Tattva-viveka

Meeting people who have a different religion?

Hari-priya Dasi - January 16, 2006 9:27 am

It happens relatively often that I run into people who want to share something with me. Sometimes it’s just a representative of some mobile-phone-operator who is giving out the good news of the lowest prices ever. But there are also people who come from different Christian groups handing out leaflets. There are Mormons, Jehowa’s witnesses, Scientologists and of course Hare Krishnas walking around in public places asking whether you have a minute. I usually do.

When I meet these people who are on a preaching tour I often don’t know how I should deal with them. Usually I just take the invitation they are handing out, smile and say “thank you”. Sometimes I stop for a while and listen to their story and try to say some encouraging words. A couple of times I have said something like “Well, I appreciate what you are doing. I am a Hindu myself and I also like talking with people about spiritual subjects.” At the same time I have noticed, that people tend to became a bit distressed or disappointed if I take this “You have an interesting product but I already got one” –type of approach.

It would be interesting to hear, what kind of experiences you have regarding meeting people, who profess different religion. Do you think it is better to look for a harmony, some kind of a common denominator and to keep the discussion on that level? Or do you find it better to try to tell openly from which spiritual background you come from? Or would it be appropriate to challenge some of the points they are making?

Of course everyone is different and what is natural approach for one is not necessarily that for others. Situations are different and also people whom you meet have different ways of approaching you and talking about their religion. Despite of this diversity (or perhaps just because of it) it would be nice to hear some experiences you have had regarding this subject. :lol:

Igor - January 17, 2006 10:03 am

That depends upon person, what is their level of realization, and what we want to point. Vaisnava philosophy is highest theological explanation and with proper arguments we can prove that all other religions have only some limited understanding of true. For example if you ask simple questions like “How God looks like”, “Where he resides”, “What is happening after death” etc. full answers can be found only in vaisnava teachings.

From other side, my experience is that we should respect other paths, and if we can find similarity we can point to them. But if we see that person is open and will to hear we can speak openly. :lol:

Bhakta Ivar - January 17, 2006 2:27 pm

Those who are on a preaching mission have only one objective in mind: convincing you. They are not interested in dialogue, only in selling you their version of the truth. So I generally avoid discussion with Morons, Jehovas and similar preachers.

When I privately meet Christians, Hindus or whatever I do talk with them. But I never discuss what God looks like or where He lives, because I have no personal experience in these matters. Still there will be enough practical issues left to talk about.

Ivar

Robertnewman - January 18, 2006 2:18 am

I generally avoid discussion with Morons, Jehovas and similar preachers.

Definitely we should avoid discussion with Morons. But perhaps you meant to say Mormons? :lol:

Syamasundara - January 18, 2006 2:44 am

I'm really thrown off, annoyed and scoured by Ivar's dryness most of the times, but I must appreciate his openmindedness, which is a very rare and valuable gift.

At one point in my life I was involved in translating Hrdayananda Maharaja's translation of the Mahabharata into Italian. It didn't last long, because I used to correspond with Narasingha Maharaja who prompted me to translate The Heart of Krsna instead, but I remember translating this description of Brahmaloka by or to Yudhisthira maharaja.

Everything in the abode of Brahma is made of intelligence: things are not very static as here, what is solid becomes liquid and viceversa, what is warm becomes cold.

I don't remember much, but it definitely made me think, if this is so difficult to grasp and it's still the material world, how can we possibly understand Vrndavana?

As our Gurudeva says, Vraja is a pasturing land, people move according to where the grass is better for the cows, Krsna may say come here and by the time we get there he says No, over here.

So anyway, I think it's very healthy to keep a very open mind as well as heart, regardless of how right we think we are. It can be very unsettling, but that's how we grow up. Growing up can't be too dangerous if we have a good mother (Vedas) and father (Guru).

I was reading the previous post and started to think: "Right, I've never seen Krsna. If I think of him, all I envision is famous paintings or deities."

However, more thoughts ensued. If it was for what I have experienced personally, I'd better preach materialism; but then again, my niece has a travel agency, and she's constantly sending people on vacation to so many places she has never even visited, yet she knows when the best season is, the best beaches, etc. The customers come back happy on account of that, and when she does go there, she already knows where to go and when.

Similarly, our Vedas give us so many descriptions of the Lord and we end up believing we do know what he looks like.

I remember how Mucukunda saw Krsna coming out of the shadow, walking with the elegance of a deer, the sweet curve of his hips, earrings, smile, the whole description.

One, again, could say these are just limited descriptions and relative to a certain culture.

How many of us have seen a maddened elephant walk? And how flattered would we be if they told us we walk like him? How poetic is it for us to read that Radharani's legs are shaped like banana trunks? Not to speak of the breasts resembling water jugs... for the longest time I used to imagine the typical glass jug for lemonades with spout and handle and it struck me only recently that maybe they mean something more like a kamandalu, and sure enough, all the statues at Konarak or other places have breasts like that.

