Religious Authority Scrutinized

[ethos]

I'm sorry. I was just adding a post and I suddenly felt "inspired" to challenge the "staus quo". I know this may alienate people.

 

On the one hand, I percieve a religious tolerance for other religions on this board which I agree with. Yet there are expressed views that go so far as to suggests that any sincere devotee of a "Western faith" can attain God: spiritual life is not exclusive and no one has a monopoly on God. Gauracandra is a popular advocate of such beliefs and he has many sympathizers by evidence of his supporters that respond with their empathy. Now, we very well know that "Western religions" do not have an organized or "official" parampara sytem of disseminating knowledge which authorizes proper reception on a person by person basis.

 

On the other hand, we have many––and some of the same––proponents that argue for a direct link to disseminating knowledge within the "Eastern" Vedic tradition: it is absolutely necessary to be "officially" subservient by accepting an authorized spiritual master to advance in spiritual life. Besides the parampara tradition, even the Rtvik's concerns center around this issue.

 

Now one and all, please give me the "politically correct" view––especially those of you who espouse both––by which I must simultaneously accept an independently subjective connnection on the one hand and a necessary authorized link on the other with regard to this duality concerning religious tolernace.

 

If I'm not a heretic yet, let me commit myself:

Prabhupada said his only fault was accepting so many unqualified disciples.

 

I have added this simply to point out that "official" doesn't necessarily mean qualified. Conversely, it is generally accepted that we learn from one who knows. So where's the standard?

[tsaneladi]

I certainly dont pretend to offer any authorized or even politically correct view, but my feeling is that I have a tolerance of other views but can't accept them as the right path.

 

The acceptance of a religious path is better than no realization at all, and perhaps an opportunity to open the door to the Vaisnava path for those who are ready

[theist]

The answer to your question is included in the sentence you use as a signature.

 

"Knowledge is where you find it."

 

 

[theist]

ethos,

 

I find it helpful to try and see past the external trappings of eastern religion and western religion.If some one from any culture,simply bows down before the authority of the Lord and asks for mercy, is that not the process?Do you think the Lord in the heart won't hear that person's prayer because of the land his body took birth in?

 

If I see someone praying to God as the Supreme Person I know that the Caitya-guru is active in inspiring that person.It is no mystery.

 

Krsna is approached by those in distress,seeking money,the curious and those who have developed knowledge.What is the difference in consciousness of someone in India praying for money and someone in California praying to God for money?

 

When I encounter someone who has knowledge of God, I know he received it from the Lord and His devotees.Maybe he received yesterday from within directly from Supersoul or in a past birth by hearing a devotee speak.

 

Now I'm going to spend my time hearing from those whose knowledge is more developed, that's a fact.But these terms Hindu and Christian etc. have no value to me.Even a person who claims no religion may have faith in the Supreme Being.

 

Remember the Lord is independent,and whom He chooses to bestow His Grace unpon is up to Him.Time place circumstance are no hinderance to Him.All our so-called righteous acts fall short.Better to be a sincere contrite person praying in a Church,though illiterate, than a vastly erudite pandit chanting pious slokas in a temple, but with a proud heart.

 

Jaya Yeshua! Jaya Krsna!

[tsaneladi]

Remember the Lord is independent,and whom He chooses to bestow His Grace unpon is up to Him.Time place circumstance are no hinderance to Him.All our so-called righteous acts fall short.Better to be a sincere contrite person praying in a Church,though illiterate, than a vastly erudite pandit chanting pious slokas in a temple, but with a proud heart.

 

This is too often forgotten in my case. Thanks for the inspiration

[ethos]

Tsaneladi,

 

I appreciated your first response alot better than your second; it sounded as your own and I actually found myself agreeing with you. But it did not answer my question.

 

Concerning the response of Theist and yourself, I was content to let sleeping dogs lie because I understand the sentimental tunnel vision of those thinking they're very broad-minded and nonsectarian and so on.

 

But your second response convinced me of what I just said and "reminded me" that you and Theist have not answered my question.

 

Tsaneladi and Theist,

 

If you two would stop playing God and telling me what He (Krsna) would or wouldn't like, you could answer my question. All this sentimental rhetoric and liberalism isn't anything that hasn't recently been said before. I've already acknowledged other religions and their practicioners in the "Can a Christian attain God?" thread. I also went to great lenghts to present their shortcomings and pitfalls. Don't simply repeat the same propaganda as if you're making a point.

 

Please review the question above specifically contained within the fourth paragraph and try again.

 

Theist,

 

It is not helpful to see past the external trappings of religious social culture with a view to creating your own religious process. Nor does a combination of the better points of each help. ...May make you feel good. ...But it's not very practical for a conditioned soul who needs something that works. This stuff is for the liberated souls who are experiencing Krsna everywhere. We have to select and follow an authorized processes and not concoct our own.

 

It is exactly with this in mind that I ask you to respond in terms of "religious processes" and "your perception of them". Don't just respond with the same thing you have above. That's actually irrelevant to my question. I'm not asking for your position concerning the long shot of Krsna bestowing his mercy on whomever he pleases. I'm asking you to resolve the philosophical conflict of opposing religious practices, especially as they are percieved and hypocritically propagated by those on this board.

 

I'm trying not to get personal. At an ecumenical converence it is considered bad manners to say that I may be right, but that you are less right. However, it may be the truth. Sometimes it's necessary to get personal to make a point. If it's necessary to say you or I are wrong to pursue our philosophical points and get at the truth, then I'm game. Let the truth be known!

 

Now excuse me while I put my armour on. I think I may need it.

[ethos]

I'm tired. I was lying down with my head swimming through so many different thoughts. Couldn't sleep. So I thought I might find peace if I could get this out.

 

I still want ya'll to answer my question above and not just respond only to what I'm gonna say now. I'm trying here to shed some light on my motive and philosophical basis for this dialogue, but it can be found between the lines of the many words I've said before.

 

To be true to my heretical nature and cut to the chase I'll say that Christians, after all is said and done, simply have and teach the faith that God exist. That's it––in a nutshell. Even the commandments and histories enunciating such principles as do not covet your neighbors wife are simple. It's like hitting the barn door. You know, you can't miss... like humanitarians saying you shouldn't exploit the blacks in South Africa. Their philosophies and practices are somewhat primitive. And... still they miss the barn door with things like "do not kill" because they generally justify eating meat!

 

Now I'm not gonna preach what they don't know again, you're aware of these things.

 

But basically they have and preach faith. But they don't know very well how to practice it!

 

I think what I find sad––and even offensive––is promoting both religious cultures as somehow equal (or acceptable) besides the obvious disparaties between the two.

 

Eastern religions have knowledge and philosophy and science and arts and every aspect of life permeated with religious doctrine. Western theology begins and ends with "I believe."

 

I could go on contrasting the two, but what for? Most all of us here know these things.

 

And I guess this is also a part of my perspective: I find it offensive to simply compare undisciplined, free-wheeling theist (not you "Theist") with scientific adherents to the truth. If find it demeaning and insulting to Prabhupada, Krsna, and the whole Vedic tradition. Hare Krsna.

[leyh]

Dear ethos:

 

Hare Krsna!I hope you are well.You wrote:

 

Eastern religions have knowledge and philosophy and science and arts and every aspect of life permeated with religious doctrine. Western theology begins and ends with "I believe."

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

To say that Western theology begins and ends with "I believe."' is a sweeping statement.What about the Christian mystics like Thomas A Kempis, Brother Lawrence,the anonymous writer of The Cloud of Unknowing,Meister Eckhart,Thomas Merton etc? I have read the writings of some of these mystics and there are some very sublime realizations (unlike the dogma churned out by some Christian Fundamentalists) to be found in them.These mystics were writing from their own experience of the Divine and not thereotical knowledge.They should not be sweepingly dismissed.

 

 

[theist]

ethos,I'm not going to engage in this particular conversation.The topic is interesting and I am sure it will be touched on many times and in many ways in the future.

 

If my simple statements above are inadequate then so be it, I have nothing to add.

