<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact even your earlier question about a person being an "atheist" and perhaps not Hindu bothers me. What is a Hindu who has realised the absolute if he is not an atheist? What Gods does this ultimate Hindu's theism submit to?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Argument of theism vs non-theism is irrelevant in Hinduism. The words are not descriptive of Hindu (Jaina, Buddhist) experience.
Just as a point of reference, the words/concepts 'theism' and 'atheism' come from Theos, not Deus. Note that theos and Deus do <i>not</i> have a common origin, in spite of sounding similar. From what I understand, Theos only ever referred to the christian gawd. The Ancient Romans used Deus regularly to refer to the Gods.
Theism, being a western christian invention, actually referred originally to belief in the christian gawd and atheism was concerned with the same hypothesis... Their sphere of application - until recent times - was only christian surroundings. For a long time, any heathens - though they be European - worshipping other Gods were called atheists also.
People have now adopted this term unthinkingly. It is only today that some people bandy these words about as if they should equally apply to other religions.
In it's original meaning which concerns only christianity, then: yeah, Ayyappa, Kamisama and Le Grand Esprit know I am very much an atheist... after all, the christoislamic gawd is non-existent, no amount of believing in it is going to bring it into existence.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is a Hindu who has realised the absolute if he is not an atheist? What Gods does this ultimate Hindu's theism submit to?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Also, is your opinion now the final determinant of what an "ultimate Hindu's" 'theism' is like? And you would know this, how?
The only ultimate Hindus I know of, my Grandparents and other older Indian people (probably like most other older Hindu generations from all over India), lived with the entire spectrum of Hindu Gods in their lives. That certainly puts a full-stop to any thesis on what makes and does not make an ultimate Hindu.
Our ill-informed and unqualified opinions on the matter do not trump the informed old generations' complete knowledge on what Hinduism entails. Heck, they had been living it daily while we can only ponder about what it all signifies. We are now that much estranged.
The 'modern' Hindu who thinks (s)he knows better than all the Hindus who'd lived since ancient times about what is and isn't Hinduism, and feels the need to discuss and lecture on the finer points of theism and atheism and Hindu Gods is only making things up as they go along. To them the older Hindus' beliefs, traditions make no sense or, at best, mean nothing.
(Same applies by symmetry to any modern commentating on Shinto, native American and similar cases.)
I'm wondering how Hindu narrative can have any meaning when it ignores the ways Hindus lived before this generation - they were people far more knowledgeable on Hinduism, after all. Our generation just tends to 'invent' a Hinduism and think it's what all the earlier Hindus followed; regarding all the Hindu things our ancestors did and lived as merely quaint. It is a highly condescending attitude. Their experiences certainly deserve more respect than that. We should also drop the pretence that we know as much about it as they did.
At least they lived Sanatana Dharma, whereas we can only have discussions about things of which we have next to no clue about, and to make it worse, we feel we need to discuss such matters from within the utterly unrelated parameters of atheism and theism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Book) Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn't
On Hinduism he writes -.... they worship cowherd Krishna and <b>blood thirsty Kali</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What does the writer of that book know of Kaali? Nothing. Not knowing anything about her, he likes to comment (and his is a work about Religious Literacy, no less - ooh the irony).
On the other hand, genocidal-though-fictional gawd goes about massacring men women and animals throughout the very bloody babble, and that author probably failed to notice. Western scholarship for ya, right there.
Just as a point of reference, the words/concepts 'theism' and 'atheism' come from Theos, not Deus. Note that theos and Deus do <i>not</i> have a common origin, in spite of sounding similar. From what I understand, Theos only ever referred to the christian gawd. The Ancient Romans used Deus regularly to refer to the Gods.
Theism, being a western christian invention, actually referred originally to belief in the christian gawd and atheism was concerned with the same hypothesis... Their sphere of application - until recent times - was only christian surroundings. For a long time, any heathens - though they be European - worshipping other Gods were called atheists also.
People have now adopted this term unthinkingly. It is only today that some people bandy these words about as if they should equally apply to other religions.
In it's original meaning which concerns only christianity, then: yeah, Ayyappa, Kamisama and Le Grand Esprit know I am very much an atheist... after all, the christoislamic gawd is non-existent, no amount of believing in it is going to bring it into existence.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is a Hindu who has realised the absolute if he is not an atheist? What Gods does this ultimate Hindu's theism submit to?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Also, is your opinion now the final determinant of what an "ultimate Hindu's" 'theism' is like? And you would know this, how?
The only ultimate Hindus I know of, my Grandparents and other older Indian people (probably like most other older Hindu generations from all over India), lived with the entire spectrum of Hindu Gods in their lives. That certainly puts a full-stop to any thesis on what makes and does not make an ultimate Hindu.
Our ill-informed and unqualified opinions on the matter do not trump the informed old generations' complete knowledge on what Hinduism entails. Heck, they had been living it daily while we can only ponder about what it all signifies. We are now that much estranged.
The 'modern' Hindu who thinks (s)he knows better than all the Hindus who'd lived since ancient times about what is and isn't Hinduism, and feels the need to discuss and lecture on the finer points of theism and atheism and Hindu Gods is only making things up as they go along. To them the older Hindus' beliefs, traditions make no sense or, at best, mean nothing.
(Same applies by symmetry to any modern commentating on Shinto, native American and similar cases.)
I'm wondering how Hindu narrative can have any meaning when it ignores the ways Hindus lived before this generation - they were people far more knowledgeable on Hinduism, after all. Our generation just tends to 'invent' a Hinduism and think it's what all the earlier Hindus followed; regarding all the Hindu things our ancestors did and lived as merely quaint. It is a highly condescending attitude. Their experiences certainly deserve more respect than that. We should also drop the pretence that we know as much about it as they did.
At least they lived Sanatana Dharma, whereas we can only have discussions about things of which we have next to no clue about, and to make it worse, we feel we need to discuss such matters from within the utterly unrelated parameters of atheism and theism.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Book) Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn't
On Hinduism he writes -.... they worship cowherd Krishna and <b>blood thirsty Kali</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What does the writer of that book know of Kaali? Nothing. Not knowing anything about her, he likes to comment (and his is a work about Religious Literacy, no less - ooh the irony).
On the other hand, genocidal-though-fictional gawd goes about massacring men women and animals throughout the very bloody babble, and that author probably failed to notice. Western scholarship for ya, right there.