[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Tolerance Towards other Religious Viewpoints
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: Tolerance Towards other Religious Viewpoints
-
From: vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 23 Jun 1995 14:40:36 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Fri Jun 23 10: 28:50 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
> Tolerance Towards other Religious Viewpoints: Some Thoughts
>
> As human beings, we are susceptible to losing patience and we
> are accustomed to accuse others for our actions.
Most people are susceptible to losing their patience. That
part of the sentence I can agree with, and I would imagine
that most people would agree with that.
However, the second part, where you state that we are
"accustomed to accus[ing] others for our actions" needs
some clarification. What exactly are you saying here?
If this second clause is conditioned on the first clause, then
perhaps it has some validity, but even then, I'd have to
disagree with it. Most of the people I know, even when they
lose their patience, do not try to shift the blame - they admit
it. Perhaps I'm associating with a more noble group of people
than most, but I would like to believe that most people admit
it when they lose their tempers. Even if they don't admit it
immediately, at some point, after they've calmed down, they
will, and that's a good thing.
> Can we stop
> this behavior? The answer is yes provided we are willing to
> try.
Which behavior - losing patience, or blaming others for it?
If it's the first, then I agree that it's possible to stop it. If it's
the second, then while it's possible to stop it, I don't know if
it's correct to say that someone can stop doing it in the case
when someone isn't doing it. It's like asking if someone is
still beating his wife. The question is loaded from the start.
> The objective of this article is to help cultivate
> habits to listen to other viewpoints without prejudice and
> avoid jumping into incorrect and inappropriate conclusions.
What does it mean to listen to something without prejudice?
Does it mean that we should not be thinking of counter-examples,
even if they are completely valid? If someone told me that the
Earth was a cube and I started to think about all of the examples
which would disprove this statement, am I being prejudiced?
> The first step towards this goal is to display tolerance
> towards other religions.
Tolerance is an interesting word. It's not quite acceptance, is
it? It's not welcoming, it's not cherishing, it's not celebrating.
It is tolerating - putting up with it though you may dislike it.
It's often closet bigotry that won't let itself be manifested openly.
> We have two choices: either to look
> for the "good points" in other religions or to search for the
> "bad points" and abuse them for our selfish aspirations. The
I would contend that such a dichotomy does not exist. Why
does it necessarily follow that we would "abuse" these bad
points for our "selfish aspirations"? Let's say that I encounter
a religion which espouses practices that are provably detrimental,
and I point it out - am I abusing this for my selfish aspirations?
Let's say that I'm a CDC scientist in Atlanta, and I find that the
Ebola virus is being spread in Africa due to the ritual handling
of the organs of the deceased. I make it widely known that this
practice is causing death, and I call on people to stop it. On one
hand, I've found a "bad point" in the religion, and I've made
efforts to publicize it - perhaps not as "tolerant" as one would
hope for. However, I've saved some people from bloody deaths.
> win-win strategy is to assume that others are right unless we
> can prove otherwise!
John tells me that Jane always lies. I assume that John is right, since
I have no evidence to prove otherwise. Jane tells me that John
is telling the truth. I assume that Jane is right, since I have nothing
to prove otherwise. But if Jane is a liar, then what she said must be
a lie, so John must be telling me a lie, etc.
The "win-win" strategy you mentioned above defies common
logic, and won't save you from the liar's paradox, which I hope
I've correctly stated above.
[ excerpts to focus the discussion snipped]
> We always tell our kids that the sign of maturity is the
> acceptance of one's faults. As human beings, we inclined to be
> impatient and we jump into conclusions without thinking it
> over. We become irritable and show our mental agitation
> explicitly. We employ substandard language and improper words.
> We expect others to have infinite patience on us and we ignore
> our childish behavior.
Since you presented the excerpts and followed with this
paragraph, it would be useful if you expounded on what you
meant. Assuming that the two are linked, then it would be
instructive, and I'd assume that you agree, if you point out
how the statements in this paragraph follow from the excerpt.
> In the long-run, we loose our dignity and identity. If we do
> not undertake corrective actions, we will be isolated from the
> community. Our parents, spouse, kids, friends and neighbors
> start show their disappointment and disapproval. Even when we
> verbalize our good ideas and demonstrate our virtues, we will
> be ignored because no one has any more patience! We become our
> own enemy, we acquire more anger, and we generate more
> frustrations. We lose our discriminatory power (buddhi) and
> we become intolerable and unreasonable and we start accuse
> everybody for our misfortunes. The one and only way to avoid
> this path of self-destruction is to realize our faults and
> take more care to express our views with courtesy and
> coolness.
Might I suggest that the above paragraph seems more scare-tactic
oriented than useful, especially with respect to the excerpts which
you stated. I don't know how much you read alt.hindu,
soc.culture.indian, or alt.religion.vaisnava, but there's a lot of
"history" which is essential information if you want to put one
of thoses exchanges in context. If you have that background, then it
will most definitely affect how you view the statements which
you have excerpted.
The point which you raise again "we start accuse [sic]
everybody for our misfortunes" causes me to ask yet
again where this comes from. You stated a similar claim
earlier in the post, and I have a hard time agreeing with
either one.
[...]
> We all know that spirituality is not something that we can
> start discussing and arguing among ourselves to spend our
> valuable time. It is to be understood in an atmosphere of
> peace and tranquility with an open mind.
Why does an atmosphere of peace and tranquility automatically
preclude argument? Having an open mind does not imply that
you have to accept everything as correct - you only have
to judge it fairly. If, in the end, your assessment of the situation
is different from the presenter's, you can either agree that
you disagree, or you can try to show each other why you
believe that you are correct, or that the other is incorrect.
If this is called an argument, then so be it - it can still serve
a useful purpose, and in my personal opinion, it would be
hard to make progress without such discussions.
> If show kindness and
> respect to other viewpoints, we may be able to see their
> validity. Religious disputes and doctrinal conflicts are
> always motivated by egoism.
Why are religious disputes and doctrinal conflicts always
motivated by egoism? That's a very strong statement,
especially when we consider all of the people this
encompasses. All of them were motivated by egoism?
I don't think so.
> The existence and practice of
> different religions demonstrate that no single religious
> perspective is absolute and complete.
In the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Chap 7, verses 21 & 22, Krishna
says to Arjuna:
"I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires
to worship some demigod, I make his faith steady so that he can devote
himself to that particular deity.
"Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular
demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are
bestowed by Me alone."
So while there are different religions and practices, Krishna explains
their relation to Him. Your claim that "no single religious
perspective is absolute and complete" doesn't appear to follow
directly from the first part of your sentence, especially when
viewed in light of these verses.
[English translations copyright Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
Used with permission]
> I still remember my mathematics class on real numbers: Real
> numbers include integers, rational and irrational numbers. An
> "irrational number" does not have an unique numerical
> expression unlike the "rational number." Different religions
> attempt to express the "Absolute Truth," symbolically and we
> do need the faith to "accept it." If there is a unique way of
> expressing "Absolute Truth" then necessarily there will be
> only one religion! The truth is there are many religions and
> that is the "Absolute Truth!"
I don't know if you intended it to be tongue-in-cheek humor,
but that last assertion doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, it's
a fact that there are many religions, but what does that say
about the Absolute Truth? Yes, there are many ways to make
spiritual progress, and Krishna even says this in the Gita. However,
consider what Krishna says in 12.5:
"For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal
feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make
progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are
embodied."
[...]
> "Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path
> whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. Truth, being limitless,
> unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be
> organized; nor should any organisation be formed to lead or to
> coerce people along any particular path." J. Krishnamoorthy
I prefer the following quote:
"As the ignorant perform their duties with attachment to results,
the learned may similarly act, but without attachment, for the sake of
leading people on the right path." Krishna - Bhagavad Gita 3.25
-Vivek
