Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (2nd Bin)

[gangajal]

<i>Like Sandhya Vandanam, Agnihotram, Aupasanam etc. Thus, laying down of rules, and 'way of life' is not the proprietary property of Semitic sects.
.............
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</i>.

Sundarji,
Isn't your position too literal? Gita also says, "Thus have I imparted to you wisdom which is more secret (profound) than all that is secret (profound). <b>Reflecting over this whole teaching, do as you think fit." </b>(Gita 18.63) So we have to accept the position of a person who after reflection decides that in today's world one cannot adopt such a strict position on nitya karma.

<i>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."</i>

What does dharma mean here?

<b>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</b>.

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

Hindus are free to reject smritis if they so want since smritis claim that they only interpret the sruti.

I<b>n this case, The Great Manu is the "Law Giver" (even though He is more than that.) equivalent to the Prophet who gives the Laws</b>.

[<b>color=blue]i'd like to know how many lower caste people think manu smriti is a great book.[/color][</b>/quote]
<i>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</i>.

Manu Smrit itself says that," <b>Let him avoid (the acquisition of) wealth and (the gratification of his)
desires, if they are opposed to the sacred law, and even LAWFUL ACTS WHICH
MAY CAUSE PAIN IN THE FUTURE OR ARE OFFENSIVE TO MEN</b>." (IV.176)
Since Manu Smriti itself does not claim infallibility and Gita admits that there is scope for reflection on its teachings I do not see why a Hindu can not reject Manu Smriti as an archaic assemblage of laws.

>>> <b>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</b>.

<i>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</i>.

Both Ben ami and you have made very good points. The only thing I would point out is that while admitting that Vedas play an important role in the life of an Hindu, a Hindu is not required to give up reason. Adi Shankara himself says, " ...... The appeal to the infallibility of the Vedic injunction is
misconceived. The infallibility in question refers only to the unseen force or apurva, and is admissable only in regard to matters not confined to the sphere of direct perceptions etc. ..... <b>Even a hundred statements of sruti to the effect that fire is cold and non-luminous won't prove valid. If it does make such a statement, its import will have to be interpreted differently. Otherwise, validity won't attach to it. Nothing in conflict with the means of valid cognition or with its own statement may be imputed to sruti.</b>" (Bhagavad Gita Bhashya of Sri Sankaracharya 18.66 translated by Dr. A.G. Krishna Warrier).

<b>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</b>.

<i>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 ther</i>e.

Both of you have made valid points. I tend to side with Ben Ami and say that while we should have respect for smritis, we should not blindly accept everything written in the smritis.

[

quote]<b>Vedas are Apaurusheya (not man made) and are said to be existing even before Creation (of the material Universe.) yeah right</b>.

<i>Can you expand with reference to counter this</i> ?

Sayanacharya in his introduction to the commentary on Rg Veda says that the statement,"Vedas are Apaurusheya" does not mean that the books known to us as do not have any authors. What it means is that the knowledge of Brahman that is in those books is not man made but revealed by Brahman to the authors of the Vedas.

[

quote]<b>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.</b>

<i>Reference please</i>.

Gita 18.63.

[>>>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.[/QUOTE]

Ben Ami is clearly wrong here!


Gangajal