Vaagmi
0
A qualified teacher can teach anyone what Dharma is and how to interpret that in a given situation.
A human being knows when they condone corruption or when they engage in that act, that they are doing harm.
A person steeped in religion tend to engage in adharmic activities inconsistent with the teaching.
A religious ego is one of the most harmful ego in terms of its impact.
I agree with all the above four. The fourth one I would like to amend. I would place political ego in place of religious ego as the most harmful.
New sub religions will always get formed - past, present and future. There are no issues with that.
Similarly image worship, having a teacher or having some traditions and following them are all fine provided there is no adharma and corruption in the daily life of the practitioners of the tradition.
The problem is many do not know that it is an adharma and so are indulging in adharmic activities. Rather some may think it is dharmic to indulge in such activities. The Guru may help in such situations.
Not everyone has to know the knowledge scriptures well. But a few who are in the role of teaching must and should be able to translate them to ordinary people in terms of what it means to lead a life of Dharma amidst issues. Instead religions (including Hinduism and its vintages) has become a platform to promote superstition enabling more insecurity , corruption (e.g, sharing black money with God or spending a fortune on an idol while people are dying), and making their 'God' an accomplice in chasing after greed.
God never becomes an accomplice in anything. If you ask the businessman who deposits a fat purse into the hundi of a temple he will convincingly speak to you about his reasons for not spending that money for feeding people. He may even tell you that he is feeding such poor people through another trust of him. It is love for the God entity that makes him deposit money/ornaments to God and he derives immense satisfaction from that act. who are we to question that?
Superstitions are a sensitive topic. What is a superstition for a Scientist may be just an expression of love/bhakti for a devotee. Religion through its scriptures just dictates while science elaborately interpretes it and finds fault in it. "Satyam vada" is a religious edict which is brief in just two words. Science can question it and tell that satyam vada may not be good always. Some time you may lose your life if you follow that edict-science would say. So a medium path is to be found. So Valluvar said "even a lie is truth if it delivers good to people". And science later came round and said "after all it may be worth speaking truth always as every time a lie is told the human heart receives a jolt from the electrical sygnal sent to it". So superstition is contextual and there is nothing absolute about it.
Scriptural teaching to ordinary people does not mean teaching Vedanta to ordinary people.
Why not Vedanta? Who is the judge?
Can't comment on mistaken (though popular) understanding of the usage of the term "dukhrinjkarane"
What is understood by readers is what is important and not what grammar gives. When my next door girl tells her friend " மொக்க போடராண்டீ" I do not rush to pick up my Tamil Thesaurus. I understand what is said and laugh out loud (LOL). மொக்க may not be correct but it conveys picturesquely an idea. That is what is important. LOL.
Last edited: