|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:13 pm
Tea, the curry chef thing reminds me of a "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!" fallacy.
And I wonder, Tea, what you make of Neoplatonism? Not all soft polytheists are the way you paint them.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:31 pm
Nuri Tea, the curry chef thing reminds me of a "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!" fallacy. It was a flawed analogy- but not a function of the debate. Merely trying to help Iolite understand my position. However- while there are different sects of Hinduism, we hit appeals to authority. Quote: And I wonder, Tea, what you make of Neoplatonism? Not all soft polytheists are the way you paint them. I have no qualms with monism. I do contest that the monistic "One" is aware unto itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:50 pm
iolitefire Dulliath iolite, I have a question for you in a slightly different area. First, though let me make a few assumptions based on what you have said. (Please correct me if any of these assumptions are wrong. I know little to nothing about Hinduism, so I could be way off base.) 1. To follow Hindu gods in a respectful manner, you must be part of the Hindu faith. 2. You have the blessing of at least one "priest" of the hindu faith to practice/be a part of the Hindu religion. 3. You consider yourself to be a Hindu. Now my question(s): Since the Hindu religion incorporates the caste system, what caste are you? (Once again, I am not familiar with Hindu terms, so just giving the name of the caste will mean nothing to me. Please explain what it means to be part of that caste.) also... Since I believe I was told that caste is assigned by which family you were born into, and you were not born into a Hindu family, how was your caste assigned? Is there a caste normally assigned to outsiders and you continue to carry that caste? Was your caste assigned by the authority that allowed you to be Hindu? Were you given a random caste? Were you given a caste by "adoption" of a Hindu family? I have trouble with the concept, since assignment by birth is not choice, but were you allowed to choose you caste? I am not intending to belittle your faith, just understand. Hi Dulliath, I have no problem with your questions at all. I know that my views are pretty different. I actually don't consider myself to be Hindu. While I respect some of the aspects such as reincarnation, darshan, and the Vedas, I don't agree with the caste system. I don't think that you should be treated poorly for your whole life because of your birth. I think the caste system is one of the bigger reasons as to why I didn't convert. I was giving it some thought not too long ago. I also don't think that you need to a Hindu to follow the Hindu deities, mainly because some of those deities didn't start as Hindu deities. Consider the history of India and the lands surrounding it. Historians and archeologists agree that many of the deities found in Hinduism came from other areas. Yama, for example, was worshipped in the Fertile Crescent long before Hinduism was established. Yama is also found in Chinese and Japanese pantheons (although he may have a different name he is stilled viewed the same way). Durga is the same, there are several deities all over Asia that have incredibly similar traits and stories. If you'd like some proof of my views please let me know! I got several books on mythology. So in the end, the deities I'm worshipping are not strictly Hindu. So why would I have to convert to worship deities that are found in different faiths? I could easily say that I worship Durga and Yama but just call them by different names in the end. These deities are also not the big players of Hinduism. Had I tried to worship Krishna or Shiva I may have been asked to stop. Quote: The analogy would still prove false; Buddhism isn't the religion of a closed culture, so it dosen't fit into the terms of the debate. Some sects of Buddhism would argue about that. Also, since Hinduism is so wide spread one could argue that Hinduism isn't a closed culture either. Quote: I don't have proof that it is good enough for them. But then again, its really not your business or your affair. Quote: I have looked over the sources you claim, and I have had legit Hindi friends of mine actually get upset with you. I'm sorry to hear that but the friends I talked to who were just as legit as yours had no problem with it. Quote: One likened it to learning to make a good curry and then claiming that you are a Hindi chef. But I'm not claiming to be a Hindu chef. What I'm merely asking is to be able to make the curry if I want to. Quote: Is it not the sect you cited a few pages back as your authority? I don't think so because while they did focus on Krishna, they also paid homage to the other deities as well. From what I read Hare Krishnas tend to be big on the idea that Krishna is the supreme lord (kind of like the Christian's view on God). Quote: Objective reality is more valid than a person's desire to claim something for themselves. But you can't be objective if you try to assert that some sects are more valid then others. Some of them are different, I'll agree there. But other sects are there mainly because they want to focus on different aspects. While I don't know about worshipping Kali as the "Loving Womb of the earth," I can see why some view her as a mother. She does have that quality to her in some ways. Okay. I was running under the assumption (incorrect, evidently) that all the Hindu gods and goddesses are actually part of one greater god. I think it was Vishnu (Once again, I don't pretend to be sure of my facts.). If such were the case, you really couldn't worship some of their pantheon without at least acknowledging the whole thing, which would almost force you to be a Hindu rather than just having a relationship with your choice of their gods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:21 pm
