There is a need to respect and accept diverging views

[devotee]

Namaste,

Recent postings on "Supremacy of one form of God over all others and otherwise" ... has drawn not-so-sweet comments/reactions from some of the vigilant members and moderators which could have been very well avoided. I am not going to judge anyone (including myself who was unfortunately a part of the whole not-so-good episode). In fact,perhaps, there is some other higher need than start judging anyone to make this place a centre of fruitful discussions on Dharma.

Hindu Dharma is beautiful conglomerate of varying faiths and still there is hidden strong bond which keeps all of us together. This is because of our Hindu's tradition of accepting even diametrically opposite views with respect. The recent posts are due to our failure to stick to the above traditions. Hindu Dharma accepts Dvaita, Vishishta Advaita, Advaita VedAnta, Bheda-Abheda-Achintya Swaroop, Shaiva SidhdhAnta, SiddhA's traditions, Aghoris, NirguNis, Kashmir Shaivism, ShAktism etc. You go to 100 villages and you will find 100 different local gods being worshiped.

Therefore, it is quite natural that we will have differences of opinions. This is not a problem of Hindu Dharma but a strength as it has refined the Hindu Dharma for the better and the quest for Truth has been in an unbiased manner. However, when we try to impose, "ONLY MY WAY/OPINION IS RIGHT" attitude, the discussion fails and what we are left is a bitter taste in our mouth. As it is a sheer waste of time with destructive results ... there is need to curb these tendencies.

This is the reason I request people not to react to my posts who have confirmed strong views against my views. The idea is ... "We have heard each other. Now, let's agree to disagree without creating any bitterness". Personally , I have not been seeking validation of my views from anyone and I have never been posting for "converting anyone" to my views. We must respect other's points of views even if it doesn't match ours. None participating here can claim having intellect, analysing and debating capabilities of Shankaracharya, MAdhava, Ramanuja etc. When this diversity remained even after these great personalities ... let's agree our limitations that we can't do better than them.

Everyone coming on this forum has a different need of his own. My need is very limited ... it just gives me some time to spend on spiritual discussions with a few people on this forum who have views similar to that of mine. I have nothing to gain or lose by winning or losing an argument. I have taken a posture in recent posts which is quite different my usual; stand when strong differences of opinions arise and my feeling is that I was pushed into it against my willingness due to specific attacks against me again and again by one of the members here in spite of my avoiding any discussion with him. I don't claim that my feeling is right or I took the correct decision to handle this situation. However, this does underline the need to respect differing views of other's. There is absolutely no need that everyone must accept Advaita VedAnta or Dvaita or Vishishta Advaita or Vaishnava's philosophy or a Shavia's philosophy or a Shakta's philosophy. Why should there be any need for this at all ?

Shall I suggest that, in case discussions between two members reaches a point of near-hostility we should honour "Not to react against other's posts" request from other side and respectfully agree to disagree ? If felt necessary, we may think of even accommodating this into our Forum-rules.

OM

[Twilightdance]

All these problems are related to vedanta which is a small miniscule portion of Hinduism with no real consequence except on religious politics. Part of the reason is there has never been any living tradition of the upanishads for many many centuries till some acharyas formed their schools based on interpretation of upanishads, gita and brahma sutra. These schools effectively start with these acharyas or 1-2 generations before them and has no connection with the actual tradition that may have given rise to the older upanishads. They are as good as modern academic interpretation aliebit more old and inaccurate and unscientific. There is no need for rest of Hinduism which are based on living unbroken lineages to suffer from this political quibbling of a broken intellectual tradition. This is my opinion. Hinduism would be far better without this vedanta. Rest of Hinduism is based on living oral instructions or sruti [not a set of books] and is far more authentic than vedanta - and this is apparent when one looks at vedantins vis-a-vis siddhantins for example.

[Sahasranama]

If you want to avoid heated argumentations, you should avoid making provocative statements like believing in the supremacy of one god is more suitable for the abrahamic religions, even though there are many Shaiva and Vaishnava traditions that belief this. You cannot make posts disagreeing with other members and expect the other members to not defend their views. If you are really troubled with argumentation and intellectual analysis, maybe it's better to let go of vedanta and philosophy and focus on karma yoga, hatha yoga, ritual worship, bhakti or meditation.

