Why you believe what you believe I

[BeardofPants]

That was terrible... That must have been like a shoe crime or something.

[inked]

Let us hope it remains a 'sole' crime!

[Ñólendil]

Another question (is this too many?) - what does Hinduism say about providing for the poor and needy? Are there any official statements like "help the widow and orphan" in Hindu literature? Are there any Hindu orphanages run by monks (as opposed to the state). I know that India is mostly Hindu, and orphanges would prob. be run by Hindus, but do you see what I'm saying - is it because of the initiative of the STATE, or the RELIGION?

Still looking to references for this (the first two questions). May I know, while I am looking, what it is you are trying to find out? You have a roundabout way of asking questions.


On a different note, I found something very interesting at the following site: Figurative interpretations Here is what I am referring to:

Faced with scriptural inaccuracies such as these, it is common for the theologian (of whatever religion) to either take a fundamentalist hard line or to suggest that certain doctrines were always intended figuratively rather than literally.

The fundamentalist hard line simply denies the truth of any scientific findings that contradict scripture. In the West, the whole controversy about teaching evolution in classrooms stems from this fundamentalist hard line, but there are fundamentalists in the East as well, as we see in the following anecdote:

When I was in India in the winter of 1954, in conversation with an Indian gentleman of just about my own age, he asked with a certain air of distance, after we had exchanged formalities, "What are you Western scholars now saying about the dating of the Vedas?"

The Vedas, you must know, are the counterparts for the Hindu of the Torah for the Jew. They are his scriptures of the most ancient date and therefore of the highest revelation.

"Well," I answered, "the dating of the Vedas has lately been reduced and is being assigned, I believe, to something like 1500 to 1000 B.C. As you probably know," I added, "there have been found in India itself the remains of an earlier civilization than the Vedic."

"Yes," said the Indian gentleman, not testily but firmly, with an air of untroubled assurance, "I know; but as an orthodox Hindu I cannot believe that there is anything in the universe earlier than the Vedas."

"Okay," said I. "Then why did you ask?"

--Joseph Campbell, p. 17

The liberal line, which interprets things figuratively, seems at first more attractive. It does not require you to believe anything known to be untrue, and it finds a residual value in those cherished teachings that are not literally true. However, there are two problems with this approach:

Although we may be able to take a teaching figuratively, how can we be sure that it was originally intended that way? Teachings that now seem too bizarre to be taken literally might have seemed quite normal and believable in the context of another culture in the distant past.

Once we start taking some doctrines figuratively, how do we know where to stop? For example, if Mt. Meru is a symbol for something other than a physical mountain, then how do we know that reincarnation is not merely a symbol for something else? Why accept one and not the other?

The problems listed here seem exactly what you are getting at, Rian.

There is no end-all answer to these problems that would quiet them. You can't be sure it was originally intended that way (though I would say the same of literal interpretations), and you don't know where to stop. These things are problems, but in my typical Hindu fashion, I also consider them glorious things. These problems insure that figurative language interpretations are not always clearly the right to go. But they also indicate that the answers are up to us. We have to figure it out for ourselves. I like that.

Anyway I don't belong to either extreme view. I think somethings must be taken literally, and others figuratively.

[Nurvingiel]

Lol Inked, very punny! All hail Mr Shoe and the prophet Shoelace!

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

The thing is, there are no passages about Moloch in Hinduism. Sometimes I feel like a poor representative of my religion, as I don't observe the holidays or the rituals, I don't live among Hindus, I wasn't raised by Hindus, and aside from those at my temple, I don't know any Hindus. I have read books. So, I am reluctant to suggest what Hinduism says or does not say, on those terms.

I think this makes you the perfect representative for your religion. You were drawn to Hinduism, from the goodness of the religion itself, not just because your parents and community are doing it. Now, there nothing wrong with practicing a religion because you were raised that way (otherwise I'd be criticising my own Christianity), but it is truly a testament to a religion when someone chooses it actively.

About Moloch, I'm not quite sure where you're going with that Rian. I think we all agree that killing babies is wrong. I feel pleased that I got the gist of what Ñólendil was saying about it! Your posts are very detailed and interesting.

[inked]

If I may interject: I think Rian was getting at the inability to truly maintain that all religions are equally true because of the belief systems being maintainably in contradiction to one another. It is patently ridiculous to assert that. It only works if you have nice intellectualized religions withut the apparent sacrificial components or such components as have been disassociated from their basis.

If you assert that all religions are equally valid means to GOD, then you must believe that child sacrifice is an acceptable expression of that religious impulse to which all are partakers (particularly those who need to relate by denying the existence of God!).

