Quote Originally Posted by TatTvamAsi View Post
I would think you would know that's not what I meant. From an outsider's perspective, whose background/religion is based on do's and don'ts and a central "book", would look for similar things in other paths. My point was that the framework (looking for "one" book, scriptural injunctions, "supreme God" etc.) is at fault, not the actual source(s).
Pranams. I apologize in advance that you won't have the opportunity to respond to this. What I post here is merely to clarify a point for the general audience. As I understood it, the point being made is that followers of Semitic religions are "slaves" to their scriptures which consist of "do's and don'ts" while Hindus have such do's and don'ts but are not slaves to them/don't need them/see the higher purpose behind them.

In all fairness, I don't think the distinction is so clear-cut, nor is it necessarily a Judeo/Christian/Islamic vs Hindu issue. Even within Hinduism, I'm sure we have all met people who follow specific regulations without being able to verbalize their significance in the grander context of seeking moksha. Nor do I think it fair to suggest that every Jew/Christian/Muslim follows regulations blindly. Nor is it really illuminating to suggest that the point of regulations is to create a saattvik atmosphere, especially if the implication is that one can create a saattvik atmosphere without regulations. In this regard, gItA 18.6-9 is quite instructive - it is performance of duties without expectation of reward that it is sAttvik according to Sri Krishna, whereas reununciation of them due to ignorance or inconvenience is said to be due to rajas or tamas. This is in keeping with the general theme of His teachings to Arjuna that discourage false and unauthorized renunciation.

But it's probably true that the average Hindu is far less likely to say that you are destined for eternal Hell because of not following this or that. This is more of a culture issue than scripture one. There are plenty of do's and don'ts mentioned in our smRitis and even mention of punishments, hell, etc for those who fail to carry them out. But as a matter of culture, refinement, etc, we as Hindus don't usually condemn people outright. There are also good internal reasons for this. As I noted in another posting, Vedic morality is often layered and complex. There are times when a person may seem to be outwardly sinful, fallen, low, etc when in fact he may be a great paramahamsa. There is also the very practical point that you have to be the change you wish to see in others (Gandhi said that), and you convince more people by honey rather than salt. :-)

regards,