Philosophical?

[Guest guest]

> Hate to pop your bubble here, but being an initiated devotee actually DOES

> mean to know the philosophy, agree with it, and then practice it. What

> else would it mean?

 

When I say "generally speaking" I mean generally speaking. As for initiated

devotees, specifically speaking, yes, it would be expected that they know

the philosophy and agree to practice it before initiation. If there is

eventually any apparent dichotomy it's mostly not about understanding the

philosophy but disagreeing with its application in every day devotee's life.

In other words, one may understand and accept the philosophy itself but, at

the same time, be in disagreement with how the philosophy is imposed (by

certain authorities of the group who have certain understanding of the

philosophy) to be followed.

 

I am wondering, however, what it might mean to apparently know the

philosophy, to apparently strictly follow it, to vigorously defend it and at

the same time be arrogant and intentionally insulting to other devotees...

 

> And 'generally speaking' in whose terms?

 

In my, general, terms.

 

> Is this your

> understanding of what ISKCON is? That you 'know the philosophy' then

> decide not to 'agree with it'?

 

I just explained it.

 

> Why claim to be a member of a group, and

> then object to their philosophy and to those who want to follow it?

 

Are you going to initiate a separate discussion? Otherwise I don't see your

question relevant. I haven't seen anyone here objecting to the philosophy.

If I have missed something, please copy and paste.

 

> > To know the

> > philosophy is not to expertly quote it but to properly live it.

>

> Yes, my point exactly. So?

 

Don't insist on giving you "evidences" (quotes in particular) to make you

convinced that someone knows the philosophy.

 

 

Viraja