Why don't you post his comments instead of just mine, out of context, and what they were in response to? You can have the last word if you like.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is this a DIR or a proselytization forum?
- Thread starter Jainarayan
- Start date
- Status
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Jainarayan,
I am posting your comments because you are the one who started this thread. You are guilty of the same thing you complain about in this thread. This is why I pointed it out. I am not personally attacking you, but merely showing you how fine the line between discussion and debate is in the Hindu forum, and how we all easily overstep it. I admit I have overstepped it many times, but so have you, and so have dozens of other posters.
I am also showing how clearly we do not respect views opposite to our own. Like you clearly show you disrespect and disgust for Vrindavandas's view that homosexuality is immoral and punishable in Hinduism, though he actually has valid basis for his view in the smriti of the Manusmriti. So why did you not respect his view? Simple, because we do not really respect opposite views. Likewise, people justifying their religious beliefs by citing from the Puranas such as how bathing in the Ganga purges all sin, or Krishna is to be worshiped, or Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu or x temple is a holy site or that Lord Rama lived millions of years ago alongside the dinosaurs also have a basis for their beliefs in scriptures. I don't respect these views because it is all mythology.
I am posting your comments because you are the one who started this thread. You are guilty of the same thing you complain about in this thread. This is why I pointed it out. I am not personally attacking you, but merely showing you how fine the line between discussion and debate is in the Hindu forum, and how we all easily overstep it. I admit I have overstepped it many times, but so have you, and so have dozens of other posters.
I am also showing how clearly we do not respect views opposite to our own. Like you clearly show you disrespect and disgust for Vrindavandas's view that homosexuality is immoral and punishable in Hinduism, though he actually has valid basis for his view in the smriti of the Manusmriti. So why did you not respect his view? Simple, because we do not really respect opposite views. Likewise, people justifying their religious beliefs by citing from the Puranas such as how bathing in the Ganga purges all sin, or Krishna is to be worshiped, or Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu or x temple is a holy site or that Lord Rama lived millions of years ago alongside the dinosaurs also have a basis for their beliefs in scriptures. I don't respect these views because it is all mythology.
Surya, take a look at the ultimate conclusion to a fairly heated debate between me and Vrindavana Das:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/135416-i-used-hindu-40.html#post3013837
Could you do the same?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/135416-i-used-hindu-40.html#post3013837
Could you do the same?
Maya3
Well-Known Member
Me Myself
Back to my username
I ve been sad to see more fights in hinduism DIR than others (save maybe the LHP DIR? 
)
Things that really should for for Same faith debates if any.
Here we are supposed to just help each one of us to follow each of our Dharmas.
As a quote from Krishna goes I believe "It is better to err following your dharma than to follow someone elses dharma in a perfect way"
)Things that really should for for Same faith debates if any.
Here we are supposed to just help each one of us to follow each of our Dharmas.
As a quote from Krishna goes I believe "It is better to err following your dharma than to follow someone elses dharma in a perfect way"
I have a personal policy regarding this, ... not that anybody cares... once an individual on a forum makes it clear that his or her way is the only way, then I just stop responding to their posts. Use a bit of will power to allow them to rant away all they want to. It certainly won't stop me from going to temple, prostrating, meditating, helping others, being hospitable etc, or engaging in helpful dialogue. Anyone whose mission in life is to convince others they are wrong just doesn't have a very all-encompassing view of the diversity of humanity.
I'll keep that in mind. :yes:
En'me
RightBehindEveryoneElse
Maija
Active Member
i could not agree with these statements more!
Maija
Active Member
last sentence is spot on!
I care!
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Of course I am going to hold my view to true, what are you expecting? It is my religion. If I start granting validity to opposing views, it means I am not secure and confident in my own views. If Shankara did not concede to opposing views, why should I? This what I meant by pointing out the Dogma of Bhakti. Advaitin Hindus like me are expected to just swallow this dogma that Bhakti in the form of worshiping a separate and almighty god is valid and OK and if I disagree with it either I am not a Hindu, or I am just a bad person. Whatever.
Last edited:
Andal
resident hypnotist
One of my most favorite prayers in praise of Lord Vishnu composed by Adi Shankaracharya
Achyutashtakam by Adi Shankara - Sanskrit Stuti
It would appear that Shankara had no problem worshiping a god.
Aum Hari Aum!
Achyutashtakam by Adi Shankara - Sanskrit Stuti
It would appear that Shankara had no problem worshiping a god.
Aum Hari Aum!
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
I have already covered this. Shankara never worshiped a separate god, to him god means the Self. He uses only the language of the culture at the times, but does not mean the same thing as the people of his time meant when they worshiped gods. In Shankara's atmashaktam he clearly asserts his identity with Shiva, chitananda rupa shivoham shivoham Consciousness-bliss is my essential form, I am Shiva, I am Shiva.
Shankara was living in a time where people were obsessed with gods and goddesses and this is why Shankara felt it was his duty to reform against all of this. So what he did was he showed that bhakti was possible in Advaita as well, if you redirect all your devotion and love to ones essential nature - the Self. I also practice Bhakti as Shankara prescribed, through love and devotion to my essential self, constant rememberence and meditation on it.
Advaitins do not worship separate god/s. It is not supported by the Sruti of the Upanishads.
Last edited:
Maija
Active Member
i think youve covered it all. working on relating to this in own time. you are very articulate and well read. thank you
Last edited:
Maya3
Well-Known Member
No one worships a Separate God, people worship the form/s they feel closest resembles how they feel God might be.
You feel that God can only be seen as formless.
There is room for everyone.
If you truly believe in Advaita then realize that everything is The Self, Murtis and all.
Maya
I don't think that anybody here expects others to concede to their views or to accept views that offend you. I think the OP is more concerned with debating and preaching that happens in the DIR, which is a place where debate is not allowed. The Forum is structured in such a way that there is a place for just about everything. Debating one's own religion with other followers of that religion is to happen in the Same Faith Debates area. But DIRs are for discussion purposes only. They are a 'safe place' or meant to be.
DIRs are regulated most frequently because it is difficult to remain neutral and not argue but we do ask everyone to try their best.
I'm sorry but I'm a living example of someone who worships a separate God. When I worship Ganesha, I worship him as His own being, capable of answering prayers, etc. I don't view him as 'just another aspect of the supreme'. I know that view is pretty common, but to say it is one held by all just isn't true. So I just thought I'd point that out. Not to argue, but to show there are differing views. When I go to a temple that houses different deities, I'll stand and worship each in a quite distinct way. Even the prayers will be of a different nature. I also know I'm not alone in this viewpoint.
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Maya you know this is wrong, because many Bhaktas on this forum are Dvaita or Visesadvaita, they either recognize god as totally separate or as distinct from us.
And to correct you: I do not worship god/s. I worship the Self, just as the Upanishads declare. I meditate on the self, I contemplate on the self, I structure my entire life around self-realization and development.
This is not Advaita, because Advaita considers murtis, world, matter, time, space, minds, jiva, ishvara everything to be Maya. Mithya. Unreal. Advaita is a transcendentalist and emanationist philosophy. That is that the actual real substance of reality - the self - is completely transcendental, beyond time, space and causality or empirical existence in general. This entire empirical existence is an emanation from the Self, like a projection, from the energy or field of the Self known as Maya.
Now are you going to tell me this is just my opinion of Advaita and you have a different take? In that case I will just tell you, you have misunderstood the philosophy.
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Sure, I respect that, but I think the OP holds double standards, for he himself was debating and preaching his version of Hinduism that does not condemn homosexuality, against Vrindandas's version that does condemn homosexuality.
I think the Same Faith Debate forum will get very busy if we moved our all our debates on here to there. I am still not sure when I am discussing and when I am debating. Please let me know so I can observe my limits, and if I want to debate, will start a thread in the relevant forums.
Last edited:
- Status