Theistic exclusivism and the inadequacy of the medical analogy for religious choice

[Yazata]

Sure. But the Buddha also gave many specifics, and Buddhism evolved them further...

Theisms, are characteristically, not like that.

I wasn't restricting my comments about the medical analogy just to theisms. I think that the analogy does apply to religion generally though, and it's the model of religious choice that I typically gravitate towards. It captures most of the considerations that are of concern to me.

In my world, the words "absolute" and "truth" mean something. I do not consider them to be words to be tossed about.

I cannot declare something to be the Absolute Truth, while in effect having my fingers crossed.

Then don't declare that whatever-it-is is the absolute truth unless you are really convinced that it is.

As for me, I'm not convinced that human beings can ever possess knowledge that can't possibly be wrong. The possibility of error always exists. So I rarely if ever make statements that I don't hedge somehow, with an "in my opinion" or something like that, even if it's left unsaid for rhetorical reasons.

If we accept that a religion (esp. a theism) is a closed self-referential system, then such a demand to view the establishment as divine and infallible is in place.

I don't see how a religion (esp. a theism) could be anything but a closed self-referential system.

Religion isn't a free-floating bubble, a separate disjoint sphere of concern that's totally irrelevant to the rest of our lives. I think that ideally, in most religions, religion and everyday life fully overlap, with religion influencing all of our actions.

Well, it seems to me that the influence inevitably flows the other way too. Religious doctrines can't be formulated, and can't be accepted or rejected, without any concern for how they play out in the rest of our lives.

For this, you might have to switch whose translation and commentary of scripture you peruse.
Which can be an act of changing whole religions, not just changing groups within one religion.

I was thinking of the theologically-liberal Methodists and Episcopalians (Anglicans), vis a vis the hard-core bibliolatry of many Baptist fundamentalists or the Pentecostals. Some congregations might perceive becoming a Christian as an all-or-nothing turning, a total 'born-again' transformation of one's entire life. Other congregations might see becoming a Christian as something that a person can ease into, step by step, where all that's initially required is some sincere interest.

If a seeker isn't really prepared (or even able) to jump into the kind of all-or-nothing commitment that the theological conservatives demand, or if the seeker doesn't think that it's wise to do something like that, then he or she would probably be better advised to inquire into the more relaxed church.

Sure. But by relying on our wits and hearts so much, are we not placing our faith in our wits and hearts, instead of God?

How are we going to determine what really comes from God and what doesn't? The loudness of a preacher's voice? The age of a set of scriptures? The proclamations of a catechism?

We're always going to be judging these matters, we are always going to be exercising our own spiritual discernment. The answer's in our hearts, I think, and in our heads. Others can help us, invaluably so. But we ultimately have to find the answer in ourselves. There's no alternative, unless we give that spiritual faculty up and surrender our credulity to whatever other human beings (not gods) want to tell us to believe, to feel and to do, for their own purposes, whether those are well-intentioned or not.

Presumably, from a theistic perspective, that's why we come equipped with hearts and heads in the first place. So that we can use them. I don't have any fear that keeping my wits about me and trying to behave ethically will take me further away from God.

As far as I have come to know religions, they see no problem to demand that people set aside their intelligence and their ethics.

That would be pretty good evidence from my perspective that the paths that these people are preaching aren't the path for me.

 

[lightgigantic]

To me, it does.

then I guess that leaves you with nothing in your "all or nothing" gambit

... for which that same religion claims I am not qualified for.

I guess we can tag the "I am not qualified to inquire" with your "Its gotta be all or nothing"

I am pointing out a logical problem that arises, given the demands of the religious.

I am pointing out how neither you nor practically anyone else can commit to the standards that you (artificially) impose on spiritual life therefore its (apparently)logical that spiritual life fills you with self loathing and makes others appear hateful etc.
:shrug:

I repeat:

One cannot arrive at sabda through anumana and pratyaksa.

That is so on principle.

sabda is the final last word in spiritual life.

Because you have heard that anumana and pratyaksa are not perfectional, you have unnecessarily annexed them as having no value in spiritual pursuit.

This wouldn't be a problem if you were perfect yourself ....

As a norm, societies present themselves as relatively homogenous and united, they claim they are so. It is what is required to be called a "society".