My next thought was of Yadurani who was once painting and kept asking Srila Prabhupada about this famous complexion of Krsna.

SP put his hand to his forehead and ran it down his face gravely, then he said: "They say it's black, but I don't really know what color that is." At first I took it that he just trusted the Vedas, but later I realized that just because he could see Krsna and his beautiful syama complexion, he could not say what color in our spectrum would be the closest for painting.

The Upanisads tell us time and again that the Absolute cannot be seen or described or grasped, but then in our scripture we find descriptions of his smiles, his sidelong glances, even the size of his genitals.

My next thought was: "I never saw God but I definitely felt him, saw his humor, his kindness, his love, so maybe I can talk about that while preaching."

At one point while at Audarya I was also working with some Mexicans in the field. For weeks I was asking myself what I was doing there, until one day I became friends with the foreman, who had had a lot of questions and just didn't know where to look, until he came across me and that little knowledge I could give him. He kept saying how he keeps talking to God and I asked him if he ever replied. He asked me if God had ever talked to me, and it was then that I realized that he does and how.

Preaching is ultimately for the preacher's benefit and purification.

Once GM gave a talk on preaching one morning just before sending some brahmacaris to Portland to distribute books. I had just arrived to Eugene and the matha, so luckily I got off the hook (it just felt like pestering people on the street to me), but I think I was able to assimilate what was said during that talk maybe even better than those who went to Portland (I had the confirmation over the following years, but then again, I have a good memory). The bottom line was that preaching is for our own purification, it's not an active thing, like let's see how many converts today, but rather a Let's see who Krsna is sending my way, let's see how much I know or don't know, how pure I am.

Purity is really the force. That's how SP got to see Krsna face to face.

By Guru's grace our senses are also changing. How many times I was on hands and knees in front of our Gaura Nitai unable to walk away, drinking their beauty, every detail, as if I had come from far away to see them, and maybe it was me who dressed them one hour before.

Radharamanji is absolutely beautiful and special to us, yet try to say that to some tourist who is having the same darshan. He'll see that you can't even fit a straight flute in his hands.

So I guess that what Igor meant is that we don't know what God looks like, but we can definitely say that he does have a look, a form, an abode, and we can preach about how we can see him.

As far as the real theme of this thread, when I was doing my civil service in Como, Italy, I used to see some Mormons on the bus with their elder targets and all.

I knew nothing about them. I thought they were vegetarians, but that's the 7th day's adventists or something.

What struck me is that whenever we crossed on the bus they would smile and say: "Hi, how are you doing?" which sounded really nice and personable. Little did I know that in America they ask you how you are as a way of saying hi (and if you start telling them how u are they look at you like Who cares? Did I ask you?). Plus for them it was mostly PR.

Anyway I set my mind on meeting them. I was taking the bus up and down during my free time hoping to see them, until I spotted a pair, got off the bus, crossed the street, ran down the hill and asked them in English: "Hi, did you ever find someone who wanted to be preached to?"

They looked at each other and said No.

We scheduled an appointment and I was very excited, but also ingenuous, thinking it would be an inspiring talk in the mood of congregational glorification; however, we sat down and they started off asking me if I agreed that Jesus Christ was our only savior. I gave them the pure devotee spiel but they were just deaf, dismissing even Moses for not having met Jesus. I tried to talk about pure devotees and parampara (in neutral terms), but they didn't respond to any of my points nor cared to address them. It was just one way. They had such a scarse knowledge compared to the average Bhakta Bob that we can stumble into in our circles.

The sankirtana mood was just suffocated after a few minutes, and so I felt myself without any mention of rasa.

As far as the Jehova's witnesses, at least in Italy, the proselites are really the lowest possible people. Simple, ignorant people. Forget about sankirtan with them.

As Ivar has said, most so-called preachers don't have the kind of ego GM told us to have that morning in Eugene.

Myself, I am more like a spider waiting in the center of the web: when people start asking me it means they are ready.

I remember dearly a lady who came in June. I was alone in Eugene doing the seva puja, organizing Anuradha's wedding and struggling with my allergies, but she had so many questions and I just loved talking to her because when I talk about Krsna I usually realize things I never thought of before, and in general that's the only time when I feel alive.

By the way, can somebody tell me her name? I can't remember it. She is a computer science teacher who was there when Bhumi got her head stuck in the barn gate in Eugene, she almost left her family to move to California with us and she came to Audarya to visit. Everytime she freaks us out with stories of when she was living in the country.

Any clue? Rupa something.

Gopisvara Dasa - January 18, 2006 7:27 am

I've had many Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons come to my door and I always try to take the time to speak with them. I respect anyone who is spending their free time preaching,regardless of their conception.It immeadiately makes me look at what I might be doing at that moment in comparison.

Yes, they have their agenda and generally speak more than they listen but it is a good opportunity to see what you really have to say and how well you can say it. As well as how nicely and generously you can present it.

I take their literature and do read it as I said I would,even though I know what it is about. I offer them some of mine(Vedic)and they usually take it. If they don't read it ,it is their loss.

A few times I had these two young Mormon girls coming by and having nice discussions.I presented them with many interesting viewpoints and appealled to their soft hearts to stop eating meat. They requested that they come back another time and sit down inside for a lenghthier discussion.They returned on the agreed-upon date with my neighbor,an elderly Mormon woman in her 80's as a chaparone and we had a very lively three hour philosophical discussion.

I did most of the talking. Initially they would try to steer the subject back in their stuctured direction as they were taught,but they kept getting bogged down by the good points I was making. After a while they kind of surrendered to hearing, as the Vedic philosophy has so much more to say. This happened relatively early on in the discussion and the fact that they stayed for a couple more hours mostly listening shows they had some interest.

The three of them left in a nice spirit without any contention. And I would run into the neighbor woman from time to time and talk with her.

It was clearly a gift to me to be able to preach a little without even having to leave the house.

And yes, it was certainly for my purification but they benefitted as well. Not because I am an empowered preacher but simply because I had the decency to TRY to share something of value without contention.

I think the worst thing you can do is tell them you are too busy and shut the door(especially if it is a lie).That may come back on you when you extend yourself to someone else.

Kamalaksa Das - January 24, 2006 8:26 pm

To be honest the given headline is not really aplicable for this post. It is rather the opposite; how people relate to us being of a different religion. And while I claim no deep educational value in this account it has some value as amusement.

A little background information is needed for those that do not know me. I work as a teacher in a vocational school, teaching graphic design. I am also very stubborn, and freely share with my students my opinions. (I actually get paid to critizise others!) Most often this happens in a constructive way, although I suppose this might at times be a point disagreed upon.

It all started at a quite dramatic and loud encounter with a student. She must be even more stubborn than me, and on top of that she doesn't seem to hear a word I tell her. A very high self esteem combined with an equal amount of ignorance. (Not the theological variety, but educational.) Her opinions of me are probably even less flattering. (Just to clear things up, we really like each other on some level, and get along fine, as long as it's not design we're speaking about.)

Anyway, she was angry with me. Really angry. So after I left for another class she went to my colleague, huffing and puffing, spewed all her anger out, and ended in a very theatrical way of saying that I should go to hell. The straight way!

My good friend and colleague Paula just looked empathically at this girl and spoke as follows:

-Don't you know that Leka (my secular name) is a hindu? For him this IS hell. He doesn't need to go anywhere.

This had the effect of my student calming down and resuming her duties. And as a proof that she wasn't angry with me anymore she told me about this incident herself.

Ah!, life in an art school, everyone should attend. It's probably one of the least boring things one can do in this material world.

Now you can return to your devotional duties. Sorry for the disturbance.

Citta Hari Dasa - January 29, 2006 11:09 pm

It all depends on who you meet and whether they are of a fundamentalist mentality or not.

Some examples:

In Eugene there was an appliance repair shop across the street where a very open-minded Christian fellow worked. I had been there on several occasions and talked a bit with him and came away inspired over the mutual exchange of glorification (albeit in very general terms) of our respective Deities.

By contrast I also met a Christian lady while on a japa walk in the park who asked if I accepted Jesus as my only savior, and if she could pray for me. "Sure" I said, "If that will make you feel better. But I've got my savior right here" and raised my bead bag for her to see. She of course paid no mind to that and launched right into praying for my soul. Finding her tactless and ignorant I left it at that, and waited a bit anxiously for her to move on her way.

On another occasion I was on a book table in Portland and a couple of young male Jesuits walked by and openly confronted us, saying that they did not believe that by the works we did would we get into heaven. Unfortunately they would not stay long enough to actually discuss the issue after making their smug statement, but in another context there might have been an possibility of some normal human discussion.

The most extreme fundies I have met so far showed up at our book table at the Saturday market in Eugene, complete with a large radio and rapping (quite badly, actually) about Jesus, etc. The leader then regaled everyone within earshot (at the top of his lungs, naturally) that we were worshipping false gods and misleading the people and the Jesus was the only true savior etc., etc. We just kept doing our Harinama kirtana; there was obviously no possibility of rational discussion with such people.

Talking to others about religion is a great art. We have to be open-minded and respectful of the views of others, yet be firm in our own faith and able to disagree respectfully when required. When it works both parties can go away feeling their own faith deepened, even if there are point of disagreement in doctrine (and there are, to be sure). Guru Maharaja has mentioned that there are basic points of spirituality that no honest religious person can deny, and those points are the ones to focus on in such discussions, avoiding doctrinal issues that could become contentious.