Which Islam?

Re: # 227 By SR

Sir SR,
My apologies for not following up on your reply in a timely manner. Dear, if i attacked that kind of dogma of yours then i`m not sure if i can utter a sorry for you.

However, why i stated my words that way was becuase you looked at a very close context --infact narrow.

It seems that you haven`t come accorss the literate group of Muslims --there i understand who what kind of people you have been exposed to. Obviously you`ll get your freaky head chopped off by those rat-asses if you try leaving Islam after converting from a hindu :)

Just try picking the right place to go you mainstreamer. G`luck finding it.

PS. I may be a newbie to chowk but is that the right basis to harras? I`m sure you can work this out on your own.

Re: # 248 by kaalchakra

Touche...again!

And the more philosophies one explores, the answers to such questions will be much more refined.

:-)~~

Re: # 247 by krishna_abcd

``It only proves that a Hindu was handing out a booklet.``

The question is why was he handing out a booklet on Hinduism, if not to propagate/proselytize?

``That is your guess. Nobody knows about the origins of Hinduism. There is no record of proselytizing in HInduism.``

That`s going to bum out kaalchakra. Still I think some do know the origins enough to state that it`s 3000 to 5000 years old. It`s another thing if you`re not interested in such information....and that`s okay....I guess.

``Good. Lean all you want.``

LoL...looks like you`ve done more than your capacity of thinking....

``I don`t. They have nothing to do with the Philosophies.``

....and read more than your ability to read

``Who gives a flying F**k about the `objective of the Hare Krishna movement`?``

A person who does not believe in parroting everything he/she hears, because parroting becomes an impedement to utilize one`s intellectual capacity.

``[Your comments raise the question of who is an intellectual? ]

I am. For example....Big politicians are not necessarily big intellects. And ``adhering`` to Hindu religion does not have anything to do with faith, necessarily. An aethist can be a Hindu. Hinduism is largely cultural.``

Wonderful! I hope you can lead the `common` Hindu out of darkness...but [according to your definition] isn`t it a NO-NO to proselytize in Hinduism?

Too bad....you didn`t get to be so bright for nothing after all.

And since you imply that people like M. Gandhi, J.L. Nehru, A.B. Vajpaye are dimwits (for their religions inclinations); and that religion has nothing to do with faith, the Hindu Armageddon must be around the corner, because the Hindu masses are adopting the Western non-culture faster than the Westerners.

BTW...do you think Sri Sri Ravi Shankar belongs to the same group as Gandhi, Nehru, etc?

``No. I believe gravity exists. I do not need faith to believe that.``

Great! Get up on top of a skyscraper...walk out on the ledge...then, without using a parachute or harness or anything of that sort, step into the thin air beyond the ledge. I`m sure you`ll reinstate that belief with much more vigor...i.e. if you live to tell us about it.

``Do you have a photograph of your parents in your family album? Would you feel bad if someone spat on it? Even though it is nothing but paper? Would you mind if someone peed on the black stone in Kaaba? Even if it`s only a rock?

For common people unable to relate to an abstraction, idols provide them with something that allows them to connect with ``god``. The different idols represent different aspects of divinity.

And I suppose ``divinity`` has nothing to with the ``philosophies`` in question, thus nothing to do with religion. Which essentially means divinity has nothing to with religion either. Which in turn means, all the Hindus killing and dying for their ideologies, divinities, temples, statues, and so forth, are wrong after all.

I`m glad the two of us agree on something, after all :-)~~

``[OTOH, as per your definition, the `intellectual` treats those figures in the philosophies only as the characters that either developed those philosophies, or the philosophies revolve around them. ]

You lost me there.``

Don`t blame me, dude. You were lost long before I came along. It became worse when you separated the Hindu religion from the philosophies behind it...and distributed them as different things for ``intellectuals`` and ``common man``.....why you did so is quite apparent too...but let`s just leave it at that.

Hinduism is not ``a.k.a polyhteism``. Hinduism is monotheistic. But you have to study and try to ignore the Paki/Muslim/Christian propaganda machinery to know that.

Oh now, the Hindu in krishna speaks.

monotheistic

adj : believing that there is only one god [ant: polytheistic]

WordNet® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Think about your own comment to figure out whether Hinduism is merely a family of philosophies, or is it a religion based on these philosophies around one god.

``Read for yourself.``

I hope it`s not insecurity that prevents you from sharing your intellect with the `common man`.

``Really? I did not know that.

For your sake, I hope that`s all you didn`t know....