[wundermonk]

<snipped irrelevant nonsense> Hinduism would be far better without this vedanta. Rest of Hinduism is based on living oral instructions or sruti [not a set of books] and is far more authentic than vedanta <snipped irrelevant nonsense>

:eek:


This is my opinion.

Thank God! Opinions are dime a dozen. ;)

"Why need enemies when there are friends like these..."

[kallol]

No state of the combination of mind and environment are same. They are all unique. It is obvious that all will be unique at something.

It is said "Love is nothing but misunderstanding between two human beings". The commonalities are to certain extent (where we feel the love) the rest of the distance is different.

So if this is natural, it is also natural that we will conform to the various paths of Hinduism. Even with different sects, there will be difference of perception between two individuals. This is natural and it will be like this only. However you try you cannot have exactly same perceptions in two persons. Better not to try to impose that.

Love should be out of the fact that we all are moving towards the same objective - realising God, moksha, etc. It is the centre of the circle and we all are moving inward from the periphery.

Love for each other need to be unconditional. To have that we need to shed the EGO part first. Once we shed that only then the door for knowledge will open fully and it is us who will benefit out of it.

Fighting, imposing, etc are all out of ego only. Can we shed this ?

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Difference of opinion are obvious. It is up to us when we would like to pull back our horse from the race. Until we are trying to prove or force our thoughts on others things will not change. We will have to strike a balance so that discussions may not end up into dog fight. A third person has to interfere and attempt to make peace. This applies to me too. I think it is mutual.

I have also created a similar thread here (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11126)

[charitra]

Namaste all. A self imposed moratorium of 'two posts maximium rule' per thread works perfectly IMO. Mithabashis are well respected in hindu circles. If someone says thirdtime" charitra you are wrong, because....", thats the redflag for me i simply avoid answering and will move on. Each thread has either a major question or assertion and as expected other members join in with what they perceive (genuinely) correct from their own cumulative knowledge base. Now after 2 posts each member has already exhausted what s/he wanted to say, his/her further contribution will prove to be repetetive and get tiresome to the onlookers. Tit for tat non stop debate, going on beyond say 4 posts from the duo will be eroding their credibility ..

mitha bashi:man of small words.

[Amrut]

Namaste all. A self imposed moratorium of 'two posts maximium rule' per thread works perfectly IMO. Mithabashis are well respected in hindu circles. If someone says thirdtime" charitra you are wrong, because....", thats the redflag for me i simply avoid answering and will move on. Each thread has either a major question or assertion and as expected other members join in with what they perceive (genuinely) correct from their own cumulative knowledge base. Now after 2 posts each member has already exhausted what s/he wanted to say, his/her further contribution will prove to be repetetive and get tiresome to the onlookers. Tit for tat non stop debate, going on beyond say 4 posts from the duo will be eroding their credibility ..

mitha bashi:man of small words.

Namaste Charitra

I fully agree with you. wise words. Thank you.

Aum

[shiv.somashekhar]

All these problems are related to vedanta which is a small miniscule portion of Hinduism with no real consequence except on religious politics. Part of the reason is there has never been any living tradition of the upanishads for many many centuries till some acharyas formed their schools based on interpretation of upanishads, gita and brahma sutra. These schools effectively start with these acharyas or 1-2 generations before them and has no connection with the actual tradition that may have given rise to the older upanishads. They are as good as modern academic interpretation aliebit more old and inaccurate and unscientific. There is no need for rest of Hinduism which are based on living unbroken lineages to suffer from this political quibbling of a broken intellectual tradition. This is my opinion. Hinduism would be far better without this vedanta. Rest of Hinduism is based on living oral instructions or sruti [not a set of books] and is far more authentic than vedanta - and this is apparent when one looks at vedantins vis-a-vis siddhantins for example.

Agree with most of it. It is mainly in the west that the role of Vedanta in hinduism has been blown out of proportion. The truth is, most Hindus never heard of Vedanta, nor would they care for it and yet westerners are mostly misled into thinking Vedanta forms the essence of Hinduism.

Also hard for people who have not lived in India to understand this.

[satay]

namaste,
If all members (old and new) followed the forum rules we wouldn't be having this conversation.

A couple of considerations from my pov.

1. Follow the forum rules. If someone makes a provocative statement or insults your guru, report it to mods.

2. Simply asking other members not to reply to your posts is obviously not going to work as this is a public forum. So either put them on your ignore list or follow what you practice and don't reply to their posts that they made agains you.

3. Why make provocative statements and then expect no replies. Then keep going on about it for days making a fool of yourself in front of an audience. When a mod says 'HDF watches..' Don't take the bait, take a hint and stop posting. At least this way by taking the higher ground you don't lose respect in the eyes of those who might admire your knowledge.

4. Why not follow the 'indifference' technique used by many on the forum instead of dog eat dog style nonsense posts?

By behaving in a dog eat dog manner you (I am thinking in general not someone specific) are showing to the world how low you can do. This behaviour makes people think of you as a fool who is tangled up in his own ego all the while preaching that we should not have ego. :rolleyes:

Again, follow the rules of the forum and don't take matters in your own hands.
I have seem some members first reply to an offending post with their own attack and then report the original offending post. This is nonsense. Report the offending post and don't take any further action.

[satay]

namaste Singhi,


All these problems are related to vedanta which is a small miniscule portion of Hinduism with no real consequence except on religious politics.

I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion but I don't know what the hell you are talking about.:cool1:

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Devotee ji and all

Nature of Vak, unfortunately there is no pleasing all, however much the good intentions are, can be misconstrued.

It is nice to know Hindu in general do not get engaged in discussion or debate like we do here, instead are happy to carry on with their traditions as it has been over the years and long may it continue, without trading on each other foot.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Believer]

Namaste,

The only person that I can control is myself. I have to resolve to not to react to the reaction generated by my posts. Unless the self is under control, I cannot ask others to behave. And if the self is under control, there will be no conflict and no need to ask others to make resolutions, as nothing would bother me. So, the bottom line is, can I control myself or do I only want to preach others to be civil?

In the 2.5+ years that I have been posting here, I have seen it all - the so called "respected" members shamelessly getting down and dirty and indulging in mud wresting. And I have seen a few stellar devotees NEVER taking a bait and walking away from every unpleasant situation. My biggest disappointment is that sometimes when I try to deal with a troll, some of the members get on my case and try to shame me. These self righteous "godly" characters try to tell me how they grew up with muslims and Xitians and love them all and accept all the manure that they have to offer. Someone even accused me of being part of a pack (like a pack of dogs) for dealing with a troll. Others accuse me of creating too much negativity and leave the forum, only to return with a different User ID. Our self inflated sense of intellectual or scriptural/religious superiority gets the better of us. I wonder why does our spirituality/religiosity/intellect take leave of us when we need it the most? Why do we become irrational in the name of rationality? Why do we not reign in our horses, instead of asking others to close their barn doors?

I have to control myself to be peaceful. In this world of endless conflicts, I don't expect others to provide me with a peaceful atmosphere. It is the "I" that needs to be kept under lock and key.

Pranam.

[satay]

namaste,


Namaste,

The only person that I can control is myself. Pranam.

Well said, Believer. I believe you. :)

Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one. — Marcus Aurelius

[MahaHrada]

Originally Posted by Twilightdance
All these problems are related to vedanta which is a small miniscule portion of Hinduism with no real consequence except on religious politics. Part of the reason is there has never been any living tradition of the upanishads for many many centuries till some acharyas formed their schools based on interpretation of upanishads, gita and brahma sutra. These schools effectively start with these acharyas or 1-2 generations before them and has no connection with the actual tradition that may have given rise to the older upanishads. They are as good as modern academic interpretation aliebit more old and inaccurate and unscientific. There is no need for rest of Hinduism which are based on living unbroken lineages to suffer from this political quibbling of a broken intellectual tradition. This is my opinion. Hinduism would be far better without this vedanta. Rest of Hinduism is based on living oral instructions or sruti [not a set of books] and is far more authentic than vedanta - and this is apparent when one looks at vedantins vis-a-vis siddhantins for example.


Agree with most of it. It is mainly in the west that the role of Vedanta in hinduism has been blown out of proportion. The truth is, most Hindus never heard of Vedanta, nor would they care for it and yet westerners are mostly misled into thinking Vedanta forms the essence of Hinduism.

Also hard for people who have not lived in India to understand this.

Of course it is obvious for the well informend, that even the older Upanishads and Vedanta in general, are an almost irrelevant aspect of Hinduism and the significance of the Muktika canon dwindles into void compared to the role the beliefs and norms of the Agamas, Tantras, Puranas, the Bhakti movement and other folkloristic beliefs have in the overall picture of Hinduism.
It is also obvious that the preferences for Vedanta is based on the utter disgust the abrahamic rulers both islamic and the british raj harboured for the customs and ideals of the indian majority and their adherence to norms described in agamic and tantric shastras. It was only due to the sponsoring and interest of westerners and islamic foreign rulers, of what they consider the pure, more civilised and in their viewpoint an almost monotheistic aspect of the Hindu tradition, that Vedanta was supported and emphasized representing an acceptable tradition, while the beliefs and cultural norms of the majority of Hindus, dissenting from vedanta, were ruthlessly attacked as immoral and perverted pagan idolatry, marginalised and many practises even forbidden, a famous example is Bharat natyam, by the then political elites. Only it is a waste of time to mention any of this in the community that has developed in HDF because you will only be used for target practise.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Of course it is obvious that even the older Upanishads and Vedanta is an almost irrelevant tiny aspect of Hinduism and the significance of the Muktika canon dwindles into void compared to the role the beliefs and norms of the Agamas, Tantras, Puranas, the Bhakti movement and other folkloristic beliefs have in the overall picture of Hinduism.

Exactly.

From past experience, it is almost impossible telling this to western Hindus, who derive the bulk of their knowledge of Hinduism from books and have a very different picture of Hinduism than its actual form in India. They are unable to comprehend the idea that most of Hinduism is not based on scripture and is instead a tradition - a form that has not been captured into books by scholars, Vivekananda et al. In all fairness, I would not accept anything myself without evidence and in this case, what evidence can I offer other than asking them to travel across India and observe for themselves?

[Jodhaa]

I think that putting people on ignore and/or backing away from a particular thread have been sanity savers, at least for me. As my husband says, "No one wins an argument on the internet."

The frustration isn't worth it because trolls can hide behind the internet and they never actually have to deal with you. Meanwhile, you sit there turning red. The only one who suffers is the self.

I'm not saying it's easy - but if you rob someone of their primary source of entertainment - namely, your anger - they'll stop trying to harass you. Or if they continue, they make themselves look foolish without a word from you. Let people dig their own grave if they want to.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Only it is a waste of time to mention any of this in the community that has developed in HDF because you will only be used for target practise.
Not trying to pick on you Maha, because you bring out some valid points; but the above concluding comment is a classic example of duplicity. On the one hand the sharpest arrow out of the quiver is used to shoot at the entire "HDF community", while at the same time "the community" is blamed for the inducement it caused for the archer to shoot the arrow. If I had not spent my whole professional life being an analytical type of person in my trade, I would have never caught the complexity of this comment. :)

Oh what intricate webs we weave, with the delicately thin yarn we spew out of our mouths!
Lord have mercy on me!

Pranam.

[MahaHrada]

Namaste,

Not trying to pick on you Maha, because you bring out some valid points; but the above concluding comment is a classic example of duplicity. On the one hand the sharpest arrow out of the quiver is used to shoot at the entire "HDF community", while at the same time "the community" is blamed for the inducement it caused for the archer to shoot the arrow. If I had not spent my whole professional life being an analytical type of person in my trade, I would have never caught the complexity of this comment. :)

Oh what intricate webs we weave, with the delicately thin yarn we spew out of our mouths!
Lord have mercy on me!

Pranam.

ouch that hurt.

next one please.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

The only person that I can control is myself. I have to resolve to not to react to the reaction generated by my posts. Unless the self is under control, I cannot ask others to behave. And if the self is under control, there will be no conflict and no need to ask others to make resolutions, as nothing would bother me. So, the bottom line is, can I control myself or do I only want to preach others to be civil?

In the 2.5+ years that I have been posting here, I have seen it all - the so called "respected" members shamelessly getting down and dirty and indulging in mud wresting. And I have seen a few stellar devotees NEVER taking a bait and walking away from every unpleasant situation. My biggest disappointment is that sometimes when I try to deal with a troll, some of the members get on my case and try to shame me. These self righteous "godly" characters try to tell me how they grew up with muslims and Xitians and love them all and accept all the manure that they have to offer. Someone even accused me of being part of a pack (like a pack of dogs) for dealing with a troll. Others accuse me of creating too much negativity and leave the forum, only to return with a different User ID. Our self inflated sense of intellectual or scriptural/religious superiority gets the better of us. I wonder why does our spirituality/religiosity/intellect take leave of us when we need it the most? Why do we become irrational in the name of rationality? Why do we not reign in our horses, instead of asking others to close their barn doors?

I have to control myself to be peaceful. In this world of endless conflicts, I don't expect others to provide me with a peaceful atmosphere. It is the "I" that needs to be kept under lock and key.

Pranam.

+2 fully agree attaboy. Well said.

Spirituality is no place of 'I'

Aum

[Anirudh]

World will be a better place to live if everyone follow the title of the post, but the world I live isn't as good as I would want it to be. Religious belief helps one to attain spiritual maturity but the same faith is the reason for the destructive wars. So why should one be tolerant if someone hurt your beliefs as it sometimes seen as weakness. So it is at individual discretion to decide to react to a post or not. Sometimes if you don't react to provoking post, you aren't not your duty.

[JaiMaaDurga]

Namaste all,

There are several things I consider when reading HDF threads;

1. What is my own state of mind prior to/during visiting HDF?
In other words, am I calm enough to read and process the words
of others, without coloration that may be due to low blood-sugar,
lack of sleep, or some other outside factor that bears no relation
to what I am reading?

2. What has the highest possibility of benefit to all concerned-
Sharing my thoughts on a given topic or thread, or simply reflecting
on whatever lessons others' words may contain, and letting that
thread or topic be what it may to the participants?
In this, I often think of HDF as a room full of conversations, in which
all may be "overheard" as one wills.. yet, in the physical world,
no one finds welcome a guest who makes it their business to butt
in to the midst of everyone else's conversation.

3. The virtual social world seems to engender two habits very frequently-
the abandonment of normal manners and niceties, and erroneously
assuming that degrees of familiarity, nuances of tone, and sense of humor
are conveyed adequately through text, and easily parsed correctly
by others.

4. I will not punish myself by rewarding those who spoil for a fight
or seek conflict. I have learned a great deal, both directly and indirectly,
during my time on HDF, and hope to continue to do so.. and though
I do not consider myself any sort of wise person or authority on
those topics and threads I have participated in, I do attempt to be careful
in remembering that many people visit here, and might read my words;
that to be honest, to make a positive contribution (or at least do no harm),
and conduct myself here in such a way as to never bring shame upon
other HDF members, or any devotees of Devi, is the best guideline
for my activity here.

JAI MATA DI

[philosoraptor]

If you want to avoid heated argumentations, you should avoid making provocative statements like believing in the supremacy of one god is more suitable for the abrahamic religions, even though there are many Shaiva and Vaishnava traditions that belief this. You cannot make posts disagreeing with other members and expect the other members to not defend their views.

+1 for sage wisdom.

[philosoraptor]

Shall I suggest that, in case discussions between two members reaches a point of near-hostility we should honour "Not to react against other's posts" request from other side and respectfully agree to disagree ? If felt necessary, we may think of even accommodating this into our Forum-rules.


That can easily be abused. After all, you can then make statements like "your religion is like an Abrahamic religion, please don't respond to my post." Any number of insults can thus be posted without even a chance to correct the misconceptions upon which they are based.

I have a better idea. Next time you feel the need to make unflattering generalizations or brazen insults about other gurus or their traditions, don't. Instead, just attack me. You are more than welcome to insult me, misrepresent me, etc and I will not take offense.

[brahman]

[INDENT]Shall I suggest that, in case discussions between two members reaches a point of near-hostility we should honour "Not to react against other's posts" request from other side and respectfully agree to disagree ? If felt necessary, we may think of even accommodating this into our Forum-rules.
OM



Dear Devotee,


A good suggestion indeed.


But I have two questions.

1) What should be the assessment criteria for 'near-hostility' ?

2) and who has to honour first?

--------------

Another suggestion

Quoted words below has paramount significance in intellectual discussion forums like HDF.


namaste,

You are not obligated to respond to every tom dick and harry.

Love:)

[Omkara]

I suggest bad-mouthing acharyasof other sects and traditional hindu beliefs and quoting anti-hindu scholars like M.M. Ninan is hardly a way to earn respect for your views.

[Equinox]

Vannakkam,


quoting anti-hindu scholars like M.M. Ninan is hardly a way to earn respect for your views.

Do NOT remind me of such uncouth people, out of all anti-Hindus out there. His book left me traumatised, after which I created a thread here:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=10400



Aum Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

　
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Let us put this string to rest, as it bears little fruit.

　
iti śivaṁ