Hindu: The fallacy of 'Hinduism'

[Surya Deva]

Your posts reflect little understanding of the Vedas - which, given your name, is a bit boggling. I think I'm done here. Good day. Enjoy your debate - and do try, once in a while, to bring something of value to the forums rather than senseless division.

This is basically an adhominem. If you think my views are wrong, then correct them with the counter-view. I am a rational person I will consider your views. (My views are held by many outspoken intellectuals)

A debate is a means via which we can start a dialectic process that will lead to greater truth, so as long as we engage each others points

PS Hinduism does not need me to divide it. It is already divided.

 

[Surya Deva]

Argumentum ad numerum.

Besides, Advaita Vedanta is, adherant-wise, a very tiny religion compared to other forms of Hinduism. If numbers do represent a religion, Advaita Vedanta would be among the worst representatives of Hinduism.

I did not mean in terms of getting numbers, but to get the views of Muslims and Christians as regards to their views on religious pluralism and the official stance. I already know the official stance in their religions on religious pluralism lol

Again, religion has nothing to do with external reality. It's an inward journey.

I'm a Shaiva, so I consider Siva to be supreme.

Siva is all-pervasive (vishnum).

Vishnu is auspicious (sivam).

In Advaita there is no distinction between external and internal. Advaita is based on the absolute reality which is beyond external and internal.

 

[Riverwolf]

I did not mean in terms of getting numbers, but to get the views of Muslims and Christians as regards to their views on religious pluralism and the official stance. I already know the official stance in their religions on religious pluralism lol

The vast diversity in those religions, even in terms of Scriptural interpretation, demonstrates that there is no "official" stance in them.

In Advaita there is no distinction between external and internal. Advaita is based on the absolute reality which is beyond external and internal.

That's a mindset, like any other. This does not negate my point.

Different people have different states of mind. The various paths are designed around that, since there can't be a one-size-fits-all path.

 

[ratikala]

A related point I want to make on the term 'Hinduism' is the term gives a misleading impression that Hinduism is a single comprehensive religion and its adherents share common beliefs and practices. But the more insidious ramification is that all its adherents must accept each others beliefs and practices as equally valid to their own -

I am greatly saddened that you feel this way , when you first came back to this forum you said ...

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.

sadly I fear you have alienated yourself by the veiws which you hold , I for one welcomed you in the hope that you would feel less angry and alianated if you felt that your points were listened to and concidered , I welcomed you despite your attack on bhakti .

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.

and here on this forum allso you give your own interpretations and veiws on hinduism , which again are not being that happily accepted , I for one have tried to reason with you but your veiw comes accross as intollerant and at times hostile

may I tell you a story , ....how I came to hinduism , I had spent many years happily practicing buddhism untill an allmighty row broke out between sects , from my understanding this was so contradictory to the principles of buddhism that I had no alternative to leave the group I had been meditating with I spent a few years trying to find another temple or group to practice with but where ever I went I kept hearing about arguements and rifts between sects , ......in dispair I found my self exploring many temples in search of somewhere I could feel free to continue my sadhana , one day I found myself visiting a vaisnava temple who were so welcoming and accepting even of a buddhist that I stayed and became very much a part of the comunity . what I learnt from this is that fixed veiws and rigidity are destructive and destroy a tradition from within , yet tollerance and acceptance allow for growth and a flowering of dharma .

you love your tradition , I love mine , let us not argue , Let us tell each other of the benifits we have derived and let us exchange respect from one dharmic school to another without superiority or judgement

and this is when I cry foul. I do not recognize other forms of Hinduism other than mine to be valid,

prabhu , this is a lonly place to be no wonder you feel alienated !

so I should NOT be forced to consider them equally as valid as mine. We will see constantly how Hindus make other Hindus feel like bad people just because they do not agree with their beliefs and practices. We can see this reflected in this thread itself:

no one is forcing you only suggesting that there is another way , a way where no one has to feel like a bad person , but where one can feel a part of a comunity a comunity that accepts the differences in each others feelings around such a personal subject as faith .

the buddha once likened dharma to medicine and himself as the physician , medicine in this case which cures our ignorance , and as we are all of different natures and mentalitys that dharma is delivered to us through different phylosopical practices , yet still it is the same dharma at its root . so there is no one perfect and universaly valid school or tradition , just one for you and one for me this is hinduism at its best
prehaps you would like to join us :camp:

 

[Surya Deva]

The vast diversity in those religions, even in terms of Scriptural interpretation, demonstrates that there is no "official" stance in them.

There are indeed official views in Christianity and Islam as decided by religious clergies. They do have central doctrines they agree on. For example I would never meet a Muslim that tells me idol-worship is OK or Mohammed is not the last and final prophet.

Again it is better just asking Christians and Muslims directly on what think of religious pluralism.

That's a mindset, like any other. This does not negate my point.

No, it's the central doctrine of Advaita. Brahman/Atman is the ONLY truth. We do not accept variations in truth

Different people have different states of mind. The various paths are designed around that, since there can't be a one-size-fits-all path.

If you get a bacteria infection, you will be given antibiotics as treatment - irrespective of whether your a man, woman, Indian, English, Chinese, gay, hetrosexual, lower caste, higher caste, carpenter, king etc.

Likewise, though people all have different mind content, the general structures of the mind are similar and obey the same psychological laws. This has been demonstrated in psychology. Everybody has thoughts, feelings, memories, sensations, perceptions and consciousness.

Advaita is concerned with the universals truths which are beyond space, time causality and not the particular or temporal truths. There is indeed only ONE way that one can attain liberation as per Advaita. As the cause of our bondage is ignorance, the cause of liberation is knowledge. When knowledge dawns all duality/diversity/separation disappears and only the absolute reality remains.

 

[Riverwolf]

There are indeed official views in Christianity and Islam as decided by religious clergies. They do have central doctrines they agree on. For example I would never meet a Muslim that tells me idol-worship is OK or Mohammed is not the last and final prophet.

Again it is better just asking Christians and Muslims directly on what think of religious pluralism.

Clergies disagree all the time.

Besides, the Qur'an does have a stance on universalism:

To you your way, and to me mine. 109:6

Oh, and one more passage from the Qur'an:

Those who believe (in the Qur-ān),
And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures),
And the Christians and the Sabians,—
Any who believe in God
And the Last Day,
And work righteousness,
Shall have their reward

2:62

No, it's the central doctrine of Advaita. Brahman/Atman is the ONLY truth. We do not accept variations in truth

If you get a bacteria infection, you will get be given antibiotics - irrespective of whether your a man, woman, Indian, English, Chinese, gay, hetrosexual, lower caste, higher caste etc.

Likewise, though people all have different mind content, the general structures of the mind are similar and obey the same psychological laws. This has been demonstrated in psychology. Everybody has thoughts, feelings, memories, sensations, perceptions and consciousness.

Advaita is concerned with the universals truths which are beyond space, time causality and not the particular or temporal truths. There is indeed only ONE way that one can attain liberation as per Advaita. As the cause of our bondage is ignorance, the cause of liberation is knowledge. When knowledge dawns all duality/diversity/separation disappears and only the absolute reality remains.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what they all say. "My way is the ONLY way!"

I've long since discarded such nonsense.

Just because a shoe doesn't fit you doesn't mean it won't fit anyone else.

Likewise, you won't necessarily be given the same antibiotic as someone else, since you might have an allergy to it. In that sense, you'll get a different one. You might also get different levels of prescription depending on the state of your immune system.

 

[Surya Deva]

Clergies disagree all the time.

Besides, the Qur'an does have a stance on universalism:

To you your way, and to me mine. 109:6

Oh, and one more passage from the Qur'an:

Those who believe (in the Qur-ān),
And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures),
And the Christians and the Sabians,—
Any who believe in God
And the Last Day,
And work righteousness,
Shall have their reward

2:62

Interesting, in that case I would like to ask the Muslims what their position is on religious pluralism. As I cannot answer on their behalf, as my knowledge of Islam is paltry.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what they all say. "My way is the ONLY way!"

I've long since discarded such nonsense.

In the end somebody has to be telling the truth. Finding the truth might be like finding a needle in a haystack, but that does not mean there is no needle.

One person says the Earth is flat and the sun is a tiny orb that orbits around the Earth in the morning, then goes and rests in the sea and the other person says the Earth is not flat but a tiny sphere that rotates around the much larger sun. In this case clearly one person really does have the ACTUAL ONLY truth.

Just because a shoe doesn't fit you doesn't mean it won't fit anyone else.

Likewise, you won't necessarily be given the same antibiotic as someone else, since you might have an allergy to it. In that sense, you'll get a different one. You might also get different levels of prescription depending on the state of your immune system.

However, a shoe is still made to fit feet, and not your hands or your head. So there are still parameters to the truth. How antibiotics work and what kind of antibiotics should be prescribed still obey the parameters of scientific laws, derived from studying the human body and interaction with antibiotics.

Although we all have different bodies, we are constituted similarly enough to make the science of medicine possible. Likewise, the science of the mind is possible because our mind is constituted similarly.

Now stop nitpicking and see the general point I am making. The universal nature of all humans is the same. The reason why humans are in bondage is also the same(ignorance) and the cause of liberation is also the same(knowledge) This is why Yoga was developed, based on the science of reality and mind which is universal for all humans. Otherwise the science of Yoga would not be possible.

 

[Surya Deva]

I am greatly saddened that you feel this way , when you first came back to this forum you said ...
sadly I fear you have alienated yourself by the veiws which you hold , I for one welcomed you in the hope that you would feel less angry and alianated if you felt that your points were listened to and concidered , I welcomed you despite your attack on bhakti .

As Jesus would say, "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

and here on this forum allso you give your own interpretations and veiws on hinduism , which again are not being that happily accepted , I for one have tried to reason with you but your veiw comes accross as intollerant and at times hostile

Of course they would not be accepted, because I tell inconvenient truths about Hinduism. Such as

1) How Hinduism is completely fragmented and hopelessly divided internally, reflecting in the society of Hinduism and the cause of the fall of Hindu civilisation. But this curse of 'diversity' is still celebrated by Hindus.
2) How Hinduism has completely forgotten its Vedic heritage and disconnected from it in favour of Smriti traditions of Puranas.
3) The irrationality, fundamentalism, inequality and superstitious that is widespread in Hinduism
4) The ground reality of corruption, dead traditions and ritualism

I probably think of Hinduism the same way as Jesus thought of Judaism. I think Hinduism needs massive reforms or clean ups, or it is better to just partition it and separate all the different religions.

may I tell you a story , ....how I came to hinduism , I had spent many years happily practicing buddhism untill an allmighty row broke out between sects , from my understanding this was so contradictory to the principles of buddhism that I had no alternative to leave the group I had been meditating with I spent a few years trying to find another temple or group to practice with but where ever I went I kept hearing about arguements and rifts between sects

And this lead to you Hinduism, which is even more Sectarian than Buddhism? Hinduism is in a state of chaos. Many people prefer it, because its almost like the believe whatever you want and do whatever you want religion. It's not really even a religion. It's a chaos of ideas, beliefs and practices. It's like mass schizophrenia. If Hindus could actually agree on some core principles we could create some order out of the chaos, but Hindus are stubborn and stuck to their dead traditions.

you love your tradition , I love mine , let us not argue , Let us tell each other of the benifits we have derived and let us exchange respect from one dharmic school to another without superiority or judgement

Lets not argue in the debate forum?

prabhu , this is a lonly place to be no wonder you feel alienated !

Ones religion is their own personal affair. I don't have to believe in the religious belief of other people. I don't have to be lonely though - I can socialize with everybody, but it does not mean I accept their religious beliefs.

no one is forcing you only suggesting that there is another way , a way where no one has to feel like a bad person , but where one can feel a part of a comunity a comunity that accepts the differences in each others feelings around such a personal subject as faith .

the buddha once likened dharma to medicine and himself as the physician , medicine in this case which cures our ignorance , and as we are all of different natures and mentalitys that dharma is delivered to us through different phylosopical practices , yet still it is the same dharma at its root . so there is no one perfect and universaly valid school or tradition , just one for you and one for me this is hinduism at its best
prehaps you would like to join us :camp:

Lets not pretend that everything is love and dovey in the word and we all live in peace and get along. The fact is we fundamentally disagree with one another and we should actually encourage disagreements, because out of dialectic comes progress. The reason why Hindu civilization flourished in the past was due to dialectic, and the reason it is stagnant today is because there is no dialectic, everybody has just accepted this dogma that all paths are valid and pretty much rendered the religion of Hinduism insignificant and inconsequential.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Surya Deva;3064138]As Jesus would say, "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

Ahh, a Christian in disguise ,,, i knew it all along.

1) How Hinduism is completely fragmented and hopelessly divided internally, reflecting in the society of Hinduism and the cause of the fall of Hindu civilisation. But this curse of 'diversity' is still celebrated by Hindus.

Division was not the case of the Fall of the Hindu empire, if it were it would have made the British "divide and rule", useless.

2) How Hinduism has completely forgotten its Vedic heritage and disconnected from it in favour of Smriti traditions of Puranas.

That not the fault of Hinduism, you cant blame a Philosophy for failing or forgetting, its the people who failed and forgot.

3) The irrationality, fundamentalism, inequality and superstitious that is widespread in Hinduism

There are many groups within Hinduism against these, and have been for centuries.

4) The ground reality of corruption, dead traditions and ritualism

How can you call any tradition dead?, Have the Hindu Indian peoples been wiped off the planet, or are you suggesting the Indian tradition connected with Hinduism is dead.
Or are you just hopping and trying?

I probably think of Hinduism the same way as Jesus thought of Judaism. I think Hinduism needs massive reforms or clean ups, or it is better to just partition it and separate all the different religions.

the Moguls tried, the British tried, the Christian Missionaries are trying, the Jihadis are trying, join them if you wish.

And this lead to you Hinduism, which is even more Sectarian than Buddhism? Hinduism is in a state of chaos. Many people prefer it, because its almost like the believe whatever you want and do whatever you want religion. It's not really even a religion. It's a chaos of ideas, beliefs and practices. It's like mass schizophrenia. If Hindus could actually agree on some core principles we could create some order out of the chaos, but Hindus are stubborn and stuck to their dead traditions.

Again with the dead tradition thing, why don't you revive it, why don't you put some positive effort in instead of the negative bias that you portray.
If you hate Hinduism, leave, no one is stopping you, there is no fear of fatwa on your head, no eternal damnation, why not just become one of the abrahamics and have your Unity.

Dont worry ull still be welcomed in Hinduism, if you leave, even if you are a Abrahamic.

 

[Riverwolf]

In the end somebody has to be telling the truth. Finding the truth might be like finding a needle in a haystack, but that does not mean there is no needle.

One person says the Earth is flat and the sun is a tiny orb that orbits around the Earth in the morning, then goes and rests in the sea and the other person says the Earth is not flat but a tiny sphere that rotates around the much larger sun. In this case clearly one person really does have the ACTUAL ONLY truth.

But, again, that's not what religion is. Whether the earth is flat or not is a physical, easily measurable matter that anyone who travels far enough or goes high enough can determine.

But religion is not like that.

Don't forget that Sri Ramakrishna himself followed many paths, and determined that all of them were correct. He was quite the bhakta.

However, a shoe is still made to fit feet, and not your hands or your head. So there are still parameters to the truth. How antibiotics work and what kind of antibiotics should be prescribed still obey the parameters of scientific laws, derived from studying the human body and interaction with antibiotics.

Although we all have different bodies, we are constituted similarly enough to make the science of medicine possible. Likewise, the science of the mind is possible because our mind is constituted similarly.

Now stop nitpicking and see the general point I am making. The universal nature of all humans is the same. The reason why humans are in bondage is also the same(ignorance) and the cause of liberation is also the same(knowledge) This is why Yoga was developed, based on the science of reality and mind which is universal for all humans. Otherwise the science of Yoga would not be possible.

My arguments are valid, since your path is only analogous to one particular medicine, which may not fit everybody.

What constitutes this liberation you speak of?

 

[Riverwolf]

Lets not pretend that everything is love and dovey in the word and we all live in peace and get along. The fact is we fundamentally disagree with one another and we should actually encourage disagreements, because out of dialectic comes progress. The reason why Hindu civilization flourished in the past was due to dialectic, and the reason it is stagnant today is because there is no dialectic, everybody has just accepted this dogma that all paths are valid and pretty much rendered the religion of Hinduism insignificant and inconsequential.

Ah, so all this is based on that modern myth that there's some sort of "progress" going on.

The idea that all, or most, paths are valid is not dogmatic. It's an idea that goes against the very nature of what dogma is.

