(November 16, 2013 at 5:01 pm)arvind13 Wrote: Except in Christianity, there is a theological structure that determines who is a Christian and who isn't. Who is a 'true' Christian. In Christianity, each of their practices have specific doctrinal reasons behind them. And there are certain actions (predicated on beliefs) and beliefs that are obligatory in order to be a Christian. For example, no Christian can ever believe that Jesus is the son of the Devil or that God doesn't exist and still be a Christian. In other words, Christian theology allows us to determine who is a Christian and who isn't
Among the Indian traditions no such structure or belief system exists. You can believe whatever you want and still be a member of these traditions and take part in the practices of the tradition. There is no source of excommunication. There is no criteria for saying who is a "Hindu" or "Buddhist" and who isn't.
Wrong. On both counts.
Hindu theology has as much of a say in who is a Hindu as the Christian theology does in determining who is a Christian.
Anyone who "accepts" the scriptural authority of the Bible can call himself a Christian and anyone who "accepts" the scriptural authority of Vedas (and the other scriptures) can call himself a Hindu. A person need not actually read either of those texts in order to "accept" it. He need not even believe they are an accurate representation of reality in order to "accept" them. A Christian can call the Bible a "collection of metaphorical anecdotes providing philosophical and moral lessons" and remain a Christian and a Hindu can call the Vedas and Puranas a "collection of metaphorical anecdotes providing philosophical and moral lessons" and remain a Hindu.
There is no definite identifying feature of a "True Christian" - given that there are many, many sects of Christianity, each with their own criteria and there is no definite identifying feature of a "True Hindu" - given that there are many, many sects of Hinduism, each with their own criteria. Therefore, Christian theology and Hindu theology play equal role in determining the "True Christian" and "True Hindu", respectively.
(November 16, 2013 at 5:01 pm)arvind13 Wrote: There are texts which tell us how to perform a ritual. The sequence of steps in performing a ritual. How does that make it theological or religious? That's like saying a Karate training book which outlines the sequence in executing a move is a religious book, or a yoga book which outlines certain steps is a religious text.
They are rituals and prayers for specific gods. That's what makes them theological and religious. If a Karate training book outlined the sequence of moves by saying that "god asks you move in such a way", then it too would be a religious book. As it happens, the Yogic school is one of the six schools of orthodox Hinduism and therefore, if a yoga book goes beyond detailing exercises, then it too would be a religious text.
(November 16, 2013 at 5:01 pm)arvind13 Wrote: Ok, what is a "divine source"? and what makes a belief system into a religious belief system? What makes a text, any text into a religious text?
A supposed divine source - which means, it is assumed that the person who authored the texts is a supernatural entity worthy of worship. It is this association with the supernatural that makes a belief system a religious one and it is the same reference to the divine that makes a text a religious text.
(November 16, 2013 at 5:01 pm)arvind13 Wrote: As for the hindu traditions, we don't have religious doctrines. Texts like Vedas provide action heuristics and insights gleaned from practicing those actions much like Yoga or meditation. They don't make truth claims about the world. The thing about Vedas coming from the 'gods' or the mouth of Brahma is a story just like the puranas. The puranas don't have the status of truth claims. They are stories.
Reality begs to differ.
As it happens, Hindu traditions do have voluminous religious doctrines behind them. The Vedas and Puranas make many truth claims about the world - that those claims happen to be false is something they share with all the other religions. That they are, in fact, just a bunch of stories is as irrelevant as the fact that Bible is a bunch of stories authored by men.
(November 16, 2013 at 5:01 pm)arvind13 Wrote: Look, you won't be able to make sense of what I'm saying or where I'm coming from unless you atleast glance at the research where my ideas come from. I sent you the link (what makes a phenomenon into a religion), but you just dismissed it as drivel without even reading it.
My whole purpose of starting this discussion thread was to engage in a discussion and get people interested in the new research that is going on in the social sciences, challenging the old paradigms; and to critically think about our common sense deeply sedimented assumptions.
not to engage in one upmanship or mudslinging.
What you are trying to do is what others have tried before - and that trick don't work. You are not the first to come around saying "my religions is not a religion". It has become commonly accepted that no one religion is any better than others - given that they all share the absence of evidence. So, the easiest way to circumvent that is to say that whatever bullshit you are peddling is not a religion to begin with. Chrsitians try to sell "Christianity is not a religion, its a relationship with god". Others try "its a way of life". You try to peddle - "Hinduism is not a religion, its a collection of traditions".
Sorry, not buying it.
