Many paths

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

According to Hindu philosophy, there is no one path to salvation.  There are many paths and we can choose any one that works for us.

We can choose the path of devotion or the path of selfless action or the path of wisdom. You can also be an atheist. Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity. There is no one organisation or authority who dictates what all Hindus should do.

No specific book or scripture is authoritative for all Hindus. You can follow or question any scripture. Generally, most Hindus will follow a combination of multiple paths.

In spite of this loose structure it has certain features that are common to all Hindus....Dharma (righteousness), Karma, reincarnation and Moksha (liberation).   The idea is to experience life in many forms and through these experiences to finally go inwards and realize our own inner divinity.

For information.

Cheers.

Sriram
   

[ProfessorDavey]

We can choose the path of devotion or the path of selfless action or the path of wisdom. You can also be an atheist.

Are you somehow implying these things to be mutually exclusive - in other words that you cannot be a devoted atheist, that you cannot be a selfless atheist, that you cannot be a wise atheist.

I'd suggest that you can be any of those things, albeit not all atheists are. But then again not all religious people are devoted, or selfless, or wise either.

[Sriram]

Are you somehow implying these things to be mutually exclusive - in other words that you cannot be a devoted atheist, that you cannot be a selfless atheist, that you cannot be a wise atheist.

I'd suggest that you can be any of those things, albeit not all atheists are. But then again not all religious people are devoted, or selfless, or wise either.

??

My point was that even atheists could be spiritual....without necessarily believing in a God.  Samkhya philosophy is largely atheistic but not materialistic. 

[ProfessorDavey]

??

My point was that even atheists could be spiritual....without necessarily believing in a God.

Well you need to take more care with your language. What you said is a classic of the kind of casually insulting language atheists so often face. Imagine if I'd said:

We can choose to be kind, we can choose to be brave, we can choose to be hard-working. You can also be christian.

The separation of the virtuous attributes from the choice of religion can clearly be interpreted that they are mutually exclusive.

[ProfessorDavey]

My point was that even atheists could be spiritual....without necessarily believing in a God.  Samkhya philosophy is largely atheistic but not materialistic.

But this is nonsense - the attributes you have chosen (all of which most people would see as positive or virtuous) are nothing to do with spiritualism. They are simply aspects of human behaviour. You don't have to be spiritual to be devoted (e.g. to your family etc), you don't have to be spiritual to be selfless, you don't have to be spiritual to be wise (or have good judgement). You seem to be slipping into a further prejudice that somehow being virtuous and exhibiting attributes that we consider positive equates to being spiritual - which again seems to be casually insulting to people who are not spiritual (most people certainly in the UK) who strive (and hopefully succeed) to be devoted, selfless and wise.

None of these human attributes and behaviours are aspects of spiritualism. The elements that typically define spiritualism are things like belief in god, belief in afterlife, belief in reincarnation, belief in some higher power, belief in a soul, belief in fate etc - not devotion, selflessness and wisdom. Not I'm not saying that spiritual people cannot be devoted, selfless or wise - of course they, can. But it is just as easy for non-spiritual people to show those attributes and behaviours as they have nothing to doing with spirituality.

[ProfessorDavey]

My point was that even atheists could be spiritual....without necessarily believing in a God.

But that isn't what you implied in:

Even in the path of devotion we can choose any deity that we prefer. There is no compulsion on any specific deity.

Again your prejudice is achingly obvious - in your mind devotion must mean devotion to a god. Firstly that is completely inconsistent with your claim that atheists can be too, as, by definition, no atheist is going to be devoted to something that he or she does not think exist. But also devotion as a behaviour and attribute (seen generally to be a positive one) is way broader that devotion to gods - I suspect that most people see their prime devotion as being towards other people that they care about and love, or even to their jobs etc. By framing devotion is such a narrow theistic manner again you seem unable to see beyond a narrow prejudiced view that being good and virtuous equate to being  spiritual and believing in god.

[ekim]

I don't find Sriram's use of English insulting.  I am always impressed how well many people from other countries express themselves in English.  I think part of the problem is that many of the key Sanskrit words used in 'Hindu' philosophies don't translate well using words like 'God', 'spiritual', 'righteousness' which have a Christian connotation.  I think all Sriram is saying is that there are many inward ways, methods, paths mentioned in those philosophies which don't require a theistic belief.

[Bramble]

I think all Sriram is saying is that there are many inward ways, methods, paths mentioned in those philosophies which don't require a theistic belief.

But none, it seems, that don't require belief in the fundamental disembodiment of the self. Why must spirituality always involve an immortality project?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't find Sriram's use of English insulting.  I am always impressed how well many people from other countries express themselves in English.

I don't think that Sriram intends to be insulting, but he is using language that panders to lazy negative stereotyping of people.

So in his case he is pandering to a lazy stereotype that in order to exhibit positive attributes and be virtuous you need to be spiritual and/or believe in god. Even when someone is seeming to rebut that stereotype they simply exhibit that it sits there as a starting point to their thinking. So lets look at some other examples.

If someone says:

'Black people can be hardworking too' - I think it is pretty clear that this is based on, and continuing to promulgate a lazy stereotype that black people are lazy. Even if the statement seems to rebut the claim - the claim is a necessary element of the dialogue even if unsaid.

or

Women can be rational too' - I think it is pretty clear that this is based on, and continuing to promulgate a lazy stereotype that women aren't rational. Even if the statement seems to rebut the claim - the claim is a necessary element of the dialogue even if unsaid.

or

Gay people can be monogamous too' - I think it is pretty clear that this is based on, and continuing to promulgate a lazy stereotype that gay people are promiscuous. Even if the statement seems to rebut the claim - the claim is a necessary element of the dialogue even if unsaid.

If your mindset is such that you do not accept the lazy starting point stereotype then the need to rebut becomes completely non-sensical.

This type of lazy prejudiced language occurs all the time and forms part of classic racist, sexist, homophobic etc tropes that help to perpetuate prejudice against certain groups of people. And the same is true for atheists, often associated with a lazy stereotype that you need to be religious to be moral or ethical.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think all Sriram is saying is that there are many inward ways, methods, paths mentioned in those philosophies which don't require a theistic belief.

But he isn't - because the attributes he uses, being devoted, selfless and wise aren't limited to an inward facing philosophical approach or being spiritual (as he claims), whether theistic or not. They are pretty universal human attributes and behaviours. He is perpetuating a lazy stereotype that somehow exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with being spiritual, which is just as much a lazy stereotype as considering that exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with a belief in god.

[Enki]

I don't find Sriram's use of English insulting.  I am always impressed how well many people from other countries express themselves in English.  I think part of the problem is that many of the key Sanskrit words used in 'Hindu' philosophies don't translate well using words like 'God', 'spiritual', 'righteousness' which have a Christian connotation.  I think all Sriram is saying is that there are many inward ways, methods, paths mentioned in those philosophies which don't require a theistic belief.

I think perhaps Sriram's opening post should have been in the 'Eastern Religions' section rather than the 'Philosophy in all its guises' section as all he seems to be doing is limited to and expounding areas of Hindu philosphy for those who are interested in such things.

This section tends to present different philosophical concepts and views which are often challenged by others. Hence, 'devotion' as a Hindu term might well not raise much of an eyebrow, but as a philosphical idea, is open to all sorts of challenges and interpretations, as Prof Davey quite rightly, in my view, made clear.

[Sriram]

But he isn't - because the attributes he uses, being devoted, selfless and wise aren't limited to an inward facing philosophical approach or being spiritual (as he claims), whether theistic or not. They are pretty universal human attributes and behaviours. He is perpetuating a lazy stereotype that somehow exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with being spiritual, which is just as much a lazy stereotype as considering that exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with a belief in god.

I think you have gone berserk, Prof.....

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you have gone berserk, Prof.....

Nope - just pointing out that human attributes such as devotion, selflessness and wisdom aren't somehow restricted to people who are spiritual. So while I completely accept that there are plenty of people who consider themselves to be spiritual and also exhibit devotion, selflessness and wisdom (albeit there are plenty of others that don't), there are also plenty of people who do not consider themselves to be spiritual and also exhibit devotion, selflessness and wisdom (albeit there are plenty of others that don't).

However in your mind devotion, selflessness and wisdom seem to be exclusively linked to spiritualism - they aren't and to infer they are is lazy stereotyping.

[Sriram]

I was only saying that in Hindu philosophy ....there are many paths that people can follow for spirituality development and I have named some of them. You are reading and insinuating things that are wholly imagined. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I was only saying that in Hindu philosophy ....

Then as Enki suggests this might have been better in the Eastern Religion section.

there are many paths that people can follow for spirituality development and I have named some of them. You are reading and insinuating things that are wholly imagined. 

Nope I don't think I'm imagining you equating devotion, selflessness and wisdom to be exclusively linked to spiritualism.

So we can easily sort this one Sriram:

Do you accept that it is perfectly possible to demonstrate the attributes of devotion, selflessness and wisdom without being spiritual or religious or a believer in god?

Simple question, requires just a simple yes/no answer

[Sriram]

Yes...and that's precisely what I meant when I said that even atheists can get salvation.  If you still don't get it....I give up.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes...and that's precisely what I meant when I said that even atheists can get salvation.

We aren't talking about salvation (whatever that actually means) we are talking about very human attributes of devotion, selflessness and wisdom.

But thanks for confirming - you could have made things a lot easier by being clear about this in the first place. And I would also urge you not to engage in language the perpetuates lazy stereotypes about groups of people, for example by implying that it is somehow controversial or newsworthy to suggest that atheists can exhibit devotion, selflessness and wisdom.

See also my examples relating to racism, sexism and homophobia.

Sriram - I think you are from India - no doubt you will also be aware of lazy stereotypes that are aimed at Indian people as a group, which you may well find frustrating at best, insulting or worse. So please think a little more carefully about your choice of words when discussing attributes that you imply about a group, rather than about an individual person.

[Sriram]

Communication is a two way process.   What I say is one thing....what you understand is the other. I cannot help your touchiness and your misinterpretations.....

Cheers.

Sriram 

[ProfessorDavey]

Communication is a two way process.   What I say is one thing....what you understand is the other. I cannot help your touchiness and your misinterpretations.....

Cheers.

Sriram

If you say something that implies that it is somehow newsworthy or controversial to claim that atheists can be devoted, selfless or wise, then it should come as no surprise if someone interprets it in that manner. If that isn't what you wish to convey then better to use clearer language. And frankly it took several goes for you even to understand why your comments may be interpreted in such a manner and only when I asked a very direct question did you clarify your position. Indeed you seemed rather bemused that someone might interpret your comments in the manner I did.

If someone said:

'Even some black people can be hardworking' - would you find it hard to understand why that might be interpreted in a negative manner by black people (and others who oppose racism). If not why did you struggle so much to recognise how someone who is an atheist might interpret your posts in a negative manner.

[ekim]

But he isn't - because the attributes he uses, being devoted, selfless and wise aren't limited to an inward facing philosophical approach or being spiritual (as he claims), whether theistic or not. They are pretty universal human attributes and behaviours. He is perpetuating a lazy stereotype that somehow exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with being spiritual, which is just as much a lazy stereotype as considering that exhibiting virtuous human attributes and behaviours is associated with a belief in god.

I didn't read his opening post that way.  I saw the emphasis on path of devotion, of selflessness, of wisdom.  It would have been better if he had used the expressions Bhakti yoga, Karma yoga and Raja Yoga and explained what those terms mean, in which case the opening post would have been better in the Eastern Religion Section.  I notice that he did use the word 'spiritual' in a later post.  It would have been better not to use a Christian term, especially when confronting atheists.  We don't want to precipitate any heart attacks.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't read his opening post that way.

Perhaps so, but the post, particularly when posted on the Philosophy section rather than Eastern religions is open to different interpretations and I don't think mine was a particularly unusual or unexpected interpretation. Frankly it is just another one of the 'you atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion' tropes.

So very predictable, so very condescending and insulting. The very notion of his OP that even atheists can be saved providing they follow the rules set out by Hinduism demonstrates that mind-set in spades. 

[Udayana]

Who the heck needs to be saved anyway? Where are "these" paths supposed to be going?

There's a huge presumption in the OP that it is already known to be correct.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who the heck needs to be saved anyway? Where are "these" paths supposed to be going?

There's a huge presumption in the OP that it is already known to be correct.

Yup - I agree with that. The sort of condescending 'certainty' - akin to 'well we all agree what the truth is, why don't you guys just follow it.'

[ProfessorDavey]

I saw the emphasis on path of devotion, of selflessness, of wisdom.

But the point is that devotion, selflessness and wisdom aren't something exclusively about hinduism or spiritualism, nor frankly is a philosophical view that we should try to attain (i.e. follow a path) devotion, of selflessness, of wisdom in any way exclusively about hinduism or spiritualism. Actually, although it might be phrased slightly differently secular humanism follows exactly the same path, although they might talk of commitment (devotion) to treating others as you'd wish to be treated (selflessness) and having consideration for others (wisdom).

So imagine if a humanist had posted the following, analogous to the OP.

'Humanism considers that to be an ethical person you should strive to attain the virtues of devotion, of selflessness, of wisdom. Anyone can follow humanist principles, even Hindus and Christians and if they follow those humanist principles they too can become an ethical person.'

Can't you see just how condescending and insulting that would come across to a Hindu or a Christian, who quite reasonably would reply 'sod you, those aren't exclusively humanist principles, our religion teaches us the same thing. We are perfectly capable of following our own teaching if we want to be a good person, we don't need you lecturing us. How dare you imply that the only way we can demonstrate our ethical nature is by aligning ourselves with your philosophy which doesn't teach us anything new'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think you're ranting PD. I didn't read Sriram's OP in the way you did. I think the problem is you making lazy Western-centric assumptions about what Sriram meant based on your biases. In the East theological philosophy is very much part of philosophy in all its guises.

I also think you owe Sriram an apology for misrepresenting him in reply #8 and #18. You inserted the word "too" in your examples about black people and homosexual people etc. Sriram never used the word "too". Nor did Sriram use the word "even" in his OP in relation to atheists. So your "Even some black people can be hardworking' is a complete misrepresentation since you inserted the word "even", which wasn't there in the OP.

Sriram started his OP "according to Hindu philosophy" and then stated that part of Hindu philosophy includes the idea of salvation. He then went on to expand on some ideas in Hindu philosophy such as "There are many paths and we can choose any one that works for us."

Given all the full stops in between his sentences the next line "We can choose the path of devotion or the path of selfless action or the path of wisdom. You can also be an atheist" just means that according to Hindu philosophy you don't have to believe in a god to follow these paths of devotion, selflessness or wisdom.

Sriram then mentions that according to Hindu philosophy the path of devotion does not limit you to choosing any particular deity. Within Buddhist philosophy there is an idea that devotion can be practised without needing any gods to be devoted to. Cultivating a devotional state of mind is a mechanism for not focusing on your own needs, and is seen as a way of overcoming ego.

This is the philosophy board. It isn't called "philosophy in all its guises excluding theological philosophy".

Everything else you read into his OP and your condescending response (reply #16) about his use of the English language just comes across as patronising racism to me.