``I hope it is easy for you to understand this. By ``philosophy`` I mean the search for answers to the metaphysical questions that have dogged humanity for millenia - questions like ``Why this Universe?``, ``What is the purpose of life?`` etc. Not stories about jinns and angels flying about.

This stuff about God created Jinns and men -> God gave us rules to follow -> We should follow his rules - is crude, childish and of no interest to me or any thinking person.

This is not what I was referring to when I said ``philosophy``.``

It is very easy for everyone. What does search for answers mean if not defining a ``purpose`` in life vis-a-vis ``philosophy``? The ``stuff about God created Jinns and men -> God gave us rules to follow -> We should follow his rules`` is, a part of, and about learning the ``answers to the metaphysical questions that have dogged humanity for millenia - questions like ``Why this Universe?``, ``What is the purpose of life?`` etc.`` can only be understood after one learns about who he is, the basics, because that provides a frame of reference.

You can think of it as the course of study to obtain a specific degree at the university you attended. There must have been certain rules for you to abide by and certain amount and standard of discipline required of you to see your efforts fruition, otherwise you couldn`t qualify.

One has no choice but to learn the basics and follow the rules to progress and get to the destination.

Allah has given us the free will to choose to live the way He has prescribed for our benefit, or choose not to do so. He has told us what each of these choices will lead us to, and has left it to us. If one doesn`t even want to learn what those choices are, then it`s his/her fault to be lost.

So long!

:-)~~

Re: # 246 by kaalchakra

There is no issue...that`s probably why you were floored; thinking I`m out to nail somebody. Simply put, the discussion was about relevance of science in religions and vice versa....to which krishna claimed that Hinduism is merely a family of philosophies and not religion.

``Banning Satanic Verses had nothing to do with Hinduism. All it took was that idiot Shahabuddin to create a ruckus for political ends and RG went along with it for votes.``...swarrier, #229....testifies that RG did ban the book.

For the excerpts, you can take your time to purchase the book and read at will.

Cheers
:-)~~

Some philosphical questions, randomly ordered...


Who am I? What is my `consciousness?` What is my `will?`
What is reality? How does the real differ from the unreal?
What is Ultimate Reality? How do we know it? Can we know it? Does it have any attributes?
How am I related to others? to everything else around me?
What is causation? What is chance? What is certainty? Do we need uncertainty? Is uncertainty evil? What is error?
What is `good?` What is `moral?` How dp we know what good is and bad is? In fact, how do we know anything at all?
What is freedom? What is justice? Equality? Can we assume equality? Should egalitarianism be our goal?
Does life have a purpose? What is a ``good life?`` Where I am I going?
What is Time? What is space?What is multidimensionality? (How) Do different dimensions relate to one another?
What is logic? Can there be different forms of logic? What is good (forms of) logic and what is bad (forms of) logic?
Do means and ends matter? Can we reach good ends through bad means?
What is meaning? Where does it come from?
What is change? What is dynamics? What is the role of power?

....Guess one could go on for a pretty long time listing questions whose answers ultimately must be explored philosophically, not found in this or that person`s dictates.

#244 by ntsyed


[I`d take your word for it, but then my own experience (I`ve mentioned twice, I think) prevents me from doing so. Perhaps adding a small detail would have made my point clearer, that a fellow of Indian descent handed the booklet on Hinduism to me. Again, the booklet wasn`t about Hare Krishna either. ]

It only proves that a Hindu was handing out a booklet.


[Furthermore, even within the vast borders of India, the philosophies could not have caught on at such massive scale without anyone propagating them.]

That is your guess. Nobody knows about the origins of Hinduism. There is no record of proselytizing in HInduism.

[Lest they died in infancy, these had to be spread. However, it is possible that there was, or is, not an organized effort like the Missions & Missionaries. Again, my personal experience prevents me to lean towards this notion. ]

Good. Lean all you want.


[Considering my thoughts in the preceding paragraphs, I hope now you can see the correlation of the three above with the definition of philosophy. ]

I don`t. They have nothing to do with the Philosophies.

[Swami Prabhupada and the objective of the Hare Krishna movement - The good Swami could have been an aberration, as you stated. But the second part of the query remains unanswered viz the `objective of the Hare Krishna movement`. ]

Who gives a flying F**k about the `objective of the Hare Krishna movement`?


[Your comments raise the question of who is an intellectual? ]

I am. For example.


