[Buddha-l] Hindu Fundamentalism
jehms at xs4all.nl
Wed Aug 3 08:33:15 MDT 2005
> I really don't think this amounts to fundamentalism. In fact,
> the statement that is being objected to is extremely problematic.
> To say that "there is no scientific evidence of Ram and Krishna"
> is nearly meaningless. Is there perhaps scientific evidence for
> other Gods that is missing for Ram and Krishna?
Remember what the fuss in Ayodhya was about? A mosque was supposed to be
the birthplace of Rama! Now we know that the Buddha was born somewhere,
but we also know that the Rama of the Ramaayana never was born. This is
because Rama is a God and the Buddha ain't. But avatars are supposed to
be historical. Is there any trace of them?
> Is there some
> accepted criterion for what "scientific evidence" for the "existence"
> of a God might look like? This is clearly an example of an anti-
> religious bias masquerading as scientifical "objectivity".
'The passion of the Christ' is thought by many to be based on historical
facts, so is the story about Jesus in India and the flight of Mohammed
to Jerusalem (there's a mosque to commemorate this). It would be OK if
religious fundamentalists would admit that their claims to the truth is
a quite other ballgame then those of the scientists, but they don't,
they want to play along in a game that's not theirs.
More information about the buddha-l