I'm not exactly sure what has been written on Hinduism -- as far as traditional Judaism is concerned -- but it's probably similar to that written on Christianity, which is idolatry for a Jew, who is bound clearly by the mitzvot, but not for a Christian. I'm pretty sure there's a standing ruling that there is no idolatry today such as there was in biblical times, so that anything today is a lesser idolatry. In order to become a bnai Noah, someone would have to stop worshipping via a manifestation, as part of showing their full commitment to Hashem and the 7 laws. I'm not too sure beyond that. I'm not a traditional Jew. Wrong as in incorrect? A traditional Jew might very well think that. Stupid or evil? Unlikely. That's why I posted about this in the first place. Cad said a fully observant Jew would find Hinduism disgusting, and I said that a Jew would be more likely to try to understand the nature of Hinduism, to what degree it is idolatry, and how that relates to him. Judaism is a religion for Jews. It's concerned with the lives of Jews. It's not a universal religion, although it does say the righteous of all nations have a place in the world-to-come, regardless of their beliefs. It's difficult to sum up what "the Jew" thinks because we are by no means monolithic, even among the Orthodox. And we're also really more defined by action than belief. Belief on God vary a bit, as well as beliefs about miracles, the world-to-come, etc. I'd say there are some guidelines that help understand Jewish belief though, even as some people might exist outside of some of those guidelines. Dauer
Oh, and to be more specific, the 613 mitzvot only apply to Jews. For the same reason a non-Jew is not expected to observe the Shabbat and keep it holy, a non-Jew is not held to other mitzvot. According to some, there was a covenant with Noah that had 7 mitzvot, and this was the religion of Noah. I think it's more likely these had more to do with the laws for non-Jews in Israel. Dauer
Bringing this back to Buddhism, yet incorporateing everyone.... Here is a portion of an interview with the Dalai Lama I found somewhere on the net, "Thurman: You speak about how the Buddha always emphasized the rational pursuit of truth. "He instructed his disciples to critically judge his words before accepting them. He always advocated reason over blind faith." Coming from a late 20th-century belief that there is no Truth, only contingent truths, how are we to imagine what the Buddha meant by "truth" in contemporary terms? Dalai Lama: Buddha was speaking about reality. Reality may be one, in its deepest essence, but Buddha also stated that all propositions about reality are only contingent. Reality is devoid of any intrinsic identity that can be captured by any one single proposition -- that is what Buddha meant by "voidness." Therefore, Buddhism strongly discourages blind faith and fanaticism. Of course, there are different truths on different levels. Things are true relative to other things; "long" and "short" relate to each other, "high" and "low," and so on. But is there any absolute truth? Something self-sufficient, independently true in itself? I don't think so. In Buddhism we have the concept of "interpretable truths," teachings that are reasonable and logical for certain people in certain situations. Buddha himself taught different teachings to different people under different circumstances. For some people, there are beliefs based on a Creator. For others, no Creator. The only "definitive truth" for Buddhism is the absolute negation of any one truth as the Definitive Truth. Thurman: Isn't that because it is dangerous for one religion to consider it has the only truth? Dalai Lama: Yes. I always say there should be pluralism -- the concept of many religions, many truths. But we must also be careful not to become nihilistic." Thurman is Robert Thurman. Umma the movie star's father and I belive the first westerner to become a Buddhist Lama. The Dalai Lama doesn't speak for all of Buddhism, but, I thuoght these words expressed a basic Buddhist philosophy. Read them over again.
I'm sorry to bring the subject back one more time but I just want to make something very clear before abandoning this whole line of conversation. My apology to Meagain. I'm not trying to thwart your attempt to redirect this thread. Avodah zara means "strange service/worship" and although biblically it is usually translated as idolatry, it does not carry quite the same meaning. There is actually a very good explanation of it at the bottom of the following page from which I will first include a very concise quote: "Avodah zerah means service or worship that is strange or foreign to the Jew from a Torah perspective. It is commonly translated as ÒidolatryÓ, because from the Jewish point of view, those who pray to a physical or metaphysical entity that has, or once had, or could have a form, is limiting the concept of a singular limitless formless infinite singular Creator, and that is not very different than worshipping a little carving, statue, or even a photograph. Such worship is foreign to the Jew." http://www.kosherjudaism.com/elohimacharim.html I hope that clarifies any confusion my posts may have caused and if anyone wishes to respond to this, please start a thread on the Jewish board. Dauer