If you cannot accept child sacrifice as acceptable, then you must analyze why? which gets you to the negation of the original statement. All religions are no more created equal than persons are created equal (the specific legal fiction for political purposes does not assert the equality in all of personhood).

So,...?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Still looking to references for this (the first two questions). May I know, while I am looking, what it is you are trying to find out? You have a roundabout way of asking questions.

See my user title

What I'm trying to get at here is to find out from you, a Hindu (altho Hindu is a term that covers lots of beliefs!) where "the rubber meets the road" in our life here and now. Meditation, philosophizing, etc. is all fine and dandy (and VERY needful, too, IMHO), but if it's all or mostly in the head, then to me, there's something wrong/lacking with that worldview. I wanted to see where Hinduism falls in terms of practical, actual, helping people in need. Does it say to tell a hungry person, "your hunger is imaginary" or "you'll have food in your next incarnation", or does it say "give the person some food". Do the leaders sit in a temple and say "everyone should have food" but do nothing about it, or do they get their Hindu hineys (said with respect and a dash of humor ) out there and help give some out? And it seems that the caste system hinders this So I was just looking for some more info on this subject - a very important one to me.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

If I may interject: I think Rian was getting at the inability to truly maintain that all religions are equally true because of the belief systems being maintainably in contradiction to one another.

Yes.

If you assert that all religions are equally valid means to GOD, then you must believe that child sacrifice is an acceptable expression of that religious impulse to which all are partakers (particularly those who need to relate by denying the existence of God!).

Righto.

If you cannot accept child sacrifice as acceptable, then you must analyze why? which gets you to the negation of the original statement.

Right.

And I have an entirely logical reason why you guys (or me, either, for that matter! Sorry, IRex! ) can't accept child sacrifice. Do you?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

There's a story in the Bible (can't remember which one!) when God asks someone to kill their child as a sacrifice to him. The father and son travelled up the mountain and just as the father was a bout to kill the son, God said something along the lines of;
"Stop. Do not kill your child. This was a test of your love to me." I think in Christianity (I'm not sure about Hinduism) that God wants to know that you will do even that for him, although he does not want you to do it.

[Nurvingiel]

Woah... I know that story! But I forget everyone's names too... wasn't the son Isaac? Oh boy. I think that test was a special case.

If God told me to kill my child, I wouldn't even bring him/her to the mountain. But maybe you had to be there... sometimes the Old Testament confuses me. No one said reading the Bible was easy! (I will do this... eventually... )

[Valandil]

Yes Nurv, the child was Isaac. You'll find the story in Genesis. The father was Abraham... and Isaac was his 'child of promise'. I think he was specifically told to sacrifice him on the mountain... and an angel actually stayed his hand.

It is a curious story... but it was perhaps a test of whether Abraham was willing to trust God and obey Him, even when it seemed unreasonable. Indeed, Abraham was thinking that God might raise Isaac from the dead after the fact.

Also... interesting from a Christian viewpoint is that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son for God... and that God was willing at a later time to sacrifice His Son for us all! And God indeed did raise HIM from the dead!

[Rían]

A very interesting story - I was wondering if someone was going to bring it up. There's a lot going on there - I'd like to comment more later, but no time now.

[Ñólendil]

If you assert that all religions are equally valid means to GOD, then you must believe that child sacrifice is an acceptable expression of that religious impulse to which all are partakers (particularly those who need to relate by denying the existence of God!).

Well, I must be forgiven for not thinking of child sacrifices when I said all religions are equal. I was not speaking of extremists, like the followers of Moloch, or the Taliban, or the Klu Klux Klan. Surely I don't have to include them, if I say all religions are equal? These people are not good representatives of religion.

If you cannot accept child sacrifice as acceptable, then you must analyze why? which gets you to the negation of the original statement. All religions are no more created equal than persons are created equal (the specific legal fiction for political purposes does not assert the equality in all of personhood).

It only negates the original statement if the statement took such horrible practices into account. But there is no need to change the original statement. Just know that it is not condoning corrupt religion. "All religions are equal", yes, but some '"religious" practices are not true religions at all--there is no spirituality in burning children, or blowing yourself up, or lynching human beings. I guess what I am simply saying is that the harmony of all religions idea is about the major world's religions that exist today, it wasn't taking Moloch into account. You're saying the same thing, but you are going to a different conclusion, that "the harmony of all religions doesn't make sense". If you think of every religion that has ever been, and every religious group of human beings that have practiced every inhumane practice, then you're right, it doesn't make sense.