Whether they really are relatively homogenous and united, is another matter.
But they claim they are, and in order to fit in, one has to claim it too.

societies are united by some common grounding while simultaneously sheltering a variety - if it was otherwise we would call it an institution.

Who is he?

That's not important (besides he is not controversial enough to have slandering critiques posted on the internet so I guess naming him wouldn't be helpful to you).

Its a commonly understand point amongst devotees who have been in the movement for over 40 years

Proper according to whom?

This is how "free spirits" like what you are suggesting are viewed as:
http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/HDG_SP_position.html

I'm not sure what that (extensively cherry picked) link has to do with the claim that the association of devotees is a prerequisite for spiritual advancement and ISKCON is a society that offers such.

Do you know there are some parts where there are about 40 different vaishnava societies within about a 40km radius?

You can, of course, rub your freedom into my face. But it remains that you are initiated, you are over the hill.
You don't have to worry anymore about initation. You can "do your thing" and still feel good about yourself.

lol
as if ....

I can't - if I do, I risk never getting initiated at all.

there's a whole aspect to initiation beyond mere formalities ... needless to say thinking that formal initiation is a safe guard against stuffing up in spiritual life is a prime principle of kannistha thinking ...

 

[lightgigantic]

According to Sanjaya's account, Arjuna had good reason to be persuaded by Krishna's arguments (and His direct presence).

The run-of-the-mill person has no such reasons.

errr .. arjuna is a run of the mill person. Ksatriyas are not considered heavy weights on the spiritual scene

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

then I guess that leaves you with nothing in your "all or nothing" gambit

Where I come from, words still mean something.
But apparently, they don't so much in your world?

... for which that same religion claims I am not qualified for.

I guess we can tag the "I am not qualified to inquire" with your "Its gotta be all or nothing"

More importantly, it is not simply about inquiry: it is about trusting and respecting a group of people, even, and especially when I see no reason to do so.

I am pointing out how neither you nor practically anyone else can commit to the standards that you (artificially) impose on spiritual life therefore its (apparently)logical that spiritual life fills you with self loathing and makes others appear hateful etc.

Are you blind, or do you deliberately deny things, or is there some other reason?

One quality I have always seemed to have is an acute awareness of what people say.
Almost like a machine, I remember things.
And people say all kinds of things.

Of course we can agree that nobody can commit to the standards I have outlined earlier.
But of course there are many people who expect us to live up to them, and they state so directly or indirectly.

I didn't "impose any standards". I am just repeating what I have heard.


For example, you yourself insisted in the claim that "the ultimatum "everything has a beginning" is something atheists call upon in order to make themselves feel comfortable."
I asked you whether you in fact know these people's intentions, and it was irrelevant to you.
Thus, you have made an example of someone who apparently believes it is appropriate to invalidate others and to make claims about their intentions without asking them anything.
And yet, here you are, talking about God, expecting to be believed ...

Because you have heard that anumana and pratyaksa are not perfectional, you have unnecessarily annexed them as having no value in spiritual pursuit.

I have not "annexed" them as having no value in spiritual pursuit.
Surely you know people who do so, though. The people who are quick to say "You're too mental" and such.


Here's what your friend thinks about the Absolute Truth and thinking about it - I linked her to the Vedabase and suggested she search it for the term "Absolute Truth":

You call the materials at that website "pointless speculation"??

Yup. Any notion of Absolute Truth is pointless speculation, because it assumes complete knowledge and perception without bias
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2807775&postcount=106

As a norm, societies present themselves as relatively homogenous and united, they claim they are so. It is what is required to be called a "society".

Whether they really are relatively homogenous and united, is another matter.
But they claim they are, and in order to fit in, one has to claim it too.

societies are united by some common grounding while simultaneously sheltering a variety - if it was otherwise we would call it an institution.

My point is that in order to fit in to a society, one has to speak its language. Regardless how problematic the claims may be philosophically or otherwise.

Moreover, in order to become a member of a society, one has to start at the bottom - ie. fitting in with those who are at the lower ranks of the hierarchy, in order to move up the hierarchy.
For ISKCON, this means one has to start by fitting in with those who bitch about karmis and claim "Nobody gets to Krishna except through ISKCON."
Those at the bottom of the hierarchy might indeed be at the bottom, but they nonetheless have the power to make or break a newcomer's efforts.

That's not important (besides he is not controversial enough to have slandering critiques posted on the internet so I guess naming him wouldn't be helpful to you).

Its a commonly understand point amongst devotees who have been in the movement for over 40 years

I haven't been around for 40 years, and I am not interested in slander per se.
I just wanted to know, in order to be able to see how you connect to the disciplic succession.
I have asked you before, per email, and you didn't reply.

I'm not sure what that (extensively cherry picked) link has to do with the claim that the association of devotees is a prerequisite for spiritual advancement and ISKCON is a society that offers such.

It is an example of what one is likely to get in ISKCON.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way is the motto.

Do you know there are some parts where there are about 40 different vaishnava societies within about a 40km radius?

Sure. And each one of them claims to be right!

You can, of course, rub your freedom into my face. But it remains that you are initiated, you are over the hill.
You don't have to worry anymore about initation. You can "do your thing" and still feel good about yourself.

lol
as if ....

Given the air of certainty with which you carry yourself here at the forums, I have no doubt about what I said.

there's a whole aspect to initiation beyond mere formalities ... needless to say thinking that formal initiation is a safe guard against stuffing up in spiritual life is a prime principle of kannistha thinking ...

Actually, my reasoning is twofold:
One, that once I would be initiated, the devotees couldn't give me so much shit as they do now, I wouldn't have to be such a doormat anymore.
And two, perhaps afterwards being involved with devotees might seem worthwhile and the doctrines would appear true.

Other than that, I don't really think initiation brings all that much or that it is a 100% safety measure.


If I would be initiated, I could tell you and Jan Ardena and the others to go fuck yourself!
I wouldn't have to doormat and whore myself to you and your constant imputations of how I have lowly intentions, am stupid and such.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Wow! This I didn't see this bit.
That's some crazy shit!

If I would be initiated, I could tell you and Jan Ardena and the others to go fuck yourself!
I wouldn't have to doormat and whore myself to you and your constant imputations of how I have lowly intentions, am stupid and such.

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

Where I come from, words still mean something.
But apparently, they don't so much in your world?




More importantly, it is not simply about inquiry: it is about trusting and respecting a group of people, even, and especially when I see no reason to do so.




Are you blind, or do you deliberately deny things, or is there some other reason?

One quality I have always seemed to have is an acute awareness of what people say.
Almost like a machine, I remember things.
And people say all kinds of things.

Of course we can agree that nobody can commit to the standards I have outlined earlier.
But of course there are many people who expect us to live up to them, and they state so directly or indirectly.

I didn't "impose any standards". I am just repeating what I have heard.


For example, you yourself insisted in the claim that "the ultimatum "everything has a beginning" is something atheists call upon in order to make themselves feel comfortable."
I asked you whether you in fact know these people's intentions, and it was irrelevant to you.
Thus, you have made an example of someone who apparently believes it is appropriate to invalidate others and to make claims about their intentions without asking them anything.
And yet, here you are, talking about God, expecting to be believed ...




I have not "annexed" them as having no value in spiritual pursuit.
Surely you know people who do so, though. The people who are quick to say "You're too mental" and such.


Here's what your friend thinks about the Absolute Truth and thinking about it - I linked her to the Vedabase and suggested she search it for the term "Absolute Truth":






My point is that in order to fit in to a society, one has to speak its language. Regardless how problematic the claims may be philosophically or otherwise.

Moreover, in order to become a member of a society, one has to start at the bottom - ie. fitting in with those who are at the lower ranks of the hierarchy, in order to move up the hierarchy.
For ISKCON, this means one has to start by fitting in with those who bitch about karmis and claim "Nobody gets to Krishna except through ISKCON."
Those at the bottom of the hierarchy might indeed be at the bottom, but they nonetheless have the power to make or break a newcomer's efforts.




I haven't been around for 40 years, and I am not interested in slander per se.
I just wanted to know, in order to be able to see how you connect to the disciplic succession.
I have asked you before, per email, and you didn't reply.




It is an example of what one is likely to get in ISKCON.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way is the motto.




Sure. And each one of them claims to be right!




Given the air of certainty with which you carry yourself here at the forums, I have no doubt about what I said.




Actually, my reasoning is twofold:
One, that once I would be initiated, the devotees couldn't give me so much shit as they do now, I wouldn't have to be such a doormat anymore.
And two, perhaps afterwards being involved with devotees might seem worthwhile and the doctrines would appear true.