 

[ratikala]

As Jesus would say, "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

then use it to cut throug the ignorance that devides rather than causing division !

Of course they would not be accepted, because I tell inconvenient truths about Hinduism. Such as

your opinions not truths !

1) How Hinduism is completely fragmented and hopelessly divided internally, reflecting in the society of Hinduism and the cause of the fall of Hindu civilisation. But this curse of 'diversity' is still celebrated by Hindus.

each individual tradition celebrates its own tradition but accepts the equal validity of the other .

2) How Hinduism has completely forgotten its Vedic heritage and disconnected from it in favour of Smriti traditions of Puranas.

if you wish to debate then we will debate ! you want to say " completely forgotten its Vedic heritage"it is easy to defeat one who makes such sweeping statements , as this statement I can prove to be false by providing many hindus who are in full rememberance of what you call vedic heritage and have not dissconected from it in favor of , ...but who revere the puranas along side other texts . in fact the diversity of the hindu traditions has helped to keep alive a much larger body of knowledge than one school of thought alone could possibly do .

3) The irrationality, fundamentalism, inequality and superstitious that is widespread in Hinduism

irationality and fundamentalism is rife everywhere every religion is plagued by such problems it is not unique to hinduism it is a manifestation of ignorance as is inequality and superstition .

4) The ground reality of corruption, dead traditions and ritualism

corruption also is a human problem from which no religion is free , its root is also in ignorance .

I probably think of Hinduism the same way as Jesus thought of Judaism. I think Hinduism needs massive reforms or clean ups, or it is better to just partition it and separate all the different religions.

so now you put yourself on a level with jesus your delusions know no bounds !

partition is not the answer as in a short space of time there will be divisions within your divisions and the need for partition will be un ending .

And this lead to you Hinduism, which is even more Sectarian than Buddhism?

sectarianism as I have said is a product of ignorance and afflicts all religionsat one time or another , yet that does not justify perpetuating it .

Hinduism is in a state of chaos. Many people prefer it, because its almost like the believe whatever you want and do whatever you want religion. It's not really even a religion. It's a chaos of ideas, beliefs and practices. It's like mass schizophrenia. If Hindus could actually agree on some core principles we could create some order out of the chaos, but Hindus are stubborn and stuck to their dead traditions.

this is your conception and not in accord with many who seek to uphold harmony through finding the unifying thread .

Lets not argue in the debate forum?

it is quite possible to debate without stooping to the kind of bigotted attacks that you seem to favour .

Ones religion is their own personal affair. I don't have to believe in the religious belief of other people. I don't have to be lonely though - I can socialize with everybody, but it does not mean I accept their religious beliefs.

and in the same respect they should be free to hold their beleifs without your sensure .
you are the one who complained about alianisation ?

Lets not pretend that everything is love and dovey in the word and we all live in peace and get along. The fact is we fundamentally disagree with one another and we should actually encourage disagreements, because out of dialectic comes progress. The reason why Hindu civilization flourished in the past was due to dialectic, and the reason it is stagnant today is because there is no dialectic, everybody has just accepted this dogma that all paths are valid and pretty much rendered the religion of Hinduism insignificant and inconsequential.

unfortunately this statement merely demonstrates how little you realy know about vedic culture my freind you have just shot yourself in both feet .

 

[Surya Deva]

Ahh, a Christian in disguise ,,, i knew it all along.

Paranoia. Typical Hindu nationalist, thinking anybody that says anything critical about Hinduism must be a Christian in disguise. I also have made some very critical comments about Christianity in the past for the record.

The ability for self-criticism of your own religion is a sign of maturity and intellectual independence.

Division was not the case of the Fall of the Hindu empire, if it were it would have made the British "divide and rule", useless.

Right, so everybody lived happy and peacefully and the big bad wolf British came along and divided everybody and pitted against each other. Again typical Hindu nationalist fantasy of India. The reality is India was already very divided and the British took advantage of those fault lines. India has historically never existed as a united entity, for very brief periods empires have arisen and united parts of it, but for the most part it has existed as a fragmented entity. The modern day nation state of India has never existed in the past.

That not the fault of Hinduism, you cant blame a Philosophy for failing or forgetting, its the people who failed and forgot.

No, it is the fault of Hinduism. The fact the religion of the people was so divided and fragmented itself, reflected in the society of India, which was equally divided and fragmented.

There are many groups within Hinduism against these, and have been for centuries.

This is true, but not enough work has been done on these issues. There are still many people in rural India, remember India is 70% rural practicing oppressive systems like the caste system. Hindu fundamentalism is widespread today and is behind attacks on Muslims and Christians missionaries, most recently in the Gujurat riots, which many international humans rights organizations have called a systematic genocide. There is mass superstition in the society such as bathing in toxic waters like Ganga. Simply put, Hinduism is a mess. Indian Hindus may be prefer to be ignorant about it, but the rest of the world considers Hinduism a mess and mocks it.

How can you call any tradition dead?, Have the Hindu Indian peoples been wiped off the planet, or are you suggesting the Indian tradition connected with Hinduism is dead.
Or are you just hopping and trying?

I mean by dead traditions traditions which are obsolete in the 21st century scientific world - like guru-shishya parampara, idol worship/murti puja, begging on the streers for alms. Yes, India is pretty much dead. It has been reduced to a pathetic state today. While India cannot be saved, Hinduism can be saved, and that is by completely disassociating it from India and making it global, otherwise Hinduism will sink along with India.

The geographical forms of Hinduism are dead and the world does not need them, but the Vedantic/Yogic form of Hinduism is very relevant in the world and as Swami Vivekananda said, it should be the religion of the people of the future. This means we need to divest Hinduism of its pantheon of deities, its dead traditions, its superstition and fundamentalism and reform it for the mindset and the needs of the 21st century.

What Indian Hindus do not realize this is already happening. It is the modern Western intellectuals who now own the asset of Hinduism. They are drawing from Hinduism's wisdom to progress our modern civilisation, while Indian Hindus are stuck in a time warp worshiping stones and monkeys lol I consider people like Schrodinger, Bohm and Einstein more Hindu than I consider Indian Hindus Hindus.

the Moguls tried, the British tried, the Christian Missionaries are trying, the Jihadis are trying, join them if you wish.

Whatever they did, they succeed to a large extent: Modern day Hinduism is a total mess. The youth of Hinduism are embarrassed and turning away from Hinduism in droves. The gurus are corrupt and molesting disciples, and embezzling money from gullible people and are on power trips. Lets face it the religion is a total mess. It needs reform.

Again with the dead tradition thing, why don't you revive it, why don't you put some positive effort in instead of the negative bias that you portray.
If you hate Hinduism, leave, no one is stopping you, there is no fear of fatwa on your head, no eternal damnation, why not just become one of the abrahamics and have your Unity.

Dont worry ull still be welcomed in Hinduism, if you leave, even if you are a Abrahamic.

First of all there is no real religion called 'Hinduism' that you can enter or leave. There is no formal way of joining or leaving. Like I said in the OP it is a mess. It the term "Hindu" is meaningless. It does not tell us anything about ones beliefs or practices. I tell an inconvenient truth - but what I say is true and voiced by many intellectuals.

I am calling a spade a spade - a mess a mess. Hinduism is a mess. But I am not criticizing it out of hatred, but pointing out the mess to show why it imperative that we clean it up. We need central doctrines that all Hindus agree on and central authorities to organize our religion - otherwise there is no religion - it's just religious anarchy.

But there is no hope because Hindus are NEVER going to agree on anything. In the same way Christians, Muslims and Jews won't agree with one another.
This is why it is better to get rid of this fallacious religious classification called 'Hinduism' and adopt the actual authentic term 'Santana Dharma' The only form of Hinduism which is santana is Vedantic/Yogic Hinduism and it found not just in Hinduism, but in the mystical traditions of every religion and in modern science. Geographical Hinduism is not 'sanatana'

 

[Jainarayan]

As Jesus would say, "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

Lord Kalki will come with a sword also. In reality, that verse is completely misunderstood and taken literally, along with the setting brother against brother verses. Jesus was a reformer, probably knowing that his reforms would cause dissension and shake things up. Like the Buddha taught, Jesus taught that the Jewish scriptures were being mindlessly followed ritualistically, with people forgetting the way to either reach God, and/or have internal peace and enlightenment.

Do carry on...

