Mr. Hair
Renegade Cavalcade
Sceptic challenges guru to kill him live on TV said:When a famous tantric guru boasted on television that he could kill another man using only his mystical powers, most viewers either gasped in awe or merely nodded unquestioningly. Sanal Edamaruku’s response was different. “Go on then — kill me,” he said.
Mr Edamaruku had been invited to the same talk show as head of the indian rationalists’ association — the country’s self-appointed sceptic-in-chief. At first the holy man, Pandit Surender Sharma, was reluctant, but eventually he agreed to perform a series of rituals designed to kill Mr Edamaruku live on television. Millions tuned in as the channel cancelled scheduled programming to continue broadcasting the showdown, which can still be viewed on YouTube.
First, the master chanted mantras, then he sprinkled water on his intended victim. He brandished a knife, ruffled the sceptic’s hair and pressed his temples. But after several hours of similar antics, Mr Edamaruku was still very much alive — smiling for the cameras and taunting the furious holy man.
Rest-o'-the-article can be found here.
I stumbled across this news article earlier today, and I thought it was a fascinating example of how the impulse of secularisation adapts to wildly different cultures. Whereas here in the West*, the broad focus of religion** has tended to downplay the importance and role of contemporary physical miracles over the past couple of centuries, and so the arguments against and the apologetics for have in turn focused more on the spiritual and philosophical side of things. Whereas in India*** things seem to be the opposite, with the performance of individual holy men being of great importance, and so attempts to de-mystify and reverse engineer all things religious tends to be more direct and physical whilst still holding true to the general principles of rational enquiry and the importance of consistent logic.
(I guess the equivalent of this method in the US would involve Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris showing up during Mass with a couple of electron microscopes and an alarmingly suspicious amount of rubber tubing)
Essentially, my questions to the fine folks here basically boil down to, well, is Edamaruku right to believe that exposing and debunking the various holy men, gurus and televangelists will directly promote a "post-religious society", and "completely destroy" their ability to influence people? Does the debunking of the miraculous undermine the validity of religion as a whole, or is it simply a specific and limited response to a specific and limited aspect of religion, that not all happen to share? Should we treat the classical miracles recorded in various religious texts with the same scepticism, or give them greater reverence due to their historical weight, and (arguably) their greater cultural and mythical significance? (And if so, what is the cut-off point between 'classical' and 'contemporary'? Where do the established miracles in the Baha'i or the LDS faith**** stand between the two?) Is the faith that countless millions have in these holy men worthless if it's proven that they are based on deception and material gain?
I was also very interested in his comments about the ideal nature of a "post-religious society". Is such a goal desirable, or even feasible? If so, what exactly would it entail, and if not, is it still a worthwhile ambition to pursue? Would I be right in defining a "post-religious society" as one in which the entire influence of a religion on an individual is determined solely by that individual, as I figure that in the foreseeable future a clear majority of people will still find some value in identifying themselves as religious; or is that definition too flawed and partial?
Finally, I'd like to apologise if this post is too question-y and not, well, substance-y enough. I'm still trying to get my forum groove back on, baby, and any feedback is always good.
------
*At least, it's here from where I'm standing. Well, sitting. Okay, so it's more of a loaf, but a very upright and stiff loaf. It’s practically got mould on it.
**Outside of the fringes, of course. There's still quite a few nits lodged in there.
***According to a single apocryphal source on the matter, upon which I shall be basing my entire argument. Go internet debating!
****No bias or insult intended to the participants of either faith, these were just the only examples my post-Googlised mind could dredge up in a hurry.