Part 4 of my post is here
http://reconcilecomplexity.blogspot.sg/2012/10/sanathana-dharma-part-4.html
I discussed that the requirement of different people is different. Some would agree and say that therefore Organized religion be banned as it tries to create a standard set of regulations.
The requirement of people may be different but we cannot cater to all the requirements just as the craving for icecream of a little kid cannot be catered to all the time. There would further be no progress if we have laws that can be changed at a whim nor will it work out if each allows his own rules. The former means there is no respect for a law and the latter means that there is nothing but individualism. Individualism is opposed to unity of the world. Some would therefore say that there should be a compromise between freedom and restriction.
Is there any scientific rule to distinguish what can be allowed as a choice and what should be restricted. I will not be surprised if people are busy preparing mathematical models on this subject. Needless to say any model is good only as much good the information that we have. We have some well documented works on human behavior for last 200 years of the known 100000 years of human history. This is a far from anything comprehensive. Some would say sufficient sample. I would say not. We are dealing with only 7-8 generations of humans , and many historical events and circumstances have never occurred during this period. Nor can we conclude that certain circumstances not believed to have been possible , have never occurred. To get to a scientific basis would not be to postulate laws on limited information( for which there is no sufficient scientific law to explain if it is anywhere near to being comprehensive) but use a different approach from studying and deriving laws of human psychology from the current state of nature and consciousness itself. Even here the state of human nature has never been comprehensively predicted . We have best been able to summarize some behavior outcomes to a few decision points.
To not deviate from my discussion, what I intend to say is that the conventional belief that religions carry forward some laws which have been in existence for more than a millennium, cannot be dismissed outright and they need to be treated with respect as they bear the stamp of a long human experience to circumstances.
Sanathana Dharma dictates that humans are governed by laws which cannot be altered and are not subject to imagination and they do vary in time and place. The variation in application cannot be divised without understanding the core principles involved . At one level laws are eternal and at another level they seem practically different. The difference is because of the limited scope under which a particular human operates and may not be considered a limitation in the universality of the law. That every now and then one cannot restate and create a new law seems crystal clear to anyone who observes the chaos in society and the failures in such attempts. That people and the adminstrators try to universalize a local application and meet with failures is also clear.
At this juncture there can be a question. What is the so called original Sanathana Dharma laws? Today the situation in the mind of people is different. There just seems to be deviated religions and wrongly applied principles. Obviously the concern deserves attention as no-one wants to accept religious laws under the notion of improperly applied principles( the discussion here pertains to what is commonly discussed today as the corruption of religion)
http://reconcilecomplexity.blogspot.sg/2012/10/sanathana-dharma-part-4.html
I discussed that the requirement of different people is different. Some would agree and say that therefore Organized religion be banned as it tries to create a standard set of regulations.
The requirement of people may be different but we cannot cater to all the requirements just as the craving for icecream of a little kid cannot be catered to all the time. There would further be no progress if we have laws that can be changed at a whim nor will it work out if each allows his own rules. The former means there is no respect for a law and the latter means that there is nothing but individualism. Individualism is opposed to unity of the world. Some would therefore say that there should be a compromise between freedom and restriction.
Is there any scientific rule to distinguish what can be allowed as a choice and what should be restricted. I will not be surprised if people are busy preparing mathematical models on this subject. Needless to say any model is good only as much good the information that we have. We have some well documented works on human behavior for last 200 years of the known 100000 years of human history. This is a far from anything comprehensive. Some would say sufficient sample. I would say not. We are dealing with only 7-8 generations of humans , and many historical events and circumstances have never occurred during this period. Nor can we conclude that certain circumstances not believed to have been possible , have never occurred. To get to a scientific basis would not be to postulate laws on limited information( for which there is no sufficient scientific law to explain if it is anywhere near to being comprehensive) but use a different approach from studying and deriving laws of human psychology from the current state of nature and consciousness itself. Even here the state of human nature has never been comprehensively predicted . We have best been able to summarize some behavior outcomes to a few decision points.
To not deviate from my discussion, what I intend to say is that the conventional belief that religions carry forward some laws which have been in existence for more than a millennium, cannot be dismissed outright and they need to be treated with respect as they bear the stamp of a long human experience to circumstances.
Sanathana Dharma dictates that humans are governed by laws which cannot be altered and are not subject to imagination and they do vary in time and place. The variation in application cannot be divised without understanding the core principles involved . At one level laws are eternal and at another level they seem practically different. The difference is because of the limited scope under which a particular human operates and may not be considered a limitation in the universality of the law. That every now and then one cannot restate and create a new law seems crystal clear to anyone who observes the chaos in society and the failures in such attempts. That people and the adminstrators try to universalize a local application and meet with failures is also clear.
At this juncture there can be a question. What is the so called original Sanathana Dharma laws? Today the situation in the mind of people is different. There just seems to be deviated religions and wrongly applied principles. Obviously the concern deserves attention as no-one wants to accept religious laws under the notion of improperly applied principles( the discussion here pertains to what is commonly discussed today as the corruption of religion)
