Forgot to add this. Also about post 58:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We need to differentiate between Indian polytheism and pantheism and Western polytheism and pantheism(such as Odinism)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In that sense Santana Dharma is Pantheistic, but not Polytheistic. As we only recognise one supreme soul, and everything else as a manifestation of it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The christo-'anthropologists' of the colonial era were much cleverer than their christian forbears. They could no longer describe their objects of 'study' as pagans, heathens (or the still used term 'unsaved'). No, the 'science' of early anthropology required more scientific-sounding words. The early christians didn't bother to subcategorise the pagans/heathens, as they could all just be indiscriminately massacred into conversion anyway. The problem of the unsaved world became greater to the more 'moral' christos of the colonial times. Forced conversions even massacres were still at full speed ahead, but the world they discovered was bigger and needed to be split into smaller groups for easier consumption.
Thus they started bandying about terms for classifying the various heathens: pantheist, panentheist, henotheist, plain old monotheist or polytheist (hard polytheists and soft polytheists). Hindus have alternately been described by all of these, except for 'hard polytheists'. Let's add animist to the list.
In this way, the many communities 'studied' by christo-anthropologists were put into various boxes marked, for our perusal, with these various terms. The other side of the box was labeled for their own reading - what they always thought in their heads about all us non-christoislamics: heathen pagan animistic unsaved infidels. The complex terms just indicated what model/means of conversion would be best suited to each community that had been studied.
'Animists' were meant to be bulldozed over: like Africans, many Hindu forest and hill and even village communities, the Akha, certain remote native American communities of South America, remote South East Asian populations.
More 'sophisticated' -eists required more sophisticated means of conversion. Today that includes calling in the likes of Doniger et al.
The fact is, we may be all of the above when seen from an anthropological perspective, animists/animystics/animalystics/animatrix/whatever included, but none of them - nor all together - define in the remotest sense what Hinduism (or Shinto or the North American native American Traditions or the others) are.
Ironically, it is most easy to find the box wherein christoislamicommunism has appropriately placed itself. Through the teachings of its own ideology, as can also be traced in its actions all through history, it correctly labeled itself. But I don't think its followers are open to reading it.
It's not the 'monotheist' box christoislamism is found in. No. The box says, in big bold letters which everyone else has been able to read: 'Terrorist (Genocidal ideology)'.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We need to differentiate between Indian polytheism and pantheism and Western polytheism and pantheism(such as Odinism)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In that sense Santana Dharma is Pantheistic, but not Polytheistic. As we only recognise one supreme soul, and everything else as a manifestation of it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The christo-'anthropologists' of the colonial era were much cleverer than their christian forbears. They could no longer describe their objects of 'study' as pagans, heathens (or the still used term 'unsaved'). No, the 'science' of early anthropology required more scientific-sounding words. The early christians didn't bother to subcategorise the pagans/heathens, as they could all just be indiscriminately massacred into conversion anyway. The problem of the unsaved world became greater to the more 'moral' christos of the colonial times. Forced conversions even massacres were still at full speed ahead, but the world they discovered was bigger and needed to be split into smaller groups for easier consumption.
Thus they started bandying about terms for classifying the various heathens: pantheist, panentheist, henotheist, plain old monotheist or polytheist (hard polytheists and soft polytheists). Hindus have alternately been described by all of these, except for 'hard polytheists'. Let's add animist to the list.
In this way, the many communities 'studied' by christo-anthropologists were put into various boxes marked, for our perusal, with these various terms. The other side of the box was labeled for their own reading - what they always thought in their heads about all us non-christoislamics: heathen pagan animistic unsaved infidels. The complex terms just indicated what model/means of conversion would be best suited to each community that had been studied.
'Animists' were meant to be bulldozed over: like Africans, many Hindu forest and hill and even village communities, the Akha, certain remote native American communities of South America, remote South East Asian populations.
More 'sophisticated' -eists required more sophisticated means of conversion. Today that includes calling in the likes of Doniger et al.
The fact is, we may be all of the above when seen from an anthropological perspective, animists/animystics/animalystics/animatrix/whatever included, but none of them - nor all together - define in the remotest sense what Hinduism (or Shinto or the North American native American Traditions or the others) are.
Ironically, it is most easy to find the box wherein christoislamicommunism has appropriately placed itself. Through the teachings of its own ideology, as can also be traced in its actions all through history, it correctly labeled itself. But I don't think its followers are open to reading it.
It's not the 'monotheist' box christoislamism is found in. No. The box says, in big bold letters which everyone else has been able to read: 'Terrorist (Genocidal ideology)'.