Thanks for your wonderful posts, Amardeep.

Amardeep

Thanks my friend!

Amardeep,

The issue is not one of stem-cell research per se, but the government funding of stem cell research. The Bush administration has refused federal funding for this on religious grounds - however, there are no restrictions on private research. The Indian government has not granted government money for stem-cell research in India - it is carried out by private bio-tech companies.

I personally oppose government funding of any non-defence related research. I also oppose government prohibiting any non-defence related research by the private sector.

M. Nam

Mishra's article is a rehash of stuff that has been talked about before. The only comment I want to make is the one he made "about a fratricidal war apparently fought in the first millennium B.C" Yet another date? The number of dates thrown at the Mahabharata is probably equal to the number of printed copies of the work floating about. :-)

Aside - Reader's Digest used to publish something called "Strange Facts and Amazing Stories" in which they've referred to one theory of the Mahabharata as a nuclear war. [This came much after Oppenheimer's famous commments from the Gita on Trinity]

It's too bad Mishra is so uniformed about biotechnology. I understand Mishra is concerned about stem cell research. However he makes the illogical leap to shun all biotechnology. Yes some of the advances of biotech are for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, however there are a number of benefits that he either ignores. Biotech advances for the growth of crops and treatment of infectious diseases will surely aid India. Even today India is benefitting from recombinant crops. As for drug naive patients, the US has been testing medications on its own people for many decades. I guess Mishra thinks it's okay to test drugs on American's instead of Indian's. As far as I know, any pharma that wants a drug approved in the US, has to have the clinical trials approved by the US FDA -- even if done in India.

re: religion. how people interpret texts is i think contingent as much (and actually, much more) on social norms and dynamics than the texts. evangelical people in the USA fix on the anti-homosexual passage in leviticus instead of all the various other injunctions. temperance was (and still is) a major movement among fundamentalist (and literalist) christians even though jesus seems to have partaken of wine (what would jesus do???). catholics believe that mary is the eternal virgin, though jesus' brother james is mentioned in the bible. etc. etc. i might offend some people here, but i'll come out and say it: one of the major problems with religious people is that they take their ideas so seriously that often the absurd becomes Truth when the social convention becomes the consensus. paradox passes for profundity (usually called 'divine mysteries'). as a non-religious person my goal is simply to convince religious people that the non-absurd is Truth, my personal experience is that many people will imbue their spirituality with an ontological importance that will always escape me, but i prefer it not block my own goals in life.

the opinions of religious groups are never uniform, through time or space. remember that until the 19th century catholics adhered to the greek idea of 'quickening,' not life-begins-at-conception (this is one area where roman catholics say that they have updated their beliefs to accord with science, since embryology was not a very accurate science during the days of the church fathers). evangelical protestants were not really on the fore during roe vs. wade, it was catholics. george h.w. bush used to be pro-choice, and gerald ford was basically pro-choice too. the enormous pro-life militancy of evangelicals is i think one of those unexplained social dynamics that just pops up now and then (probably a reaction to the hangover of the sixties cultural revolution, with abortion being a catalyst). ronald reagan signed one of the first laws decriminalizing abortion in california in the 1960s.

on to india. the hindu nationalists, like many religious "conservatives" have made up a lot of bizarro things. like muslims, they seem to project a golden age when "their civilization" was as cool and on the cutting edge as the west. of course, they can't wholesale jettison their own heritage. what intelligent design is to evangelicals, astrology is to hindu nationalists. but there are many types of hindus, so as a secular person, the easiest tack is just to appeal to hindus who have no problem with stem cells. in a fashion it's sophistry, but necessary sophistry. no doubt a majority of readerse of this blog believe in some sort of god. from the perspective of an atheist, theism is just a fact of cultural life, like the common cold. i just want to make sure it doesn't metastize into pneumonia.

my impression is that india is characterized by more variance on this issue than many third world nations. for example, chinese have no problem with technology, they would probably welcome a box that turned human shit into egg rolls. they don't have strong convictions in terms of 'purity' and food taboos. this results in a great deal of pragmatism and openness to all sorts of innovations. the anti-GMO movement and the like in india suggests that the elites there are not as open to technology as a cure-all. i think it is a reflection of the less materialistic emphasis of indian culture. i know that sounds stereotypical, but i wish it weren't so! indian elites are, it seems to me, in some ways no different than western elites, their concerns about the safety of foods and minority rights are of a piece with wine-and-cheese-liberalism. but india is a nation filled with malnourished people. i really don't think that the response or formulae applicable in the united states is relevant there, the first choice in a triage case is to save the sickest. one of the major leaders of the anti-GMO food movement in india is kind of fat. she might worry about cancers induced in her 70s when she's retired, but i don't know if this is the #1 priority for most indians.

so i guess i'm just saying, be more like china india. but that's a wish that won't come to pass. it kind of pisses me off when the biases of the elite, who are bathed in plentitude, can block options of uplift for the masses (or at least get them off the edges of malnourishment). but very few indians are godless, so if the anti-bioengineering left and the neo-fundamentalist right can convince indians that "all natural" is god's way, then good luck to them....

Thanks for all your posts, Amardeep.
You will be missed :(

Perhaps all this might be moot?

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2005/08/22-stem.html

that is SO punk! :)

Amardeep: have really enjoyed your contributions to SM. Will definitely keep reading your blog!

As per the stem cell research (str) issue: the polarization into "yes" and "no" camps goes back some thirty years to Roe v Wade. Much of the current opposition stems from the bitterness of conservatives groups who view the verdict on the case as a defeat. Currently, the picture is much larger than simply str, extending into theology, sexuality etc. I think that conservative groups will fight long and hard to maintain their position, however, as you point out, even their traditional allies are beginning to see that this approach is self-defeating.

I think that in India, the issue has been largely similar process of political wrangling developing.

sorry that last line shoudl read: I think that in India, the issue has been largely FREE OF SUCH POLITICAL BAGGAGE SO I DON'T see a similar process of political wrangling developing.

Amardeep,

I really enjoyed your posts. Learned new things. Thanks for your time. Same to Turbanhead too.

I have only started visiting Sepia Mutiny about 1.5 months ago.

I see you were a Big Red once. Enjoy the new semester.

Kush

Desiboy,

However he makes the illogical leap to shun all biotechnology. Yes some of the advances of biotech are for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, however there are a number of benefits that he either ignores. Biotech advances for the growth of crops and treatment of infectious diseases will surely aid India.

I don't think he's against biotech in this article at least. Rather, he's questioning the priority of large-scale government funding for this research when other major problems still need addressing.

Quizman, If you don't mind, where did he talk about this before? I missed it.

Suvendra, Yes, it's true that they might be able to make adult stem cells mimic embryonic stem cells, but as far as I can tell from the link you provide, this is still hypothetical.

Razib, It sounds like you agree with Mishra -- the stem cell issue should be low on the priorities list. I assume you must be in favor of the turn to GMO food? (I tend to support it myself.)

I assume you must be in favor of the turn to GMO food?

in the generality, yes. europeans and americans though should be free to reject it if they want too (you know that most of the large fruits we eat are polyploid, they are chromosomal duplications which result in 2 or 4 times normal size). there is a lot of GMO stuff in our food now because of ingrediants, and i don't oppose moves to make sure they are label if the public wants to have the labels (if you eat cereal or other processed carbs, you are probably getting GMO oil and shit). but, i am much more enthusiastic for GMO foods third world countries because they are on the edge of malnourishment, and i think they are squandering human capital. the brain uses 1/4 of the caloric intake.

p.s. the main issue with GMO foods is 1) long term contamination with natural lines 2) allergies. the first issue should mean we need to fund stores of seeds and have diverse lines grown in greenhouses so we have stocks as back up for hybridization schemes if a virulent infection breaks out. the second issue can be usually tested for in animal analogs. and for the cost vs. benefit, the allergy issue isn't that big of a deal in third world countries where people become seriously ill because they don't eat enough.

I really wish people separated the essence of religious philosophy to the one interpretation offered by the mythological texts such as The Mahabharata.

I remember reading about a theory that mythology is a way to simplify religious philosophy and its semantics to the understanding of the common masses i.e. those not too inclined by intellect or time to study the philosophy itself. The context of those stories represent a very different society from what we have today, not to mention all the historical baggage that has built up since then. The human condition remains somewhat the same but the societal changes have been accelerating.

Maybe we need contemporary mythologies for the myriad of religious systems.

I remember reading about a theory that mythology is a way to simplify religious philosophy and its semantics to the understanding of the common masses

in a way, this is very similar to thomas aquinas' ideas about the way of reason and way of faith, one for the elite, one for the masses, both converging on the same ineffable truths. i think it's all hokum of course, but one reason that the roman catholic church is less inclined toward creationism is the elite tendency tends to suppress the interpretations of stupid people. on the other hand, smart people can be really good at being dumb, so the roman catholic intellectual elites have powerful reason based arguments to back their ideas in regards to "life" issues, so rationality isn't the total solution. sometimes there is just a values gap.

ultimately, i think it is a propoganda war. stupid people are the majority, and so they will make their religious stupid and know-nothing. the key is to convince them that their religious says X even if its most straightforward (ergo, least path of resistance for the stupid) interpretation is Y. look at the way christianity has been distorted to suit monarchism and republicanism over the past 1,000 years, or its attitudes toward women's rights or race relations.

all we need to do is convince religious people that biological engineering actually part of god's plan, we don't have to believe that there is a god or a plan, we just need to focus on marketing. the roman catholic's present a problem precisely because they have a savvy and intellectually confident elite who i think can sniff out marketing pretty well. protestant evangelicals are holed up in their seminaries, but ultimately they always go with the flow. princeton was founded as a conservative protestant reaction to harvard's unitarianism (harvard was originally calvinist), but today princeton is just as godless as harvard.

p.s. the main issue with GMO foods is 1) long term contamination with natural lines 2) allergies ...where people become seriously ill because they don't eat enough.

Amardeep, I have enjoyed reading your highly educational posts immensely and don't worry I have your blog bloglined! Turbanhead I visit your great site far too often, so thank you both - guest bloggers linked by the power of TURBAN.

This is a very interesting post too - I was just debating this issue today and was unsure where India stood; didn't realise there was similar sort of opposition there.

And I'LL let you know what's punk!

Take care chaps, toodle loo.

suvendra, you bring up a good point about the whole 'intellectual property' racket. there are a lot of issues there.

Will this become a big issue in India once the Hindu right needs a new issue to be outraged about

But even India's so-called centerists (Congress Party supporters) are deeply religious (Hindus or Christians or Muslims). The so-called Hindu right would, however, probably would not oppose stem cell research. On the contrary will say - it is nothing new - citing Mahabharata!

And even if there is a ban of sorts, it, like other things, will only be on papers.

Doesn't this "evidence" in the Mahabharata contradict itself? What about in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna that it doesn't matter if he has to kill people because there's more to it than temporal existence.

Doesn't stem cell research fall in line with reincarnation? Once a fetal cell... bam, now you're a liver cell.

Kidding aside, your posts have been great. You make being Indian fun again.

Fantastic job Amardeep.

percepting yourself as rationalist or cynic myth maker, you might fail to appreciate being guided by a modern style myth yourself.

e.g. "biotech ... will surely aid india."
(some people might spell that different, thanks to experiences with monsanto etc.)

I don't think treating Hindu nationalists as if they're exactly analagous to evangelical Christians in the U.S is particularly profitable. The Hindutva folks are cultural nationalists, yes, but they're not literalists when it comes to sacred texts. The only Hindus that I've ever come across who cite religious texts in support of their views on social issues are Arya Samajis or members of other sects that have been extensively shaped by contact with the Christian notion of textual primacy. I don't see why biotechnology should become a hot-button issue for the Hindu right: they've definitely got their obscurantist side, but they're nowhere near as hostile to science as Muslim and Christian fundamentalists are. Hindus in general seem to have a fairly easy time reconciling their traditional metaphysics with a modern, scientific outlook. The critic A.K Ramanujan once wrote an essay about his father, who was both an accomplished mathematician and a traditional Vedic astrologer, and seemed to move easily between these two roles.

Doesn't this "evidence" in the Mahabharata contradict itself? What about in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna that it doesn't matter if he has to kill people because there's more to it than temporal existence.

