I came to discuss this in one of my peer groups in an email thread, and I thought it would be more useful to post it on my blog.
Of course, religion is an important part of any culture. I concur. As with any aspect of human life, every religion has its own huge or minor peccadillos. And from the mere existence of multiple forms of cultures and religions in the world itself, we can logically infer that no culture or religion is inherently better than or superior to another - the same argument again - better is logically meaningless. Religion is part of a culture, but culture by itself is mostly defined by the symbolism followed by its people. Culture helps shed ignorance among people and helps them get onto to "higher and better things".
Vivekananda explains this concept using an example of a sage demonstrating it to a him. Link here:
"Many years ago, I visited a great sage of our own country, a very holy man. We talked of our revealed book, the Vedas, of your Bible, of the Koran, and of revealed books in general. At the close of our talk, this good man asked me to go to the table and take up a book; it was a book which, among other things, contained a forecast of the rainfall during the year. The sage said, "Read that." And I read out the quantity of rain that was to fall. He said, "Now take the book and squeeze it." I did so and he said, "Why, my boy, not a drop of water comes out. Until the water comes out, it is all book, book. So until your religion makes you realise God, it is useless. He who only studies books for religion reminds one of the fable of the ass which carried a heavy load of sugar on its back, but did not know the sweetness of it."
So, my point is this: until your culture/religion makes you realize God, it's useless. After you realize God, it's then also useless. Its only use is when it's put to its intended use. That is what I mean when I say religion is useless. For example, take the bindi on a married woman's forehead. It's intended use is to symbolize the sacred connection between husband and wife. For people who don't know its intention, it's an important aspect of mockery and comedy in other countries. "The dot", they call it. "It's a camera!" "Scratch it, you might win something" are their ways of making fun of it. And most young women in this generation no longer see its intended purpose, and thus they don't wear it anymore.
And coming to the discussion of the European origins of Hinduism and the Indic languages, it's very useful to notice the roots of our languages: Sanskrit, Hindi, Telugu, etc - they are categorized in the Indo-Iranian branch of the tree of the Indo-European languages (tree image here). Linguists have believed for over a century that all the Indo-European languages originate from one common language that they call the Proto-Indo-European language (link here). This supports the Aryan migration theory.
Of course, religion is an important part of any culture. I concur. As with any aspect of human life, every religion has its own huge or minor peccadillos. And from the mere existence of multiple forms of cultures and religions in the world itself, we can logically infer that no culture or religion is inherently better than or superior to another - the same argument again - better is logically meaningless. Religion is part of a culture, but culture by itself is mostly defined by the symbolism followed by its people. Culture helps shed ignorance among people and helps them get onto to "higher and better things".
Vivekananda explains this concept using an example of a sage demonstrating it to a him. Link here:
"Many years ago, I visited a great sage of our own country, a very holy man. We talked of our revealed book, the Vedas, of your Bible, of the Koran, and of revealed books in general. At the close of our talk, this good man asked me to go to the table and take up a book; it was a book which, among other things, contained a forecast of the rainfall during the year. The sage said, "Read that." And I read out the quantity of rain that was to fall. He said, "Now take the book and squeeze it." I did so and he said, "Why, my boy, not a drop of water comes out. Until the water comes out, it is all book, book. So until your religion makes you realise God, it is useless. He who only studies books for religion reminds one of the fable of the ass which carried a heavy load of sugar on its back, but did not know the sweetness of it."
So, my point is this: until your culture/religion makes you realize God, it's useless. After you realize God, it's then also useless. Its only use is when it's put to its intended use. That is what I mean when I say religion is useless. For example, take the bindi on a married woman's forehead. It's intended use is to symbolize the sacred connection between husband and wife. For people who don't know its intention, it's an important aspect of mockery and comedy in other countries. "The dot", they call it. "It's a camera!" "Scratch it, you might win something" are their ways of making fun of it. And most young women in this generation no longer see its intended purpose, and thus they don't wear it anymore.
And coming to the discussion of the European origins of Hinduism and the Indic languages, it's very useful to notice the roots of our languages: Sanskrit, Hindi, Telugu, etc - they are categorized in the Indo-Iranian branch of the tree of the Indo-European languages (tree image here). Linguists have believed for over a century that all the Indo-European languages originate from one common language that they call the Proto-Indo-European language (link here). This supports the Aryan migration theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment