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>

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

[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.

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.