The God Project: Hinduism as Open-Source Software/Faith

[Vehl]

This post is based on Josh Schrei's article of the same name. As someone from the Computer Engineering field, I found this outlook fascinating, and very true.

Trying to explain the core beliefs of "Hinduism" to an interested observer can be challenging to say the least. Its often stated that the word "Hinduism" itself is a total misnomer, as it basically refers to the sum total of spiritual and religious thought and practice that has taken place on the Indian subcontinent over the past 5,000 years. And lets just say it's been a busy 5,000 years.

The sheer volume of spiritual literature and doctrine, the number of distinct gods worshiped (over 30 million, according to some sources), the breadth of distinct philosophies and practices that have emerged, and the total transformation over time of many of the core Indic teachings and beliefs can be disconcerting to those raised in monotheistic cultures, as we are used to each faith bringing with it a defined set of beliefs that -- with the exception of some denominational rifts over the centuries -- stay pretty much consistent over time.

However, the key point of differentiation between Hinduism and these other faiths is not polytheism vs. monotheism. The key differentiation is that "Hinduism" is Open Source and most other faiths are Closed Source. "Open source is an approach to the design, development, and distribution of software, offering practical accessibility to a software's source code."

There is absolutely no limit or restriction on the end user(A follower(or even a non adherent) of Hinduism (better termed Sanatna Dharma)) regarding changes he can make to the source code. In fact this is exactly what the followers of Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism) have done over thousands of years. No part of the code is sacred..not even "god". Some have modified the source code to support their polytheistic worldview..some monotheistic..some agnostic ....some pantheistic("God is the whole")..panentheistic ("The whole is in God.")..dualistic..nondualistic/monistic and Atheistic...not to mention pure Materialistic and Hedonistic.

The users have invented, reinvented, changed, merged, split and deleted(from their particular version) pretty much every permutation and combination of philosophy conceivable...and this process is still ongoing.

Atheists and goddess worshipers, heretics who've sought god through booze, sex, and meat, ash covered hermits, dualists and non-dualists, nihilists and hedonists, poets and singers, students and saints, children and outcasts ... all have contributed their lines of code to the Hindu string.

In the Rig Veda, a god of the universe, Prajapathi (Please note the term "A"...as this is merely one version of the source code...and most Hindus do not even know who Prajapathi is/was) asks the following


"Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?"

But as much as the gods change and the evolution of Indic thought leads us to increasingly modern and post-modern views of the nature of reality, the old Vedic codes still remain front and center. One of Hinduism's defining factors is that the historic view of god, the nature worship and shamanism, never went away, so that god as currently worshiped exists simultaneously as symbol and archetype as well as literal embodiment. That Shiva, for instance, could simultaneously be the light of ultimate consciousness and an ash-smeared madman who frequents cremation grounds is a delight to us spiritual anarchists, while mind numbing to most western Theologists.

Western and Middle Eastern monotheistic faiths have simply not allowed such liberal interpretation of their God. They continue to exist as closed source systems.

"Generally, means only the binaries of a computer program are distributed and the license provides no access to the program's source code. The source code of such programs might be regarded as a trade secret of the company."

While There are many denominations amongst those who profess the Abrahamic faiths...they all have some commonality on core concepts. For example, one cannot reject "god" and be a Jew or Christian or a Muslim...while there is no such "sacred" area in Hinduism. Everything and anything is fair game. And Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism) as we know it today is the amalgamation/collection of every single philosophical, religious, scientific poetic and musical concepts developed by its adherents.

It is fitting indeed that Madhavacharya, one of the greatest Hindu Philosophers who enumerated the major philosophies of the Sanatana Dharma starts his magnum opus with the first Chapter given to "Atheism", a very strong presentation of arguments in favor of Atheism. It is no wonder that Charvarka, one of the foremost proponents of Atheism and the founder of Hinduism's Charvarka school of Atheism (6th century BC) is regarded as a great Hindu sage by other Hindus to this day.

As Josh Schrei pointed out, Hinduism is truly a religious/philosophical/way of life equivalent of the modern day "open source" software concept. It is also the main reason there is no "heresy" in Hinduism. There are "templates" available for most people, but if the template is not to one's liking, one can rewrite the source code itself...and chances are that this new version might become the template for many others as well...as it had done so over millenia. This is not just related to Hindus only...Some of the reform movements within Hinduism (Btw Buddha was a Hindu, and he never claimed to start a new religion...it was his followers a few generations later who termed it "Buddhism" and made it into something similar to a religion) were spearheaded by people like Buddha...AdiShankara..and others. Some, like Buddhism have become religions in their own right...they have done exactly what Other Hindus have done...they re-wrote/modified the source code while keeping many attributes intact....Even modern day neopagans have done this, as myriad Hindu concepts have made way into their religions. The source code is available for everyone...royalty free.


