On "The Heathen in His Blindness..." yahoo group, vnr1995 had a perspicacious statement, which I paraphrase - Satan (the Devil) **believes that** God exists, but Satan does not **believe in** God (which is why Satan is doomed).
We Hindus are not required to **believe in** anything, at least to the best of my knowledge of the Indic Traditions. To my understanding, the Mimamsakas will tell you that the Vedic mantras retain their efficacy whether or not you **believe in** or **believe that** about anything about them. In that sense, you are also not required to **believe that** about anything.
Of course, we Hindus **believe that** about many things. However, no set of beliefs confers any kind of virtue. In the Ramayana, both Rama and Ravana **believed that** about the same things.
One may be born into the Hindu fold. One may join the fold and/or become a practitioner by only by practicing; one leaves the fold by explicit exit.
In bringing up Hindu children, I don't think they need to be told to **believe that** or **believe in** anything. They just need to get a general understanding of the daily life, festival, emotional, intellectual, etc., aspects of practice; and their parents' own actions will be their immediate guide.
I think the same applies to the followers of Mahavira and of the Buddha, as well.
We Hindus are not required to **believe in** anything, at least to the best of my knowledge of the Indic Traditions. To my understanding, the Mimamsakas will tell you that the Vedic mantras retain their efficacy whether or not you **believe in** or **believe that** about anything about them. In that sense, you are also not required to **believe that** about anything.
Of course, we Hindus **believe that** about many things. However, no set of beliefs confers any kind of virtue. In the Ramayana, both Rama and Ravana **believed that** about the same things.
One may be born into the Hindu fold. One may join the fold and/or become a practitioner by only by practicing; one leaves the fold by explicit exit.
In bringing up Hindu children, I don't think they need to be told to **believe that** or **believe in** anything. They just need to get a general understanding of the daily life, festival, emotional, intellectual, etc., aspects of practice; and their parents' own actions will be their immediate guide.
I think the same applies to the followers of Mahavira and of the Buddha, as well.
Logging you in...
CIP · 618 weeks ago
The pre-conquest Hawaiians (a bit of a misnomer, since the natives the first Europeans encountered were themselves a conquering people from Tahiti) practiced a religion whose most notable elements were a system of very severe taboos, the slightiest infraction of which were punished by death. In practice these taboos were enforced by the ruling class, but in theory they were required by the Gods. When Christians came and violated the taboos by, for example, men and women eating together, the religion fell apart. The Gods declined to punish them and the Chiefs lacked the power.
I doubt that the Hindu religion is very exceptional in its devaluing of faith as the key component of showing allegiance. I also guess that there are elements which do serve the role of tests of allegiance.
macgupta 81p · 618 weeks ago
All the more reason for saying that Christianity and Islam are religions, while the "Hindu religion" is like a unicorn or Santa Claus. But only thinking people can understand this. A person of Western background simply has a hard time of seeing, like the fish, the Christian ocean that he is swimming in. They simplly cannot imagine a culture, a civilization without religion, and imagine some "-ism" plays the same role in that culture as Christianity does in theirs. The Heathen is equally blind, except Balu opened his eyes.
macgupta 81p · 618 weeks ago
CIP · 618 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 618 weeks ago
CIP · 618 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 618 weeks ago
So what invasion?
CIP · 618 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 618 weeks ago
CIP · 617 weeks ago
Also, how to explain the sharp social divisions in Hawaian culture. Were they purely indigenous or the result of conquest, a frequent pattern in the rest of the world. If you go beyond Wikipedia, the question seems far less closed than Wikipedia seems to imply.
macgupta 81p · 617 weeks ago
Read the whole thing, but specifically the following. The last lines suggest why an invasion theory has ideological support.
Quote:
Historicity
Until fairly recently, Hawaiian historians relied primarily on recorded oral history and comparative linguistics and ethnology. The "two migrations" theory was widely accepted. That is, in a first migration, Polynesians (specifically, Marquesans) settled the Hawaiian islands. In the second migration, Tahitians came north, conquered the original settlers, and established stratified chiefdoms. More contemporary research indicates that waves of settlers from Samoa and Tonga also arrived on Hawaiian shores, contributing to the cultural, linguistic, and genetic composition of the Hawaiians.
Hawaiian archaeology then came into its own and sought material evidence for two migrations. If the two migrations theory were correct, one would expect a sharp discontinuity in some features of material culture, such as heiau plans, house and settlement patterns, fishhook styles, etc. But archaeologists found no evidence whatsoever for a second migration. Rather, they found evidence for a gradual but relentless increase in settlement size and stratification. The Hawaiian polity seems to have evolved without any discernible outside stimulus.
Academic historians and archaeologists have now abandoned the two migrations theory.[citation needed] The Paʻao story is considered nothing more than a myth to some. In this mythical interpretation, the Kahiki from which Paʻao was said to have sailed was not the actual geographical Tahiti or Samoa, but the divine realm, past the horizon (see Hawaiki). In this sense, the Paʻao story bestows a divine origin for the high chiefs and the practices with which they were associated (such as human sacrifice, prostrating kapus, and the like). There are many other Hawaiian and Polynesian myths with the same elements as the Paʻao narrative, which may subsequently be viewed as assembled from "stock parts."
However, many Native Hawaiians and scholars who have studied the narratives believe the Paʻao narrative contains elements of actual history, and reflects a literal wave of migration from the south. The Polynesian Voyaging Society's undertakings, such as Hawaiiloa canoe's voyages, indicate the feasibility of long voyages in ancient Polynesian canoes and the reliability of celestial navigation; these demonstrations show that the types of voyaging mentioned in the Pa'ao stories were indeed feasible, but the recreated voyages do little to prove the authenticity of the Pa'ao legends.
Hawaiian attitudes towards the high chiefs have changed; the ancient high chiefs are often seen today as oppressors, invaders who descended upon a peaceful and egalitarian Hawaiian population. Activists praise these pre-Paʻao days as the real Hawaiian past, to be revived and reenacted in the present, and vilify Paʻao as a source of Hawaiian problems. In this version, all the problems faced by Native Hawaiians can be traced to foreign interference.
macgupta 81p · 617 weeks ago
" Even if a group of persons says, "we don't believe in creeds," it obviously does have a creed...its creed is "we don't believe in creeds!"
A good example of how someone is chained by his religious upbringing. If the group of persons does not even think about creeds until some outsider comes and asks them about their creed, and they ask what a creed is, and then they think about it and say "we have no creed", this idiot will ascribe to them the creed of "belief in no-creed".
This in a nutshell is exactly how universality came to be ascribed to the phenomenon of religion.
CIP · 617 weeks ago
Of course the religiously minded are not very accepting of such classification, since they are all convinced that their own variant is unique and special.
macgupta 81p · 617 weeks ago
As to unique variant, I'll put it this way, Christianity is also unique. So what?
You of course are free to create portmanteau words, into which you put whatever you want. But then don't claim to be following the scientific method. I should add that your anthropologists division of human behavior is no more scientific than race or the Indian Varnas ("caste"). Just what is **scientific** about what you wrote?
macgupta 81p · 617 weeks ago
Rahul · 617 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 617 weeks ago
What is the Holy Book?
Who is the Founder?
What is the creed?
and the less common ones, such as "what role does this "religion" play in the culture?"
all return plenty of exceptions.