That's kind of an oversimplification of a long and complicated conversation Roopsi. But yeah, there are multiple points of view present in the Mahabharat, not to mention the Puranas and the Upanishads.

Amardeep, thanks for the posts, you've been great.

Re: The Kauravas--in one of the Puranas there is also the story of the Maruts, wherin Indra wishes to kill his half brother by chopping up the embryo but instead creates 40-odd of them--but they're all good guys anyway. But yeah, precisely b/c I'm rather religious I think these texts should not enter into the public debate. You can use them to guide your personal behavior if you see fit--don't take advantage o things, don't donate money, whatever---but dragging them into the public sphere is as damaging to religion as it is to politics.

Another thought-provoking post, Amardeep. Will definitely be commenting on your blog.

Have a fun semester :)!

Mishra's basic understanding of Atman is flawed. Contrary to his claim, Atman is not soul (1) because of reincarnation and (2) because of atman's identification with Brahman. By contrast, the catholic concept of soul does not reincarnate, and “soul = God” is blasphemy in most Abrahamic religions' interpretations.

In Hindu thought, Atman never dies nor is it ever created. No human being has the ability to "create" life per se, hence this so-called ethical conundrum about biotech creating life out of nothing is irrelevant to Hinduism.

Contrary to Mishra, the Mahabharata parable about Krishna's son hearing his father's words in the womb is not evidence of "life begining at conception". It is merely evidence of our five sense perceptions being active & alert in the womb.

Sanjay

That's kind of an oversimplification of a long and complicated conversation Roopsi. But yeah, there are multiple points of view present in the Mahabharat, not to mention the Puranas and the Upanishads.

Obviously it's an oversimplification, Saheli. As I'm not Hindu and have only read a handful of Hindu religious texts, I wasn't aiming to solve any complex problems here, merely point out an inconsistency that is emblematic of debates invoking scriptures.

Not by Mishra. The stuff about cloing & the Mahabharata has been written before by other folks. :-)

Razib: Excellent analysis. However, you seem to allude that opposition to biotech (specifically stem cell research) in India could come from the Hindu religious right - I'm not sure there is much basis for this assumption. Nor have I seen anything to suggest that. This group did play an active role in the GM foods saga, but as Suvendra pointed out these postures were provoked by ground realities, and perceived political benefits.

As for Mishra, he's actually one of the 'elites' with a liberal-bias that you also allude to. I don't think Mishra represents a prevailing viewpoint in India regarding this issue, it is more of a personal opinion. Despite so few Indians being godless (I'm in the minority here), there is very little opposition to contraception, for example, in India. Among Hindus, the opposition is usually not driven by religious considerations.

Amardeep: Whose priorities are we talking about? If the public is not funding this research, there really is no problem there. In any case, it's not like malnutrition etc. persist because of technological challenges, the reasons are more socio-political.

Razib, I'm frankly rather wary of reasoning that proposes one standard for American/European countires (they can reject GM food) and another for the malnurished countries of the world.

Besides Suvendra's excellent point re: intellectual property rights, it's pretty impossible to contain the enviorenmental effects when the "primary producer" has been modified. I'm not particularly sympathetic to 'save the birds, screw the people' enviorenmentalists, but I see this as a extension of the green revolution. If it's called a success it may be becuase too many organizations, academics, policy-makers etc. had too much at stake in its success. At best a mixed bag, yes?

From the Wiki link. (The writing is rather poor, but it makes the point succintly):

Prominent critics of the Green Revolution include Indian writer and activist Vandana Shiva....It must also be mentioned that the Green Revolution may have worked in Western countries such as Mexico, but it has been a failure in Third World Asian countries such as Sri Lanka. People in Sri Lanka are poor and traditional. The chemicals- insecticides and pesticides- needed to keep the HYV plants alive are not only toxic to insects or pests, but also to humans. People in First World countries may use protection when spraying these chemicals on the plants, but protection is not used in these countries. Firstly, the people are too poor to buy protective suits. Secondly, they do not trouble to put on protection. They work in the burning sun all day and cannot be expected to wear such protection at risk of getting heat stroke.As a result, their bodies absorb the pesticides and herbicides. They are slowly but surely being poisoned.

Moreover, the chemicals have killed not only the pests, but also the animals the people of these countries once depended on to subsist. The fish in the paddy fields that they used to eat or sell are gone, and the water buffalo they use to plow the land have contracted strange mouth diseases, lost hooves, are suddenly died.

Getting rid of corruption might do more to feed the starving. Doing that will be as easy/hard as getting malnurished people who have no income to buy seeds and fertilizer from Monsanto and to keep any crops they do grow from siezure by the Big Man in the village.

*feet hotting up from applying brakes so hard on progress*

Amardeep, the bible is far more open to interpretation than those evangelical nutjobs would have us believe. Almost every biblical passage has another contradictory one..Even the Genesis story has two versions:

One has god creating Adam & Eve first and creating animals and plants for their use. The other has god creating them last, after everything else, and reminding them that they are merely caretakers. Huge diff, no?

So I guess my point is that people can find support for any agenda in virtually any religion.

Great posts, by the way. I've learned a lot, and will visit your own spot faithfully :)

Razib, I'm frankly rather wary of reasoning that proposes one standard for American/European countires (they can reject GM food) and another for the malnurished countries of the world.

Quite true. Besides, there's another deeper issue here - malnourishment in India is not related to lack of adequate food production or supplies but rather to poor distribution and lack of income to get access to food. I think this was Amartya Sen's core thesis that earned him the Nobel. So advocating adoption of GM food in India on the basis on increasing production or supplies is a specious argument. If anything, the government can barely keep up with the overflowing granaries in India as the Columbia economist Arvind Panagriya points out:

http://www.columbia.edu/~ap2231/ET/et38-march02.htm

Razib, I'm frankly rather wary of reasoning that proposes one standard for American/European countires (they can reject GM food) and another for the malnurished countries of the world.

i thought you didn't buy transitivity? anyway, i think silliness is a luxury of the wealthy.

Atman is not soul (1) because of reincarnation and (2) because of atman's identification with Brahman.

Without touching your point about Mishra, I'd have to say that your points too are hardly universals. Plenty of people, especially Vaishnavs, would describe atman very much as soul and not "identify" it with Brahman.

“soul = God” is blasphemy

Blasphemy is a strong word, but, again, most "dualists," especially in the 4 major Vaishnav sampradayas, aren't going to be happy with the idea that the soul is God.

Roopsi, I wasn't quibbling with your point, just your characterization of Krishna's instructions.

Amardeep, the bible is far more open to interpretation than those evangelical nutjobs would have us believe. Almost every biblical passage has another contradictory one..Even the Genesis story has two versions:

One has god creating Adam & Eve first and creating animals and plants for their use. The other has god creating them last, after everything else, and reminding them that they are merely caretakers. Huge diff, no?

I guess I'm one of those evangelical nutjobs you are talking about, and I think you are sorely mistaken. I don't see anything contradictory in the Genesis story.

Adam and Eve were created last, according to the Genesis story. And the same story says that God did charge them to be caretakers of the paradise garden he placed them in. However, God made man more powerful than the plants or animals - they were to be used (but not abused) by men for the purpose of sustaining life.

Whether or not you believe in the stories contained in the Bible, I encourage you to find other examples to make your point that the Bible is contradictory.

btw, re: my assertions about india, hindu nationalists, etc. in the details i know i am well off, i am under the impression that some hindutva types aren't even particularly religious, their attachment is to the forms and history of the hindu nations, as until the rise of self-conscious extra-indian religious all indians were hindus by definition. that being said, my point was that there is a general bias among indians i think to favor what is 'natural' in a way that to me is remiscient of a particular sort of amerian lifestyle liberalism. this might be because that lifestyle liberalism draws from indian sources, or, it might be that the indians are arriving at the same point in their cultural development. there is something of an emphasis on ineffable truths or values that transcendent material considerations. in contrast, my interaction with east asians, particularly chinese, is that they take a very utilitarian attitude toward the world, no sacred rivers or hallowed stones for them.

there are lots of details here i'm eliding, after all, china doesn't really have an independent cultural elite that is going to dissent from what the gov. wants (development). india does. so it might be that the chinese attitude toward the world which is more consumerist is a facade, but my interaction with elite chinese is that it isn't just limited to the gov. many indian elites on the other hand tend to take a more 'western' view that balances different values.

all that was just fragmentary thoughts, i hope i got the gist across, i'm in a hurry....

runner, 2 seconds of google, list of biblical contradictions.

"No human being has the ability to "create" life per se, hence this so-called ethical conundrum about biotech creating life out of nothing is irrelevant to Hinduism."

Sanjay,
Nicely put !!! What would Brahma do if we started creating life :-)

Amardeep,
I enjoyed your posts a lot. They were always something that would get my attention. I will miss you here.. but 'll check out ur blog.

Runnerwallah

I'm not sure who made the comment about Biblical-contradiction, not sure if the person means that the Bible contradicts itself or that there is more than one version of the Bible and thereby, Genesis. If it's the latter, this isn't uncommon, even the Ramayana has two popular versions (Valmiki and Kamban), and a number of lesser known versions. But if it's the former, I'm not sure what to say, as all versions of the Bible are consistent in saying that Adam & Eve and land animals are created on the seventh day, plants on the third...

Some versions, like King James and Living differ in language which of course changes intent, and some moderate ministers, pastors and priests (not just "nutjobs"), interpret Adam & Eve's responsibility, liberty and "dominion" in a number of different ways, some of which include "caretaking" and others "consumption"... Other Books in the Bible say different things about "Man's" role in this world and that's because they are "Books according to... Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.", but for the most part, I too haven't seen any contradictions in Genesis.

If the author's talking about Genesis 1:25 and 2:19, a careful reading and comparison of those two verses support the notion that Genesis does not contradict itself and a casual reading allows for someone to miss the obvious contextual differences of the two verses and call Genesis "contradictory."

Don't get me wrong, there are problems with the Bible and other religious texts, but if you're going to point them out, find the right ones.

There is little opposition to science and the scientific method in India, though as someone pointed out, it often co-exists with superstition. I doubt there are going to be objections to things like stem cell research on religious grounds. As a matter of pure philosophy, the rationale behind the scientific method is (I think) compatible with hindu religious philosophy. There is after all, the famous "neti-neti" principle enunciated by Adi Sankara (i.e the principle of gaining knowledge through a process of examination and elimination).

However, the objections to GM and other biotech products in India are not based on religious grounds. They are usually based on a combination partially (and often wrong) scientific arguments and an anti-colonial/socialist narrative. There is an interesting convergence on these grounds between elements of the right (the swadeshi folks) and the left wing parties in India).

Finally, much of the hindu right is close to the business communities in India, and is unlikely to oppose biotech work and its funding if its friends in the business lobbies feel that there is money to be made.

nutjob,

so what then, do you mean by "problems" since you "haven't seen any contradictions in Genesis"?

I'm Catholic, but would prefer not to quote chapter and verse. It's just so....evangelical. My Jesuit high school Bible Study class gave us a bible that had two (gasp!) versions of genesis, one after the other, in it. As for what God created on what day...I'll take your word for it, cuz frankly, I don't remember.

Razib, I believe you're referring to a comment in which I called one of Manish's arguments a transitive fallacy. Doesn't mean I don't believe in transitivity, my friend.

But I'm rather confused - my last comment was transitive, how, exactly? I would love to enjoy the "luxury of the wealthy" you referred to, but did you really aim that barb at me? Oh....it's too much! If you only knew me! If irony were monetarized, I'd be one wealthy bitch.

Saheli wrote:

Without touching your point about Mishra, I'd have to say that your points too are hardly universals.

Not sure what is your point about universals. One, it does not automatically prove mishra's atman = soul equation. Two, mishra himself clearly mentions the relationship atman=soul= true self. This is not your standard Indian dualism he has in mind here.

Plenty of people, especially Vaishnavs, would describe atman very much as soul and not "identify" it with Brahman.

Find me a Vaishnav who denies that the soul/ atman re-incarnates. By itself, this is a major point of departure from the christian conception of soul.

Blasphemy is a strong word, but, again, most "dualists," especially in the 4 major Vaishnav sampradayas, aren't going to be happy with the idea that the soul is God.

Agreed in principle. However, even in the dualist worldview, the jivatman is related to the paramatman & it is through devotion that 'Jivatman' attains 'Paramatman' status. In the christian world, an ordinary human being cannot possibly attain jesus or god status.

Sanjay

i just read the recent translation of the pentateuch by richard elliott friedman. some of the issues jump out at you...god says man will not live more than 120 years...but after that plenty people are stated to live past that date. and of course, there are people recorded to have lived past that date, so god is clearly fallible if the bible isn't. but i know there are literalist work-arounds on all these issues, but the fact that people have to make up work-arounds answers the question to modernist skeptics of the literal account.

cicatrix, sure, you are right. i don't really care.

lol, i actually did my graduate thesis on EXACTLY this topic. i could deliver an entire academic discourse that would bore the hell out of most of you along with citations (which, btw, you all should run and go buy the second it's published instead), but after all the interviews, all the english translations of obscure texts, and all the research, it seems that hinduism is quite embracing of scientific research and development, even when it comes to work on stem cells and embryos. for a good book rec, read the 4th edition of "the human cloning debate".

roop, don't you store any your stuff online? share the knowledge if so....

I really don't want to quibble here, this is just evidence for the diversity of views, really. But

he relationship atman=soul= true self. This is not your standard Indian dualism he has in mind here.

I don't really know what standard dualism would be, but the dualism I'm familiar with--the dualism of the Brahma-Madhva line--is very must that the jivatma = the true self, and the description of the soul in quality is very similar to various mystical Abrahamic traditions.

Find me a Vaishnav who denies that the soul/ atman re-incarnates.

You're right, that would be impossible. But I didn't say that. I was saying that Brahman and the jiva are not the same. They share some of the same qualities, but not allof them and not all the same qualities. And yes, this whole discussion would be rather alien to at least your average evangelical.

However, even in the dualist worldview, the jivatman is related to the paramatman & it is through devotion that 'Jivatman' attains 'Paramatman' status. In the christian world, an ordinary human being cannot possibly attain jesus or god status.

I'm sorry, I must politely but strongly disagree. Most strict dualists of the Bramha-Madva line, especially Gaudiya Vaishnavs, would never accept that jivatma can attain paramatma status. From our point of view the goal of devotion is union via the joyful interaction--the goal is, in fact the perfection of devotion itself--not merging or equating. Among such Vaishnavs, at least, there's no possibility of becoming God. The goal is to capture love of God, not God's status. Jivas can get all kinds of great qualities, but they can't actually become God. This is a significant point of view and theology that you can't just dismiss or ignore. That's all I'm saying.

And similiarly, if you are properly inclusive of the Christian world, then Mormons hope to do exactly that--become God.

Since this discussion is increasingly irrelevant to the topic at hand (as I said, I don't think matters of religion should directly influence public policy, and the indirect influence I would relegate to the inspiration to be good) I suggest we move it offline. Please email me at gmail (saheli) if you want.

Taking the irrelevant stuff offline is a good suggestion. However, staying relevant & online is perhaps more useful - certainly more inclusive - to all those that may wish to contribute.

Noble intentions aside, I'm not quite sure how we can be any more inclusive than mishra himself intended. Even our short exercise of attempting to force fit hindu atman = christian soul has led us to Madhavas & Mormons, tiny minorities within their respective communities. Even at this, serious gaps remain with madhavas believing in re-incarnation & mormons targeting to become more like god but the best that can be achieved is to live with god as his spirit children.

As I said earlier, the issue of prohibiting stem cell research is irrelevant at the level of hinduism & becomes increasingly relevant only at the level of sampradayas, individuals etc. The best that the state can do is to make pragmatic decisions.

Sanjay

I couldn't really follow some posts on this thread, mostly b/c of my ignorance regarding Hindu holy texts. Can anyone recommend a good translation of the Bhagavad Gita and/or the Upanashids?

Much oblige,

Gurpreet

sto the other religions of the world, I still have to find any controversy as to the fundamentals of the very 10 commandments which have become the puillars of every religion. Please take deep breath, try to understand the basics of all religion and try to understand each other and absorb what is good for the humanity at large. AFTERALL, THATS THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD.

wITH lOVE & PEACE

chris vyas.