The Dogma of Bhakti: The views of a dissident Hindu

[Surya Deva]

Namaste,

I have posted before on this forum with my current handle Surya Deva and previously as Suraj, and then I stopped posting because I found the topics got repetitive and there seemed to be a very strong Bhakti bias among the posters. To be honest, the more I talked with fellow Hindus people, the more strongly the feeling of alienation grew. I could no longer identify with the label 'Hindu' and started to challenge it, reassessing what my religious allegiances were. My identification with 'Hinduism' was dealt a death blow when I started participating on the Hindu Dharma Forums, where I shared my own interpretations and views of Hinduism, which were considered offensive, threatening and dangerous, attracting derision and hostility and ultimately I was banned.

You may ask what were those views? My views are that Hinduism no longer represents what it is claims to be: Sanatana Dharma, the eternal religion or the eternal way, or even the scientific religion. Rather, Hinduism has become a geographical religion, preoccupied with Indian nationality(in fact, for many Hindu nationalists, India and Hinduism are inseparable) Indian traditions, history, languages, rituals and politics. So is there not an obvious contradiction that a religion that claims to be the eternal religion, is geographically bound?

If Hinduism really is Santana dharma then its truths need to be universal and not just specific to India, in the same way the truths of gravity are universal, not just specific to England where the concept of gravity was formalized. Hence, whatever is not universal cannot be considered an essential part of Sanatana dharma. Here is what is not universal: Indian geography, the pantheon of Indian deities, Indian languages, Indian traditions and rituals, Indian scriptures.

If Sanatana dharma is universal, then all enlightened cultures across the universe would have discovered it, but obviously they are not reading the Vedas, they do not speak Sanskrit, they do not worship Krishna, Shiva or Kali. They will have their own geography, languages, mythology, rituals and scriptures. Thus proving that geography, language, mythology, rituals and scriptures are not essential in Sanatana dharma. They are non-essential aspects and are subject to change.

However, despite the fact the aforementioned are not essential to Sanatana Dharma, Hindus behave like they are. I have been outright told by many Hindus pandits, swamis and gurus I met in my India travels, that I am not Hindu if I do not speak Hindi or Sanskrit, if I do not observe my caste regulations, if I do not wear a dhoti, if I do not have an Ishta Devata(Shiva, Krishna or Kali etc) if I do not observe Indian traditions.
I have been told similar dogmas in Vedantic traditions(seemingly the most enlightened) My knowledge of Vedanta is not valid if I do not learn from an authorized Vedanta guru, if I do not read the exact canon of scriptures, if I do not formally take sanyasa, shave my head and beg for alms.

Of course the biggest dogma, which I highlight in the title, is the dogma of Bhakti. In the Hindu Dharma forums in a thread discussing how one practices Hinduism, I shared my practice that I practice by always contemplating on reality, on the self and reading as much philosophy as I can. I have very extensively and closely read much of the Vedantic canon, Samkhya, Yoga, and of course the Vedas, as well as non-Vedic philosophy. I have been very deeply immersed in its study for now 15 years. However, in response the Hindu members challenged me, underming my identification as Hindu, because I have no bhakti practices, no ishhta devata, no membership of any formal tradition(samapradaya) I do not attend any Hindu temples, or participate in any rituals(like Puja, Yagna) or pay homage to Krishna, Shiva or Durga.

The irony is Bhakti is not historically essential to the religion of Hinduism, but rather is a late development that begin in the early middle ages, initiated by the Alvars in South India, and then spreading through the Bhakti movement throughout India. It in this period we see the composition of much Bhakti literature, such as the Narada Bhakti Sutras, songs, explosion of temple construction and temple rituals and Bhakti philosophies like Dvaita and Visesadvaita. Also the emergence of the Tantra/Agamic literature.

So why should I accept something which is not even historically essential in my religion? Bhakta argue that there are historical precusors in earlier Hindu literature like the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita, but the Bhakti as enunciated there is radically different to the Bhakti which takes off in the Bhakti movement, and has since then dominated the landscape of Hinduism.
In the Upanishads Bhakti is seen as devotion to ones self, to always be contemplating on the self and to constantly meditate on the self and the essential nature of reality. In fact the Upanishads directly equate the self to the lord, it is the only scripture in the world that so radically equates ones self to god. Immortalized in the Upanishadic great sayings: Aham Brahamsmi, I am Brahman; Ayam Atma Brahma, My self is Brahman; Prajnana Brahma; Consciousness is Brahman.

