Alternative argument could be -
Persisting with the ritual in highly unfavorable circumstances elevates the nobility of those undertaking it
For e.g. : I insisted on doing father's shraadh bare-chested in late December Delhi, as it made the shraadh more personally satisfying
Persisting with the ritual in highly unfavorable circumstances elevates the nobility of those undertaking it
For e.g. : I insisted on doing father's shraadh bare-chested in late December Delhi, as it made the shraadh more personally satisfying
Of course it is not an exact parallel
Braving 8-10 degrees temperature is nothing compared to exposing oneself to a poisonous atmosphere that can hurt you badly
But nevertheless the element of austerity inherent in most rituals is underplayed in our times
Braving 8-10 degrees temperature is nothing compared to exposing oneself to a poisonous atmosphere that can hurt you badly
But nevertheless the element of austerity inherent in most rituals is underplayed in our times
The larger problem I have is -
If concern with one's body predominates everything else, then why do you need any kind of religion at all?
Materialism in its essence is about pandering to one's body
We all do that. But much of religious practice is a counter to this instinct
If concern with one's body predominates everything else, then why do you need any kind of religion at all?
Materialism in its essence is about pandering to one's body
We all do that. But much of religious practice is a counter to this instinct
If religious practice has to be rendered "comfortable", then it ceases to have much relevance
Except as an identity marker
Except as an identity marker
For e.g. Many young Indians are basically irreligious. Their "practice" comprises of wearing Kurta on Durga Puja or Diwali. Doing some traditional dance in an ostentatious way
But is that religious practice? No. Those are just cultural markers..
But is that religious practice? No. Those are just cultural markers..
