Polytheism is The way.

Many people may draw parallels with other political ideologies (1 and 2) and Hinduism when they read the Gita. Perhaps verses as these may fill them with glee that theirs is the right way of worship.

Chapter 7
७
मत्तः परताराम नान्यत
किन्सिद अस्ति धनञ्जय
मई सर्वं इदम प्रोतं
सूत्र मणि-गाना इव।

"O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread."

But then, there is this:

२०
कमैस तीस तैर हरता-ज्नानाह
प्रपद्यन्ते ’नया-देवातः
तम तम नियमम अस्थाया
प्रकृत्या नियतः स्वया।

"Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures."

२१
यो यो यम् यम् तनम भक्तः
श्रद्धायार्सितुम इच्चाती
तस्य तस्याकालम श्रद्धाम
तम एव विदाधामी अहम्।

"I am in everyone’s heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigod, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity."

२२
सा तय श्रद्धया युक्तास
तस्याराधानाम इते
लभते का ततः कमान
मयेवा विहितन ही तन।

"Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone."

Thus, while worship onto Shri Krishna/Vishnu is to be the ideal case, the Gita mentions that worship of the demigods is also allowable.

What is wrong if we are polytheistic? In fact, I would say polytheism is the right way. Now consider an atheist person. He has no God to worship. So, he would look onto humans who have lived within recorded history as his heroes. Now does he regard only one human as a hero, and disregards all of them? Quite unlikely, because most people have a pantheon of heroes they derive their inspiration from. This is because we never see all the qualities we desire imbibed in the True human.

Replace heroic humans as Gods (deities to be specific) and we get polytheism. So what is wrong with polytheism? Why is it absurd?

In fact, I find Monotheism absurd to think of. That there is one God, and only one name. Doesn't it smack of dictatorship and autocracy? Humans would never submit to one king, one prime minister or whatever. So, why should he submit to one God? Have monotheists ever thought of, that since they ascribe to God the attributes of ultimate power, what would happen if God, like man would get corrupt? What if absolute power corrupts God absolutely? Don't they smell anything fishy in this construct?

It is thus only feasible that a polytheist/henotheist approach be taken and dictatorship of any kind, even of God should be abhorred.

Epilogue: A post intended to act as a suggestion to pagans to counter the brain washing of the missionaries. Hope you agree.

Idol Worship? Nothing better to fight against??

I don't know why time after time, centuries after centuries and even right now, people have problem with idol worship. Many of us are appalled by the death and destruction that the word God has caused and might even consider ourselves agnostics/atheists, but there are many still (including yours truly) that hold Him in higher esteem than any other human. For our sake, we say this:

Chapter 12:
२

श्री-भगवान उवाचा
मयी अवेस्य मनो ये मम
नित्य-युक्ता उपासते
श्रद्धया परयोपेतास
ते में युक्ततमा मतः।

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect."

३-४

ये टीवी अक्षरम अनिर्देस्यम
अव्यक्तं पर्युपासते
सर्वत्र-गम असिन्त्यम का
कुता-स्थं अकालम ध्रुवं।

संनियाम्येंद्रिया-ग्रामं
सर्वत्र समां-बुद्धयः
ते प्राप्नुवन्ति मम एव
सर्व-भूत-हिते रतः।

"But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable—the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth—by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me."

If not at a human form of God, what is the common layman assumed to imagine, when he worships of God? An idol is precisely that, a medium that a common man can use to imagine God. I have never undergone this experience, but those who do, may drop a few lines. I would like to explore the philosophy of the 'others' who hate idolaters.

But at the same time, the beauty of Ancient Hindu philosophy is that it allows another side of the spectrum that supports worship of the unmanifested as well. OTOH, consider what St. Francis Xavier, in whose school I might have ended up studying if I were richer has to say about us idolaters:

"When I have finished baptising the people, I order them to destroy the huts in which they keep their idols; and I have them break the statues of their idols into tiny pieces, since they are now Christians. I could never come to an end describing to you the great consolation which fills my soul when I see idols being destroyed by the hands of those who had been idolaters."(from The Letters and Instructions of Francis Xavier, 1993, pp 117).

(reference link)

People have continued denigrating humanity in the 21st century by getting itchy over all art forms and having problems with any form of humans in art.

It would be interesting to understand the working of the human mind, when two sections of the society can have such different schools of thought. What can be the reason for exclusivist thinking of more than half of humanity? Why has human philosophy reached such a nadir after levitating to such heights under Indian philosophy?

We need to get our act together and get over our petty feuds and be ready for greater challenges in this world, such as greenhouse effect, avoiding a nuclear fallout, combating diseases and so on. The lessons of Gita are for all humans, irrespective of size, color, nationality, etc.

Proselytisation-2

Well, it's veterans day over here today, and got time to crack some knuckles and begin typing a post, which might take me a few days to complete.

In reply to my last post, one of the blogs co-contributors wrote on October 21, 5:48 a.m.

"So whats the underlying problem?
Where does this proselytisation ultimately lead us to?
Why should we be wary of it?
Is there any loss to the country, or to the humanity or the world as a whole because of proselytism?"

You have not dwelt on these questions. Please consider them as well."

Time to type something out on them.

Q 1. So what's the underlying problem?
Ans. 1. I assume that he is talking about proselytism over here. The idea thrives on two things. Local insecurity of the people targeted, and the ideology of the proselytizer.

It is common knowledge that pangs of hunger, poverty, and disease are too hard to digest for the common man. It is indeed against the morals of the land to abandon the religion and switch onto another. No culture would support that directly. But when in today's morally bereft world, when the rich do not show any inclination to obey the cultural norms and continue their rather rash quest of material advantage and power, and that without facing any physical limitations on their existence, do we really expect the poor and needy to abide by the rules, when there's is a matter of life and death?

Countries and populations cannot survive on just talks on dharma and air. Those times are long gone. Thus, socio-economic welfare for the entire populace, along with physical and mental security should be the key motive of the state. By physical security, I mean security against terrorists and rioting bigots, and by mental security I mean their protection against propaganda spread by foreign agents inside the motherland.

This is where the last post comes relevant. When there is resentment in the society, class conflict gets inevitable. But should this conflict have players other than the local populace affected? Should there directly be any external benefactors of this class conflict? You decide.

Q2. Where does proselytisation lead us to?
Ans. 2 The ultimate goal of proselytisation driven by either religion/personal initiative is deprivation of individual intellectuality. It will give rise to transnational organisations that will be run from a central power center. There will be nations, but the soul of the nations, the independence of the people's mind will be lost.

Well, what after the world has converted to the one true faith, the one honored by God? Shouldn't a boundary-less world be the ultimate goal of humanity?

Yes, but the necessary precondition to this that the individual is left independent to be what he wants to. Is there a guarantee over here that the religious elite seating at the power center of this true faith recognize the problems ailing the people of the other corner of the globe? Our experience is that empires of the state have not been able to do so, which could be the reason behind freedom struggles of the people, and their ultimate victory. And empires of the mind/religion can only do so by making people zombies to their order, incognizant of their individuality, and doing stuff for the elite by misplaced zeal without knowing little of what they are doing. People would end up as willful slaves of the religion. While the elite will enjoy the spoils of this cultural war, the laymen would have the most dogmatic aspects of the religion thrust down their throats.


Q3. Why should we be wary of it?
Ans2. For this, it is necessary to look into the dogma of the religions that proselytise. The dogma that is frequently espoused by the clergy of these religions is that the way of worship of these 'religions' is the best, and the rest need to be saved/killed/etc.

Thus, there is no concern of the law of the land. Whatever way of life exists in one portion of the globe, if it is not palatable to the locals, who viewing the way of life of the outsiders find their ways better, there is always a way to reform the local customs and traditions and take the best of their ways. The abhorable indigenous practices can be removed, while the best can be retained. Common sense says that the ancients cannot be entirely right, in the same way, they cannot be entirely wrong.

This will not be acceptable to the proselytisers. Theirs is a method of either labeling the locals as 'unbelievers' and killing them outrightly, or as 'heathens' and the need to 'save' them. The locals are made to reject their native customs completely, assimilated into the proselytic faith either at gunpoint or allured through fake promises. If at all any attempt is made to legalise native customs, they would be mutated as if to be invented by the proselytisers.

Thus, the eventual aim of proselytism would be to expand the following of that particular faith, at the cost of others. There is no 'live and let live' philosophy. There is always an urge to convert, by both the moderate and the radical even under the slightest of excuses.

In this melee, the native cultures are lost forever. The native faith, which is almost always inclusive in nature, will welcome trojans intoxicated by proselytic faiths. In today's world, with nukes at large and countries spending alot on defense, it would be a massive pain to conquer people and nations by the gun. Instead, nations will get conquered by religion. And the newly converted, will be made to parrot the lines of the headquarters of the religion. Say hello to the new weapon of imperialism, religion.

Q4. Is there any loss to the country, or to the humanity or the world as a whole because of proselytism?
Ans 4. The biggest loss to proselytic faiths is the loss of individuality, the lack of criticism or introspection on the basic tenets of the faith that would allow a process of natural reform, doing which an individual could be ostracized from the community as a whole.

The only way out of this grip of proselytism is spreading awareness about the proselytising faith among the masses. Religion is not what it was in the bygone days. In those days, it could be considered as a set of ethics, which could help govern a society when the state wasn't so powerful.

Today, with less damaging wars to the state (who knows what happens tomorrow, but at least there are not frequent changes to country boundaries and we don't see many grand conquerors rising in today's world except for this last maniac) state rules should suffice to govern the society.

So, then what is the need of religion? Perhaps only to provide ideals of human character and what we should aspire to be. And then, if one religion has those ideals already, why do we need to switch to another? The only reason could be when people are deprived of basic needs or when they are fed false propaganda regarding a faith.

Thus, to fight this renewed scourge, socio-economic reforms of the people is a must. Next step would be to encourage people to read about the new faith and its history before accepting the new dogma. Even then if he wishes to convert, inspired by the new doctrine, he should be allowed to. Blindly mugging people of their local faith without spreading awareness in the lust to increase numbers and region of spread will only lead to greater turmoil.

(Disclaimer: The following are solely my thoughts, which are very very remote from being implemented as law in any place in the world, considering my political inclination, and also the professionin which I am currently embroiled. So the point is, do not lose any sleep on what you may read here, as I am somewhat radical in thoughts. Also, due to some constraints based on the fact that I am an Indian by origin, I will write from an Indian PoV and be a critic of the known proselytising faiths. I have tried to keep it as generic as possible. Again, there is no inspiration from the Gita for this, but in the interest of holding a discussion that started off from some Gita quotes.. am just trying to end what I started.)

Class Warfare and Proselytism - An Explosive Mix

(Taking a jab at what is already known to many.. just for the sake of penning my thoughts. Not naming any religion directly.. so hope no one has a hurt ego, 'coz my points are general in nature.)

So, let us get to the definition of class warfare as per the great learning site:

Class warfare:
"...Class conflict, also class war or class warfare, is both the friction that accompanies social relationships between members or groups of different social classes and the underlying tensions or antagonisms which exist in society due to conflicting interests that arise from different social positions. Class conflict is thought to play a pivotal role in history of class societies (such as capitalism and feudalism) by Marxists who refer to its overt manifestations as class war, a struggle that is viewed by them as a product of capitalism..."

and proselytism:

Proselytism:
".. Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion. The word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'πρός' (towards) and the verb 'έρχομαι' (I come). Incidentally, proselytism is prohibited in Greece, according to the constitution of Greece. Historically in the New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a person who had converted to Judaism. Though the word proselytism was originally tied to Christianity, it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of the word proselytism are often negative but this article will use the word neutrally to refer to any attempts to convert a person or people to another faith...."

Well, in simple class warfare within a people of the same religious domain, conflict resolution may be easy. That is assuming that both the 'proletariat' and the 'bourgeoisie' have the same cultural underpinnings.

But when another religion starts chipping into the 'proletariat', wanting them to denounce their former religion with false propaganda and try to ally them with the culture of the new religion, especially when the religion is an alien one, things get murkier. For now, the cultural common ground using which a conflict maybe resolved, is lost. The proselytes, aided by the foreign power grow more aggressive in their demands because they do not identify the 'bourgeoisie' as their own. And again, they have found a new entity batting for their interests. Any punishment of even rogue elements among the rebellious proletariat becomes 'persecution of the religion', the proselytes look to the homeland of the new religion for support, and seeing a chance at expanding its power, the foreign country seeks to establish a stronghold in this new land. What was a simple conflict now becomes a clash between two countries.

For those who think that missionaries are right in converting groups of underprivileged people, or even right in converting anybody at all, I have this from the Bhagwada Gita:

Always remember that key emphasis in the Bhagwada Gita is on "Moksha" from the cycles of life and death. Shree Krishna divides Nature into three parts, the good, the passionate and the ignorant. The good get liberated from the cycle of life and death, the passionate return to earth and the ignorant get a lower birth.

Classifying properties attributable to the good.
Ch. 16
१-३
श्री-भगवान उवाचा
अभयम सत्त्व-सम्सुद्धिर
जनाना-योग-व्यवस्थितिः
दानं दमास का यज्नस च
स्वध्ययास तप आर्जवं।

अहिंसा सत्यम अक्रोद्हस
त्यागः शंतिर अपैसुनाम
दया भुतेस्व अलोलुप्त्वं
मार्दवं हरीर अचापलं।

तेजः कसम ध्र्तिः शौचं
अद्रोहो नाती-मनीता
भवन्ति संपदं दैविम
अभिजातस्य भरता।

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Fearlessness; purification of one’s existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control; performance of sacrifice; study of the Vedas; austerity; simplicity; nonviolence; truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to faultfinding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigor; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honor—these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature."

Thus, if this is good, then my question to people is - what is the need of proselytism? Can't people just tend to be good and spiritual rather than invoking a new God at every available opportunity? We have already divided the landmass of the world into various countries, countries into states, states into districts, districts into talukas (From the Indian PoV - perhaps translatable into counties?) and so on. We have divided water bodies, resources, even air (In times of war, we do talk of this country's airspace and that country's airspace.) We have divided people, into classes, and now, even God among different religions. Such is the arrogance of the human race.

And for the demoniac:
४

दम्भो दर्पो ’भिमानस च
क्रोधः परुस्यम एव च
अज्नानाम काभिजतस्य
पर्थ संपदं असुरिम

"Pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and ignorance—these qualities belong to those of demoniac nature, O son of Pritha."

These are the attributes we see in the religion of the proselytizers.. "you believe in false Gods, you worship idols, you worship animals,.. forget that and look at our God".

As far as proselytism is carried out by force, it is certain that that will be opposed by a country's people. What may pull wool over their eyes is when people start converting by allurement.

So, as far as charities given by the foreign missionaries practicing proselytism is concerned:

Ch. 17

२०

दताव्यम इति यद् दानं
दीयते ’नुपकरिने
देस काले च पत्र च
ताड़ दानं सात्त्विकं स्म्र्तम।

"Charity given out of duty, without expectation of return, at the proper time and place, and to a worthy person is considered to be in the mode of goodness."

२१

यात तू प्रत्युपकारार्थं
फलं उद्दिस्य व पुनः
दीयते च परिक्लिस्तम
ताड़ दानं राजसं स्म्र्तम।

"But charity performed with the expectation of some return, or with a desire for fruitive results, or in a grudging mood, is said to be charity in the mode of passion."

२२

अदेसा-काले यद् दानं
अपत्रेभ्यास च दीयते
असत-कृतं अवज्नतम
तट तामसं उदाह्र्तम।

"And charity performed at an impure place, at an improper time, to unworthy persons, or without proper attention and respect is said to be in the mode of ignorance."

With this, I leave it upto you to decide what should be our attitude towards proselytism. As far as my opinion is concerned, people should be generally suspicious when some stranger to a country does charity, and preach some alien religion that doesn't arise from the soil of the land, just as we would be suspicious of strangers in general and not get too close to them just because they are showing us some moolah and promise small time benefits.

Take a stand. Protect your land from poachers. It is indeed true that God protects those who protect themselves. But in times like these, it is us too who have to protect God (deities.. to be specific). For without our worship, they will fade into the oblivion. Besides.. I also see it fit to oppose proselytism for the reason mentioned at the start.. that other countries can't get a say in another's sovereignty.