Animism and Mythology

This article, along with some aspects of Indian Philosophy, also discussed on Indian Logic Forum: http://nyaya.darsana.org/topic100.html

Thanks!

Inquirer,

``Divinity is merely a way of garnering support for human ideas. NOTHING MORE.``

So you should let good people of world to enjoy this support. Why do you want to deprive them of this support...???

Re: # 52

``good`` people do not require theology to support their ``good`` actions..............if you try to do that then you would find yourself in the same boat as radical Islamists .......

Re: # 52,Khuram:
Thanks, for the totally honest response.

The bad record of performance of almost all religions in exploiting, terrorizing and dividing people (humans) all over the world requires that we intelligently undrstand what is what.

Only then will the Einsteinian definition of religion will become applicable to the organized AND delusive activities that pass for religion today.

PS. Your interpretation of the consequence of adherence to religion interms of acquired ``support`` is significant and I hope deliberate not accidental.

``So whichever true and valid element exists in whichever organized religion ... we can consider that element as having been told to humanity by God Almighty Himself. ``
****Here lies the pitfall, only humans can decide what is valid at what times. So where does God enter into picture?****

Re: # 46

Inquirer,

Yes it is humans who are to decide which is true or valid. But if you find truth and validity in ``higher aspects`` of all the religions, then you should accept or at least assume those aspects being Divine told, because all religions are claimed to be Devine told. Consider the following words of your profile:

``Intersested in developing a synthesis of the higher aspects of all religions. Fully recognize the tentative validity of all religious teachings. Would like to contribute to the rational foundation for human behaviour in all fields.``

Regards!

Re: # 47,Khuram:
Thanks for noting my profile. But the essence of my statement is that ALL HUMAN IDEAS ARE ARE HUMANLY CONCEIVED AND ORGANIZED. Thus we humans are the extension of God if we so conjure God.
Unity that I aspire for is entirely human. Divinity is merely a way of garnering support for human ideas. NOTHING MORE.

Kaalchakra,

As my main issue of concern is Human mind ... so I can discuss only human self made knowledge, which could give clues to the structure of mind and how it functions.

Re: #41,
``So whichever true and valid element exists in whichever organized religion ... we can consider that element as having been told to humanity by God Almighty Himself...``

and #42,
``...the understanding of true religion is given by God Himself,....``

What is the criterion for truth?

Ranjit Sahib,

Yes many Indian schools of thought consider ``desires`` as the source of all the human misery and unhappiness. Underlying idea is something like that humans are caught by miseries and unhappiness when they fail to fulfill their desires. So if they stop desiring anything then any question of failure in fulfilling the desires shall not arise and therefore humanity will be free of any misery or unhappiness.

As I stated in my previous post that only humans can be desirous of anything. Those early Indian thinkers might have noticed this fact. In addition, they also might have noticed that only humans are caught up by many forms of miseries and unhappiness. They might have then rationalized the phenomenon of human misery by putting all the blame on human desires. Jainism and Buddhism were the main representatives of this school of thought and both these religions originated in around 6th century B.C. By that time, Greek intellectuals still had not tried to determine the purpose of humans in Universe. So in this respect, Indian thought took the lead as Indians happened to be the first who tried to determine the objective before humans, which, according to them, was getting freedom from miseries which could be achieved through the control on desires.

But in the same period, Confucius, in China was telling his students that their objective was to become able to think over various practical matters of life RATIONALLY and should become able to express their opinions clearly and transparently.

Anyhow, ``desire`` itself was not the source of human misery because the real source of human misery, under this line of thought, was the ``failure`` of humans to fulfill their desires. Right strategy should have been to try to ``control`` the rate of failure rather than to forbid the desires altogether.

What I think is that ``desires`` are positive things. These are ``desires`` which give us our most of the long term objectives. ``Desires`` make it possible that we try to improve our knowlege, abilities or skills over such long periods that may extend to decades. If we were limited to just bodily needs, then we would not be in need to make any ``improvement`` in ourselves. Desires tell us two things. On the negative side, they tell us that we are lacking some important thing. On the positive side, they give us hope that we can remove that shortcoming in ourselves. Thus a movement towards better and higher levels becomes possible through the application of desires. I have described in previous post that all desires are basically ``analogical inferences`` in nature. It works in a way that lets say I observe some entity, which is similar to me in some aspects. But I find that I am lacking some important characteristics, which exist in that other entity. If I imagine myself of possessing the same or similar characteristics, which I have observed in that other entity, it means that now I am ``desirous`` of possessing those important characteristics. Its meaning is that if I do not observe any entity which is similar with me in any respect and possesses some important characteristics that I do not possess, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FORM ANY DESIRE in this case. If humans would never had seen flying birds, if they never had realized that they themselves are lacking in an important characteristic of ``flying``, which a similar entity to them i.e. birds did possess, THEN HUMANS COULD NOT BE DESIROUS of flying like birds.

