I would like to take this opportunity to clarify, that I am fairly aware and do consider myself at least slightly intelligent enough to be able to distinguish fact from fiction. I agree that there are feats which were in the past considered impossible and, through the rigours of science and advances in technology, are now an everyday fact of life.
However, by definition we are able to classify events as myth or historical. Let me illustrate with an example; the resurrection of Jesus is a core tenet of Christianity, and an occurrence that must be taken to be completely true if the label of Christian is to have any meaning. Now, resurrection of the dead after 3 days with a perfect bodily restoration (except the hands as some Christian scholars love to point out) is something which is a suspension of the natural order. A perfect case can be made as an argument that this is a myth. Same can also be said about the meeting between the archangel Gabriel and the epileptic and psychotic merchant of the middle east who began his death cult in the 7th century that is wreaking havoc on peaceful societies even today.
My point is not to try and find what you call "mythohistorical" anecdotes - those, as you conceded and I agree, can be found a dime a dozen in all faiths. My query was more to the point of what central tenets do you have to hold and believe, often in spite of evidence to the contrary, to be able to merit the badge of Hinduism.
I am still trying to understand what you mean by "if one elects to propel mythology as one's mainstay of one's faith" - because as I mentioned earlier, these parables of impossible and downright ridiculous feats constitute, among the majority of doctrines on offer, as the core ideas on which faith is to be based. If you can pick and choose what you want to believe, then a Hindu who calls himself a Christian Muslim is just as right as a Muslim Jain, which reduces these labels and identifiers to meaningless noise.
I can understand how my outlook may seem concentrated on the myths of the religion, except I don't think that the inclusion of myths within religions or the fact that they are so easily available for critique can be attributed as a fault of the non-believers. Remember, when these ideas were introduced around the time when these scriptures were written, they were meant to be taken exactly as they were written. Historically, it would be naive to postulate that the authors of these scriptures wrote them to be scrutinised and evaluated 3000-4000 years later.
Would you mind elaborating a little more on the non-dualism point - I may be in error, and would welcome correction, but if I understand it correctly, isn't non-dualism the idea that there is no distinction between the mind and the brain? And therefore, rightly as you said, isn't it completely at odds with the majority hindu teachings, including the concept of the soul or aatman?
Bookmarks