What is Dharma?

[Riverwolf]

The Rig veda:
Purusha-Sukta of Rig Veda , Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras originated respectively from the mouth, hands, thighs and feet of the purusha or the creator.

But doesn't say how it's implemented.

The system of Caste System has also been approved by Ramayana and Mahabharata.
a. In Ramayana, for example, Ram kills Shambuka simply because he was performing tapasya (ascetic exercises) which he was not supposed to do as he was a Shudra by birth.

Never heard that story before. Which chapter is it? Did the Sagar TV show adapt the story?

The much-glorified Bhagvat-Gita, too, favors varna-vyavastha.[ When Arjuna refuses to fight, one of his main worries was that the war would lead to the birth of varna-sankaras or offspring from intermixing of different varnas and the consequent "downfall" of the family. On the other hand, Krishna tries to motivate Arjuna to fight by saying that it was his varna-dharma (caste-duty) to do so because he was a Kshatriya. In fact, Krishna goes to the extent of claiming that the four varnas were created by him only Thus, Arjuna's main problem was being born a Kshatriya. Had he been a Brahmin or a Vaishya or a Shudra by birth, he would have been spared the trouble of fighting a destructive war. Even the much-applauded doctrine of niskama karma is nothing but an exhortation to faithfully perform one's varnashram dharma in a disinterested manner.

But this doesn't say that it's passed from parent to parent. Of course this philosophy states that it's there from birth.

The celebrated orthodox Hindu theologian Shankar, too, was a supporter of varna-vyavastha. According to him, Shudras are not entitled to philosophical knowledge.

Shankaracharya made sure that ONLY BRAHMINS by BIRTH are entitled to study philosophical knowledge. IT IS THE TRUTH.

Show me.

REGARDING GANDHI, GANDHI TOO APPROVED THE CASTE SYSTEM BY BIRTH.
Remember Gandhi and Ambedkar had major disagreements regarding seperate Enfranchisement for Dalits.

To quote Gandhi: "I believe that every man is born in the world with certain natural tendencies. Every person is born with certain definite limitations which he cannot overcome. From a careful observation of those limitations the law of varna was deduced. It establishes certain spheres of action for certain people with certain tendencies. This avoided all unworthy competition. Whilst recognizing limitations, the law of varna admitted of no distinction of high and low; on the one hand it guaranteed to each the fruits of his labors and on the other it prevented him from pressing upon his neighbor. This great law has been degraded and fallen into disrepute. But my conviction is that an ideal social order will only be evolved when the implications of this law are fully understood and given effect to".​

Again, "I regard Varnashrama as a healthy division of work based on birth. The present ideas of caste are a perversion of the original. There is no question with me of superiority or inferiority. It is purely a question of duty. I have indeed stated that varna is based on birth. But I have also said that it is possible for a shudra, for instance, to become a vaishya. But in order to perform the duty of vaishya he does not need the label of a vaishya. He who performs the duty of a brahman will easily become one in the next incarnation."​

So, varna-vyavastha, according to Gandhi, is a "healthy division of work based on birth", which takes into account the "natural tendencies" of human beings and avoids "unworthy competition."​

And, as you didn't say, "The present ideas of caste are a perversion of the original. There is no question with me of superiority or inferiority. It is purely a question of duty." You also didn't show me where Gandhi even spoke of dalits, and when you spoke of his disagreements with Ambedkar (who is that?), you didn't say what his position was, or the position of the other.
​

And please see the reality with your OWN EYES. Caste System IS FOLLOWED everywhere in all phases of life in India. (I dont know about Indians abroad).

Have you been everywhere in India, and thus can say this with perfect conviction? Or are you applying your own anecdotal experience to all of India?

Last time I saw it on a map, India looked quite big.

Blatent example is : Almost all the Toilet cleaners in Urban areas are Dalits. you will rarely see a Non-Dalit being a Toilet cleaner.

All scavenging(Manually lifting the excretra) which i am still sure is practised in towns of India is exclusively a profession reserved for Dalits only.

Dalits? Where did any of the cited Scriptures mention them?

 

[rewa]

Indian Buddhist,

I agree that the situation on the ground in some parts of India is bad. But there is a lot of change happening. Caste system is now no longer much of an issue in most Urban areas (At least here in the south). Caste violence has almost come down to nil. There are now temples Eg: Om Shakthi, which allows everyone to become the priest(Soon the others will open up too). The sweepers, toilet cleaners, managers, teachers are from every caste possible. From what I understand caste system was not as important to Hinduism as it was made out to be. It was just an attempt an some to keep land, education and money from the rest.

 

[indian_buddhist]

But doesn't say how it's implemented.

