Why do you believe 'Sanathana Dharma' is the 'way to go' for real spirituality?

[Viraja]

Vannakkam: Yes, absolutely they are applicable, and so very apt. We are the source of so much. A couple of great religions unto themselves, Jainism, and Buddhism were offsprings of Sanatana Dharma.

All this mystical stuff going on in the world today ... the New Age movement, the wide variety of Yogas, environmental stewardship, vegetarianism, all of it had roots in SD.

So why not go to the source, and be proud of it?

11) Pilgrimage ... whereas other faiths have mostly singular places to go to ... Hinduism had 100s, so many its difficult to make up one's mind.
12) We're so alive. Other faiths brag of their crowds for once or twice a year, whereas in Hinduism we have several places that will gather those same numbers plus some EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE YEAR. And then there are the kumbh-melas ... largest crowds ever gathered on this planet.
13) Direct channel to God, no intermediary.
14) Unbeatable, eternal ... we've survived invasions, wars, and more, where others failed. Where is the Greekl religion, the native American religions, the Egyptian religions ... gone, kaput, wiped out by alien external forces ... but not SD ... still thriving along.

Aum Namasivaya

Great points, EMji! You are so right, SD being so old, could have been wiped out ages ago, but survived, proof to its validity!

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: As for superior goes, it's definitely is not the right word. My Guru's words on this (quote I can remember) is "Does the university professor look down on the child in the kindergarten class?"

Well, definitely not. It's a wisdom borne of maturity, fully recognising that as souls, we were all once there, and that they will all at some time be where we are. Different areas of mind, for sure, but not better or worse. The wise refuse to compare themselves to others. Does the veena master start all his lessons with, "Well, young folks, I'm better at this that you are."? No ... he fully knows that it is quite likely that one of his students will surpass him at some time, and he accepts that with great joy, not some sense of egotistical jealous pride. It is what it is.

If people are prone to comparing, they will compare. If people are prone to seeing negative in the neutral, they will. It is what it is.

Nice thread, Virajaji

Aum Namasivaya

[deafAncient]

A caution that a little care needs to be taken here as well, in that there is an implied assumption here that the entirety of the codes of the old Dharma Shastras are meant to apply directly to us here and now.

There is a core of ethics and science taken directly from the Vedas and other Shruti, and these are the common thread of all Dharma Shastras and should also apply today. However, not allowing the rest to evolve with society as it was meant to leads to arguments about Dharma versus Adharma, who is 'most pious' and who is 'impure' - arguments that, in my opinion, should be avoided. These arguments are very much like what we see from Abrahamics.

Those who would claim that there are Buddhists and Jains and Sikhs who have claimed "Realization", "Enlightenment" etc, are forgetting that those people themselves were Sanatanis in the broadest sense.

They believe this is the only chance they get and they must "get it right the first time" or else. The goal is not realization or wisdom, and despite their talk it's not for the betterment of the world or society either. The only thing they have going for them is the emphasis on experience, which is often taken advantage of by charlatains and can also be easily confused with 'Crowd Mentality' or 'Hive Mind'.


I've already listed some of the biggest reasons I think SD is more Mature. I agree with EM-Ji and deafAncient's lists, so would take them and would add

Excellent post, Aanandinii!

I did not mean to state that the codes of the past applies to us here and now. No. The idea behind this as opposed to Abrahamic thought is that śrūti means not only "heard," the inner experience, but it also means that it is forever changing, as it is kept alive by generation after generation of gurū and other enlightened people who pass it onto followers to find and experience for themselves. Smṛti is about common laws on daily living, and that is supposed to change with the times and circumstances of the people as needed. Both of these is opposite of the Abrahamic religions, such that śrūti gets collapsed into smṛti, which results in a frozen text to be read and used as such for all time.

The point about what is dharmic versus adharmic, as you pointed out, is the danger of SD becoming Abrahamic in that regard, and that has to be resisted, especially when you're dealing with Hindutva who are going along these lines.

Of course, Buddhism, Jainish, and Sikhism are all under the Dharmic family of thought.

Funny that you mention today, not yesterday or tomorrow, but today that the only thing these Christians have going for them is "experience." There's a photo with the words - "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

http://d1w116sruyx1mf.cloudfront.net...Mark-Twain.jpg

Do you read Ed Steer's Gold and Silver Daily???

The two points you looked at:

1) ...and the understanding that Man is not capable of bridging the gap between himself and God without intervention of some kind.
2) There is very little said about Man himself except the good and bad he is capable of..

Is exactly as you put it. I don't agree with these two things, either, but that is how they see themselves. I love what you said about SD - "it is mature, is the oldest, and at its core it's also the simplest living faith of Human kind, (it's something you know and feel deeper than ego, regardless of the high philosophy of the different schools). The oldest revealed scripture and the oldest ethical codes, and sciences that prove out even today..." So well said...

Well, definitely not. It's a wisdom borne of maturity, fully recognising that as souls, we were all once there, and that they will all at some time be where we are. Different areas of mind, for sure, but not better or worse. The wise refuse to compare themselves to others.

That is so true, Eastern Mind! People, because of their non-dharmic thought, constantly forget or don't even notice that we were there once before, and this results in people who don't understand that, "Hey, help me out here! It's my first time on this planet," or "I've never seen this before and don't know what I'm supposed to know upon entering this subject." It's like the teacher purposely taking a first-grader on the first day of school straight to freshman (9th-grade) algebraic math and expecting them to get it. Imagine the frustration the kids have at the gall of the assumption that they are supposed to figure it out themselves without any tools. This to me is a lack of maturity on the teacher's part. I encountered this as a deaf child MANY, MANY times, and that might be why I have such bad hang-ups about learning language as a deaf student who was really about 4 years behind everyone else, but was expected to keep up with my peers. I don't know how I did it, but I did. I'm trying to defeat these hang-ups by learning Saṃskṛtam.

[anucarh]

Namaste Viraja ji,

Why is Sanātana Dharma right for me?

I see many great answers here already. I especially agree with the comments that Sanātana Dharma has produced thousands of realized masters. This was one of the things that drew me to it and proof of the effectiveness of its paths. Studying the lives of the great Hindu saints, such as Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Śrī Basavaṇṇa, Śrī Rāmānandācārya, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, Śrī Śāradā Devī, and many others, continues to inspire me. These were truly extraordinary individuals who showed selfless, all-embracing love and compassion, endless forbearance, non-attachment to the objects of the senses, and uncommon wisdom. They also displayed a rare kind of genuineness, sincerity, and inner harmony that the scriptures call ārjava. Śrī Rāmānujācārya explained that it is the sameness of one's thoughts, words, and deeds towards others. Very few people really live this way.

I believe it was Aanandinii ji who mentioned the role of reason and critical thinking in SD. This was part of the appeal for me as well. Sanātana Dharma engages the whole person, including the mind, body, and emotions. The great ācāryas (spiritual teachers) were often many things at once: not only selfless saints, humanitarians, poets, and reformers, but also philosophers, scholars, and sages. They satisfied the emotional yearnings of the people, but they also satisfied the minds of the people.

While Sanātana Dharma points to our fundamental sameness ("The wise man beholds all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings; for that reason he does not hate anyone." Śrī Īśopaniṣad v. 6 tr. Svāmī Nikhilānanda; cf. Bhagavad Gītā 5:18) in a way that very few spiritual or religious traditions can, it also recognizes our individuality, offering an ocean of methods and paths suited to our individual histories and karmas, the age we live in, and our unique sets of inclinations, obstacles, and aptitudes. And the divine draws us closer in countless ways with many different faces.

Sanātana Dharma teaches compassion for all beings, not just human beings. King Śibi offered some of his own flesh to an eagle to protect a pigeon the eagle had been pursuing. King Satyavrata protected a little fish. Śrī Rāmānujācārya was in the habit of feeding the poor and accepted people from all social backgrounds, but he also taught that one of our five duties is to try to live in harmony with other creatures. Śrī Kṛṣṇa taught that compassion for all beings is one of the divine virtues of those on the right path (Bhagavad Gītā 16:2) and that those on the right path work for or delight in "the welfare of all beings" (ibid. 5.25; 12:3-4). Śrī Bhīṣma said, "There is nothing, O delighter of the Kurus, that is equal in point of merit, either here or hereafter, to the practice of compassion to all living creatures." (Mahābhārata, Book 13, Anuśāsanaparva, chapter 116, tr. Kisari Mohan Ganguli). Human beings first learn to have love and compassion for those closest to themselves and those who (superficially) most resemble themselves: their family and friends, their co-religionists. The real test of love and compassion is the ability to look past superficial differences, such as social background, race, national origin, or even species, and empathize with those who appear most different, seeing that we are all fundamentally alike ("The wise see the same in a brāhmaṇa endowed with knowledge and gentleness, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and an outcaste." Bhagavad Gītā 5:18).

There are many other things that could be said about the greatness of Sanātana Dharma. Its virtues are endless. It shows us the nature of knowledge, the nature of the world around us, the nature of God, and the nature of ourselves. It offers a complete guide to the paths that lead to the fulfillment of our highest aspirations. Truly, there is nothing like this path.

praṇām

[Viraja]

Dear Anucarh ji,

What a great reply! Yes, as you said, our role models for spirituality, namely the acharyas of the yore, were not only great scholars, and reformers but also highly compassionate to all beings. I liked your words:

The great ācāryas (spiritual teachers) were often many things at once: not only selfless saints, humanitarians, poets, and reformers, but also philosophers, scholars, and sages.

The point about SD and our role models emphasizing on compassion towards all beings is worth being stressed upon. I don't see this as a feature in other religions! (Atleast no story that I heard of regarding this).

I also loved these words of yours:

The real test of love and compassion is the ability to look past superficial differences, such as social background, race, national origin, or even species, and empathize with those who appear most different, seeing that we are all fundamentally alike ("The wise see the same in a brāhmaṇa endowed with knowledge and gentleness, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and an outcaste." Bhagavad Gītā 5:18).

I see that other religions do not operate under the mode of seeing all as one's brothers and sisters. In the present day world atleast. Whereas SD has always emphasized seeing oneness in all. True and great words.

Thank you for the reply.

Cheers,

Viraja

[Aanandinii]

Namaste Ji,

^The above clarifications - precisely what I wanted to know. I have always heard that the Abrahamic god condemns its non-believers to hell, whereas Hindu texts say no such thing... So its definitely a great plus point to be armed with this knowledge now!

Oh, not just non-believers, but believers as well. It's not enough simply to believe and worship.

I see that other religions do not operate under the mode of seeing all as one's brothers and sisters. In the present day world at least. Whereas SD has always emphasized seeing oneness in all.

There are a few: what's left of the early animistic faiths around the world, neo-pagans, and some of the New Age crowd. None of them as strong and full in understanding as Sanatanis though.

deafAncient, thank you for the Mark Twain quote. I quite love him, he had a brilliant mind and wit. I'm afraid I don't read that daily, I'm not much one for economics, it's a bit too harrowing for me.

EM-Ji, Anucarh Ji, thank you both for such beautiful posts and quotes.
I quite agree, great thread, Viraja Ji.

~Pranam

[smaranam]

Namaste
All 16 posts here have brought many good points to the table, and the oneness of the dharma asserts that we must see the paramAtmA in all, and that we must appreciate the good in other faiths as well, even if we consider them a part of the whole, of the Eternal Mother VRuksha (tree), all including the flavors of Abrahamic faiths.

Think VibhUti Yoga - Bhagvad GitA chapter 10. All that sparkles, [hence all that is good in other faiths] is Me.

om bhUr-bhuva-svah:
om tat savitur-vareNyam
bhaRgo devasya dhImahI
dhIyo yo nah: prachodayAt||

(I dedicate this GAyatrI to my Lord -- VAsudeva, NArAyaNa, Who is the Source of and in the centre of the Orb of Savitu (SUrya))

|| ShrI KRshNArpaNamastu ||

[Viraja]

Dear Smaranam ji,

Thank you for this beautiful message. I like the way you acknowledge all faiths, and call them all as being under one 'vruksha'.

Regards,

Viraja

[Sudas Paijavana]

Greetings,

Namaste,

Everytime I come across the news that someone is converting to Sanathana Dharmam, I truly appreciate that and say to myself, "Truly, this person's karmas have ripened enough that they have found the right path". Whereas to some this does not seem to be so - for I have come across people who argue that Sanathana Dharma (Hinduism) may not really be that ideal for choosing "over their born religion" whatever it is... they cite Gautam Buddha and other realized souls of other religions to prove their point. Even if I argue that such saints have been very less compared to the 1000's of such example Hinduism has produced, they still argue that the numbers do not matter, the fact that there have been saints of other religions who were self-realized too is enough proof for the fact that all religions are the same and are equally good.

I have always been skeptical of such arguments. I told one such person in an argument, "the lifestyle and hardships with accessing the right sources for striving for the same (attaining spiritual knowledge) becomes very limited for other religions, including Abrahamic ones. Whereas Hinduism by easy means, such as stotras, mantras, puranas, kathas, etc, not only elevate the soul but also provide sought-after results, even in spirituality, much faster. That is why, it is the well-accepted consensus among atleast Hindus that hinduism is a superior religion."

Now, what could be the REAL reason why you believe Sanathana Dharmam is 'superior' and 'the way to go'?

Thanks.

What makes Hinduism "superior", the "way to go"? What is this line of questioning? As a proud Hindu, these are questions reminiscent of foreign paradigms. I am a born-Hindu; my parents are born-Hindus; their parents were born-Hindus; my ancestors were born-Hindus; I come from a line of Hindus; this is something that I was born into; it is a part of my very being, my very essence; the worship of the gods of my ancestors is something that I do because it comes naturally to me; I make no concessions in apologetically explaining it. What compels such a compare-contrast analysis of Dharma? What is it that the insecure need to prove? These are the traditions of your forefathers and foremothers! Take unlimited pride in them! Dilute them not with unnecessary concessions and universalistic givings.

Namaste
All 16 posts here have brought many good points to the table, and the oneness of the dharma asserts that we must see the paramAtmA in all, and that we must appreciate the good in other faiths as well, even if we consider them a part of the whole, of the Eternal Mother VRuksha (tree), all including the flavors of Abrahamic faiths.

^Absurdity at its finest: the placating of natural differences and conceding of Hindu uniqueness without giving due to the obvious fact---that universality is an exaggeration.

[Viraja]

Dear Sudas,

Ofcourse what you say is true. But from time to time, I am coming across individuals who call themselves 'Hindus' but are throwing questions at other Hindus on 'Why we consider ourselves the best religion?' and so forth... I will post another thread soon on (absurd) claims made by such individuals. Then you will understand why it becomes necessary to counter them objectively.

Regards,

Viraja