A request for a Sanatana Dharma DIR- Dharmic and Staff members Only

[zenzero]

Friend Ravi,

Madhuri's new thread-sticky on forum guidelines, is also a positive spinoff of this thread

Lots of positives coming off from this thread.
In fact life is full of positives and negatives and both are illusions/maya; just how one balances the two poles and transcends that very mind that perceives good and bad is what IT is all about!

Love & rgds

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Madhuri's new thread-sticky on forum guidelines, is also a positive spinoff of this thread, and which implemented properly, will help to get rid of much of the chaos in the forum and create a much pleasant atmosphere, imho.

please can you provide A link to this thread

with thanks :namaste

 

[Ravi500]

namaskaram :namaste

please can you provide A link to this thread

with thanks :namaste

Namaste Ratikalaji, :namaste

Here is the link...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/162255-attention-hinduism-dir-policies.html

 

[LuisDantas]

Some suggestions for the glossary thread (in Dharmic Religions DIR) would be welcome, by the way.

So far I have been learning a lot about Sikhism by way of Breathe's remarks, but Hinduism deserves to be fairly represented as well.

 

[Elector]

namaskaram

Pranams,

I agree with you entirely that the only solution is tolerance and respect .

but for tolerance to work it must listen, .... respecting my veiw and the beging to differ is no true respect .

How so, ratikala? Differences can coexist with mutual respect. There is no need for me to accept and adopt your views for me to respect them.

tolerance listens , ....respect takes anothers veiw into consideration

I have not advocated seperating Hinduism from its traditions or from its texts ,

prehaps you missunderstand me ?

You proposed to create a place where commonalities are discussed and the sectarian/traditional differences are ignored. That gave me the impression that you were trying to separate Hinduism from its traditions. My apologies if that was too presumptuous of me.

 

[Asha]

Namaste

Pranams,

I respect your views... however I am not too fond of this universalist approach to Hinduism. Yes, there has been some strife between some members on sectarian matters; however, separating Hinduism from its traditions and scriptures is not the solution. In my opinion, a more beneficial solution would be to increase mutual respect and tolerance.

May I ask a polite question what is meant by ''Universalist approach to Hinduism'' ?

If by Universalism one is implying that ultimately all religions lead to the same end, does it matter if one is to return to a Brahman which is formless or a Brahman which has form ?
Or if we are to merge, or remain eternaly in devotional servitude ?
Surely the universalism comes in the acceptance that each tradition might hold its own veiw and in light of this be happy that each in their own way will atain God consciousness ?

Is there any harm in this, as each tradition may continue to follow its own teachings with the respect and acceptance of others ?

Jai Shre Krishna.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there any harm in this, as each tradition may continue to follow its own teachings with the respect and acceptance of others ?

Maybe that should be a trivial demand. In practice, it often is not.

As I understand it, that is one of the reasons why the DIR has become blue a month or so ago.

Being assertive yet respectful is not always easy, particularly when one has strong convictions. That is just the way we humans work.

 

[Elector]

Namaste

Namaste Asha, thank you for your question. I believe that this is a very important topic, and would like to share my views.

May I ask a polite question what is meant by ''Universalist approach to Hinduism'' ?

As you mentioned, Universalism is the position that all religions have the same goal. Also, it tends to see things such as the performance of rituals, yajna-s, worship of the deva-s (Vishnu, Shiva, etc.) as unnecessary traditional baggage unlike traditional Hinduism which sees them as mandatory for one’s Sadhana.

If by Universalism one is implying that ultimately all religions lead to the same end, does it matter if one is to return to a Brahman which is formless or a Brahman which has form ?
Or if we are to merge, or remain eternaly in devotional servitude ?
Surely the universalism comes in the acceptance that each tradition might hold its own veiw and in light of this be happy that each in their own way will atain God consciousness ?

Is there any harm in this, as each tradition may continue to follow its own teachings with the respect and acceptance of others ?

