Aloha,
On 4/20/2007 at 4:59 PM Brian Morton wrote:
>Notice also that intertranslating neighbors deities is not always an
>emic move. When the Vaishnavites say, oh yes Buddha is 8th incarnations
>of Vishnu; Jesus must be one of the incarnations of Vishnu too. This is
>an intertranslating move, but an etic one. They are not understanding
>Jesus the way Jesus's other followers understood him even though they
>are willing to give a certain amount of holiness and prestige.
Let me add that the Vaishnava outlook on Christianity dramatically alters
assertions of paramountcy inherent in Christianity. The Vaishnava outlook
locates all of Christianity as a sub-sect of a much greater Vaishnava/Hindu
religion--and a not all that important sub-sect, at that.
This sort of perspective shift may serve a comparative researcher well. For
one
thing, talking about Christianity in terms of Vaishnavism certainly reduces
Christianity's hegemonism. For another, various Christian doctrines and
notions may be looked at in a more considered manner.
I think that assimilating Jesus into the Vaishnava line of avatars was a
sound
adaptive response to European religious colonialism. Plus, it has
proved--for me--
to offer a provocative, albeit not-too-popular, outlook that supports the
progressive side of Neo-Paganism.
Let me add that I think the *emic/etic* sort of distinctions do not serve
any discussions about the interactions of civilizations. The notion comes
out of the ethnography of band and tribal societies, which were--and are--
easily overwhelmed, at least from the 19th C on, by contact with
civilizations.
Musing Dimiinshed Christianity! Rose,
Pitch
|