That's an excellent observation, but one biased by the relative cultural primitiveness of India.
XD But sometimes that specific
cultural primitiveness (not in general, but the one you imply), prevalent in common areas, far out-does the experienced (for want of better word... dammit) philosophy of most people in the USA and other places.
See, relying on materialistic prosperity is in most cases impractical, because resources are primarily meant to satisfy necessities and not luxury, and an intelligent and properly developed school of thought can easily make a person skilled enough to take on the world. It makes a person capable developing skills that he never had, without clinging on to materials that might not be with him later, and thus gaining power to acquire things he never had, be it money or power. Schools and education were such means, but even those are starting to go down the drain. From what I've perceived, with the exception of science and math, true education can only be acquired
outside academia. But religious theological studies, or simply personal indulgences therein? Although they can't compete with
what they teach is, but I do point at
how they teach us, they remain true to their humanitarian methods and do the best of what they do: forward ethics.
Compared to anything else in the world, religion is
powerful and, though primarily meant to bind societies together and expand, thus the weapon some would use against another. When they say religion in bigger than an individual that's the cold truth, and yet an individual has every right to ignore, change or follow it. It is what you
change it into that counts, and the right turn can make humanity better. Scientology formed by a drug addict may have worsened conditions in our world, but
Buddhism seems to be blurring the line between it and science; hell,
even I managed to find evidences of the existence of metaphysical concepts, such as
Spirit, and detailed its properties thereof. Thus the quote (though it means more than what I explained):
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”Now back to the point: see, the main problem about India and why it's stuck in a
developing state is that the entire government system seems broken, with every stupid procedures and laws passed that make the government incompetent (Democracy is only in the name of voting, but commoners don't have the right to speech eve though it's publicized a lot -- India may as well be a Fascist country), and people have nothing else to rely on
but religion and culture, improving it over time and creating a social utopia for themselves out of diverse philosophies. It's a ray of light in an eternal darkness, and I'll give you an example why. See, Hinduism doesn't have "Devil" or "Hell", but Islam does, and the coexistence simply had them merged thus the majority of the people here believe in it, just like in the USA. But one big difference is that most religious commoners are helpful and would refuse to commit sin, not because they believe in
Hell or
Shaitan, but
because they know it's wrong! Unlike a legal system that punishes crimes or Christianity that promises damnation to sin, Hinduism constantly drums in ethics that though humans have the freedom of choice only the good deeds are valued most, and that each good deed not only makes you a better person but also makes the world a better place. It is these similar aspects of humanitarianism is what most believe to be
Religion here; and although I don't believe in some dude named
Brahma creating the cosmos, I do value what a developed religion offers.
Perhaps I inherited this understanding not from Religion, but from my late grandfather: we never discussed religion, though he was a believer, but I think his wisdom and endless quest of philanthropy got to me.
He always put other people's happiness before himself.
Your tolerance for religion, in the absence of a better understanding, is commendable.
Thank you! Although I don't get what you mean there. I agree I'm not religious, though I do study the religious texts out of sheer curiosity and thirst for better understanding -- in turn, I either take them as either records of old (sometimes exaggerated) history, or I take them as fiction -- and appreciate stuff that it offers in ways a true writer would. So (I admit my tiny head isn't capable of holding or processing a world of info and detail) what is my absence of understanding? Is it my lack of prejudice towards it?
