PDA

View Full Version : Using the theory of inherent sin to (manipulate) control people?



Elizabeth108
15 August 2010, 03:22 PM
First of all, my intention is not to criticize people of other beliefs (Christians). I simply would like to know the Hindu view on the so called "inherent sin" and if it may be used to control people.

Before reading a lot about Hinduism and Advaita philosophy and then beginning to follow it I learnt in a Christian secondary school (it became like that after I had begun attending that school but I didn't mind it so I didn't change school for my last year), attended Sunday worship etc out of interest - so I have a Christian background in some way. During those time I met the concept of 'inherent sin' / 'original sin'. I did not believe it for the first time. BUT you know the more you hear something, the more you are 'bombarded' by something and read about it, one tends to believe it at a certain level...it happened to me that after a while the thought of it affected me then I began to believe that I'm alone powerless and even though I regretted my own sins I need to get baptized to show my submission to and acceptance of Jesus to get free both from my own sins and the 'original sin'. The though of this original sin put a kind of pressure on me.

But then when I read more and more about Hindu teachings as a grown up, I came to understand that in fact we are to not identify ourselves with our physical bodies but we are pure souls (jivas) and at some point the concept of 'original sin' became pointless. After a while the pressure had gone and I did feel a great relief.People around me has also stated that I smile much more etc etc.

Looking back now, I can say many people were afraid of God's judgement and they did most of their serving out of fear at a certain level. Furtheremore, in my opinion, the concept of the 'original sin' is a good tool for the leaders to manipulate people who believe in it and does not really look beyond the surface.

Is it possible that beliefs can have such effects on people and that they can so much determin the behaviour of people?

The more I study Advaitic teachings the more I feel like coming home...which I did not feel while learning about Christian views etc.

I do like Christian people and I never judge anyone on basis like religion and such what's more I accept them although I no longer identify my views with theirs. :)

What do you all think about this all? Some comments and opinions to share in connection with this all?

Eastern Mind
15 August 2010, 03:52 PM
Vannakkam Elizabeth: Can you please explain this concept. Those of us on here who think Christianity is irrelevant (like me) don't understand or perhaps never ever heard of the concept. (I've heard of it but don't know what it means.)

As far as 'manipulation goes', I thing its done all the time for selfish means by lots of selfish or unwitting or unaware people. Psychological, physical, withholding food or pleasure, manipulating statistics or 'facts' etc. All this is commonplace in the kali yuga. Those of us wishing to better our characters attempt to go above this, but the mind is a tricky little puzzle some days.

Aum Namasivaya

Elizabeth108
15 August 2010, 04:27 PM
Vannakkam Elizabeth: Can you please explain this concept. Those of us on here who think Christianity is irrelevant (like me) don't understand or perhaps never ever heard of the concept. (I've heard of it but don't know what it means.)

As far as 'manipulation goes', I thing its done all the time for selfish means by lots of selfish or unwitting or unaware people. Psychological, physical, withholding food or pleasure, manipulating statistics or 'facts' etc. All this is commonplace in the kali yuga. Those of us wishing to better our characters attempt to go above this, but the mind is a tricky little puzzle some days.

Aum Namasivaya


Hi Easter Mind,

Thanks for your post.
Here's a short explanation:

Original sin: 'the sin of disobedience committed by Adam and Eve (the first people in Eden), traditionally viewed as transmitted in its essential guilt and consequent penalties from Adam as head of the human race to all unredeemed humanity.' As it was taught to me and is still taught. It means that the first people, Adam and Eve sinned back in Eden and mankind inherits their sin. So in certain way even new-born babies are sinful as a consequence of Adam and Eve's sin.

After God created Adam and Eve, He placed them into a perfect place called Garden of Eden. They were allowed to use every plant, fruit and animal to feed themselves except the fruit of two trees (tree of life and tree of knowledge). But Eve did eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge ... and so did Adam and this was a disobidience on their part. This is the first, 'original' sin that is said to be inherited by mankind, too. (this is the very brief summary)

What did bother me and made me not 100% believe in it was this: Why should I be punished for something I did not even commit (the original sin). This put a kind of pressure on me. I could never understand the 'logic' of it.

I accept that the consequences of my deeds do return to me. But why and how could I 'suffer' the consequences of other people's (Adam and Eve's) deeds (the original sin)?

After studying more about Sanatana Dharma and Advaitic views the thought of 'original sin' and such does seem more and more irrelevant to me.

Hoping it helps you understand more the point of my question. If further explanation is needed, let me know.

yajvan
15 August 2010, 05:41 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Elizabeth

Sin from a sanātana dharma perspective ( as I have been taught) is ignornace. We call this moha - delusion , error .
Another name is avidya or ignorance. What is the moha ? Not knowing who we really are. Some say 'forgetting' who we are. There is a whole body of knowledge I am most fond of and it is called pratyabhijñā darśana.

Pratyabhijñā means to recognize , re-member and darśana is knowing ( sometimes we us this word to define a philosophy , a knowledge). So this pratyabhijñā darśana is 'knowing' and re-membering who you are. It is this system ( amonst others¹) that are here for us to re-remember who we are and rid ourselves of this 'sin' called ignorance.

My question to you and our esteemed HDF reader: Where does this sin go when it is removed? Where does a knot go in a rope when it too is removed?

praṇām

words
We find pratyabhijñā within kaśmir śaivism. It operates on the notion of the trika ( 3 fold) system. This '3' is śiva , śakti and nara. They are composed of the 3 energies of Śiva-Bhairava i.e.

parā śakti - considered Supreme energy (śakti)
parāparā śakti - considered medium śakti
aparā śakti - lower śaktiWithin these 3 energies the whole universe and every action ( worldly, mental, physical, spiritual, etc) exists or are fueled within these 3 śakti-s.
So within kaśmir śaivism and the trika philsophy or Trika Śaivism, it consistes of 4 schools of thought:
Pratyabhijñā ( SELF recognition),
Kula ( a grouping and used for 'totality' , Universal Consciousness),
Krama ( progress made step-by-step),
Spanda ( the throb, movement, SELF-referral of the Divine).

Eastern Mind
15 August 2010, 05:44 PM
Vannakkam Elizabeth:

If it was me with the dilemma then, I'd just drop it. You're on a new path now, and the old path is irrelevant to you as it is to me. But thanks for explaining the concept. To me it makes no sense at all, anything about it, including the existence of Adam and Eve. But its up to you.

Aum Namasivaya

Onkara
16 August 2010, 03:17 AM
Namaste Elizabeth108
I have also considered Original Sin in relation to Sanatana Dharma and other religions. The concept of Original Sin does not play a main role in Islam, for example, so it is specifically Christian, perhaps Catholic in origin imho.

The influence of the concept of Original Sin is much deeper ingrained in Christian society than one realises. It may not be an everyday topic, but the influence on children and adult thought may always be there unless, like us, we have looked beyond or some how managed to avoid it. Although not a practicing Christian I felt great relief when I looked into Vedanta and found that man was divine and the aim of the aspirant is to come to know that for oneself. Suddenly the pieces came together.

I would say this post reflects a turning point in your recognition of the two systems and with it a sense of liberation and opportunity in spiritual life will be allowed to grow stronger. EM says this perfectly, cutting to the bone beyond our old sentiments… time to drop the past concepts and grow J …



If it was me with the dilemma then, I'd just drop it. You're on a new path now, and the old path is irrelevant to you as it is to me. But thanks for explaining the concept. To me it makes no sense at all, anything about it, including the existence of Adam and Eve. But its up to you.

Aum Namasivaya

My impression of original sin is that it serves to steer the ignorant person towards God. We are much more educated and advanced as a society and these ideas are not so widely accepted. Fear is an emotion which most people can clearly distinguish and wish to avoid, even the most basic human mind, so it shows direction without having to understand the philosophy.
I do not think Original Sin is manipulation, as that might imply malice, but rather the concept helps in the promotion of deliverance or as a tool of soteriology. One need not fear God when one is aligned with His will, if one keeps that in mind when reading the Qu’ran then one can see the way of Islam (and Abrahmic religions), which although based on similar concepts do not have Original Sin.

Namaste Yajvanji
This is an advanced topic and one which captures my curiosity to know more.

My answer from a non-dual perspective to the question you propose is that when sin is removed, what is actually removed is ignorance. As you post illustrated it is ignorance which is the cause of sin and it is ignorance which allows the fruit of sinful actions to continue to act on the us (as Jivas). So the sin goes no where as it was false to begin with, what happens is that sin no longer has any personal influence; much like the snake taken to be the rope.

I would be grateful if you could explain more on the 3 energies of śakti, although I feel my questions might lead us away from Elisabeth's OP, I do have some questions on this and have started a post (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6252) with my questions in Uttara, although I am still formulating my thoughts; should you, or others, wish to give your perspective there too I would be pleased.

Eastern Mind
16 August 2010, 06:30 AM
My question to you and our esteemed HDF reader: Where does this sin go when it is removed? Where does a knot go in a rope when it too is removed?



Vannakkam Yajvan: I believe these things 'disappear' as a drop of water into water. The concept applies to more than sin, as per your knot metaphor.

There are two specific sadhana practices for letting go of the rope (detaching attachment) taught in my sampradaya. This is pertaining especially to negative thoughts or attachments that you discover you are still holding. That, of course, is the first step; to actually become aware of such things via insight. (I love that word, BTW, in + sight, looking inward) The first sadhana is to write it down on a piece of paper to burn it, outside or in a fireplace, thus letting it go. The second is to mentally put the thought form on a leaf during concentration at a river, and then let it float quietly down the river.

Aum Namasivaya

harekrishna
16 August 2010, 07:12 AM
There are two specific sadhana practices for letting go of the rope (detaching attachment) taught in my sampradaya. This is pertaining especially to negative thoughts or attachments that you discover you are still holding. That, of course, is the first step; to actually become aware of such things via insight. (I love that word, BTW, in + sight, looking inward) The first sadhana is to write it down on a piece of paper to burn it, outside or in a fireplace, thus letting it go. The second is to mentally put the thought form on a leaf during concentration at a river, and then let it float quietly down the river.

Aum Namasivaya
Eastern Mind,
This is a very nice practice. The negative thoughts are latent impressions in our mind, called Vasana in Sanskrit. These have been formed by our past Karmic habits. Letting go of them is like releasing a tonne of bricks off our chest. I havent actually thought seriously about, tying this letting go of "inner impressions" with specific outwardly practice - such as burning papers and floating leaves - but it makes sense. It is a great practice. Thanks for sharing this.
HariH Om!
Hare Krishna

atanu
16 August 2010, 09:47 AM
Namaste Elizabeth108
My impression of original sin is that it serves to steer the ignorant person towards God.

Namaste Snip.

I agree there.

IMO, it is not that the myth of Original Sin is not there in Hinduism. As per puranas, Lord BrahmA was punished by Rudra by tearing away brahmA's head, because brahmA was incestuos etc. At a level it works because every being is Self alone and must purify their respective conditioned mind, to expand it to its natural sattwa, which is Vishnu. Also there is a perspective in Vedanta that there indeed is some attempt to keep Pasus bound. Brihadaraynaka upanishad gives a hint of this, when it says that freeing of cattles is not palatable to cattle owners.

Again, IMO, Vedas/Vedanta go a step further and often reject the various stories of creation that involve mental colorations of good beings and bad beings as fabrications. In a wide sweep, Vedas mark Desire as Death, which covers Self and this Universe -- and yet Vedas put the desire/ignorance as a natural outcome of the tapah (warmth) of the Self. Veda does not blame anyone and does not pass moral judgements.

The following will illustrate what i am trying to convey:

RV

10.061.05 (Rudra), the benefactor of man, whose eager, virile energy was developed, drew it back when disseminated (for the generation of offfspring); again the irresistible (Rudra) concentrates (the energy) which was communicated to his maiden daughter.

10.061.06 When the deed was done in mid-heaven in the proximity of the father working his will, and the daughter coming together, they let the seed fall slightly; it was poured upon the high place of sacrifice.

10.061.07 When the father united with the daughter, then associating with the earth, he sprinkled it with the effusion; then the thoughtful gods begot BrahmA; they fabricated the lord of the hearth (vastospati Rudra); the defender of sacred rites.


These riks show that Puranic stories are not what they seem and that is why sruti and itihAsa are not of same level. In later literature Rudra seems to be begot by Praja_pati brahmA; and also in the above story there seems a mix-up with the legend of brahmA's incestuous passion for his daughter. Which scripture to believe? Fortunately however, sruti, smriti, and itihAsa all commonly teach renunciation of fruits of activity, which are by nature rajasic. All scripture also commonly teach that attainment of Heaven cannot be the ultimate goal. In contrast, I am yet to see a teaching of renunciation of fruits of activity in the Ten Commandments, even less of renunciating willful work (sankapla free work).

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
16 August 2010, 10:59 AM
namaskar,



What did bother me and made me not 100% believe in it was this: Why should I be punished for something I did not even commit (the original sin). This put a kind of pressure on me. I could never understand the 'logic' of it.


The 'logic' of it as I understand it is that since God is eternal, the sin of not listening to his orders or disobedience against him is thus eternal. Adam/Eve committed the sin that is eternal thus the humans, the progeny of Adam/Eve must bear their sin. And since Jesus have said to have taken on suffering for humans' sins. It is best to accept jesus as your saviour and thus bypass all suffering.



I accept that the consequences of my deeds do return to me. But why and how could I 'suffer' the consequences of other people's (Adam and Eve's) deeds (the original sin)?


Because the original sin is eternal. There is no escape from it except accepting Jesus as your saviour.

saidevo
16 August 2010, 11:21 AM
namaste Elizabeth108.

Firstly, it is surprising to see the concept of the 'Origin sin' discussed in the Advaita forum!

Secondly, like EM, my feeling is also that the key religious concepts in Christianity and Hindu Dharma cannot be compared in terms of their spiritual range, depth and universality, so Hindus DON'T NEED TO BOTHER themselves with Christian concepts and look for their equivalents in Hindu Dharma.

But then I can understand the power the orthodox Christianity, who claim to represent their Good Shepherd, wields on their faithful, silent and obedient sheep. And from the childhood experiences you have narrated in brief, the pressure the Church exercises on children and their parents with the concept of the Original Sin looks horrible indeed.

Since your occupation is teaching, you might perhaps be anxious to help drive the real and professed intentions behind the concept, and any need to do away with it altogether, in the minds of the Christian children and parents you come across.

So, some humble tips from me (I am not at all familiar with Christian texts, only searched for the quotes I needed):

• Although this teaching is claimed to have originated from Paul the Apostle in Romans 5:12-21, there are passages in the Old Testament that are similar: such as Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3.

Psalm 51:5 says: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Psalm 58:3 says: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

What the first quote means, IMO, is that the very act of marital consummate relationship--termed concupiscence in the words of Augustine of Hippo--is sin and anyone born out of it inherits the seed of original sin. This is because concupiscence was the first sin that Adam and Eve committed.

• In Hindu Dharma, sex or sexuality is not wicked; nor is it a sin. We have given it the highest place in the united existence of Shiva-Shakti as ArdhanArIshvara.

In the Hindu story of Creation, BrahmA realizes after creating his ManAsa Putras--mind-born sons, that humanity needs to be polarized for controlled and effective procreation, so he creates ShatarUpa, then creates the first Manu Svyambhuva by himself uniting with her and starts the chain of human procreation.

Thus, in one sense, the 'original sin' came from God himself, perhaps as a sacrifice which curtailed/curtained the life of BrahmA to 1,000 divine years and let him bequeath his title to the next god in line.

• If the 'original sin' of physical procreation was not there, and humanity was allowed to create mind-born children like BrahmA, what a havoc it would have created in this Kali Yuga!

Thus the point is that the faculty of physical procreation given by God to mankind is not a sin but a gift, so long as it is used in marital consummation of a couple wedded for lifetime.

• And then, sin--pApam, is intimately connected with karma, which in turn is connected with reincarnation. The concepts of karma and reincarnation are alien to orthodox Christianity, although many Christians believe and we do find the seeds of these concepts in some of the quotes in the Bible.

For example, the first quote above might be interpreted to mean that the very incident of a soul taking bodily shape in a womb is due to the past karma, and this is the 'original sin' intended!

Compare the teaching of Adi ShankarAchArya in his stotra--hymn, 'Bhaja Govindam':

punarapi jananaM punarapi maraNaM
punarapi jananii jaThare shayanam |
iha saMsAre bahudustAre
kRpayaA apAre pAhi murAre || 21 ||

Born again, dead again,
born again, in a womb sleeping!
With such life, the ocean of transmigration is difficult to cross!
O Destroyer of the demon Mura (KRShNa), ferry me across the waters to the shore!

• The second quote can also be interpreted as speaking of past karma that 'estranges' them on birth. And then there is the famous teaching, "As you sow, so you reap." (Galatians VI).

*****

The power that the concept of 'original sin' gives to the Church is effective only because of the allied and equally strong concepts of one life--one heaven--one hell. If discerning Christians with knowledge of the Hindu Dharma can find and spread any surviving teachings in their orthodox and other Gospels, about the incontrovertible concepts of karma (in the place of sin) and reincarnation (in the place of hell), and educate their fellow Christians, it could bring in a new era of unity and peaceful co-existence.

This task must be done by Christians and not by Hindus, becuase, after all, the burden of proof by discovery is on them and not on Hindus. All they need to understand is that the burden is not that of the Cross but of karma.

atanu
18 August 2010, 12:11 AM
Namaste Snip.
RV

10.061.05 (Rudra), the benefactor of man, whose eager, virile energy was developed, drew it back when disseminated (for the generation of offfspring); again the irresistible (Rudra) concentrates (the energy) which was communicated to his maiden daughter.

10.061.06 When the deed was done in mid-heaven in the proximity of the father working his will, and the daughter coming together, they let the seed fall slightly; it was poured upon the high place of sacrifice.

10.061.07 When the father united with the daughter, then associating with the earth, he sprinkled it with the effusion; then the thoughtful gods begot BrahmA; they fabricated the lord of the hearth (vastospati Rudra); the defender of sacred rites.

Om Namah Shivaya
Om Namah Shivaya


So that there be no mistake.

Rudra is slumberless, which means that He is never deluded on account of anything -- least of all by lust.

The above is tricky, if we do not consider two key things: 1) (Rudra), the benefactor of man and 2) --father working his will.

The above does not speak of loss of control or evil or anything to do with sex. And it first speaks of benediction to mankind.

Usha, the light is Lord's daughter, whom He impregnates with Veda and intelligence. Some of it falls on the Earth as blessing. So, we are children of this mother earth and that divine father.

Om Namah Shivaya

Elizabeth108
23 August 2010, 09:12 AM
Hi,

Thanks to You all for sharing your opinions and views on this! You have given me some in-sights (no mistyping) and helped me a lot.

Elizabeth

kallol
23 August 2010, 11:22 AM
All religions whether Christianity, Islam, ritualistic hinduism, or any other are based on certain beliefs which forces the people to come to the church, mosque or temple, etc.

If it is original sin in Christianity, it will be something else in others. But these are there in all religions - creating FEAR.

Why this ?

We need to understand the social setting - some 1600 years ago and before. There was no prolific knowledge centres, internet, huge scientific data, etc. Most of the places there were no permanent constitutions or rule of the land. There was barbarism, anarchy, human rights violation, etc all over the places.

What could bring some sanity to the societies which stays above the rule of land and constitutions?

Those were the chuches, mosques and temples. These were the binding forces, which played huge roles in bringing in some organised behaviours. And they did not have power of kings. So one major factor was the creation of FEAR (Fear is the key).

Unfortunately that factor which was relevant in those days, had sunk so deep in the psyche of the people over 1000s of years and also the religious institutions that it has become difficult for anyone to revisit the basics.

That is why Christianity and Islam suffer as they have no alternate path for revisiting the basics.

Fortunately for Hinduism, the knowledge part was always there as pristine pure - called Sanatana Dharma. The application part was the ritualistic hinduism. Because the knowledge part was there, it had been possible to revisit the original theory and change the ritualistic parts to some extent. But even then the going has been tedious.

Today with so much science, information and rule of land, we are blessed and do not need the FEAR factor. The good part is that, the people who are interested can jump directly into the knowledge part and get a clear vision of the TRUTH, connect that with the science and align.

So I will not blame any religion for the creation of inherent fear as it was created in different context. It was the next generations who never saw through the books or traditions into the basic knowledge that created this destiny. The destiny of so many gullible people.

Love and best wishes

Elizabeth108
24 August 2010, 05:25 PM
All religions whether Christianity, Islam, ritualistic hinduism, or any other are based on certain beliefs which forces the people to come to the church, mosque or temple, etc.

If it is original sin in Christianity, it will be something else in others. But these are there in all religions - creating FEAR.

Why this ?

We need to understand the social setting - some 1600 years ago and before. There was no prolific knowledge centres, internet, huge scientific data, etc. Most of the places there were no permanent constitutions or rule of the land. There was barbarism, anarchy, human rights violation, etc all over the places.

What could bring some sanity to the societies which stays above the rule of land and constitutions?

Those were the chuches, mosques and temples. These were the binding forces, which played huge roles in bringing in some organised behaviours. And they did not have power of kings. So one major factor was the creation of FEAR (Fear is the key).

Unfortunately that factor which was relevant in those days, had sunk so deep in the psyche of the people over 1000s of years and also the religious institutions that it has become difficult for anyone to revisit the basics.

That is why Christianity and Islam suffer as they have no alternate path for revisiting the basics.

Fortunately for Hinduism, the knowledge part was always there as pristine pure - called Sanatana Dharma. The application part was the ritualistic hinduism. Because the knowledge part was there, it had been possible to revisit the original theory and change the ritualistic parts to some extent. But even then the going has been tedious.

Today with so much science, information and rule of land, we are blessed and do not need the FEAR factor. The good part is that, the people who are interested can jump directly into the knowledge part and get a clear vision of the TRUTH, connect that with the science and align.

So I will not blame any religion for the creation of inherent fear as it was created in different context. It was the next generations who never saw through the books or traditions into the basic knowledge that created this destiny. The destiny of so many gullible people.

Love and best wishes

Thanks for this detailed explanation as well!
Furtheremore, I'd like to add this: Christianity teaches about the world/people/deeds as black-or-white, bad-or-good etc. but no way between. This is a step in creating fear, as well - in their views there is no other choice but good or bad for example... whereas in Hinduism it says every person has to follow his/her personal dharma so the good/bad dualism gets pointless.

I do need to learn to leave behind viewing this all in a black-and-white / categorized way.

Shanti
24 August 2010, 09:36 PM
There this story:
http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/05/story-of-adam-and-eve-vedic-origin.html

"Here an Upanisadic concept has taken the form of a biblical story. But because of the change in the time and place the original idea has become distorted-or even obliterated.
The Upanisadic story speaks of two birds perched on the branch of a pippala tree. One eats the fruit of tree while the order merely watches its companion without eating. The pippala tree stands for the body. The first bird represents a being that regards himself as the jivatman or individual self and the fruit it eats signifies sensual pleasure. In the same body (symbolized by the tree) the second bird is to be understood as the Paramatman. He is the support of all beings but he does not know sensual pleasure. Since he does not eat the fruit he naturally does not have the same experience as the jivatman (the first). The Upanisad speaks with poetic beauty of the two birds. He who eats the fruit is the individual self, jiva, and he who does not eat is the Supreme Reality, the one who knows himself to be the Atman.
It is this jiva that has come to be called Eve in the Hebrew religious tradition. "Ji" changes to "i" according to a rule of grammar and "ja" to "ya". We have the example of "Yamuna" becoming "Jamuna" or of "Yogindra" being changed to "Joginder ". In the biblical story "jiva" is "Eve" and "Atma" (or "Atman") is "Adam". "Pippala" has in the same way changed to "apple". The Tree of Knowledge is our "bodhi-vrksa" . "Bodha" means "knowledge". It is well known that the Budhha attained enlightenment under the bodhi tree. But the pipal (pippala) was known as the bodhi tree even before his time.
The Upanisadic ideas transplanted into a distant land underwent a change after the lapse of centuries. Thus we see in the biblical story that the Atman (Adam) that can never be subject to sensual pleasure also eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. While our bodhi tree stands for enlightenment, the enlightenment that banishes all sensual pleasure, the biblical tree affords worldly pleasure.

(From the book Hindu Dharma by the Sage of Kanchi)"

I also see the christian concept of original sin as a woefully distorted concept of karma. All of us that are born are here to work out our past karma and to seek union with God and we will continue to take birth until we do so. The christians just kind of took the concept and butchered it, IMO.

~S

kallol
24 August 2010, 11:04 PM
Thanks for this detailed explanation as well!
Furtheremore, I'd like to add this: Christianity teaches about the world/people/deeds as black-or-white, bad-or-good etc. but no way between. This is a step in creating fear, as well - in their views there is no other choice but good or bad for example... whereas in Hinduism it says every person has to follow his/her personal dharma so the good/bad dualism gets pointless.

I do need to learn to leave behind viewing this all in a black-and-white / categorized way.

Today the knowledge of Sanatana Dharma (also known as Hinduism) is available everywhere - libraries, bookstore, internet, CDs, mails, phone, etc. Lot more people are travelling and lot more people intermingle.

It was not so even some few hundred years back. Hinduism was more of snakes, scary deities, innumerous gods, - some kind of tribal culture.

Relive a society bounded by nomads, barbarians for whom there was no ethics, no organised way of living, etc. This was mostly the conditions when the religions were born or incubated. Later on the vested interests of the churches, mosques, etc kept the status quo to maintain their supremacy.

Let us not have hard feelings about any religions. All religions have some value however limited they might be.

The limits of the knowledge in religions is felt by people who have outgrown those religions.

These are like different classes, we go through in our life for getting complete education. No class is bad or good. All are necessary. The teachers can be bad or good. The schools can be bad or good.

Let us enjoy the knowledge and not limit ourselves to the attitude / habits / culture.

Love and best wishes

Maya3
02 November 2010, 08:52 AM
This is one of the reasons why Advaita is what I prefer.
I have never been Christian, but growing up in the west it was impossible not to hear about Christianity from time to time.
I really DO think that this theology developed to manipulate the masses.

The Adam and Eve story about not eating from the Tree of Knowledge seems clear, they didn't want people to have their own belief, knowledge was forbidden.

Like Kollol said:

We need to understand the social setting - some 1600 years ago and before. There was no prolific knowledge centres, internet, huge scientific data, etc. Most of the places there were no permanent constitutions or rule of the land. There was barbarism, anarchy, human rights violation, etc all over the places.

What could bring some sanity to the societies which stays above the rule of land and constitutions?

Those were the chuches, mosques and temples. These were the binding forces, which played huge roles in bringing in some organised behaviours. And they did not have power of kings. So one major factor was the creation of FEAR (Fear is the key).

Unfortunately that factor which was relevant in those days, had sunk so deep in the psyche of the people over 1000s of years and also the religious institutions that it has become difficult for anyone to revisit the basics.

That is why Christianity and Islam suffer as they have no alternate path for revisiting the basics.

I understand this, we certainly live in a completely different world now. But I wonder how the world looked before still? People were Pagan etc and had more of a direct experience with nature and God, I don't think that was a bad thing.

There are so many reasons why I love Advaita, but one of them is that it's all about MY experience with the inner force. (I know a StarWars term may be shallow, but I think it describes it so well).
I need FEEL it, that's the goal, see and feel and see for MYSELF if the scriptures and teachers are right.
No one is telling me that I have to do this or cannot do this, no one tells me HOW to worship, if I'd feel that a tennisball represents God then that's fine. It's about my CONNECTION personally, not if I follow certain rules that a powerful person have decided I should follow.

I wonder how the planet would look, if everyone thought that every way of worship was fine.
Look at the alternative, we are still fighting over what we can't prove.

Ironically, I think this is what Jesus thought too, and when he was rebelling against the Jewish establishment he wanted people to understand that all that didn't matter. He wanted people to understand Tat Tvam Asi, when he said: Me and my father are one.

Maya