Other than that, I don't really think initiation brings all that much or that it is a 100% safety measure.


If I would be initiated, I could tell you and Jan Ardena and the others to go fuck yourself!
I wouldn't have to doormat and whore myself to you and your constant imputations of how I have lowly intentions, am stupid and such.

You simply imagine stuff.

You go on for literally pages about how there is no proper standard for approaching spiritual topics with knowledge yet you don't bat an eyelid to let rip with gross generalizations of whole peoples based on personal tiffs with a few individuals.
:shrug:

BTW here is a link that extensively proves that all cats are assholes that should go fuck themselves

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

You simply imagine stuff.

You go on for literally pages about how there is no proper standard for approaching spiritual topics with knowledge yet you don't bat an eyelid to let rip with gross generalizations of whole peoples based on personal tiffs with a few individuals.

BTW here is a link that extensively proves that all cats are assholes that should go fuck themselves

And you invalidate me, yet again ...


I am never going to be good enough for you, am I?

 

[wynn]

Wow! This I didn't see this bit.
That's some crazy shit!

"Crazy shit", huh?

Or just the frustration born out of being in a situation where I have to respect and trust others, while they are free not to respect me and not to trust me?

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Crazy shit", huh?

Or just the frustration born out of being in a situation where I have to respect and trust others, while they are free not to respect me and not to trust me?

Signal, in all seriousness, what do you want from me or LG?

jan.

 

[wynn]

Signal, in all seriousness, what do you want from me or LG?

The same recognition as I give you.
But that isn't going to happen, is it?

 

[wynn]

You simply imagine stuff.

You go on for literally pages about how there is no proper standard for approaching spiritual topics with knowledge yet you don't bat an eyelid to let rip with gross generalizations of whole peoples based on personal tiffs with a few individuals.

BTW here is a link that extensively proves that all cats are assholes that should go fuck themselves

You are caricaturing the stance I have presented.

I have merely reasoned consistently with the idea that religious people, socieites and institutions are divine and infallible.
They indeed wish to be seen as such!
I just looked at the logical consequences of that.

If one said
"I have been abused by a school teacher, therefore, all teachers abuse children and the school system is corrupt"
- that would be a grave caricature.

But if one said
"I have been abused by a religious person, therefore, all religious people abuse others and the religious system is corrupt"
- that would not be a grave caricature, if we posit that religious people and systems are divine and infallible.

In fact, some Catholics have used this line of reasoning to justify denying and hiding the abuse of children perpetrated by some clerics. They reasoned that if they admitted that mistakes have been made, that abuse took place, then this would mean that they are not a divine and infallible institution - and that thus, they cannot justly act as the middleman between people and God.

 

[rcscwc]

What BG exactly?

The conversation between Krishna and Arjuna?
Or the commentaries by SP?

Krishna may have taken the time to tell Arjuna about this and that before expecting surrender.

SP does not, and generally, nor do devotees.

There is one and one version of BG, rest are translations and commerntaries, some good, some outrageously biased, many are inaccurate.

Krishna was not seeking a surrender, a meek and awed surrender. He sought to explain everything to Arjuna and left the final decision with him.

 

[wynn]

There is one and one version of BG, rest are translations and commerntaries, some good, some outrageously biased, many are inaccurate.

How do you know which are which?

Krishna was not seeking a surrender, a meek and awed surrender. He sought to explain everything to Arjuna and left the final decision with him.

At least in some translations, Krishna speaks in the imperative. Thus, He says, for example
Abandon all varieties of religion and surrender unto Me.


And not
You have the option of abandoning all varieties of religion and surrendering unto Me
as you suggest.

 

[kx000]

Surgical analogy.. if you want to use age old religions with unsteady hands as your heart surgeon go ahead, but chose me a church of God and I will fix the heart you have, and have a pot of coffee waiting for you when you get home. However, lead your own path, follow my words if you want, but God is my shpeard, I not yours.

 

[Pineal]

not [/I]chosen with the intention "this or nothing, and if it kills me to stick with it."

In my experience most people go with the standard medical approach until they are better or die. A few may not realize that after experiencing the standard approach they will later try something else. But their intention, in general, is to do as the doctor says, period. Certainly a significant percentage of people going to shamans, alternative doctors also think that is 'what one should do' and they do it. Some, like those in the other group, may shift later.

Then there are some people who have a kind of flexible consciousness in the beginning and, as you say, will switch around if they feel/think this is necessary and know this in advance.

I also want to point out that whatever one thinks in advance, chosing one medical approach first can be the ultimate committment. Open heart surgery, radiation or chemo, all have huge effects on the body and other options are often ruled out or much less likely to have positive effects after - if one survives. And coming in the other direction also: from the standard medical perspective, if you start with the shaman or the herbalist, you may allow a condition to become fatal. Obviously this doesn't apply to milder sicknesses.

Choosing a religion is characteristically the opposite:
When choosing a religion, one vows to stick with it no matter what.
It is an all-or-nothing, now-or-never matter.

I guess this is not my experience, both with myself and many others I have known. There are all sorts of searching, probing approaches to religions. Even if the hope and expectation is that it will stick, at least many of the practitioners I have known do not feel bound for all time. And religions also usually have formal exits. Priests who want to leave their posts and vows can do this, for example. And people do convert. It seemed to me that most of the religious leaders I met were aware of these phenomena, and some, at least, supported these kinds of shifts. That there was a kind of right place and their ashram, temple, church might not be it.

Of course there are leaders who think you are damned to hell if you leave their church and certainly their religion as a whole. But when speaking of theism in general, I think it is more flexible than presented here.

One vows to believe that said religion is true above all others.
Every theistic religion has a tenet to the effect of "This religion is the one and only right one, the best one; all others are less or more wrong."
This is clear already at the first visit to a theistic establishment.

The Abrahamic ones have this, though not all priests, pastors and rabbis hold to this. I can't say about imams, I have too little experience. But I did not encounter this in Hinduism in a few different traditions that get batched under that title. Nor in Buddhism, though this is generally not a theism or, well, it gets complicated. Though I'm sure there are practitioners who think this kind of thing, it seemed much more flexible. Finding the right vehicle for you and all that.

It is clear to a seeker from the beginning on that in order to continue going to that religious establishment, they will have to view it as divine and infallible, as being the best there is or could possibly be.

Not my experience. It seemed a given that beginners had varying intentions and levels of interest and certainty. And that includes Christianity, Judaism and the major Eastern religions I encountered.

Thisis how the medical analogy for religious choice does not apply, and is even misleading:

The medical analogy suggests that people may and should approach religious choice with the intention "and if this doesn't work out, then I can look elsewhere."

When joining a religion, one should cross one's fingers at initiation or baptism?

I think the idea is to go in with as strong an intent one can have at that time, with these formal rituals that is. But one can participate a great deal in religions before taking those steps. And humans change, don't know themselves, are fallible, misunderstand and so on. And savvy leaders - not even supersaavy ones - understand that people cannot always know how they will feel think and act later on. We do our best, at that time.

When joining a religion, one should cross one's fingers at initiation or baptism?

One should say "I believe [name of spiritual/religious organization] is divine and infallible, is the one and only right one, the best one; all others are less or more wrong."
and nevertheless think "... and if this doesn't work out, I can still go elsewhere."
-?

Really?

I was never asked to state something like that, though I am sure there are equivalents out there. One initiation was completely non-verbal. I would call it an encounter.

But if one is presented with such a statement to make, I can see a problem. I would really wonder why a God would want me to essentially judge all these other people and their practices.

I can see 'Do you accept Jesus as your Savior' or this or that guru.
I can see accepting vows for certain behaviors.
But why they should make you vow at a meta level, that I don't get.

i am sure it happens, and I have encountered people who had to talk down other gurus and leaders and masters, placing theirs as the only truly enlightened one or the one with the right lineage or the direct line to Jesus via the Pope of this or that enlightened reverend, hassidim, shaman.
But generally speaking I don't remember formal proclamations demanded around initiate's eternal committment or the initiate's judgment that other traditions were false.

Personally I will not go against my own heart for God - or what seemed to be God - and certainly not for any of 'his' or 'her' supposed leaders and their demands. I would certainly look deeply in my heart for whatever seemed to be God's or an enlightened leader's sense of my actually needing to go against my heart - or seemed like it was. I would not simply push away things that do not initially feel wrong, unless it was overwhelmingly so, especially if much else had seemed right. But I do not think I can go against my godgiven nature. And a God that wants this should have simply done a better job of creating me.

