Tattva-viveka
Religion and Philosophy
Nitaisundara Das - April 3, 2009 3:13 am
Post any non-Gaudiya religious, spiritual, or philosophical ideas here
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 4, 2009 4:02 am
I have been invited to talk to prisoners in NV at a world religions class. Should I ?
Nitaisundara Das - April 4, 2009 4:22 am
ummm...yes?
perhaps this discussion would be better in another thread though...
Tharshan - April 5, 2009 7:07 pm
Gauravani Prabhu posted a thread that links to a Washington Post article about refining human definitions of God:
Thread: http://tattvaviveka.ipbhost.com/index.php?...amp;#entry10141
Direct Link: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...ion_that_1.html
Prema-bhakti - April 8, 2009 9:51 am
Article in Newsweek called: The End of Christian America?
What a Decline in Self-proclaimed Christians Means
Guru-nistha Das - April 8, 2009 10:36 pm
Article in Newsweek called: The End of Christian America?What a Decline in Self-proclaimed Christians Means
I found this article very interesting (read only the 1st page). Would be cool to write about the place of religion in politics from a modern gaudiya perspective, the separation of church and state, and the ramifications of the decline of Christianity to the Gaudiyas in the States . . . It seems like the US is following Western Europe in this regard, where religion is practically completely taken out of mainstream politics.
Prema-bhakti - April 8, 2009 11:53 pm
I found this article very interesting (read only the 1st page). Would be cool to write about the place of religion in politics from a modern gaudiya perspective, the separation of church and state, and the ramifications of the decline of Christianity to the Gaudiyas in the States . . . It seems like the US is following Western Europe in this regard, where religion is practically completely taken out of mainstream politics.
Read the whole thing if you have time, it gets more interesting. 
It made me remember how GM was talking with us at the Delhi subway station and saying that this is India's century and how he has also mentioned that Christianity had its day and it's over.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - June 1, 2009 10:41 pm
On Atheism, some good articles
http://gaurangakishore.blogspot.com/2009/0...of-atheism.html
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Religion vs. Faith
Although the words are often used interchangeably there is a difference between these ideas, at least in the way that James Fowler uses them in his book Stages of Faith.
Faith is our fundamental understanding of reality, the way we understand the world, what values we believe are important, what ideals we hold sacred, what we believe is right and wrong, what we aspire for.
Religion is the cultural tradition within which we express our faith.
If this seems a little too abstract just think about someone who shares your religion, who identifies theirself with the same religion that you identify yourself with, but whose faith is significantly different from your own. Just think of someone in your religious community who lives their life by significantly different values but share the same religion. It shouldn't be too hard. I can think of many people who identify themselves as "Hare Krishnas" but have significantly different values or significantly different understand of what it means to be a devotee.
And now think of someone of a different tradition who shares your same values. This might be a little harder because most of us don't interact without people outside our tradition very much, but at least it is hypothetically possible to think of someone from a different religion that shares the same faith as us. (Hint: if they have the same faith they will probably be living a similar lifestlye)
Someone recently made a negative comment about my friendly atheist post, I deleted it because I thought it was innapropriate and political but the funny thing was that later when I was talking to a friend he thanked me for the post and said how nice he thought it was. That was a perfect example of the difference between faith and religion.
Religion is external. Faith is who we really are. At least from a relative perspective. As Srila Prabhupada points out in his introduction to the Bhagavad Gita a person can change their religion. A person can change their faith that involves development and spiritual growth. A person could change their religion without any spiritual growth.
When you look at the atheism theism debate through this lens it cuts through alot of the fog. In debates on the topic of God and religion you often find heated arguments about whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian.
It really doesn't matter what his religion was, whether he claimed to be a Christian or an atheist, his faith was obviously as opposed as a faith could possibly be to the Christian faith.
But ultimately Christianity is to blame for the situation. Its emphasis on belief is the reason why the debate on relgion has come to be more about belief than about faith in its deepest sense. It is the reason why atheists can blame religion itself for the horrible crimes that religions people commit, despite the fact that their faith is completely opposed to the faith of the religion.
Until we, atheists and theists, come to a deeper understanding of religion we will continue be distracted by false dichotomies, and the solution to the problems that concern all of us will continue to elude us.
Atmananda Dasa - March 1, 2010 7:53 pm
Yamuna Dasi - November 21, 2010 10:56 am
On Atheism, some good articleshttp://gaurangakishore.blogspot.com/2009/0...of-atheism.html
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Religion vs. Faith
Although the words are often used interchangeably there is a difference between these ideas, at least in the way that James Fowler uses them in his book Stages of Faith.
Faith is our fundamental understanding of reality, the way we understand the world, what values we believe are important, what ideals we hold sacred, what we believe is right and wrong, what we aspire for.
Religion is the cultural tradition within which we express our faith.
If this seems a little too abstract just think about someone who shares your religion, who identifies theirself with the same religion that you identify yourself with, but whose faith is significantly different from your own. Just think of someone in your religious community who lives their life by significantly different values but share the same religion. It shouldn't be too hard. I can think of many people who identify themselves as "Hare Krishnas" but have significantly different values or significantly different understand of what it means to be a devotee.
And now think of someone of a different tradition who shares your same values. This might be a little harder because most of us don't interact without people outside our tradition very much, but at least it is hypothetically possible to think of someone from a different religion that shares the same faith as us. (Hint: if they have the same faith they will probably be living a similar lifestlye)
Someone recently made a negative comment about my friendly atheist post, I deleted it because I thought it was innapropriate and political but the funny thing was that later when I was talking to a friend he thanked me for the post and said how nice he thought it was. That was a perfect example of the difference between faith and religion.
Religion is external. Faith is who we really are. At least from a relative perspective. As Srila Prabhupada points out in his introduction to the Bhagavad Gita a person can change their religion. A person can change their faith that involves development and spiritual growth. A person could change their religion without any spiritual growth.
When you look at the atheism theism debate through this lens it cuts through alot of the fog. In debates on the topic of God and religion you often find heated arguments about whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian.
It really doesn't matter what his religion was, whether he claimed to be a Christian or an atheist, his faith was obviously as opposed as a faith could possibly be to the Christian faith.
But ultimately Christianity is to blame for the situation. Its emphasis on belief is the reason why the debate on relgion has come to be more about belief than about faith in its deepest sense. It is the reason why atheists can blame religion itself for the horrible crimes that religions people commit, despite the fact that their faith is completely opposed to the faith of the religion.
Until we, atheists and theists, come to a deeper understanding of religion we will continue be distracted by false dichotomies, and the solution to the problems that concern all of us will continue to elude us.
Gaura-Vijaya prabhu, I dare to disagree with you regarding your words:
"But ultimately Christianity is to blame for the situation. Its emphasis on belief is the reason why the debate on relgion has come to be more about belief than about faith in its deepest sense."
Jesus Christ has very well said that those who have no sin to throw the stone.
Do we have the same problems as a religion which the Christianity has? Yes, we do.
Have we solved them? No we have not.
So how could we blame Christianity then that there are Christians who have low level of moral and ethical standards of life by which they misrepresent their religion and religion in general when we also have such devotees? Why to be so blindly partial? As you mentioned above there are people who consider and declare themselves as "devotees" but their lifestyle is not the one expected and described in Shastra as a lifestyle of a devotee. What we do about them? Do we proclaim publicly "this person is not a devotee of Krishna!"? Do we exclude them in order to avoid a spot on our religion? Or do we allow them to call and consider themselves "devotees" and hope that with time this will influence them for better? We give them a chance. So do the Christians. Then why to blame them for the very same thing we do?
The double standards of human mind are described and admitted both in the Bible and in Gita, and just look how similar are even the words used to depict this phenomenon of the mind:
1 Thessalonians 7th chapter:
"14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."
And in Gita Arjuna touches the very same problem asking Krishna (BG 3.36):
"By what influence then, O descendant of Vrishni, does one act improperly, as if forced to do so against his will?"
And as St. Paul explains above that one is forced by "the sin dwelling in" also Krishna explains that one is forced by kama (desire, lust) which is seated in the senses, mind and intelligence (BG 3.40) and also recognizes that:
"All people are forced to act even against their own will under the influence of the gunas born of material nature" (BG 3.5)
and that:
"All actions are performed by the gunas. One who misidentifies with the body in false ego imagines "I am the doer"." (BG 3:27)
From this comparison we can see that in Christianity there is very similar understanding as ours that there is other force than our will alone which leads us to certain actions which might be against our good will. It is other question what certain Christians or certain devotees understand from what is there written in the Scriptures, but this again is a common problem in all religions. Not all people have equal level of spiritual and scriptural realization. But still the truth is there, in the Scriptures.
As we can see both Christianity and our religion recognize that we are all under influence (of sin or kama) and this understanding leads to some compassion which manifests is acceptance of the person.
Let's not blame Christianity then for distinguishing the sin from the sinner and showing compassion. Since we walk the same path.
I also dare to disagree with you that this "fault of Christianity" is the reason why atheists can blame religion itself for the horrible crimes that religions people commit. Horrible acts are performed by both religious and non-religious people and it would be interesting if a statistic can be made for the percentage of crimes done by atheists and religious people. What would this statistic show? And if it would show that much more crimes are made by non-religious people than by religious, how would the atheists comment on such a statistic? Would they then recognize in the face of facts that obviously religion is contributing more for human morals and ethics than atheism does? I doubt it. Because as we all know human mind has double standards of measuring and judging... and in interpreting the facts.
In connection with this there was a competition for an essay with given topic "Why there are more men in jails than women" and the author who won this competition did it by writing just ONE sentence instead a whole essay. He wrote:
"Because there are more women in the churches than men."
And I didn't hear any atheist objecting the victory of this author neither regarding what he said, nor that he wrote just a sentence and not an essay.
Yamuna Dasi - November 21, 2010 12:43 pm
Recently I've read on Internet a long article of an official Orthodox Cristian institution condemning "The Art of Living" organization of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (as he calls himself or allows to be named).
I am in no way a follower or supporter of "The Art of Living" and his leader, but still what shocked me in this long article was the complete lack of objective thinking. In EVERY SINGLE POINT in which they were blaming "The Art of Living" and its leader, Cristianity and Christ are falling as well!
For example:
1. That the actual biography of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is "inaccessible and unclear". So is Christ's biography since in all the 4 Gospels there is nothing mentioned even about the whole period from his age of 13 to 30. And yes this is "inaccessible and unclear".
2. Accusing that "in the advertising biography of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar are used the characteristic for the neohindu religious cults propaganda cliches which underline his spiritual exclusiveness since childhood". Funny, because all the Gospels retell and especially stress the stories from the conception of Christ, depicted as mystical and non-sexual, and his childhood which also "underline his spiritual exclusiveness since childhood" and even before it. So if these are considered "propaganda cliches" then they were even more used by the four Gospel writers which were personal disciples of Christ.
3. Accusing that "the followers practice a cult to their guru, which is expressed in prayers and gifts in front of his portrait".
Ridiculous because this is exactly what Christians do, they pray to Christ and place gifts and donations in front of his icons (this is so for Orthodox and Catholic Christians and is not valid for Protestants).
4. Accusing him that he said: "According to your inner nature you are God. When you are innocent and obedient you are God". But in the Old Testament in the Psalms 8.6 is said: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." and Christ quotes this when the Jews blamed him for though being a human makes himself a God: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" What a double standard again, the Bible saying "you are gods" but blaming Sri Sri Ravi Shankar for saying it.
5. Accusing: "So there is no difference between God and the guru".
But here is what said Jesus to Philip when he asked him to show him God:
"8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
Isn't this the very same in which they accuse Sri Sri Ravi Shankar?
6. Accusing: "The foundation "Art of Living" is developing unrecorded religious activity under the cover of social missions, educational courses and meditatonal/praying seminars".
The history is repeating because this is exactly in what Jews accused Christ and finally crusified him for.
7. Accusing: "The participants are often given pages with printed transcribed sanscrit texts "bhadjans" with content that is completely unclear to the newcomers".
This is ridiculous because the accusation is coming from the Bulgarian Orthodox Cristian organization and in Bulgaria STILL all the official church programs and all the lithurgy and prayers in the church are sang in old Slavonic language, quite incomprehensible for the Bulgarians.
8. Accusing: "it is practiced bowing down to the portrait of the guru".
Funny, because all Orthodox and Catholic Christians practice bowing down to the icons of Christ and not only.
9. Accusing: "for even more advanced followers are organized special seminars for training of future leaders, which are engaged to spread the ideas and practices of "Art of Living" foundation all over the world".
For comparison Jesus did exactly the same, amongst his more advanced disciples he chose once 70 for preaching and then 12 for apostols and to those 70 and those 12 he gave special instructions and training:
"After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come."
(Like10.1)
"And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles"
(Luke 6.13)
10. Accusing: "Especially dangerous is the fact that the foundation "Art of Living" is teaching it's members not to think independently and not to think critically and cultivates in them pleasure in rejecting to execute their own choice because of the absolute authority of the guru."
For comparison - all Christians are taught to be obedient to the Church and follow it's teachings in complete and in detail.
Also when accepting the vow of celibacy (becoming monks) all Orthodox and Catholic monks give three vows one of which is for complete obedience to the Church. Where is the "independent thinking" and "critical vision" in this? And the leadership of both Orthodox and Catholic Churches are of the monks, those who have given this vow.
11. Accusing: "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is presented as a bridge to eternity and divinity".
Compare: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)
If most Christians understand these words as Jesus claiming to be the ONLY way, how can they consider this modest and acceptable, but if one says that he is A way, then this to be considered as immodest and unacceptable?
12. Accusing: "thus are gathered innocent people, who voluntarily to work for the financial interests of the foundation, giving back to their personal life, to their family realization and professional realization."
For comparison all the apostles of Christ also voluntarily worked for his mission and and gave back "to their personal life, to their family realization and professional realization":
"16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
19 And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.
20 And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him." (Mark 1)
Not only the apostles left their personal life and interests in order to follow Christ and his teaching, but so did the early Christians even after his death:
"for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (Acts 4.34-35)
By what criteria abandoning of the personal material and family interests is considered once glorious and holy and other time stupid and manipulated?
----------------
All this I exposed to see how blind and prejudiced one can be in blaming not seeing even such obvious parallels between what he condemns and what he follows.
All I wish is that we the devotees of Krishna may do our best not to commit this common mistake. When judging and accusing always to consider this - are we doing the same what we condemn? And if the answer is "yes" then to avoid accusing. If not we risk to fall in the funny prejudiced mind situation as the one above.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - November 21, 2010 5:55 pm
Gaura-Vijaya prabhu, I dare to disagree with you regarding your words:"But ultimately Christianity is to blame for the situation. Its emphasis on belief is the reason why the debate on relgion has come to be more about belief than about faith in its deepest sense."
It is not my article. 
Yamuna Dasi - November 22, 2010 1:19 am
Glad to hear you don't completely agree with it no matter that you quote it as a good article
One of the reasons why I became a devotee of Krishna was that I have seen in my Gurudeva great sympathy and respect to Christ. He was never diminishing him but was rather saying that what Christ is preaching is bhakti. I also saw it this way and none of the mistakes of the Church ever diminished my admiration to Jesus. The same way I hope none of the mistakes of ISKCON to be able to diminish my admiration to Srila Prabhupad.
I am sure that our preaching for Krishna bhakti will be better if we don't try to paint in black Christianity and Christ. This would be quite a low level propaganda.
Gauravani Dasa - November 22, 2010 9:59 pm
Yamnua, I recently represented the Hindu tradition during an interfaith discussion at Binkley Baptist Church in Chapel Hill, NC. Christians, Jews and the Bahai Faith were also represented.
My impression was that all traditions use different words for the same concepts. Where most traditions diverge is in identifying consciousness. The extent in which a tradition recognizes the difference between matter and consciousness determines, in part, the depth at which they can surrender. Without recognizing consciousness, the conception of God is limited and very human-centric.
I personally think that there is a lot of room in Christianity (especially the mystic traditions) to emphasize devotion. However, mainstream Christians generally don't go the distance. I think the article you posted does not represent a thoughtful Christian's interpretation of "The Art of Living"--it is motivated by fear and anger. A person motivated in such a way will be present in any tradition.
Jason - November 23, 2010 12:41 am
My impression was that all traditions use different words for the same concepts...I personally think that there is a lot of room in Christianity (especially the mystic traditions) to emphasize devotion. However, mainstream Christians generally don't go the distance. I think the article you posted does not represent a thoughtful Christian's interpretation of "The Art of Living"--it is motivated by fear and anger. A person motivated in such a way will be present in any tradition.
Gauravani, I completely agree. Well said.
Yamuna - If you are interested in comparative religious philosophy, and want to read some Christian mystic writings that OVERFLOW with accounts and explanations that are incredibly similar to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, I highly recommend reading Bernard McGinn's "Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism". Some of the writings in there from medieval mystics like Teresa of Avila and Bernard of Clairvaux will leave you wondering if they hung out in India with the Goswamis of Vrindavan. I was AMAZED!
Yamuna Dasi - November 23, 2010 6:54 am
Thank you, Jason.
Yes, indeed I am interested in comparative religions and would like to read what you recommended.
Gauravani prabhu, I am also glad that the last 2 years I am invited to represent Gaudia Vaisnavism at the World Religions Day. I wrote the comparison above just to show how blindly prejudiced some even official Christian cryticisms can be. Unfortunately I also hear devotees criticising Christianity on the same low level and wish that they change their opinion a bit at least for the sake of better representing our own tradition.
Gauravani Dasa - November 23, 2010 1:30 pm
Thank you, Jason.Yes, indeed I am interested in comparative religions and would like to read what you recommended.
Gauravani prabhu, I am also glad that the last 2 years I am invited to represent Gaudia Vaisnavism at the World Religions Day. I wrote the comparison above just to show how blindly prejudiced some even official Christian cryticisms can be. Unfortunately I also hear devotees criticising Christianity on the same low level and wish that they change their opinion a bit at least for the sake of better representing our own tradition.
Yeah, thanks Jason! I'll probably get that book!
I agree Yamuna. Finding common ground is the best place to start. Madan and Gaurangi told me that GM listens to find where a person is directly/indirectly asking about Krishna. From that point he'll answer the question/concern. Outreach is an art!
EDIT: Madan doesn't remember telling me that, so maybe it was Prema
Jason - November 24, 2010 7:46 pm
Yeah, thanks Jason! I'll probably get that book!
I agree Yamuna. Finding common ground is the best place to start. Madan and Gaurangi told me that GM listens to find where a person is directly/indirectly asking about Krishna. From that point he'll answer the question/concern. Outreach is an art!
The book is probably fairly cheap from Amazon. It was well worth it just to be able to read accounts from Christians that are NOT like the type of Christianity I grew up with. It was a breath of fresh air.
I wanted to qualify what I said earlier: While I do believe the major religious worldviews are more similar than different, I still think the GV tradition has gone the extra mile to fully mine and explicate the full scope of nuances when it comes to religious experience, as well as frame those seemingly minimal nuances in such a way that one recognizes just how NOT minimal they really are! What GV does with some key concepts is game changing. I think where the Gaudiya acharyas have excelled, above and beyond even the theistic mystics of other traditions, is in regards to their ability to provide a rigorously philosophical as well as historical account of their conceptions of things like bhava and bhakti, and to show the broader, pragmatic significance of their interpretation.
Yamuna Dasi - November 24, 2010 11:42 pm
Yes, this what I liked in GV and which made me convert, even though I still consider myself also a Christian because I keep my admiration to Christ. But still the lord of my heart is Krishna and as Jesus says "one cannot serve two masters"... because the heart has place for ONE beloved.
When I've read in Gita Krishna saying that one shall go to him only when he will be the only goal in one's heart, I completely accepted it. Yes! I could not expect from God to be cheap! Why should I expect to go to "heaven" just because I believe in Jesus and try to live according to his commands? This somehow seemed not enough to me and somehow I wondered why so many people find it sufficient? And when I've read the words of Krishna I felt real relief... THIS is my God and he is not cheap! And he is also very fair - as long as I have some other desires, he lets me try to accomplish them and see if they will make me happy without threatening me that if I try this I am closing my door towards him forever.
Braja-sundari Dasi - August 20, 2014 6:07 pm
I think this article could be useful for Vaisnavas as well
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mariana-caplan-phd/spiritual-living-10-spiri_b_609248.html