-
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!
Ask Me Stuff (Secular, Hindu, Indian, interested in Buddhism) :)
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
Great, thanks for being up for this! Here's my first: I know you have some familiarity with Confucianism, but do you also have much with Daoism? If so, what do you make of the difference in focus of the two, to what extent are they complementary and which traditions might parallel them in these ways among Indian schools of thought?
How is your first-hand experience with religious diversity? I take it that you live somewhere in India?
Actually no. I don't know much about Daoism. I am hoping to strive to learn more in the near future.
Very vague outline (based on what my Confucian friends said), Confucian is more this-worldly dealing with making of a person and his relationships and duties in society while Daoism is more of rejecting the social norms and becoming reconnected with nature and spontaneity.
Theravada. I have done mindfulness meditation often and I am reading the Buddhist Nikayas. Also interested in Buddhist philosophy, both types.
Did. Now I live in US. Had been part of the multi-faith group in the university while in US as well. So experienced diversity in both places.
Actually no. I don't know much about Daoism. I am hoping to strive to learn more in the near future.
Very vague outline (based on what my Confucian friends said), Confucian is more this-worldly dealing with making of a person and his relationships and duties in society while Daoism is more of rejecting the social norms and becoming reconnected with nature and spontaneity.
OK, cool - I know Daoism a fair bit, but not Confucianism!
On home ground: Do you think Neo-Vedanta is a exonymous catch-all for universalist normative (monistic) Hinduism? Or a genuine distinct school of thought and tradition with differences from Advaita Vedanta in its philosophical conclusions and/or methodology?
I think today it is becoming the former though when Vivekananda (or Aurobindo) and others started it was the former. It was an attempt to reinvigorate Indian thought and culture by gaining inspiration from the ancient thought, just as the reintroduction of Greek thought did in the West. Currently most Indian religious groups are doing their own thing and the long long tradition of comparative philosophy, hermeneutics and theology by talking, discussing and debating each other...which was considered a critical part of the Indian religion...has been lost. The modern movements have become too dependent on personal charisma of their founders and leaders. I do not think that is good thing in the long run.
Did you mean to say it was the former and became the latter?
And would you agree that central to any of this stuff must be personal experience? I know the Ramakrishna 'sampradaya' is big on that. I am, in a roundabout way, part of it myself.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Nice! Do you distinguish between Theravada and early Buddhism?
Could you explain what you meant by the two labels. I don't think I understood you correctly.
Personal and communal experience has always been very important, its not the only important thing even in Advaita tradition. What is missing is the structure that can create people like Vacaspati Misra who use their spiritual discernment into excellent scholarship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vācaspati_Miśra
I do.
OK, I'm back.
Well you just used the word former twice by accident - I got the message anyway.
Well I can certainly see the appeal, but from your perspective what is the benefit of the production of such scholarship?
Well you just used the word former twice by accident - I got the message anyway.
Well I can certainly see the appeal, but from your perspective what is the benefit of the production of such scholarship?
It leads to growth and development of philosophical, religious, spiritual and moral thought and praxis in the different traditions within India. For example, spiritual experience is the foundation of both Vedantic and Buddhist praxis. A sustained discussion on why different methods of meditation leads to different experiences in Buddhism and Yoga coupled with a careful analysis of what are the similarities and dissimilarities of the experiences that are obtained by current practitioners would be very illuminating. Updating the metaphysical arguments of Nyaya-Vaiseshika, Samkhya and Madhyamaka based on the methodologies and discoveries in science and mathematics would also be very illuminating. Evaluating the role of Dharma (or Dhamma) in informing the duties and responsibilities of citizens in a modern nation state will also be illuminating. Finally, doing these things in a joint manner (as was done in Taxila, Nalanda and other universities of classical India) for all the Darsana-s confers the sense that there is indeed a united effort here despite the difference among the schools, and its more than this Guru says this and this other Guru says that.
You were raised as a Hindu, right?? I remember you mentioning that you lived in Bengal (Calcutta)?
If so, which tradition, if any? Shakta? Gaudiya? Nothing in particular?
If so, which tradition, if any? Shakta? Gaudiya? Nothing in particular?
What is your view of the (Ayodhya) Ram Temple conflict?
The breaking of the mosque was wrong. Currently the land dispute is under the Supreme Court. Their decision, whatever it is, should be followed.