A forum for calssical debate

[satay]

Namaskar,
I am wondering if we would like to have a forum in which all the discussions will be soley based on vedas, puranas, upanishads and commenteries of the three acaryas as opposed to 'personal' opinions etc.

Should we have such a forum for HDF?

We will try to follow classic debating rules.

[saidevo]

Namaste Satay.

The classical debates forum is a good idea and will help members know our scriptures in an analytical way from the Shastra-savvy members. Personal opinions, if at all shoud figure minimum in the discussions and the moderator should be strict about trolling and spamming.

Let personal opinions abound as usual in other forums, though, because as our Shastras themselves say, ultimately liberation is personal realization for everyone.

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste

Quoting Satay; " I am wondering if we would like to have a forum in which all the discussions will be soley based on vedas, puranas, upanishads and commenteries of the three acaryas as opposed to 'personal' opinions etc."

I think it would be a very interesting idea that could add value to HDF. I wonder what could be the name for such a forum?
I think as well that our sage members are already keeping straight in a creative way to the scriptures and traditions they represent. And for that such a forum is useless.

Om namah shivaya

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,


I can see the value here. I can also see a few areas that may cause passions to rise...is it a show stopper? I do not think so if we (you et.al) are able to set the framework properly.

'Personal opinion' is vassilating, and every one has an opinion, yes? But personal spiritual experience trumps this. And the Vedas - I think it is good to discuss.
That said, I would assume we would rely on the Nyaya approach, yet avoiding jalpa ( wrangling) and vitanda or destructive criticism.

If this is done with the debate, a friendly reminder that views and nominclature are different based upon your orientation e.g. Vaishava, Shaiva, Shakta, etc. and points of passion.

I point this out because that suggests one has to define their terms, and what POV is being taken and if that POV is changing e.g. ' Now I am looking at this from a samkaya view point, or mimamasa, or vedanta perspective.'

I see this on our HDF today... we discuss, then a new POV is taken and it is from a 45° POV, a bit different then the last view. This works and I am not inferring this is bad, as people must go with the flow.

Yet in debate, that has to be called out, because the outcome and the 'ahhh-ha' will change and cannot be co-mingled with several views without the audit trail back to the knowledge and shastra's that are being expounded.

That is my opinion... for what it's worth.


pranams,

[Omkara]

Yes!

It should be called 'Tarka' or 'Vada'

[Sahasranama]

Namaskar,
I am wondering if we would like to have a forum in which all the discussions will be soley based on vedas, puranas, upanishads and commenteries of the three acaryas as opposed to 'personal' opinions etc.

Should we have such a forum for HDF?

We will try to follow classic debating rules.

This would be a good idea.

Although, commentaries of the three acharyas is very limited and only represents a small portion of traditional Hinduism. (post medieval vedanta). This will only give a platform for those who want to discuss traditional Vedanta. Where does that leave the Shaivas, the grammarians, the yogis etc? Where does it leave traditional Vedic commentaries like that of Sayana and the works of the mimansakas? This is a good idea only if the "three acharyas" are not given any special authority.

A better idea is to have a forum where the discussion is primarily based on shashtra (veda, itihasa, purana) and also on supporting shastras ( upaveda, vedanga, agamas, smritis, tantras) and tertiary uses traditional commentaries as a support to elucidate the shastra, not as a stand alone authority. This would include commentaries by Sayana, Mahidhara on the Vedas,the Mahabhashya of Patanjali, the works of Vijnanabhikshu, commentaries on the Mahabharata and Ramayana and even a late 20th century work like the yogabhashya of Hariharananda Aryanya for example, but exclude the post 18th century neo-Hindu/ universalist commenataries.

One thing that must be avoided in such a discussion that is based on shastra is the argument that the acharya of "my sampradaya" says so, so it must be true. This will be very difficult, because a lot of people are affiliated in some manner with a particular acharya.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I am not so sure if limiting commentaries to Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya is such a good idea.

And where does the experiences and writings and thus perspective on Veda etc. of the Tamil Alvars and Nayanmars (which includes women adepts, some members believe women have no rights to comment or even read Veda for example) come into such a forum?

There will be predictably sheltered use of scriptural quotes in English where the very translation is actually personal opinion, and input based on teachings from Guru and experience of such which will be declared personal opinion as a means to further shelter the meaning or message or truth when in fact it is not personal opinion but authorized.

There is no question that such a forum will be created, but classical "debate" is more than just words, it is the actual demeanor of the physical person or saint in posture, actions of such taken just before the words and after the words that context the entire framework of the "debate" which would be missing here but was well known to those of some of the famous debates or commentaries of the past.

If it were simply to quote text, then why not just cut and paste entire paragraphs after paragraphs directly into the post and then deem all else "personal opinion"?

Like I say, the forum is going to happen no matter, so it is already a ship at sail in the sea. However, the ability to quote scriptural text (which will ultimately be English translation of text that tries to drive the point, and which itself is often the most poetic but abusive means of agenda based misrepresentation and thus personal opinion) is not necessarily a marker of adept or comprehending or savey "Hinduism".

In "my own opinion". But have at it, with spirit. In such a case, perhaps the forum should be classically only in sanskrit text and language?

Not trying to be critical, just thinking it won't be as easy or vanilla as some might think.

Om Namah Sivaya

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Another thought also... What would be considered the frame of what is classical debate? The Nyaya Sutras? There may be a section on debate among Nyaya, but why have a debate when the authors considered the advanced frame of the soul itself has no consciousness? To even have a thought?

When Chaitanya debated, was this classical debate? And is the Chaitanya Charitamrita considered debatable scriptural input?

Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

Namaskar,
I am wondering if we would like to have a forum in which all the discussions will be soley based on vedas, puranas, upanishads and commenteries of the three acaryas as opposed to 'personal' opinions etc.

Should we have such a forum for HDF?

We will try to follow classic debating rules.

Is that not what the philosophy forum and the scriptures forums are all about?

[Believer]

Namaste,

I can see a meaningful conversation (debate) between learned people who have read and understand the scriptures in their original form, and are somewhat devoid of ego. But a debate between people whose knowledge is limited to distorted translations in various languages by various intellectuals (not spiritualists), and the ones who have never consulted a dictionary to read the meaning of the word humility, would be time spent on 'defeating' the opponent, rather than to advance oneself spiritually by gaining a clearer understanding of scriptures. I probably will not be entering this proposed forum, but it may advance the cause of scripturally knowledgeable members who actually practice some of what they know.

Pranam.