Hinduism

[Conservationist]

As many of you know, my all-time favorite religion is ancient Hinduism, expressed in the modern sense by adualistic/monistic Vedanta and Hindu Nationalism.

As a philosophy, Hinduism is essentially the same stuff as Greco-Roman, Scandinavian, Germanic or Finnish paganism.

It does have a bit more of the mystical edge... but that's kind of a blast.

Morally and intellectually, it is less prone to the wimpout of modernistic "everyone is equal, let's make them like us"! morality.

Then again:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34

[crow]

My only exposure to hinduism was hanging-out with the Hare-Krishnas in London.
They seemed obsessed with dressing-up and being different to everyone else.
Oh, and worshipping elephants (:>

It seemed harmless enough, though, and rather flamboyant.
Too bad it was so obviously all fake, as practiced by westerners.

There is a clear difference, between most Indians versus Pakistanis, the former being almost exclusively hindus, and the latter muslims.
The former are almost universally polite, warm and friendly.
The latter, almost universally rude, aloof and hostile.

[Von List]

(apologies for the long url)

http://www.globalhinduism.com/article/2011/12/32000-year-old-idol-of-narsimha-lord-vishnus-avatar-found-in-germany/

[Sammaellofi]

Here's a thought, albeit one with a few obvious flaws.  Since Hinduism is essentially the last remaining traces of the older Indo-European religions of the past, is there any possible way we could find some way to make one solid religion that marries all the features of these religions together, or at least carries the basic structure of all.  I think it's possible. 

One united Patriarch Sky-God religion based on reverence to nature and building one's self toward the stature of Gods. 

This would marry Greek, Roman, Hindu, Celtic, Nordic and most other pre-Christian religions of the areas in question. 

[fallot]

There is a clear difference, between most Indians versus Pakistanis, the former being almost exclusively hindus, and the latter muslims.
The former are almost universally polite, warm and friendly.
The latter, almost universally rude, aloof and hostile.

The population of muslims in India is almost equal to the entire population of Pakistan. It has the third largest muslim population in the world. North Indians and most Pakistani individuals are difficult to distinguish. There is no clear difference.

I'll tell the rest of the guys not to be so rude.

[crow]

Thank you. But I don't really care, any more.
I fled, with wife, from England in 2006.
From what I hear, see and read, the ocean has reached the waterline by now, and the decks are awash.

I didn't know that about Indians. Maybe my observations are only London-based, since there certainly was a clear difference, there.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

Here's a thought, albeit one with a few obvious flaws.  Since Hinduism is essentially the last remaining traces of the older Indo-European religions of the past, is there any possible way we could find some way to make one solid religion that marries all the features of these religions together, or at least carries the basic structure of all.  I think it's possible. 

One united Patriarch Sky-God religion based on reverence to nature and building one's self toward the stature of Gods. 

I've got just the thing for ya!

[Conservationist]

The point is, I guess, that we all know "roughly" what this ancient Indo-European religion was.

It can manifest itself in any form, thus wherever we go, we can spread it like seeds of a potent new strain of wormwood...

[Athanasius contra mundum]

Sunday, 29 January 2012
Comparative religion from a Christian perspective - Kristor writes
*

From an e-mail by Kristor:

Comparative religion is useful to me in that it helps me limn the Religion of Adam, the religion naturally proper to natural man, which I take (and the Fathers took) to be Christianity.

The key thing is this.

If as a scholar of religion you approach Christianity as but one errant creature among many, as rather a taxonomist than a metaphysician, then you are on the road to Hell, or at least to nowhere (is there a difference between nowhere and Hell?)...

But if on the other hand you approach other religions as defective/partly successful & right approximations of the True Religion you are trying to discover and comprehend and practice, as rather a metaphysician than a taxonomist,

...why then you are almost bound in the course of your studies to arrive at the conclusion that orthodoxy – traditional Christianity, of whatever lobe of whatever “lung” – is the historical instantiation of that True Religion, and is thus the True Church...

(understanding the Church as extending throughout the cosmos (and indeed beyond it),

...and thus ipso facto throughout all human history, so that Christianity simply must be present incipiently in shamanism and animism, and in high paganism of the Neo-Platonist/Pythagorean sort, as in high Hebrew polytheism (El & His Son YHWH plus his pantheon of angels);

...and so that it is present at least partially in any religion that succeeds at informing a virtuous life of true human flourishing, or at fostering wisdom (however “merely” practical that wisdom).

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/01/comparative-religion-from-christian.html

[Athanasius contra mundum]

Also of value, and from the same source as my previous post, these are responses by Kristor to questions asked in the comments section.

In his valuable comment, Peter S. asks, “how exactly is one to view a Ramanuja, Honen or Chuang Tzu as bearing witness to an incipient Christianity, of whatever partial expression?” I didn’t say that they did. I said that shamanism, animism, paganism, and the religions of the Greeks and Hebrews are incipiently Christian. What I meant to indicate by that, in passing, was that shamanism and animism are both confluent in the high religions of the Greeks and the Hebrews, which both in turn fertilized each other – one should really include Babylon, Persia and Egypt, and the other Canaanite religions in this mix – and were then integrated in various ways in the religious sects of first century Palestine, which gave rise both to Christianity and to rabbinical Judaism. To this very day, the insights and methods of all its precursors – its forerunners – are to be found vibrantly alive somewhere in Christianity. The Christian inheritance from Athens and Jerusalem are explicitly recognized in the Creed, which is couched in their terms. Less often noticed is the legacy both to Athens and Jerusalem of their pagan, animist, and shamanist antecedents; yet this does not make the inheritance less real.

Of the high religions of China and India, by contrast, I would say rather that they are partial than incipient participations in the True Religion. As compared with orthodox Christianity they are less complete expressions of its Truth. I don’t for a moment think that Christianity has yet discovered all the implicate doctrines of that True Religion, nor does the Church; this is why she holds that doctrine can develop – can enlarge and enfold – without essentially changing or contradicting antecedent doctrinal discoveries. E.g., Aquinas does not contradict Dionysius, but amplifies and ramifies him. But I do think that Christianity has encompassed more of the True Religion than either India or China. Hinduism and Taoism both exemplify the sophia perennis, albeit with differing emphases, and to the extent that they do – a very great extent – they are coterminous with the True Religion, and therefore agree with Christianity. But Christianity expresses truths that the other high religions do not. All the truths of Hinduism and Taoism are therefore expressed in Christianity, but not vice versa. So, the Christian intersection with the True Religion is more extensive. It is as if the other high religions of the world each employs many of the available stops, while Christianity employs all of them. All the high religions run the gamut, but only Christianity does so using the diapason.

And this may be why India, Africa and China are all going Christian. Christianity doesn’t contradict them, anymore than it contradicts Athens or Jerusalem. To the extent that they are true, and in the ways that they are true, it includes them. Thus a Taoist – or a Hindu, or a Jew – may become Christian without contradicting his previous creed, but not vice versa.

I highly recommend Christ the Eternal Tao. A fascinating book, if only for the historical background it provides on the history of Christianity in China (extremely ancient), and in particular of Russian missionary efforts there.

The upshot: Taoism is a highly evolved, practical application of the Stoic doctrine of the Logos to spiritual work, quotidian life, and politics. So is Christianity, of course. As Patrick H says, the difference between the two is that in the latter the Logos is incarnate in the world, not just generally, but particularly in the person of a man. The Christian revelation enables us to understand that the general revelation of the Logos in every moment of the creation discerned by Taoism and Stoicism is effected by virtue of the Incarnation; that the Incarnation in particular and incarnation in general, and indeed also revelation, creation, redemption, and inspiration, are not different procedures, but the same procedure under different aspects. Incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, the Logos is ipso facto incarnate in the whole cosmos, from beginning to end; for no body is an island; the world is, rather, a coherent, integrated whole. That’s the only way we could be parts of it. Jesus then is the whole of the Divine influx, and is thus the source of Natural Law, from before the very beginning. This is not to cheat other created beauties of their own participation in the Divine flux, but just to point out that, the Church as the Body of Christ being coextensive with the whole created order in Heaven and Earth, when we notice the beauty of some creature, we notice her Creator.

Peter draws an analogy between devotion to a creed and devotion to a particular woman. Point taken; but the analogy falls apart when we consider that while there are many beautiful instantiations of Woman (hurrah!), there is only one instantiation of God. Worshiping anything but God – idolatry – is therefore analogous, in the terms of Peter’s analogy, to adultery. Indeed, the prophets repeatedly recur to the analogy of religious to sexual infidelity. NB however that idolatry is a far deadlier problem than adultery, for it constitutes an error about the very First Thing; inasmuch as all the Law and the Prophets depend upon the utmost love of God, such an error cannot but redound to every department of life, depraving the whole shooting match – subtly perhaps, but nevertheless lethally. So it is uniquely, crucially (as it were) important to get religion right; the stakes are ultimate, and total, and permanent.

