Thoughts from a Westerner

[Guest guest]

Thank you for those two cents on bhakti <br>I

should like to add my own.<br><br>I think what you are

highlighting is the difference between the esoteric and

exoteric ...<br>which could also be categorised as

'spirituality' versus 'religion'. It seems to me from the posts

about temple worship etc, that many of us here are

pursuing Hinduism from an esoteric point of view -

interpreting the texts and applying them to our lives,

building our personal conception of and devotion to God

and the Gods. Bhakti is about personal faith and

emotion, and is separate from 'organised religion' (the

exoteric principle) of which silentopposition

speaks.<br><br>Maybe the essence of being attracted to 'exotic'

spiritual paths is that when there is no exoteric tradition

in one's own culture or community, one feels freed

from those trappings, and can bring a fresh and

unjaundiced eye to the scriptures and the deities?<br><br>I

certainly agree that the majority of people in my country

(Britain) are dissatisfied with Christianity as it has come

to be practised. If asked their religion, many

people will answer 'C of E', but it has no relevance to

their lives - it is cultural, rather than spiritual,

and they do not attend church except for

christenings, weddings and funerals, unless they venture out to

sing at the Christmas Eve carol service! A growing

majority of people answer 'nothing' when asked to state

their religion. They do not even go so far as to say

that they are atheists, because that requires a

greater consideration of spiritual and philosphical

questions than our very secular society currently

encourages.<br><br>Padma

[Guest guest]

Sh. SilentSoul found your old(expired) invitation

to the club but have accessed the net again now only

after the long break. Thanks for the

consideration.<br>Have just joined back after a long break, pl allow my

2 cents too.<br>Silentposition has raised many

valid points, but in his place I would be slightly more

hesitant in my convictions when stepping into unfamiliar

territory.<br>I have always found hinduism to be somewhat

different from the common western definition of

'religion'.<br>Whenever in the past few posts a reference has been made

to the hindu religion's way of life meaning the

caste system etc., I would like to stress here that we

are not talking of Hinduism but instead of

'Manu-Smriti' which is a sort of 'Code of Conduct' book

delineating the various castes and their duties, way of life,

duties of a son, husband etc... The origin of this book

is also very old,(the smritis being pre-dating the

upanishads, somewhere between the vedas and the upanishads, I

may be wrong here). 'Manu-smriti' is not unlike the

'Koran', so full of rules and regulations applicable to

that period of time and as civilisations evolve any

set of rules is wont to become redundant, the

resultant mess is for all to see.<br>The word 'Hindu'

itself is relatively of a very recent origin by the

Persians(after 1200 AD approx) for the people living on the

other side of river Sindhu which is a major river now

in Pakistan. So the question of 'Hinduism' as a

class existing before this date does not arise. But for

an outsider, a whole civilisation existing and

following the same set of rules(Manu smriti) indicated a

same religion. It would be like the ignorant mistaking

the Americans for a single religion while the outward

similarity being due to the 'Constitution of USA'

!<br>Following the same analogy, disagreements among the many

religions(as defined by the western perspective, one book, one

god) existed among hindus from time immemorial for eg.

among the Shaiv, Shakt, Vaishnav, Nayyayika, ... may be

a thousand more. Not very unlike the US of A today,

eh?<br>The corruption pointed out by Silentopposition took

place in the way of life dictated by Manu smriti. As

will it take place due to the constitution of America

or any other country as the number of rules(checks

and balances) keep on increasing. For these are

things created by mechanical thought which is at best

just that mechanical and practical.<br>But to put

religion in the same basket would be a terrible mistake.

Most religions still exist in their pure form in the

words of their originators who have experienced

something beyond human thought. All the problems begin with

the successive interpretations. Gradually they become

handy tools for manipulators and ruling classes to

establish control through a set of rules apparently

originating from the religion by means of these flawed

interpretations.<br>The problem also lies in the fact that true spiritual

experiences are often indescribable lending themselves to

many interpretations.<br>These spiritual experiences

of the seers singing the vedas or

upanishads(vedanta) or of Jesus pointing to his father cannot ever

become corrupt. Corruption here is just decay of thought

that hasn't changed with time. Thought is impermanent

and needs to refresh itself constantly but not so

with Spirituality.<br>As purplepadma so rightly

pointed out, may be it is time to look at religion and

spirituality as two totally different but interdependent

fields??