Why I think religion is a subversion of science [and look at the wording subverted, subversion: another version, ha. a deliberate attempt I would say although over such a time that you wouldn't notice it]
Lets talk Nirvana [mukti, freedom]
here is the hindu philosophy about it. A person is borne as a human being. That SAME person goes through a cycle of death and birth. [anti-scientific because a subverted idea ]This cycle goes through thousands of circulation. [I learned as a kid barely 3/4 years old] This person is the same person who is tagged and condemned to be born into this cycle by default. If he commits sin he is condemned to go into a degraded form of life such as a dog or a snake or a tortoise etc [altho tortoise in earlier times was a reincarnated Bishnu]
To free yourself from this birth-death cycle you must be a “good” person as given to you by socio-religious conscience.
Thats why nir-vana. First of all noone told you the etymo-ana of nirvana. Among 10s of cognate this word can make [sanscrit: a hypothetical language, actually a scientific comparison of various languages that have a unified base purported to be sanscrit, in such cognation you are going to run into 10s - 50s of cognates for the same word, which merely means they did not necessarily came from a purported language but are an amalgamation of 50 or more-some languages overs 100s years, in other words self-splitting and combinations too and my analysis paves its ways to be connected to chinese and japanese as well]
so here are just two cognates. you can find another 10, but the idea is nirvana is a smartly coined word. Once this word’s meaning is clear from its purported hyper-cognates which runs into 10, 15, 20 religion jumps in and forms a philosophy, but this is over a longer time than seems clear immediately, there are always groups and orgs working towards such assimilation of science into religion. What happens is scienece is forgotten and religion walks like a savior.
nir=nil=not [see I told you many times in other articles, "l" is not an original indian consonant which means its the same word either nir: sanscrit word comes from nil: english or nil: english comes from nir:sanscrit] Also there are other “nir” in sanscrit without any meaning of “nil=zero/not” that might be because the r is an inherited or pseudoness [an undesirable consequence of hypothesis of sanscrit], eg nirbaha = execution/continuation should be nibaha [baha=flow/continuity etc hence ni is just inherited from an actual another word which is closer to our unification of Indian languages with Japanese]
vana [would mean firecracker if not elaborated] but its actually vaona , vahana etc. This is what is sanscrit, its a backtracking, its not a f* insight you get from scriptures. The scriptures that are original exist only with say last 1000 yrs, 600 yrs or 200 yrs or 1200 yrs. Two aspects: 1. no original scriptures 2. what happened to scriptures of 3000 yrs age? they either just didn’t exist or their existence can only be inferred through other 2ndary scriptures written through demi-scholars. Not to say that these would not have any value. Point: make this a citation, this scripture derives from 2ndary work etc etc. Don’t land into a whirlpool. Scholarship can’t be done that way.
So the point was you can have o/h [and a, b etc, there are far too many alternations that are possible and you must study them all in a given context]
now vaona makes it vabana=feeling/thought etc and vahana could also make that or flow/conitnuity.
hence in both cases nirvana would mean ceasation of life hence a cycle of life no matter a dog’s or a parrots. The point I am making is although this insight occurs to me because I am fluent and a native, but this analysis might have been known for this method much before. This is where religion jumps in. Once nirvana means ceasation of life its easy to create a philosophy of nirvana [freedom from lifecycle as ordained onto every living creature by the creator] and then assign [manipulation, shear white lie] to budhism [actually bushism/butism] or hinduism etc. In other words depending on your society’s religious needs you can form such philosophies by subverting analysis. And they say analysis is bad. [because it exposes their silly mental preoccupations]