Chunderban Desai who swore by God, Krishna and Shiva (see here), now gives us:
"'Brahma's mercy, yes!'" (p. 177)
Desai has almost completed Trimurti, the Hindu Trinity:
Brahma, creator;
Vishnu, preserver;
Shiva, destroyer.
Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu.
Hindu mythology is rich and can be appreciated as mythology also expressing philosophy. The Buddha can be included as an avatar. I value Buddhist meditation and Krishna's teaching of karma yoga but there is something there for everyone.
21 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Except I don't believe in Hinduism, so I'm not likely to invoke Hindu gods. I also got the impression Desai was not a very strict Hindu, assuming he was any kind of reasonably convinced Hindu.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't believe that Hindu gods exist, just that they express cosmic creation and destruction and aspirations to liberation and enlightenment.
Conversational references to God, Krishna, Shiva, Brahma etc are certainly compatible with scepticism or secularism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree, those "conversational expressions" are common.
Ad astra! Sean
Hinduism has survived extremely well, when other faiths have succumbed to the "religions of the book" en masse.
(And the most successful types of Western neopaganism, like Wicca, draw heavily on Hindu and Buddhist theology via often-unacknowledged borrowings in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Via, I think, the Theosophism picked up by Gerald Gardner?
Ad astra! Sean
I know a guy who can name all the initiates in a direct line from himself right back to Gardner but I don't think he has initiated anyone.
Kaor, Paul!
But all these neo-pagan sects seem to be continually disagreeing with one another, splitting up, merging with other groups, splitting up again, and so on. Which is confusing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Indeed but that is just a rich mythology. We can pick out whichever parts of it we want for literary/metaphorical etc purposes.
Paul.
Sean: rather like early Christianity... 8-).
Sean,
As with any groups disagreeing and dividing, the responsibility remains on us as individuals to make our own assessments, not just to accept one group as right and the rest wrong.
Paul.
Sean: yes, via Theosophy mainly.
But Gardner had spent most of his early life -- from 1900 through 1936 -- in Asia, specifically Ceylon, India, Burma and Malaya.
So it's quite credible he picked up knowledge of Buddhism and Hinduism at first hand.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I agree, which is why Christ was careful to select from His disciples a group, the Apostles, who would be the senior leaders of the Church. And then chose, from those Apostles the first of the Popes, Peter. And the NT shows the Church working out the structure seen today: bishops, presbyters, deacons. Iow, a structure was built for preserving the revelation learned from Christ.
Even in the earliest days of Christianity, amidst that welter of heretical sects, we can see orthodox Christianity taking shape: in writings like the NT, the Didache, Clement of Rome's Letter to the Corinthians, the Letters of St. Ignatius (esp. his Letter to the Romans), the works of Justin Martyr (esp. what he said about the Bishops of Rome in AGAINST HERESIES), Athenagoras of Athens, etc. That last interesting me because he wrote about the same time as your TO TURN THE TIDE.
Granted, what you said about Gardner. Albeit, it seems inconsistent for neo-pagans to be so influenced by Hinduism. Because Western neo-pagans discard things like the Hindu caste system, which probably appalls most real Hindus.
But that is easy to understand. Any neo-pagans who advocates caste would run into a solid wall of anger and hostility. Axioms like all men being "neither slave or free, Greek or barbarian, etc." in Christ are deeply embedded in the West.
Paul: And I do accept Christianity as right, based as I believe it to be on divine revelation. Those who deny Christianity are free to believe as they wish.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we shouldn't just be confused by sectarian disagreements among pagans or anyone else. It's our responsibility to think and reflect for ourselves. You have to determine to which Christian tradition you adhere.
There is anti-casteism among Hindus. Every tradition develops.
My reading of the NT is that the Messiah was seen as fulfilling the Abrahamic tradition, not as initiating a new tradition. The 12 Apostles represented the 12 tribes. When the fulfilment did not happen because Christ did not return within the lifetimes of people then living or when Paul had completed his mission to the Gentiles, the Church had to reorganize itself on the basis that the Second Coming was now assigned to a remote future. The link with Judaism was severed. Church organization matched not the 12 tribes but Roman Imperial organization with bishops in cities and provinces.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree, but I speak from a theological tradition which had no hesitation using logic and analysis for defending or rebutting theological/philosophical propositions, as Anderson pointed out in IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? Ancient pagans generally did not think like that. And I am not at all sure many neo-pagans do either.
I am aware some Hindus are embarrassed and mortified by the brutal caste system so characteristic of Hinduism. It also does not matter because they have had next to zero success weakening it. The vast mass of ordinary Hindus don't care about the fine spun theorizing of philosophic minded Hindus, and are going to continue enforcing the barbaric caste system. I am skeptical that caste will disappear unless belief in Hinduism and reincarnation also disappears.
Of course Christ came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, that is standard Christian belief. I disagree with the rest of what you said because the Messiah also warned His disciples that no man knew the hour when He would return. One year or a trillion, it does not matter in Catholic eyes. The Church disapproves of how evangelical Protestants keep trying to jog God's elbow!
No, the Church was organizing herself in the very lifetimes of the Apostles, as briefly summarized above. I can easily cite many texts from the Gospels and Epistles of the NT to show that. And that does not contradict also being influenced by the administrative system of the Roman Empire as well.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Your first paragraph: I am not sure what you are disagreeing with, though.
The Gospels are not verbatim reports of what was said at the time but propaganda written later.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your comment about neo-pagans reminded me of how, when I looked them up, I thought their beliefs a chaotic mishmash of incoherent ideas.
I never claimed the Gospels were verbatim stenographic reports of Christ's words, despite also believing they have much material going straight back to Him. Nor do I believe any of the synoptic Gospels were written after AD 70.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My acquaintance, James Crossley, argues for a very early Mark and wrote a book called THE DATE OF MARK'S GOSPEL: INSIGHTS FROM THE LAW IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY.
Paul.
EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY
Kaor, Paul!
Good, what you said about Crossley defending an early date for Mark's Gospel. I hope that means the work of William Farmer (and those who agree with him) in advocating the Neo-Griesbachian hypothesis in
works like THE GOSPEL OF JESUS opposing the long dominant Q/Two Source theory is bearing fruit. It was David L. Dungan's HISTORY OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM which undermined my former acceptance of the Q theory.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But Crossly accepts the primacy of Mark.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I know, but that's still a step in what I believe is the right direction.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment