My View

[Gauracandra]

I agree with a lot of your sentiments Dubey. I think the fundamental problem is structural and not strictly philosophical. Christianity is very singular and hierarchical. They have one book, one life in which to attain salvation, one God, one prophet, and one true church (depending on which church it is you belong to). Hinduism (I’m using this term in its most general sense) is very amorphous in that it lacks strict organization. It is in fact anti-organizational given the guru structure. Every passing of a guru leads to the fragmentation of the disciples who each go on to become gurus and continue the line. The focused energy becomes diffuse. In a sense this is true to spirituality in that spirituality requires a renewal, as the disciple becomes realized and passes on the knowledge downward. But it also prevents the creation of the mass mobilization of people, capital, and energy to move society and the religion forward. I like to use the analogy of a magnifying glass. Take an 8 inch magnifying glass and watch the energy of the sun pass through it. Nothing happens. Now take a 2 inch magnifying glass and focus the energy of the sun. You will soon be able to burn a hole through wood and start a blazing fire. What Christianity has going for it is that it has focused energy. Hinduism, because it creates diversity, takes that same energy in many different directions (each following the particular guru). Now as with most things this can be a strength and a weakness. It was I believe this sheer diversity which prevented the elimination of the Indian culture by the Muslims, British etc… There was no one head to kill for the body to die. All over the world we have seen so many cultures die off. But India is still there. But this is not a proactive strength, rather it is a reactive strength because it prevents its own elimination (defense vs. offense so to speak). But this diversity is also a weakness in that it prevents a focused and united populace that moves towards common goals together. I said in another post that diversity is a weakness. Diversity clouds the magnifying glass. It prevents a focused endeavor towards certain goals. Diversity sends money and energy here and there and everywhere, rather than to one singular point to burn a hole and start a blazing fire. Some people think structure is secondary and not truly substantive. This is certainly false as any business executive will tell you. Structure is a foundation on which to focus the combined energies of people. It gives a common voice to a people and helps guide them towards common goals.

 

Gauracandra

[dubeyrakesh]

All the chaos/dissatisfaction in the material world is a direct effect of the inability/unwillingness to control the mind.

The external world will be at peace if the intenal mind is at peace ie if one can keep his mind sanyamit and niyamit and not allow its state it to be governed by the material senses. We all know this is veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy difficult.

 

<E>This all may be redundant but thats not what this thread is started for.</E>

 

I just wanted to put my views on how Christianity, Islam and Hinduism "handle" this:

 

1. Christianity takes the easiet path. Because it is difficult to control the mind (=desires), better not to control it. Instead follow the desires within rules and regulations. So we have the material west where we find not only more materialism (money, sex etc) but better law and order also. Result: the west is seemingly more organized/developed/modern than the third world Asian countries.

 

2. Islam tries to take the bull by horns. Tries to enforce the sanyam-niyam. So we have the fundalmentalist taliban where the internet is banned, the women move under veils etc etc. Result: an underdevloped group of countries seemingly and purposefully/willingly disconnected from the "modern" world.

 

3. Hinduism seems to take no path. It has all the knowledge about "how to keep the mind under control" in its literature, "suggests" that the mind _should_ be kept under control but neither enforces anything nor let it go free. Result : a utterly chaotic India aka Bharat where people(=Hindus) are struggling to decide what path to take. Struggling to identify themselves. Those who have "identified" themselves are either fully money and/or sex oriented or are here in this forums. In other words, each person is living in his own rules and regulations being a little good and a little more bad depending upon what past life has taught him/her.

 

From a layman's point of view, both "1" and "2" are better than "3".

 

"1" says, if you cant beat them (=desires) them, join them.

 

"2" suggests takinig the bull by horns.

 

"3" just "says".

 

These are my views. Differences are welcome.

 

Thanks,

 

Rakesh

 

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

But this diversity is also a weakness in that it prevents a focused and united populace that moves towards common goals together.

As Ants we were

Many moving as one;

As Humans we are

One moving as many

 

 

[animesh]

Diversity is quite natural in any religion over a long period of time. Somebody might claim that Hinduism is not a very old religion, because earlier the religion was "Sanatan Dharma". But, whatever name we use, the Hindus of today give importance to the scriptures and rituals followed by the followers of Sanatan Dharma. So, if we are not particular about nomenclature, then it is a very old religion. Consider Islam. It is true that there is not as much diverisity in it as in Hinduism. But if you talk to many muslims, you will find that some of them are extremely particular about following everything mentioned in qurans and hadiths and some are very liberal. But there are very few liberals among those who are considered as authorities on Islam. But, over time, it is possible that there will be more liberals among them.

[animesh]

There may be any number of reasons for diversity. One reason that often comes to my mind is our desire to have separate identity for us. If, as an individual, we are not able to leave a mark, then we want to belong to some group which is well known. Here group may include any kind of group, not necessarily religious. We want to show that our group is better than all others. We often say that the group that we follow should be followed by everyone. But when the number of followers in that group really becomes huge, then that is further broken into sub-groups.

We are hesitant to adopt the good things in other groups, because we fear that we may lose our separate identity.

 

History tells us that when followers of different groups start fighting over petty matters, then somebody arrives, who loves people of all these groups and provides teachings which are beneficial to all of them. For some years, this is really effective. But, after that, his teachings are given a separate name and thus one new group (or sect) is born.

[Guest guest]

 

 

Right on.