Tattva-viveka
Guru Maharaja Debates with a Christian
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 6, 2008 4:41 pm
Guru Maharaja posted a comment to a Christian blog and it sparked an informal debate. Check it out here. When you go to the page, first there is the original blog, and if you scroll down you will find Guru Maharaja's comments. His last comment was not posted. I'll post it as a reply to this message. Read it after the other comments.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 6, 2008 4:42 pm
Bill
First of all you, cannot have it both ways when you on one hand speak of Christianity as including all that agree with the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed and on the other hand describe Christians like Moffit as those not following the Biblical prescription on the bottle of what constitutes true Christianity. It might be in your interest to ask Moffit how he justifies his opinion based upon scripture. Instead of dismissing him, at least you could give him the benefit of the doubt and hear him out.
My point in citing Moffit was that there are objective truths that don't always square with our particular understanding of scripture or revelation. We can deny them or we can grow in our our understanding of scripture from a static understanding to a dynamic one. Christianity has a history of doing this and this is in part what has kept it alive in the world.
As I have pointed out earlier, the objective heliocentric truth was for centuries denied on the basis of a particular Biblical reading, one that later gave way to a broader interpretation and Christian acknowledgment of the Copernican revelation, if you will. I believe the views and Biblical readings of respected Christian scholars like Moffit have more currency in the world than views like yours that deny obvious, objective spirituality and love of God outside your reading of scripture.
Is the love of God observed in Sri Caitanya within the religious realm any less an objective truth for believers than the earth's orbit around the sun? Let me cite Copleston in his famous debate with Russell: “But when you get what one might call the pure type [of spiritual experience], say St. Francis of Assisi, when you get an experience that results in an overflow of dynamic and creative love, the best explanation of that it seems to me is the actual existence of an objective cause of the experience [God].” Here he is differentiating between actual spiritual experience and imagined spiritual experience of a deluded person. He then goes on to say, “By religious experience I don't mean simply feeling good. I mean a loving, but unclear, awareness of some object which irresistibly seems to the experiencer as something transcending the self, something transcending all the normal objects of experience, something which cannot be pictured or conceptualized, but of the reality of which doubt is impossible -- at least during the experience. I should claim that cannot be explained adequately and without residue, simply subjectively. The actual basic experience at any rate is most easily explained on the hypotheses that there is actually some objective cause of that experience.” Here again Copleston is suggesting that the most plausible conjecture is that the objective cause is God.
If you do not accept the experience of those like Sri Caitanya as one of God-inspired-grace and evidence of love of God because it has not come through Jesus in the way that you think it must in accordance with your reading of the Bible, you must explain how the same phenomena when occurring in Christians from your sect (if it has) is not only objectively different, but moreover, how the experience of Sri Caitanya is Anti-Christ-inspired, as opposed to those of your sect who are God-inspired. I think think would be difficult to do in a way that would be convincing to an objective person, the likes of which you consider yourself to be. However, if you simply say that your faith dictates your conclusion, I cannot argue with on that other than to say that in this instance your faith and reason do not agree. Of course in the larger picture faith and reason need not always agree, for faith is not dependent upon reason in order for it to be reasonable. However, in this particular instance at least Christians like Moffit see no reason to separate their faith from what appears reasonable.
As for Christianity and science, I have acknowledged that modern science arose out of a Christian worldview. I also agree with you when you say that the reasons for the development of secularism in Europe were complex and multifactoral, not just due to the rise of science alone. However, the rise of Christianity in Europe is also a product of many factors. Yes, all of Europe was never Christian, but that is like saying all of America was never capitalistic.
More importantly I think you make more out of the notion that Christianity and science go together than there is evidence in support of this idea. This is especially so when at the same time you make the East and its religion out to be diametrically opposed to modern science. Were it not for India and its zero, etc., we would not be able to do math. Arguably, the origins of calculus lie in India 300 years before Leibnitz and Newton. It is also well known that the math of Copernicus is strikingly similar to that of the Arabic world 300 years before him. Now in a quantum world we also find enough support for a cyclical worldview to conclude that such is not merely primitive and outdated. Its hardly over. There is much to come in the world of modern science, and although Christianity was involved in the beginning of the march of modern science, it is much less involved now. Meanwhile Eastern spirituality with its in depth analysis of consciousness is a player. All the flowers in the garden do not blossom at the same time.
I never asserted that there were no believers (Christians) who were scientists. Nor is the East without belief in a distinct and objective reality of the physical world. Read Ramanuja, for example, who strongly repudiates the notion that the objective world does not ultimately exist. However, even his opponents who perceive it as false nonetheless accept it as an empiric reality such that their view would not get in the way of scientific discovery. Eastern reverence for the natural world also need not get in the way of scientific progress. Indeed, it seeks merely to throttle such discovery such that it does not become counterproductive, which is arguably the direction it is headed today.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 6, 2008 5:16 pm
I think that this debate is so closed from the other side that it is pretty hard to break in. But it is the same for most devotees from ISKCON. This leaves hardly any room for open-minded people to examine different paths and choosing one which is best for them without completely denigrating the choice of others like this person has done in the post.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 6, 2008 5:23 pm
I think that this debate is so closed from the other side that it is pretty hard to break in. But it is the same for most devotees from ISKCON. This leaves hardly any room for open-minded people to examine different paths and choosing one which is best for them without completely denigrating the choice of others like this person has done in the post.
Also Paul's interpretation of Jesus is the thing we have today and the real Jesus's understanding has every possibility of being skewed although bhrigu will disagree strongly with me here. Jesus never instructed Paul to interpret him and represent his view.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 6, 2008 5:31 pm
Also we have to acknowledge that SP way of debating was also similar in that he has condemned Aquinas for not accepting a literal interpretation of scripture. He always attacked the Christians from budging away from literal interpretation of scripture and he emphasized the fact that he is taking literal interpretation of scripture and hence there is no doubt about its authenticity. And soft-ritvik approach in ISKCON makes it impossible to adjust this anomaly in the presentation of SP which was suited for times bygone. GM luckily has given shelter to me and helped me understand things better and also appreciate SP in the overall scheme of things but there are so many others who are hungry for this kind of understanding.
Audarya-lila Dasa - August 6, 2008 10:38 pm
I haven't met any christian to date that doesn't take a literal view of the whole 'I am the way, the truth...' line. The Catholic church has become more 'accomodating' by stating that there are other good, righteous and even saintly people who get to heaven even though they aren't christians - the sticking point is that they say and believe that it is ultimately through christ that they will gain that entrance. Something like - these good saintly persons will meet christ and accept him upon death and go through the pearly gates at that time.
In general I don't find it very interesting to discuss with christians becasuse they are so black and white, christ or not, in their thinking. I like the point that Guru Maharaja made about saintly character and it's manifestation in the body of a true saint. Bill did mention the transformative nature of god's grace but didn't offer any examples of such and went on about how everyone is dead and a sinner. I have seen some people embrace christianity and truly transform their lives in very meaningful ways, but not in the same way I have seen Gaudiya vaishnavism transform peoples lives.
Syamasundara - August 6, 2008 11:49 pm
I've finally read through the whole thing. It was excruciating, but boy, SO EDUCATIONAL!
I am referring to seeing GM out there and relativized, both in the words and attitudes of the other participants, and in GM's posts (Sangas have quite a different tone). Yet, for language, knowledge and manners, GM stood in the midst of that debate like a marble pillar, with all the others trying to pull him down by blowing.
And blow they did...
That gentlemen, Bill, started at first like a a civilized man, who was making a point about being responsible, but post after post he turned out to be a total joke.
You know what would have been absolutely instructive and great?
To post Bill's initial article here, have everybody reply, and then post GM's post, and like that all the way down.
I'd be reading Bill's words and immediately see where he'd fall short, and I knew what GM would say, at the same time wondering how he would say it. I would have done half as good a job.
Another point about seeing and reading GM out of his environment: realization goes much farther than knowledge.
Babhru Das - August 7, 2008 2:06 am
Another point about seeing and reading GM out of his environment: realization goes much farther than knowledge.
