Tharoor writes, in his book "Why I'm a Hindu'-
Hinduism is also unusual in seeing God, Man and the universe as co-related.
This is nonsense. Brahma Sutra says there is reciprocity of meditation between worshipper and worshipped. But there is no interdependence. There may be synchronization (i.e. like Liebniz's Occassionalism) for 'materialist' Purva Mimamsa but there can be no 'correlation'.
In which type of esotericism does 'correlation' arise? Gnostic theurgy- i.e. Magic.
The reason all World Religions reject 'correlation' or 'interdependence' between Creator and Creation is because this licenses any and every type of Magic and Superstition. I prayed to Christ for a BMW but didn't get one, so I'll try sacrificing my first born to Ba'al. Maybe that's the God I'm correlated with.
We are dependent on other people for some things vital to ourselves. But, so long as we have sufficient 'theory of mind' or 'emotional intelligence', our interactions are governed by protocols involving reciprocity of a cognitively complex or psychologically deft or dexterous type.
As the philosopher Raimon Panikkar
Whose Dad was a Nair, like Tharoor, and who wrote vacuous shite in the Sixties- as did Aubrey Menon whose Dad too was a Nair. But, hey!, everybody was writing vacuous shite in the Sixties more particularly if, like Panikkar, they were Catholic Priests drummed out of Opus Dei or not actively involved in the Vatican Bank or other such splendid anti-Communist initiatives.
has explained, in Hindu thought, God without Man is nothing, literally ‘no-thing’;
Fuck off! God without Man is still the Creator of the Universe in which Man may appear only to be 'cancelled.' Pannikar had shit for brains. That's a good thing if you want to teach at Harvard Divinity School or become a Professor of Religious Studies at Santa Barbara. Pannikar was actually less shite than Raghavan Iyer who had preceded him there by about a decade. Come to think of it, Tharoor is less vacuous than Pico Iyer. But that's not saying much.
Man without God is just a ‘thing’, without meaning or larger purpose;
said a fuckwit teaching useless shit in Amrika-ka
and the universe without Man or God is ‘any-thing’, sheer chaos, devoid of existence.
Wow! Chaos is devoid of existence is it? Who knew?!
In Panikkar’s explanation, nothing separates Man from God: ‘there is neither intermediary nor barrier between them’.
Which is why you mustn't jerk off coz your jizz is bound to get in God's eye.
So Hindu prayers mix the sacred with the profane:
No they don't. Hindu prayers are purely sacerdotal though no doubt they, like anything else, coud be subject to a profane, not to say pornographic, hermeneutic
a Hindu can ask God for anything.
Only in the sense that a Christian or Muslim can do so
Among the tens of thousands of sacred verses and hymns in the Hindu scriptures are a merchant’s prayer for wealth, a bankrupt’s plea to the divine to free him of debt, verses extolling the union of a man with a woman, and even the lament of a rueful (and luckless) gambler asking God to help him shake his addiction.
No. These are uncreated, context less, portions of Divine Revelation. Different hermeneuts may interpret them differently. Parrikar, as a Christian priest, may have chosen an interpretation which showed his Daddy came from a primitive country while his Mummy, thanks to Franco, was much more advanced.
Prayer and worship, for the Hindu, are thus not purely spiritual exercises: they enhance the quality of his life in the material world, in the here and now
This may be true of votaries of Voodoo. It isn't true about Hinduism- at least for Brahmins. Tharoor, as a Nair, may say 'look, our people only pretended to follow Smarta Religion or Advaita Philosophy. Parrikar, whose Daddy was Nair, reveals the truth about us. We think Hinduism is about exchanging prayers for material benefits. At any rate, that's why I'm a Hindu.'
No comments:
Post a Comment