I couldn't become a national socialist either, despite their absolute certainty they are correct, even if I could not come up with the intellectual reasons, as long as my gut said no.

 

[wynn]

In my experience most people go with the standard medical approach until they are better or die.

Doctors often suggest several treatment options, and then leave it up to the patient to decide.
This is also what I meant with "and if this doesn't work, I'll try something else," not just the decision between traditional Western medicine and the alternative medicines.

There are all sorts of searching, probing approaches to religions.

Sure, but they are not exactly tolerated by established religions.

The Abrahamic ones have this, though not all priests, pastors and rabbis hold to this. I can't say about imams, I have too little experience. But I did not encounter this in Hinduism in a few different traditions that get batched under that title.

My experience with Hindu traditions in the West is that they are fundamentalists, certainly not flexible.

It is clear to a seeker from the beginning on that in order to continue going to that religious establishment, they will have to view it as divine and infallible, as being the best there is or could possibly be.

Not my experience. It seemed a given that beginners had varying intentions and levels of interest and certainty.

Beginners may indeed have varying intentions and levels of interest and certainty - but it is not my experience that either the doctrine or the members would tolerate that.

But why they should make you vow at a meta level, that I don't get.

I know one spiritual organization where at initiation, one has to vow to leave said organization should one ever seek instruction or guidance outside of said organization.

While there may be practical considerations behind this, a vow like that also makes clear that said organization has to be viewed as the Alpha and Omega of one's life.

But generally speaking I don't remember formal proclamations demanded around initiate's eternal committment or the initiate's judgment that other traditions were false.

If the new initiate vows to become a member of the "One True Church of God" - it's clear enough this implies that he vows to believe all other churches are less or more wrong/false.

Personally I will not go against my own heart for God - or what seemed to be God - and certainly not for any of 'his' or 'her' supposed leaders and their demands. I would certainly look deeply in my heart for whatever seemed to be God's or an enlightened leader's sense of my actually needing to go against my heart - or seemed like it was. I would not simply push away things that do not initially feel wrong, unless it was overwhelmingly so, especially if much else had seemed right. But I do not think I can go against my godgiven nature. And a God that wants this should have simply done a better job of creating me.

I have found that my heart matters nothing to theists.
Not only that, but that the doctrines condemn "going by one's own heart."

 

[Pineal]

Doctors often suggest several treatment options, and then leave it up to the patient to decide.
This is also what I meant with "and if this doesn't work, I'll try something else," not just the decision between traditional Western medicine and the alternative medicines.

Ah, OK. I was going by the list of healers. This is not my experience of Western doctors, but I am sure some do this.

Sure, but they are not exactly tolerated by established religions.

Again, I think they are. I am sure there are many practitioners and leaders who demand one give up one's soul upon entering the door, but in my experience many understand that if you are not raised in a tradition or have been away from it or it was not taken seriously in your family, it takes time to acclimate and initiations are not things people do lightly or immediately. I am describing my experience across the board of the major religions, except for Islam which I have little direct experience of.

My experience with Hindu traditions in the West is that they are fundamentalists, certainly not flexible.

I suppose once you are in, I would agree. Once you have committed, the others will judge and criticise and expect - often while denying they are doing this. But as far as people coming to ashrams, meditating, chanting, going home, mulling, coming and stay for a week, leaving it for a few years, never formally talking to anyone, entering a darshan line, raising a hand in a group discussion, my experience was that people kept the line flexible. This may have been other traditions than the ones you came in contact with or we just had different luck shall we say. I heard in a number of different settings, meaning different traditions within Hinduism, things like
perhaps he is not the guru for you
you will know when you find the right place

It seemed implicit that I could come and go experience even 24/7 experiences of ashrams without formally committing myself to anything. Of course I had to adhere to the rules but that never seemed more than politeness and common sense - at least I don't remember contorting myself.

I know people who did formally commit or were initiated and I have to say I do not like much of what I heard - but they did and still do like what they experienced, at least most of them. They always framed it in terms of the Guru or Shiva or Kali teaching via experiences - the Lord moves in mysterious ways, etc.

Not my cup of tea. But theirs. But up until these formal initiations, committments, in some cases employments, I felt very free to explore. No one ever confronted me and it seemed like others were attending in a wide variety of ways, just as people do in Western churches.

Beginners may indeed have varying intentions and levels of interest and certainty - but it is not my experience that either the doctrine or the members would tolerate that.

OK. I do get that. We just seem to have different experiences. I am pretty critical of these religions so as far as I know I have no reason to deny something I was experiencing, but who knows.

I know one spiritual organization where at initiation, one has to vow to leave said organization should one ever seek instruction or guidance outside of said organization.

Wow. That I have not run across.

While there may be practical considerations behind this, a vow like that also makes clear that said organization has to be viewed as the Alpha and Omega of one's life.

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with this. It's their rules and as long as you are free to go and power is not abused within the organization -cough, cough - it's a free country, so to speak. It speaks to me of a lack of faith, sort of like men who won't let their girlfriends socialize, but that's not really my business.

If the new initiate vows to become a member of the "One True Church of God" - it's clear enough this implies that he vows to believe all other churches are less or more wrong/false.

Yes, if that is the statement, I agree. I don't think all or even most initiations include this, but if it includes a statement like that, absolutely.

I have found that my heart matters nothing to theists.
Not only that, but that the doctrines condemn "going by one's own heart.

Wow. How the heck are you supposed to choose the ashram, with your rational mind? I can see the computer programmer trying to write the software.....

 

[wynn]

I am describing my experience across the board of the major religions, except for Islam which I have little direct experience of.

It can happen that the second time you visit a Muslim group, they will understand this as you wanting to join - and this understanding is taken for granted, it is not explicitly verbalized.
Same in some other groups.

I heard in a number of different settings, meaning different traditions within Hinduism, things like
perhaps he is not the guru for you
you will know when you find the right place

Granted, I have heard such things too. But in the context of "You're just not advanced enough to see we are the right religion" and the like.

It seemed implicit that I could come and go experience even 24/7 experiences of ashrams without formally committing myself to anything.

Such has never been my experience. Not with Christians, not with Hindus.

I was either straighforwardly criticized (such as "What is taking you so long to decide?!") or it was clear enough that I was merely put up with, tolerated (in the spirit of "You're wrong, but we're so nice to put up with you anyway").

While there may be practical considerations behind this, a vow like that also makes clear that said organization has to be viewed as the Alpha and Omega of one's life.

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with this. It's their rules and as long as you are free to go and power is not abused within the organization -cough, cough - it's a free country, so to speak.

To me, there is a bigger problem indicated by this.
Namely, that by accepting the view "Each religion can do as it pleases, it's their rules," I think this trivializes religion and one's approach to it as such. Hence this thread.

If the new initiate vows to become a member of the "One True Church of God" - it's clear enough this implies that he vows to believe all other churches are less or more wrong/false.

Yes, if that is the statement, I agree. I don't think all or even most initiations include this, but if it includes a statement like that, absolutely.

And even if the initiation itself doesn't include such a claim of the institution's exclusive divinity and infallibility, if said institution's doctrine includes it, then by becoming a member of said institution, one also affirms its exclusive divinity and infallibility.

Wow. How the heck are you supposed to choose the ashram, with your rational mind? I can see the computer programmer trying to write the software.....

Well, irrationally choosing a religion doesn't seem appealing either!

 

[Pineal]

It can happen that the second time you visit a Muslim group, they will understand this as you wanting to join - and this understanding is taken for granted, it is not explicitly verbalized.
Same in some other groups.

OK

Granted, I have heard such things too. But in the context of "You're just not advanced enough to see we are the right religion" and the like.

I could have been missing the tone, but this is not my experience. Certainly I encountered people who were snooty about their church, guru, master, but often I got this, right teacher, right time message, sometime explicitly stated by the 'leaders' and meaning that there were different vehicles/paths for different people. Christians I encountered as practitioners were less likely to verbalize something like this, but I actually found priests and reverends often said things very similar, at least in one on one discussions.

Such has never been my experience. Not with Christians, not with Hindus.

OK.

I was either straighforwardly criticized (such as "What is taking you so long to decide?!") or it was clear enough that I was merely put up with, tolerated (in the spirit of "You're wrong, but we're so nice to put up with you anyway").

That's terrible. In the places/traditions I probed in Hinduism, people seemed to respect boundaries better than this. In fact there was a sense of not disturbing the silence of others, unless I went out of my way to engage in a dialogue with insiders. People were often walking about doing internal mantras and of course viewing work times as devotional, so beginners and non-beginners were left to their own devices, other then being assigned jobs. All meditation, chanting, listening to the gurus was available, and at no point did anyone come and demand commitment. Most would not have even known my category. In smaller groups, tiny ashrams, there was more social interaction and you stood out. I think I was asked what I thought/felt on occasion, but I have no memory of anyone pressuring me or judging me openly. Many long termers certainly seemed full of themselves and very proud, but it didn't seem their business to determine my category or decisions or stage.

To me, there is a bigger problem indicated by this.
Namely, that by accepting the view "Each religion can do as it pleases, it's their rules," I think this trivializes religion and one's approach to it as such. Hence this thread.

It seems like the only other reaction is that I take on the burden of fixing, in my mind at least, and in public in some way, what is wrong with people who do not pursue my religion. I have to assume we are all seeking the same things, that really they should be doing what I am doing, that there is only one route to that one thing we all want the same.

How can I not be like the people you seem upset with AND not generally respect these people's choices - barring practices where, for example, children are being abused sexually by the guru or the like?

I don't think this trivializes religion, but I can no longer assume I know what everyone really needs and should be practicing and believing. And if I did, I would be like those people who judged you and tried to force you into being something.

I think there is a kind of humility in this, but also my deep sense - which I can't call humble - that people need to find their right places and these are not the same for everyone. From the outside - meaning me perceiving - this seems to be the case. And people are very clear themselves that they want things I do not want, practices I do not want, reigning metaphors that feel wrong to me - sacrifice, submission, service, (and guilt and shame though these are rarely the words they choose, but it sure seems like what they are aiming for - interpersonal dynamics I do not want...
and frankly they do look more comfortable with their choices than they do when presented with what I prefer and feels right to me.

So where my external impressions match their reports of what they want, I cannot but leave matters separate like that.

Where their beliefs impinge on me or my community, there I may draw lines and contest them, but as far as their search for God or wholeness, no, I no longer think that really they should be doing what I do. It's like thinking they would all really be happy married to my wife.

But I don't see religion as a free for all or random, quite the opposite.

And even if the initiation itself doesn't include such a claim of the institution's exclusive divinity and infallibility, if said institution's doctrine includes it, then by becoming a member of said institution, one also affirms its exclusive divinity and infallibility.

Anyone or any organization that wants to be treated as infallible is suspect to me. We are getting into an area where I began to have problems with Hindu and some Christian traditions.

Well, irrationally choosing a religion doesn't seem appealing either!

I think that implies a false dichotomy. Rational decisions - worked out by a mind logically - vs. irrational decisions as the only options. And as far as I can tell by watching actions in life everyone agrees with me - since I see them valuing highly decisions every day that were not made using logical mental processes. I could be wrong about this and certainly most people in discussion forums seem to see rational and irrational as the only options. The latter always pejorative, the former being logical, language based lines of thinking.

 

[wynn]

That's terrible. In the places/traditions I probed in Hinduism, people seemed to respect boundaries better than this.

I didn't mean to beg for sympathy.

It's just that my experiences with theists and theism have been a lot more than I can handle.

It has all been something ... horrible.

But I don't see religion as a free for all or random, quite the opposite.

Based on my experience with theists, I agree. I find theism to be elitist in the extreme, and reserved for a select few. Which is allright, not everyone can be a part of the elite.

But on the other hand, if religion is all about being saved, then it would be vile (to say the least) to exclude some people, or oneself, from the onset.

If religion isn't a matter of life or death, an eternal matter of life and death - then I think, allright, the usual principles of decision-making apply.

But given that religion IS presented precisely as a matter of life or death, an eternal matter of life and death - then this changes everything. It should be a matter of elitism - unless we accept that God has, in advance, determined some beings to be in hell forever, and we be allright with that.

I think that implies a false dichotomy. Rational decisions - worked out by a mind logically - vs. irrational decisions as the only options. And as far as I can tell by watching actions in life everyone agrees with me - since I see them valuing highly decisions every day that were not made using logical mental processes. I could be wrong about this and certainly most people in discussion forums seem to see rational and irrational as the only options. The latter always pejorative, the former being logical, language based lines of thinking.

I think that choices about religion are in their own category.