[If the ``common man`` is the only one who needs the `mental crutch` of faith, then why do we see people like Gandhi, Nehru, Vajpaye, MM Singh, etc...just to name a few highly renowned individuals....adhere to the religion? Or were they not intelligent enough to be counted amongst `intellectuals`? ]

Big politicians are not necessarily big intellects. And ``adhering`` to Hindu religion does not have anything to do with faith, necessarily. An aethist can be a Hindu. Hinduism is largely cultural.


[In order to associate with a group one has to ``believe`` in at least the core philosophy. Belief then leads to ``faith``.]

No. I believe gravity exists. I do not need faith to believe that.


[As far as I`ve been able to understand Hinduism, the deities must come from the philosophies, which is why the ``common man`` develops belief in them and subsequently worship them. Otherwise, one couldn`t find temples, statues, and rituals in Hinduism.]

Do you have a photograph of your parents in your family album? Would you feel bad if someone spat on it? Even though it is nothing but paper? Would you mind if someone peed on the black stone in Kaaba? Even if it`s only a rock?

For common people unable to relate to an abstraction, idols provide them with something that allows them to connect with ``god``. The different idols represent different aspects of divinity.


[OTOH, as per your definition, the `intellectual` treats those figures in the philosophies only as the characters that either developed those philosophies, or the philosophies revolve around them. ]

You lost me there.


[HinduISM, a.k.a. polytheism, demands belief in several deities. Whereas, atheism demands disbelief in each and every deity. Hence, one cannot be a Hindu and an atheist at once. ]

Hinduism is not ``a.k.a polyhteism``. Hinduism is monotheistic. But you have to study and try to ignore the Paki/Muslim/Christian propaganda machinery to know that.


[At least, that`s the common perception, and we hope your intellectual take on this will enlighten us. ]

Read for yourself.


[Okay. Quote me a few verses from the Koran that elucidates this philosophy.

A philosophy defines purpose.]

Really? I did not know that.



[At the core of the Islamic philosophy is the belief in the Supremacy and Oneness of Allah: ``There is no God but Allah`` - found in several places throughout the Quran; phrased in same words as well as in other words; and that He Created everything, including us, to worship Him alone. Then the philosophy is about how life on this earth should be lived, such that everyone benefits from it here, and the individuals earn honorable places in the Hereafter.

Since we don`t know anything about the Hereafter except what He Tells us, because He created this world and the hereafter, therefore, He has to be the One to Tell us how we can earn the goodness of Hereafter, i.e. the dos and don`ts in this life.

Each and everything He Tells us to do or refrain from, forms the religion - way of life: actions based on faith. Performing these actions as a matter of faith is called worship.

The Noble Quran - Chapter 51 (Zariat):56
``I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me.``

Hence the basic premise of the Islamic philosophy is to serve/worship/please Allah in this life, in order to earn an honorable place in the Hereafter.

Abdullah Yousuf Ali explains this verse:
``Creation is not for idle sport or play. God has a serious Purpose behind it, which, in our imperfect state, we can only express by saying that each creature is given the chance of development and progress towards the Goal, which is God. `God is the source and centre of all power and all goodness, and our progress depends upon our putting ourselves into accord with His Will. This is His service. It is not of any benefit to Him....it is for our own benefit``

Not putting ourselves into accord with His Will will mean lack of belief in His Supremacy and Oneness; and that what He Tells us is the truth; which means rejection of the philosophy. And when that becomes the case, the religious actions - worship - becomes meaningless, because a person will not earn honor in the Hereafter for those actions.

Needless to say, without faith the religious actions (worship) will lose their meaning for me as there will not be a purpose, incentive, goal and objective viz philosophy. My actions will begin and end in this life and will have no bearing on my life in the hereafter....at least not positively. Consequently, religion will not mean much in my life, if I do NOT subscribe to the philosophy.

Hope it helps. ]


I hope it is easy for you to understand this. By ``philosophy`` I mean the search for answers to the metaphysical questions that have dogged humanity for millenia - questions like ``Why this Universe?``, ``What is the purpose of life?`` etc. Not stories about jinns and angels flying about.

This stuff about God created Jinns and men -> God gave us rules to follow -> We should follow his rules - is crude, childish and of no interest to me or any thinking person.

This is not what I was referring to when I said ``philosophy``.


I hope this helps.

ntsyed bhai

Your last couple of postings have floored me in their crypticness. You have cheered, and smiled, and seemed to agree (or disagree?) without addressing any issues at all. A lot like what that great Islamic sage of Chowk Boom dada does whenever any inconvenient question is posed to him. :)

So, do you have any evidence that Satanic Verses was banned to protect/assuage religious feelings of Hindus?

And how is swarrier sahib`s # 229 is ``the most credible testament to (your) claim?``

Please explain in simple terms that lay people like us can understand. Thanks. :)

(we may return to why people convert, at another time, although Asif on another board has an interesting post directly relevant to that matter. But first we should clear up the confusion with regard to Satanic Verses)

Re: # 241 by swarrier

I could...but I think it`s way too late for such a digression.

Besides, you can always purchase a used paperback in the USA. I`m sure it`s available there.

You can always refer to google for the newsclip. Although, I`m not sure if the Pakistani Indian news outlets digitized their publishings back then. If they didn`t, then your post #229 is the most credible testament to my claim; and I`m indebted to you for that.

:-)~~

Re: # 240 by krishna_abcd

``1) Hinduism has not been into proselytizing in India for thousands of years.

2) The movement in the USA got influenced by Americans with their Semitic upbringing.

3) EVEN if Prabhupada was directly responsible for proselytization, he would represent an aberration, rather than the trend in Hinduism.``

I`d take your word for it, but then my own experience (I`ve mentioned twice, I think) prevents me from doing so. Perhaps adding a small detail would have made my point clearer, that a fellow of Indian descent handed the booklet on Hinduism to me. Again, the booklet wasn`t about Hare Krishna either.

Furthermore, even within the vast borders of India, the philosophies could not have caught on at such massive scale without anyone propagating them. Lest they died in infancy, these had to be spread. However, it is possible that there was, or is, not an organized effort like the Missions & Missionaries. Again, my personal experience prevents me to lean towards this notion.

- converting
- movement
- proselytizing

``They have NOTHING to do with the definition of philosophies.``

Considering my thoughts in the preceding paragraphs, I hope now you can see the correlation of the three above with the definition of philosophy.

Swami Prabhupada and the objective of the Hare Krishna movement - The good Swami could have been an aberration, as you stated. But the second part of the query remains unanswered viz the `objective of the Hare Krishna movement`.

``Hinduism is different things to different people. It is different for the peasant and the intellectual. The common man needs the mental crutch of faith to survive - they have colored their faith with different aspects of the Hindu philosophies - few bother to actually study the philosophy. But to the educated intellectual, Hinduism is strictly a philosophy - to be studied and debated at will.

Your comments raise the question of who is an intellectual?

If the ``common man`` is the only one who needs the `mental crutch` of faith, then why do we see people like Gandhi, Nehru, Vajpaye, MM Singh, etc...just to name a few highly renowned individuals....adhere to the religion? Or were they not intelligent enough to be counted amongst `intellectuals`?

You can be an atheist and still be a Hindu - no question of faith there.

In order to associate with a group one has to ``believe`` in at least the core philosophy. Belief then leads to ``faith``. As far as I`ve been able to understand Hinduism, the deities must come from the philosophies, which is why the ``common man`` develops belief in them and subsequently worship them. Otherwise, one couldn`t find temples, statues, and rituals in Hinduism.

OTOH, as per your definition, the `intellectual` treats those figures in the philosophies only as the characters that either developed those philosophies, or the philosophies revolve around them.

HinduISM, a.k.a. polytheism, demands belief in several deities. Whereas, atheism demands disbelief in each and every deity. Hence, one cannot be a Hindu and an atheist at once.

At least, that`s the common perception, and we hope your intellectual take on this will enlighten us.

[Mr. krishna, every religion has a philosophy...even atheism claims to have one. Without a philosophy a religion is like an empty metal pot. Now, whether the philosophy has strong basis or not is a seperate discussion. But, you cannot separate the two with a few keystrokes. ]

Okay. Quote me a few verses from the Koran that elucidates this philosophy.

A philosophy defines purpose. At the core of the Islamic philosophy is the belief in the Supremacy and Oneness of Allah: ``There is no God but Allah`` - found in several places throughout the Quran; phrased in same words as well as in other words; and that He Created everything, including us, to worship Him alone. Then the philosophy is about how life on this earth should be lived, such that everyone benefits from it here, and the individuals earn honorable places in the Hereafter.

Since we don`t know anything about the Hereafter except what He Tells us, because He created this world and the hereafter, therefore, He has to be the One to Tell us how we can earn the goodness of Hereafter, i.e. the dos and don`ts in this life.

Each and everything He Tells us to do or refrain from, forms the religion - way of life: actions based on faith. Performing these actions as a matter of faith is called worship.

The Noble Quran - Chapter 51 (Zariat):56
``I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me.``

Hence the basic premise of the Islamic philosophy is to serve/worship/please Allah in this life, in order to earn an honorable place in the Hereafter.

Abdullah Yousuf Ali explains this verse:
``Creation is not for idle sport or play. God has a serious Purpose behind it, which, in our imperfect state, we can only express by saying that each creature is given the chance of development and progress towards the Goal, which is God. `God is the source and centre of all power and all goodness, and our progress depends upon our putting ourselves into accord with His Will. This is His service. It is not of any benefit to Him....it is for our own benefit``

Not putting ourselves into accord with His Will will mean lack of belief in His Supremacy and Oneness; and that what He Tells us is the truth; which means rejection of the philosophy. And when that becomes the case, the religious actions - worship - becomes meaningless, because a person will not earn honor in the Hereafter for those actions.

Needless to say, without faith the religious actions (worship) will lose their meaning for me as there will not be a purpose, incentive, goal and objective viz philosophy. My actions will begin and end in this life and will have no bearing on my life in the hereafter....at least not positively. Consequently, religion will not mean much in my life, if I do NOT subscribe to the philosophy.

Hope it helps.

:-)~~

Re: # 239 by krishna_abcd

Oh phulleeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzz!

That`s was the entire exercise of cut-n-paste about in #237, short of labeling your posts as 1) and 2). The only reasons I didn`t do that was to save a few minutes for myself, as well as to get the message across without appearing to patronize you.

Let`s just leave it at that.

:-|~~

Re: # 238 by kaalchakra

Touche...on all counts :)~~

What I said in #233 was the high-level of what you detail in #238. Your suggestion of organized data collection & computation certainly adds tremendous value to the effort. I`m sure some people may already be at it. In case no one is doing it, then perhaps there are more pressing matters than this. Allah Knows best.

Incidently, after I had posted my thought on the subject, yesterday I heard on the tele that 34,000 people embraced Islam in 9 months after 9-11. The numbers suggest someone is keeping tabs....only we haven`t been able to see it.

Cheers
:)~~

Re: # 233

ntsyed
Could you do a couple of things?

1) I have read the Satanic Verses (in 1989 though) and I did not see anything to offend the average Hindu. So please provide the relevant paragraph that Hindus objected to in the book.

2) Since I am ignorant of such a thing happening could you provide relevant newspaper articles etc from 1988 to substantiate that RG banned the book in India because of hindu opinion?

I shall be indebted.

#237 by ntsyed

If you are making the point that BECAUSE Swami Prabhupada started the movement in the USA, AND the movement is into proselytizing - THEREFORE it contradicts my claim that Hinduism is not into proselytizing, you need to think about the following points:

1) Hinduism has not been into proselytizing in India for thousands of years.

2) The movement in the USA got influenced by Americans with their Semitic upbringing.

3) EVEN if Prabhupada was directly responsible for proselytization, he would represent an aberration, rather than the trend in Hinduism.


[I think it would be easier if you defined the following terms...just so we`re on the same page:

- converting
- movement
- proselytizing ]

Look up www.dictionary.com.


[and how do these fit in your definition of philosophies? ]

They have NOTHING to do with the definition of philosophies.

[Secondly, please tell us about who Swami Prabhupada was, if not a Hindu, and the objective of the Hare Krishna movement if not to increase the following of Hindu `philosophies`...which requires proselytizing and conversion? ]

This is a repeat question. See the first point above.


[Fourth, if Hinduism is not a faith then:

- how does `worship` tie in with (potentially) modifiable philosophies?

- if there`s no concept of worship in Hindu `philosophies`, then what is prostration before statues etc., if not worship?

- if it is worship, then it must have something to do with faith - at least to the extent of elevating those people who offered those `philosophies` to the level of gods and goddesses, as well as developing faith in their capabilities

- what is the philosophy behind Yellamma? As far as I`ve been able to see on the Internet, it`s simply a commemoration / remembrance of an injustice against a woman and her sons, and has everything to do with `faith` and nothing to do with philosophy

- licking the yoni of some goddess for relief in menstural problem appears only faith based

- reverence of a god`s genital conjoined with that of a goddess appears same as above...based on faith - not in philosophy

- similarly, philosophy seems to have little to do with the concept of devadasis and more to do with faith

still you maintain that hinduism is not a `faith`? ]

Hinduism is different things to different people. It is different for the peasant and the intellectual. The common man needs the mental crutch of faith to survive - they have colored their faith with different aspects of the Hindu philosophies - few bother to actually study the philosophy. But to the educated intellectual, Hinduism is strictly a philosophy - to be studied and debated at will. You can be an atheist and still be a Hindu - no question of faith there.


[Mr. krishna, every religion has a philosophy...even atheism claims to have one. Without a philosophy a religion is like an empty metal pot. Now, whether the philosophy has strong basis or not is a seperate discussion. But, you cannot separate the two with a few keystrokes. ]

Okay. Quote me a few verses from the Koran that elucidates this philosophy.

#237 by ntsyed

I think after interacting with me for a while you will realize that unlike some others, I do not get easily deflected from the point at hand.

So I`ll repeat my earlier post:

Show me the two sentences:

1) my ``latest assertion``, and

2) my ``earlier claims``.

Then we can see how they contradict each other.

We can take it from there. I`ll wait for your response.



KINDLY PUT THE TWO SENTENCES SIDE BY SIDE, NUMBERED 1) AND 2) RESPECTIVELY.


We can address all other compelling issues like ``licking the yoni of some goddess for relief in menstural problem `` AFTER this.


Thank you.

ntsyed

Chowk must have convinced you that just because people are ``educated,`` they do not come to possess ``highly critical and logical thought processes.`` :)

An actual study of people who convert to Islam (or any other religion) cannot be based on our assumptions about what these people must have done, or must be like, but rather on actual accounts.

What kind/groups of people convert most often? What do they say before and after? What is their behavior toward self and toward other people like? What kind of needs they express for themselves? How they relate to other human beings and social institutiuons of their own societies? And so on.

Re: # 235 by krishna_abcd

krishna_abcd - #225:
``Hindus are not worried about ``converting`` other people``

ntsyed - #226:
``I`ve had Hindus, other than Hari Krishna, hand me booklets on Hinduism at the airport in USA, just like the JW``. You`re free to call me a liar, the claim runs counter to your understanding of hinduism

krishna_abcd - #230:
``The Hare Krishna movement became a proselytising movement in America....Have you noticed how the Hare Krishna movement is largely ignored by Hindus from India?``

krishna_abcd - #235:
``The ``movement`` started with Swami Prabhupada in the USA. The Bhakti movement in India was not into proselytization.``

which means, the movement Swami (a hindu) started in the USA WAS into proselytizing, and the best proselytizers available to him there were the Abrahimic Americans.

I think it would be easier if you defined the following terms...just so we`re on the same page:

- converting
- movement
- proselytizing

and how do these fit in your definition of philosophies?

Secondly, please tell us about who Swami Prabhupada was, if not a Hindu, and the objective of the Hare Krishna movement if not to increase the following of Hindu `philosophies`...which requires proselytizing and conversion?

I think we can skip ``The Bhakti movement`` for now, unless of course you feel compelled to indulge into details.

Thirdly, ``largely [a relative term] ignored`` implies the existence, albeit to a lesser [antonym of largely] extent.

Fourth, if Hinduism is not a faith then:

- how does `worship` tie in with (potentially) modifiable philosophies?

- if there`s no concept of worship in Hindu `philosophies`, then what is prostration before statues etc., if not worship?

- if it is worship, then it must have something to do with faith - at least to the extent of elevating those people who offered those `philosophies` to the level of gods and goddesses, as well as developing faith in their capabilities

- what is the philosophy behind Yellamma? As far as I`ve been able to see on the Internet, it`s simply a commemoration / remembrance of an injustice against a woman and her sons, and has everything to do with `faith` and nothing to do with philosophy

- licking the yoni of some goddess for relief in menstural problem appears only faith based

- reverence of a god`s genital conjoined with that of a goddess appears same as above...based on faith - not in philosophy

- similarly, philosophy seems to have little to do with the concept of devadasis and more to do with faith

still you maintain that hinduism is not a `faith`?

Mr. krishna, every religion has a philosophy...even atheism claims to have one. Without a philosophy a religion is like an empty metal pot. Now, whether the philosophy has strong basis or not is a seperate discussion. But, you cannot separate the two with a few keystrokes.

The reason your family of philosophies have been modified by many before is to keep the religion alive. Otherwise, once people lose faith in a philosophy, they move on to the next best thing available. That appears to be the reason behind your propensities towards atheism/secularism by calling an entire civilization a family of philosophies (open to modification) that have nothing to do with faith, proselytizing, conversion, etc. It is the philosophy behind the entire Islamic system that attracts most people to it.

Take it easy and think.

:-)~~