The tone was different from that in the Sangas because the context and audience are different. But I wouldn't say Swami was out of his environment, or out of his element there. It is interesting to see him dealing with "outsiders" and also to see their responses to his appearance on what they assumed was their turf. But I didn't find anything interesting or surprising in their responses to our Swami. When I lived in San Diego, I spent a good deal of my time driving from campus to campus. (Part-time college instructors in SoCal are called "freeway flyers" because they try to make a decent living working far too hard, teaching on different campuses, often [if possible]in different districts.) Sometimes I would listen to a Christian station broadcasting from Orange County. For a while they seemed to have a lot of semi-intellectual discussions, somewhat philosophical. They even entertained discussions with an old friend and Godbrother of mine, Jivan Krishna, who would call in to debate with them. But the main thrust was Christian apologetics, justifying their "philosophy" to themselves and to others. And ultimately, all boiled down to accepting the blood of the Lamb, or not.
When I was a brahmacari preaching on the streets of Honolulu, and door to door, I occasionally met interesting, thoughtful Christians. But not often.
Syamasundara - August 7, 2008 2:29 am
But I wouldn't say Swami was out of his environment, or out of his element there. It is interesting to see him dealing with "outsiders" and also to see their responses to his appearance on what they assumed was their turf.
Oh of course it was his element. I was referring to the fact that here, on Sanga, or in public where people go to listen to the Swami, the format is different, and in this blog apparently they had never heard the word swami, or they might have treated him differently; at any rate, they were treating GM like an equal if not inferior, and he himself was talking like any other dude in the blog, yet his caliber was coming out.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 7, 2008 4:09 pm
Why haven't they posted GM's last reply.
Babhru Das - August 7, 2008 5:11 pm
they were treating GM like an equal if not inferior, and he himself was talking like any other dude in the blog, yet his caliber was coming out.
Indeed. They were so outclassed they had no idea what hit them.
Citta Hari Dasa - August 7, 2008 5:32 pm
Indeed. They were so outclassed they had no idea what hit them.
That was painfully evident. Bill's insistence on a "plain reading of the text" of the Bible was a stock fundamentalist response. Ho-hum. If one tries to look at a text (or indeed a tradition) from different angles then one is labelled a postmodernist and rejected outright. He would have perhaps had more fun with the Rtviks.
Swami - August 7, 2008 5:44 pm
Why haven't they posted GM's last reply.
It seems that he decided he wanted to stop there. It's Bill's forum. Actually he decided not to post the previous reply also, or so it seemed. So I wrote to him and asked him to send me a cop of what I had written because what I had sent him was the only copy I had. Instead of replying he went ahead and posted it along with his reply. When I replied again he went silent. I think at first he thought there was a chance to convert me. Then he wanted to defeat me. Then he wanted to get rid of me. I may be hell bound, but if so it will be for preaching, and that is probably where I will meet him again and continue the discussion.
Citta Hari Dasa - August 7, 2008 6:00 pm
I may be hell bound, but if so it will be for preaching, and that is probably where I will meet him again and continue the discussion.
Syama Gopala Dasa - August 7, 2008 7:48 pm
"As a youth pastor and I can tell you that I see many young people desperate to know the truth. They dont want just another band-aid answer to questions about life. They dont want to be told “this could be the right way, but there could also be other right ways”. They want to build their lives on solid foundations not wishy washy ideas and concepts."
I thought the above was an interesting passage (besides the other numerous ones). He is doing the exact opposite of what he is saying. If the truth is the truth, than why should it fulfill the demands of the youth? Because they want it in a certain shape?
They are trying to limit the truth.
Syamasundara - August 7, 2008 9:48 pm
"As a youth pastor and I can tell you that I see many young people desperate to know the truth. They dont want just another band-aid answer to questions about life. They dont want to be told “this could be the right way, but there could also be other right ways”. They want to build their lives on solid foundations not wishy washy ideas and concepts."
I thought the above was an interesting passage (besides the other numerous ones). He is doing the exact opposite of what he is saying. If the truth is the truth, than why should it fulfill the demands of the youth? Because they want it in a certain shape?
They are trying to limit the truth.
I am not sure he meant it the way you are presenting it...
At any rate, two points about Christians in Bill's eyes: the bible has been translated from Aramaic to Greek, to Latin, to English (as well as other modern languages), and then you have King James' version and another (without counting the apocryphal gospels = not recognized by the Church) and he's talking of reading it as it is?
Also, don't they believe in the God of the Old Testament? Why create a whole universe and civilizations, including the elected people, and send Jesus, who is the only way, only millennia after? And even after the advent of Christ, how many Chinese lived and died without a chance for salvation, because they never even heard of Jesus? For being one and the same, Jesus and God don't seem to follow the same agenda.
Another point: GM never even tried to preach to that guy and urge him to read our scriptures, or say he would pray for him. How condescending.
Citta Hari Dasa - August 7, 2008 11:03 pm
"As a youth pastor and I can tell you that I see many young people desperate to know the truth. They dont want just another band-aid answer to questions about life. They dont want to be told “this could be the right way, but there could also be other right ways”. They want to build their lives on solid foundations not wishy washy ideas and concepts."
I thought the above was an interesting passage (besides the other numerous ones). He is doing the exact opposite of what he is saying. If the truth is the truth, than why should it fulfill the demands of the youth? Because they want it in a certain shape?
They are trying to limit the truth.
This one caught my eye too. Besides your point Syama-gopala, it sounds to me like he's saying (without realizing it) that the youth want to be spoon-fed as to what the truth is and not have to apply their intelligence and think about the possible validity of the Biblical message. As for "solid foundations", to regard the concepts of maya, karma, transmigration, etc. as wishy-washy speaks to how grossly they misunderstand such ideas. Another one I found amusing was that they want to make it sound like the concept of the Trinity is the ultimate in sophistication, and put forth the notion that Eastern thought is not based on anything substantial. Well, let them have a look at the Sandarbhas and joust with Sri Jiva!
Syamasundara - August 7, 2008 11:24 pm
Well, let them have a look at the Sandarbhas and joust with Sri Jiva!
If they can make it on the horse.
I still don't think the pastor meant it that way.
The youths' quest for the Absolute Truth is the same as ours.
Yamuna Dasi - August 8, 2008 1:35 am
If they can make it on the horse.
I still don't think the pastor meant it that way.
The youths' quest for the Absolute Truth is the same as ours.
I have studied Orthodox Theology for 2 years in the University. I have entered there with the highest possible score of 30.00. Two years later they knew I am a devotee (even though I was not preaching or trying to change them), even though it is a state University and they (the Christian orthodox professors) deside what to be the exams and how to be evaluated, I entered there with the highest possible score, so they wanted just to get rid of me, but could not do it officially because of my highest score... according to their own scoring. The only reason for kicking me out could be that I am not one of them, but as you can imagine this could not be a valid reason in the most prominent Bulgarian university, so they had to do it somehow hidden and illegally. They tried to cut me at some exam by the Dean giving personal oral instruction to the professor not to let me pass the exam, but afetr asking me questions for more than 40 minutes and me responding with quotes, he wanted to try to pospond my exam for after few months, but I insisted in front of all the other students listening and seeing this ridiculous so called exam, that I would like him in fron of everybody to evaluate me here and now since I have been responding all his questions. In order to try to escape the situation he asked me to quote a part from the New Testament, giving me just the number of the chapter and verses from 20 to 25... Gladly I knew which were these verses so I started responding... and imagine it was not even a New Testament exam... but he cut me off and isnisted that he wanted the verses quoted LITERALLY, not by meaning. I told him that I never heared that it is required from a student to know all the New Testament verse by verse with the comas... but he insisted that these are very important verses... and I told him that I know them and also the comments of the Holy Fathers on them if he wish...
So finally he felt a kind of ashamed because the other students in the room wanted twice to leave the exam and when he asked them why they repeated that if this is the level which he requires, they can certainly not cover not even 10 % of such expectations... but insistet that they stay and not leave the exam. Finally he had to evaluate me and was not able to cut me off, so I passed the exam even though he put me an absurd mark. The other students left the exam shortly after me and told me that he commented after I left that they do not have to worry since this was not for them, it was just for me... So can you imagine? This is the level at which they present themselves in front of their own students...
In order to avoid this to be repeated, for the next exam they did not let me enter even. Thrembling clark from the University office told me that he cannot give me my entrance page pefore the exam because he had an order from the Dean, and when I asked him to show me this order, he said it was oral... and was thrembling not to lose his job...
For me this was the end of my 2 years study of Christian Theology. I do not think that people at such level can teach me anything revelant about God, nor would I desire to learn from such people. They do not have a slightest level of sincerity and truthfulness if not able to admit that if a Krishna devotee can pass their own exams with the highest possible score, then either they have to let this devotee study there, or have to admit that their way of evaluation is completely wrong. -they were not able to do this and prefered the dirty path of secretly and hiddenly dismissing me... And evne though I had as I thought friends among the students, none dared to say anything... If these are the followers nowadays of Christ, then I do not see them much reflecting His boldness and sincerity regarding truth.
When I have to speak with a Christian about the quote from Christ that He is the path and the truth... I quote them that He also gave a criteria how to check what is good and what is not by saying that you will recognise a tree by its fruits, since a good tree cannot give bad fruits neither vice versa. So if the devotees are a good fruit then they must come from a good tree as well.
Later when I find Internet in Lima I will continue writing... sorry for the bad writing, it is not an Englis keyboard...
Syamasundara - August 8, 2008 2:14 am
Well, there is the Christian ideology and theology, and then Christian society, and they don't always coincide or have much in common. The same can be said about us.
Yamuna Dasi - August 8, 2008 3:58 am
Also the Christians refuse to accept the personal mystical experiences as a proof. But all the Old and New Testament are exactly this - descriptions of personal mystical experiences. So are all the Scriptures. And finally the goal of every spiritual practice is that one would have his own personal mystical experiences with the divinity. One can put the question why do they accept that the mystical experiences in the Bible were true ones, but those of the others were all false and "from the devil".
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 8, 2008 5:59 am
I think I feel sympathetic to some atheists like Jean Paul Satre rather than religious fundamentalists as the latter causes more damage.
Yamuna Dasi - August 8, 2008 6:33 am
If Christians quote so absolutely the words of Christ "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but by me." and claim that "There is certainly no room in such teaching for multiple roads to salvation", then how could one interpret Krishna's imperative "mam ekam sharanam vraja"? 
Also Christianity do believe that the prophets from the Old Testament and other holy persons who lived before Christ will reach God, even though they did not meet Christ. This also proves that even within Christianity these words of Christ are not taken as literally as they try to interpret them when regarding other religions.
Prahlad Das - August 11, 2008 5:54 am
Bill writes... "That is why so many people find various alternatives to the Christian faith so appealing – alternatives which minimize personal responsibility and accountability. For example, many are flocking to the New Age and eastern religions, which in part teach that what we are and do today has been determined by what we were in a past live. People find it easy to embrace the ideas of reincarnation and the law of karma (you are living out now what past lives have determined), because it takes away personal responsibility."
How does karma minimize personal responsibility? As I've understood it, karma doesn't make us what we are today and make us do what we do today but place us in the situation we are in today and gives us the tendencies to act the way we do today. I can't remember exactly where this idea is substantiated in the Eastern scriptures although I am leaning to either Yudhisthir's discussion with Yaksha in MahaBharata or teachings of Vashishtha Muni in Ramayan. (Does anyone know???) Preordained fate vs. Even aside from this notion those who believe in the Supremacy of the Divine Lord will also acknowledge their powerlessness in relation to the presence of the Lord.
I can't speak for everyone; it may not be that people find Eastern alternatives to Christian faith appealing because of the elimination of personal responsibility but more so for the fulfilling explanations and philosophies of why we are in the situations we find ourselves in ie. the loss of a dear one esp. children.
Just a thought
Yamuna Dasi - August 12, 2008 11:34 pm
Till now I have not found an explanation in Christian theology to the question if we have only one life then why we are all put under so much different conditions and what determines then in what conditions a soul will be born because it is not the same if one has to live an hour and die or 100 years... being born in a good pious family and got spiritual education and inclinations or not etc. And this is very unsatisfying as a level of explanation to why am I here and where is the justice in all this. They maintain that God is just, but cannot explain how is this justice manifested regarding the birth, length of life and conditions in which one is born.
The karma theory at least explains it as a result of previous actions.
But this is also a kind of just posponding the real answer, still more convincing and satisfying... because the question remains for me since the souls are anadi (beginingless) how then the karma started and if didn´t start, then the karma is also beginingless... or how? If we explain the present life situation with the previous one it sounds satisfying, but if we continue asking for the previous of the previous of the previous till we get the answer "no beginning", then the answer is not any more an answer.
Anybody can help me regarding this question please?
Syamasundara - August 13, 2008 12:16 am
Yes, there is a lot about this both here and on Sanga. Search srsti lila or anadi karma.
Swami - August 13, 2008 12:42 am
Till now I have not found an explanation in Christian theology to the question if we have only one life then why we are all put under so much different conditions and what determines then in what conditions a soul will be born because it is not the same if one has to live an hour and die or 100 years... being born in a good pious family and got spiritual education and inclinations or not etc. And this is very unsatisfying as a level of explanation to why am I here and where is the justice in all this. They maintain that God is just, but cannot explain how is this justice manifested regarding the birth, length of life and conditions in which one is born.The karma theory at least explains it as a result of previous actions.
But this is also a kind of just posponding the real answer, still more convincing and satisfying... because the question remains for me since the souls are anadi (beginingless) how then the karma started and if didn´t start, then the karma is also beginingless... or how? If we explain the present life situation with the previous one it sounds satisfying, but if we continue asking for the previous of the previous of the previous till we get the answer "no beginning", then the answer is not any more an answer.
Anybody can help me regarding this question please?
If one says that the theory of karma is open to the fault of infinite regression, as you have suggested, the sutras reply no, because karma is beginningless (anadi). There is no beginning. "And that's just the way it is. Some things will never change."
Yamuna Dasi - August 13, 2008 3:08 am
Yes, there is a lot about this both here and on Sanga. Search srsti lila or anadi karma.
Thank you for the lead prabhu! I did find a lot about this here in the forum under another discussion.
Have to read it again and meditate more... it is not an easy topic and Maharaj there had given for me the clue:
¨It is not possible to fully comprehend anadi karma with one's intellect. Only through sadhana and grace can it be realized. Know that there are things that lie outside of the scope of intelligence, thank God.¨
Praying for grace to be able to add also sadhana in order to try the recipy Maharaj gave for my cure...
Jason - August 16, 2008 4:09 pm
Thank you for posting the link to this blog. It was a wonderful reassurance for me (in many ways). I really liked when Maharaja said this:
"If you do not accept the experience of those like Sri Caitanya as one of God-inspired-grace and evidence of love of God because it has not come through Jesus in the way that you think it must in accordance with your reading of the Bible, you must explain how the same phenomena when occurring in Christians from your sect (if it has) is not only objectively different, but moreover, how the experience of Sri Caitanya is Anti-Christ-inspired, as opposed to those of your sect who are God-inspired. I think think would be difficult to do in a way that would be convincing to an objective person, the likes of which you consider yourself to be."
The burden of proof really is on them. In debates with my very conservative, Christian family, my crude and much less articulate echoing of this idea gave my family pause. I think this hit a chord with them and ever since, the heated religious conversations have died down.
Thank you Maharaja.
I definitely feel that Maharaja's tone was gentlemanly, academic and cordial, but I have to admit, he (GM) has a knack at writing in a way that makes me wanna say, "Oh...damn, he told you!" Sadly, my instigating nature doesn't allow for it to be as fun when the other party (Bill, in this case) doesn't really realize he's been "one-up'd".
Yamuna Dasi - August 18, 2008 11:16 pm
Also another quote from the New Testament are the words of Jesus with which he gave the criteria by which one can judge what is good or bad “from a bad tree a good fruit cannot come neither vice versa”. In this way if there are good and saintly people in other religious traditions beyond Christianity, the very words of Christ confirm that these good fruits could not have come from a bad tree – i.e. these traditions must be some valid paths towards God. If not how could they give the fruit of good and saintly persons as followers?
And if one denies at all that there are good and saintly persons coming from other religions, then their lives and level of self-sacrifice in service to God can be compare with that of the Christian saints and the objective question can be put with what they are less than them in this comparison?
And the words of Maharaj stand for this: “I think would be difficult to do in a way that would be convincing to an objective person”.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 28, 2008 11:55 am
The dawkins attack on religion and success of golden compass(which is atheist movies).
He calls all religious experiences are delusions also talks about Krsna.
Do listen to this video and comment. It is pretty stupid on some points and irrational. So called rational can just attack fundamentalist religious people and make their point.