TeaDidikai What I contest is that one can know the context of the deity without being part of the culture. Sorry to be a pooh and Necro this, but I fealt I had to interject on this, as that is the same arguement those snivveling Dhimmi use against my sect. The assumption that an understanding of a diety is perfect, because it is older or more popular is suspect to me. If a diety revieles him/her/itself to an outsider, and imparts direct knowledge, how is that knowledge less valid than a set of strictures that a culture may have created for socio-political reasons, rather than religious ones? TeaDidikai I'll use my path as an example. Someone can read about the Domari, someone can even read my pathways thread and learn about my family's gods- even how I practice. But the gods in question are tied to my Family and my Ethnicity- and without knowing what it is to be part of that one automatically removes them from the culture and puts them into their own culture. Can those gods choose to reveal themselves to others? Some dieties seem highly constrained by their roles in the society that worships them, others are purported to be greater than them, or above them. Quote: Hinduism, with the Caste system, with the Dharma involved in the worship of the deities is on a very basic level a semi-closed tradition. Without conversion and the proper rites to go with it- you are "going through the motions", not actually embracing the context, much like an Actor playing a part. Can it be mimiced? Yes. Does that make it legit? No. I am not well versed enough on the Vedic faiths to propperly crack the specific of that... However, I would inquire as to how many well established and accepted sects of larger faiths, are a result of outsiders "going thru the motions" over a long enough period...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:34 pm
As is the case in Chatholicism, todays Heretics are tommorows Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:30 pm
Dulliath Okay. I was running under the assumption (incorrect, evidently) that all the Hindu gods and goddesses are actually part of one greater god. I think it was Vishnu (Once again, I don't pretend to be sure of my facts.). I believe you are thinking of Brahman. Fiddlers Green Sorry to be a pooh and Necro this, but I fealt I had to interject on this, as that is the same arguement those snivveling Dhimmi use against my sect. The assumption that an understanding of a diety is perfect, because it is older or more popular is suspect to me. If a diety revieles him/her/itself to an outsider, and imparts direct knowledge, how is that knowledge less valid than a set of strictures that a culture may have created for socio-political reasons, rather than religious ones? I thought your sect was still founded by legit followers of your gods that were part of the closed tradition who opened the tradition. Quote: Can those gods choose to reveal themselves to others? Some dieties seem highly constrained by their roles in the society that worships them, others are purported to be greater than them, or above them. Depends on the tradition and the god. There are specific deities in my path that are sworn to my family. There are others that I have heard of their influence in the Romany. Some are bound to those who have blood ties to the ethnicity. It is likely that due to how strict of a closed Culture the Rroma are- that the rules reflect this. Other traditions that are closed- but not as closed (such as the Jewish Faith) still have requirements, like conversion before they deal with the individual in question. Hinduism has ceremonies that are held to be the point of purification for one (without concern for Caste) to be accepted by the dieties to the best of my understanding. Quote: However, I would inquire as to how many well established and accepted sects of larger faiths, are a result of outsiders "going thru the motions" over a long enough period... As with anything- the question of how in touch a deity is with an individual is based not on the sect but with the individual. I am not questioning if there is something that connects with people who break the lines of closed traditions. I am questioning what said something is. In the case of a closed tradition that has strict prohibitions (and I'll grant there are some traditions that are more strict than others)- I do hold that to grab at a deity who has set prohibitions against outsiders is culture rape. I also have strong doubts that the individual is working with the deity of a closed tradition without being part of the culture they claim they have been welcomed into. Nuri As is the case in Chatholicism, todays Heretics are tommorows Saints! Ah- but then, Christendom isn't Judaism. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:27 pm
TeaDidikai Dulliath Okay. I was running under the assumption (incorrect, evidently) that all the Hindu gods and goddesses are actually part of one greater god. I think it was Vishnu (Once again, I don't pretend to be sure of my facts.). I believe you are thinking of Brahman. Thanks. I knew it didn't sound quite right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:30 pm
TeaDidikai I thought your sect was still founded by legit followers of your gods that were part of the closed tradition who opened the tradition. Indeed. However, I was not raised in the culture that gave rise to the closed tradition which is where the sect originates... By the standards presented, and from what I gathered from your commentary, that makes us "going thru the motions". As we lack the omni-important culture framework to propperly understand the workings of the original faith... Making us at best misguided and ignorant, or, at worst, cultural rapists... No wait, at worst, False Teachers. You must understand, those Dhimmi claim my faith and both of it's Gods as part and parcel of their culture, and have levied terminology I find even more dire than cultural rapist upon our names. Horrid Culture Rape Joke in White Ahead, read at own risk: On an aside, I am a culture rapist...
I take unconsenting, carnal knowledge of cultures quite frequently. wink
Oh... Republican Rome... your lips may be saying no... but your eyes were saying Yes...
And Renaisance Italy, really, it's their fault, did you see how they were dressed?Quote: Depends on the tradition and the god. There are specific deities in my path that are sworn to my family. There are others that I have heard of their influence in the Romany. Some are bound to those who have blood ties to the ethnicity. It is likely that due to how strict of a closed Culture the Rroma are- that the rules reflect this. Other traditions that are closed- but not as closed (such as the Jewish Faith) still have requirements, like conversion before they deal with the individual in question. Hinduism has ceremonies that are held to be the point of purification for one (without concern for Caste) to be accepted by the dieties to the best of my understanding. The point I meant to make is... Did the Divinities in question make the faith a closed one... Or did the followers? Quote: As with anything- the question of how in touch a deity is with an individual is based not on the sect but with the individual. That is a direct assault on orthopraxis. I'm not saying you're wrong... just that it is important to mention. Quote: I am not questioning if there is something that connects with people who break the lines of closed traditions. I am questioning what said something is. In the case of a closed tradition that has strict prohibitions (and I'll grant there are some traditions that are more strict than others)- I do hold that to grab at a deity who has set prohibitions against outsiders is culture rape. I also have strong doubts that the individual is working with the deity of a closed tradition without being part of the culture they claim they have been welcomed into. And my point is, what of the possibility (as slim as it may be) that the diety grabbed the person, not the other way arround? Who gets the final say, the culture, establishment, and history... or the Diety? And which has more right to be aggrieved? The Culture for having their gods stolen their traditions butchered and their lifestyle poorly exploited, or the god, for having a pack of mortals tell them who they are and are not allowed to have as followers. TeaDidikai Nuri As is the case in Chatholicism, todays Heretics are tommorows Saints! Ah- but then, Christendom isn't Judaism. wink Indeed, Messianic Judaism is a far different animal... ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:03 pm
Fiddlers Green Indeed. However, I was not raised in the culture that gave rise to the closed tradition which is where the sect originates... By the standards presented, and from what I gathered from your commentary, that makes us "going thru the motions". You misunderstand. I acknowledge that there are non-closed traditions. I even acknowledge that some of these stem from closed traditions. However- there is conversion to be acknowledged here. And you have done such to the best of my understanding. Quote: As we lack the omni-important culture framework to propperly understand the workings of the original faith... Culture does grow with it's people, and your practice allows for converts. Quote: You must understand, those Dhimmi claim my faith and both of it's Gods as part and parcel of their culture, and have levied terminology I find even more dire than cultural rapist upon our names. And their culture has evolved so that while it is part and parcel, the foundations of the claim lead to the natural evolution of your sect's tradition. Quote: Horrid Culture Rape Joke in White Ahead, read at own risk: You're right. That was horrid. Quote: Did the Divinities in question make the faith a closed one... Or did the followers? In my path? The deities. Quote: That is a direct assault on orthopraxis. I'm not saying you're wrong... just that it is important to mention. One can have right practice, but be dead inside. Quote: And my point is, what of the possibility (as slim as it may be) that the diety grabbed the person, not the other way arround? Who gets the final say, the culture, establishment, and history... or the Diety? In my tradition- it is a mutual agreement. In other traditions that are semi-closed, like the Celts- it is the deity. Quote: And which has more right to be aggrieved? The Culture for having their gods stolen their traditions butchered and their lifestyle poorly exploited, or the god, for having a pack of mortals tell them who they are and are not allowed to have as followers. That would depend on the religion. My money is on the mortals actually. If a deity wants an individual, they should pull their chips to have the individual land in the culture if they are already bound within a closed tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:59 pm
