Why Sathya Sai Baba following will be acceptable to people at large including atheists; Few additional thoughts on religious followings and society
I recently had a mail conversation with a USA correspondent who seems to be an atheist and a "secular humanist", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism. From this wiki page, (the following It refers to Secular Humanism) "It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some, such as Sam Harris, advocate a science of morality."
During that conversation I tried to convey how the Sathya Sai fraternity will be acceptable to people at large including atheist-humanists as a peaceful and helpful group. I thought readers may want to have a look at some extracts of my part of the conversation which are given below (in a slightly edited form):
My (Sathya Sai Baba followers) spiritual group/fraternity focuses primarily on attempts to internalize and practice the spiritual/ethical/moral values of Truth (Hindu word for it: Sathya), Ethical Conduct as interpreted/taught by Hindu religious teachers including Sri Sathya Sai Baba which also typically follows the law of the land but goes beyond it (Dharma), Peace (Shanti) and Love (Prema). While the source of these teachings may not be acceptable to some, the teachings itself of Truth, Ethical Conduct, Peace and Love, will be acceptable to most genuine/enlightened spiritual leaders & groups, genuine humanists including atheist-humanists, most judicial systems & governments, as well as people at large. [The Sathya Sai Baba following also has a fifth value of Non-violence (Ahimsa) but I am not so clear about the following's interpretation of it, especially in the context of Mahatma Gandhi's Ahimsa, and so I have not mentioned it here.]
An important addition to the above is my group's belief in the Law of Karma as well as reincarnation (based on Hindu beliefs reinforced by 'revelations' from Sri Sathya Sai Baba) which essentially says: as you sow so shall you reap. This reaping (of good/bad fruits of good/bad actions) may happen in this birth or a future birth. [There are some exceptions to it too]. This belief gives us added motivation to steer clear of bad/evil actions and try to do good actions. Once again, many may not accept this law of karma, but our group's attempts to steer away from bad/evil/hurtful-to-others actions and engagement in good/helpful-to-others actions, will be acceptable to people at large.
....
The extracts below deal with religious followings and society at large (not specific to Sathya Sai Baba following)
On parents influencing children to believe many seemingly strange (religious) matters especially when supported by a community:
My view is that if these values are benign religious/ethical values that is fine. However, if they are malicious values promoting hatred and murder, I consider that to be a tremendous perversion of human life given the great potential human life has towards the good, the kind, the beautiful, the noble and the uplifting. [It must also be said that some atheist-humanists believe in and work for these positive and constructive goals/aspects, and some famous atheist-humanists inspire atheists as well as theists with their positive and constructive work.]
...
My view is that any religious sect whose leaders literally interpret their religious scripture to demand killing of others who are not from their faith, except in self-defense, is not a benign religious sect and is a threat to multi-religion society.
It seems to me that the leaders of most religious groups today in countries like India as well as Europe and the USA disregard the parts of their scripture demanding hurting/killing of others from different faiths even though they may not openly state those parts to be wrong especially in today's multi-religious and multi-cultural, and deeply interconnected and interdependent world. So, in effect, the groups led by these religious leaders are not malicious or dangerous. They may consider their sect and/or religion to be the only true religion but they do not support physical attacks on people of other sects and religions - so they are not a threat to society at large.
...
My view is that Christians who literally interpret Christian scripture including the Old Testament common to Christians and Jews, if I got that right, and so do not believe in evolution and believe that the world is 6000 years old, should be viewed as somewhat misguided people. But so long as they do not attack people of other religions or no-religion (agnostics & atheists), as far as I am concerned, they are not a malicious or dangerous group. Further, if they try to follow Jesus' teachings of Love Thy neighbour and turning the other cheek towards all people irrespective of their faith or no-faith, I would consider them to be a useful contributor to the community.
During that conversation I tried to convey how the Sathya Sai fraternity will be acceptable to people at large including atheist-humanists as a peaceful and helpful group. I thought readers may want to have a look at some extracts of my part of the conversation which are given below (in a slightly edited form):
My (Sathya Sai Baba followers) spiritual group/fraternity focuses primarily on attempts to internalize and practice the spiritual/ethical/moral values of Truth (Hindu word for it: Sathya), Ethical Conduct as interpreted/taught by Hindu religious teachers including Sri Sathya Sai Baba which also typically follows the law of the land but goes beyond it (Dharma), Peace (Shanti) and Love (Prema). While the source of these teachings may not be acceptable to some, the teachings itself of Truth, Ethical Conduct, Peace and Love, will be acceptable to most genuine/enlightened spiritual leaders & groups, genuine humanists including atheist-humanists, most judicial systems & governments, as well as people at large. [The Sathya Sai Baba following also has a fifth value of Non-violence (Ahimsa) but I am not so clear about the following's interpretation of it, especially in the context of Mahatma Gandhi's Ahimsa, and so I have not mentioned it here.]
An important addition to the above is my group's belief in the Law of Karma as well as reincarnation (based on Hindu beliefs reinforced by 'revelations' from Sri Sathya Sai Baba) which essentially says: as you sow so shall you reap. This reaping (of good/bad fruits of good/bad actions) may happen in this birth or a future birth. [There are some exceptions to it too]. This belief gives us added motivation to steer clear of bad/evil actions and try to do good actions. Once again, many may not accept this law of karma, but our group's attempts to steer away from bad/evil/hurtful-to-others actions and engagement in good/helpful-to-others actions, will be acceptable to people at large.
....
The extracts below deal with religious followings and society at large (not specific to Sathya Sai Baba following)
On parents influencing children to believe many seemingly strange (religious) matters especially when supported by a community:
My view is that if these values are benign religious/ethical values that is fine. However, if they are malicious values promoting hatred and murder, I consider that to be a tremendous perversion of human life given the great potential human life has towards the good, the kind, the beautiful, the noble and the uplifting. [It must also be said that some atheist-humanists believe in and work for these positive and constructive goals/aspects, and some famous atheist-humanists inspire atheists as well as theists with their positive and constructive work.]
...
My view is that any religious sect whose leaders literally interpret their religious scripture to demand killing of others who are not from their faith, except in self-defense, is not a benign religious sect and is a threat to multi-religion society.
It seems to me that the leaders of most religious groups today in countries like India as well as Europe and the USA disregard the parts of their scripture demanding hurting/killing of others from different faiths even though they may not openly state those parts to be wrong especially in today's multi-religious and multi-cultural, and deeply interconnected and interdependent world. So, in effect, the groups led by these religious leaders are not malicious or dangerous. They may consider their sect and/or religion to be the only true religion but they do not support physical attacks on people of other sects and religions - so they are not a threat to society at large.
...
My view is that Christians who literally interpret Christian scripture including the Old Testament common to Christians and Jews, if I got that right, and so do not believe in evolution and believe that the world is 6000 years old, should be viewed as somewhat misguided people. But so long as they do not attack people of other religions or no-religion (agnostics & atheists), as far as I am concerned, they are not a malicious or dangerous group. Further, if they try to follow Jesus' teachings of Love Thy neighbour and turning the other cheek towards all people irrespective of their faith or no-faith, I would consider them to be a useful contributor to the community.
Comments
Post a Comment