Which one are we meant to be?

[Guest guest]

> > 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.

 

So in effect what you're saying is if anyone holds to the Vaisnava

understanding of the Absolute Truth (and the absolute truth), then they're

not able to "dialogue" with others and "develop their spirituality." Yet I

bet the academics would be the first to call that person "close minded."

(Kind of like what we've seen on this forum lately...) In fact it's academia

who is closing off any opportunity of dialogue with a person who is in

possession of the absolute truth, instead creating a whole language that

turns that person into a religious zealot, a fanatic, or a close-minded

religious nut.

 

Wow. If this is what academia does for a person, no wonder I'm so opposed to

it's mass introduction into ISKCON by any number of so-called devotees who

are simply peddling their own understanding of Vaisnava philosophy....