Mutually Exclusive Religiosity and God?
-
Guest
You make the assumption that God is the creator of all religions in the world. If God is the creator, why do They (see "If God is Male or Female...") create religions that contradict each other?
Well, how shall we deal with this? We could say that the idea that God creates all religions is not true. We could say that man creates religion. An alternative to this could be that God does indeed create the religions, but does so in a way man requires due to man’s hang-ups, demands, and cultures. If one were to accept this, the important factor to examine is man as the dynamic force behind the creation of religion. This idea is strengthened by man’s constant playing with the basic religious tenets, sorry, I should have said clarification and renewal of these basic religious tenets, to make them more compatible with man’s desires.
Then again, we could state that the religions do not actually contradict each other for they all purport to bring man closer to that one supreme God and that is, after all, the point. We would liberally state that the details of the religion are not important. But then we would run into the problem of some religions not accepting a monotheistic version of god and worse, some of them do not accept god as a personality but rather as a force. Since the force can be with you when you want it to be, religion is a creation of that part of the force that wished to have connection with it. Some say there are many gods, some say we are all god.
Those who believe in one god and demand that others follow this, are certain they are right and everyone else is wrong. They say god did not create these paths and these paths are not religion at all. They resolve this conflict in a neat and tidy fashion.
Those who believe in a force kind of god, using whatever words or phrases they use to describe this force to focus discussions, are not overly concerned about religion, neither are they militant against other ideas. They find words limiting and fundamentalist religious armies similar to the plague. They would not be interested in the question at all.
For me to answer you in a manner relevant to you, I would need to know where you stand in all this? Considering that your question included the puranas, Vaisnavism and Islam, I assume you are of the vaisnava belief system. Many vaisnavas believe strongly that Islam was created by Lord Siva as a punishment against the brahmanas. They say that he created this just to kill cows and contradict the brahminical culture. Others say that Islam is not a religion at all, and thus neatly avoid this question of who started it. Both of these ideas are often heard in India and avoid the question of why God started such religions by either saying it is not a religion or that Lord Siva started it.
This brings us back to the point that perhaps religion is really more of a function of the interaction between man and god than we would want to admit? After all, there is a reason for everything, and all creation fits within the overarching desire of God that everyone find a place in the evolutionary process and develop accordingly. Different religions are useful for different people at different times. Sometimes it is useful for someone to believe that only they have the truth and no one else, for this idea supports their weak self-esteem and allows their faith and devotion to grow in a totally uncontested environment. In future lifetimes, when they are more self-secure, they are able to accommodate all people in whatever way they attempt to find themselves and the Supreme. Why should God not facilitate all people to evolve? And if Lord Siva really did create a religion, do you think he could do that independently of Visnu? Think again.
Of course, if you wish to think so, an easy answer is there is no religion except the religion of the Bhagavata. This is the standard solution accepted by ‘vaisnavas in the know.’ By saying there are no other religions, you avoid having to deal with the question of God’s involvement in the creation of these various traditions. If you wish to go that route, you need to qualify your statement and define what you meant for there is a distinct possibility you might be missing something.
I feel that the creation of religion is always tied to the human psyche and desire. Spirituality is independent of all that. Religion insists on creating a system of acceptable and unacceptable actions and then defends itself against others through the establishment of it superiority. We have historical examples of what this leads to. Spirituality accepts the essence of all and allows that essence to find its way through the mire of external demands placed on it until it finds peace in itself in communion with the divine.
Well, how shall we deal with this? We could say that the idea that God creates all religions is not true. We could say that man creates religion. An alternative to this could be that God does indeed create the religions, but does so in a way man requires due to man’s hang-ups, demands, and cultures. If one were to accept this, the important factor to examine is man as the dynamic force behind the creation of religion. This idea is strengthened by man’s constant playing with the basic religious tenets, sorry, I should have said clarification and renewal of these basic religious tenets, to make them more compatible with man’s desires.
Then again, we could state that the religions do not actually contradict each other for they all purport to bring man closer to that one supreme God and that is, after all, the point. We would liberally state that the details of the religion are not important. But then we would run into the problem of some religions not accepting a monotheistic version of god and worse, some of them do not accept god as a personality but rather as a force. Since the force can be with you when you want it to be, religion is a creation of that part of the force that wished to have connection with it. Some say there are many gods, some say we are all god.
Those who believe in one god and demand that others follow this, are certain they are right and everyone else is wrong. They say god did not create these paths and these paths are not religion at all. They resolve this conflict in a neat and tidy fashion.
Those who believe in a force kind of god, using whatever words or phrases they use to describe this force to focus discussions, are not overly concerned about religion, neither are they militant against other ideas. They find words limiting and fundamentalist religious armies similar to the plague. They would not be interested in the question at all.
For me to answer you in a manner relevant to you, I would need to know where you stand in all this? Considering that your question included the puranas, Vaisnavism and Islam, I assume you are of the vaisnava belief system. Many vaisnavas believe strongly that Islam was created by Lord Siva as a punishment against the brahmanas. They say that he created this just to kill cows and contradict the brahminical culture. Others say that Islam is not a religion at all, and thus neatly avoid this question of who started it. Both of these ideas are often heard in India and avoid the question of why God started such religions by either saying it is not a religion or that Lord Siva started it.
