[QUOTE=thomas;45924]What authority determines your canon?[/QUOTE]
There is no “authority” like your pope. In our case, it is simply the dictates of our gurus or our society.
You mean all Hindus believe the same things and all accept the same scriptures?
And what about the bestiality claims in the Bible?
[QUOTE=thomas;45932]You mean all Hindus believe the same things and all accept the same scriptures?
And what about the bestiality claims in the Bible?[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. Again, Hindus believe general things (like Dharma, Karma, Moksha, etc) but specific interpretations of less general things can vary from sect to sect from philosophical interpretation to philosophical interpretation.
For example, a sect of Hinduism believes that Hinduism is something that you have to be born into (because of all the societal and cultural notions surrounding it). Others believe this is not the case. A sect of Hinduism believes Shiva is the supreme being while another, Vishnu. Then there are the philosophical interpretations which Surya has explained some time ago, with their concepts of God and so forth.
As for bestiality, I have never heard of anything like it in the Bible and have never seen such a thing ordained in Hindu scriptures. If they are mentioned, then its probably just to be read as a part of the story, like a Greek myth, and not meant to have any meaning derived from it.
Hinduism is the most diverse religion on the planet, because Hindus were given the freedom to think. The generals are the same, but the particulars are very different. These different traditions are known as sampradayas.
We invented democracy. Never in our religion has anybody ever been persecuted for having different views.
The point about the abortion question was that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with any health danger to the mother. So would you spare those innocents and grant them the protection of the law?
Under what circumstances is it moral for the mother to kill her child in the womb?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45935]Hinduism is the most diverse religion on the planet, because Hindus were given the freedom to think. The generals are the same, but the particulars are very different. These different traditions are known as sampradayas.
We invented democracy. Never in our religion has anybody ever been persecuted for having different views.[/QUOTE]
If you mean democratic principles, then yes, India had them (in terms of religious belief. In our society, there still existed discrimination and sexism, particularly during British rule and weak Mughal rule). As a political system, no.
And invent in what sense? With respect to our region? You could say China “invented” democracy with their Confucian values (among which cited the people as the building blocks of the state). Many civilizations had some elements of democratic principles, and just because one contrived them before the rest, doesn’t mean they “invented” it, in the sense that no one else thought of it before.
Some circumstances I can think of
- If the mother is raped and the child is the offspring of the rapist. There is no reason why the mother should have to give birth to a child she did not consent to.
- If the birth of a child endangers the life of the mother. In this case saving the mother and not the baby makes more sense.
- If the child is being conceived during times when one will not be able to take care of the child such as during war, economic crisis, dysfunctional family
- Teenage pregnancy
[QUOTE=thomas;45937]The point about the abortion question was that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with any health danger to the mother. So would you spare those innocents and grant them the protection of the law?
Under what circumstances is it moral for the mother to kill her child in the womb?[/QUOTE]
I don’t do research on abortion, so I will have to agree with your first statement. And Surya Deva and I were arguing about the morality aspect of it, not the “health danger to the mother” part.
Can you rephrase your first question please? I don’t know what you’re exactly trying to ask.
For one, health issues. For another, rape related issues. As for teen pregnancy, I am not really sure. On the other hand, there is the case where you willingly had intercourse, knew the consequences, and decided to kill the unborn child because you didn’t want to live with the shame. That is wrong. Then there is the case where you know the consequences, are willing to live with it, and circumstances turn out that such that it would be highly undesirable for the child to not be born (and you know the child would sooner die than live without some miracle). Then it would be fine. All depends on the situation.
The question is one about justice. Whether the life in the womb is a person, and if so, whether it has any rights or whether it deserves to be protected.
This should be the starting point in an abortion discussion, not the circumstances of the pregnancy, since the circumstances do not change the worth of the life in the womb.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;45938]If you mean democratic principles, then yes, India had them (in terms of religious belief. In our society, there still existed discrimination and sexism, particularly during British rule and weak Mughal rule). As a political system, no.
And invent in what sense? With respect to our region? You could say China “invented” democracy with their Confucian values (among which cited the people as the building blocks of the state). Many civilizations had some elements of democratic principles, and just because one contrived them before the rest, doesn’t mean they “invented” it, in the sense that no one else thought of it before.[/QUOTE]
India had janapradas which were republics which consisted of self-governing entities. The villages for example governed themselves using a panachayat system which was a public sphere made out of the people. This was administered by state rule of the king. The panchayat system continued right up to the 18th century. There was also the samapradaya system that began in Vedic times where different Risis would congregate to democratically discuss Vedic matters and comple the samhitas.
The archeaological evidence also suggests looking at the Indus valley ruins that the city was egaliatarian and self-governing.
Hence the earliest forms of democracy were indeed invented in India. Democracy as the public voting for a party to serve for a term is a Western system though.
[QUOTE=thomas;45941]The question is one about justice. Whether the life in the womb is a person, and if so, whether it has any rights or whether it deserves to be protected.
This should be the starting point in an abortion discussion, not the circumstances of the pregnancy, since the circumstances do not change the worth of the life in the womb.[/QUOTE]
You cannot talk about the life of the child without talking about its mother. Its mothers life is more important, and if it was between the mother and the child to live, then it would be always right to choose the mother. The child has not yet even began a life.
Whenever dealing with a moral problem one always has to look at the circumstances as well. Some actions are right under some circumstances and wrong under others.
[QUOTE=thomas;45941]The question is one about justice. Whether the life in the womb is a person, and if so, whether it has any rights or whether it deserves to be protected.
This should be the starting point in an abortion discussion, not the circumstances of the pregnancy, since the circumstances do not change the worth of the life in the womb.[/QUOTE]
That is not justice (its more of religious morality and ethics). Justice is considering the circumstances involved and how they will affect the outcome, in reaching a final decision. You must also consider not only the pragmatic aspect but the far-reaching aspect. Sure the child has its own life to begin with, and we must respect that, but what will it do with the life that is given to him in certain circumstances? Will he turn out to be a rapist/murderer/gangster/etc with no hope of redemption or a good individual? That is why you must always consider the circumstances. The mother too has a choice in this matter you know.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45942]India had janapradas which were republics which consisted of self-governing entities. The villages for example governed themselves using a panachayat system which was a public sphere made out of the people. This was administered by state rule of the king. The panchayat system continued right up to the 18th century. There was also the samapradaya system that began in Vedic times where different Risis would congregate to democratically discuss Vedic matters and comple the samhitas.
The archeaological evidence also suggests looking at the Indus valley ruins that the city was egaliatarian and self-governing.
Hence the earliest forms of democracy were indeed invented in India. Democracy as the public voting for a party to serve for a term is a Western system though.[/QUOTE]
All right then. But you cannot say that India “invented” the novel idea of democratic principles when other cultures independently created those same notions in later times. Invent is such a harsh term at times, especially when talking about where credit is due. Too many Westerners pull this term out of their bag to credit their achievements and forget the ideas of those who came before.
We can use the same excuses to kill babies and children.
Greece did not create these concepts independently. The foundation of Greek philosophy, culture and civilisation shows very clear Indian beginnings. Though Greek civilisation took on another tangent unique to its culture and developed into a materialist and hedonist culture. There were hedonists in India as well, known as the Charvaka, but they never gained influence in Indian society. In Greece it was the opposite.
The debate is how did the Indians influence the Greeks. Was it through the Persians or are there older influences. I have reviewed the evidence and it appears to me that Greek civilisation itself was founded by one of the Aryan groups from India. The Sanskrit texts refer to them as the yavanas and the yavanas are one of the groups that existed in India at one time.
No we cannot Thomas. A baby and a child is a living human being. They have the same human rights as other humans do. However, an embroyo is not yet born and it is inseparable from its mothers life. So we cannot talk about its life, independent from its mothers life. The mother has rights as well.
[QUOTE=thomas;45954]We can use the same excuses to kill babies and children.[/QUOTE]
We’re talking specifically about abortion here. This is another matter with a different set of moral and ethical codes that apply accordingly.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;45955]Greece did not create these concepts independently. The foundation of Greek philosophy, culture and civilisation shows very clear Indian beginnings. Though Greek civilisation took on another tangent unique to its culture and developed into a materialist and hedonist culture. There were hedonists in India as well, known as the Charvaka, but they never gained influence in Indian society. In Greece it was the opposite.
The debate is how did the Indians influence the Greeks. Was it through the Persians or are there older influences. I have reviewed the evidence and it appears to me that Greek civilisation itself was founded by one of the Aryan groups from India. The Sanskrit texts refer to them as the yavanas and the yavanas are one of the groups that existed in India at one time.[/QUOTE]
Can you provide me links to scholarly articles that talk about this? I have heard both sides of the story, debates on whether Indian civilization influenced Greek civilization or vice versa but they always have no conclusion. I have heard the Yavana theory but from the mouth of Eurocentrists who misquote it to make it seem that India learned everything from the Yavanas/Greeks. :roll:
By the way, it has already been proven that Persians and Indians are genetically related, though this isn’t surprising considering the linguistic similarities between Zoroastrian and Hindu scriptures. I find it incredibly fascinating that both scriptures mention the other as having worshiped demons (and the devastating war fought between these two groups of people as a result and the movement of what we know as Persians to present day Iran and the movement of what we know as Indians to North/East/South India), both talk about soma, both talk about Devas and Asuras, and etc. So perhaps the early Persians did influence the Greeks…who knows…
Not all Western scholars are eurocentists: http://www.ideaindia.com/product_detail.php?pid=1637
Also check this link out for the India-Greek connections:
Ahh, I almost forgot about the latter website! It is one of my most favorite (and reliable despite some statements without direct proof) sources for this kind of information.
Haha, so true: "It is clearly absurd for Europe as a whole to pose as a qualified instructor in humanity and civilization. He writes: “If Europeans have any superiority over Asiatics it lies in practical science, finance and administration, not in philosophy, thought or art. Their gifts are authority and power to organize; in other respects their superiority is imaginary.” - Sir Charles Elliot