• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium 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.

Discussion is along the lines of when someone asks a question and everyone offers an answer according to their belief.

Debate is when we try to prove that our opinion is the correct one using arguments.

When one person starts breaking DIR rules then everyone else often thinks its ok to do so as well and the place becomes a mess. This happens in all the DIRs, hence why it is so heavily regulated. The Hinduism DIR gets neglected sometimes as we tend to report offending posts less often that other DIRs. This is where I say if you see an offending post please report it :D
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Personally, I find the stories of Tamil saints who disappeared into sanctums Maanikkavaacakar - Miracles 2 to be illustrative of the mix I hold of dvaita/advaita. I see no conflict at all. Manickavasagar and others, through their bhakti walked right into sanctums and literally disappeared, showing their perfect oneness with God. Jiva becomes Siva.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Discussion is along the lines of when someone asks a question and everyone offers an answer according to their belief.

So we are not allowed to disagree with anything a poster may say? Is it more like question asked "Is it wrong to idol worship"

Person A says: Yes, because
Person B says: No, because

But person A cannot argue with person B?

Debate is when we try to prove that our opinion is the correct one using arguments.

So is this debate?

Maya:

No one worships a Separate God, people worship the form/s they feel closest resembles how they feel God might be.

Vinyaka:

'm sorry but I'm a living example of someone who worships a separate God.

?

When one person starts breaking DIR rules then everyone else often thinks its ok to do so as well and the place becomes a mess. This happens in all the DIRs, hence why it is so heavily regulated. The Hinduism DIR gets neglected sometimes as we tend to report offending posts less often that other DIRs. This is where I say if you see an offending post please report it :D

Yeah I understand that, but I think the distinction between debate and discussion is very blurred. If we stop people from discussing their views with one another or expressing disagreements, as Vinyaka does above, isn't the forum going to be become highly sterile and boring? In which case we may have to spend a lot more time in the debate forums. Discussion and debate has historically been seen as one of the most effective means to explore the truth of something together.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Personally, I find the stories of Tamil saints who disappeared into sanctums Maanikkavaacakar - Miracles 2 to be illustrative of the mix I hold of dvaita/advaita. I see no conflict at all. Manickavasagar and others, through their bhakti walked right into sanctums and literally disappeared, showing their perfect oneness with God. Jiva becomes Siva.

This would be valid if it was actual history. But your links says:

Several legends are associated with Maanikkavaacakar's stay at Chidambaram.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Why would their legendary status lessen their validity at all?

The story, whether real or not, for me, illustrates a unity of bhakti and advaita. One gets you to the other. I honestly could care less about historical validity. Historical validity of even recent events are up for debate because it is written down as perceived by someone, filtered through the lens (minds) of individuals, not unlike 6 versions of an accident crime scene.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Why would their legendary status lessen their validity at all?

Because it does not correspond to reality. I remember talking to a Hindu pandit in India who was attempting to convince me why I should get married, when I told him I had no real desire to ever get married, in order to justify his case for why I must fulfill my obligatory household duties, he told me some story from a Purana of a yogi who remained celibate all his life to focus on his spiritual development, but because he had not done his obligatory duties, he was punished by the gods and was forced to reincarnate again and get married.

Well, suffice it to say the pandit did not convince me :facepalm:
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Because it does not correspond to reality.

What do you mean?

I remember talking to a Hindu pandit in India who was attempting to convince me why I should get married, when I told him I had no real desire to ever get married, in order to justify his case for why I must fulfill my obligatory household duties, he told me some story from a Purana of a yogi who remained celibate all his life to focus on his spiritual development, but because he had not done his obligatory duties, he was punished by the gods and was forced to reincarnate again and get married.

Well, suffice it to say the pandit did not convince me :facepalm:
You're not much of a story person, are you?

...come to think of it, neither was that Pandit, since it's clear just from your rendition of the story that it has nothing to do with marriage itself, but the fulfillment of duty. No wonder you weren't convinced just from that; the story was being misapplied.
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
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.

Good to know, thank you.

Maya
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
What do you mean?

I mean, when you know the story is not real, it is not going to convince you to do what it tells, for example when you are told "Go to sleep before 12, or the boogeyman will get you" it is not going to really make you go to sleep before 12, because there is such thing as boogeyman.

To try and prove arguments using mythological and fictional stories is pretty darn silly.

...come to think of it, neither was that Pandit, since it's clear just from your rendition of the story that it has nothing to do with marriage itself, but the fulfillment of duty. No wonder you weren't convinced just from that; the story was being misapplied.

Absolutely, and that is what happens in Puranic Hinduism, the mythology of the Puranas is misapplied to support dogmas, to get people to act in certain ways to justify superstitious rituals like bathing in the toxic waters of the Ganga.
 

Maija

Active Member
We should all just try to get along, we learn more that way. Also, we should accept when others are satisfied with their own beliefs. We will all come to the divine in our own time and way. I had more to say but at the risk of offending I will end it.

Namashkar friends and have a wonderful evening.
 
Last edited:

Maya3

Well-Known Member
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.

Yes the real substance is The Self and it pervades everything just as gold can be molded into many forms but is still gold.
It is very much real, you just don't see the whole picture and identify with form instead of who you really are.

But do you really feel you will reach Moksha? To do so you have to let go of some things, your ego for example.

Maya
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
however an underlying attitude of disrespect towards other faiths and paths can be a turn off.

What others faiths? Hinduism is suppose to be the same religion. If I show disrespect to a form of our religion that rejects all our core fundamentals and systematically goes about to forge our scriptures to pretend they support it, is that not understandable?

I cannot back down my from view that sees Puranic Hinduism as something to be abolished, anymore than others posting here do not back down from there view that the caste system needs to be abolished or the Manusmriti needs to be binned. I speaking from a point of view of reform. We need reform in our religion, because our religion is in a mess, it is highly fragmented, superstitious, ridden with vast social and gender inequality, that it has become a laughing stock of the world. I know this because I know most non-Hindus I encounter do not have respectful opinions of Hinduism. I know how many Hindus friends of mine have personally confided in me how embarrassed they are to be Hindus, and how they will actually hide their religion from people.

You will see on this very forum itself in the views of some Hindus posting here why they think like this. I have been told in just a few days that homosexuality is forbidden and punishable in Hinduism; that Hinduism preaches the worship of one god(many say Krishna) I have seen somebody whose has has Phd in Ganga and public health, encourage people to bathe in a water she knows to be highly toxic, containing several kinds of disease causing bacteria and viruses.

I am sorry I cannot respect these views. I am just honest. I could do what others do and just bite my tongue and hide what I really feel about another views. I will express my disagreements not to debate or preach to another, because I have no interest in getting them to do what I want, but I have a right to express my opinion freely. If that is against the mandate of the DIR forum - I will do in the debate forum. But I am not going to let views that I consider antithetical to Hinduism go unchallenged.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I mean, when you know the story is not real, it is not going to convince you to do what it tells, for example when you are told "Go to sleep before 12, or the boogeyman will get you" it is not going to really make you go to sleep before 12, because there is such thing as boogeyman.

To try and prove arguments using mythological and fictional stories is pretty darn silly.

Clearly you've never had to deal with that boogeyman that is extreme exhaustion through the day because you had to get up at 6, but didn't get to bed until well after midnight. ;)

Absolutely, and that is what happens in Puranic Hinduism, the mythology of the Puranas is misapplied to support dogmas, to get people to act in certain ways to justify superstitious rituals like bathing in the toxic waters of the Ganga.

Then reform that rather than trying to do away with the Puranas themselves.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Yes the real substance is The Self and it pervades everything just as gold can be molded into many forms but is still gold.
It is very much real, you just don't see the whole picture and identify with form instead of who you really are.

Advaita is not a philosophy of realism. Like I said you have misunderstand it. The philosophy of Advaita has been beautifully summarized in this mahavakya from the Upanishads: Brahma satyam, jagan mithya: Brahman is real; the world is unreal

The philosophy that you seem to be describing is Buddhism not Advaita. There are similarities between Advaita and Buddhism because they both use a similar kind of linguistic critique of reality, but they come to very different conclusions. Buddhism says that there is no separation in reality, that our separations only exist as conceptual categories and hence all our labels are empty of inherent existence, but it does not say that the world is non-existent, but rather the world is one total causal system.(Similar to Samkhya's prakriti)

Advaita's critique of reality is that not just that no separations exist in reality, but no substance exists in reality altogether, because whatever we call substance is simply name and form, in the same way a gold necklace, a gold ring and gold statue are just names of different formations of gold, thus the actual real substance here is gold. Likewise everything that we consider to be existent, chairs and tables etc are only have name and form as their source, and hence all things are reducible to the source of all name and form - Maya. They do not correspond to actual real reality.

The Self does not get differentiated or transformed or changed into all the things that we see, this is a complete misunderstanding of Advaita. It is only Maya which gets changes, differentiated and transformed. The Self always remains absolute and transcendental. It never becomes anything. This is explained in the famous in the Upanishad mantra:

That is absolute, this is absolute, absolute comes from absolute, if the absolute is taken from the absolute, the absolute remains

The self has always been absolute and from the absolute only the absolute can proceed. Thus all of reality that we see of change, becoming, matter, individuality, world, effect and cause could never have proceeded from the Self. Hence why it is not reduced to the self, but to Maya. It is unreal.

But do you really feel you will reach Moksha? To do so you have to let go of some things, your ego for example.

Maya

What you need to do is not let go of the ego per se, but to allow more and more of your Self to become manifest by silencing your mind. This is meditation is prescribed by the Upanishads. This is technically explained in Yoga as chitt-vritti nirodha, the cessation or stoppage of all activities/modifications/patterns of the mind. It means to completely empty your mind of all conceptual content. To suspend it in a state devoid of any thought or activity.

If you do not get rid of your ideas of god/s, your assumptions, beliefs, prejudices you cannot silence your mind. Bhaktas do not silent their mind they fill their mind with mythology, god/s, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, prejudices.
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
Nope, I'm not Buddhist.
I know very well what Advaita means, I never said that The Self changes, I said it is the same even if it appears different.

And my comment about ego was not for you to give me a lecture on meditation, it was a comment about your ego. You might want to think about that a little.

Maya
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Thank you for such appreciative reply for giving you a clear and detailed answer to your question ;)

In any case you clearly do not understand Advaita - yet you don the title....
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
Thank you for such appreciative reply for giving you a clear and detailed answer to your question ;)

In any case you clearly do not understand Advaita - yet you don the title....

My questin was rethorical, not asking for a lecture where you insist insist that you you know best.



I'm done with this conversation, it's pointless.

Maya
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top