As I have been saying, liberalism is engaged in a historical dialectic with traditionalism. Here is another instance of it. This is a big deal in India day to day, but the West seldom hears about it, since it is a "family fight."
This is important since the historical dialectic is foundational to the world system, and the world system is now in transition, e.g., from liberal-traditional to ?, from analog to digital, from unipolar to multipolar, from Western-centric to global-centric, from predominantly neoliberal to ?, etc.
The rate of flux is accelerating, and this is increasing uncertainty, which is unsettling. One result in increasing conflict.
BTW, Kenneth Boulding, a forerunner of MMT, transitioned from economics to systems theory and world systems, and focused on conflict and conflict resolution. His work is worth revisiting. MMT economists Randy Wray and Mathew Forstater have written about him. His work is prescient. John Kenneth Galbraith also deserves mention in this regard as an economist. These were "big picture" thinkers. Warren Mosler and MMT economists often speak of "public purpose." That's lifted from JKG's Economics and the Public Purpose (1976). Galbraith was in a position to do something about it too. And they were not game theorists.
Police Reportedly Deploy Water Cannons Against Unauthorised Protest in Amsterdam
I don't live in India, I'm not of that faith, so it isn't important for me.
ReplyDeleteI'm much more concerned about Canadians slaughtering each other, due to "stress".
Peter Pan,
ReplyDeleteHinduism, like Islam, is an occasionalist religion, i.e., everything comes from God. That includes death.
So that means you are safe from everything, except from God.
Don't they believe in multiple gods?
ReplyDeleteDon't they believe in multiple gods?
ReplyDeleteDo Christian believe in three gods?
It's sort of like that.
They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan. Rig Veda 1.164.46
Rig Veda is authoritative.
So it is unlike neo-paganism, yet is called a polytheistic religion.
ReplyDeleteSo it is unlike neo-paganism, yet is called a polytheistic religion.
ReplyDeleteThe conceptual models of the different religions are somewhat complicated and different sects hold different beliefs, so it is difficult to make sweeping statements.
There are essentially four different groups in any religion, and their beliefs are different.
1. The believers in the normative institutional religion as a cultural phenomenon. This is most people.
2. The educated but not necessarily learned in theological matters.
3. The learned in theological matters.
4. The mystics.
Now there is also a fifth category of people not associate with the religious tradition culturally but appropriate it for their use on their own terms, thus, American Buddhism, for example, or universal Sufism. Not that these are not legitimate expressions of the tradition involved. On the other hand, the neo-pagans are trying to reconstruct something for which there is no extant context, since those traditions are lapsed. This is basically cultural appropriation. On the other hand, some of these are shamanistically inspired and have been shaped with the influence of genuine shamans of ancient cultures that still survive.
There is also a sixth category of non-institutional traditions founded by sages independently of a previously established tradition, or combining previously established traditions innovatively.
Then there are different sects, denominations, and schools within an overarching tradition.
Some of these are complicated simple systems that have crystalized and some are complex systems that are adaptive.
Hinduism is a monotheistic religion.
ReplyDeleteHindus actually only believe in one God, Brahman, the eternal origin who is the cause and foundation of all existence. The gods of the Hindu faith represent different forms of Brahman. These gods are sent to help people find the universal God (Brahman).
Brahma - known as the Creator
Vishnu - Known as the Preserver
Shiva (Siva)- known as the Destroyer
source: Information on Hinduism
"the Hindu pantheon in fact contains literally hundreds of different deities"
These would be different aspects of the one God.
“I'm much more concerned about Canadians slaughtering each other, due to "stress".”
ReplyDeleteNo worries, PP — the NHL 2021 season just started.
Best theme song in all of sports — Hockey Night in Canada:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PMJWunuF1vU
In mythology there are deities that have multiple aspects, such as the Morrigan. If that is analogous to the Hindu god, then it would be misleading to categorize this as polytheism.
ReplyDeleteAs for neopagans, there are some whose practices are polytheistic, and some who aren't. The framework isn't so rigid as to exclude a given practice. Animism is also a possibility.
Thanks greek, just what we need to calm the nation down.
ReplyDelete“In mythology there are deities that have multiple aspects...”
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, Number 4 Bobby Orr is a diety.
♫♫ ♫
ReplyDeleteHello out there, we're on the air, it's 'Hockey Night' tonight.
Tension grows, the whistle blows, and the puck goes down the ice.
The goalie jumps, and the players bump, and the fans all go insane.
Someone roars, "Bobby Scores!", at the good ol' Hockey Game.
♫♫
He has a piece of wood that he stomps on, hence the name (you see him carrying it in to the show):
Stompin' Tom Conners The Hockey Song
Stompin' Tom is a national icon :)
ReplyDeleteIn Hinduism, is there an equivalent to "live and let live" ?
ReplyDeleteAnd when something offends you, like a web series, don't watch it.
“ Do Christian believe in three gods?”
ReplyDeleteThat’s a product of Platonist philosophers trying to do math....
That’s a product of Platonist philosophers trying to do math....
ReplyDeleteIn this case you are factually correct, Matt. There is no explicitly Trinitarian doctrine in the Hebrew scripture or in the New Testament, although there are texts that can be cited in favor of the doctrine.
Rather, the Trinitarian doctrine was the product of the early Church Fathers, who were either Platonists or at least influenced by Plato. See Stanford Encycl. on the history of Trinitarian doctine.
The issue arose not because they could not count. Plato's motto for the Academy was, let no one who does not know (Euclidian) geometery enter. Their challenge was expressing the doctrine in terms of the world view of the time, which was largely Greek-based rather than Hebrew when the followers of Jesus became predominantly Gentile. So the expression of the doctrine came to rest on hypostases and hypostatic union.
What this means is that the members of the Trinity have real existence and not aspects of the One God, or names of the One God.
Thus Trninitarian Christianity can be viewed as more "polytheistic" than Hinduism, in which there is only one real existence, that of Paramatma (the one reality considered as personal but formless)/Parabrahma (the one reality considered as impersonal and formless). The one is infinite existence-consciousness. All diversity is appearance as the manifestation of form in finite minds.
These theologies are somewhat controversial in both Christianity and Hinduism (more accurately termed Sanatanam Dharmam), as different schools have somewhat different interpretations.
Isaac Newton became an Arian around 1672. First let us explain the Arian doctrine. It is a Christian heresy first proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian Arius which, based on a study of the Bible, stated the belief that Jesus was more than man, but less than God. In other words Arians do not believe in the identification of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, so they do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
ReplyDeleteNewton came to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was misguided in its interpretation of Christianity, and had returned to idolatry. Although he partly approved of the Protestant Reformation, he felt it had not gone nearly far enough to return Christianity to its original state. Now if Newton did not believe in the Trinity, he had to consider the First Epistle of John Chapter 5, verse 7, which reads (in the King James version):-
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Now Newton, who felt that his mission was more to study religion than science, certainly did not stop at reading the King James version of the Bible, but rather read all original versions he could, learning the necessary ancient languages. He discovered that the final phrase 'and these three are one' was not present in any Greek version that he studied. Newton came to the conclusion that it was a deliberate addition to the text to provide justification for the doctrine of the Trinity. He wrote down a list of twelve reasons why he was an Arian. Now of course it was not acceptable for people to hold views considered heresy by the Church, so after Newton's death this list, and his other theological writings, were marked "Not fit to be printed". They were stored and were not read by anyone until Keynes acquired them in 1936.
source: Newton's Arian beliefs
The Royal Society of London planned an event to celebrate the tercentenary of Isaac Newton's birth in 1942. However World War II made it essentially impossible and the celebrations did not take place until July 1946. Lectures were given by E N da Costa Andrade, H W Turnbull, Niels Bohr and Jacques Hadamard. John Maynard Keynes had also been invited to lecture but unfortunately he died in April 1946, three months before the celebrations took place. Keynes was fascinated by Newton's manuscripts and had been the first person to see some of the manuscript material by Newton which had been kept secret until his papers were sold in 1936. Keynes' lecture, Newton, the man was delivered at the celebrations by his brother Geoffrey Keynes. Here is the text of the lecture:-
ReplyDeleteHere is an excerpt from that writing:
Very early in life Newton abandoned orthodox belief in the Trinity. At this time the Socinians were an important Arian sect amongst intellectual circles. It may be that Newton fell under Socinian influences, but I think not. He was rather a Judaic monotheist of the school of Maimonides. He arrived at this conclusion, not on so-to-speak rational or sceptical grounds, but entirely on the interpretation of ancient authority. He was persuaded that the revealed documents give no support to the Trinitarian doctrines which were due to late falsifications. The revealed God was one God.
But this was a dreadful secret which Newton was at desperate pains to conceal all his life. It was the reason why he refused Holy Orders, and therefore had to obtain a special dispensation to hold his Fellowship and Lucasian Chair and could not be Master of Trinity. Even the Toleration Act of 1689 excepted anti-Trinitarians. Some rumours there were, but not at the dangerous dates when he was a young Fellow of Trinity. In the main the secret died with him. But it was revealed in many writings in his, big box. After his death Bishop Horsley was asked to inspect the box with a view to publication. He saw the contents with horror and slammed the lid. A hundred years later Sir David Brewster looked into the box. He covered up the traces with carefully selected extracts and some straight fibbing. His latest biographer, Mr More, has been more candid. Newton's extensive anti-Trinitarian pamphlets are, in my judgement, the most interesting of his unpublished papers. Apart from his more serious affirmation of belief, I have a completed pamphlet showing up what Newton thought of the extreme dishonesty and falsification of records for which St Athanasius was responsible, in particular for his putting about the false calumny that Arius died in a privy. The victory of the Trinitarians in England in the latter half of the seventeenth century was not only as complete, but also as extraordinary, as St Athanasius's original triumph. There is good reason for thinking that Locke was a Unitarian. I have seen it argued that Milton was. It is a blot on Newton's record that he did not murmur a word when Whiston, his successor in the Lucasian Chair, was thrown out of his professorship and out of the University for publicly avowing opinions which Newton himself had secretly held for upwards of fifty years past.
source: John Maynard Keynes: Newton, the Man