Dravidian low castes of South India and the resulting hegemony and the caste system. As for the victory of good (Ram) over evil (Ravan) I do nnot see how that can be.
Below is an extract from my book "Sacred Lies" on how this story of good (Ram) and evil (Ravan) is just rhetoric and propaganda:-
The Ramayan centers on Ram, one of over twenty incarnations of Vishnu. As in many such mythologies, Hinduism boasts that Vishnu incarnated as Ram when wickedness in the world got out of hand. Ram was the eldest son of Dasarath, the King of Ayodhya who had three wives. One of the younger wives had once saved the King's life, and in return the king had promised her that he would fulfill her one wish, whenever required, however difficult the wish be to grant.
Life goes on; Dasarath grows old and decides to coronate Ram, born of his first wife, and the rightful heir to the throne. Came coronation day and the younger wife springs a surprise; she reminds the king of his promise and demands that the king banish Ram to the forests and that he crown her own son, Bharath, instead. Ram rises to the occasion like an ideal and dutiful son, and offers to go into the forest. Ram's wife Sita and his half-brother Laxman accompany Ram into the forest. There, a woman, named Surpanaka, makes amorous advances to Laxman. Laxman has no heats for her, is angered by her persistence, and wrathfully chops off her nose and breasts. It so happens that Surpanaka is the sister of a mighty king, named Ravan. Ravan is forced to retaliate and to defend his honor and reputation. Ravan abducts Sita when no one is around, and carries her off to his island kingdom of Lanka in the south. Ram decides to rescue his wife and gathers an army to attack Lanka. The story of The Ramayan is this rescue mission by Ram.
We see Ram as an astute tactician, taking undue advantage of a conflict between two brothers, Bali and Sugriv, of the royal family of a simian kingdom. Ram steps in and aggravates the conflict, plots with Sugriv and draws Bali into a duel with Sugriv, and coolly shoots the unsuspecting Bali in the back. Sugriv becomes Ram's staunch ally and deputes his lieutenant, Hanuman, to help Ram. Later on, Hanuman plays a prominent and critical role in Sita's rescue mission.
Once on the island of Lanka, Ram takes advantage of another sibling rivalry between Ravan and his brother Vibheekshan, plots with Vibheekshan and destroys Ravan after a long drawn out war and rescues Sita. Before long Ram begins harassing Sita with allegations of infidelity, though after siring twins. Sita swears by the fire that she is as chaste as the snows of the Himalayas and volunteers to walk through fire to prove her chastity. Ram gives his nod and Sita walks through ten or a hundred meters of roaring fire. She emerges unscathed from the fire. Even this trial by fire fails to allay Ram's unfounded suspicions, which amount to little more than "delusions of infidelity," as psychiatrists call it now. Ram banishes the pregnant Sita into the forest, where she gives birth to the twins, Lav and Kush.
Ram is said to have taken on human form to banish evil. Nevertheless, on analysis of The Ramayan, we see that all Ram does is serve his own interests. First Bali is shot in the back, then Lanka is burnt down, and in the war countless deaths occur on both sides - all these immense sacrifices for rescuing a single person, Sita. She too is then banished to the mercy of the wild animals of the forests, with her unborn twins. We have to ask a question here: if he were really Vishnu, what difference did it make to the Lord of all things whether the unborn twins were his or not? He should have protected them even if they were Ravan's.
The whole conflict of The Ramayan is sparked off by Laxman's dastardly act of cutting off Surpanaka's nose and breasts. (And Laxman is worshipped as the embodiment of chivalry, loyalty and bravery!). Ram should have chastised Laxman and made amends, if he had an iota of justice in him.
The British are decried by Indians for turning Muslims and Hindus against each other for gaining political mileage and power in India. However, the dastardly acts of the British pale before the callous opportunism of Ram in exploiting the conflict between the brothers Bali and Sugriv as well as between Ravan and Vibheekshan. In addition, the banishment of his faithful wife for alleged infidelity is a reprehensible thing to do when, if there were any infidelity at all, it was in part due to Ram's failure in guarding her. And Ram is an honorable man, considered to be the epitome of justice and virtues, as is his essence, Vishnu. And so are they all honorable men and women, the gods and goddesses of all pantheons.
Comparing Ram and Ravan might be an excellent exercise for the Adult in us. Ravan was a mighty king, with a mighty army. His sister's top-front assets had been chopped off, by a refugee. What would you have done in Ravan's shoes? Surely, any ruler in Ravan's place would have sent a commando force to do away with the refugee trio. Even better a thing would have been to chop off Sita's Bs & N as Laxman had done to Surpanaka. But Ravan was a king and a gentleman. Therefore, he takes his royal aircraft and flies into the forest and carries away Sita, without touching a hair of hers. If the widely respected TV serial of Ramanand Sagar can be believed, Sita is then put up comfortably under a sprawling tree, near a swimming pool, and in idyllic and trim condition. Ravan also makes sure she gets a fresh supply of chaste-white saris every day, and blouses to match the saris. Sagar also shows Ravan making advances to Sita. But every time an invisible force foils his advances. But, that seems improbable. If there were such a force, it could have defended Sita in the forest itself at the point of her abduction, unless that force did not have the technology to cross the seas to India. If that were so, Ravan could well have raped Sita in the forest itself, or in the plane in which he abducted her. Instead Ravan treats Sita much better than Ram ever treated Sita.
As described above, Sugriv had deputed his lieutenant Hanuman to help Ram and Hanuman plays the most crucial role in the Lankan war. Hanuman was the son of the sky-god. He was powerful, he could fly through the air and could take on any form big or small. It was he that burnt down Lanka almost single-handedly. In the war, Laxman was critically wounded and the doctors prescribe a herb that could be found only on a mountain in the Himalayan ranges. Hanuman is dispatched to fetch the herb and in one leap north, he reaches the Himalayas. However, since he was not able to identify the herb, Hanuman uproots the whole mountain and carries it over to Lanka for the doctor to identify the herb. The Ramayan depicts this same Hanuman appearing several times to Sita in her captivity. If Hanuman would carry a mountain, what prevented him from carrying away the prison in which Sita was incarcerated? Hanuman could also have carried Ravan along with his palace and handed him over to Ram, to do with as he pleased. In such a scenario the whole Lankan war was a waste of time, energy and lives. The holy Ram seem to have had no compunctions whatsoever in the matter and goes about massacring the innocent Lankans, caught in the crossfire.
Coming to the Lankan war itself, there are too many questions left unanswered. Ravan had a state-of-the-art army with combat aircraft, possibly bombers, as attested by The Ramayan itself, whereas Ram had only a rag-tag army of monkeys and squirrels. Ravan also had Sita as a hostage for bargaining. The odds were stacked heavily in Ravan's favor and yet he was defeated. If it were a normal defeat in battle, Ravan could have finished off Sita. So we have to deduce that Ravan was not defeated in a normal war; it was probably treachery and an inside job that did Ravan in. After all, Ram was a past master at treachery, as evidenced by his machinations in the simian kingdom. In all probability, Ram had got Vibheekshan, Ravan's brother, on his side, then took Ravan by surprise and did away with him before Ravan had time to kill Sita. If it were not for Ram's treachery Ravan could have won the war with his hands tied and we would have had The Ravayan instead of The Ramayan, and Ravan would have been worshipped as a divine incarnation in the place of Ram, because they are the winners who always make history, epics and myths. Ethics and morals have little to do with it.
Ramraj or Ravanraj
Hindu fundamentalists have been clamoring for Ramraj or Ram's Reign in India. The Ramayan does not describe how well Ram ruled after he became king. Nevertheless, if he can be judged by his actions, we can assume that in Ramraj, you can expect brother to turn against brother with the blessings of the monarch. Women will have to walk through fire, and yet be turned out, whether they are innocent or not. Rape victims will get no justice whatsoever. If The Ramayan is to be believed Ravanraj would have been much better than Ramraj, for the Ramayan itself attests that Lanka was a prosperous and powerful kingdom under Ravan.
--
Xavier William |
--
Xavier William |
--
Xavier William |
__._,_.___
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment