<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd say
1. Hindu civilisation is analogous to the Hellenic civilisation
2. It includes more besides Vedic.
3. There's far more to it than only philosophy (am supposing the term is meant in the Greek sense)
Again: there's more than Vedic.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if there is more, then Hinduism is more than just a simple Religion, it includes a lot of other things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->What I meant was, not all the religious aspects of Hindu Dharma are Vedic.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree Western Atheists are militant.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not all. Maybe you say that because you are thinking of N America only. There are 3 kinds of <i>western</i> atheists I can recognise (so far).
1. The missionary atheists
The current American kind that is growing up in an agressively evangelical christian society that is trying to extinguish atheism/agnosticism. Hence the atheists start by being reactively evangelically atheist. But in time, they become evangelically atheist with respect to everything else: including traditions that pose no threat to themselves or others.
McCabe is a *kind* of evangelical atheist. It makes sense in his time and context. He saw the need to fight christianism and to weaken its hold over Europe and America. Unlike Paine's Deism, McCabe was atheist. Paine - another great influential who similarly acted solo - was trying to remove humanity from the jaws of christianism too. McCabe only knew christianism, saw through the sham and hence lost his faith, but felt there was nothing else there. He was so far alienated from prechristian natural traditions that he could not have been very sympathetic to them let alone inclined towards them, so a dismissive (non-inclusive) atheism was his natural alternative.
I understand his evangelical atheism: it was directed at salvaging Europa/America.
But western evangelical atheisms when transplanted to India shows its monotheistical tendencies of being intolerant of the host society.
2. The second kind of western atheists are those of my agegroup in NL. They are what I'd call apathetic atheists. They really dislike christianism, and for the rest think religion is nonsense and have their own lives to live. Also understandable, but they're not very conscious about their choices, maybe it was because they were so young.
This is the kind that is becoming common in Bharatam in the younger generations. Thanks to christian media they are apathetic to Hindu Dharma. The Indian kind is psecular and is taught an aversion to Hindu Dharma but can be brought to fall into christianism.
3. The local atheists where I live: they are *conscious* of what they are, very self-educating and NOT evangelical. They are accepting of others but will not be imposed on. (Some have consciously chosen to be vegetarian for animal-friendly reasons, even since childhood, and even though their families often remain non-vegetarian.) The reason for such laissez-faire atheism is because this is not America: not under the constant threat of christian terror groups trying to snatch them for a cannibal supper.
This sort of western atheism is best.
In all honesty, I have more trust in their steadfastness than in the Hindus of this generation who are still culturally Hindu but atheist.
- The former have lost a lot to christianism but picked up their lives and moved on and know well who they are and can pass this humanity on to the next generations, guarding them from dangerous memes.
- The latter will at some point down the line bring forth progeny that is vanilla atheist with no longer the 'culturally Hindu' trappings. If such progeny turn out like the conscious atheists (non-evangelical) then it won't be bad for the nation - it won't preserve Dharma but it can guard against mindviruses. But what if they're not conscious atheists and fall into memetic diseases including psecularism instead?
In my previous post, I'd written the following. One qualification about it:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Cultural Hindus who have grown up to be atheist and are not antagonistic towards traditional Hindu paths, but are instead understanding/sympathetic towards all branches, tend to be Hindus I think, since it is like their own mental evolution and is not in conflict with established Dharmic tradition. This is my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->While these might be Hindus themselves, such cultural Hindu atheists cannot ensure passing on Dharmic tradition to the next generations though. Their parents passed on something to them and not all of it was imbibed: they became atheists (but they're not of the traditional Hindu atheist schools). They themselves will only be able to pass on the shell (the 'culture'), and not the substance in it, to their own children and so on. At some point in the transmission chain there will inevitably be a total break.
Japan's atheism is a bit like 3, but like I said earlier, it is not naturally derived (not from an evolution of local traditions, but because of external events).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian Atheism if it grows will end up like Japan, a non-militant one where people just don't bother. I don't think that will happen because Hinduism has a lot of in-depth explanations and a lot more substance that it will always happen a significant appeal. But Hindu Agnosticism could steadily increase in % (and probably will) but it won't become the overwhelming philosophy like it is in Japan.
Also unlike the Japanese, Hindu civilization is in a front line battle zone with Islamists and Christo terrorists.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Christianism will never allow Bharatam to become like Japan: christianism is finding Japan impossible to christianise.
Christianism will only allow and enable the psecular style atheists/agnostics: those who like to ape the west and will christianise with the west and apostasise with the west.
Also, modern India does not have the strength of character of Japan, it's apparent from how western-thought patterns have entered at almost all levels among the 'religious' Hindus themselves.
Japan has made a relative success of everything, even this non-natural situation they ended up in. India's character is defined and maintained by degree of allegiance to its Dharma. When it goes, India will be meaningless too: some India will continue to exist, but serve no purpose.
1. Hindu civilisation is analogous to the Hellenic civilisation
2. It includes more besides Vedic.
3. There's far more to it than only philosophy (am supposing the term is meant in the Greek sense)
Again: there's more than Vedic.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if there is more, then Hinduism is more than just a simple Religion, it includes a lot of other things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->What I meant was, not all the religious aspects of Hindu Dharma are Vedic.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree Western Atheists are militant.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not all. Maybe you say that because you are thinking of N America only. There are 3 kinds of <i>western</i> atheists I can recognise (so far).
1. The missionary atheists
The current American kind that is growing up in an agressively evangelical christian society that is trying to extinguish atheism/agnosticism. Hence the atheists start by being reactively evangelically atheist. But in time, they become evangelically atheist with respect to everything else: including traditions that pose no threat to themselves or others.
McCabe is a *kind* of evangelical atheist. It makes sense in his time and context. He saw the need to fight christianism and to weaken its hold over Europe and America. Unlike Paine's Deism, McCabe was atheist. Paine - another great influential who similarly acted solo - was trying to remove humanity from the jaws of christianism too. McCabe only knew christianism, saw through the sham and hence lost his faith, but felt there was nothing else there. He was so far alienated from prechristian natural traditions that he could not have been very sympathetic to them let alone inclined towards them, so a dismissive (non-inclusive) atheism was his natural alternative.
I understand his evangelical atheism: it was directed at salvaging Europa/America.
But western evangelical atheisms when transplanted to India shows its monotheistical tendencies of being intolerant of the host society.
2. The second kind of western atheists are those of my agegroup in NL. They are what I'd call apathetic atheists. They really dislike christianism, and for the rest think religion is nonsense and have their own lives to live. Also understandable, but they're not very conscious about their choices, maybe it was because they were so young.
This is the kind that is becoming common in Bharatam in the younger generations. Thanks to christian media they are apathetic to Hindu Dharma. The Indian kind is psecular and is taught an aversion to Hindu Dharma but can be brought to fall into christianism.
3. The local atheists where I live: they are *conscious* of what they are, very self-educating and NOT evangelical. They are accepting of others but will not be imposed on. (Some have consciously chosen to be vegetarian for animal-friendly reasons, even since childhood, and even though their families often remain non-vegetarian.) The reason for such laissez-faire atheism is because this is not America: not under the constant threat of christian terror groups trying to snatch them for a cannibal supper.
This sort of western atheism is best.
In all honesty, I have more trust in their steadfastness than in the Hindus of this generation who are still culturally Hindu but atheist.
- The former have lost a lot to christianism but picked up their lives and moved on and know well who they are and can pass this humanity on to the next generations, guarding them from dangerous memes.
- The latter will at some point down the line bring forth progeny that is vanilla atheist with no longer the 'culturally Hindu' trappings. If such progeny turn out like the conscious atheists (non-evangelical) then it won't be bad for the nation - it won't preserve Dharma but it can guard against mindviruses. But what if they're not conscious atheists and fall into memetic diseases including psecularism instead?
In my previous post, I'd written the following. One qualification about it:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Cultural Hindus who have grown up to be atheist and are not antagonistic towards traditional Hindu paths, but are instead understanding/sympathetic towards all branches, tend to be Hindus I think, since it is like their own mental evolution and is not in conflict with established Dharmic tradition. This is my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->While these might be Hindus themselves, such cultural Hindu atheists cannot ensure passing on Dharmic tradition to the next generations though. Their parents passed on something to them and not all of it was imbibed: they became atheists (but they're not of the traditional Hindu atheist schools). They themselves will only be able to pass on the shell (the 'culture'), and not the substance in it, to their own children and so on. At some point in the transmission chain there will inevitably be a total break.
Japan's atheism is a bit like 3, but like I said earlier, it is not naturally derived (not from an evolution of local traditions, but because of external events).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian Atheism if it grows will end up like Japan, a non-militant one where people just don't bother. I don't think that will happen because Hinduism has a lot of in-depth explanations and a lot more substance that it will always happen a significant appeal. But Hindu Agnosticism could steadily increase in % (and probably will) but it won't become the overwhelming philosophy like it is in Japan.
Also unlike the Japanese, Hindu civilization is in a front line battle zone with Islamists and Christo terrorists.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Christianism will never allow Bharatam to become like Japan: christianism is finding Japan impossible to christianise.
Christianism will only allow and enable the psecular style atheists/agnostics: those who like to ape the west and will christianise with the west and apostasise with the west.
Also, modern India does not have the strength of character of Japan, it's apparent from how western-thought patterns have entered at almost all levels among the 'religious' Hindus themselves.
Japan has made a relative success of everything, even this non-natural situation they ended up in. India's character is defined and maintained by degree of allegiance to its Dharma. When it goes, India will be meaningless too: some India will continue to exist, but serve no purpose.