This brings us back to the point that perhaps religion is really more of a function of the interaction between man and god than we would want to admit? After all, there is a reason for everything, and all creation fits within the overarching desire of God that everyone find a place in the evolutionary process and develop accordingly. Different religions are useful for different people at different times. Sometimes it is useful for someone to believe that only they have the truth and no one else, for this idea supports their weak self-esteem and allows their faith and devotion to grow in a totally uncontested environment. In future lifetimes, when they are more self-secure, they are able to accommodate all people in whatever way they attempt to find themselves and the Supreme. Why should God not facilitate all people to evolve? And if Lord Siva really did create a religion, do you think he could do that independently of Visnu? Think again.
Of course, if you wish to think so, an easy answer is there is no religion except the religion of the Bhagavata. This is the standard solution accepted by ‘vaisnavas in the know.’ By saying there are no other religions, you avoid having to deal with the question of God’s involvement in the creation of these various traditions. If you wish to go that route, you need to qualify your statement and define what you meant for there is a distinct possibility you might be missing something.
I feel that the creation of religion is always tied to the human psyche and desire. Spirituality is independent of all that. Religion insists on creating a system of acceptable and unacceptable actions and then defends itself against others through the establishment of it superiority. We have historical examples of what this leads to. Spirituality accepts the essence of all and allows that essence to find its way through the mire of external demands placed on it until it finds peace in itself in communion with the divine.
Dear Hari since some time I wanted to ask you this question, but I somehow always hesitated. I personally became atracted to the way Prabhupada presented spirituality as a `science or a evolving `scientific process` of the spiritual consciousness. But in due course of time in the movement he started, more and more it became evident that the goal was somehow more, to convince people to become "vaisnavas", thus change somehow one religion with another.
My question to you, since you were for some period of time in a somehow close conection with Prabhupada. What do you think was really his intention in this regard and how or what do you think could be the best approach to this subject? I am just asking to come somehow closer to the truth of things myself, I hope you dont mind asking you this question.
My question to you, since you were for some period of time in a somehow close conection with Prabhupada. What do you think was really his intention in this regard and how or what do you think could be the best approach to this subject? I am just asking to come somehow closer to the truth of things myself, I hope you dont mind asking you this question.
"The truth of things" is not so easy to grasp, especially after much time has passed. I can guarantee you that I cannot "know" what was his real intention. I can only guess at his real intention. I can say what I thought it was at the time and what I might speculate it was if I were to think about it now. However, I do not consider what I thought then to be any more authoritative than my speculation now, and therefore I will decline to comment on this question.
You could, of course, as me to simply give my opinion. I would also decline as I do not see the relevance of it.
When one uses the word science in a definition of spirituality that has many, if not all, the characteristics of a religion, one blurs the present usage of these two terms in a confusing manner. However, if one includes in one's definition of science observable reality verifiable by experiment, one could include spiritual experiences reproducible under specific circumstances to fall within the category of experiential science. For example, a consistently achieved meditative state that creates a specific capacity not explained through normal scientific channels would classify as a "scientifically" verifiable phenomena under this definition. I am not sure if this is what Prabhupada meant.
Having an elaborate philosophy is not necessarily the qualification of being a science as philosophy is not a science in that sense of the term; yet, the experiences of a spiritualist within the realm of observable phenomena do fit within the scientific realm. If we consider that various aspects of reality are caused by unseen forces fundamental to all existence, string theory would be one of them, an understanding of these forces expands the basis upon which science rests. From that point of view, any aspect of human emotion, human psyche, or organic energy that influences the external circumstances of the world (as in the weather, health, politics, economics, other social sciences, physical sciences, or even quantum physics) would benefit from understanding how the spiritual energy of life creates the vibratory fields within which matter rests. From this point of view, science would do well to understand living energy in full.
You could, of course, as me to simply give my opinion. I would also decline as I do not see the relevance of it.
When one uses the word science in a definition of spirituality that has many, if not all, the characteristics of a religion, one blurs the present usage of these two terms in a confusing manner. However, if one includes in one's definition of science observable reality verifiable by experiment, one could include spiritual experiences reproducible under specific circumstances to fall within the category of experiential science. For example, a consistently achieved meditative state that creates a specific capacity not explained through normal scientific channels would classify as a "scientifically" verifiable phenomena under this definition. I am not sure if this is what Prabhupada meant.
Having an elaborate philosophy is not necessarily the qualification of being a science as philosophy is not a science in that sense of the term; yet, the experiences of a spiritualist within the realm of observable phenomena do fit within the scientific realm. If we consider that various aspects of reality are caused by unseen forces fundamental to all existence, string theory would be one of them, an understanding of these forces expands the basis upon which science rests. From that point of view, any aspect of human emotion, human psyche, or organic energy that influences the external circumstances of the world (as in the weather, health, politics, economics, other social sciences, physical sciences, or even quantum physics) would benefit from understanding how the spiritual energy of life creates the vibratory fields within which matter rests. From this point of view, science would do well to understand living energy in full.