As a Hindu Atheist I find this quite refreshing.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Not sure about any of that.

But it makes sense to find the best of thoughts in many peoples thoughts and learn and grow from those thoughts. Many people can have better ideas of better hearts that can help you either learn, or postulate some views on yourself others, and existence.

I don't think other beliefs are a challenge to my belief, but in many ways many beliefs are all part of the same things with different ways of seeing the same things.

I think tolerance helps in learning, although there is some fear people have, fear of being abandoned or fear of rejection, if they think on some topic or idea.

:shrug:

Interesting article, and an interesting comparison to computer code.

[Vehl]

4. I agree

Many people can have better ideas of better hearts that can help you either learn, or postulate some views on yourself others, and existence.

I don't think other beliefs are a challenge to my belief, but in many ways many beliefs are all part of the same things with different ways of seeing the same things.

I could not agree more. It is inevitable that there will be others..now...or maybe a millenia from now who would come up with ideas we have never thought of, or even imagined. Furthermore the world we live in, and the societies we form, are always in a continuous flux...and ever changing. Thus truth(even the term "truth" is discouraged in the non-dualistic schools of Hinduism because they imply judgement based on incomplete knowledge) itself is ever changing. Therefore it is impossible to hold some statements that hold true today..or held true in the past, to hold true in the distant future. Change itself is the only constant...and unless we keep on changing, incorporating and generating new ideas in line with the changing environment and times we would be soon outdated and outmoded.

As for your second point, yes what we perceive is entirely based on the perspective of the perceiver. As the perceivers change/differ, the perspective..and the perception itself changes. To a person inside a room in winter, the room might seem slightly cold...but to someone who just walked into the room from the freezing weather outside...it might feel decidedly warm. So who is correct? both of them. This is the main reason that Hinduism claims truth is entirely based on the perceiver and nothing else. The same way the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of Quantum mechanics works.

[RandomThoughts]

5. That is also a tenant of faith.

A person can not know for sure about the supernatural, or it might be a choice for self gain, not a choice of how they want to think and feel.

If the supernatural showed you exactly what form and what it was, you might follow for self gain. If you can't know for sure, or know that truth includes your perspective, then you are included in the spiritual belief you believe in.

That is also why proving the supernatural exist is prosperous, proving its exact form would be counter productive.

There must be the choice, for there to be part of the person involved in the spiritual, also why I believe faith can not be coercion. It is also why I believe free will exists.

[Vehl]

8. I have a slightly different take, even though I agree with the general premise

of your post. I for one think that the supernatural is mostly something that we humans cannot maybe yet explain scientifically..but something that can be explained scientifically nonetheless if we can have verifiable examples of the supernatural in action.

Furthermore as a Hindu I dont see why science and my particular path should be at loggerheads...as I would always prefer and look for a scientific explanation over a supernatural one. However there are stuff which do not have a definite scientific answer yet(eg, the positive, observable and quantifiable effects of yoga, on both the mind and body). This,imho does not posit the existence of some supernatural powers, but only that we have more scientific experimentation to find a scientific explanation for this effect.For example, the acceptance that Yoga does have such benefits is something that has been conceded by the scientific community rather grudgingly. But skepticism is part of the scientific process and prevents us from entertaining wild ideas without any supporting evidence. I would not be surprised that in the near future science discovers that humans, animals and maybe even plants emit certain waves..thought waves which could be trained through certain means (meditation? yoga?) to bring about positive changes.

I find Arthur C Clarke's three laws to be quite applicable in this area

1 When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2 The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3 Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Most Hindus do not see any difference between the supernatural and the world..or even themselves. For them this universe is a whole made up of things which are identical in actuality, but show up as diverse to our senses. If there is a supernatural..then we already are.

The problem of science vs religion only arises when religion considers science to be different...or rather maybe the fault is with how religion defines itself to be...if it is defined as religion is defined in the Abrahamic sense, then there is a separation between religion and science..or the sacred and the profane. However when something is defined as it is thought of in the Dharmic way...as a "way of life" rather than a religion...the question of the separation of the religious and secular...of science and religion..of the sacred and the profane does not arise. If there is supernatural..then everything is supernatural..if there is no supernatural..that is fine also.


