My Experiences with ISKCON

[sarabhanga]

Do I blame Vaishnavism? Not at all, I blame belief systems in general. Any religion that's based on faith is going to end up as a fanatical, intolerant religion. And Vaishnavism, like Christianity, is just a symptom, NOT the disease. The root cause happens to be faith in God and things that cannot be confirmed by the senses or the intellect. That is the primary reason for this bigotry, and Vaishnavism is no exception.

Namaste Suresh,

Why should faith in one’s religion or belief in one god necessarily result in fanaticism, intolerance, or bigotry? It seems to me that only unconfirmed faith or doubtful belief might lead to such negative conditions ~ since the particular beliefs and practices of another can then appear as a threat to one’s own (partial) belief, raising personal doubts which may be relieved by ignorantly diminishing the other and fanatically promoting one’s own. And such partial believers will only be satisfied when all others share their partial understanding, and then everyone can rest easily in the resulting superficial oneness of blind faith.

[Bob G]

Hello Sarabhanga,

Those were some very good points !

Om

[suresh]

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Namaste Suresh,

Why should faith in one’s religion or belief in one god necessarily result in fanaticism, intolerance, or bigotry? It seems to me that only unconfirmed faith or doubtful belief might lead to such negative conditions

Faith is always unconfirmed, isn't it? If confirmed, it's truth.

The negation of false IS truth, which is why most believers are fanatical, because they have something (false) to hold on to. The advaitin who negates the false has nothing to grasp, which is why you hardly find fanatics amongst their group.

We've come across Chrisitan/Muslim fanatics, even Vaishnava fanatics. But have you ever come across an advaitin fanatic? Not likely. This is because most religions define truth or god in positive terms. God is the jealous father, as in Christianity, god is hateful as in Islam, or in Vaishnavism, god plays the flute, and so on. Once a positive definition is established, opposition (to those terms) is round the corner, so fanaticism becomes inevitable, when the followers try to defend their ideas.

As advaita believes in defining the truth negatively, through 'neti, neti', no opposition is possible, and hence no fanaticism.

Suresh

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Suresh,

I see your point. Although fanaticism and intolerance are not intended by any true religion, there is a much greater tendency for such negative outcomes among followers of dvaitavAda than there is with followers of advaitavAda.

[Yogkriya]

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Faith is always unconfirmed, isn't it? If confirmed, it's truth.

The negation of false IS truth, which is why most believers are fanatical, because they have something (false) to hold on to. The advaitin who negates the false has nothing to grasp, which is why you hardly find fanatics amongst their group.

We've come across Chrisitan/Muslim fanatics, even Vaishnava fanatics. But have you ever come across an advaitin fanatic? Not likely. This is because most religions define truth or god in positive terms. God is the jealous father, as in Christianity, god is hateful as in Islam, or in Vaishnavism, god plays the flute, and so on. Once a positive definition is established, opposition (to those terms) is round the corner, so fanaticism becomes inevitable, when the followers try to defend their ideas.

As advaita believes in defining the truth negatively, through 'neti, neti', no opposition is possible, and hence no fanaticism.
Suresh

Very well said Suresh ji!
But Hare Krsnas / Iskcon consider advaitvad as "impersonalists" and "mayavadis" rejecting them altogether.

[atanu]

Namaste Sarabhanga,
Faith is always unconfirmed, isn't it? If confirmed, it's truth.
-
As advaita believes in defining the truth negatively, through 'neti, neti', no opposition is possible, and hence no fanaticism.

The statement "As advaita believes in defining the truth negatively", itself implies faith. Shankara never taught unfaith in Sruti proclaiming the truth of Brahman-God.

Advaitin, based on logically derived faith (and not necessarily based on experience), believes that Dvaita is a product of Advaita and thus is not fanatic. Sattwik faith (one Lord equally pervading everything) usually will not lead to bigotry. Whereas Rajasic and Tamasic faiths (God separate from so called creation) will be prone towards bigotry.

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji

Thanks for your clarification.

Faith in any concept or religion one follows in itself has no evil,
Problem only arises when some one tries to shove it in to someone’s face.
Hindu dharma is not about propagating and swelling numbers but it is about following, out of ones own free will.

If only people heed the advise of Shree Krishna,

idam te natapaskaya
nabhaktaya kadacana
na casusrusave vacyam
na ca mam yo 'bhyasuyati

This (knowledge) should never be spoken by you to one who is devoid of austerity, who is without devotion, who does not desire to listen, or who speaks ill of Me. (18.67)

Jai Shree Krishna

[Bob G]

Imo: negation of mentation is a key part of what is meant...which delivers one to a different kind of threshold, and that threshold is not crossed without involment of the power of faith, which is more than only thinking about it.

Spirit gives unto Spirit.

Om

[suresh]

Namaste Atanu,

The statement "As advaita believes in defining the truth negatively", itself implies faith. Shankara never taught unfaith in Sruti proclaiming the truth of Brahman-God.

We can always remove the word 'believes', and it'll read: As advaita defines the truth negatively. Which means, faith isn't necessary. So let's not pay too much attention to words, let's not analyze too much.

Point being, with or without faith, existence or sat can never be questioned by anyone, not even by the atheist. The way they define existence may vary. The atheist may define it in one way, the dvaitin in another, and so forth. But the fact of existence is never questioned or denied. So it follows that faith isn't necessary. Logic is the one thing that matters, or our ancestors wouldn't have gone through the trouble of producing so much literature (or engaging in debates), if all of it is based on faith.

Sattwik faith (one Lord equally pervading everything) usually will not lead to bigotry. Whereas Rajasic and Tamasic faiths (God separate from so called creation) will be prone towards bigotry.

I am sorry, but I'll have to disagree. Based on faith, whether satvik or not, one may view god as all-pervasive, but that's no guarantee that this attitude is going to prevent bigotry. The person concerned may not hesitate to attack those believing otherwise. That's always a possibility, isn't it? Not only that, this sort of subjective view can be used by a christian to claim his faith alone is satvik, and so on. And it'll be impossible to ascertain the truth, when the whole thing becomes subjective.

What I am trying to say is: why depend on faith, when logic can (and does) suffice?

Suresh

[suresh]

Faith in any concept or religion one follows in itself has no evil,

Sorry to butt in, but faith is required only if reasoning fails. So faith is intrinsically evil, especially when it concerns religion. Christianity and Islam are terrific examples.

Problem only arises when some one tries to shove it in to someone’s face.

And who tries to shove it down your throat? Only those who have 'faith' in their religion. You wouldn't normally find a faithless person doing this, would you? Do you ever find a scientist trying to convert people to his viewpoint through force and fraud, or is this peculiar habit restricted to religious people, people who have faith? We've heard of religious wars, wars in the name of god, all based on faith. Do we ever find such things happening in the field of science or rationalism, which is devoid of faith? The answer is self-evident.

Which doesn't mean I am bashing all religions. But to harp on faith all the time, when Hinduism has much more to offer.....I find this to be an extremely puzzling attitude amongst Hindus. Most 'modern' Hindus sound pretty semitic to me, constantly speaking their language which includes faith, belief etc.

Suresh