Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
** Important note: please read the whole thing before posting. If it is TL;DR ... then please do not reply. Thank you, gracias, gratsi, and dhanyavad.**
In my opinion, literalism defeats the purpose in the Dharmic context. It's a reality that is unfamiliar to the Dharmic lens. For example, let's say "Vishpala was helped by the Ashvins on a Monday" ... thus, it cannot be on a Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Friday. Another example, "Krishna Bhagwan took a left on Cherry Road on his way to Dwarka" ... thus, it cannot be a right onto Name The Street Drive---or a u-turn back onto I Forgot Avenue. I haven't been able to find a valid pramana for literalism, regardless of the fact that different Hinduism-s will give different directions and "all is well" is usually the response because of the pluralism of it all---heck, a pramana for it probably doesn't even exist because it doesn't even belong in the Dharmic context. Take a look at the term, Sanskrit, for example. Its very nature is that of refinement. Literalism, on the other hand, doesn't allow such leeway. If one were to attempt a literal translation of Sanskrit texts, it would be difficult simply based on the fluid nature of the language---one word has so many different meanings and implications.
Then, there's the concern of shastra-citing. Literalism leads to a fervent citing of scripture. But wait, MV ! Sāvdhān ! Acharya-s have constantly engaged in vada-bhiksha for so many centuries that your point is moot ! Um, no. That's a logical fallacy in and of itself, not to mention that it shows a lacking of knowledge of Indic historicity. Acharya-s didn't stand on top of a hill and read aloud scripture in hopes of gaining converts. Instead, they would literally argue for the validity of their hypotheses using memorized verses from the shastra-s, being open to retraction if they lost
cover: shocking, I know ). Many times, they didn't even use scripture; instead, they used their socio-cultural understanding of the social and philosophical environments around them. Heck, an average debate between Kumarila Bhatta and his Buddhist compatriots was more secular than the Pledge of Allegiance 1948 Version. The moral of this paragraph: That's not shastra-citing ... not even in the slightest.
But what about Hindu orthodoxy ? See, I got you there, MV ! Once again, nope ! Not true. Orthodoxy in the Dharmic sense is far from being related to, say, orthodoxy in the Abrahamic view(s). It is true that orthodoxy means "correct belief", but that's such a narrow perspective to hold when it comes to traditional Hindu sects and their practices. In the Dharmic sense, traditional Hinduism-s (since there are many) are an orgy of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. These are fluid, well-alive ecosystems of nature that is Dharma; they each contribute and give a "what's up, bro ?" nod to each other. These are not sects that are "believe in the right way or we shall go ISIS on you", as is the case of militant outward-rigorism radically plaguing Iraq as I type this. In fact, as I type this, two facts are certain: Yezidi males are being killed by militant Sunnis while Yezidi females are being enslaved. How do I know for a fact that this is even happening ? Well, apart from it being reported in news outlets and being depicted in videos uploaded by ISIS militants and news reporters themselves, it is also an unfortunate reality of radical interpretation of scripture---which usually comes pre-packaged in literalist, outward-rigorist circles. But that doesn't belong in traditional Hinduism-s nor does it belong in the Dharmic context.
But what about outward-rigorism that can be found in traditional Hinduism, let alone lay-Hinduism ? Got you there, MV ! Hah ! Suck it ! In the Dharmic context, almost every instance of outward-rigorism has usually halted at phase #1: condemnation. And in many of these cases, condemnation is justified. What theological justice would be done trying to convey to a Hare Krishna that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, and not the other way around ? What justice would it do trying to tell the heathen that is MV that there is only one god when the Indo-pagan, himself, uses the sukta-s dedicated to the Vishvedevah as support from Shruti ? Now, if I were to condemn, say, a Ganapatya that what he/she believes in isn't right/correct and he/she is committing a crime against the universe because he/she should be a polytheist, then I'd be violating the civic duty that is Dharma. The only time condemnation would even be plausible is if it highlights the incorrect orthodoxical and orthopraxical conduct of the person in regards to his/her own sectarian identification. Dude, I didn't understand that last sentence at all ! Of course you didn't. Not everyone takes the time to better their English; it's okay; it's the way of the world nowadays. No interest in Shakespeare; no interest in Tolkien, Dickens, etc. Instead, "the writer of 50 Shades of Grey and the writer of Twilight are my fav, Oh Em Gee !" :sad:. Anyway, to simplify it some more, here it goes:
But this doesn't make sense ! I like cheesecake ! Listen, O' Imaginary Voice In This Long OP, I like cheesecake as well but if your whole point is to find fault in what I am writing, then that pretty much proves what I am trying to say---and you are in need of some serious reprogramming. In fact, I'll be kind as to link a thread that pretty much reiterates what I am trying to exclaim. You can click here. And knowing that you are quite the literalist, I'm sure you will follow the "you can click here" to the "T".
