Did the 16th President of the United States have cancer?

[Molotov]

Not sure what I was trying to say either, went to a tequila bar last night

none of those religions promote the idea that their beliefs are universal imperatives

I think I was trying to say that all of them do, or at the very least, certain denominations of all of them do. None of them suggest they are just 'techniques that people can choose to apply for their own spiritual benefit.' Like some kind of cosmic instruction manual?

Of course you're wrong. Look at the Eightfold Path, this is not something that the Buddha intended to be optional. Look at Brahman, in Hinduism. "Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe." This is in no way a 'technique' for 'spiritual benefit' (whatever the fuck spiritual benefit is), it's an explanation for everything. They aren't saying, "Brahman might be all that is all, ever unchanging and so on, maybe not guys, it's up to you. Might be good for your spiritualness though, eh?"

Hinduism is more diverse but on the whole quite similar.

This, for example, is the silliest thing I've read in a while. I hardly know much about the Eastern religions, but I know that Buddhism is a protest faith, it rejects the fundamental and core principles of Hinduism. That's what the Buddha was all about. It's not a case of, ooh, Buddhism is quite nice, Hinduism is on the whole quite similar. You ask me for facts, but present none, just fallacious statements about the Eastern religions.

Anyway, all the Eastern religions are religions. They are not fundamentally different from the Abrahamic religions, in that they present an explanation for existence and commandments on how we are to live our lives, they have organised structures, they have fundamentalists as unwilling to accept other faiths as any Islamic Mujahid.

[Aethers]

I think I'm having a bit of trouble making the context of my terminology clear, so I'll try to be more precise.

Buddhism is similar to Hinduism in that both teach their dogmas to adherents but do not attempt to exclude the other religion from society. I'm not talking about their dogmas, which, as you point out, are to a significant extent diametrically opposed, Buddhism taking originally Hindu concepts like prana and reincarnation and building upon them a significantly different metaphysical framework and a set of ethical doctrines that largely contradict Hinduism's. (Today they've come closer as the caste system has been largely abandoned by mainstream Hinduism, but even now there are strong differences.) However, in both Buddhism and Hinduism the basic premise of what a "religion" is is less all-encompassing than it is in the West. Hindu and Buddhist temples have coexisted in India for centuries, the followers of both religions mingling with each other to a greater or lesser extent depending on place and time. When holy wars have broken out on the Indian subcontinent, it hasn't been between Hindus and Buddhists, it's between Hindus and Buddhists on the one hand, and Muslims on the other. That's not meant to blame Muslims for that cultural situation, just to point out things as they exist.

In your post, you explain that Hinduism articulates a metaphysics, and Buddhism an ethical framework, and then you seem to be arguing that each proves they are claiming the universal authority of their doctrine, and that seems to me to be quite a leap. Maybe I'm missing something, but someone can believe in a theology without demanding the same belief of others.

[Molotov]

When holy wars have broken out on the Indian subcontinent, it hasn't been between Hindus and Buddhists, it's between Hindus and Buddhists on the one hand, and Muslims on the other. That's not meant to blame Muslims for that cultural situation, just to point out things as they exist.

I studied the Indian subcontinent last year. There never were any 'holy wars' really (although, there were wars in which religion was involved, of course) before the British Raj. Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism (except in its youth) have all existed, on the whole quite peaceably, on the Indian subcontinent in the centuries before the British Raj. Sikhism had a harder time of it, admittedly. The religious division between Islam and Hinduism is quite new, it is a product of the British Raj, and our classification of peoples based on cast, religion and ancestry.

What are you trying to argue, Aethers? Khaler asserted that the Abrahamic religions 'interfere' in the lives of individuals in a way that the Eastern religions do not, I have shown that this is not the case (in fact, I didn't even need to show that, his assertion is bollocks.) He clearly has a stupid bias against our religion, and a rose-coloured, New Age, Orientalist view of Eastern religions typical of many in the West. Are you defending that view?

[Khaler]

Molotov jiat is not drunk enough toi understand the world that surrounds as an in the mean time fucks us in the ass all the tome! Alcohol is the king of the world, bitches!

[Chazza]

When holy wars have broken out on the Indian subcontinent, it hasn't been between Hindus and Buddhists, it's between Hindus and Buddhists on the one hand, and Muslims on the other. That's not meant to blame Muslims for that cultural situation, just to point out things as they exist.

I studied the Indian subcontinent last year. There never were any 'holy wars' really (although, there were wars in which religion was involved, of course) before the British Raj. Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism (except in its youth) have all existed, on the whole quite peaceably, on the Indian subcontinent in the centuries before the British Raj. Sikhism had a harder time of it, admittedly. The religious division between Islam and Hinduism is quite new, it is a product of the British Raj, and our classification of peoples based on cast, religion and ancestry.

The primordialist approach that religious conflict has always existed in the Indian subcontinent has gained such prominence mainly because it has been an easy excuse for justifying actions, ranging from Jinnah at independence to the racist propagators of the 2002 Gujarat riots. In fact it is debatable amongst historians whether substantial distinctions between Hinduism and Islam existed in any meaningful way outside of localised informal identities before the nineteenth century. It is more the case the the British constructed this divisions to ease their rule; H.H. Risley said of the 1905 partition of Bengal, "one of our main objects is to split up and thereby weaken a solid body of opponents to our rule". In regards to Sikhism, it as a religion only gained political prominence because of partition in which religious identity was presented as defining national identity and so if the Muslims and Hindus can get a state why not them? If you look at most of the conflict in the Punjab since then I believe it can largely been seen as stemming from that.