Another irony is that in Hinduism itself the Upanishads comes under the category of Sruti meaning canonical, revealed texts. Then why are most Hindus not believing in and practicing what the Upanishads teach? Self inquiry, philsophical contemplation, meditation on the self? On the contrary Hindus today believe and pratice the Hinduism as enunciated in the Puranas or Puranic Hinduism, the Hinduism we all see - the worship of pantheon of gods, the legends and myths and rituals galore. It in such stark contrast to the enlightened religion of the Upanishads: Vedanta, which so many philosophers, visionaries and great minds have cherished from Shankara to Schopenhauer.

Technically, I am the real Hindu here, because I am practicing the original Vedanta. It is rich that the bhaktas should undermine my status as Hindu. I carry the weight of Sruti to back me up. I consider myself a real adherent of Santana Dharma, and the bhaktas I see as illegitimate children of it. I shall be forthright, that Bhakti to me is not valid Hinduism, and if Bhakti is what defines Hinduism today, then I would rather disown the label. The kind of primitive, superstitious and damn right silly rituals Hindus get up to in the name of Bhakti, are exactly what the Upanishadic seers rose up against. In fact the Upanishads contain very strong criticisms mocking the ritualist. The Chandogya upanishad contains a pardoy likening the ritualist to be like a procession of dogs chanting "Om! lets eat! Om! lets drink!" and even more damning passages are found in the Mundaka Upanishad calling rituals/sacrifices an unsafe boat that is overrtaken by old age and death.
Thus, the spirit of the Upanishads is opposed to ritual and superstition, and I am sure many of the seers of the Upanishads would be dismayed if they saw what Hinduism is today and share exactly my dissident views, which I intend to give expression to by writing in publications and maybe even writing my own book. I think my view, however inconveniant and offensive to the Hindu masses today, is a valid and justifiable view and deserves to be heard and discussed. Censorship of this view is directly opposed to the liberal philosophical culture of Hinduism, where even the heterodox views were honored and given due respect and consideration. It is shameful that Hindus at the Hindu dharma forum should have banned me for voicing a dissident view. I am confident that the same will not happen here, because this forum is more professional, liberal and open minded, and I doubt the moderators/admins here are Hindu nationalists.

To summarize my views:

1. Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, meaning it is the universal religion and therefore has no particular geography, language, tradition, pantheon, mythology, ritual and scriptures. One does not have to be born in India, or speak Indian languages, worship Krishna, Shiva or Durga, or even read the Vedas or the Gita to be Hindu. As long as they accept the philosophical tenets of the Upanishads they are Hindu. Therefore, one may even be Hindu without even having read the Upanishads.

2. The truths of Hinduism, because they are universal, can be discovered by any culture or any individual across the universe. The truths of Hinduism can also be found in other religions, such as Gnostic Christianity, Kabbalh, Sufism, Neo-Paganism. Hinduism is definitely not a uniquely Indian phenomenon and cannot define any nationality.

3. Puranic Hinduism and Bhakti is directly opposed to the doctrines of the Upanishads, which are considered the revealed scripture of Hinduism, they are therefore invalid corrupted forms of Hinduism. All Puranas are just a compendium of myths and legends compiled by various sects.

4. The only true Vedanta is of Advaita, the non-separation of soul and god. The later Vedantic schools like Dvaita and Visesvadvita were fabricated by medieval Bhakta theologians in order to rationalize their faith and Bhakti practices. All sorts of propoganda about Bhakti has been promulgated, how Bhakti is the only path in the Kaliyuga that is effective. It has lead to, in my opinion the destruction of the intellectual culture of India, and ultimately to the demise of Indian civilization. I predict Hinduism in its contemporary form, which I hold responsible for why India is such a fragmented country, will lead to demise of India altogether. Divided we fall, united we stand. I do not buy that India's diversity is such a good thing.

PS: Mods, I am not sure if this thread is considered 'Debate' If so, please redirect the thread where it is more appropriate.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

Thank you for this extremely well-written and thoughtful post. There are certain aspects which I disagree with which feel like they're born of rancor, but that is not essential to the overall point I believe you are making.

I would like to respond more in depth later when I have more time, but wanted to express my appreciation and encourage you to continue posting here. Your input is very much valued.

 

[Surya Deva]

Thank you very much Shuddasattva. I look forward to your post

 

[Madhuri]

I grew up in Gaudiya Vaishnavism which is heavily based on Puranic teachings.

I've since come to a point where I don't take Purana very seriously and have a strong focus on Sruti texts.

As far as I know, there are still plenty of Hindus that a Sruti oriented. There are many Advaita followers and people I consider to follow true Vedanta.

As for the obsession with Hinduism being only for Indians, as a person of European descent, I don't care at all for that baseless opinion. If someone tells me I can't be a Hindu because I'm white I'll tell them to show me the scriptural support for that. There isn't any. So this opinion has no effect on my perspective of Santan Dharma.

I agree that the truths of Hinduism can be found in various religions around the world. It makes sense that Realised persons would pop up everywhere to provide knowledge and wisdom.

What I disagree with is your disregard for Bhakti. Worship, love and devotion are a huge part of the Vedas. Take this for example:
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 8: HYMN I. Indra.

I find the Puranas highly suspect, but they reflect aspects of Vedic scripture. And Bhakti is certainly present in Veda.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

It may be best to view the Puranas in context; attempts to translate the esotericism of the Vedas/Upanishads into the language of the common man. We find that the puranas often contain deep esotericism of their own, a tantric imprint, and much that is in the puranas should not be taken literally else it leads to absurd religious fundamentalism - such as displayed by ISKCON.

 

[Surya Deva]

What I disagree with is your disregard for Bhakti. Worship, love and devotion are a huge part of the Vedas. Take this for example:
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 8: HYMN I. Indra.

I agree with you Bhakti, as in love and devotion is present within the Vedas, however it is enunciated differently. The Vedic people worshipped the Ekam Sat(one truth/one reality) which they worshiped by worshipping the various deities as manifestations of that Ekam Sat, which the Rig Veda declares itself, "The truth is one, the wise know it by many names, they call it Indra, Agni, Vayu, Aryaman etc" or in the Nasadiya Sukta, "In the beginning there was the One..... the gods came later" The Vedic people did not erect temples to worship the devas, but rather summoned the devas in their fire sacrifices or yagyas. Agni and Indra obviously are the most popular, because they represent the immediate elements they are working with.

The later Brahmanical culture that evolved engaged in even more elaborate rituals, and also started performing animal sacrifices(Ashwamedha, Gomedha) and it against these bizarre and superstitious ritual practices that the Vedanta arose. The Vedanta initially appeared at the end of the Brahmanas Aranyakas, reinterpreting the rituals philosophically and then later the Upanishads emerged as a class of its own literature launching more scathing attacks on ritual, and enjoining the philosophical approach of contemplating, inquiring, discussing, meditating on the self, from which the philosophical method has emerged. It in this period all the philosophical concepts which underpin Hinduism emerge such as karma, samsara, atman, brahman, yoga, samkhya, and these concepts are then given their systematic form by the darsanas

However, it is obvious that the ritualistic kind of Hinduism did not end die out with the emergence of the Upanishads, and not long after the Upanishads, the Puranas start to appear. The initial purpose of the Puranas, as it was during the time of the Upanishads was merely to illustrate through story form the abstract/esoteric truths of the Upanishads, but as what often happens when you allow masses to get involved, the Puranas soon deteriorated into secetarianism, superstition, mythology and ritualism, exactly that which the Upanishads were against. It is interesting the note the Puranic phase took minor Vedic deities like Vishnu, Shiva and Aditi and elevated them to the highest form the Trimurti, giving them all personalities. Then around them various sects and Puranas appeared, fabricating mythological histories, myths and legends. The Bhakti that followed that the worship of these imaginary entities. I consider such Bhakti as valid as worshiping the flying spaghetti monster. The Puranic phase is the Hindu equivalent of the formation of the Church, the powerful sects compose and edit their own Puranas, create their own false histories and introduces doctrines and institutions of clergy. Of course they would teach blind and servile devotion to their gods, because they want keep their followers in line. Later, these Hindu Churches even advance their own doctrines of hell, eternal damnation and redemption to keeps Hindus in line. Unfortunately, like with Christianity, the Puranic form Hinduism has taken over. Most Hindus don't even know what the Upanishads even are anymore, let alone read them.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

The rites of the vedas, in their tamasika form became the rituals of the mimamsa.

However, the animal sacrifices you mention are a key part of the Vedas themselves. In their true (satvik) form, they are internal rites in which parts, animal qualities, of the 'partless Self' are sacrificed - antarayajna. This is preserved in the agamas. In their rajasic form, the animals are symbolically replaced by rice cakes, herbs ground and mixed in water, etc. and imbued with esoteric significance in the act.

As we have taken lead of the upanishads, the very opening of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad should clarify the nature of the Ashvamedha and indeed, other sacrifices as well.

I will expand on this in that larger post I promised.

 

[Vinayaka]

Looking at the summary of your first post, I agree with it almost in it's entirety, with the exception of I also do bhakti, but not as if it was 100 % of or the only focus. There is a room for bhakti, and room for many viewpoints, and approaches. I definitely agree with your comments on Puranas, and for me they may be interesting stories, with occasional moments or lines of wisdom, but nothing like the Upanishads.

I do, however, feel there is lots of room for variety, and try to understand why people are the way they are. If all you're brought up with is a folk version of Hinduism, then what can one expect?

 

[Maya3]

Welcome to the forum Surya Deva!

First I would like to say that I have been to the Hinduism Forum twice, or rather for two periods of a couple of months and then left each time because of peoples attitudes about non Indian Hindus. And for the inability to discuss anything that people did not agree with. You are right, if you don't agree with their narrow view your post will be deleted, or you will be bombarded by angry posters that considers you untouchable (I was called that on more then one occasion).

We can have rather heated debates here too, but difference of opinion is welcome, and people can say what the want, no one here will tell you that you are not Hindu.

I agree with you that the eternal truth means that you can reach Moksa through any religion or no religion. If God is everywhere, God IS everywhere and to say that you can only reach him/her/it through this particular viewpoint, then you are no better then fundamentalist Christians who say that Jesus is the only way or you will burn in hell.
It doesn't make sense.
What I do think though is that some viewpoints can get a little muddled and it would take longer to understand. Fundamentalism in general is a muddled way to look at things, and it would take longer to get it if you narrow your view so much.

When it comes to Bhakti and rituals, I think that they are there to help us sit and focus, to help build a prayerful community around a form of God.

I have a feeling that the reason rituals are so elaborate is so that the temples have a reason to stay open. This might be controversial to say too, but I really think that that is the case.
Hindu temples don't have a Sunday sermon once a week. People come just to sit for a while and feel the energy, chant a little and get a blessing.
If the rituals would take 5 minutes, people would stop going after a while.
If the Puja lasts for 1.5 hour or longer if it's a holiday, people can come and enjoy for a while, leave come back or whatever.
This is very freeing and it is a very nice practice that you go for YOU, The form is available for you when you are in the mood.
It can be very beautiful and centering.

But this is not the end of the road, it is one of the ways to find out who you are.
But there are many ways, the point is to find one that gets you there.

Maya

 

[Jainarayan]

I've had to remove portions of your comments due to the 10,000 word limitation.

My identification with 'Hinduism' was dealt a death blow when I started participating on the Hindu Dharma Forums, where I shared my own interpretations and views of Hinduism, which were considered offensive, threatening and dangerous, attracting derision and hostility and ultimately I was banned.

I know whence you speak. I came very close to the same result because of certain attitudes: that I was not and could not be a Hindu because I am not born Hindu; that maybe I should seek an alternate path. Additionally, because I am not born Indian and do not know of the politics in India.

However, I think it's a disservice to oneself to let the vocalizations of a few rabid nationalists and racists drive one away from a beautiful way of life. Especially if one has met "real-life-honest-to-goodness-Hindus" and found them to be very accepting, if not a little quizzical seeing the only white man in temple, especially wearing a dhothi.

You may ask what were those views? My views are that Hinduism no longer represents what it is claims to be: Sanatana Dharma, the eternal religion or the eternal way, or even the scientific religion. Rather, Hinduism has become a geographical religion, preoccupied with Indian nationality(in fact, for many Hindu nationalists, India and Hinduism are inseparable) Indian traditions, history, languages, rituals and politics.

Indeed, I found that for some people religion and nationalism are inextricably linked. It is a hypocrisy I think (this may be my ignorance speaking) that they are a vocal minority. Not unlike the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians in the US.

My impression of India is one of hard-working people trying to get by day to day, raising families, paying bills, going to work, coming home and repeating the next day. Then I see the agrarian sector who doesn't give a tinker's damn about politics, either. He tends his fields and crops, says a prayer and calls it a day.

Maybe that's all a fantasy image.

If Hinduism really is Santana dharma then its truths need to be universal and not just specific to India, in the same way the truths of gravity are universal, not just specific to England where the concept of gravity was formalized. Hence, whatever is not universal cannot be considered an essential part of Sanatana dharma. Here is what is not universal: Indian geography, the pantheon of Indian deities, Indian languages, Indian traditions and rituals, Indian scriptures.

If Sanatana dharma is universal, then all enlightened cultures across the universe would have discovered it, ... Thus proving that geography, language, mythology, rituals and scriptures are not essential in Sanatana dharma. They are non-essential aspects and are subject to change.

I believe its truths are universal and not bound only to India. I was Hindu before I even knew it; I've still not read the Vedas but I feel no less Hindu because I feel the Vedas; I have always felt the Vedas, I just didn't know the name for the feeling.

However, despite the fact the aforementioned are not essential to Sanatana Dharma, Hindus behave like they are. I have been outright told by many Hindus pandits, swamis and gurus I met in my India travels, that I am not Hindu if I do not speak Hindi or Sanskrit, if I do not observe my caste regulations, if I do not wear a dhoti, if I do not have an Ishta Devata(Shiva, Krishna or Kali etc) if I do not observe Indian traditions.

Bullcrap on all that. No more to say on it.

Of course the biggest dogma, which I highlight in the title, is the dogma of Bhakti. ...
[snipped for space]

So why should I accept something which is not even historically essential in my religion?

You shouldn't if it's not your way. Isn't it said that Hinduism is not monolithic and dogmatic? There's no need to make it so or feel conflicted because of others' strong opinions.

The kind of primitive, superstitious and damn right silly rituals Hindus get up to in the name of Bhakti, are exactly what the Upanishadic seers rose up against. In fact the Upanishads contain very strong criticisms mocking the ritualist. The Chandogya upanishad contains a pardoy likening the ritualist to be like a procession of dogs chanting "Om! lets eat! Om! lets drink!" and even more damning passages are found in the Mundaka Upanishad calling rituals/sacrifices an unsafe boat that is overrtaken by old age and death.

Hey, even Sri Krishna had some not so kind words to say about the ritualism and material gains sought by mindlessly following the Vedas:

2.42-44. O Arjuna! There are people who delight in the eulogistic statements of the Vedas and argue that the purport of the Vedas consists in these and nothing else. They are full of worldly desires; paradise is their highest goal; and they are totally blind in a spiritual sense. They expatiate upon those florid Vedic texts which describe the means for the attainment of pleasure and power, which provide attractive embodiments as the fruits of actions and which are full of descriptions of rites and rituals (through which these fulfilments are obtained). In the minds of these votaries of pleasure and power, addicted to enjoyments of the above description, steadfast wisdom (capable of revealing the Truth) is never generated.

2.45. O Arjuna! The Vedas deal with material ends. But you be established in the Spirit, in the immutable purity of it, having abandoned all material values, attachment to possessions, and concern with the contraries of life like pleasure and pain, heat and cold.

I don't consider Him to be mocking the Vedas themselves, but the misuse of the Vedas. And isn't that what the Buddha railed against also? He was not against the Vedas themselves, but the mindless ritualistic silliness and superstition. And if I can throw in another teaching, Jesus said pretty much the same things to the Jewish people of his time. They were abiding by the "letter of the law, and not the spirit of it".

Thus, the spirit of the Upanishads is opposed to ritual and superstition, and I am sure many of the seers of the Upanishads would be dismayed if they saw what Hinduism is today and share exactly my dissident views, which I intend to give expression to by writing in publications and maybe even writing my own book.

If you've read Paramahansa Yogananda, Sri Swami Sivananda, Sri Swami Vivekananda, et. al. you will find that they do not come outright with dissenting views, but they express those views from a different and more subtle angle. I'll concede that they give as much importance to bhakti as to knowledge; knowledge whether by reading or feeling the Vedas.

Some people I've had conversations with "elsewhere" have a burst aneurysm when I use the phrase "ekam sat". But there is only One Truth, and at the risk of repetition, I think that One Truth touches you from the Vedas and Upanishads, reading them or feeling them. How can they not if they are Sanatana Dharma?

I don't believe that the rishis heard voices dictating the Vedas. I believe they felt the Vedas, and Sanskrit happened to be the tool the rishis used used to transmit that knowledge. After all, that was the language that was spoken. The devas can do anything They want in any way They want.

To summarize my views:

1. Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, meaning it is the universal religion and therefore has no particular geography, language, tradition, pantheon, mythology, ritual and scriptures. One does not have to be born in India, or speak Indian languages, worship Krishna, Shiva or Durga, or even read the Vedas or the Gita to be Hindu. As long as they accept the philosophical tenets of the Upanishads they are Hindu. Therefore, one may even be Hindu without even having read the Upanishads.

2. The truths of Hinduism, because they are universal, can be discovered by any culture or any individual across the universe. The truths of Hinduism can also be found in other religions, such as Gnostic Christianity, Kabbalh, Sufism, Neo-Paganism. Hinduism is definitely not a uniquely Indian phenomenon and cannot define any nationality.

These I agree with unequivocally and categorically.

3. Puranic Hinduism and Bhakti is directly opposed to the doctrines of the Upanishads, which are considered the revealed scripture of Hinduism, they are therefore invalid corrupted forms of Hinduism. All Puranas are just a compendium of myths and legends compiled by various sects.

This I'm not so sure about; I don't think bhakti is in conflict with the Vedas and Upanishads. That is, I don't think one countermands the other. Just my opinion, I have no sources to back me up.

4. The only true Vedanta is of Advaita, the non-separation of soul and god. The later Vedantic schools like Dvaita and Visesvadvita were fabricated by medieval Bhakta theologians in order to rationalize their faith and Bhakti practices. All sorts of propoganda about Bhakti has been promulgated, how Bhakti is the only path in the Kaliyuga that is effective.

I don't think one size fits all, and that includes bhakti. To make Hinduism, which evolved over a period of 5,000-6,000 years from various revelations, monolithic is to make it no different than Christianity or Islam.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

My impression of India is one of hard-working people trying to get by day to day, raising families, paying bills, going to work, coming home and repeating the next day. Then I see the agrarian sector who doesn't give a tinker's damn about politics, either. He tends his fields and crops, says a prayer and calls it a day.

Maybe that's all a fantasy image.

I'm afraid so. Many are completely infected by materialism - which does indeed consist of work (not necessarily hard or even honest), raising family - with materialistic values and shallow concepts of family bonds, etc.

The agrarian sector is also one of the most reliable votebanks for politicians who use amalgamated cooperatives to leverage themselves into power. Case in point: Sharad Pawar, power maniac and one of the most corrupt nutjobs in India outside of the Gandhi clique.

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm afraid so. Many are completely infected by materialism - which does indeed consist of work (not necessarily hard or even honest), raising family - with materialistic values and shallow concepts of family bonds, etc.

That's true, which I guess I didn't express properly. In the US we have the same thing, we call it conspicuous consumerism, which I'm sure you know. Everything is driven by materialism. In that regard India is probably no different. It's "me, me, me". People are the same all over.

The agrarian sector is also one of the most reliable votebanks for politicians who use amalgamated cooperatives to leverage themselves into power. Case in point: Sharad Pawar, power maniac and one of the most corrupt nutjobs in India outside of the Gandhi clique.

See, that's where I plead ignorance. My fantasy life is one of a pastoral/bucolic, agraian lifestyle (I would do well in the hill towns of Sicily or Crete ), which I guess I'm projecting based on some popular and/or common misconceptions.

 

[Vinayaka]

I've only ever spoken with one Indian who had spent 3 or more years in 4 different Indian states, because of his job. I find Indians to be very geocentric, much more so that Americans. An Indian from one small corner will think he knows India, and then speak in a generalising way about it, even making 'definitive' statements about a state he's never been to, like 'In the south they ...' . It's a bit like somebody from America going for a two week holiday to the beaches of Rio or a 4 day trek to Macchu Picchu, then coming back claiming they now understand South America.

So someone from America or Europe goes to India for 3 months, lives in a couple of places, and then thinks he understands India? Not quite. Heck, I've been Canadian for 59 years and don't understand Maritimers or what they're about.

As for comments about HDF here, I just try to understand why people think the way they do, rather than go off because they see it differently than me. There are factors like long history of oppression, learning nothing else, pride, going on. That's just life.

 

[Jainarayan]

As for comments about HDF here, I just try to understand why people think the way they do, rather than go off because they see it differently than me. There are factors like long history of oppression, learning nothing else, pride, going on. That's just life.

The problem is that those thoughts and opinions are a one way street. They stifle any meaningful discussion or education because of emotionalism. Yes, that's life and it is what it is. Solution: avoid it. There are other avenues of learning and discussion.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Regardless of some of the attitudes on HDF, it's truly an incredible resource. Yajvan alone is a one-man encyclopedia, and there are other posters who are very knowledgeable as well.

If nothing else, I would suggest that people seriously interested in studying Hinduism read through the post logs of Yajvan, Sarabhanga, Saidevo (selectively), Devotee, Arjuna, Atanu and MahaHradda (selectively).

 

[Vinayaka]

avoid it.

Absolutely. Although some days its easier said than done, if you have a little reminder in the ear "Don't be trapped into getting into this discussion." it helps. That helps at all forums, (I have to use it here too) in real life, at work, with Boss, etc. But it takes will. I actually want to know how narrow-mindedness works, so will read, watch, but not participate. Unlike some commenters here, I have gotten absurd amounts of knowledge out of HDF, but I pick and choose who I engage.

There is also a society's (and its peoples) overall sense of tact going on.

 

[Jainarayan]

Regardless of some of the attitudes on HDF, it's truly an incredible resource. Yajvan alone is a one-man encyclopedia, and there are other posters who are very knowledgeable as well.

If nothing else, I would suggest that people seriously interested in studying Hinduism read through the post logs of Yajvan, Sarabhanga, Saidevo (selectively), Devotee, Arjuna, Atanu

No denying that. I've used the ignore function but there are times when one of the more vitriolic posters will actually give a civil and in-depth, knowledgeable answer. In that case it's an unfortunate risk of losing out on good info. So it's like the 1980s Iran-Iraq War... the Iranians were between Iraq and a hard place. :biglaugh:

and MahaHradda (selectively).

:yes: That's a no-brainer.

 

[Jainarayan]

...I pick and choose who I engage.

:yes: Have to pick your battles. I learn after a time. 'They' say it's only the internet, but what's the difference between correspondence via the internet or the old-fashioned letter-writing method? Anyone remember that?

 

[Vinayaka]

:yes: Have to pick your battles.

I don't see it as 'battles', but perhaps you don't either. Its more a matter of, "Will I (or the other person) benefit in any way from this discussion? Once you come to the realisation that its a pointless discussion, then why continue it? If even one side, let alone both is stuck in some sort of intellectual gridded mesh, and can't free themselves from it, well, why beat a dead horse?' to use a crude himsa metaphor.

 

[Jainarayan]

Just a figure of speech about battles, but your analysis is correct. You come to a point when it's best that you cut your losses and drop it. To continue will often say more about you than it does about the other person if there is an impasse. Who hasn't heard the civil ending to a discussion "Well, we'll have to agree to disagree"? It should be used more often, I think.