What is Dharma?

[atanu]

I quote a portion from one of the above links:

Each varna and ashram has its own specified dharma. What may be desirable for one section of society may be degrading for another. For example, absolute non-violence, which includes refraining from animal sacrifice, is essential for the priestly class but considered wholly unworthy of a kshatriya (warrior). Generating wealth and producing children are essential for householders, but intimate contact with money and women is spiritually suicidal for the renunciate. Underlying all these apparent differences is the common goal of advancing in spiritual life based on sanatana-dharma. Without the spiritual equality and sense of service inherent in sanatana­dharma, varnashrama-dharma tends to degrade into the rigid and exploitative caste system.

 

[Jainarayan]

There are two kinds of Dharma. One is general, common for everyone. Another is specific for individual as per one's station in life.

I think personal dharma, svadharma, is what people tend to think of most when they say or think dharma. I certainly hope it's not Dharma & Greg.

 

[Riverwolf]

dear riverwolf,

where do you sugest is the correct place ? do you want to start a seperate therad ?

Here:

Same Faith Debates - Religious Education Forum

 

[ratikala]

Here:

Same Faith Debates - Religious Education Forum

dear riverwolf

thats fine by me , but I assume by discussing dharma in " same faith debates" that it would be a discussion about hindu dharma only , here I assume we can discuss it from both hindu and buddhist perspective , I would allso like to hear if there is a sikh and jain perspective that anyone would like to add ?

 

[Riverwolf]

dear riverwolf

thats fine by me , but I assume by discussing dharma in " same faith debates" that it would be a discussion about hindu dharma only , here I assume we can discuss it from both hindu and buddhist perspective , I would allso like to hear if there is a sikh and jain perspective that anyone would like to add ?

We can specify all Dharmic religions there.

 

[ratikala]

Dharma , its literal translation ?

it is more a principal than a word , meaning: 'law' , 'the natural order' , 'that which upholds' , therefore it is allso 'truth' , it is allso 'religious principals' , as religious principals uphold the natural order

on a personal level it is'duty' , as we each have our given responcibilities therefore duty to uphold the natural order !

Dear Atanu

I refer back to my first definition , the first refers as you say to the general sence of dharma , the law or natural order . this meaning is common to both hindus and buddhists .
the second refers to the personal dharma which translates as duty (more commonly used by hindus) to which you allso refer .

The original question was what is dharma ?

The answer is THAT WHICH UPHOLDS , the law or religious principles that sustain society ! the original varnasrama system in to which we are born (by dint of karma)is there to regulate and uphold society , the caste system which we now have is as a result of the breakdown of the ancient varnasrama system

to me coming from a buddhist background , the first definition which refers to what you called the general dharma ,' that law which governs every thing ', is synonomous with sanatana dharma "eternal religious principles"for a hindu ,
and the second dharma our obligation to carry out these principles , for the sake of maintaining society . would you agree with that ?

 

[atanu]

Dear Atanu

I refer back to my first definition , the first refers as you say to the general sence of dharma , the law or natural order . this meaning is common to both hindus and buddhists .
the second refers to the personal dharma which translates as duty (more commonly used by hindus) to which you allso refer .

to me coming from a buddhist background , the first definition which refers to what you called the general dharma ,' that law which governs every thing ', is synonomous with sanatana dharma "eternal religious principles"for a hindu ,
and the second dharma our obligation to carry out these principles , for the sake of maintaining society . would you agree with that ?

Yes, Ratikala. I understand similarly.

 

[GURSIKH]

First of all, the Bhagavad Gita isn't accepted by all Hindus. The Sage Subramuniyaswami actually discredited it.

is there any HinduText , which is accepted by all Hindus ?

 

[atanu]

is there any HinduText , which is accepted by all Hindus ?

Hindus are free to choose from a large collection of scripture of varying level. But Vedas are apauruseya and are considered sruti. Any scripture that contradicts Vedas cannot be considered Hindu scripture. Gita does not contradict any part of sruti -- as per most Hindu teachers. Most Hindu sages and scholars have commented on GIta.

For Vedanta, Upanishads, the Brahma Sutra, and Bhagawat Gita together are considered Prastanatrayi. Study of Vedanta is considered complete only with Prastanatrayi.

 

[kaisersose]

Hindus are free to choose from a large collection of scripture of varying level. But Vedas are apauruseya and are considered sruti. Any scripture that contradicts Vedas cannot be considered Hindu scripture.

Why not?

 

[atanu]

Why not?

Because Veda by vak itself is pointer to knowledge.

 

[kaisersose]

Because Veda by vak itself is pointer to knowledge.

Only for those who accept the Veda as such. What about those who choose not to? What precludes them from being Hindu?

 

[atanu]

Only for those who accept the Veda as such. What about those who choose not to? What precludes them from being Hindu?

You mean like a person who does not believe in Relativity theory as advanced by Einstein yet insists on being called a teacher of Relativity. Well. It may be possible.

 

[kaisersose]

You mean like a person who does not believe in Relativity theory as advanced by Einstein yet insists on being called a teacher of Relativity. Well. It may be possible.

You are not getting it.

What is your basis for stipulating belief in Veda for a Hindu?

 

[atanu]

You are not getting it.

What is your basis for stipulating belief in Veda for a Hindu?

I am not stipulating anything. Which Hindu scripture is not founded on Vedas? It has been like that. How can any individual say why it has been like that? Again it is like saying why a person not believing Bible cannot be a christian?

Or I really do not understand you.

 

[kaisersose]

I am not stipulating anything. Which Hindu scripture is not founded on Vedas? It has been like that. How can any individual say why it has been like that? Again it is like saying why a person not believing Bible cannot be a christian?

Or I really do not understand you.

Same problem again. Hinduism is not a semitic religion, requiring a fundamental scripture. There is *no* common scripture for all Hindus. Contrary to popular opinion, the RIg-Veda is not such a one.

Hinduism is not founded on scripture and is predominantly polytheistic - a concept which is alien to Christians and Muslims and apparently quite hard to grasp or accept. Any attempt to pigeon-hole HInduism into the model of religion as defined and understood in the West, is bound to be incorrect. Vivekananda's version of Hinduism is in reality just a single flavor of Vedanta, a miniscule part of the religion, but has been incorrectly portrayed as mainstream Hinduism.

Getting back to the original topic, there is no requirement or rule that Hindu scripture should be based on the Veda, as explained above.

 

[Riverwolf]

Same problem again. Hinduism is not a semitic religion, requiring a fundamental scripture. There is *no* common scripture for all Hindus. Contrary to popular opinion, the RIg-Veda is not such a one.

Hinduism is not founded on scripture and is predominantly polytheistic - a concept which is alien to Christians and Muslims and apparently quite hard to grasp or accept. Any attempt to pigeon-hole HInduism into the model of religion as defined and understood in the West, is bound to be incorrect. Vivekananda's version of Hinduism is in reality just a single flavor of Vedanta, a miniscule part of the religion, but has been incorrectly portrayed as mainstream Hinduism.

Getting back to the original topic, there is no requirement or rule that Hindu scripture should be based on the Veda, as explained above.

Then how come most of them at least claim to be in total agreement with the Vedas?

 

[atanu]

Same problem again. Hinduism is not a semitic religion, requiring a fundamental scripture. There is *no* common scripture for all Hindus. Contrary to popular opinion, the RIg-Veda is not such a one.

Why you assume that Hinduism not being semitic does not require a scripture?

Hinduism is not founded on scripture and is predominantly polytheistic -

For you Gita does not represent Hinduism. Swami Vivekananda does not represent Hinduism. Vedas do not consitute the common scripture. Can you tell us with some evidence what does represent the common theme and which Hindu scripture teaches Polytheism?

Getting back to the original topic, there is no requirement or rule that Hindu scripture should be based on the Veda, as explained above.

Nothing is explained.

 

[Riverwolf]

For you Gita does not represent Hinduism. Swami Vivekananda does not represent Hinduism. Vedas do not consitute the common scripture. Can you tell us with some evidence what does represent the common theme and which Hindu scripture teaches Polytheism?

To be honest, I think the idea is that mainstream Hinduism is actually closer to Japanese Shintoism, which, while it does have a Scripture, I don't think most people have read it, and it mostly just manifests in the various shrines throughout the country which people occasionally pray to.

 

[kaisersose]

Why you assume that Hinduism not being semitic does not require a scripture?

I am not assuming anything.

For you Gita does not represent Hinduism.

The Gita is a sectarian, Vaishnava text about attaining Moksha. Please explain how this text can represent all of Hinduism?

Swami Vivekananda does not represent Hinduism.

Swami Vivekananda was a follower of neo-Vedanta - which is based on Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. Please explain how this viewpoint can represent all of Hinduism?

Vedas do not consitute the common scripture. Can you tell us with some evidence what does represent the common theme and which Hindu scripture teaches Polytheism?

Why do you assume there has to be a common scripture? Where is this requirement coming from - if not to align yourself with Western religions?

Why should polytheism have a source in scripture? You are assuming once again a need for scripture.