I should clarify the difference Peter rightly notices between my statement in my first comment that Christianity *just is* the historical instantiation of the True Religion, and my statement in my second that its intersection with the True Religion is more comprehensive than that of other religions. The statements do not differ in substance, but only in their temporal perspective. To wit: sub specie temporalis, Christianity is at any point in its history (including those points BC) but a partial expression of the True Religion. But, sub specie aeternitatis, and considered over its whole history out to the eschaton, Christianity *just is* the True Religion. In other words, I would say, with the Church, that Christianity has not completely expressed the True Religion *so far* (so that there is much room still for the development of the Church’s understanding of its own doctrines); but this is not to say that it will not ever do so. Indeed, Christianity will have achieved its own perfection only at the eschaton; only then will Christian doctrine reach its own completion, by virtue of a complete and total revelation, that spells everything out to the last jot. But, also, when that completion is achieved, so ipso facto will the explicit expression of the doctrine of the True Religion be also completed (and, not superfluously, enacted)(at that point, our world’s participation in the Sanctus will be made whole)(i.e., we will participate fully, and without defect, in that love that binds together the communion of all the saints and angels, and that echoes the love internal to the Trinity)(this full participation is what Paul means by saying that at the eschaton, Christ will be all in all).

So, while Christian doctrine does not yet exhaustively express the doctrines of the True Religion, Christianity is nevertheless the True Religion, and sooner or later it will. We could equivalently say that while shamanism does not yet exhaustively express the doctrines of the True Religion, even in its Christian implementation, shamanism is nevertheless, like Christianity, an approach to the True Religion, and will sooner or later, as it is carried forward in the Church, exhaustively express – conform itself to – the True Religion. Like shamanism, all other religions will in the fullness of time be revealed as partial expressions, not just of the True Religion, but of Christianity, period full stop. In this they will be, not repudiated, but completed, and transcended, and fully, rightly implemented – as the Church has always insisted that it is the fulfillment and correction both of the religion of Israel, and of the philosophical paganism of the Greeks, and as Hieromonk Damascene insists it is the fulfillment of Taoism.

Considered then as permeating the whole history of the world, Christianity is ubiquitous in time and space, and every fact expresses its truths, even if only to dispute them (thus is sin essentially a disagreement with Reality, and with the true nature of its effective agent). This is what is meant by the Christian doctrine that the redemption of the whole world – i.e., of the whole of cosmic history – in Christ has been prepared by the Father from before all worlds. So that, when in the order of human history there was as yet no religion but animism, or then animism plus shamanism, still nevertheless Christianity, in its fullness, was then completely present, however partial its explicit expression. Christianity is, by implication from mere being, necessarily everywhere fully present, and making itself felt. For, Truth is necessarily implicit in its fullness at every instance of existence. But different instants differ in the fullness of their explication of that Truth, which forms and provides for them all.

The True Religion natural to man, then, just is Christianity. It’s just that, for now, the manner in which its full revelation reconciles all religious feeling, and all religious truths, is still hidden from our sight. Thus while today it may be true that, “to claim that all the truths of other religions are expressed in Christianity and not the reverse appears dubious on its face,” we must remember that for now we see but darkly, and eventually we shall see clearly just how it is so.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/01/comparative-religion-from-christian.html

[indjaseemun]

Here's a thought, albeit one with a few obvious flaws.  Since Hinduism is essentially the last remaining traces of the older Indo-European religions of the past, is there any possible way we could find some way to make one solid religion that marries all the features of these religions together, or at least carries the basic structure of all.  I think it's possible. 

Creating a new religion is one of the worst ideas ever.

[crow]

Desperate times call for desperate ideas.

[Conservationist]

True, but as a conservative I have to say:

Let's work with what works, historically speaking.

Ideas need to be anchored to reality or they become the kind of conjectural shit that makes liberalism odious.

"Maybe all we need is love and understanding!!!1!" -- yeah, fucking maybe. Or maybe not.

[fallot]

The worst part about that bullshit is its two-faced nature. We do actually need love and understanding... but what are those things? What do we need to love? What do we love? What is understanding? What actually happens when one begins to perceive? It's just code for "destroy your way", while as a pure statement it cannot be argued against. When the whole view is informed by individuals and their autonomy, love becomes loving "all" individuals (otherwise how can your own self(ishness) be affirmed?). Understanding becomes abandonment. One should not lose the essence because they perceive the deception however.

Advaita is the most beautiful thing in Hinduism. But under that banner of "Hinduism" come any number of beasts, including dualism.