Never heard that story before. Which chapter is it? Did the Sagar TV show adapt the story?

But this doesn't say that it's passed from parent to parent. Of course this philosophy states that it's there from birth.

Show me.

And, as you didn't say, "The present ideas of caste are a perversion of the original. There is no question with me of superiority or inferiority. It is purely a question of duty." You also didn't show me where Gandhi even spoke of dalits, and when you spoke of his disagreements with Ambedkar (who is that?), you didn't say what his position was, or the position of the other.
​

Have you been everywhere in India, and thus can say this with perfect conviction? Or are you applying your own anecdotal experience to all of India?

Last time I saw it on a map, India looked quite big.

Dalits? Where did any of the cited Scriptures mention them?

This is a video from Today from Rediff.com which shows caste system on display.
wwwdotrediffdotcom/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-week-end-slide-show-untouchability-on-camera-ra-ones-dilruba/20110910dothtm

A Brahman saw the Buddha meditating by the River. He engaged the Buddha in conversation.
"What caste are you? Asked the Brahman.
"Caste is irrelevant." Said the Buddha.
"How so," said the Brahman, "surely you would agree that Brahman and royalty are of considerable worth whereas peasants and commoners are not?"
"Caste and riches matter not," replied the Buddha, "it is one's conduct that matters."
"How so," said the Brahman.
"In that fire comes from any type of wood so can a wise person come from any caste. It is through the knowing of truth that one becomes noble not through caste. The noble one is the one that doesn't cling to unworthy attachments. The noble one realizes the true way that things are, he no longer thinks of himself as a self and thus has gained clarity."
"You are truly wise," said the Brahman.

 

[rewa]

This is a video from Today from Rediff.com which shows caste system on display.
wwwdotrediffdotcom/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-week-end-slide-show-untouchability-on-camera-ra-ones-dilruba/20110910dothtm

I agree Casteism exists and there exists discrimination on basis of caste in parts of India. Especially the rural parts. My point is that Jati(caste) system is not based on scriptures. It was/is just misinterpretation of scriptures. People just created a system which was beneficial to themselves and kept improving on it for centuries. Indian systems have changed a lot in the past 60 years and in a few more years this ugly system should be history.

 

[Riverwolf]

This is a video from Today from Rediff.com which shows caste system on display.
wwwdotrediffdotcom/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-week-end-slide-show-untouchability-on-camera-ra-ones-dilruba/20110910dothtm

Again, what do untouchables have to do with Varnashrama?

A Brahman saw the Buddha meditating by the River. He engaged the Buddha in conversation.
"What caste are you? Asked the Brahman.
"Caste is irrelevant." Said the Buddha.
"How so," said the Brahman, "surely you would agree that Brahman and royalty are of considerable worth whereas peasants and commoners are not?"
"Caste and riches matter not," replied the Buddha, "it is one's conduct that matters."
"How so," said the Brahman.
"In that fire comes from any type of wood so can a wise person come from any caste. It is through the knowing of truth that one becomes noble not through caste. The noble one is the one that doesn't cling to unworthy attachments. The noble one realizes the true way that things are, he no longer thinks of himself as a self and thus has gained clarity."
"You are truly wise," said the Brahman.

The Buddha was wise. It's not for nothing that he's considered an avatar by the Bhagavata Purana, however mistakenly.

Did the Brahmin become a Buddhist, or did he already know this wisdom and was testing the Buddha's wisdom?

And are you going to actually answer my questions?

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree Casteism exists and there exists discrimination on basis of caste in parts of India. Especially the rural parts. My point is that Jati(caste) system is not based on scriptures. It was/is just misinterpretation of scriptures. People just created a system which was beneficial to themselves and kept improving on it for centuries. Indian systems have changed a lot in the past 60 years and in a few more years this ugly system should be history.

Let us pray so.

 

[indian_buddhist]

But doesn't say how it's implemented.

yes it does not say how it is implemented. But what has been followed for more than 2500 years till today has been on Birth.

Never heard that story before. Which chapter is it? Did the Sagar TV show adapt the story?

This is from Valmiki's Ramayana. I believe he is author of Ramayana?.

But this doesn't say that it's passed from parent to parent. Of course this philosophy states that it's there from birth.

There are several instances in the Mahabharata itself ex: Drona refusing to teach Karna because he was not a Kshatriya by birth.

Even though Krishna does not say that Caste System is by birth.....he definately approves of a Social system where he says that He has created it himself. It does not matter if it is by birth or by quality, The fact remains that the God of Hinduism has himself created a division in society. That for me personally (well not for you ) is reason to believe that it is absurb.

Show me.

Go and check the biography of Adi Sankaracharya, only Brahmins BY BIRTH were allowed in the Sankaracharya Mutts he established which is being followed till this day.

Dalits? Where did any of the cited Scriptures mention them?

Exactly the Dalits (the Untouchables) come out of the 4 Varnas of rig veda and so they are treated the worst.

 

[Riverwolf]

yes it does not say how it is implemented. But what has been followed for more than 2500 years till today has been on Birth.

Yes, I know. That one that is parental is the one I, and many others, deny.

This is from Valmiki's Ramayana. I believe he is author of Ramayana?.

That doesn't tell me which chapter it was in so I can check. Not that it matters; there's already a moment in Ramayana that claims to be Dharmic yet clearly isn't (at least by today's standards), so I already know that there are episodes in the original story that don't apply to today's Dharma.

There are several instances in the Mahabharata itself ex: Drona refusing to teach Karna because he was not a Kshatriya by birth.

Even though Krishna does not say that Caste System is by birth.....he definately approves of a Social system where he says that He has created it himself. It does not matter if it is by birth or by quality, The fact remains that the God of Hinduism has himself created a division in society. That for me personally (well not for you ) is reason to believe that it is absurb.

Human beings are all different. We are divided naturally. I, personally, believe that we all have aspects of all four Varnas, just with various ones manifesting more prominently at various times. Some people are more intellectual than others, some are more competitive than others, some (in fact, most these days) weigh everything by measurable gain and loss, and some people (not very many, though) are perfectly happy working under someone else. Do you not observe this?

Go and check the biography of Adi Sankaracharya, only Brahmins BY BIRTH were allowed in the Sankaracharya Mutts he established which is being followed till this day.

His biography? Aren't there several?

Exactly the Dalits (the Untouchables) come out of the 4 Varnas of rig veda and so they are treated the worst.

...so, they came out of Scripture by not being mentioned in them at all?

 

[ratikala]

Dharma is a word that has no full equivalent in English. It's literal translation is "duty", but the connotations are much grander than that.

dear riverwolf ,

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 !

In a sense, Dharma is that which you have no choice but to do. It's the Dharma of web-spinning spiders to spin webs, while it's the Dharma of hunting spiders to hunt. It's the Dharma of tigers to hunt other animals, while it's the Dharma of deer to eat plants.

" no choice " ? I would prefer to say obligation , by dint of birth we are obliged to

with regards to humans, we have the option to go against our Dharma (at the cost of happiness, fulfillment, etc.), of which there are many. I'd argue that every individual has his or her own Dharma to fulfill, in addition to any societal Dharmas.

"with regads to humans" .....we have the option to go against....? what do you mean ? that we have the blessing of discrimination , but should we use that blessing to commt adharma , then we would be commiting an act of extreme iresponcibility , we would be breaking the natural order !.....?

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 , a result of adharma!

there is no such thing as todays dharma , only dharma and adharma !

as ghandi ji said there should be no untouchable caste , and justly renamed them "hari jana" gods people .

gandi ji ki jai

 

[Riverwolf]

dear riverwolf ,

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 !

" no choice " ? I would prefer to say obligation , by dint of birth we are obliged to

"with regads to humans" .....we have the option to go against....? what do you mean ? that we have the blessing of discrimination , but should we use that blessing to commt adharma , then we would be commiting an act of extreme iresponcibility , we would be breaking the natural order !.....?

We have the ability to be adharmic. Other animals do not.

I never said that we should, or that being adharmic is a good thing.

The original question was what is dharma ?

The answer is THAT WHICH UPHOLDS , the law or religious principles that sustain society !

How do you linguistically reach this conclusion? I don't necessarily disagree; I just think you're talking about the concept; I was giving a linguistic definition, and then stating that that definition is insufficient.

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 , a result of adharma!

there is no such thing as todays dharma , only dharma and adharma !

as ghandi ji said there should be no untouchable caste , and justly renamed them "hari jana" gods people .

gandi ji ki jai

When I said "today's Dharma", I was referring to the fact that, in light of recent knowledge, certain things which would have been considered perfectly dharmic in the old days are now known to be adharmic.

 

[ratikala]

I never said that we should, or that being adharmic is a good thing.

dear riverwolf ,

I did not say that you had said either , I simply wished to deliniate dharma and adharma .

How do you linguistically reach this conclusion? I don't necessarily disagree; I just think you're talking about the concept; I was giving a linguistic definition, and then stating that that definition is insufficient.

"how do I linguisticaly reach this conclusion ?".....let me approach this a different way , dharma is a sanskrit word which embodies a concept , I was giving the full linguistic definition of the sanskrit word , the defination you gave was the primary hindu application of dharma . the original question asked was "what is dharma" , therefore I gave as good a definition of dharma as I could , I was not giving it from an exclusively hindu perspective , but had sort to explain the hindu perspective by stressing the personal duty to uphold and maintain order , (the varnasrama system).