The debate here is not whether Universalism is a beneficial interpretation of Hinduism. It is, rather, whether Universalism is a proper/correct interpretation of Hinduism. Can you see the difference? That being said, I am of the opinion that Universalism can sometimes have much more beneficial outcomes than a strictly traditional view of Hinduism. Allow me to clarify...
Traditional Hinduism demands more discipline, faith, and devotion. Many people today see traditionalism as dogmatism, and are highly repugnant to it. As a result many people shun a spiritual life, and adopt a non-religious materialistic lifestyle. However, Universalism - because it is much more palatable to a liberal/open-minded ideology that many people seem to hold today - might just be the right trigger that redirects such people towards a somewhat spiritually-oriented life rather than a completely materialistic one... I know that from direct experience. My appeal to Hinduism was – firstly – through its Universalistic interpretation, namely, Swami Vivekananda’s. The merits of Universalism can be seen from the prevalence of Yoga today in the West. Clearly, Yoga has increased the quality of life of many people in the West. However, if they were actually told to pursue the traditional Yoga, i.e. Patanjali’s system of Yoga, the number of people would substantially decrease.
Now, with the above, does this mean that Universalism is a proper interpretation of Hinduism? No, it is not. Nevertheless we cannot deny the advantages of its practicality. Coming to the traditional position of Hinduism regarding other religions, it does – in my opinion – hold a much more balanced and realistic view. It sees other religious paths as having advantages through the accumulation of good Karma. Therefore, for example, the devotion to God in the Abrahamic religions, or the Buddhist meditation purify the mind and produce good Karma, which eventually merit a good (re)birth in a family of enlightened sages who will help them attain Moksha. The case is similar when it comes to the Hindu traditions. The Advaitin sees the Bhakti of the Dvaitin as leading to Cittashuddhi (mental purification), which results in a good future birth. The Dvaitin, in turn, could see the Advaitin’s non-identification with matter, and identification with the Atman as also leading to the purification of the mind, and thus resulting in a virtuous future birth. Once again, the feature of mutual respect and tolerance despite existing difference, is very salient in Hinduism.
So, we can see here that Hinduism avoids the two extremes: From one hand, it does not declare the (unrealistic, IMO) conception that all paths lead to the same goal (Universalism), and on the other hand, it does not condemn the people of other faiths to an eternal damnation. [There are hellish places (naraka-s) in Hinduism, however, they are temporary and last only until the exhaustion of the bad Karma-s.]
I hope I answered your question sufficiently.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Pranams,

How so, ratikala? Differences can coexist with mutual respect. There is no need for me to accept and adopt your views for me to respect them.

exactly this ......my initial intention was to suggest a DIR where we could respectfully co exist , I do not remember ever asking anyone to ''acept '' or ''adopt'' ...only to listen and to consider .

You proposed to create a place where commonalities are discussed and the sectarian/traditional differences are ignored. That gave me the impression that you were trying to separate Hinduism from its traditions. My apologies if that was too presumptuous of me.

I intended to create a place where those who held the same values and that chose to participate , could talk in comfort without the seeminly endless references to whether atheism is or is not permissable within Hinduism ?

I had no intention to say that traditional differences should be egnored , it was my intention only to suggest that traditional rivalry be put aside .

this puts me in mind of one section of the Upanishad's ...

Oh lord of love , revealed in the scriptures , who have assumed the forms of all creatures ,
Grant me the the wisdom to choose the path that can lead me to imortality .
May the body be strong and my tongue be sweet ,
May My ears allways hear the the sacred OM , the supreme symbol of the lord of love , and may my love for him grow more and more ......Taittiriya 4...1
not by petty arguments do we gainfully employ our time ...and not by finding fault in others do we come to know the lord .

only by putting down our differences and our egos and allowing ourselves to be inspired by oneanother ....

 

[Vinayaka]

So, we can see here that Hinduism avoids the two extremes: From one hand, it does not declare the (unrealistic, IMO) conception that all paths lead to the same goal (Universalism), and on the other hand, it does not condemn the people of other faiths to an eternal damnation. [There are hellish places (naraka-s) in Hinduism, however, they are temporary and last only until the exhaustion of the bad Karma-s.]
I hope I answered your question sufficiently.

I agree with all that you said, most especially this summation. My practice is from a traditional school, as is the practice of many. But the ones who make bold proclamations that their school is for all just because it works for them are when problems arise. It's whatever works for the individual, and that may well include some form of universalism. In my opinion, we should all comfortably respect all our brethen under the vast umbrella of Hinduism. That is not to say we should attempt to practice it all, as then confusion from slightly differing philosophies may occur. Nobody wants to subscribe to a magazine called Confusion.

