META chai party: Religion in soapland - Page 3

Ganapati and Maharashtra go a long way back, don't they? I think it was the State festival during the reign of Shivaji, upto the fall of the Peshwas. But that was a dominant Hindu state, so I'm willing to overlook that. I really don't know what Lokmanya Tilak was thinking when he revived the public aspect of the festival. Building nationalistic feelings is all very well, but didn't he, for a minute, think about the communal fervour being whipped up? Or was that a necessary evil for the 'greater good', i.e., Independence? (I disagree, but who is asking me?) Was this the only way of building grassroots unity? Now this is my whole problem with the Hindutva movement in general - agreed that we have a rich tradition of mythology that a large majority is familiar with (I've heard India being described as bound by a narrative contract as opposed to the more familiar social contract), but why should we always face the past? Some of the core values being advocated have become obsolete. Shouldn't we be looking at what applies and what doesn't and make an informed choice? Instead, we have behavioural and attitudinal norms being shoved down our throats at regular intervals and we're depraved if we choke or gag.

I am completely opposed to organized religion for this very reason; it is not about faith or a personal equation with the supernatural, but rather a complex power structure that will not let people think or live with dignity. I think it is high time now that religion was taken away from the sphere of the public and instead shifted to the (intensely) private (not the family, but the individual), where it belongs.

Re the atmosphere of faith during any mass/public celebration of religion - The word 'mass' is starting to scare me these days. The sort of mindlessness we associate with it, as though people were a great herd of sheep to be manipulated at will... Sigh. I know you'll disagree with me, but in the same case of Hyderabad, what I see is not piety, but hooligans who demand my compliance with their thought, no sorry, behaviour. The teenager who skips school to dance to Sheila ki Jawaani while Ganesh is being towed to the lake, the goonda who's bullied people into contributing to the chanda, the idiots who get into a fight over 'whose Ganesh is bigger' (Men!), absolute asses who try to force me to join in by throwing gulaal at me - these are the people I see, and I'm sorry, but that is NOT faith.

Despite my long essay above, I'm not particularly against any displays of faith. When true thinkers/believers get together and pray/talk/sing/dance, there is an emotionally-charged atmosphere that can be very psychologically gratifying. Not disputing that. But, there has to be free will involved in the formation of such a group in the first place, and then the group must respect the boundaries that common courtesy places on it. Then, and only then, are expressions of personal belief palatable. Think of it as the difference between propaganda and impartial observation.

@ B whose Ganesha is bigger. He he. Tht's one explanation for phallic manifestations of divine form. Why make it metaphorical when you can go literal? I see you tall spire and raise you one humongous--

FQ & Nietzsche

Very illuminating conversation!

1. Religion as a mobilising force - Not very effective though, is it? If the larger objective is something different, why not educate people about the advantages of said objective and then allow them to choose if they wish to fight for it? Would focus on religion not take away from the importance of what is actually to be achieved? Just wondering, esp in light of faltering democratization in the Middle East.

2. There is no absolute truth/philosophy. People will adopt what they wish to, and they have the right to do so. However, there is no disputing the fact that certain attitudes are undesirable and have no place in a modern world. Education and reason are the way forward in dealing with these, in my opinion. Coercion will almost always backfire. Ref again the statement I'd read about change - 'You change for one of the two reasons: you learned enough to want to or you've been hurt enough to have to.'

3. Strongly agree with FQ's point about intellectual exploitation of the masses.

4. Is it possible to truly purge religion from the public sphere? I believe what Durkheim says - religion is the most fundamental social institution out of which evolved the other institutions. It might not be feasible to separate that is so intrinsically related to society and shift it to the domain of solitude. What a pity! I would give anything to make religion an individual pursuit. Sigh

The essential conflict here is that we now want problems of human life that were initially governed by religion to be governed instead by modern ideals like equality, liberty et al. When seeking an intellectual/attitudinal shift, education is the way to go, in my opinion. Maybe we should examine the benefits of religion and see how those can still be accrued while eliminating the unsavoury bits.

5. Reg Ambedkar - I think Buddhism is probably the only major religion he could've chosen to follow without completely betraying his pragmatist ideals, given that the concept of 'four noble truths' is more important that a personal god. Even Dewey accepted that religious institutions have an important role to play in society, after all. Don't know if the rejection of static belief is present in Buddhism. My knowledge of religion and philosophy is very meagre, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by: Foucaults-qalam

@ B whose Ganesha is bigger. He he. Tht's one explanation for phallic manifestations of divine form. Why make it metaphorical when you can go literal? I see you tall spire and raise you one humongous--

Indeed. I wonder why men are so insecure, btw. Why are size and power interlinked? Does this have a biological basis or is this purely socio-psychological?

Originally posted by: bhoomi.s

Indeed. I wonder why men are so insecure, btw. Why are size and power interlinked? Does this have a biological basis or is this purely socio-psychological?

Originally posted by: bhoomi.s

FQ & Nietzsche

Very illuminating conversation!

1. Religion as a mobilising force - Not very effective though, is it? If the larger objective is something different, why not educate people about the advantages of said objective and then allow them to choose if they wish to fight for it? Would focus on religion not take away from the importance of what is actually to be achieved? Just wondering, esp in light of faltering democratization in the Middle East.

2. There is no absolute truth/philosophy. People will adopt what they wish to, and they have the right to do so. However, there is no disputing the fact that certain attitudes are undesirable and have no place in a modern world. Education and reason are the way forward in dealing with these, in my opinion. Coercion will almost always backfire. Ref again the statement I'd read about change - 'You change for one of the two reasons: you learned enough to want to or you've been hurt enough to have to.'

3. Strongly agree with FQ's point about intellectual exploitation of the masses.

4. Is it possible to truly purge religion from the public sphere? I believe what Durkheim says - religion is the most fundamental social institution out of which evolved the other institutions. It might not be feasible to separate that is so intrinsically related to society and shift it to the domain of solitude. What a pity! I would give anything to make religion an individual pursuit. Sigh

The essential conflict here is that we now want problems of human life that were initially governed by religion to be governed instead by modern ideals like equality, liberty et al. When seeking an intellectual/attitudinal shift, education is the way to go, in my opinion. Maybe we should examine the benefits of religion and see how those can still be accrued while eliminating the unsavoury bits.

5. Reg Ambedkar - I think Buddhism is probably the only major religion he could've chosen to follow without completely betraying his pragmatist ideals, given that the concept of 'four noble truths' is more important that a personal god. Even Dewey accepted that religious institutions have an important role to play in society, after all. Don't know if the rejection of static belief is present in Buddhism. My knowledge of religion and philosophy is very meagre, I'm afraid.