Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (2nd Bin)

[Guest]

Ben AMi,

Also, it doesn't work if you claim upanishadic backing for a "free for all" version of Hinduism.

Just because hinduism doesn't get stuck with a certain aspect of the divine doesn't mean it doesn't have clear ideas of what divine is supposed to be. Or what are the proper ways to approach the divine.

Let me again quote from your pet upaiShads (I will let you figure out which upaniShad):

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->kShurasya dhArA nishitA duratyayA
(as difficult as walking on a razor's edge)
durgaH pathaH tat kavayo vadanti
(is the (spiritual) path, so say the sages (kavis))<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If the spiritual path is supposed to be as sharp and difficult as walking on a razor's edge, it surely is not a free for all! Evidently it is extremely narrow.

For example in Yoga one has to follow the five yamas (ahimsA, satya, asteya, aparigraha, brahmacharya), each of which is a mahA-vrata, extremely hard to follow and to keep up with, like walking on a razor's edge. A free for all attitude in Yoga leads to loss of mental balance and worse, even death.

What hinduism does is to provide a set of instructions depending upon what you want to achieve. If you want kAma, there is a certain set of instructions, same for artha, dharma and mokSha.

And instructions for mumuKshus (those desiring mokSha) are relatively very strict.

Instructions also vary with type of job a person does. Instructions for Brahmans may be very strict in some respects as compared to say kShatriyas. I think that is what Sunder was also hinting at when he mentioned 'karmas'.

Of course, as far as I am concerned, and I have Sri Krishna words as a backing, a brahmana or a kShatriya, or vaishya or shUdra is by the type of job he/she does and the type of life he/she leads, not by birth.