I do find it ironic some days though, that an individual from a more universalist school can be dogmatic that their view is the right view. I believe there is such a thing a a fundamentalist universalist. Course I could be wrong.

 

[LuisDantas]

namaskaram



exactly this ......my initial intention was to suggest a DIR where we could respectfully co exist , I do not remember ever asking anyone to ''acept '' or ''adopt'' ...only to listen and to consider .

How different, if at all, would that be from the Dharmic Religions DIR? And why?

At first glance, it looks like exactly what you want.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Luis ji :namaste

thankyou for your Questions ....

How different, if at all, would that be from the Dharmic Religions DIR? And why?

Dharmic Religions DIR I have allways taken to refer to all religions that follow the concept of Dharma , (and that the beleif in Karma and reincarnation sets us aside from other faiths who have their own moral codes but do not hold to the concepts of Karma and reincarnation)...this Dharmic Religions DIR includes Buddhist's , Jain's and Sikh's and Hindu's allthough not all Buddhist's and not all Sikh's feel comfortable with the concept of Sanatana Dharma , some Buddhist's also do not feel comfortable with the eternal nature of Sanatana Dharma as you know we have had these conversations before regarding the nature of Buddha Dharma , some Buddhist's see Shakyamuni Buddha as merely that , a sage who atained enlightenment , and who then upon ataining enlightenment taudht the 'Buddha dharma' giving a defined path which leads to moksha , ....there are how ever others that see the eternal nature of of Buddha Dharma seeing shakyamuni Buddha's teachings as a re flowering of an eternal Dharma . because I hold to the understanding of the eternal nature of Dharma my veiws can be disturbing to some Buddhist's ....
as we have previously established , yourself and I come from the complete opposite ends of the spectrum my self being theistic and your self atheistic however that does not stop us from sharing a common beleif in the efficacy of Buddha Dharma . within Sikhi the same differences occur , some favoring the Sanatana aspect and others not ,this can lead to un nececary conflict and chalenging of ones beleif structures this is not comfortable for some and it is not nececary to disturb others or to be disturbed oneself ....

for this reason I suggested Sanatana Dharma as a seperate sub section where those who find it productive to focus on the eternal nature of Dharma can do so without disturbing others ...

Hinduism DIR is at present suffering some problems , that we all accknowledge , this was Highlighted recently by the request to turn it Blue to keep out trolls , but in all honesty trolls are not the problem , the occasional troll my appear , but the majority of the problem comes from the different veiws held , and some peoples srtong aversion to some other sects ...there is also similar conflict between the theistic and atheistic natures of some members ...this will allways happen as there is also a cultural aspect to Hinduism which does not nececitate that all hold the same beleif but only that one holds to the same moral codes .(this equates to Dharma but not to Sanatana Dharma)

I do not identify as strongly with the cultural aspects as I do with the strong beleif in the Sanatana nature of Dharma ...therefore to side step the ongoing conflicts between Theists and Atheists , and the rejection of one sect by another , I suggested Sanatana Dharma DIR ...this has been missunderstood as my wanting to deminish tradition or to Syncratise ....neither are my wish ... my wish is only to side step the conflict which wastes time and energy and also causes much offence .

there is no reason that any sect or tradition should feel that this request in any way wishes to slight them or to slight Hinduism , nor should they feel threatened by it , It is purely My wish to be with people who see the eternal nature of Dharma and who see the futility of infighting .[/quote]

At first glance, it looks like exactly what you want.

AT first glance one might think so , but I have tried it , saddly it has not proved sucessfull , therefore I suggest another approach :namaste

 

[LuisDantas]

Dharmic Religions DIR I have allways taken to refer to all religions that follow the concept of Dharma , (and that the beleif in Karma and reincarnation sets us aside from other faiths who have their own moral codes but do not hold to the concepts of Karma and reincarnation)

Reincarnation isn't even particularly attached to Dharma Faiths, far as I can tell. I think you are being way too restrictive.

this Dharmic Religions DIR includes Buddhist's , Jain's and Sikh's and Hindu's allthough not all Buddhist's and not all Sikh's feel comfortable with the concept of Sanatana Dharma,

As in surrendering to it as if it were their own belief? One would expect and hope so, indeed.

some Buddhist's also do not feel comfortable with the eternal nature of Sanatana Dharma as you know we have had these conversations before regarding the nature of Buddha Dharma , some Buddhist's see Shakyamuni Buddha as merely that , a sage who atained enlightenment ,

Which is, of course, the standard view. You know that.

and who then upon ataining enlightenment taudht the 'Buddha dharma' giving a defined path which leads to moksha , ....there are how ever others that see the eternal nature of of Buddha Dharma seeing shakyamuni Buddha's teachings as a re flowering of an eternal Dharma . because I hold to the understanding of the eternal nature of Dharma my veiws can be disturbing to some Buddhist's ....

Of course.

as we have previously established , yourself and I come from the complete opposite ends of the spectrum my self being theistic and your self atheistic

Also, you are an extreme syncretic that is set on extending the concept of Sanatana Dharma way beyond what is reasonable IMO.

And your take on Buddhism is - let's just say that it is unusual.

however that does not stop us from sharing a common beleif in the efficacy of Buddha Dharma.

Actually, it apparently does.

within Sikhi the same differences occur , some favoring the Sanatana aspect and others not ,this can lead to un nececary conflict and chalenging of ones beleif structures this is not comfortable for some and it is not nececary to disturb others or to be disturbed oneself ....

for this reason I suggested Sanatana Dharma as a seperate sub section where those who find it productive to focus on the eternal nature of Dharma can do so without disturbing others ...

From my perspective, Ratikala, you do not want a Sanatana Dharma DIR or section. You want a Hinduism Syncretism DIR.

Hinduism DIR is at present suffering some problems , that we all accknowledge , this was Highlighted recently by the request to turn it Blue to keep out trolls , but in all honesty trolls are not the problem , the occasional troll my appear , but the majority of the problem comes from the different veiws held , and some peoples srtong aversion to some other sects ...there is also similar conflict between the theistic and atheistic natures of some members ...this will allways happen as there is also a cultural aspect to Hinduism which does not nececitate that all hold the same beleif but only that one holds to the same moral codes .(this equates to Dharma but not to Sanatana Dharma)

I don't expect to reach much of an agreement with you about what the causes of hardship in the Hinduism DIR are.

You greatly overstate the case for theism and against atheism. Your take on how to deal with disagreements is one that I do not support out of principle. And I question both the viability and the virtue of your take on the meaning of Sanatana Dharma.

Also, you are way too attached to both the concepts of God and of Reincarnation.

In short, your beliefs are about as far away from mine as I ever expect to find in someone who claims to be a Dharmi of any kind.

I don't think that can or will change to any significant extent. But that is probably not important as long as we both are aware of this fact.

I do not identify as strongly with the cultural aspects as I do with the strong beleif in the Sanatana nature of Dharma ...therefore to side step the ongoing conflicts between Theists and Atheists , and the rejection of one sect by another , I suggested Sanatana Dharma DIR ...this has been missunderstood as my wanting to deminish tradition or to Syncratise ....neither are my wish ... my wish is only to side step the conflict which wastes time and energy and also causes much offence .

You do not consider yourself a syncretist?

there is no reason that any sect or tradition should feel that this request in any way wishes to slight them or to slight Hinduism , nor should they feel threatened by it , It is purely My wish to be with people who see the eternal nature of Dharma and who see the futility of infighting .

AT first glance one might think so , but I have tried it , saddly it has not proved sucessfull , therefore I suggest another approach :namaste

I don't think such an approach may work, unfortunately. Or even that it should, going by the goals that you state.

 

[Jainarayan]

...the majority of the problem comes from the different veiws held , and some peoples srtong aversion to some other sects ...there is also similar conflict between the theistic and atheistic natures of some members ...this will allways happen as there is also a cultural aspect to Hinduism which does not nececitate that all hold the same beleif but only that one holds to the same moral codes .(this equates to Dharma but not to Sanatana Dharma)

I do not identify as strongly with the cultural aspects as I do with the strong beleif in the Sanatana nature of Dharma ...therefore to side step the ongoing conflicts between Theists and Atheists , and the rejection of one sect by another , I suggested Sanatana Dharma DIR ...

