True principles of Sanatana Dharma

[Vinayaka]

This is complicated ...

I express my views. You express your views. Jai expresses his views. I don't see anything wrong in that. I know my views have offended people. It was never my intent, but it worked out that way. So what can you recommend I do so that people don't take offense. I can't change the fact that I have some very traditional views on Hinduism. Where is the problem, that I'm expressing them, or that people are taking offense?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I think the intellect is too often made out as a target.

In most of our philosophies, intellect is held as sattva, mind as rajas, and ahamkar as tamas.

Cit, suborned in purusha, is shuddhasattva paraguna.

Through the intellect, we transcend its limitations.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste Vinayak

I have made an effort to familiarize myself with as many traditions as I can, including Shaiva Siddhanta, including Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta - which as I am sure you know, is quite different from its source. I am unable to connect your views to what I know of Shaiva Siddhanta traditions - but my knowledge is hardly complete here.

Would you mind starting a thread explaining your views and their traditional pedigree? I think it would be a valuable primer on Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta for newcomers and others interested here as well.

 

[Jainarayan]

I know my views have offended people. It was never my intent, but it worked out that way. So what can you recommend I do so that people don't take offense. I can't change the fact that I have some very traditional views on Hinduism. Where is the problem, that I'm expressing them, or that people are taking offense?

It's not your problem, it's theirs. No offense should be taken where none is intended. And I think anyone who is a regular or semi-regular of any internet community has (should have?) a basic understanding of other members' writing styles.

It's hard to communicate in writing. There are only so many smilies one can use. I use a lot of "yeah well... ", "uh huh... " "mm... " and other colloquial and informal 'utterances' and fillers to tone down the seriousness of something I'm saying. As well as a lot of emphasis markers. If someone points out something from their p.o.v. or is a downright correction I use "OK, thanks... " or " yeah, I get it... " That's just my writing style (it's kind of how I talk too unless I'm being uppity and pedantic ).

I wont be a hypocrite and say I've never been offended on the internet, and boy have I been to some sites that can put B.G. 12.13-15 sorely to the test. But it's my choice to get peed off or not.

 

[ratikala]

dear vinayaka ji ,

This is complicated ...

I express my views. You express your views. Jai expresses his views. I don't see anything wrong in that.

there is no wrong if it is humbly dillivered which I have allways held your veiws to be :namaste

I know my views have offended people. It was never my intent, but it worked out that way. So what can you recommend I do so that people don't take offense. I can't change the fact that I have some very traditional views on Hinduism. Where is the problem, that I'm expressing them, or that people are taking offense?

you traditional veiws in my opinion are not in the least offensive , I hope all have the sence to see that they come from the heart of a person to who holds their practice as sacred . there are times when we need to express some fellings and times when we need to stand in defence of dharma .

 

[Vinayaka]

Would you mind starting a thread explaining your views and their traditional pedigree? I think it would be a valuable primer on Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta for newcomers and others interested here as well.

I won't start a thread because tradition is 'sacred is secret, and secret is sacred' and in the tradition of humility, I wouldn't be able to answer the questions anyway. I don't come here to engage in argument. It is my tradition to not talk of one's sampradaya or teacher, except to close friends, or those who might be keenly interested. For the purposes of starting a debate or opening the teachings to outsider critique, it would just be unwise, as has been proven time and time again.

But by 'traditional' I meant more in a cultural way, like this:

I'm a vegetarian., and eat South Indian traditional fare perhaps half my meals.
I wear traditional clothing (veshti) to temples.
I believe in the sanctity of the Hindu temple and in the priests, and the need to protect this sanctity.
I'm not a universalist, and like my Saivism pure.
I believe in the power of pigrimage, sadhana, japa, and more. I do do those things.
I think that wise arranged marriages is the best way, but understand reality of today.
I believe in purity within marriage and dharma.

I'd rather make a garland for Lord Muruga while singing bhajan than engage in debate.

So we'll leave the debating to others like yourself, who are much more qualified than a person like me. I have no 'pedigree'. That sounds like a breed of dog.

 

[Marble]

what does sanatana dharma mean to you ?

Do unto others as you would have them do to you (in this or another life).

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji ,

I think the intellect is too often made out as a target.

In most of our philosophies, intellect is held as sattva, mind as rajas, and ahamkar as tamas.

I think this is the problem , interect can be of two kinds as you say interlect is held to be sattva , truth , but it is not unknown for the inflamed ego to grasp at its own perceived inteligence where upon it swiftly becomes ahamkara as there is a proud I who belives it self to be the possessor of inteligence .

so the intelect of sattva is pure interlect realised and held humbly in the heart as the most dear and precious blessing it is not ours but a gift from the lord , it is a gift to be revered and shared .

interlect when held in the mind is turbulent as the mind can vacilate between sattva and tammas lacking the clarity of pure understanding mind can attatch to the inteligence which comes of interlect beliving it to be ones own , from this stems ahamkara the false conception around interlect and inteligence .

and it is this un settled tamasic impure nature which abuses its own inate inteligence .

 

[ratikala]

dear vinayaka ji

I won't start a thread because tradition is 'sacred is secret, and secret is sacred' and in the tradition of humility, I wouldn't be able to answer the questions anyway. I don't come here to engage in argument. It is my tradition to not talk of one's sampradaya or teacher, except to close friends, or those who might be keenly interested. For the purposes of starting a debate or opening the teachings to outsider critique, it would just be unwise, as has been proven time and time again.

yes , I can very much understand this feeling our personal worship and relationship with our tradition can and should at times be a very private experience and not one easily explained , I like to hear about anothers tradition but only what they feel is apropriate to disclose .

But by 'traditional' I meant more in a cultural way, like this:

I'm a vegetarian., and eat South Indian traditional fare perhaps half my meals.
I wear traditional clothing (veshti) to temples.
I believe in the sanctity of the Hindu temple and in the priests, and the need to protect this sanctity.
I'm not a universalist, and like my Saivism pure.
I believe in the power of pigrimage, sadhana, japa, and more. I do do those things.
I think that wise arranged marriages is the best way, but understand reality of today.
I believe in purity within marriage and dharma.

I'd rather make a garland for Lord Muruga while singing bhajan than engage in debate.

jai jai , :bow:

 

[ratikala]

dear jainarayan

Oh, yes... "what does sanatana dharma mean to you ?" Good question, hard to define... ahimsaa (thought, word and deed, to others and myself) to the best of my ability.

yes it is hard to define , but important to understand .

sanatana , meaning eternal , dharma meaning rightiousness , thus it can be aplied as religion , duty and truth as it is duty and truth which uphold society .

I was taught it as eternal religious principles , that which upholds ,and eternal in the respect that it is un changing ,

you give the principle of ahimsa this is a perfect example in that the principle of ahimsa is an eternaly just principle , you refine this by saying "in thought word and deed" this is perfectly correct , can there ever be a time when ahimsa is not a dharmic quality ? can there ever be a time when adharma will uphold society ?

I'm going to cop out and say that most of what I believe Sanatana Dharma is and means is spelled out in the Bhagavad Gita. No wonder Swami Tapasyananda's version has the cover title The Bhagavad Gita The Scripture for Mankind.

personaly I feel that the gita is a perfect exposition on sanatana dharma , but just recently I do not belive my own eyes ??? dut did I realy see a hindu publicaly diss the bhagavad gita ???
o.k. I dont want to go there ......
so I wish to discuss the subject of sanatana dharma without reference to the gita .

sanatana dharma in ancient scripture is refered to as the dharma bull (the embodiment of morality)and is supported by four limbs

tapas ; austerity
saucham; purity
danya; compassion , mercy
satyam ; truth

(these principles appear also in the yoga and bhakti schools )

you started with ahimsa ..... danya, mercy

marble gave" do as you would be done by " ......danya ...

vinayaka gave adherance to principles ......tapas , danya and saucham

I hope suitably non sectarian and is some thing we can all agree upon ?

 

[Jainarayan]

but just recently I do not belive my own eyes ??? dut did I realy see a hindu publicaly diss the bhagavad gita ???
o.k. I dont want to go there ......

I know you don't want to open something up, but as they say, the bell can't be unrung, and now my curiosity is piqued... but I don't understand "did I realy see a hindu publicaly diss the bhagavad gita ???" Was it my reference to Swami Tapasyananda? My point was that the Gita is so important it is for all mankind, hence the subtitle The Scripture for Mankind.

If it wasn't that, no we won't go there. :no:

 

[Vinayaka]

Some people have claimed I dissed the BG just because I said its not my main scripture. (I'm a Saivite, what am I supposed to say? It is a very important, if not the main scripture for several sects, but even those put Vedas right up there ) Kind of like claiming I hate Brazil because I said I like Argentina.

When somebody is adamant about something, another person's neutrality can be taken as negative. Its an overemotional reaction, IMHO.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

ratikala;3038495]I dont get it , ??? Too much debate on the nature of brahman , too much difference and rivalry between the veiw points of individual sects , not enough adherance to the principles of sanatana dharma ! what is going on ?
what trap are we falling into ?
is this the direction we should be going ?

I get the same feeling as you do, i tend to keep away from bickering on what the nature of Brahman is (but sometimes i cant help myself).

How can I (or anyone else) describe the indescribable????, let alone know its nature.
I only say what i think and only what makes sense to me i put in words.

IMHO - the trap is i think lack of Dharmahshiksh.

what does sanatana dharma mean to you ?

Everything and Everything.

 

[ratikala]

Was it my reference to Swami Tapasyananda? My point was that the Gita is so important it is for all mankind, hence the subtitle The Scripture for Mankind.
dear prabhu ji

If it wasn't that, no we won't go there. :no:

no no rest assured it was not this remark , I rather like the title the scripture for mankind , it is very apt .

 

[Pleroma]

As I have said many times it is simply a waste of time to talk about the nature of Brahman, we shouldn't discuss about the nature of Brahman. Everyone here act like as though they know Brahman and you won't decide the nature of Brahman via discussion.

Instead of going on talking Brahman is this or Brahman is that we need to become true philosophers. True philosophers are the one's who know things as they are and that knowledge only comes by practice.

The wise ones know that one cannot achieve Brahma Vidya through Bhakti or through the intellect or by worshipping the gods. Brahma Vidya is attained once when nature prepares you for it fully until then go and work in the name of God.

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji

Namaste Mata-ji

I chose Sanatana Dharma because to me, this means whatever is true, right and spiritually efficacious at all times, in all places... it transcends the cultural trappings.

my feeling is that it trancends cultural trapings in that it canot be argued with ,

Rishis clothe raw divinity into name and form that is culturally appropriate for a particular time, place and mind-type, and build practices, rituals, etc. around these. Or otherwise, doctrines of the divine are put into a particular viewpoint and promulgated for the sake of some group of people who is predisposed towards this viewpoint...

this is where I realy have to question , I understand in principle what you are saying , but this is very much the question I wish to raise not as any form of arguement or refutation of your statement but to get to the underlaying truth .

the question is realy that of did rishis clothe divinity into name and form ?
or did divinity it self appear in form for the benifit of people at that moment in time ?
naturaly there is a propencity in humankind to promulgate that which is meaningfull to them , and from this traditions arrise , this may be the doing of rishis .
but the question is of identifying the underlaying truth .

I am not wanting to say that any one tradition is any more valid than any other , as it is this that concerns me with the nature of some recent posts .

I am trying to find the unifying truth.
and belive the principles of sanatana dharma to hold the key ,
you say much the same ...

But the Sanatana Dharma transcends these limited cultural manifestations and viewpoints, it is the root source.

I defined dharma here in a way you may also appreciate:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3036085-post2.html

thank you , yes very much appriciated hope you did not mind my posting it in its entirity .

I am prehaps being very demanding in wanting to get to an exact understanding of sanatana dharma , as it is a much used experssion bit one that is by most peoples admission hard to define .

your post defined "dharma" beautifuly , now I am wanting a definition of "sanatana dharma" .
it is as with most truths blissfully simple yet simplicity is often an extremely hard realisation to arive at .

 

[ratikala]

dear pleroma,

As I have said many times it is simply a waste of time to talk about the nature of Brahman, we shouldn't discuss about the nature of Brahman. Everyone here act like as though they know Brahman and you won't decide the nature of Brahman via discussion.

yes this is very much the problem I am seeing is that many people (not all!)argue in the strength of interlectual knowledge, it is for this reason that I wanted us to look at the principles of sanatana dharma .

Instead of going on talking Brahman is this or Brahman is that we need to become true philosophers. True philosophers are the one's who know things as they are and that knowledge only comes by practice.

sanatana dharma is practice this is what I am wanting to bring out into the open .

The wise ones know that one cannot achieve Brahma Vidya through Bhakti or through the intellect or by worshipping the gods. Brahma Vidya is attained once when nature prepares you for it fully until then go and work in the name of God.

from my own point of veiw bhakti as with all yogas is a practice !and by discussing here we are working to establish a common ground so that we continue to work in the name of god with out those names being reffuted .

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji

I get the same feeling as you do, i tend to keep away from bickering on what the nature of Brahman is (but sometimes i cant help myself).

sometimes bickering might be productive .... if some one learns something ?
otherwise yes best to stay out of it .

How can I (or anyone else) describe the indescribable????, let alone know its nature.
I only say what i think and only what makes sense to me i put in words.

:yes: this is all we can do .

IMHO - the trap is i think lack of Dharmahshiksh.

my appologies , just to be certain of your meaning ? do you mean lack of true understanding of dharma ?
before I comment any further ......

 

[ratikala]

dear shantanu ,

the original question of this thread was on the understanding of sanatana dharma , and what sanatana dharma means to you ?

Pegg, by posting these questions it seems that you wish to understand Hindusim and see if there is any reason why you should also consider becoming a Hindu. So let me explain it to you in a nutshell what Hindusim is.

there is no reason that a person of another faith should not wish to understand , without wishing to convert ?
I would generaly say nothing about such a responce if I did not feel it to be grossly missleading , and to say that the idea of puttung hinduism in a nutshell is prehaps not a good thing to do , and to have encapsulated it as you have done is offensive to say the least tomany practicing hindus .
you personaly may hold such veiws , but I must add that these veiws are not widely held.and I for one would not like to endorse your veiws on christianity .

The only structure that is common to all forms of Hindusim is the steadfast pursuit of truth through freethought and rationalism. We accomodate atheists too for that reason. I call this mode of being the practice of satya-advaita. Every life has a fresh new beginning. We as parents give that life the start that it it needs. By its evolution over tens of thousands of years Hindus have realised that a theistic start is the default start that is good for the child. But we teach according to the stories of God that have been handed down to us in the forms of Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, Kali, lakshmi, etc. We do not teach Christianity because it is based on the falsehood of Genesis and the falshood of the effects of sin in terms of an afterlife. We normally hate the creotardism of the Abrhamaic religions for this reason. But we then leave the child to find its own path. We need our indivudual freedoms to think and determine our own futures. We do not require the impostion of a Holy Book of a Holy Person. There are numerous books and millions of gurus all of which have something that we have as food for thought. It shows with what lack of fear of God they all pursued their individual courses to the truth. Since time immemorial people have done a lot of truthseeking and determined Reality but today we still start afresh daily to reaassess and reveiw everything based on our daily experiences of truth.
So Sanatana Dharma is Hinduism, Advaita is Hinduism, Jainism is Hinduism, Sikhism is Hinduism, but Buddhism is not Hinduism because it is not interested in how the universe came into being, and Christianity is not Hinduism.

please please prabhu enter in to a discussion on sanatana dharma ,
what does sanatana dharma mean to you , how may it assist your search for truth ?

 

[Shantanu]

dear shantanu ,

the original question of this thread was on the understanding of sanatana dharma , and what sanatana dharma means to you ?



there is no reason that a person of another faith should not wish to understand , without wishing to convert ?
I would generaly say nothing about such a responce if I did not feel it to be grossly missleading , and to say that the idea of puttung hinduism in a nutshell is prehaps not a good thing to do , and to have encapsulated it as you have done is offensive to say the least tomany practicing hindus .
you personaly may hold such veiws , but I must add that these veiws are not widely held.and I for one would not like to endorse your veiws on christianity .

please please prabhu enter in to a discussion on sanatana dharma ,
what does sanatana dharma mean to you , how may it assist your search for truth ?

Perhaps you can tell us what 'sanatana' means first, and whether Christianity is sanatana dharma?