In my opinion, literalism defeats the purpose in the Dharmic context. It's a reality that is unfamiliar to the Dharmic lens. For example, let's say "Vishpala was helped by the Ashvins on a Monday" ... thus, it cannot be on a Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Friday. Another example, "Krishna Bhagwan took a left on Cherry Road on his way to Dwarka" ... thus, it cannot be a right onto Name The Street Drive---or a u-turn back onto I Forgot Avenue. I haven't been able to find a valid pramana for literalism, regardless of the fact that different Hinduism-s will give different directions and "all is well" is usually the response because of the pluralism of it all---heck, a pramana for it probably doesn't even exist because it doesn't even belong in the Dharmic context. Take a look at the term, Sanskrit, for example. Its very nature is that of refinement. Literalism, on the other hand, doesn't allow such leeway. If one were to attempt a literal translation of Sanskrit texts, it would be difficult simply based on the fluid nature of the language---one word has so many different meanings and implications.
Then, there's the concern of shastra-citing. Literalism leads to a fervent citing of scripture. But wait, MV ! Sāvdhān ! Acharya-s have constantly engaged in vada-bhiksha for so many centuries that your point is moot ! Um, no. That's a logical fallacy in and of itself, not to mention that it shows a lacking of knowledge of Indic historicity. Acharya-s didn't stand on top of a hill and read aloud scripture in hopes of gaining converts. Instead, they would literally argue for the validity of their hypotheses using memorized verses from the shastra-s, being open to retraction if they lost
cover: shocking, I know ). Many times, they didn't even use scripture; instead, they used their socio-cultural understanding of the social and philosophical environments around them. Heck, an average debate between Kumarila Bhatta and his Buddhist compatriots was more secular than the Pledge of Allegiance 1948 Version. The moral of this paragraph: That's not shastra-citing ... not even in the slightest.But what about Hindu orthodoxy ? See, I got you there, MV ! Once again, nope ! Not true. Orthodoxy in the Dharmic sense is far from being related to, say, orthodoxy in the Abrahamic view(s). It is true that orthodoxy means "correct belief", but that's such a narrow perspective to hold when it comes to traditional Hindu sects and their practices. In the Dharmic sense, traditional Hinduism-s (since there are many) are an orgy of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. These are fluid, well-alive ecosystems of nature that is Dharma; they each contribute and give a "what's up, bro ?" nod to each other. These are not sects that are "believe in the right way or we shall go ISIS on you", as is the case of militant outward-rigorism radically plaguing Iraq as I type this. In fact, as I type this, two facts are certain: Yezidi males are being killed by militant Sunnis while Yezidi females are being enslaved. How do I know for a fact that this is even happening ? Well, apart from it being reported in news outlets and being depicted in videos uploaded by ISIS militants and news reporters themselves, it is also an unfortunate reality of radical interpretation of scripture---which usually comes pre-packaged in literalist, outward-rigorist circles. But that doesn't belong in traditional Hinduism-s nor does it belong in the Dharmic context.
But what about outward-rigorism that can be found in traditional Hinduism, let alone lay-Hinduism ? Got you there, MV ! Hah ! Suck it ! In the Dharmic context, almost every instance of outward-rigorism has usually halted at phase #1: condemnation. And in many of these cases, condemnation is justified. What theological justice would be done trying to convey to a Hare Krishna that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, and not the other way around ? What justice would it do trying to tell the heathen that is MV that there is only one god when the Indo-pagan, himself, uses the sukta-s dedicated to the Vishvedevah as support from Shruti ? Now, if I were to condemn, say, a Ganapatya that what he/she believes in isn't right/correct and he/she is committing a crime against the universe because he/she should be a polytheist, then I'd be violating the civic duty that is Dharma. The only time condemnation would even be plausible is if it highlights the incorrect orthodoxical and orthopraxical conduct of the person in regards to his/her own sectarian identification. Dude, I didn't understand that last sentence at all ! Of course you didn't. Not everyone takes the time to better their English; it's okay; it's the way of the world nowadays. No interest in Shakespeare; no interest in Tolkien, Dickens, etc. Instead, "the writer of 50 Shades of Grey and the writer of Twilight are my fav, Oh Em Gee !" :sad:. Anyway, to simplify it some more, here it goes:
Person A and Person B are of the School X. Person A isn't practicing School X correctly. Person A, however, continues to promote the practices he/she does to the world as if they are the correct and proper practices of School X. Factually, Person A is wrong. Thus, it would be theologically valid for Person B to condemn Person A. And that is where it stops. Person B doesn't commit a genocide against Person A and his/her followers. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Just a simple, "you're doing it wrong; I'm skeptical of you". No bombing of School X clinics, no harassing of School X LGBTQ communities while walking past them on the street, no holding "Person A is going to hell" placards while attending a funeral of Person A's friend or family member.
But this doesn't make sense ! I like cheesecake ! Listen, O' Imaginary Voice In This Long OP, I like cheesecake as well but if your whole point is to find fault in what I am writing, then that pretty much proves what I am trying to say---and you are in need of some serious reprogramming. In fact, I'll be kind as to link a thread that pretty much reiterates what I am trying to exclaim. You can click here. And knowing that you are quite the literalist, I'm sure you will follow the "you can click here" to the "T".
Last edited:
