Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 > Many of you recall Diane Eck, the Harvard professor who has had some > contact with ISKCON in the past. She heads up something called The > Pluralism Project. She offers a definition of the "exclusivist", > "inclusivist" and "pluralist": > > The exclusivist insists on only one interpretation and one reality. The > inclusivist believes there are many valid paths though theirs is the best. > The pluralist holds that the truth is not the possession of any one > tradition, and therefore takes advantage of opportunities to dialogue with > others to develop their spirituality. > > Seems much of the discussion that is happening between Mahatma and Jahnu > Prabhus (and others) centers around which one of the three are ISKCON > devotees meant to be? Which one was Srila Prabhupada? If we must use these karmi terms, he was definitely an exclusivist. He excluded anything but pure bhakti. I just don't understand why we must adopt secular, academic terms to describe devotees in ISKCON. To me it's a total cop-out. To describe a social or religious phenomenon they dress it up in the secular terms they learn in the universities,and then think they have explained or understood anything. It's like the scientists, they think they have explained anything by making up a whole avalanche of fancy, complicated words, that we then, naturally, need them to explain to us. Why must we adopt university jargon in ISKCON? I am definitely not interested in trying to understand anything in the light of what some academian speculates in his mind. ys, jdd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.