I'm not sure I understand how the differences that manifest in the Hinduism DIR will not find their way into a Sanātana Dharma DIR and muddy it. So far no one can come to a consensus on just what Sanātana Dharma is vis–à–vis Hinduism. There's not even a consensus on what Hinduism is or is not, or who is a Hindu or who is not. The only common denominator is the Vedas. Within Sanātana Dharma we still have a multitude of beliefs and sampradāya, a multitude of deities and practices. I do not understand or see what a Sanātana Dharma DIR will provide that the Hinduism DIR cannot. If we are talking about cultural aspects, maybe the answer is not a Sanātana Dharma DIR, but an Indian Culture DIR. Because Indian culture is so varied, probably as varied as Hinduism itself, I can get on-board with a cultural DIR. Maybe it will eliminate the "you can't be Hindu because you're not born-Hindu/Indian" silliness. With the spread of Hinduism into southeast Asia, Europe and the Americas, maybe it's time to separate discussions of the religion and the ethnicity.

 

[Asha]

Namaste

Originally Posted by Asha
Is there any harm in this, as each tradition may continue to follow its own teachings with the respect and acceptance of others ?

Maybe that should be a trivial demand. In practice, it often is not.

Luis this is not a demand, it is a polite request, and if it is difficult for any one of us to be accepting of others and respectfull at all times, then it is something that we should vow to practice.

Being assertive yet respectful is not always easy, particularly when one has strong convictions. That is just the way we humans work.

Why do you feel the need to be assertive over others ?

We will all come to our own realisation in our own time due to our past karmas and the grace of our worshipfull Lord.

no one can or should force their convictions upon another, this is also something that a mature person learns, and as far as my understanding goes part of being 'Human' is learning to curb ones tendancies to control and regulate others.

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis this is not a demand, it is a polite request,

Not to get too technical, but while it is certainly a polite request, it is no less a demand for that. Demands are statements of a desire of some kind. They do not have to be rude or authoritative to be demands.

Ultimately, laudable as the desire for, as you put it

each tradition may continue to follow its own teachings with the respect and acceptance of others ?

it is also a continuous, even living challenge. I would even say that it must be so; respect and acceptance are active choices made by people, after all.

To an extent the one opposes the other, for acceptance demands peace of mind while respect demands the willingness to make sacrifices (hopefully small or even insignificant, but sacrifices all the same) for the others' well-being.

Both should definitely be pursued. But it is not a simple matter of having separate areas and making sure of keeping people separate. If anything, segregation - even this soft kind of virtual segregation - begets lack of understanding and later mistrust. And without trust there can be no respect, nor acceptance.

I am well aware that most people disagree, but my personal opinion is that having Blue DIRs or even private areas is conductive to privacy and lack of certain kinds of challenges. That may be helpful in some circustances, particularly when turmoil and confusion have already established themselves, but generally speaking lack of dialogue and transparency can only hinder rather than help the development of respect and acceptance.

On a more formal level, one should consider that it also goes against the grain of the stated purpose of the Religious Forums. That is not an impediment, of course, but it may be a sign that perhaps this is not the best place to seek that kind of arrangements.

and if it is difficult for any one of us to be accepting of others and respectfull at all times, then it is something that we should vow to practice.

Or simply practice, perhaps.

Why do you feel the need to be assertive over others ?

I was referring to this statement of yours, not to my own needs:

Surely the universalism comes in the acceptance that each tradition might hold its own veiw and in light of this be happy that each in their own way will atain God consciousness ?

In any case, since you ask: it seems to me that every healthy human being does feel the need to be assertive, and should. We all should hope to have something to contribute to the common good.

Even if that often means having to come to terms with a difficult balance between assertiveness and respect.

We will all come to our own realisation in our own time due to our past karmas and the grace of our worshipfull Lord.

Perhaps. But how do you know that this should translate into a specific degree of isolation? And perhaps an even more important question in a practical sense, how will others know that you are correct in that perception?

no one can or should force their convictions upon another, this is also something that a mature person learns, and as far as my understanding goes part of being 'Human' is learning to curb ones tendancies to control and regulate others.

Jai Shree Krishna

True enough. But that does not seem to be a reason to seek private areas or Blue DIRs. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean here.

 

[Elector]

namaskaram

Pranams,

I do not remember ever asking anyone to ''acept '' or ''adopt'' ...only to listen and to consider .

I have listened and considered your view... yet I stand unconvinced. Do you view this as a sign of disrespect?

I agree with all that you said, most especially this summation. My practice is from a traditional school, as is the practice of many. But the ones who make bold proclamations that their school is for all just because it works for them are when problems arise. It's whatever works for the individual, and that may well include some form of universalism. In my opinion, we should all comfortably respect all our brethen under the vast umbrella of Hinduism. That is not to say we should attempt to practice it all, as then confusion from slightly differing philosophies may occur. Nobody wants to subscribe to a magazine called Confusion.

I do find it ironic some days though, that an individual from a more universalist school can be dogmatic that their view is the right view. I believe there is such a thing a a fundamentalist universalist. Course I could be wrong.

Pranams,

I suspect that the motives of the universalist are sincere and well-intended. Yet sometimes, such motives can backfire. For instance, it seems to me, that the attitude "My religion encompasses all other religions" can come across as condescending and patronizing rather than sympathizing or helpful...

 

[Stormcry]

I'm not sure I understand how the differences that manifest in the Hinduism DIR will not find their way into a Sanātana Dharma DIR and muddy it. So far no one can come to a consensus on just what Sanātana Dharma is vis–à–vis Hinduism. There's not even a consensus on what Hinduism is or is not, or who is a Hindu or who is not. The only common denominator is the Vedas. Within Sanātana Dharma we still have a multitude of beliefs and sampradāya, a multitude of deities and practices. I do not understand or see what a Sanātana Dharma DIR will provide that the Hinduism DIR cannot. If we are talking about cultural aspects, maybe the answer is not a Sanātana Dharma DIR, but an Indian Culture DIR. Because Indian culture is so varied, probably as varied as Hinduism itself, I can get on-board with a cultural DIR. Maybe it will eliminate the "you can't be Hindu because you're not born-Hindu/Indian" silliness. With the spread of Hinduism into southeast Asia, Europe and the Americas, maybe it's time to separate discussions of the religion and the ethnicity.

Well explained and I'm agreed .. My exact view on this thread, Sanatana principles DIR or as you said Indian culture DIR.. Dir should have descriptional title.. Still amazed someone doesn't know Sanatana is what hinduism is, as it's an alternative name..

 

[Jainarayan]

Still amazed someone doesn't know Sanatana is what hinduism is, as it's an alternative name..

I think that will change as more people become familiar and start exploring Hinduism. The internet is a powerful tool for spreading information. In the Wiki article on Hinduism, the very first sentence is Hinduism, also known by the name Sanatana-Dharma... . It's mentioned again in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph many practitioners refer to Hinduism as Sanātana Dharma, "the eternal law" or the "eternal way" - Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Actually, it's mentioned 8 times in the article. So, it's getting around.

 

[Stormcry]

I think that will change as more people become familiar and start exploring Hinduism. The internet is a powerful tool for spreading information. In the Wiki article on Hinduism, the very first sentence is Hinduism, also known by the name Sanatana-Dharma... . It's mentioned again in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph many practitioners refer to Hinduism as Sanātana Dharma, "the eternal law" or the "eternal way" - Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Actually, it's mentioned 8 times in the article. So, it's getting around.

Yehh..

I'm really amazed.. Things which we really want are not being requested by anyone..

Though Sanatana dharma is all Veda, unfortunately it has now become a sectarian term. It's used widely among individual hindu sects. Some Vaishnavas say Worshiping vishnu only is the Sanatana dharma of jiva while Shaiva says Worshiping shiva only is the Sanatana dharma of jiva & so in other sects. But in reality Sanatana Dharma is all hinduism consisting various Vedic sects. So I'd suggest rather than creating Sanatana Dharma dir create Dir like vaishnawa or shaiva. There they'll discuss there their dharma more efficiently. Plus, there should have philosophical dir to discuss various philosophies like Advaita or Dvaita or bhedabheda.

What I have requested here is the real need of Hinduism DIR.. others are just confusing and have no any real use...