Guest guest Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 Namaste Michael, This is in reference to your post #17642 on the mirror site, which I won't quote. That post was a response to my post #17641 called 'Scriptures and Violence', but unfortunately you gave your reply a different thread name. I'll just make a few quick comments, and then we can let this subject rest, because I basically agree with you. I had no doubt that anyone who visits this list must be decent. The bloody-minded would find Advaita extremely boring! Nevertheless, I wish to draw a few fine distinctions with respect to what you said. To explain the scriptural violence away as 'tribal rules of engagement' and the 'mutually assured destruction' of the day seems a bit too clever to me, perhaps even a bit disingenuous, though I suppose you may have a point. But what shocks me is that this is supposed to be the 'word of God', not some politician's speech. Now you might argue that the 'evolution of human consciousness' requires a parallel evolution in the human representation of God (not God himself but our idea of him). Actually, this is a theory I tend towards, as I can think of nothing better to 'explain' human history. So the point is that the scriptures are not always to be taken literally. We must not be fundamentalists but must search our own brains and conscience, as well as listen to 'saints' and 'prophets' who may from time to time present a revised (and hopefully more humane) version of the truth. I can only agree with this. Indeed, I repeatedly said in my previous post that I was only quoting the darker parts of those scriptures, and there was much light besides, which the good people of those religions followed while ignoring the dark. But then the question is: What scriptures (or parts of scriptures) can we trust? Who decides? I guess different 'scriptures' are competing with each other, and it is the choices we make in our hearts which determine which ideas survive. Nevertheless, on purely technical grounds, I must repeat that you overstated your case when you said that no scripture sanctions rape or that Jihad means [only] inner struggle. (You did not use the word 'only', but I am not being deceptive. By failing to explicitly state that Jihad means inner struggle for many but not all Muslims, you leave the impression that Jihad means inner struggle for all Muslims. This is certainly not true.) Those atheists and agnostics who claim that it is absurd for the 'word of God' to have any atrocities whatsoever in it have a point. That is why I came to Advaita through 'philosophical' principles combined with faith in what I read about the more gentle and inspired 'mystics'. That is why we are all here. I hope the trend continues. But vast numbers of people remain mired in the fundamentalist view, and that is a fact. I think that only education will cure this, but the fundamentalists are also persecuting education except for their narrow version of it. And then the lack of education brings economic poverty, which creates tensions, which furthers religious fundamentalism, and so a vicious circle results. I can't help but think that those poor people are suffering from some terrible karma... Finally, I might mention the growing crowd of people, none too sympathetic to Hinduism, who say that the Mahabharata and Gita are also 'holy war'. I believe that a cursory review of mere summaries of these texts will indicate that that war was as 'justified' as any (a kingdom was stolen) and, more importantly, had nothing to do with shoving religion down anyone's throat at the point of a sword. Anyhow, it's the yoga that is important in the Gita (plus a timely reminder that too much pacifism could cause Indians to lose their freedom yet again). Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> > suffering from some terrible karma... > > Finally, I might mention the growing crowd of people, none > too sympathetic to Hinduism, who say that the Mahabharata and Gita > are also 'holy war'. I believe that a cursory review of mere > summaries of these texts will indicate that that war was as > 'justified' as any (a kingdom was stolen) and, more importantly, had > nothing to do with shoving religion down anyone's throat at the point > of a sword. Anyhow, it's the yoga that is important in the Gita > (plus a timely reminder that too much pacifism could cause Indians to > lose their freedom yet again). > > Om! > Benjamin Namaste, Both the Mahabharata and Ramayana are allegorical and esoteric, a teaching text. The language of the original actors in the Ramayana may not have been Sanskrit for example. It is possible the language of Krishna was Sanskrit for the Indus Valley people may have even spoke a form of Sanskrit, no one is sure. The stories were taken, as a vehicle, as they were popular and then used to teach spiritual truths to a mostly ill educated populace. Ram for example was a real character and the wars were actual, so was Krishna......ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 Hello Shri Tony, http://www.indolink.com/Religion/r091702-130924.php TKB --- Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote: > Ram for example was a real character and the wars > were actual, so was > Krishna......ONS...Tony. SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.