 

Hare Krsna brother soul

[mahak]

Haribol, sorry for butting in, but authority is a rather personal thing. If one is directed within thru the catholic idealogy, if they act in unison with the lord within, no problem. Similarly, through other methodology, the same result (perfection) may take place.

 

There are various stages of perfection, and the sane do not place "higher" or "lower" tags on such self realization. If santa rasa (peacefulness and self satisfaction without necessarily even seeing the supreme being) is the result of spiritual quest, this is fine. The rasas that recognize the personality of Godhead, as servitor, friend, parent, or beloved, these give the being a purpose, and the various philosophies that emphasize personal relationship with god all give such a purpose.

 

I never consider "religion" myself. If Lord Jesus Christ inspires me to be his brother in service to our common Father, this is great. If the Vaisnava Acarya gives a process that directs me toward remembering an actual relationship with God, then I am inclined toward such.

 

I am not a gopi-elitist, as to be on a battlefield in full war garb with Krsna (on either side) is just as attractive. Some may contend that rasas are superior and inferior, this difference is not a consideration because it does not jive with info from the heart that I am receiving.

 

So, individual discernment is the way I personally see as the very difference between vaisnavism and impersonalism that is basically self centered. I have a craving to serve another, and I have wasted many lives serving conditioned souls on the same sinking ship I am on. So, as service to another is inherant, no attraction is there for self serving systems of yoga practice, propping up of mundane religions, health issues, etc. My job is to look for a QUALIFIED receptacle of such service as to not waste too many more lives. How I serve is not my decision, as service means response to desire of the one being served, not presumptiousness on how the service be applied. Heck, to be a rock kicked during samkirtana is a wonderful position, especially if the devotee gets a kick out of it.

 

As fasr as all other points being made, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, it is sail, welcomes all religious impulse in man, so liberalism and tolerance must be there as well.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[ethos]

Leyh,

 

Not knowing anything about the characters you mentioned, I theoretically agree with everything you've said.

 

Mahak,

 

Your reply is not a rebuttal. You simply make wild, subjective claims you cannot defend. In your liberal eagerness, you jump the gun. Your not even presenting the Vedic philosophy correctly.

 

I agree with your last statement only.

[tsaneladi]

Eastern religions have knowledge and philosophy and science and arts and every aspect of life permeated with religious doctrine. Western theology begins and ends with "I believe."

 

I believe this statement to be wildly general in nature. If only it were all so easy

[ethos]

Tsaneladi, What you replied is not even an argument. Rather, it's just a weak assertion of your feelings. Not supportive of your title at all.

 

Anyway, truth is not subjective. Please provide the necessary substance to your allusions that the Christians have more than faith. And don't just expound their supportive philosopy which we all know. That simply establishes their faith.

 

I knew I'd be rocking the boat with this.

 

I'm tiring of this exchange which is little more than yes it is, not it isn't sentimentalism. Please refrain from this pissing contest and just answer the philosophical question above.

[theist]

Discussions on religion also fall under the influence of the three material modes of nature,unless one is a fully realized bhakta.

 

Knowledge is transmitted best when the sattva guna is dominate.

[ethos]

If your language is properly representing the authorities without deviation, it is transcendental to the modes. (My personal qualitfications are something else.) Prabhupada was very critical at times––even to the point of blasting the opposition.

 

Can't resist a pissing contest Theist? Just answer my question that started this thread and stop trying to fake me out.

[Guest guest]

 

what are you guyz arguing about ?

 

should western religion have any credibility for

being a TOTAL religious experience ?

 

To each his own.

Why do many religions exist ?

A school has many grades to accomodate people of various needs.

 

the western religions do have a cultural and disciplic quality,i.e. disciplic succession of Popes,

The culture of judasim,islam.

 

Why argue if they are bogus or not,they exist by the desire of God.

They attract followers by the steering power of God(paramatma).

 

If someone wants to preach the benefit of whatever religion, that is their right.

The advanced devotee can explain the relationship

between the various religions in the context

of the ultimate control over them by God,and how God leads the individual on a journey that may have many stops.

 

[ethos]

Shiva, I disagree with two points.

 

the western religions do have a cultural and disciplic quality,i.e. disciplic succession of Popes,

The culture of judasim,islam...

It's superficial, corrupt, etc. You could write volumes of books about how the processes and doctrines have been corrupted by politics.

 

Why argue if they are bogus or not,they exist by the desire of God.

Poison also exists by the power of God. We have to see the merits of His various manifestations within a discriminatory context favorable to performing absolute service.

 

They attract followers by the steering power of God(paramatma)...

Prabhupada pointed out that it is the duty of Indians and his ISKCON movement to provide people with the best, to facilitate people actually being God conscious. At one time Prabhupada pointed out that Christianity is just like a dead body that sometimes twitches. It may have been useful in the past and even now to some degree, but it is not the eternal religion. It is an inferior process, not the goal which will fully satisfy the soul.

 

I am willing to cool it. I am resigned to the opinion that my question will not be answered... as no one has attempted to do so.

[leyh]

Dear ethos:

 

I will start a thread entitled "Writings of the Christian Mystics" to post some excerpts of their writings to share with yourself and anyone else who might be interested.I believe we have a lot to learn from them.

[Guest guest]

 

still don't know what your question is.

[mahak]

I thought you were asking for heart to heart realizations about religious tolerance, but it appears that you want a pissing contest. So ask your questions to the wall, or the mirror. As far as AUTHORITY goes, this authority is present in everyone's heart, but the other pollution and elitism gets in the way, which is the job of delusion. Haribol, and goodbye, ys, mahaksadasa

[ethos]

Mahak, you appear to want the pissing prize: the context of your remark wasn't even accurate.

 

Unfortunately, it's not much of an accomplishment nor really good for anything; least of all understanding or advice.

 

This is a good example of how people are guilty of the very things they criticise.

[ethos]

I recognize that I'm a naive bhakta whose words are held in disrepute. Therefore, I went looking for some evidence to substantiate my unfavored opinions expounded above. I stopped when I found the last one; it says it all.

 

One cannot continue killing animals and at the same time be a religious man. That is the greatest hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said, “Do not kill,” but hypocrites nevertheless maintain thousands of slaughterhouses while posing as Christians. Such hypocrisy is condemned in this verse. One should be happy to see others happy, and one should be unhappy to see others unhappy. This is the principle to be followed. Unfortunately, at the present moment so-called philanthropists and humanitarians advocate the happiness of humanity at the cost of the lives of poor animals. (SB 6.10.9 Purport)

 

The members of some religious sects, especially Christians, do not believe in the reactions of karma. (SB 6.1.42 Purport)

 

It is also sometimes found that people are very much addicted to a particular type of religious faith. Hindus, Muslims and Christians are faithful in their particular type of religion, and they go to the church, temple or mosque, but unfortunately they cannot give up the association of persons who are too much addicted to sex life and satisfaction of the palate. Here it is clearly said that one may officially be a very religious man, but if he associates with such persons, then he is sure to slide down to the darkest region of hell. (SB 3.31.32 Purport)

 

This Pulinda province was also one of the provinces of Bharata, and the inhabitants were classified amongst the ksatriya kings. But later on, due to their giving up the brahminical culture, they were mentioned as mlecchas (just as those who are not followers of the Islamic culture are called kafirs and those who are not followers of the Christian culture are called heathens). (SB 2.4.18 Purport) ...Anybody know what "kafirs" means?

 

If one is actually Krsna conscious, he cannot have any enemies. Since his only engagement is to induce others to surrender to Krsna, or God, how can he have enemies? If one advocates the Hindu religion, the Muslim religion, the Christian religion, this religion or that religion, there will be conflicts. History shows that the followers of religious systems without a clear conception of God have fought with one another. There are many instances of this in human history, but systems of religion that do not concentrate upon service to the Supreme are temporary and cannot last for long because they are full of envy. There are many activities directed against such religious systems, and therefore one must give up the idea of “my belief” and “your belief.” Everyone should believe in God and surrender unto Him. That is bhagavata-dharma.

Bhagavata-dharma is not a concocted sectarian belief, for it entails research to find how everything is connected with Krsna (isavasyam idam sarvam). (SB 6.16.41 Purport)