Quote: So- you feel justified in treating Hard Polytheistic Deities as gods of Soft Polytheistic Deities? I have a distaste for Soft Polytheism. Why? Because it is an active form of Culture Rape that is based on taking deities- individuals, and treating them as symbols. Want a ritual for love? Pick any random love goddess you please- and use her name, because really- they are all the same anyway. Just because someone has something in common with someone else does not mean they are the same individual. Hmmmm....By definition Hindus could be called Soft Polytheistic since they believe every god is merely an aspect of the greater whole. I actually work with my deities as a hard polytheistic. If you read mythology, you find that some deities are very similar in style, behavior, and abilities. Yama and Durga are two of these. While different cultures change them a bit as cultures do, the story is inherently the same. I don't believe all war goddesses or love goddesses are the same by any means. They may preside over similar fields but their behavior, mannerisms, and mythologies might be incredibly different. Look at Aphrodite and Bast. Both are considered to have some power over the powers of love and lust but they were different in many ways. Bast is more than that of course, and should be treated differently than other 'love goddesses'. But when two myths about the birth, actions, and mannerisms of two goddesses are so similar that one could simply interchange the name, its a safe bet that those two may be the same goddess. This is not an uncommon theme. You see it all over the world as gods and goddesses are brought to new areas. Parts of the myth may be changed to suit the new culture, but in the end it may be the same god. It also adds that the areas were Durga like deities are worshipped are geographically not far away. Further, the correlations in appearances between deities may be quite similar as well (as seen in statues, paintings, and other artwork). There have been several archaelogical and cultural theories that two very similar gods found in different cultures may end up being the same god. If there was only a few similarities then I'd agree that the gods were different deities. But when there are many correlating aspects, one has to wonder. Quote: Contested. The deities you worship are Hindu. Contested. Several resources and artifacts state that they were around and worshipped before Hindusim came about. Quote: Having something in common does not make them the same. But having almost eveything in common certainly makes it plausible. Quote: So- you would respect those who worship "big players", but not because they are individuals who deserve respect? I never denied respect to them in the first place. What I meant was that I believe that there are a few Hindu deities which are truly Hindu. And these I won't worship unless I convert. I just don't believe that every single Hindu deity was originally Hindu. Quote: Except- by the standards of The Curry Chefs- you need to be a Curry Chef to make a real Indian Curry. You aren't- so you aren't making an Indian Curry. To call it Indian Curry is to insult the Indian Curry Chefs. So what if I just simply use some use the ingredients and add my own? What if follow parts of the recipe but change a few things? Sure its not real Indian Curry, not it becomes a different curry. And probably just as tasty. Quote: I don't think you are understanding how Heretical this image of Kali is. Actually that's kind of what ticked off my Hindu friends the most. They didn't like people boxing in their deities like that and assigning only one aspect to them. Kali's not always the demonic looking chaos and death goddess the West perceives her to be. I made that mistake of thinking of her only in that way while watching movies and it was quickly corrected by my friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:03 am
iolitefire Hmmmm....By definition Hindus could be called Soft Polytheistic since they believe every god is merely an aspect of the greater whole. I actually work with my deities as a hard polytheistic. If you read mythology, you find that some deities are very similar in style, behavior, and abilities. Yama and Durga are two of these. While different cultures change them a bit as cultures do, the story is inherently the same. Avatars =/= Soft Polytheism. Quote: But when two myths about the birth, actions, and mannerisms of two goddesses are so similar that one could simply interchange the name, its a safe bet that those two may be the same goddess. And this is at the core of what I object to. Why are you telling the dieties that oh well- you look a lot like so and so- in fact, I could play swap the phonics and look! You're the same. The most common practice of this seems to be with the Hellenic and Roman deities. I have had to clean up far too many messes from people who assumed that they were the same and used their names carelessly. Quote: This is not an uncommon theme. You see it all over the world as gods and goddesses are brought to new areas. Parts of the myth may be changed to suit the new culture, but in the end it may be the same god. No. Really. They aren't. Case in point- the Hera and Juno. Their mannerisms by the words of their own priestesses are oceans apart. This is the s**t I find insulting. This assumption that because a neighbor had someone similar in their experience, that they have to be the same individual. Quote: It also adds that the areas were Durga like deities are worshipped are geographically not far away. Further, the correlations in appearances between deities may be quite similar as well (as seen in statues, paintings, and other artwork). There have been several archaelogical and cultural theories that two very similar gods found in different