The idea, as I have stated with the Mr. Shoe statement, is that, as far as religions go, you need faith, and ideas of real love and joy that you strive for in your life. The Moloch followers mentioned here don't fit in with this model, because any idea of real love and joy, coupled with faith in these things, would prevent them from murdering infants. I don't call it religion in this case, I call it delusion. I can ammend the statement if you like, to include this Mr. Shoe idea. But I think it is already there.

What I'm trying to get at here is to find out from you, a Hindu (altho Hindu is a term that covers lots of beliefs!) where "the rubber meets the road" in our life here and now. Meditation, philosophizing, etc. is all fine and dandy (and VERY needful, too, IMHO), but if it's all or mostly in the head, then to me, there's something wrong/lacking with that worldview. I wanted to see where Hinduism falls in terms of practical, actual, helping people in need. Does it say to tell a hungry person, "your hunger is imaginary" or "you'll have food in your next incarnation", or does it say "give the person some food". Do the leaders sit in a temple and say "everyone should have food" but do nothing about it, or do they get their Hindu hineys (said with respect and a dash of humor ) out there and help give some out? And it seems that the caste system hinders this So I was just looking for some more info on this subject - a very important one to me.

One cannot reach enlightenment through philosophy, or the intellect. Certainly compassion is an important element in Hinduism. I find "your hunger is imaginary" absolutely repulsive. The Buddha's first Noble Truth is "there is suffering". Suffering is a fact of life. Sure, neither pain or pleasure hold up in ultimate Reality, but this is samsara. We feel pain. The Buddha's second Noble Truth is "there are roots to suffering." We must look deeply into the causes of our pain. The third Noble Truth is that "there is a way out of suffering." Suffering is not eternal. There is light at the end of the tunnel. The Fourth and last Noble Truth is "cessation of suffering." Suffering will end.

Hinduism is not a euphamism for Empty Thoughts, may I say. The fundamental decency of human beings is there. We are encouraged to see the Lord of Love in every being, and to treat eachother with this in mind. I don't know, Rian. Do you really need scriptural reference to believe this?

And I have an entirely logical reason why you guys (or me, either, for that matter! Sorry, IRex! ) can't accept child sacrifice. Do you?

I can't accept child sacrifice because it is just plain wrong. Burning children alive for any purpose is monstrous. To hell with logic.

There's a story in the Bible (can't remember which one!) when God asks someone to kill their child as a sacrifice to him. The father and son travelled up the mountain and just as the father was a bout to kill the son, God said something along the lines of;
"Stop. Do not kill your child. This was a test of your love to me." I think in Christianity (I'm not sure about Hinduism) that God wants to know that you will do even that for him, although he does not want you to do it.

If God told ME to kill my child, I would see about a change in my medication. If he still told me to do it, I would tell him to go drink some poison.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Do you really need scriptural reference to believe this?

No; it's in my heart, as it is in yours

[Ñólendil]

And what of the heart of Hinduism? No good? You seemed in doubt just minutes before, about whether compassionate acts, such as caring for the poor and hungry, were encouraged in Hinduism. Have I alleviated your doubts, passed the test?

I can't think of anything positive to say. I am reminded of a quote from Thich Nhat Hanh:

Discussing God is not the best use of our energy. If we touch the Holy Spirit, we touch God not as a concept but as a living reality. In Buddhism, we never talk about nirvana, because nirvana means the extinction of all notions, concepts, and speech. We practice by touching mindfulness in ourselves through sitting meditation, walking meditation, mindful eating, and so on. We observe and learn to handle our body, breathing, feelings, mental states, and consciousness. Living mindfully, shining the light of our awareness on everything we do, we touch the Buddha, and our mindfulness grows.

I had fun for a while, and then I got angry, and then the fun came back, and then again the frustration. I like this topic because it is interesting, and it allows me an outlet to talk about my beliefs. But I don't think this has been a constructive conversation. You seem to believe that, more or less, you have a monopoly on the truth. How can our conversation be earnest? I don't think I have responded to this in a good way. Mostly I have only become saddened, and slightly rude.

So I turn back to what is a wonderful point: "Discussing God is not the best use of our energy." To me, this is very true. What can we learn of God, by discussing God? We learn more about eachother, which isn't a bad thing, but I feel this talk has gone in the wrong direction.

I have been in the hotseat for some time now--I think it is time someone else takes it.

[Nurvingiel]

Well I really enjoyed your posts Ñólendil! It was very... dare I say... enlightening? Thanks for taking all the time and effort to write so well and so passionately!

[Finrod Felagund]

As have I...Hinduism was not a religion I was particularly well versed in, thanks for the insight.

[Lizra]

Telling of our thoughts and feelings is quite pleasant. "Debate 101" is not.

IThank you so much for your time, Nolendil. I learned quite a bit. Nice to get a different version of religion than the christian version. I almost forget there are other relgions out there sometimes.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

And what of the heart of Hinduism? No good? You seemed in doubt just minutes before, about whether compassionate acts, such as caring for the poor and hungry, were encouraged in Hinduism. Have I alleviated your doubts, passed the test?

This is NOT a test - I think you're misunderstanding me. As far as I'm concerned, you're my friend, no matter what you believe. I just wanted to get deeply into your (or whoever is on the hot seat) beliefs and think about them. This is NOT intended to be a light, chatty thread; this thread is meant to be a forum for people to really bring things out and think things thru and examine and re-examine and look at things from different angles and in different lights, in the light of questions from other people. And ONLY - repeat ONLY - consideration and kindness and respect for others allowed. But one can have consideration and kindness and respect while saying "well, what about this aspect? I don't understand it, and to me, it seems contradictory", and things like that.

I know a little bit about you, because we've chatted a bit, and I think you are compassionate.

I don't know much about Hinduism on the subject of compassion, so that's why I asked you about it.

I do know about the caste system a little, which from what I can tell, arose because of an integral part of Hinduism. So I'm trying to find out more from you, because I'm not really aware of a strong outreach to the poor aspect of Hinduism, and you're in touch with teachers and scriptures of Hinduism that could shed some light on it.

See, I know that you are compassionate; what I don't know is if your compassion has increased because of what Hinduism teaches, and I'm trying to find out. For example, do you do anything for the poor, and if so, have you done more since you became a Hindu? (you don't need to answer this.) I wanted to see if you had changed that way because of Hinduism.

I had fun for a while, and then I got angry, and then the fun came back, and then again the frustration. I like this topic because it is interesting, and it allows me an outlet to talk about my beliefs. But I don't think this has been a constructive conversation. You seem to believe that, more or less, you have a monopoly on the truth. How can our conversation be earnest? I don't think I have responded to this in a good way. Mostly I have only become saddened, and slightly rude.

I think it's been constructive, and I hope that thinking back on it, you'll think it was, too. I've learned some things. For example, I didn't know that some Hindus (oh rats, what was the term? Avedentist? ) thought that one's personhood, for lack of a better term, was NOT lost into reality.

I'm sorry if I come across like I have a monopoly on the truth; I tend to get over-analytical sometimes, and because we're typing, not talking or in person, all you see sometimes is the analytical, and not the heart. I don't blame you for getting angry I'm sorry, I'm just a twit sometimes But I don't see anything wrong with a person thinking they're right - after all, Lizra thinks she's right that there's no God, or else she wouldn't be an atheist, right? She thinks I'm totally wrong, and has told me so many times, but I don't blame her, and I CERTAINLY don't look down on her - if she thinks she's right, then she must think I'm wrong - so what? Personally, I believe that the Christian worldview is the correct description of actual reality. It's no kudos to me that I believe it. People have beliefs because they think they're right. I don't have any beliefs that I think are wrong - how could I? And how could you?

I have been in the hotseat for some time now--I think it is time someone else takes it.

Yes, you have - thank you, SO, SO MUCH, for your patience, and your thoughtful answers!! You've been totally willing to tackle anything that came your way, and I really admire and appreciate that. I was hoping you'd come to this thread, because I know you're very thoughtful and open. I'm sorry if you got hurt in any way - I certainly didn't want that to happen!! Perhaps you didn't really understand my intent for this thread, and maybe that's why you got angry and frustrated; I'm sorry if you felt attacked in any way. I don't intend to attack anyone, and as the thread starter, if I feel anyone is being attacked, I'll STOP it. It's ideas we're wrestling with. And yes, they are deep and personal ideas, but I think they should be up to being wrestled with or they're not worth holding.

To me, a friend is a friend, regardless of their beliefs. I hope you feel that we're still friends, Falmon of the Waves.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Telling of our thoughts and feelings is quite pleasant. "Debate 101" is not.

Lizra, do you want to open your own thread, then? I really want this thread to be for really thoughtful and deep (and totally loving and kind) wrestling with ideas and beliefs. Having people ask you questions is SO good to stimulate thought!

[Lizra]

Why should I open my own thread when this one exists?