 

[Surya Deva]

But, again, that's not what religion is. Whether the earth is flat or not is a physical, easily measurable matter that anyone who travels far enough or goes high enough can determine.

But religion is not like that.

Yes it is, the divide between what is mind and what is matter is artificial, political rather than ontological. In fact this false dualism between mind and matter is not even a dharmic doctrine, because in dharmic traditions no divide exists between mind and matter, they are both seen as products of nature. This doctrine is a Western philosophical doctrine which attempted to reach a compromise between science and the Christian religion. It was initially put forward by Descartes as an apology for science to the Church. The doctrine said that science only deals with the territory of the measurable physical world and does not encroach on religions territory of the mind. Which we obviously know is nonsense, because science also deals with mind too(psychology, neurology etc) And religion does indeed deal with the physical too for it has made many cosmological and geological claims as regards to how the universe was created, the shape of the Earth, how life developed.

The reason why religious people insist on a divide between religion and science is because so many claims religions has made have been falsified, so they want to pretend religion is still relevant in some areas.

Thus my point is totally valid there is such thing as a truth. If one religions says x is true and another religion says y is true, it is possible that one of these religions is true and one is false. Thus there can be such a thing as a true religion and a false religion.

Don't forget that Sri Ramakrishna himself followed many paths, and determined that all of them were correct. He was quite the bhakta.

Ramarkishna did not follow the path of other religions, rather he adopted an ishata devta from another religion such as Jesus to show that any ishta devta is valid. The concept of ishta devta is not in other religions, thus Ramakrishna was not actually following those religions.

My arguments are valid, since your path is only analogous to one particular medicine, which may not fit everybody.

Bacteria infections are treated with antibiotics. There is only one WAY

What constitutes this liberation you speak of?

Liberation in Dharmic context means leaving the cycle of birth and death called bondage. in Advaita there is ONLY one way to achieve liberation: through knowledge. We do not recognize any other ways. In the same way there is one way to treat an bacteria infection in medicine - antibiotics.

 

[Surya Deva]

ah, so all this is based on that modern myth that there's some sort of "progress" going on.

A 100 years ago we were riding around in horse driven carriages, today we are sending space shuttles to Mars and are on the brink of travelling to our nearest stars. This is not progress?

A 100 years ago a women had no rights and played a secondary role to men. Today, women are holding office, outperforming men at university in most subjects, and become CEO's of companies. This is not progress?

The idea that all, or most, paths are valid is not dogmatic. It's an idea that goes against the very nature of what dogma is.

It is dogmatic because it expects you to accept the philosophy of religious pluralism or relativism. What if we don't agree with the philosophy?

 

[Surya Deva]

In reality, that verse is completely misunderstood and taken literally, along with the setting brother against brother verses. Jesus was a reformer, probably knowing that his reforms would cause dissension and shake things up. Like the Buddha taught, Jesus taught that the Jewish scriptures were being mindlessly followed ritualistically, with people forgetting the way to either reach God, and/or have internal peace and enlightenment.

Do carry on...

That is exactly the way in which I mean it as well. I am shaking things up here, waking up Hindus from their slumber so they can actually see what a mess Hinduism is and do something to clean it up, organize the chaos that is Hinduism into an actual unified religion, rather than sit there pretending everything is fine and dandy, and were all happily and peacefully co-existing singing bhajans around the campfire

 

[Jainarayan]

That is exactly the way in which I mean it as well. I am shaking things up here, waking up Hindu from their slumber so they can actually see what a mess Hinduism is and do something to clean it up, organize the chaos that is Hinduism into an actual unified religion, rather than sit there pretending everything is fine and dandy, and were all happily and peacefully co-existing singing bhajans around the campfire

Over the course of 5,000 years, what may have been a single religion has diverged over an enormous landmass with diverse languages and diverse local cultures. What little I know of India is that villages have their own deities that another village may have never heard of, much less Hindus at-large. These villagers probably couldn't care less, either.

Remember the case of the girl who was born as a fetus in fetu, with four legs? She was considered an incarnation of Goddess Lakshmi, and even named Lakshmi. Her family had the extra appendages removed through the charity of a doctor and medical center. But the family were cursed by the people of their village and not welcomed back because it was an effront to Maa Lakshmi. Now how ignorant is that? Maa Lakshmi didn't have four legs! These are the people we're talking about.

I also understand that much of India is still rural and agrarian. How could these people ever be convinced to call themselves anything? I don't know how it is with the well-to-do and professionals in cities, and their self-identification. I think the genie is out of the bottle as far as usage of an umbrella term, and he isn't going back in.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes it is, the divide between what is mind and what is matter is artificial, political rather than ontological. In fact this false dualism between mind and matter is not even a dharmic doctrine, because in dharmic traditions no divide exists between mind and matter, they are both seen as products of nature. This doctrine is a Western philosophical doctrine which attempted to reach a compromise between science and the Christian religion. It was initially put forward by Descartes as an apology for science to the Church. The doctrine said that science only deals with the territory of the measurable physical world and does not encroach on religions territory of the mind. Which we obviously know is nonsense, because science also deals with mind too(psychology, neurology etc) And religion does indeed deal with the physical too for it has made many cosmological and geological claims as regards to how the universe was created, the shape of the Earth, how life developed.

The reason why religious people insist on a divide between religion and science is because so many claims religions has made have been falsified, so they want to pretend religion is still relevant in some areas.

Thus my point is totally valid there is such thing as a truth. If one religions says x is true and another religion says y is true, it is possible that one of these religions is true and one is false. Thus there can be such a thing as a true religion and a false religion.

Religion is this: a path containing a set of rules/guidelines, a mythology to explain those guidelines, rituals that are outward manifestations/reenactments of those mythologies or symbolic expressions of honor, and philosophy which ties all these together. It's function is almost 100% psychological in nature.

For different people, different aspects are emphasized. For those who are more emotional, the rituals are emphasized. For the intellectuals (like you and I), philosophy is emphasized. For storytellers (like me), mythology is emphasized. For highly active people, the rules are emphasized.

And, as you can see, there can be emphasis on multiple ones at the same time.

By their fruits ye shall know them. The way to determine whether a religion is false is to look at the kind of people it produces. Of course, one of the biggest indicators of a false religion is hoards of angry ex-members. Another indicator is when the religion suspends its particular rules/guidelines in favor of a political purpose.

But multiple religions can be true, and multiple religions can be false. It's not only one out of many.

Ramarkishna did not follow the path of other religions, rather he adopted an ishata devta from another religion such as Jesus to show that any ishta devta is valid. The concept of ishta devta is not in other religions, thus Ramakrishna was not actually following those religions.

That's not what Swami Nikhilananda's translation to The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna seemed to indicate; for crying out loud, he practiced Islam for about a week, studying under a Muslim guru, following Muslim practices, and even stopped using the name of Kali during this time.

Sounds like he was following multiple religions to me.

Bacteria infections are treated with antibiotics. There is only one WAY

But one antibiotic is not like unto another.

Liberation in Dharmic context means leaving the cycle of birth and death called bondage. in Advaita there is ONLY one way to achieve liberation: through knowledge. We do not recognize any other ways. In the same way there is one way to treat an bacteria infection in medicine - antibiotics.

Huh. I thought it was 'neti neti."

 

[Riverwolf]

A 100 years ago we were riding around in horse driven carriages, today we are sending space shuttles to Mars and are on the brink of travelling to our nearest stars. This is not progress?

A 100 years ago a women had no rights and played a secondary role to men. Today, women are holding office, outperforming men at university in most subjects, and become CEO's of companies. This is not progress?

Nope. Just different problems cropping up and being solved.

We almost had steam power 2000 years ago when the Greek inventor Heron figured out how to use it. Why did it take almost that long for the technology to take off? Because, for that long, it wasn't a solution to anything, since its functions at that time were carried out by slaves (plus trans-atlantic crossing wasn't a thing, yet.)

Why is the ability for space travel moving at a snail's pace now compared to during, ahem, the Soviet-American Cold War? Because there isn't a clear social/political/economic need for it, except perhaps overpopulation, which isn't as much of a problem in first world countries, where space travel is possible at all, as it is in third-world countries.

It is dogmatic because it expects you to accept the philosophy of religious pluralism or relativism. What if we don't agree with the philosophy?

Pluralism doesn't require absolute agreement. I disagree with the concept of eternal hellfire, yet I accept Christianity and Islam as valid paths for those who have chosen to follow them.