If human mind works by making analogies, it means that mind does not work at its own. It cannot get the desire of flying like birds without having observed that birds can fly and realizing that humans cannot fly. But if humans can observe many different things in the environment, then they would definitely tend to form one or the other desires.

And I also think that to be desirous of something would be better than having fulfilled all the desires. Fulfillment of all the desires would eliminate all the charms of life. Secondly it is also not possible to acquire the state of complete “control” on desires. Any attempt to “control” desires would actually “magnify” the desires. One important component of “desire” is the feeling of “lacking” something. Any attempt to control “desire” will actually strengthen those feelings of “lacking” something and desires shall be magnified in this way. Buddhists tried to “control” their desires related to sex … that desire ultimately magnified and then manifested in the form of amazing art work of Agenta caves.

Issue of “desires” is related with the issue of ethics as well. Your main question was also that if desires are good or bad? In case we find that we are lacking some better or superior characteristic, which other people do possess; and we get a desire of acquiring that superior or better quality – this type of desire would be “good”. But if we find that we are lacking in some inferior quality, which some other people do possess, and in this way we become desirous of acquiring that inferior quality – this type of desire would be “bad”. Better and superior qualities are those, which are beyond the scope of our presently held skills or abilities. Inferior qualities are those, which could be acquired just if we do not employ our presently held skills and abilities in the best possible way.

Issue of ethics also has relationship with just how we try to fulfill our desires. If we employ unethical or illegal means, we would be ethically bad then. We are ethically good if we fulfill all our body and mental needs under the supervisory control of our rationality and wisdom.

@ Inquirer

Thanks for your points.

Regards!

khuram, ballukhan

Could it be that since the understanding of true religion is given by God Himself, and the understanding of everything else has been constructed by man, true religion cannot be discussed (if discussion involves any real questioning) by man, while the rest of human knowledge can be discussed?

Re: # 42, kalchakra:
This is the pet excuse of all who want to escape scrutiny.

Re: # 42

That`s a loaded comment -

``True Religion`` , ``Valid elements`` all reveal the prejuduces laid down during one`s childhood.
That is the type of analyses I am looking at rathar than an analyses that presumes the ``truths`` of religions.
Animism is the corner stone of all great religions. The mind/body duality , the ghost-in-the-box notion of reality with heavy emphasis on ``Almighty`s will``-
This classical animism has permeated in our daily life with the profusion of praises and references to the ``almighty`s will``????

Re: # 48,ballukhan:
The third statement is the anticlimax.

ballukhan,

Thanks for sharing your views. You are requiring that I apply the study of animism to the study of religion. But I think more appropriate thing is to apply the knowledge of animism to the study of mind and knowledge. And true religion may not be confined to any particular form of organized religion. We all know that there so many sub-classifications also exist in all the organized religions. As rational analysts, we cannot assume that all the true religious knowledge is confined to only one community of humans. So whichever true and valid element exists in whichever organized religion ... we can consider that element as having been told to humanity by God Almighty Himself.

Thanks!

Re:khuram#13

[..Presence of ``desires`` is a positive advancement in humans, which is missing in other animals. ``Desire`` is not any bodily need but it is a ``mental`` need....]

Very interesting point, Khuram Sahib. One of the cornerstones of hindu philosophy is to control desires - not just physical but also mental. For instance - kaam (sex), krodh(anger), moh-maya(fascination for material/emotional needs) etc. The idea is that it is ``desire`` that drives human beings to do negative things and is the root of all evil. Therefore, there is a lot of emphasis on meditation and other tools to control human desires. Most Indian historical figures such as Buddha, Ramakrishna, Kabir, even Gandhi, were constantly battling against desire. Of course, ``desire`` can be a positive force e.g. a search of enlightment is also desire in one sense.

But the real question is whether physical desire is really the root of evil? Is it bad to want to be successful or to enjoy a happy, material based life? Should we feel guilty about it? Western civilization makes physical desire the paramount objective. Based on that, they have created an amazing civilization. Eastern countries, such as India, have deemphasized desire, which has led to a ``guilt complex`` and association of shame with being wealthy. We keep hearing about ``simple living, high thinking``. The resulting poverty and a poor standard of living is a direct result from this culture. The bleeding heart liberalism and leftist ideology also gets motivation from the same guilt complex.

So is ``desire`` good or bad?