Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (2nd Bin)

[Sunder]

Ben, your post seems to lack insight into Sanathana Dharma from an insider's point of view. Your language and examples used (atleast in the case of the horse) is objectionable and lacks insight and is in bad taste. While ignoring Cosmic Truths, you pick and choose literal translations of second or thirdhand meanings - most probably given by western sources like Wendy and her cohorts.

Your style of debating can easily be classified as JALPA-vaada (if not VITHANDA-vaada.) I would like to see more THARKA-vaada (a logical debate). I would like to see references from the Vedas itself to support your point of view. i.e. do the Vedas say that Dharma is not a compulsion and that (wo)man makes a religion and not religion makes a (wo)man.

<i>Let me simplify the terms JALPA, THARKA and VITHANDA. These are terms found in Gauthama's Nyaya Darshana.

<b>THARKA:</b> If you have a particular position (in this case religious anarchy), and I have a position (in this case Vedic Authority.) and we debate towards a common consensus within a framework (i.e. the arguments are well supported by a central authority - Vedas), it is called Tharka.

<b>JALPA:</b> If you have a position, but will not listen to or understand my position. If you keep on reaffirming your own stance without any logic, it is called Jalpa.

<b>VITHANDA:</b> If you have no position or argument, but your only point is to counter and negate whatever I say, it is Vithanda.
</i>

I would encourage a Tharka style here. I would like to see references to your claim from the Vedas itself that Sanathana Dharma is a non-imposing religion. I too shall provide references to my arguments.

Nitya Karma (day to day duties) as well as "kamya-karma" (optional category) are prescribed. While Kamya-Karma is optional, Nitya-Karma is mandatory.

i disagree with you that hinduism has anything mandatory.
if it does, i dont want to be hindu. me being me should make me hindu.
i want a religion where the people define the religion (by being who they are) and not the other way round.

Like Sandhya Vandanam, Agnihotram, Aupasanam etc. Thus, laying down of rules, and 'way of life' is not the proprietary property of Semitic sects.
it certainly isnt.
also hinduism does not lay down rules. it isnt semetic.

This is why you need a parampara. Religion is not meant for everyone. The aim of Dharma is not to live and die a useless life with a sanskrit name or tilak on the forehead that's ornamental. The aim and purpose of Religion is to overcome the cycles of Samsara & to Realize your Original "State". (I use the word 'state' because of the limitation of language.) As I mentioned, you are free to discard advise, but at it's own cost. The reasons for discarding are also mentioned in my previous post.

Now, coming to "Nitya Karma", you are saying they are not mandatory. This is true only for Sanyasis. It is mandated upon brahmacharins and householders. Could you please cite references where it is not mandatory?

Sri Bhagavaan, in the Gita says:
"anAshritah karma-phalam karyam karma karoti yah
sa sannyasi ca yogi ca na niragnir na cakriyah." BG 6.1

A Sanyasi or a Yogi is one who DOES his duties without *desiring* the results. One who *gives up* the duties (Agni and other vedic karmas) can never be a yogi or a sanyasi. IOW, he cannot be inching towards the goal of Hinduism.

Sri Bhagavaan time and again tells Arjuna not to shy away from his given duty as a Kshatriya. It is the Geeta that says it is better to die in your own Dharma even if you perform it imperfectly, rather than mimicing and excelling in someone else's Dharma.

"Shreyaan Swadharmo Vigunah, Paradharmaat Swanushthitaat,
Swadharme nidhanam shreyah. Para dharmO bhayAvahah."

so far i am concerned hindu-ISM ends with the upanishads.

way of life is the characteristic of the way-of-life religions or bell curve religions.
these religions are of the people by the people and for the people.

Religion and it's tenets cannot be decided by straw vote. I will take this up separately if interested.

In this case, The Great Manu is the "Law Giver" (even though He is more than that.) equivalent to the Prophet who gives the Laws.
i'd like to know how many lower caste people think manu smriti is a great book.

When a teenager, I too used to dislike and shy away from Mahatma Manu and the Smrithi. I was of the opinion that it should be burned. But once you read and understand it, you will not commit the same mistake. What manu says is not his own concoctions. It is supported (and corroborated) by Sri Krishna and all other major teachers of Sanathana Dharma..

Secondly, no caste is lower or higher based on birth. Thus please refrain from mimicing and giving credence to the western interpretation of Manu Dharma.

>>> But Vedas are a reflection of Truth that is Eternal.
very flattering indeed.

vedas are a reflection of truth thats eternal AS THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE VEDAS SAW THEM (ie. saw those truths to be).

another set of people (say the zulus) in another time and place, i am sure would have had a totally different version of whats eternal truth or a reflection thereof.

This would make Vedas subjective knowledge and not objective. Which would make Vedas a creation of individuals and prone to change. This is far from truth.

The common mistake even Hindus make is to equate the Vedas with the books. This is unconsciously mimicing the Semitic concept of Book = Religion formula.
yes. i just found a very good example of one such hindu - you.

you think the manu smriti is some formula we should all live by and if we dont we arnt hindus.

Smrithis do lay down the laws. Shruthi shows the path. To get from one city to another you need two things... 1) The map to show you the way, 2) Driving instructions to give you knowledge of driving. Vedas are akin to the roadmap, while Smrithis shows you the process and conduct which gets you there.

Vedas are Apaurusheya (not man made) and are said to be existing even before Creation (of the material Universe.)
yeah right.

Can you expand with reference to counter this ?

vedas are shruti or smriti - either comes out of the seers head (shruti) or comes down from some other previous sage/thjinker/seer (smriti).
which dont make the vedas "DELIVERED".

Interesting point. Smrithis are the Vedas ? I am keen to know more.

As mentioned above, Dharmic Religion has do's and don’ts.
no cumpulsions in hinduism. dont insult the frest religion of the world.
you are equally free not to follow a single one of them.

Reference please.

the charas smoking feces eating sadhus follow precious little of the vedas. yet they are as hindu as you me and the ver sexy preety zinta.

Manners please.

>>>Shankaracharya's Sadhana Panchakam for example will highlight these.

i havent the foggiest idea what that is - though i will never consider that book to be hinduism - just a book ON/OFF hinduism.

>>>The Bhagavad Geetha too tells of actions that leads to Hell, Heaven, or Liberation.
revered as it may be, the bhagavad gita isnt a book of hinduism per se.

So Bhagavad Geetha and Shankara's works are not books of Hinduism eh ? I need help from others to counter this. I do not have the capacity to do so.

there are 4 reasons why its revered and placed alobg with none less the vedas and often above them.

1- it was advice comming from krishna
2- the wisdom dispensed is of very high quality
3- its accepted that the teachings of the geeta existed long before the mahabharat was written
4- the gita is in spirit, like the upanishads - a book of advice.

I will expand and counter the rest of the post soon.