(i) the title of the novel;
(ii) the opening and concluding sentences alluding to Kipling;
(iii) the "...ruinous temple..." (p. 196) where Diana keeps her possessions;
(iv) Axor's search for the Universal Incarnation;
(v) his conviction that the Builders must have gone "'...on to a higher plane of existence.'" (p. 210)
(vi) the phrase, "The Divine, in whatever form It manifests Itself to you...'" (p. 261)
In Hinduism, the transcendent is either personal or impersonal and manifests itself in different forms. This makes sense. If the transcendent is, as many believe, an omnipotent Creator of all things other than Himself, then "all things" includes all the different ways in which He is conceived and understood. Thus, God, no doubt valuing diversity, causes some of His creatures to believe that He is many, not one, or is impersonal, "It," not personal, etc.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I have to disagree with your last paragraph because I don't agree with the syncretism of the Hindus you have in mind (nor do they speak for most Hindus). The text below comes from page 425 of POCKET CATHOLIC DICTIONARY (Image/Doubleday: 1980, 1985), by Fr. John A. Hardon SJ.
SYNCRETISM. The effort to unite different doctrines and practices,
especially in religion. Such unions or amalgams are part of
cultural history and are typical of what has occurred in every
segment of the non-Christian world. Syncretism is also applied
to the ecumenical efforts among separated Christian churches and
within Catholicism to the attempts made of combining the best
elements of different theological schools. BUT IN RECENT YEARS
THE TERM MAINLY REFERS TO MISGUIDED CLAIMS THAT RELIGIOUS UNITY
CAN BE ACHIEVED BY IGNORING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FAITHS ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL CREEDS ARE ESSENTIALLY ONE AND THE SAME.
The text I capitalized above explains why I disagree with syncretists who want to morph Christianity within Hinduism. The most basic reason is this: Christianity teaches as absolutely true doctrines which cannot be accommodated with any kind of paganism. E.g., One God alone exists and no others exist. Nor would God tolerate absurdities and contradictions like ideas that it is equally true to say He is many gods or is one, is personal or impersonal, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Different world views are approaches to truth.
Paul.
Hinduism is the 700-lb green amoeba of religious systems.
It can encompass everything from non-theistic philosophy through ethical monotheism through popular polytheism, and embody everything from fanatical pacifism (wearing masks to avoid harming insects) through bloody, militant nationalism.
There have been endless reform movements within Hinduism; nearly all have been absorbed into the mainstream, or become sub-currents (like Sikhism, frex, a group I've always rather liked).
I suspect that an element in modern anti-Hindu feeling among Muslims in South Asia is the nagging, unvoiced suspicion that it could absorb and transmute -them-, too.
In Britain right now, we have chauvinistic Hindus invoking Rama while attacking Muslims. My particular political standpoint says:
defend Muslims;
cooperate with non-chauvinistic Hindus, some of whom want to help defend Muslims;
always break down sectarian divisions;
promote the sharing of cultures.
(Samosas are part of the staple diet of inter-faith meetings.)
Kaor, Paul!
Again, I disagree with you and agree more with Stirling. I don't agree with breaking "...sectarian divisions" if that means ignoring or denying different religions can be INCOMPATIBLE.
Nor do I care about the fussing Muslims and Hindus make about "unclean" foods. For Christians all foods are clean.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
NOR are all world views true or good.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, but they are approximations to truth.
I believe that persons personify reality. The idea that ultimate reality is a person who causes some of his creatures to believe in an impersonal ultimate reality is an inversion of what I believe. But it does seem to be what God is doing, if He is really there. I acknowledge that I might be wrong - but so must everyone else.
I do not believe that reality is both personal and impersonal but I do believe that both personalists and impersonalists are sincerely seeking the truth.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I propose a simple, clear example: the worldview of the Aztecs believed in the absolute rightness of mass human sacrifices (followed by cannibalism) to their bloodthirsty gods. And the wars needed to gain victims for those sacrifices. That is one worldview which is wrong and impossible to be an approximation of truth. And if the Aztec worldview is false then others may be as well.
I have to disagree about God "causing" (or forcing) anyone to believe in ideas A,B, or C. Rather, God permits us to believe what we ultimately believe is true. Including ideas as wrongheaded as those of the Aztecs.
I agree Personalists and Impersonalists can be sincere in what they believe. But I believe the latter to be mistaken.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is no good repeatedly saying that you believe someone is mistaken. I believe that personalists are mistaken but just saying that doesn't get us anywhere.
If truth is at one end of a spectrum of beliefs and falsehood at the other end, then the Aztec belief is right at the falsehood end. Moving away from that end of the spectrum brings us gradually closer to the true end.
An omnipotent creator of all things other than Himself does more than allow. He creates us exactly as we are and could have made any atom in our body or any neuron in our brain different. He controls all the factors that have generated polytheism, atheism etc. He could have created a world without any "false" beliefs.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
At least you concede there is or may be a spectrum of beliefs one end of which is false. That is a start.
I still disagree with your argument against free will, assuming God exists. The Catholic view is this, quoting from the already cited POCKET CATHOLIC DICTIONARY (PAGE 155): "FREE WILL. The power of the will to determine itself and act of itself without compulsion from within or coercion from without. It is the faculty of an intelligent being to act or not to act, to act this way or another way, and is therefore essentially different from the operations of irrational beings that merely respond to a stimulus and are conditioned by sensory objects."
If you disbelieve in the possibility of rational beings having free will if God exists, then I have to conclude we have reached an impasse and no agreement is possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We do have free will in relation to each other but not in relation to an omnipotent creator. A human parent, having told a child not to touch a hot object, can either leave the child free to obey or disobey or intervene to prevent the child from touching the object. An omnipotent creator could have created the child with no motivation to touch a hot object and with no motivation to disobey a parent. Such a child would then freely, in human terms, never touch a hot object and never disobey a parent.
An aggressive drunk automatically kicks a dog that bites him. A pacifist saint who lives his beliefs does not kick the dog. God created the drunk and the saint.
But I have phrased this wrong. God is outside time. He did not create in the past tense. There is no difference from His point of view between His creating the world in his its first moment and sustaining it in subsequent moments. Effectively, he creates a child disobeying a parent and a drunk kicking a dog.
Paul.
Sean,
That is not a concession. If, in one direction, beliefs approximate the truth, then, in the other direction, they recede from it.
Paul.
BTW, we began by discussing beliefs, not actions. Beliefs are based on evidence and reason, not on choice. Choosing to believe involves the intellectual dishonesty of Pascal's Wager.
Post a Comment