I agree with your part regarding faith and coercion...faith based on coercion makes no sense.Personally I stay away from any faith based stuff cos imho facts and figures are needed before I can chose to subscribe to a theory. However I do agree that you, and everyone else is entitled to his/her own worldview.

[drm604]

2. Then how do you define a "Hindu"?

If nothing is sacred, and anything can be changed, than what is the defining characteristic that makes one a Hindu? There can't be such a defining characteristic, can there?

So, how can you say that someone is or isn't a Hindu?

[Vehl]

3. There is no definition

The vast majority of Hindus would agree with what you have posted...that there is no definition of a "Hindu".

In fact this is the main reason we discourage the use of the term "Hindu". It might come as a surprise to many non-Hindus, but We never use the term "Hindu"..ever...unless it is when talking to a non-Hindu. The term Hindu is a corruption of the term "Indus"..the Persians could not pronounce "I" thus they spelled it as "H"...and the British who came to rule India gave this term "Hindu" to us.

The term most(the operative word here is "most"..as we do not have a central authority or dogma to ensure anything...even a label..stick) "Hindus" use to refer to themselves is "Sanatana Dharma". Sanatana means "eternal". Dharma means "way/law/truth/path" (again there is no agreed upon definition of the word Dharma). Thus the closest approximation of Sanatana Dharma could be "The Eternal way/path". It is Not considered a religion in the Abrahamic sense

Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are called "Dharmic philosophies" (some might also call them religion) and the borders between them are sometimes non-existent. Some schools of Buddhism and Hinduism are virtually identical. In fact Buddha did not entertain the question of the existence of god. He did not even care about it as it did not matter. Some Sanatana Dharmic schools like Advaita vedanta are identical in that regard. However you also have Sanatana Dharma(Hindu) Schools which are explicitly and virulently atheistic.

Due to the lack of central authority or authoritative texts which are fundamental(there are many texts but they are not considered in the same sense the Bible is) to Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism), there is no definition of a Hindu...thus what most Hindus today agree is that a Hindu is someone who professes to be a Hindu.

Thus..in other words, anyone can claim to be a Hindu, and he/she will be considered a Hindu no more, no less than other Hindus.

Here is an interesting thought, maybe the only thing that characterizes Sanatana Dharmins(Hindus) from other major religions is that there is no defining Characteristic. In other words, Hindus could be defined by the lack of any defining Characteristics. This underscores one of the most commonly found Hindu idea...that there cannot be a monopoly on truth for the simple reason that Humans are not identical.


PS: I, as a Sanatana Dharmist(Hindu) would actually be disappointed if someone else holds the exact same worldview(even in the most minute of details) as I do...because this implies that one of us is copying the other, as there is no way that two people can hold the exact same view unless one of them is not exercising his/her critical thinking facilities to go over what he/she has learned and has made changes to it based on his/her experience/assorted knowledge.

[drm604]

6. So what it sounds like

is that everyone pretty much does their own thing regarding philosophy and world view without a lot of pressure to conform to some dogma. Then the British came along, had difficulty grasping the culture, and shoved it into the "religion" box and slapped a label on it. Is that about right?

[Vehl]

7. exactly

You pretty much nailed it.ways of life of Indian origin do not fall under the same definition of religion as commonly used(in the Abrahamic sense).

Another common thread that runs along the followers of Sanatana Dharma(and other Dharmic philosophies like Buddhism/Jainism) is the tolerance of different beliefs...or in other words..the acceptance that there cannot be any monopoly on truth. Maybe this could also be considered a defining trait..however it is as defining as non-belief on a deity defines Atheists, I guess...in other words its a broad generalization which does not say much about the other(disregarding this specific subject) beliefs/ideals of those who share this particular idea.It is a similarity rather than a definition.

[lbrtbell]

9. Sounds a lot like Paganism and Wicca to me

Interesting information. Thanks for posting it. :)

[Vehl]

10. Hindus are Pagans :)

We are probably the only continuous and thriving major religion in the world which is Pagan. And as other Pagans around the world, we do not fall within the neat "religion" boxes defined by Abrahamic religious terminology. In other words...nearly a Billion Hindus in the world qualify as being the oldest surviving way of life in the world, as well as the biggest branch of Paganism.

Hell...The Biggest Hindu temple In India is that of the Green Skinned, Fish eyed goddess Meenakshi...dozens of times the size of the Taj mahal. :D. It is as Pagan as one can get.lol

I created a thread about her a while back. Check it out if u need more info

The Largest temple in India, is that of a Goddess
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x257572

[RagAss]

11. A very intelligent approach, seeing as there are as many worlds as there are minds.