When I said "today's Dharma", I was referring to the fact that, in light of recent knowledge, certain things which would have been considered perfectly dharmic in the old days are now known to be adharmic.

Like what ????? and in the light of what knowledge ?????

 

[Riverwolf]

Like what ????? and in the light of what knowledge ?????

It was once considered Dharmic for women to be subordinate to men. We now know that there is no reason for this to be the case, so women and men are on even keels. It was also once believed that it was Dharmic for women to be wholly separate from what men did, but we now know that there's no reason for this, so it's perfectly Dharmic for women and men to do the same things.

There's also the part of the Ramayana where Rama assassinates Bali, and (at least in the version I read), this was not considered adharmic since animals are essentially of less worth than humans. We now know that this is not the case, especially with consideration of intelligence. Therefore, this assassination would be a breach of Dharma today.

 

[ratikala]

It was once considered Dharmic for women to be subordinate to men, We now know that there is no reason for this to be the case, so women and men are on even keels.

refering to the translation I gave yesterday "that which upholds " bearing in mind that I am talking symultanoiusly about the concept and its linguastic definition , on the grounds that the word expresses the concept .

you say that it was once concidered dharmic for women to be subordinate to men ,It was allso concidered correct for all men to be subordinate to guru and to god , It was concidered correct for children to be subordinate to their seniors , in that kind of society there was order , women and children were protected , rulers did so out of a sence of duty and were expected to be just in their dealings . both the ruling classes and the heads of families had a responcibility to govern according to the dictates of sanatan dharma : " ETERNAL RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES "

In the modern world we beleive our selves to be advanced , to be inteligent , and to be masters of our own destiny , the word subordinate has taken on a different inference , we do not feel it fitting to be subordinate , we rebell against the idea of control , we want the freedom to do as we please , to dictate the direction of our own lives , this sounds like an inteligent approach to life , But examine carefully the results of such freedom ........we no longer follow the rules laid down by the supreme inteligence 'god' , we have gone against his advice thinking that we know better , the result of our revision of his order is that women are no longer subordinate to men they have demanded equality , but for what we thought we had gained there were unfore seen concequences women are no longer protected in society , children are not reared in the family , familys find it harder to live harmoniously , the offspring do not respect the parents , the elderly are frequently neglected in old age , divorce and strife are comon place . man does not feel the need to be subordinate to guru , they prefer to create their own religion taking only what they wish to take and writing their own philosophy , man does not so readily submit to god , he selectively ajusts god to his own liking , the ruling classes have lost their sence of duty sinking into the realms of politics and coruption . in this society I see only dissorder therefore I equate it with "ADHARMA" not "todays dharma ".

It was also once believed that it was Dharmic for women to be wholly separate from what men did, but we now know that there's no reason for this, so it's perfectly Dharmic for women and men to do the same things.

to me , this new found equality is illusory , as I have outlined above , for every apparent advance there is a loss in some other respect , under the old order yes men and women had more seperate lives , I personaly do not find that detremental there are times in this modern society when because of equality there is over familiarity , there is an increase in sexual pre ocupation and a decrease in propriety , there is a marked lack of godliness , there is a distint lack of support and guidance given within the genders , no sisterhood, no brotherhood , this to me equals "ADHARMA" not "todays dharma" .

There's also the part of the Ramayana where Rama assassinates Bali, and (at least in the version I read), this was not considered adharmic since animals are essentially of less worth than humans. We now know that this is not the case, especially with consideration of intelligence. Therefore, this assassination would be a breach of Dharma today.

now this is a very different matter , Rama is visnu , an emination of the supreme (forgive me if by being shaivite you do not hold the exact same view , I am not denigrating shiva by calling vishnu the supreme)so for the sake of the arguement may we call rama divine , ..and vali was the monkey king , however which ever version one reads vali is without a doubt a wicked king who banished his brother sugriva and stole his wife , therefore it is understandable that rama decided to avenge the wrong visited on sugriva by killing vali , it is worthy to note that one killed by the lord gains his mercy and is libberated . now if there is a dharma for the lord in his incarnation as rama then it was to re establish order , that he did by killing vali , he killed him because of his wickednes therefore it was not concidered 'Adharma' then , it has nothing to do with his higher or lower status as an animal !
It dosent take any advanced inteligence on our part to say that it would be wrong for you or I to kill an animal today , and I agree that it would constitute 'Adharma' . how ever I hope that you now see the difference between rama's divine action and that of our own ?

please excuse me for taking a firm stance on this one but the understanding of dharma is particularly close to my heart

 

[Riverwolf]

refering to the translation I gave yesterday "that which upholds " bearing in mind that I am talking symultanoiusly about the concept and its linguastic definition , on the grounds that the word expresses the concept .

you say that it was once concidered dharmic for women to be subordinate to men ,It was allso concidered correct for all men to be subordinate to guru and to god , It was concidered correct for children to be subordinate to their seniors , in that kind of society there was order , women and children were protected , rulers did so out of a sence of duty and were expected to be just in their dealings . both the ruling classes and the heads of families had a responcibility to govern according to the dictates of sanatan dharma : " ETERNAL RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES "

And it would have been the enforcement of these principles that led to their downfall. To keep this order, kings would have to resort to absolute control, which will lead to oppression, which breeds rebellion.

There was order then, yes. There's plenty of order in fascist governments, like Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Just because a society is ordered doesn't make it good. Women don't need protection from others; we now are fully aware that they are perfectly capable of protecting themselves.

Besides, there is NO Dharma in kidnapping women like the Kshatrias of old did.

In the modern world we beleive our selves to be advanced , to be inteligent , and to be masters of our own destiny , the word subordinate has taken on a different inference , we do not feel it fitting to be subordinate , we rebell against the idea of control , we want the freedom to do as we please , to dictate the direction of our own lives , this sounds like an inteligent approach to life , But examine carefully the results of such freedom ........we no longer follow the rules laid down by the supreme inteligence 'god' , we have gone against his advice thinking that we know better , the result of our revision of his order is that women are no longer subordinate to men they have demanded equality , but for what we thought we had gained there were unfore seen concequences women are no longer protected in society , children are not reared in the family , familys find it harder to live harmoniously , the offspring do not respect the parents , the elderly are frequently neglected in old age , divorce and strife are comon place .

And there are a TON of other factors that caused these problems; simplifying it down to one cause that isn't even connected is logically fallacious.

man does not feel the need to be subordinate to guru ,

When many modern gurus have proven to be false, I don't blame them. Besides, human gurus no longer can contain all the knowledge we have.

they prefer to create their own religion taking only what they wish to take and writing their own philosophy , man does not so readily submit to god , he selectively ajusts god to his own liking , the ruling classes have lost their sence of duty sinking into the realms of politics and coruption . in this society I see only dissorder therefore I equate it with "ADHARMA" not "todays dharma ".

There is definitely adharma today. But when I look at how society used to be, it was worse back then.

to me , this new found equality is illusory , as I have outlined above , for every apparent advance there is a loss in some other respect , under the old order yes men and women had more seperate lives , I personaly do not find that detremental there are times in this modern society when because of equality there is over familiarity , there is an increase in sexual pre ocupation and a decrease in propriety , there is a marked lack of godliness , there is a distint lack of support and guidance given within the genders , no sisterhood, no brotherhood , this to me equals "ADHARMA" not "todays dharma" .

And there are other reasons for this. It's better than it was.

Oppressive, controlling parenting is what causes rebelliousness in teenagers. False-Gurus cause people to lose faith in all Gurus. (Who else has been lying to us?!) Too many Elders are very controlling and patronizing to younger people, and so the latter don't like the former.

I have plenty of female friends and coworkers, but I'm monogamous, and am very faithful to my girlfriend; I harbor no sexual desire for my other female friends whatsoever. But we are very supportive of each other.

I'm a man. However, I have a very feminine nature, and my girlfriend has a very masculine nature. In essence, she is Rama and I Sita. This experience has taught me that feminine and masculine natures are not limited by gender.

now this is a very different matter , Rama is visnu , an emination of the supreme (forgive me if by being shaivite you do not hold the exact same view , I am not denigrating shiva by calling vishnu the supreme)

Don't worry. As a Shaiva, I believe Shiva to be "all-pervasive", which is "Vishnu." ^_^

so for the sake of the arguement may we call rama divine , ..and vali was the monkey king , however which ever version one reads vali is without a doubt a wicked king who banished his brother sugriva and stole his wife , therefore it is understandable that rama decided to avenge the wrong visited on sugriva by killing vali ,

Vengeance is the most worthless of causes, so I do not accept that as a reason why Vali needed to be killed; that he was a wicked tyrant is enough.

it is worthy to note that one killed by the lord gains his mercy and is libberated . now if there is a dharma for the lord in his incarnation as rama then it was to re establish order , that he did by killing vali , he killed him because of his wickednes therefore it was not concidered 'Adharma' then , it has nothing to do with his higher or lower status as an animal !

It wasn't that he killed Vali; it's that he sniped him in secret while hidden in the trees. This would have been considered cowardly by any other culture, and in the version I read, Vali chastises Rama in this way. The justification I gave above is the justification Rama gave in that version.

It dosent take any advanced inteligence on our part to say that it would be wrong for you or I to kill an animal today , and I agree that it would constitute 'Adharma' . how ever I hope that you now see the difference between rama's divine action and that of our own ?

I would hope that if God takes form on this earth, He would act in the same way that we should act, because we'll emulate Him; He ought not to act contrary to how we should. Does He not say as much in the Bhagavad-Gita?

please excuse me for taking a firm stance on this one but the understanding of dharma is particularly close to my heart

No need; my stance is also quite firm and my beliefs are also close to my own heart. They're based on my own experiences and my insights, in addition to what the Scriptures and Sages teach.

 

[ratikala]

And it would have been the enforcement of these principles that led to their downfall. To keep this order, kings would have to resort to absolute control, which will lead to oppression, which breeds rebellion.

there was no rebelion against rightousness , only a degradation in society !

There was order then, yes. There's plenty of order in fascist governments, like Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Just because a society is ordered doesn't make it good. Women don't need protection from others; we now are fully aware that they are perfectly capable of protecting themselves.

I am not talking about recent history , I am talking about SATYA YUGA ,the golden age , the age of truth and rightiousness , the virtuous age ! not the misscreants of Kali yuga !

Besides, there is NO Dharma in kidnapping women like the Kshatrias of old did.

of old ? which incidents do you refer to ?

And there are a TON of other factors that caused these problems; simplifying it down to one cause that isn't even connected is logically fallacious.

there is only one factor responcible , Degradation of virtue

When many modern gurus have proven to be false, I don't blame them. Besides, human gurus no longer can contain all the knowledge we have.

this is kali yuga ,

There is definitely adharma today. But when I look at how society used to be, it was worse back then.

when you look at how society was back then ? Do you remember satya yuga ? or are you talking about World War two again ? (which was in Kali yuga , the age of quarel and hypocracy ) the dark age !

And there are other reasons for this. It's better than it was.

how can the age of hypocracy and lies be better than the age of truth and virtue ?

Oppressive, controlling parenting is what causes rebelliousness in teenagers. False-Gurus cause people to lose faith in all Gurus. (Who else has been lying to us?!) Too many Elders are very controlling and patronizing to younger people, and so the latter don't like the former.

I am subordinate to the lord out of love , out of respect , there is no mention in what I said of oppression or control , again you are talking about kali yuga traits !

I have plenty of female friends and coworkers, but I'm monogamous, and am very faithful to my girlfriend; I harbor no sexual desire for my other female friends whatsoever. But we are very supportive of each other.

That is wonderfull but unfortunately this is not everyones experience !

I'm a man. However, I have a very feminine nature, and my girlfriend has a very masculine nature. In essence, she is Rama and I Sita. This experience has taught me that feminine and masculine natures are not limited by gender.

I do not realy need to know about your personal natures , but if you regard yourselves to be "in essence" the divine couple , and you your self "the essence of sita then you should understand the subject of devotion and subordanance better than you apear to do !!!!!

Vengeance is the most worthless of causes, so I do not accept that as a reason why Vali needed to be killed; that he was a wicked tyrant is enough.

I did not say vengance I said avenge , meaning , to punish the wrong doer , you missed the point made that the lord was performing a function . (apearing at the end of treta yuga to restore peace on earth , that he did by killing vali and ravan !) I see you have no issue with rama killing raven ?

It wasn't that he killed Vali; it's that he sniped him in secret while hidden in the trees. This would have been considered cowardly by any other culture, and in the version I read, Vali chastises Rama in this way. The justification I gave above is the justification Rama gave in that version.

you do not say which version you are reading ? now you are changing your tune , yesterday you said it was wrong to kill an animal ?

I would hope that if God takes form on this earth, He would act in the same way that we should act, because we'll emulate Him; He ought not to act contrary to how we should. Does He not say as much in the Bhagavad-Gita?

please give quotes which substantiate this statement .

if we are to learn from the scriptures then we should read submisively trying to understand the subtlties , only when you realise that this submition is given volentarily out of love and devotion will you begin to understand what I am saying , I am not saying that you must , but only if you wish or are curious to do so .

 

[Riverwolf]

there was no rebelion against rightousness , only a degradation in society !

I am not talking about recent history , I am talking about SATYA YUGA ,the golden age , the age of truth and rightiousness , the virtuous age ! not the misscreants of Kali yuga !

of old ? which incidents do you refer to ?
there is only one factor responcible , Degradation of virtue

this is kali yuga ,

when you look at how society was back then ? Do you remember satya yuga ? or are you talking about World War two again ? (which was in Kali yuga , the age of quarel and hypocracy ) the dark age !

how can the age of hypocracy and lies be better than the age of truth and virtue ?

I am subordinate to the lord out of love , out of respect , there is no mention in what I said of oppression or control , again you are talking about kali yuga traits !

That is wonderfull but unfortunately this is not everyones experience !

Since you keep bringing up the idea that this is the Kali Yuga, let me tell you a bit about how I view the Yugas: they are mythology, not history. I do not believe that the Satya Yuga described in the Puranas to be history, but reflective of a very common trait in mythology, ancient and modern: the time when everything was perfect contrasted with now, when everything sucks. Historically, it might be likened to the time when humans were just hunter-gatherer tribes, with degradation beginning with the invention of agriculture, but I see it as symbolic of childhood: the Satya Yuga could be a manifestation of the memory of the time in the womb, when everything was safe, comfortable, and perfect.

If we are to take the Yugas literally as history, then we can say that the aspects of the Kali Yuga are supposed to happen, which I don't believe.

As for the kidnapping of women, this happens VERY early in the Mahabharata when Bhishma kidnaps three princesses for his brother, and in the process ruins the life of one of them, Amba.

I do not realy need to know about your personal natures , but if you regard yourselves to be "in essence" the divine couple , and you your self "the essence of sita then you should understand the subject of devotion and subordanance better than you apear to do !!!!!

I meant symbolically in that I'm feminine and she's masculine, using Rama and Sita as metaphors, since they, respectively, represent the ideal masculine and feminine. I didn't mean to say that either of us actually possess the attributes of either Sita or Rama, because we don't. She's not even Hindu; she's Pagan.

I did not say vengance I said avenge , meaning , to punish the wrong doer , you missed the point made that the lord was performing a function . (apearing at the end of treta yuga to restore peace on earth , that he did by killing vali and ravan !) I see you have no issue with rama killing raven ?

Like I said, the fact that Vali was a tyrant was enough, and the same applies to Ravana. The term "avenge" is related to the word "revenge", and thus to "vengeance." The phrase that you want is "bring to justice."

you do not say which version you are reading ? now you are changing your tune , yesterday you said it was wrong to kill an animal ?

It is. Killing without just cause is wrong in any sense. However, we, as humans, tend to apply this to ourselves first, since we're sentient. While I can understand not applying the same compassion and standards to other animals, since the Vanaras were sentient, they ought to be treated like humans.

The version I read was the prose retelling by Ramesh Menon.

please give quotes which substantiate this statement .

From chapter III:

Indeed, if I should not engage–
Tirelessly–at all in action,
Then all mankind would, everywhere,
Follow the path set forth by Me. (23)

Yea, these worlds would perish if I
Should fail to engage in action,
I would be confusion’s maker,
And I would destroy these people. (24)

One should not unsettle the minds
Of the unwise attached to works;
The wise should cause them to enjoy
All acts–himself showing the way. (26)

if we are to learn from the scriptures then we should read submisively trying to understand the subtlties , only when you realise that this submition is given volentarily out of love and devotion will you begin to understand what I am saying , I am not saying that you must , but only if you wish or are curious to do so .

If submission is equal to just blind belief, then it's a bad thing, not a good thing. Books are just that: books, capable of being altered or changed through the years. This is why, as the Sages frequently stress, personal Gurus are so essential. Yet it's so hard to find real ones these days. Therefore, for the common person, personal insight and experience is the best we have to go on.

 

[ratikala]

Since you keep bringing up the idea that this is the KaliYuga, let me tell you a bit about how I view the Yugas: they are mythology, not history. I do not believe that the Satya Yuga described in the Puranas to be history, but reflective of a very common trait in mythology, ancient and modern: the time when everything was perfect contrasted with now, when everything sucks. Historically, it might be likened to the time when humans were just hunter-gatherer tribes, with degradation beginning with the invention of agriculture, but I see it as symbolic of childhood: the Satya Yuga could be a manifestation of the memory of the time in the womb, when everything was safe, comfortable, and perfect.

If we are to take the Yugas literally as history, then we can say that the aspects of the Kali Yuga are supposed to happen, which I don't believe.

ok you dont beleive it . but countless generations of teachers , sages , sadus and sanyasis have taught with strength of conviction and beleif that the yugas constitute a science which explains the creation and dissolution of this universe . modern science canot fully answer this question yet with any certainty , one day prehaps it will but untill modern science becomes sufficiently developed , we have the option to belive or dissbeleive what has been handed down through generations with the beleif that this science is of divine origin. In my oppinion it is far too complex in its postulation to be mere mythology .

I meant symbolically in that I'm feminine and she's masculine, using Rama and Sita as metaphors, since they, respectively, represent the ideal masculine and feminine. I didn't mean to say that either of us actually possess the attributes of either Sita or Rama, because we don't. She's not even Hindu; she's Pagan.

Rama and Sita "represent" or , I would prefer to say , Are the embodiment of perfection , rama being the perfect ruler the perfect son and the perfect husband , and sita the perfect wife , the embodiment of devotion . therefore they represent dharma in their perfection.

Like I said, the fact that Vali was a tyrant was enough, and the same applies to Ravana. The term "avenge" is related to the word "revenge", and thus to "vengeance." The phrase that you want is "bring to justice."

I said "to punish the wrong doer" by that I meant and explained that rama being the lord was fully qualified to "punish the wrong doer" therefore bringing him to justice !
I chose my words quite carefully , thank you .

It is. Killing without just cause is wrong in any sense. However, we, as humans, tend to apply this to ourselves first, since we're sentient. While I can understand not applying the same compassion and standards to other animals, since the Vanaras were sentient, they ought to be treated like humans.

I have allready explained that rama had just cause .

The version I read was the prose retelling by Ramesh Menon.

try valmiki . you might findit interesting by comparison .

From chapter III:

Indeed, if I should not engage–
Tirelessly–at all in action,
Then all mankind would, everywhere,
Follow the path set forth by Me. (23)

Yea, these worlds would perish if I
Should fail to engage in action,
I would be confusion’s maker,
And I would destroy these people. (24)

One should not unsettle the minds
Of the unwise attached to works;
The wise should cause them to enjoy
All acts–himself showing the way. (26)

compare allso gita translations ,

ch ..3 v ..23 If I ever failed to engage in carefully performing prescribed dutys , O partha , certainly all men would follow my path .

v ..24 if I did not perform prescribed dutys , all of these worlds would be put into ruination . I would be the the cause of creating unwanted population , and would there by destroy the peace of all living beings .

v ..25 as the ignorant perform their duties with attatchment to the results , the learned may similarly act , but without attatchment , for the sake of leading people on the right path .

v ..26 so as not to disrupt the minds of the ignorant men attatched to the fruitive results of prescribed duties , a learned person should not induce them to stop work . rather , by working in the spirit of devotion he should engage them in all sorts of activities .(for the sake of their gradual development)

I think you will find that these translations differ a little , (I find that comparison helps in understanding) however I do not see how these verses back up your arguement ? krsna is saying that he canot escape his duties , if he were to do so others would follow , thus neglecting their own duties !he goes on to explain that without him performing his duty the world would be put in to ruination ( the same was true of the position rama found him self in)in v ..25 which for some reason you miss ? krsna explains that the ignorant perform their duties with desired results (as did vali) and that the learned or rightous (as in ramas case) act without attatchment performing their duties for the sake of dharma .
thus rama allso performed his duty for the sake of dharma .

I do not see that these verses justify your arguement that the lord should not do things , because we would surely follow his lead ? in actuality he says that he must do his duty , and that we must do ours !

If submission is equal to just blind belief, then it's a bad thing, not a good thing. Books are just that: books, capable of being altered or changed through the years. This is why, as the Sages frequently stress, personal Gurus are so essential. Yet it's so hard to find real ones these days. Therefore, for the common person, personal insight and experience is the best we have to go on.

I have allready explained that submition is born of love and devotion , therefore it is the most beautifull thing !
and the reason that sages frequently stress the importance of taking a guru is that without his love and guidance we would not be able alone to realise the depth of meaning within the words held in books , it is not that books are just books , it is that we need the loving inturpretation of one with deep understanding

 

[Riverwolf]

Hey, Ratikala, mind if we continue this this Same-Faith Debates? I think this is an important thing to talk about, but we're technically not supposed to debate in DIRs. ^_^

 

[ratikala]

Hey, Ratikala, mind if we continue this this Same-Faith Debates? I think this is an important thing to talk about, but we're technically not supposed to debate in DIRs. ^_^

dear riverwolf,

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

 

[atanu]

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

Ratikala is correct insofar as varna-asrama dharma is fundamental to hinduism. As discussed elsewhere, one's station in life, including birth in a particular environment, is determined by one's past karma. So, the duties are designed in a way to be conducive to one's nature and inclination. The goal was always to attain the Truth - Brahman.

Needless to say that one can always opt to follow the samanya dharma (the general dharma common for all people) because the varna dharma may be too difficult for most people.

There are again people (and it is natural in the present age) who hold the system responsible for their own plight. They will have grudge in whatever systen they are placed.

For serious learners the following links are provided for obtaining in-depth view.

Dharma

Heart of Hinduism: Sanatana-dharma

Hindu Dharma: Varna Dharma For Universal Well-Being : kamakoti.org