OK guys? What's going on?

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

The worst case example of "calling out" and explicitly and directly addressing one of the most esteemed Hindu members of this Hinduism DIR, specifically the respected Vinayaka a Hindu who has fully undergone all the Hindu rites of initiation including official and legal name change to a Hindu name and whose Guru lineage goes back to one if the most ancient in Bharat India and who was directly and personally attacked as not Dharmic (Hindu) if he dares read Hindu scripture (Vedas), this same troll who tries to start trouble and endless foolish debate, who tells the world he can judge someone's character based on their birth, race and origin, yes, I WILL start reporting on the endless antics of this mean natured troll who now has the audacity to say he should police the forum when he disrupts it with this endless and crude agenda.

Yes, dang straight, I will report every time now when this member, who even in this very thread is calling out Vinayaka AGAIN, attacks Hindus in such a mean and direct way.

In fact, I will report him right now.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Quagmire]

Yet you must concede that there's only so much an individual by himself can do to "police" others, especially if he himself is the subject of cyber-harassment. For example, I have recently pleaded three times with an individual (who I won't name) to stop derailing a thread, yet he consistently ignored my messages and continued making snide responses (and was assisted by another unnamed individual). By that time, I feel it's necessary to report the posts, since such a situation is out of hand. I would be more than happy to moderate posts if moderators here do not have the time to police offensive posts, except I don't have moderator privilege nor do I have it in me emotionally to threaten others with potential banning,

The point is: the staff is only responsible for dealing with violations when they're reported.

 

[LuisDantas]

in the paramarthika view or in actual experience of the advaita, t here is no theism .. But there is no atheism too.

And you know for a fact that an atheistic person or teaching can't be transtheistic as well? Intuitively, it would seem to easily be the case.

 

[atanu]

And you know for a fact that an atheistic person or teaching can't be transtheistic as well? Intuitively, it would seem to easily be the case.

I cannot say from theory, as I have not experienced the advaita and I doubt whether all these terms were coined after actual experience.

Advaita is absence of a second. So these relative words, IMO, have meaning in dual state only.

 

[atanu]

May whatever be decided be happy for all. Let there be no pain to anyone. In my opinion, the best solution will be to align with nature and accept that there are valid Rationalistic-Atheistic Indian philosophical views that however are not part of Hindu dharma. This will, IMO, solve the problems that I see. )(

 

[John Doe]

May whatever be decided be happy for all. Let there be no pain to anyone. In my opinion, the best solution will be to align with nature and accept that there are valid Rationalistic-Atheistic Indian philosophical views that however are not part of Hindu dharma.

Align with nature ?

Please explain exactly what you mean by this.

This will, IMO, solve the problems that I see. )(

But the point is not just to solve the problems that you see.

We (you and I) have not yet had a serious discussion of what might be meant by 'atheist' in a hindu context.

My view is informed by some 40+ years practicing meditation. In that time I have practiced bhakti including regular darshan with swamis, received shaktipat from Muktananda, sat at the feet of various buddhist teachers, spent extended periods in retreat, including months at a time in solo wilderness retreats, and in recent years (6 years now) I have been a dedicated student of yoga with the Iyengar school. These last 6 years studying and practicing according to the instructions of Patanjali have cleared my mind of speculations and 'intellectual theology'.

There is no 'problem' with an atheist attitude to hinduism. When I say that I mean - the practice produces results; the results are changes both in behavior and world-view, and most importantly direct experience of dhyana which seamlessly becomes samadhi.

The truth is, there is no qualifier for samadhi. No verbal/textual definition is adequate, or equal to experience. The manipulation of dharmic concepts, however mysterious and esoteric, must always be secondary to direct experience.

When one is absorbed in meditation this way, there is no accompanying commentary or validation of concepts such as theism or atheism.

From my perspective, I can read 'theistic' imagery from hindu texts and recognise what is meant without there being a problem about whether it is 'atheist' or 'theist'. The text refers to the reality experienced - the reality experienced is not measured against an interpretation of a text.

You seem to be determined to disallow the reality experienced if the description and choice of language does not suit your preference. The fact of life is, cognitive style is individual. There are individuals whose cognitive style is such that they will express samadhi in terms of zen, whereas others will express the same reality in terms of cataphatic hindu theology. The reality is beyond such linguistics.

If my experience, view and expression is the direct result of ongoing practice of hindu methods, how could it be other than hindu ?

Perhaps you are confusing culture and realisation.

Or perhaps you are actually arguing that 'hindu' is in fact a cultural term.

There are many western hindus like me. We don't all tick the cultural boxes which you recognise as hindu. But if we achieve realisation by following the philosophy and practice of Patanjali, what would you call it ?

To me, theism relies on the notion of a capital B 'Being' who deliberately causes a universe to manifest, and who is fundamentally 'superior' to my essential nature.

My experience does not affirm that kind of theology, nor do I feel that such a 'god' is the subject of hindu (and vedic) texts. That is the Abrahamic concept of God IMO.

Samadhi does not occur with some kind of angelic voiceover affirming that this non-dual state is a manifestation of a volitional entity, i.e. a 'God' with specific plans. There is absorption in unfabricated awareness. That is not conceptual.

You appear to be unable or unwilling to accept the fact of samadhi without an accompanying theological interpretation which you have already chosen to believe.

Not so for me. I surrender to samadhi - isvara pranidhana - without the need for any intellectual or cultural validation. So I use the term 'atheist' to indicate that surrender to the absolute is not an act of belief.

 

[atanu]

....

Not so for me. I surrender to samadhi - isvara pranidhana - without the need for any intellectual or cultural validation. So I use the term 'atheist' to indicate that surrender to the absolute is not an act of belief.

Yes Apophenia ... oops seems like a bit of deja vu ... my fault. Sorry.

Hello John Namaste

I also do the same but I do not need to use the term atheist .. since the the Ishwara in the Heart is separate from my ego, as long as I need to surrender the ego. Ishwara is also in every heart and thus distinct. And the Ishwara is the Deity. So putting a tag of 'atheist' is, IMO, not proper. But you are free.

If you wish to discuss or debate any matter I will request that you open a thread in an appropriate forum.

 

[Ravi500]

Hi Quagmire,

Thank you for putting this thread for improving the forum atmosphere, which is a real relief to all. :namaste


I would like to mention the points which I believe is creating a lot of antagonism over here.


Firstly, there are atheist posters in this forum who identify themselves as Hindu, without any proper basis.

Now I have atheist friends and relatives born in the Hindu faith who identify themselves as atheists and not Hindu, which is fine with me.

The only remotely atheist philosophy in Hinduism is Sankhya, which is also said by many to be theistic. There is no other atheistic philosophy in Hinduism. I have no issue with Sankhya adherents who post with an atheist point of view. I would welcome it and would study and discuss with them to increase my proficiency in Sankhya philosophy.

However the atheist in question do not identify with Sankhya but have his own personal philosophy which has no basis in Hinduism, and which is understandably creating a lot of chaos in the Vedanta and Hinduism forum.

His posts were also critical of theistic view-points and hence there had been a lot of disputes with many other posters over here which created a lot of issues.

We all know that atheists and theists are more or less like matter and anti-matter, which on coming together creates chaos.


We had discussed, debated and explained our points to the atheist in question in the Debate Forums in this thread. However he remains stubborn and persists with arguments of a sophist nature, which deteriorates gradually the quality of debate and discussion and creates ill-will in the process.


So, I humbly believe that those atheists who subscribe to the Sankhya philosophy accepted in Hinduism, should be permitted in the Hinduism forum, if they want to discuss their atheistic views.

Those atheists who are following some other established philosophy in Hinduism and following it accurately can also be allowed to post in the Hinduism forum , as long as they do not discuss their atheistic views.

The rest of atheists can be allowed to post in Dharmik forums, or an another green forum that can be created. This can greatly reduce the chaos in the forum.




Secondly, I have noticed that the term 'Arya' , has been misused over here.

In Hinduism, as per the established authorities and sects, Arya means the noble one, cultured and civilized. It does not have any racial context, which has been frowned upon by the established authorities in Hinduism .Hence this kind of talk fouls up the whole forum atmosphere.

I would like to quote the following words of Swami Ranganathananda, the former head of the Ramakrishna Mission , and a respected authority in Hinduism, from his commentary of the Bhagavad gita ( Volume 1,Chapter 2.88)


' Arya is not a race; Arya means a noble-minded person. The word Arya is often confused with a race. In the beginning, western historians propounded this theory of the Aryan race. That developed into Hitler's Aryan superiority. And when Hitler died, the Aryan race theory also died ! But the word Arya is used in sanskrit always for the noble-minded person. Take any sanskrit drama. The person will address another character as 'My dear Arya,noble-minded person'. And Buddha spoke of his teachings as Arya-satyani, Noble Truths. Noble is the word for Arya there. The four Noble truths, Arya Satyani. So, the word Arya was used by Buddha, as also by earlier Vedic literature. And this word, Arya is, therefore, a very great word in Sanskrit. Be an Aryan means, be noble-minded. Don't be petty, don't be small. '




In European Union itself,where there had been strenuous attempts to ban the Swastika , the Hindus have been pleading with the EU to save the swastika from ban in Hindu rituals and temples, by stating that it is a cultural and religious symbol.


Swastika too means in Sanskrit, " May Goodness Prevail ".

Stating the term Arya as noble,also goes with the character of religion and spirituality.


However, considering the way this term Arya had been wrongly misused, I would appreciate it if all references in a racial context are strictly forbidden in this forum.



Thirdly, Hinduism encompasses many diverse view-points manifested in its various sects and leaders.

Hence a conflict of views can come about due to immaturity of some posters criticizing some of the sects teachings or its leaders , using offensive language in the process.

I hope this is also taken into account, and all such doing so should be reported.


And because there is a certain diversity of viewpoints in Hinduism because of its various sects and philosophies, a system of rules can be created for the Hinduism forum to ensure decorum and a certain amount of order, and prevent conflict.

These , which when not adhered to, can be reported.


It is important to ensure a good mechanism is created to see that the forum runs orderly and conflict-proof in the future as well.

I would like to recommend Vinayaka,Atanu, Maitravaruni, Ratikala, Shivafan as assistant moderators or something in that role, who report to Quagmire promptly on any violation of forum rules or conduct.

I am stating so because they have consistently posted in this forum and have adhered to a reasonable code of conduct in this forum.

If these points are implemented, I am sure they will go a long way in improving the quality of the forum, and reducing its chaos.

I apologize if I have offended anyone with my comments and hope they will bear with me.

:namaste

 

[zenzero]

Friend Quagmire,

Hi! how r u? long time no sharing.
Regards suggestion, yes create a SANATAN DHARMA Dir.
Personal understanding of the culture of India is concerened it was since time immemorial that it was labelled "Sanatan dharma' or the eternal way or simply a way of life.
The use of the label 'Hinduism ' came later and over the years got distorted, corrupted to mean what is made out to be even here at RF.

Well it is just a suggestion that could be placed for consideration to the Administrators considering the narrow scope the label Hinduism has been made to be.

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

Friend Quagmire,

Hi! how r u? long time no sharing.
Regards suggestion, yes create a SANATAN DHARMA Dir.
Personal understanding of the culture of India is concerened it was since time immemorial that it was labelled "Sanatan dharma' or the eternal way or simply a way of life.
The use of the label 'Hinduism ' came later and over the years got distorted, corrupted to mean what is made out to be even here at RF.

Well it is just a suggestion that could be placed for consideration to the Administrators considering the narrow scope the label Hinduism has been made to be.

Love & rgds

Friend Zenzero

Just a question and no argument. Do you agree (or disagree) that the Sanatana dharma is based upon the Vedas and hence is known as Vaidika dharma?

 

[zenzero]

Friend atanu,

Guess friend Quagmire has to first agree to the request for a Dir on Sanatan Dharma which as per: Sanatana Dharma -

Sanatana Dharma is is the original name of what is now popularly called Hinduism or Hindu Dharma. The terms Hindu and Hinduism are said to be a more recent development, while the more accurate term is Sanatana Dharma. It is a code of ethics, a way of living through which one may achieve moksha (enlightenment, liberation). It is the world's most ancient culture and the socio, spiritual, and religious tradition of almost one billion of the earth's inhabitants. Sanatana Dharma represents much more than just a religion; rather, it provides its followers with an entire worldview, way of life and with a coherent and rational view of reality.

also

represents a code of conduct and a value system that has spiritual freedom as its core. Any pathway or spiritual vision that accepts the spiritual freedom of others may be considered part of Sanatana Dharma.

Under Basic Principles it mentions:

Sanatana Dharma recognizes that the greater portion of human religious aspiration has always been unknown, undefined, and outside of any institutionalized belief

The universal flow of Dharma, regardless of what name you call it, whether Dharma or some other name, has eternally existed. It has been before any of the great teachers were born. It is not better than, or alternative to, but is inclusive of all. Dharma is that out of which our earth and humanity itself emerged. Dharma not only is, but always was, and always will be. To live in alignment with, and to know the true nature of that Sanatana Dharma is one of the ways of describing the higher goal of life.

Sanatana Dharma thereby gives reverence to individual spiritual experience over any formal religious doctrine

On this basis we see that there exists a vast difference between what is Sanatan Dharma and what Hinduism has been made out to be with Dos and Don'ts which has no place in sanatan dharma.

Human minds has to merge in its understanding of the basic principles of what IT is and by false creation or maya/illusions because of limited understandings the gap is widening at places and today needs to be under one open roof of sanatan dharma.

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

Anyway. I will not argue but just note that you have not mentioned the basis of all these positions that you have defined for Sanatana Dharma. You have not even mentioned the Vedas that form the base of the Perennial knowledge.

I am sorry that I disagree with this partial understanding of Sanatana dharma. de-linked from the Vedas.

Its not an argument. I am recording my view.

From the same site that you have cited from, I reproduce the following:

Hindu Dharma -
Hindū Dharma or Hinduism (Sanskrit: हिन्दू धर्म, is often referred by its practitioners as Sanātana Dharma, सनातन धर्म; Vaidika Dharma, वैदिक धर्म; or Vedic Tradition) is the spiritual, philosophical, scientific and cultural system that originated in Bharatavarsha (the Indian subcontinent), that is based on the Vedas, and it is the oldest of all living religious traditions still practiced today. A Hindu, as per definition, is an adherent of the spiritual practices, yoga, philosophies and scriptures of Hindu Dharma.

 

[crossfire]

Anyway. I will not argue but just note that you have not mentioned the basis of all these positions that you have defined for Sanatana Dharma. You have not even mentioned the Vedas that form the base of the Perennial knowledge.

I am sorry that I disagree with this partial understanding of Sanatana dharma. de-linked from the Vedas.

Its not an argument. I am recording my view.

I have a question related to this post, but not specific to the general OP, so I will hide it. Thank you.

Spoiler: question regarding quoted post

"5. Na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ 5
Averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano. "

Do you disagree that this is sanatana dharma? It's not from the Vedas, it is from Dhammapada 1:5

Thank you for you consideration.

 

[atanu]

I have a question related to this post, but not specific to the general OP, so I will hide it. Thank you.

Spoiler: question regarding quoted post

"5. Na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ 5
Averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano. "

Do you disagree that this is sanatana dharma? It's not from the Vedas, it is from Dhammapada 1:5

Thank you for you consideration.

I fully agree. That is Veda. Without Veda wherefrom these gems will come.

In Veda is said :What one pours into the stream of Vishnu and Agni is returned manifold.

If one pours hatred that alone will be returned.

But do you see the effort towards protecting the Vedic meaning of Brahman as hatred? Brahman is defined as having self nature of 'jnana'. Now, if it is said "Brahman is not 'jnana' but is physical energy", should it be not pointed out? And if it is pointed out then does it become hatred?

Then what is the teaching of Karma Yoga?

 

[crossfire]

I fully agree. That is Veda. Without Veda wherefrom these gems will come.

In Veda is said :What one pours into the stream of Vishnu and Agni is returned manifold.

If one pours hatred that alone will be returned.

Thank you.

But do you see the effort towards protecting the Vedic meaning of Brahman as hatred? Brahman is defined as having self nature of 'jnana'. Now, if it is said "Brahman is not 'jnana' but is physical energy", should it be not pointed out? And if it is pointed out then does it become hatred?

I can't answer that for you. Only you can look into your own mind and see what is or isn't there.

Thank you for answering my question.

 

[atanu]

Thank you

I can't answer that for you. Only you can look into your own mind and see what is or isn't there.

Thank you for answering my question.

Thank you to you too. You have not answered, however, whether one should point out that brahman was defined as knowledge in Vedic literature or not?

Anyway, that may not be equally important for everyone. I understand that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And finally call this view as Hindu:Atheistic:Advaita.

Is this view Hinduism. Has any teacher taught this?

Now, this is the kind of thing that should not be done. What is wrong if a Hindu has this view, and who are you to try to correct it in your way. Hinduism has a thousand and one views. And even if a teacher has not taught such a thing, do I not have the freedom to think in this way? What is this, Hinduism or Christianity/Islam?

 

[Vinayaka]

And what can we do about it?
For months now this DIR has been a train wreck.
So instead of us having to close/move/trash thread after thread, handing out PMs, warnings, infractions and restrictions, ect., let's see if we can come up with some workable solutions.
It's been suggested by a DIR member that we create an additional Hinduism DIR, a green (open) one to go along with the blue (restricted) DIR.

Hello Quagmire. Thank you for taking the time to attempt to moderate this and come to some sort of conflict resolution. I honestly don't have high hopes at this point in time, and this may very well be my last post here. (Which would be welcome news to a few, I'm sure.)

Since this thread has already turned into some sort of debate, I'd like to offer up a couple of suggestions.

It seems to me we can't survive without some sort of moderation. There are endless heated exchanges, circular arguments that go round and round and round, and the result is people leaving, seeing no further point to reading the same things over and over. I have been one of them, but a call to duty seems to get me back. Maybe it's just that I'm a sucker for punishment.

From my experience in conflict resolution, (building a Hindu temple, and a career of teaching) it's clear to me that the time for talk is over. We need to come up with some sort of action. For a period of 5 years I spent 6 hours of every Friday might of my life discussing how to build a temple. Often those meetings ended with no action plan at all. It was endless and circular discussion, leading us nowhere. Eventually, the minority gave in to the majority, and we did all learn how to compromise. Not sure if the same can be said of this diverse community.

The current moderation just doesn't seem to work. I think that in part that's because few moderators are that familiar with Hinduism. I know if I was put in charge of moderating the Judaism DIR, I'd be a miserable failure.

So now when someone reports a post, it's difficult for you to decide I'm sure. As you know, I probably report more posts that anyone. But I never hear anything back other than 'We've received your message." I'm quite confident by now that you guys are sick of grumpy old Vinayaka reporting another post. However, if I am offended (another unfortunate lacking in a moderator not too familiar with the field ... some things are just more offensive than others) and because you've clearly given us directions to report stuff, I do that. (As a staunch traditionalist, I probably get offended too easy. Please note that it's generally about what is called Hinduism, but I believe in loving humanity.) But after awhile when I see that nothing is done, that too becomes frustrating. Perhaps the individual does get a warning, but we aren't privy to that, so as far as I can tell, nothing is done. In the 50+ posts I have reported, I can only recall once when something was done, and that was that my request to move something out of the Hindu DIR into comparative was heeded. Please note that I am only observing, not criticising the current moderators. It has to be a tough job, made even harder if you're not totally familiar with the subject matter.

So here's my suggestion for an action plan... members of this DIR (I have no idea how that is determined even ... several who are unable to state they are Hindu do post in here.) elect a moderation panel of 3, maybe on 2 separate ballots, and the rest of us agree to live with their moderation. Their first job would be to come up with a list of moderation guidelines, and then can bring that back to the group for a vote.

I think you could give it another 3 or 4 days for proposals, and then let's please actually do something. There was another thread a few months back, started by Luis, I think, and all it did was talk, talk, talk some more, with no real result.

Moderation here, in my honest opinion, would comprise mainly of moving things out of the DIR into Same faith debates, and issuing warnings for breaking the guidelines that the majority agreed to. There would be no bannings etc. without getting in a super moderator. This enables free speech and free belief.

I'd like to see this DIR work, but if not, I am free to leave, as is anyone else.

We all have to remember we live in a democracy. For example if this group by vote decided to ban me, I'd walk out the door, realising I was a detriment to overall harmony.

Aum Shanthi

 

[Quagmire]

Hello Quagmire. Thank you for taking the time to attempt to moderate this and come to some sort of conflict resolution. I honestly don't have high hopes at this point in time, and this may very well be my last post here. (Which would be welcome news to a few, I'm sure.)

Since this thread has already turned into some sort of debate, I'd like to offer up a couple of suggestions.

It seems to me we can't survive without some sort of moderation. There are endless heated exchanges, circular arguments that go round and round and round, and the result is people leaving, seeing no further point to reading the same things over and over. I have been one of them, but a call to duty seems to get me back. Maybe it's just that I'm a sucker for punishment.

From my experience in conflict resolution, (building a Hindu temple, and a career of teaching) it's clear to me that the time for talk is over. We need to come up with some sort of action. For a period of 5 years I spent 6 hours of every Friday might of my life discussing how to build a temple. Often those meetings ended with no action plan at all. It was endless and circular discussion, leading us nowhere. Eventually, the minority gave in to the majority, and we did all learn how to compromise. Not sure if the same can be said of this diverse community.

The current moderation just doesn't seem to work. I think that in part that's because few moderators are that familiar with Hinduism. I know if I was put in charge of moderating the Judaism DIR, I'd be a miserable failure.

So now when someone reports a post, it's difficult for you to decide I'm sure. As you know, I probably report more posts that anyone. But I never hear anything back other than 'We've received your message." I'm quite confident by now that you guys are sick of grumpy old Vinayaka reporting another post. However, if I am offended (another unfortunate lacking in a moderator not too familiar with the field ... some things are just more offensive than others) and because you've clearly given us directions to report stuff, I do that. (As a staunch traditionalist, I probably get offended too easy. Please note that it's generally about what is called Hinduism, but I believe in loving humanity.) But after awhile when I see that nothing is done, that too becomes frustrating. Perhaps the individual does get a warning, but we aren't privy to that, so as far as I can tell, nothing is done. In the 50+ posts I have reported, I can only recall once when something was done, and that was that my request to move something out of the Hindu DIR into comparative was heeded. Please note that I am only observing, not criticising the current moderators. It has to be a tough job, made even harder if you're not totally familiar with the subject matter.

So here's my suggestion for an action plan... members of this DIR (I have no idea how that is determined even ... several who are unable to state they are Hindu do post in here.) elect a moderation panel of 3, maybe on 2 separate ballots, and the rest of us agree to live with their moderation. Their first job would be to come up with a list of moderation guidelines, and then can bring that back to the group for a vote.

I think you could give it another 3 or 4 days for proposals, and then let's please actually do something. There was another thread a few months back, started by Luis, I think, and all it did was talk, talk, talk some more, with no real result.

Moderation here, in my honest opinion, would comprise mainly of moving things out of the DIR into Same faith debates, and issuing warnings for breaking the guidelines that the majority agreed to. There would be no bannings etc. without getting in a super moderator. This enables free speech and free belief.

I'd like to see this DIR work, but if not, I am free to leave, as is anyone else.

We all have to remember we live in a democracy. For example if this group by vote decided to ban me, I'd walk out the door, realising I was a detriment to overall harmony.

Aum Shanthi

Hi Vinayaka. My main reason for creating this thread was to get a clearer ideas of what the problems are and see who feels how about what (if that makes sense).

Most of what I've heard here and in Site feedback just confirms a lot of things that I already suspected. Appointing DIR-specific moderators would be a radical departure from our regular policies and tbh, it isn't likely to happen. One thing that I'm predicting will happen though is our hiring a new Hindu moderator. Like you said, a big part of the problem is that there isn't anyone of the currently active staff who has a comprehensive understanding of the finer points of Hinduism, so it's hard (sometimes impossible) for us to differentiate between posts that reflect certain non-universal tenets, and those that directly conflict with accepted Hindu beliefs.

By the same token we don't understand the connotations of certain terms so it's hard for us to determine whether or not something was meant as an insult.

Anyway, hiring a new mod who does have a comprehensive understanding of the religion is one step that we should be able to take pretty easily and fairly quickly. I'm actually going to get the ball rolling on that right now.

 

[Quagmire]

Friend atanu,

Guess friend Quagmire has to first agree to the request for a Dir on Sanatan Dharma which as per: Sanatana Dharma -

also

Under Basic Principles it mentions:



On this basis we see that there exists a vast difference between what is Sanatan Dharma and what Hinduism has been made out to be with Dos and Don'ts which has no place in sanatan dharma.

Human minds has to merge in its understanding of the basic principles of what IT is and by false creation or maya/illusions because of limited understandings the gap is widening at places and today needs to be under one open roof of sanatan dharma.

Love & rgds

Hey Zen, if you could start a thread in Site feedback about this we could discuss it in more detail.