Clinging to non-duality--making a nest out of it--is a state of makyo, not kensho, imo.
-
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!
What is Sanatan Dharma
- Thread starter zenzero
- Start date
Good point.
I believe that is a good reason to consider the tale of the Ten Bulls.
Ten Bulls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I wonder what would be a good choice for a Hindu comparable teaching.
Ravi500
Active Member
Thank you Crossfire, for this link. :namaste
Buddha here states the state of mind under the influence of rajas and sattva and super-sattva.
However I would say that all these states appear in dvaita or duality,with the seperating screen blurring with each successive state.
I agree with you over here, Luis.
The test of a system lies in its practical application.
Last edited:
How do you feel about those three meanings that I listed in the glossary, Zenzero (post #5 in this thread, for those unaware)?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/dharmic-religions-dir/162352-rfs-dharmic-glossary.html
I know that you feel that accept the second meaning, but what about the others? Do you feel that they clash among them? Is that a problem?
Personally, I think that the first two meanings are necessary, the second most of all. I'm not so certain about the third.
In any case, whenever Sanatana (or Sanatan) Dharma is meant as not exactly the same as Hinduism, context becomes an absolute need for misunderstandings not to happen.
What do you (and the others) feel?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/dharmic-religions-dir/162352-rfs-dharmic-glossary.html
I know that you feel that accept the second meaning, but what about the others? Do you feel that they clash among them? Is that a problem?
Personally, I think that the first two meanings are necessary, the second most of all. I'm not so certain about the third.
In any case, whenever Sanatana (or Sanatan) Dharma is meant as not exactly the same as Hinduism, context becomes an absolute need for misunderstandings not to happen.
What do you (and the others) feel?
Isn't part of defining Sanatana Dharma also acknowledging what it is not? (neti neti) Should we start a separate thread for that?
I feel that Sanatana Dharma and Hinduism are synonyms. But it's never an important enough point for me to argue incessantly about. Doing daily sadhana, attempting to live according to the yamas and niyamas, meditating (if you can) going on pilgrimage, being kind to one's brothers and sisters ... in other words, taking action over discussion about action, limiting anger, well these things are actually important. The action outweighs the discussion by about 100 to 1.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend LuisDantas,
Good point and appreciate your focused approach.
Being strictly confirming to the essence of Sanatan Dharma as having nothing to do with any particular religion even though the coining of the word is of a particular region but since it is devised by enlightened people in One Mind am sure the third alternative is the correct one. However as always when and where mind play a role there will be play of words and biases creeping in and so where majority is with their minds anything is possible.
What others feel? maybe you would care to read the two threads on the subject one here [comparative section] and the other under 'Hinduism'.
Love & rgds
Good point and appreciate your focused approach.
Being strictly confirming to the essence of Sanatan Dharma as having nothing to do with any particular religion even though the coining of the word is of a particular region but since it is devised by enlightened people in One Mind am sure the third alternative is the correct one. However as always when and where mind play a role there will be play of words and biases creeping in and so where majority is with their minds anything is possible.
What others feel? maybe you would care to read the two threads on the subject one here [comparative section] and the other under 'Hinduism'.
Love & rgds
Ravi500
Active Member
This is a good thread ,indeed.
However,for all practical purposes,I have been informed that the Hinduism forum has no space for syncretists.
I think we can put a second thread in the dharmic forums if possible as per zen's suggestion.
I appreciate the intent, but let me have your take on a personal situation that happened not long ago:
A Catholic friend of mine was chatting with me and I mentioned Dharma (meaning Buddhadharma) a few times. He eventually warned me to be careful not to be caught by Hindus talking about Buddhism as if it were Dharma (he actually complemented that with "or at least as Sanatana Dharma"), because it might be seen as unduly appropriating the term.
My attempts at explaining that while Sanatana Dharma is indeed Hinduism and not Buddhism, but Dharma by itself is a well accepted enough word for use by Buddhism, were cut short by his claim that Hindus had accepted Catholicism as an Universal Religion. He went on to explain that St. Francis of Assisi's teachings were branded as Sanatana Dharma by Indian locals, which he saw as support for his conclusion.
Personally, I think that either him or whoever taught him the tale were confusing the first and second meanings of Sanatana Dharma, a situation which I view as unfortunate and at least potentially abusive. An important part of the strength of Dharma as a religious approach is avoiding such general statements on whole multitudes of practicioners while still acknowledging the wisdom and good work of religious teachers and practicioners on a case-by-case basis.
His misunderstanding, unintentional and well-meaning as it may have been, is IMO a failure to take advantage of that important strength, if not worse.
As you may tell, I feel that such a situation illustrates a good reason to be clear and give context when we talk of Sanatana Dharma.
What do you think?
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Ravi,
Rest am with everyone in any form as long as everyone is Happy!
Love & rgds
In fact have withdrawn my suggestion finding that the time for total understanding of the word Sanatan and Dharma is not in its purest form and so realise that the time has not yet arisen [maybe not in Kali yug] for Sanatan dharma to be understood/accepted in such a form.
Rest am with everyone in any form as long as everyone is Happy!
Love & rgds
Luis, I don't care. I see a huge difference between defining dharma, and practising dharma. Defining dharma is trivial (to me). Practising dharma is of utmost importance. If you take a look at this thread I started 2 years back, it pretty much sums up my feelings on it. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/127247-hindu-ethics-yamas-niyamas.html
Treks
Well-Known Member
Luis,
There is a similar sentiment held in Sikhi. If someone goes to a Sikh forum and starts talking about "dharma" (or Sanatan Dharma), the people there are likely to go on defensive, because they will interpret the person as being a Hindu with the intent of making Sikhi appear like it was a branch of the Hindu religion family tree, and undermining Sikhi's uniqueness and replacing it's unique interpretations with older Hindu ones.
This is further compounded as, being a 'dharmic' religion, a lot of the language is similar, but the terms are understood differently. This might be what Buddhists feel sometimes, too.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Good point.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
This is a good thread ,indeed.
However,for all practical purposes,I have been informed that the Hinduism forum has no space for syncretists.
I think we can put a second thread in the dharmic forums if possible as per zen's suggestion.
A suggestion, just put threads in general religious debates forum.
:meditate:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
I apologize for butting in:
There are Sanatani-s that believe every religion is Hindu, and they
are all Hinduaic. This is misleading, however. It is the traditional Hindus
that usually point out the unneeded amalgamations, amalgamations
which were taken into account w/o consultation of the practitioners of
those [mis]appropriated faiths. e.g., Even Buddhists and Sikhs will point
out that they are not Hindu, and often times, understandably and rightly
so, feel uncomfortable with such misidentification.
There are Sanatani-s that believe every religion is Hindu, and they
are all Hinduaic. This is misleading, however. It is the traditional Hindus
that usually point out the unneeded amalgamations, amalgamations
which were taken into account w/o consultation of the practitioners of
those [mis]appropriated faiths. e.g., Even Buddhists and Sikhs will point
out that they are not Hindu, and often times, understandably and rightly
so, feel uncomfortable with such misidentification.
Last edited:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Most self-identified Sanatani-s that I have encountered are quite universalistic.
EDIT: Please take a look at my edited, combined post - #58.
EDIT: Please take a look at my edited, combined post - #58.
Last edited: