Recent exchange of emails regarding the tragedy in US

[Guest guest]

Dear List members

 

We have had some sharp exchanges / messages on our

list recently. Let me offer my observations:-

 

(1) The recent tragedy in USA is an emotive issue hence

philosophising or saying 'I told you so' is not a sensitive

way of handling the issues involved. But I must add that I

do not think that anyone has done this in any 'deliberate

sense' - it just came out so.

 

(2) Serious questions were asked about 'How can a nation

respond?' Should the reaction be: 'Shoot from the hip'?

We have heard the President use phrases like a war between

'Good and Evil'. Would such polarisation solve the

problem or make it worst? If the nation does nothing

- it gives out a signal of weakness and inability of defending

itself. If the nation over re-acts the situation may

escalate. All societies are very vulnerable to such or even worst

attacks. I do not think there is an easy answer.

 

(3) Assuming that there is a group of fanatics in Afghanistan

who are responsible - would going after them and destroying

them solve the problem?

According to me the system that has conjured up this

phenomenon will continue to conjure up more of the same.

It is like chopping off one head of the hydra - to be replaced

by many more heads.

 

(4) What is the solution? Religion is an emotive subject and

has the power to produce such fanatic behaviour. The secular

voice of the society is going to say: " Religious teachings have

been the cause of such horrific carnage " Hence their reaction

is going to be: " get rid of all religious teachings " .

 

(5) One of the ways the religious communities can respond is

by 'Re-examining religious teachings'. If needed even re-interpreting

their own scriptures to tackle the situation we live in: i.e. " A

multi-faith society. " Hence just tolerance of other faiths will not do

any more -- this has to be replaced with " Acceptance of other faiths

as equally valid " . This is not an easy thing to do. Again the word

that comes to mind is 'Pluralism'. Can this be advocated by

the main stream religions? The pundits of various faiths can dig

deep into their own traditions and come up with lots of

speculative arguments of how this can somehow be accommodated

within their faith. This will appear suspiciously as text torturing.

 

(6) The unusual feature in Sri Ramakrishna's life is that he

lays claim to spiritual experiences prescribed in all the major

faiths. This is not 'mere speculation' it is 'spiritual experience'.

It gives validity to the word 'Pluralism'. Hence this personality

can be seen as a very relevant and contemporary facet

of spirituality.

 

jay

Vivekananda Centre London

[Guest guest]

-

" Swami Yogeshananda " <yogeshananda

" Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda

Tuesday, September 18, 2001 02:03

Re: Recent exchange of emails regarding the tragedy in US

 

 

> Dear Jay,

> After nearly a week of Interfaith and other commiserating meetings here in

> Atlanta, I am of the opinion that there a great many people, in both of

our

> countries and elsewhere, who would second your valuable remarks.

> Question is, (at least over here) how long will we be able and

> willing to voice our obviously minority view, in the face of so many

> critics and scolders? Lots of matter for prayer.

> Yours in the Master, Yogeshananda

>

>