Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Note: The following should not be confused for Hindu apologetics. Pretend someone told you that 1+1=78, but you know for a fact that 1+1=2. Like that.
I was conversing with a Muslim rigorist IRL a few days ago. I was told a story about Brahma and Saraswati and Brahma trying to rape her and how she was his own daughter, and was questioned 1) how could a god that attempts to rape another goddess, let alone his own daughter, be worthy of worship?; and 2) how could Hindus believe in such a thing?
I countered with the following:
I was replied with a stern "Yes, Hindus have to believe in it. It's written in their scriptures."
When many Hindus encounter such questions, many of them fail to acknowledge, and often many of them just don't know, that "Hinduism" is often looked through the lens of the one engaging in polemical apologetics. For example, the person that asked me those two questions imposed their own epistemic and ontological realities as their basis. Apart from the inherent imperialistic undertones of such an imposition, I would like to assist Hindus here on RF---if they ever encounter such impositions IRL---on how to counter such scenarios.
This can be done quite simply:
Therefore, I answered question #1 with the following reiteration: I do not worship Brahma and neither do I believe in that story, yet I'm still a Hindu. Such a story is not a revelation, nor is it credal for it to be believed.
I noticed the person become agitated, and he quickly re-asked question #2.
Therefore, I answered question #2 with the following reiteration: since there is no central ecclesiastical organization, Hindus don't have to believe in such a story---and it's perfectly a-okay. I do not hold such a story to be a "revelation".
Then I said something that threw the person totally off guard:
... after throwing some strawmens here and there, the person decided to abruptly quit after egotistically saying "I'm right; you're wrong". But if any academics or scholars were around, they would have bought me a beer---that's how dope I was in telling the rigorist that 1+1 does not equal 78, it equals 2.
I was conversing with a Muslim rigorist IRL a few days ago. I was told a story about Brahma and Saraswati and Brahma trying to rape her and how she was his own daughter, and was questioned 1) how could a god that attempts to rape another goddess, let alone his own daughter, be worthy of worship?; and 2) how could Hindus believe in such a thing?
I countered with the following:
Am I supposed to take this story as the literal truth?
Am I in the wrong for not believing in such a [Puranic] story?
Am I in the wrong for not believing in such a [Puranic] story?
I was replied with a stern "Yes, Hindus have to believe in it. It's written in their scriptures."
When many Hindus encounter such questions, many of them fail to acknowledge, and often many of them just don't know, that "Hinduism" is often looked through the lens of the one engaging in polemical apologetics. For example, the person that asked me those two questions imposed their own epistemic and ontological realities as their basis. Apart from the inherent imperialistic undertones of such an imposition, I would like to assist Hindus here on RF---if they ever encounter such impositions IRL---on how to counter such scenarios.
This can be done quite simply:
While your faith may have a founder, a prophet, is credal, doctrinal, dogmatic, and has a certain practice that is essential to its very being; it has a very structured system of theology with judicial intervention from religious authorities, the centralization of the God concept; that which is "Hinduism", on the other hand, does not.
Therefore, I answered question #1 with the following reiteration: I do not worship Brahma and neither do I believe in that story, yet I'm still a Hindu. Such a story is not a revelation, nor is it credal for it to be believed.
I noticed the person become agitated, and he quickly re-asked question #2.
Therefore, I answered question #2 with the following reiteration: since there is no central ecclesiastical organization, Hindus don't have to believe in such a story---and it's perfectly a-okay. I do not hold such a story to be a "revelation".
Then I said something that threw the person totally off guard:
I am a Hindu polytheist: I do not "believe" in the gods, I acknowledge them; I do not hold them to an assumption of divine omnipotence, nor to that of divinely creating the universe; and I do not acknowledge the belief of divine omnipresence. And as per Dharmic epistemic and ontological realities, I am still very much Hindu.
... after throwing some strawmens here and there, the person decided to abruptly quit after egotistically saying "I'm right; you're wrong". But if any academics or scholars were around, they would have bought me a beer---that's how dope I was in telling the rigorist that 1+1 does not equal 78, it equals 2.