To: Rashid Mughal, Rafi Amar, Khalid Sohail and Farzana Hassan

 

I have thoroughly enjoyed the ongoing discussion. There are few things that catch my eye on my return to FOTH site:

 

Language can corrupt the intended message and can complicate communication also but this is the only medium available for expression of complex abstract thought. With this understanding; first of all to Farzana Hassan: I think usage of ‘Hermeneutics’ bears different meanings in theology, philosophy and existentialism. I feel it is somewhat unconventional to use hermeneutics of philosophy/existentialism while interpreting theology as I noted in your response. Is there precedence for such liberal and inter-changeable usage of this terminology?

 

Even if we agree that hermeneutics of philosophy can be used for theology from this day on; we are still left with many questions as to how to abandon God of theology who is “Kahar’ and 'Jabar' and keep only 'Gafoor-ur-Rahim'? If final interpretation is going to come from humans then what is a good reason to hang on to scriptures and God of scriptures whose merits are only self-contradictory? Is it not true then that humans tied in string of generations are real transcendental beings and not God or scripture?

 

I have a different take on divorce of religion and history. Mr. Mughal, “I believe we should keep history out of religion, unless we are studying some dead religion from the dead past”.

 

I think history is our common heritage and need to keep it whereas religion that has caused great suffering in history needs to be kept out of our future.

 

[The fact that we 'see' visions when we pray via rituals is delusional. It is an illusion (what, at a deeper level of understanding, the Hindu school of philosophy calls 'maya'); our manifestations are hallucinations from our own brain].

 

[We are conditioned human beings; yes, conditioned as genetically coded, conditioned as social animals fighting for survival, conditioned to believe or act in a certain way (or perish), conditioned by society, culture, tradition, history and geography].

 

Now to the idea of multifaceted ‘conditioning’: True and agreed (I hope even conditioning is not another ‘Maya’ – Illusion also). But ‘Conditioning’ must be serving a purpose otherwise it would not have survived through ages. By the way, religion also serves some purpose. That’s why it has survived as an approach in life. This is, I think, what needs to be understood (with some reconciliatory attitude) for moving forward. I have noted it before that there are at least two main themes of human psyche: ‘Need for Identity and Survival or preservation’. We know that 10,000 years history of theology and/or mysticism is a failed approach so far. Do we have to keep on repeating the same falied experiment of history? I think not. It is time for a futuristic approach at human level by humans, not divinity. Lets move forward with education of common principals of humanity and justice and I think we can do it together!

 

Regards.