cultures may end up being the same god. And this is the flaw in falling back on archaeology alone. The secular does not make assertions as to the nature of the nonfalsifiable. Quote: But having almost eveything in common certainly makes it plausible. Argument from Probibility. Quote: So what if I just simply use some use the ingredients and add my own? What if follow parts of the recipe but change a few things? Sure its not real Indian Curry, not it becomes a different curry. And probably just as tasty. Tasty as it may be- you shouldn't be calling it curry. Quote: Actually that's kind of what ticked off my Hindu friends the most. They didn't like people boxing in their deities like that and assigning only one aspect to them. Who said I am assigning one aspect to her? I simply acknowledge that Still and Calm are not the same as a torrent. Quote: Kali's not always the demonic looking chaos and death goddess the West perceives her to be. I am aware of this. However- the essence of the mythology is the transformation from a calm deity who was driven into a rage. Being in a "rage" is not the same as being "calm".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:00 am
iolitefire Hmmmm....By definition Hindus could be called Soft Polytheistic since they believe every god is merely an aspect of the greater whole. I actually work with my deities as a hard polytheistic. If you read mythology, you find that some deities are very similar in style, behavior, and abilities. Yama and Durga are two of these. While different cultures change them a bit as cultures do, the story is inherently the same. Okay, here is where I'm getting confused. And I like things to make sense. Let me paraphrase you to see if I have this straight. Yama and Durga are aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity in the Hindu religion. They have counterparts that are NOT aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity in other religions. You choose to use the names of the aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity rather than the names used by their counterparts. Query: How can you worship the specifically named aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity, rather than the specifically named counterparts that are NOT aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity without putting those aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity into the context of the religion they are specifically named for? I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:20 am
Dulliath iolitefire Hmmmm....By definition Hindus could be called Soft Polytheistic since they believe every god is merely an aspect of the greater whole. I actually work with my deities as a hard polytheistic. If you read mythology, you find that some deities are very similar in style, behavior, and abilities. Yama and Durga are two of these. While different cultures change them a bit as cultures do, the story is inherently the same. Okay, here is where I'm getting confused. And I like things to make sense. Let me paraphrase you to see if I have this straight. Yama and Durga are aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity in the Hindu religion. They have counterparts that are NOT aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity in other religions. You choose to use the names of the aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity rather than the names used by their counterparts. Query: How can you worship the specifically named aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity, rather than the specifically named counterparts that are NOT aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity without putting those aspects/avatars/parts of a larger deity into the context of the religion they are specifically named for? I don't get it. This is pretty much what I was trying to point out. I further question the validity of saying that the deities are the same- but that's just because I keep seeing people claim Frigga and Freya to be the same, Ode and Odin to be the same etc. That is to say- I don't hold them to be "counter parts" just because they look similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:56 am
TeaDidikai I further question the validity of saying that the deities are the same- but that's just because I keep seeing people claim Frigga and Freya to be the same, Ode and Odin to be the same etc. That is to say- I don't hold them to be "counter parts" just because they look similar. And that's where I guess I'm still stubbornly fluffy. I don't have a problem with people believing in their own UPGs unless they don't make sense or contradict a pre-existing religion. I figure, if the deities they call on don't appreciate it, the deities will make it pointedly obvious to them. Or their followers will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:09 am
Dulliath And that's where I guess I'm still stubbornly fluffy. I don't have a problem with people believing in their own UPGs unless they don't make sense or contradict a pre-existing religion. Which these do. Quote: I figure, if the deities they call on don't appreciate it, the deities will make it pointedly obvious to them. Or their followers will. Or they aren't actually following the deities in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
