Comments for Swadharma http://www.swadharma.org The voice of Dharma Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:48:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 Comment on Promises To Yourself by malika http://www.swadharma.org/2010/11/08/promises-to-yourself/comment-page-1/#comment-1612 malika Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:48:01 +0000 http://www.swadharma.org/?p=2645#comment-1612 I like the importance you are giving to all learning and the way of connecting it with introspection. That is a sure way to progress in the world of spirituality (in my little understanding).   I like the importance you are giving to all learning and the way of connecting it with introspection. That is a sure way to progress in the world of spirituality (in my little understanding).  

]]> Comment on Promises To Yourself by Sonali http://www.swadharma.org/2010/11/08/promises-to-yourself/comment-page-1/#comment-1554 Sonali Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:02:44 +0000 http://www.swadharma.org/?p=2645#comment-1554 <p>Good point -- I hadn't noticed that until you pointed that out. Thanks! </p> Good point — I hadn’t noticed that until you pointed that out. Thanks!

]]> Comment on Promises To Yourself by Saketh http://www.swadharma.org/2010/11/08/promises-to-yourself/comment-page-1/#comment-1547 Saketh Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:05:27 +0000 http://www.swadharma.org/?p=2645#comment-1547 <blockquote>"To make all your friends feel that there is something in them."</blockquote> needs to be changed to <blockquote>"To make all people know that there is something in them."</blockquote> Then I would agree that it voices the way you try to live.

“To make all your friends feel that there is something in them.”

needs to be changed to

“To make all people know that there is something in them.”

Then I would agree that it voices the way you try to live.

]]> Comment on Misinterpreting Freedom by svat http://www.swadharma.org/2010/11/02/misinterpreting-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-1544 svat Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:15:27 +0000 http://www.swadharma.org/?p=2575#comment-1544 I think that the "<i>assuming that my earlier explanation is “correct”</i>" part is flawed. :-) It is incorrect to say that the world is an illusion: it is a misinterpretation (or mistranslation) of what "Maya" means. The world is all manifestation of Maya, but just because it is not the "ultimate reality" doesn't mean it's not real! The concept of Maya just means that there's more than what we see. As an analogy, if someone tells you that "there's more to life than money", it doesn't mean that money is an illusion, or that money doesn't exist. We still need money, and must work for it. It only means that we must not think that money is all there is. The world still exists; we have to live and act in this world, and dharma and karma are defined with respect what goes on in the world. If we use an excuse of world-as-illusion and fail to do things we ought to — e.g. have a lack of concern, as you said — our conduct would be adharma, and have its consequences. The only consequence of Maya etc. is that conduct in the world is not by itself sufficient for anything to do with the realm of the ultimate reality; that's why "moksha" is a separate goal from "dharma". There has been a lot of misinterpretation, especially by Western English-speaking academics, who have translated "maya" as "illusion" and characterised (e.g.) Advaita Vedanta as "world-denying". In truth it is not so! [BTW, accessing swadharma.org from India gives a 403 forbidden error; is this intentional?] I think that the “<i>assuming that my earlier explanation is “correct”</i>” part is flawed. :-)
It is incorrect to say that the world is an illusion: it is a misinterpretation (or mistranslation) of what “Maya” means. The world is all manifestation of Maya, but just because it is not the “ultimate reality” doesn’t mean it’s not real! The concept of Maya just means that there’s more than what we see.
As an analogy, if someone tells you that “there’s more to life than money”, it doesn’t mean that money is an illusion, or that money doesn’t exist. We still need money, and must work for it. It only means that we must not think that money is all there is.
The world still exists; we have to live and act in this world, and dharma and karma are defined with respect what goes on in the world. If we use an excuse of world-as-illusion and fail to do things we ought to — e.g. have a lack of concern, as you said — our conduct would be adharma, and have its consequences. The only consequence of Maya etc. is that conduct in the world is not by itself sufficient for anything to do with the realm of the ultimate reality; that’s why “moksha” is a separate goal from “dharma”.
There has been a lot of misinterpretation, especially by Western English-speaking academics, who have translated “maya” as “illusion” and characterised (e.g.) Advaita Vedanta as “world-denying”. In truth it is not so!
[BTW, accessing swadharma.org from India gives a 403 forbidden error; is this intentional?]

]]> Comment on Worshiping God as Mother by ak http://www.swadharma.org/2010/10/21/worshiping-god-as-mother/comment-page-1/#comment-1542 ak Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:59:54 +0000 http://www.swadharma.org/?p=2630#comment-1542 The sad thing is, we are occupied by our toys much longer than babies are. The sad thing is, we are occupied by our toys much longer than babies are.

]]>