[Molotov]

Well yes, that's what I said.

In fact it is debatable amongst historians whether substantial distinctions between Hinduism and Islam existed in any meaningful way outside of localised informal identities before the nineteenth century.

This is questionable. I would say the British reinforced religious identity, rather than constructed divisions. It certainly wasn't a conscious effort to ease our rule, at least not in all cases or in a concerted manner - I think that tends to be an argument revisionists make. The nineteenth century was the century of scientific classification, we thought we could understand humanity as we understood butterflies, by their various characteristics. Britain was also a regimented society, we felt that class was natural, and the caste system seemed perfectly right to us - its decline under the Mughal Emperors a symbol of India's decline.

In regards to Sikhism, it as a religion only gained political prominence because of partition in which religious identity was presented as defining national identity and so if the Muslims and Hindus can get a state why not them? If you look at most of the conflict in the Punjab since then I believe it can largely been seen as stemming from that.

Sort of. The Sikhs were annoyed because they were to be cut off from their temple at Amritsar, their holiest place. It was never so much a demand for statehood, as a wish to ensure that all Sikhs would have access to their holy place. I was referring to Sikhism in the centuries prior to the British Raj, which certainly did face a degree of persecution which was related only to religious identification, which is why the Sikhs carry a knife and have very clear teachings on the various justifications for war.

[Aethers]

What are you trying to argue, Aethers? Khaler asserted that the Abrahamic religions 'interfere' in the lives of individuals in a way that the Eastern religions do not, I have shown that this is not the case (in fact, I didn't even need to show that, his assertion is bollocks.) He clearly has a stupid bias against our religion, and a rose-coloured, New Age, Orientalist view of Eastern religions typical of many in the West. Are you defending that view?

Well, I wouldn't mind if you felt like showing that it wasn't the case. A tirade of insults against him and me doesn't quite cut it though. After having repeatedly asked for evidence, I have yet to hear a single example of an Eastern religion that has attempted to impose its ethic by force.

I can think of a few examples where nation-states have used religion to justify their own oppression (State Shinto comes to mind), but that's not quite the same thing. The religion was there before, and political leaders co-opted it. The Emperor of Japan was an important figure in Shinto prior to the Meiji period, but that was the first time he was presented as its sole leader. In the classical period, shrines were independent and the Emperor was honored as one god among many, due to his believed descent from Amaterasu. He was preeminent among earthly religious figures, but not in a hierarchical way. That changed in the 19th and 20th centuries when, after the Restoration, politicians thought they could get greater power by promoting obedience to this restored living god. And of course we know the results.

Shinto existed for centuries beforehand, of course, so the ~100 years of State Shinto can be considered more an aberration than anything else. And although there have been other theocracies in Asia, such as pre-invasion Tibet, they always seemed to me more of a feudal ruler claiming divine right to rule a specific people than an explicit claim by the mainstream of a religion that it is the one true way. I only know of three religions that claim that all other faiths (except, in some cases, those that share their common origin) are demonically inspired.

[Molotov]

You keep changing what you're saying, Aethers. Now you're talking about force? What are you asking me to provide evidence for? I have no idea what you're trying to argue, I've provided plenty of 'evidence' to rebut Khaler's original assertion. Much of what I am arguing is self-evident, anyway. You're basically just pointing out that the Abrahamic religions tend to insist that other religions aren't real, while Eastern religions are sometimes (like the Taoists) more willing to accommodate the beliefs of other faiths. This might be true, what has it got to do with Khaler's original stupid statement that Eastern religions don't 'interfere' with peoples lives?

How is Hinduism's belief that everything in the universe is derived from Brahman, different to Christianity's belief that God made everything? Obviously they are two different beliefs, but they're the same kind of thing. Certain Hindus hold cows to be sacred and so prohibit the consumption of beef, certain Jews consider cloven animals to be dirty and so prohibit their consumption. Both prescriptions 'interfere' with people's lives, as Khaler put it. So, what makes Eastern religions different? The burden of proof I think is on you and Khaler, not me.

edit: Btw Chazza, you're starting your third year in September right? What are you planning to do your dissertation on? Bit of advice, don't leave it all to the last weekend before deadline like I did. Fourteen thousands words in a day and a night is not fun, and I'm dreading getting my mark back.

[Aethers]

Haven't changed anything, have been saying the same thing the whole time. There is a difference between setting voluntary standards and interference (another word for which is force.)

Both standards you mention, the Hindu standards and the Jewish standards, are not force. Now, if either Hindus or Jews sought to ban adherents of other faiths from breaking these prohibitions, that would be interference.

Is this just a semantic thing where your definition of "interfere" is different from everyone else's, or is there a legitimate disagreement? Every time I think I have a handle on it you deny that I have understood what you mean.

[Chazza]

edit: Btw Chazza, you're starting your third year in September right? What are you planning to do your dissertation on? Bit of advice, don't leave it all to the last weekend before deadline like I did. Fourteen thousands words in a day and a night is not fun, and I'm dreading getting my mark back.

Think I'm going to do it on something about cultural imperialism/homogenisation and backlash to it, it's all a bit vague at the moment but I've got the summer to sort it out. Ouch though on your situation.

On the India topic I was pretty much agreeing with you, I got an 80 on an essay about the topic though so I was just trying to flex my academic muscles