Is this a DIR or a proselytization forum?

[Jainarayan]

My understanding is that DIR is Discuss Individual Religion. Discuss, being the operative word. Lately there has been more of a proselytization against the general subject of this particular DIR, that is, Hinduism in its myriad forms and beliefs and sects. I'm not sure if one is trying to convince himself or others of his feelings, and looking for justification and validation of those feelings, which may include doubts.

We all have our doubts about our beliefs at one time or another. I'm going through some right now for personal and emotional reasons, but I'm not going to foist my beliefs or doubts on others by "my way or the highway" sorts of posts.

Ceasing my beating around the bush, I see these "Advaita-Is-True-Hinduism-And-Everything-Else-Is-False" discussions and threads as being poisonous and repetitive. Poisonous not in the sense that discussion should be suppressed, but they are fomenting uncivil comments and a general negative atmosphere because they are repetitive and becoming increasingly uncivil and ad hominem. These posts and threads are a Mobius Strip that are going nowhere.

If none of that made any sense, I apologize. If it's inapporpriate, I will understand if a mod or admin removes it. I simply felt it needed to be said.

 

[Renji]

Just a suggestion my friend, you can make a thread about this on site feedback.

 

[Madhuri]

You can discuss any topic in the DIR but proselytising is never allowed anywhere on the forum. If you see posts that are obviously p-tising, please report them.

 

[Jainarayan]

Just a suggestion my friend, you can make a thread about this on site feedback.

You can discuss any topic in the DIR but proselytising is never allowed anywhere on the forum. If you see posts that are obviously p-tising, please report them.

That's why if this is the wrong place, it could/should be (re-)moved.

 

[Madhuri]

I think this is fine here if you want to make it a discussion.

 

[Renji]

I think this is fine here if you want to make it a discussion.

I think so too. There's no problem like this in the Catholic DIR as of the moment. I'm subscribing on this thread to see some consensus on this problem.

 

[Jainarayan]

OK, as long as it doesn't become inflamed. Then I'll report myself for starting it. Wait, wut!? I already did!

 

[Madhuri]

Lol, you do realise you are breaking the DIR rule right now Renji!

 

[Maya3]

My understanding is that DIR is Discuss Individual Religion. Discuss, being the operative word. Lately there has been more of a proselytization against the general subject of this particular DIR, that is, Hinduism in its myriad forms and beliefs and sects. I'm not sure if one is trying to convince himself or others of his feelings, and looking for justification and validation of those feelings, which may include doubts.

We all have our doubts about our beliefs at one time or another. I'm going through some right now for personal and emotional reasons, but I'm not going to foist my beliefs or doubts on others by "my way or the highway" sorts of posts.

Ceasing my beating around the bush, I see these "Advaita-Is-True-Hinduism-And-Everything-Else-Is-False" discussions and threads as being poisonous and repetitive. Poisonous not in the sense that discussion should be suppressed, but they are fomenting uncivil comments and a general negative atmosphere because they are repetitive and becoming increasingly uncivil and ad hominem. These posts and threads are a Mobius Strip that are going nowhere.

If none of that made any sense, I apologize. If it's inapporpriate, I will understand if a mod or admin removes it. I simply felt it needed to be said.

I could not agree more, in fact I think it's about time that the moderators are called in to overlook these threads.

Maya

 

[Andal]

OK, as long as it doesn't become inflamed. Then I'll report myself for starting it. Wait, wut!? I already did!

LOL!

Hinduism, Sanatana Dharma has never been a "my way or the highway" religion. In fact that is one of the things that lets us stand out. We can have a myriad of beliefs and practices that all fall under the category of Sanatana Dharma.

The activity that has gone on here on some of the threads is against the spirit of Sanatana Dharma. No Hindu should have to worry about coming to the DIR and worry about being attacked for their beliefs and practices.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Renji]

Lol, you do realise you are breaking the DIR rule right now Renji!

That I'm not supposed to post non question post because I'm not a hindu? Well, kinda. but I'm not saying anything inflammatory.. no, not yet.

 

[Maya3]

LOL!

Hinduism, Sanatana Dharma has never been a "my way or the highway" religion. In fact that is one of the things that lets us stand out. We can have a myriad of beliefs and practices that all fall under the category of Sanatana Dharma.

Exactly!

The activity that has gone on here on some of the threads is against the spirit of Sanatana Dharma. No Hindu should have to worry about coming to the DIR and worry about being attacked for their beliefs and practices.

Aum Hari Aum!

Agreed, thats what gets me worried, there may be people lurking
who will get the opposite view of what Hinduism is, both from zealous Bhaktis and zeaolus Advaitins. It's not good.

Maya

 

[Jainarayan]

LOL!

Hinduism, Sanatana Dharma has never been a "my way or the highway" religion. In fact that is one of the things that lets us stand out. We can have a myriad of beliefs and practices that all fall under the category of Sanatana Dharma.

The activity that has gone on here on some of the threads is against the spirit of Sanatana Dharma. No Hindu should have to worry about coming to the DIR and worry about being attacked for their beliefs and practices.

Aum Hari Aum!

Despite the myriad beliefs and practices and non-judgmentalism, I admit that I keep a lot of beliefs to myself so as not to offend others' sensibilities. That is, I see a lot of superstition and silliness in some things, but one has to consider the times and places and delve into the reasons such things came about.

That said, only once was I asked about a practgice. I was asked if I'm vegetarian by my co-worker from Gujarat when I first "came out as Hindu" (what a way to put it ). I sheepishly said no; he said he wasn't either. But he's non-practicing anyway (his wife and parents are), and I jokingly call him a heathen. He laughs.

 

[Jainarayan]

...there may be people lurking
who will get the opposite view of what Hinduism is, both from zealous Bhaktis and zeaolus Advaitins. It's not good.

I wish I said that. Seriously I always say (on any forum for any subject, and believe me, I've been around the 'net ) that you really should be careful how you present yourself or the subject so as not to scare off lurkers and people looking to learn. Some people just prefer to read. In real life I'm a "back-of-the-roomer" and usually say very little, just listening.

 

[Surya Deva]

How do we decide what constitutes discussion vis-a-vis debate?

Hinduism is unlike any other religion, because it is incredibly internally fragmented and divided, with no two Hindus really seeing eye to eye with one another. As somebody said in Riverwolf's thread, Dvaita and Advaita cannot coexist with one another, because they are fundamentally opposed to one another.

The spirit of Hinduism has always been about debate, from great and vibrant philosophical culture of India was born a great and glorious civilization. Censoring the right of people to openly and freely debate chokes a civilisation. As much as I do not agree with the Charvaka, I am so happy they had the right to freely and openly express their ideas and some of the statements they made were "The vedic people were knaves, scounderals deceiving the gullible public with fantasies of gods/s etc" and rather than Charvaka view being censored and persecuting them as heathens, the Charvaka were acknowledged and invited to formal debate to express their ideas.

I left this forum in the past because I found this forum to be highly biased towards bhakti and full of bhaktas, I almost feel like I as an Advaitin am a dissident Hindu, despite the fact that Advaita is directly based on Sruti. I was just told by the OP that my insistance that Vedas is sruti is my 'opinion' That is like saying in the Christian DIR forum to a Christian that their insistance that the bible is the word of god is their opinion. To what extent is such a view discussion or debate?

It would be highly unfair and lopsided if we only allowed Bhakta/Dvaitist/Puranic opinions on this forum and treated Advaita like some alien tradition. So in the interest of respecting the rules of the DIR forum, how can we best achieve a discussion between Advaita and Dvaita proponents? How do we differentiate debate from discussion here?

 

[Jainarayan]

What I said was http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3052064-post39.html

Those are your beliefs and opinions, to which you are entitled, and have made abundantly and repetitively clear. Other people have their beliefs and opinions which you continue to denigrate and are intolerant of. It's really getting old. I think that's about all I have to say, lest I be guilty of the same thing.

What I underlined is the thrust of that post. Please do not take things out of context and strawman. I did not and do not deny that the Vedas are sruti.

 

[Andal]

Maya,

I agree totally. Extreme views on either end of the spectrum are not useful here.

Surya,

Debate has long had a space in Hinduism and through the Classical Period was considered a type of spectator sport. Debate is not the problem. The issue is the lack of respect.

Also Advaita and "Puranic/ Dvaita" are not the only views here. In fact I don't believe there are all that many Dvaita practitioners. There seems to be a lot of Achintya Bhedabheda. I'm personally, Vishishtadvaita. So there are many colors of philosophy here. It is not a binary forum.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Surya Deva]

I did not and do not deny that the Vedas are sruti.

Then why would you have a problem with my view that that Puranic Hinduism is not authentic or valid Hinduism because it is not based Sruti, but Smriti. Hindus are not obligated to accept Smriti, they are not bound by it. Smriti refers to reconstructions by humans, they are relevant only to a certain time and period based on on social and political interests.

Hey I am not the one who invented the Sruti vs Smriti system. I am simply stating a valid doctrine of Hinduism. If we reject this doctrine, there is nothing of Hinduism left.

Btw as I pointed in Rivewolf's thread, which your thread is in response to, you yourself have debated arguments just like me. You debated with Vrindadas on these DIR forums on his view that homosexuality is forbidden in Hinduism, he appealed to the Manusmriti to prove his case, and you told him Manusmriti is not binding for Hindus or authentic.

I am sorry but can you blame me to say you are using obvious double standards. It is ok for you to debate and make declarative statements about Hindu beliefs, but not for others to do it?

 

[Jainarayan]

Then why would you have a problem with my view that that Puranic Hinduism is not authentic or valid Hinduism because it is not based Sruti, but Smrit. Hindus are not obligated to accept Smriti, they are not bound by it.

Because of your tone. I already said that the Puranas have their place as morality tales, sruti or smrti.

Btw as I pointed in Rivewolf's thread, which your thread is in response to, you yourself have debated arguments just like me. You debated with Vrindadas on these DIR forums on his view that homosexuality is forbidden in Hinduism, he appealed to the Manusmriti to prove his case, and you told him Manusmriti is not binding for Hindus or authentic.

I already addressed that.

I am sorry but can you blame to say you are using obvious double standards. It is ok for you to debate and make declarative statements about Hindu beliefs, but not for others to do it?

I know when to stop, when it's clear that I've not made a convincing argument for my beliefs or case. It's clear I'm not getting through, so anything further is a waste of time.

 

[Surya Deva]

Because of your tone.

And your tone with Vrindavandas was civil, mature and polite, yes? Let us see:

Originally posted by you:

Here we go again!

Yes, because you've been resoundingly proven wrong multiple times by virtually everyone here. Yet YOU choose to bring it up to keep getting beaten down.

Made that up as you went along, eh? You retro-read their minds, eh?

What church? I don't give a rat's *** what any church feels about it because I'm not Christian. I'm not Christian for reasons that are more than their condemnation of homosexuality. Which I might add is not universal in Christendom.

Wtf is your point? I posted the same thing there I posted here and I stand by it. Hey if you're against homosexuality, then don't have homosexual sex. Simple as that. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Don't speak for all of Hinduism as if you are a jivanmukta or an acharya. You're just as earth-bound as any of us.

I don't, because I made my position clear and backed it up. You're hanging onto it like a pitbull. I think you fixate too much on homosexuality.

Not only do you clearly disagree and show disgust to Vrindavandas's belief that homosexuality is forbidden by Hinduism, you actively debate it and attempt to disprove it through a patronizing attitude and even imply that he is a closet homosexual.

So again I ask it is OK for you to debate and debate in a disrespectful and condescending tone, but not OK for others?

This thread has turned into a parody of itself :yes: