TEXAS FAITH 50: Is it ever right to divorce a spouse with Alzheimers?

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

When Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told a caller on his TV show that a married man dating another woman because his wife was suffering from Alzheimer's "should divorce and start all over," it caused a predictable reaction. Even his co-host reminded Robertson that couples vow to remain together "for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer." But Robertson did not back off: "I hate Alzheimer's. It is one of the most awful things because, here is a loved one, this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years, and suddenly, that person is gone. They're gone. They are gone." Alzheimer's, he said, "is a kind of death." And he said he would not put a "guilt trip on someone who divorced for such a reason."

What to make of this? Conservative Christian leaders were swift to condemn Robertson's remarks. But as the New York Times reported, many doctors and patient advocates had a more complex response - some suggesting that he had broached an important subject, how spouses and other family members of dying patients can prevent their lives from being engulfed and start to move on.

How do we reconcile the practical and moral conflicts in Robertson's advice? Is it ever right to divorce a spouse suffering from Alzheimer's? What is the morally acceptable thing for people who develop new relationships while caring for a spouse in the last stages of Alzheimer's?

Our Texas Faith panel weighs in with some provocative, and often surprising, answers on a very difficult issue.

 

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas 

 

The by-product of religion, or spiritual connection is satisfaction and selflessness. Those who are not connected with God seek the outer path, as hinted last week by our panelist Ric Dexter. They seek to satisfy the self or extended self. However those who first of all have the basic understanding of the soul, that the self is different from the body, do not look for externals for comfort, for they are connected with God. Thus a true practitioner does not see others with the eye of exploitation.

What is the eye of exploitation? It is when we view others as objects of enjoyment, thinking "what can this person do for me?" Because in America we do not have a God conscious culture rather we have a iGod conscious culture we cannot have steady relationships. As soon as person is no longer useful for the others gratification there is divorce. Whereas in India there is a remnant of spiritual culture remaining. Marriage is held together by the sense of duty. That I have a duty to God, society, and saints to properly uphold the marriage institution. Therefore I am duty bound to protect and care for my spouse, regardless of how difficult it is. Such duty is purifying for our heart and produces spiritual realizations.

Life is meant for shreyas, working for ones ultimate good, rather than preyas, instant gratification. Living a life for your own gratification only produces dissatisfaction. On a side note one who at the age of 80, at the door step of death should not seek additional relationships but rather should marry themselves to God.

Only that person who is ready to renounces everything (home, wealth) to work for the highest good is permitted renounce family ties and thus be a sannyasi.

"A person who is not disturbed by the incessant flow of desires -- that enter like rivers into the ocean, which is ever being filled but is always still -- can alone achieve peace, and not the man who strives to satisfy such desires." -Bhagavad Gita As It Is 2.70

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

TEXAS FAITH 49: Is monotheism superior?

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

The three Abrahamic faiths are known for being monotheistic religions. They worship one Deity, even though they may leave room for several concepts of the Divine. For example, Christians believe in the Trinity.
But other faiths aren't monotheistic. They allow for more than one god. As Texas Faith panelist Amy Martin wrote in an email:
"If you ask a Hindu if they are monotheistic, they will acknowledge the all-encompassing nature of the Brahma and say that all their gods and goddesses are simply aspects of that godhead. Even pagans say the same thing. The spiritual-not-religious, like Buddhists, posit an all-is-one divine energy, but do not define it as God."
Over time, these concepts have shaped traditions, cultures and even nations. So, for this week I'd like to hear your answer to this question:
Do you think monotheism is a superior form of religious belief?
If so, why? If not, why not?

 

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas 

 

I would like to thank Amy for this nice question. One item I would like to clarify is that Hinduism in not a religion nor a way life but rather as Sanskrit and Indian Studies Professor Dr. Howard J Resnick states, "A family of different religions."

Of all religions of Hinduism, Vaishnavism is the most prominent. It is over 70% of the Hindu population.

If the term Hindu has any value, it would be to indicate a geographic designation rather than a theological one. The Vaishnava tradition is not monolantry, nor pantheistic. It is monotheistic.

The scriptures of most traditions all emphasize monotheism. For example in the Bhagavad Gita, God states that he is not only the father all beings on this Earth but also the father of the angels (devas), who some call the gods (BG 14.4).

The Vedas also state, Eko nārāyana asit, "that only God exist in this material world at the time of creation." The devas are all His creation. Therefore. according to scripture, polytheism is not supported.

Logically and also according to the scripture, absolute monism, Advaita, is not supported. It is true that every soul shares a qualitative feature of God since we are all spiritual, without creation and without destruction.

However, there is a quantitative difference. Our consciousness is limited. Others are not aware that I have to go to the bathroom unless I inform them. Our consciousness is primarily limited to our own bodies. We are not conscious of all bodies, where God is conscious of all bodies (BG 13.23)

A simple analogy can be given. If you take a drop of water out of the ocean, that drop will have the same qualities of the ocean. It shares the qualitative oneness of the same percentage of salt and minerals.

However, if you were to examine it quantitatively, you will see that there is a gulf of difference between the drop and the ocean. So, in this way, there is a difference and oneness between the soul and God. (BG 15.16-19)

I would also like to add that impersonal monotheism is also incomplete. The idea that God is faceless, formless, and without personal attributes goes against the very nature of monotheistic philosophy.

In monotheistic traditions God is understood to be the source of everything. If I were to possess qualities and attributes that are not found in God, then that would indicate that God is incomplete.

Therefore, it is suitable to accept that God has a form, the perfection of form. Not an old man as speculatively imagined by some artists but rather nava-yavanam, an ever youthful beauty, Krishna.

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

  The following are comments that I have left in response to panelist’s submissions.  Click on the link above to see them all.

 

• Regarding Mr. Ghouse post. It is our humility, or inferiority, that is realized when we realize the superiority of God. To claim God supreme is not arrogance but rather a humble recognition of the truth of our position in relation to God.
  Yes pride and stupidity grow on the same tree and therefore the Brhat Bhagavatamrta equates the terms, Love of God (Bhakti) and utter humility (Dhainya) to be practically the same thing.
  One who has a mature relationship with God knows that those who approach the Father approach the same Father whether known by the name of Allah, Jehovah, or Krishna. The point about uniqueness people also can been in favor of Monotheism as many proclaim a desire for universal brotherhood and sisterhood, yet all are different. Such universal brotherhood and sisterhood cannot be realized without understanding we have a universal Father.

• Both Zachary Moore and Cynthia Rigby bring up the problem of evil. This issue is easier understood with the understanding that the soul is not born with the body but is actually eternal. We experience karmas from our previous lives and thus suffer from our own doing rather than from neglect from God.

• Dear Ric Dexter, you have mentioned "Nichiren discussed inferior and superior religious beliefs, and held that beliefs which sought redemption through external intervention were not superior to the ultimate law of life and death."
  a. Not all monotheistic traditions desire redemption,
  "na dhanam na janam na sundarīm
  kavitām vā jagadīśa kāmaye
  mama janmani jamanīśvare
  bhavatād bhaktir ahaitukī tvayi
  Translation
  O Lord of the universe, I do not desire material wealth, materialistic followers, a beautiful wife or results of good karma. All I want, life after life, is unmotivated devotional service unto You. Śrī Śiksāstaka - 4" Specifically the phrase 'life after life' is used to illustrate that the uttama bhakta does not even desire mukti, liberation. He is ready to go to hell, if there is an opportunity to serve God there.
  b. What is the logic behind the idea that spiritual inner work is superior to divine intervention? Some things are beyond our ability. Another point about this is that Love is not a one party relationship, to experience love, the highest experience, another party is necessary.

Separation of Church and Steak

Separation of Church and Steak

by Madan Oppenheimer

Which part of "kill" don't you understand?

Doesn't "Thou shall not" sound like a command?

 

Amidst the braying and crying

You only hear your greed

Drowning out the voices

Of those on which you feed

 

Hurting them to help yourself

Taking care of your own hide

You have dominion over them

And you feel justified

 

Which part of "kill" don't you understand?

Doesn't "Thou shall not" sound like a command?

Chewing flesh, saving souls

Portrait of a lie

Embodiment of contradiction

Never asking why

 

Give it up, walk away

Turn the other cheek

The Earth shall be inherited

By the humble and meek

 

Which part of "kill" don't you understand?

Doesn't "Thou shall not" sound like a command?

 

Meat is Murder, God is love

Where is the connection?

Docile stare, knife blade glare

Crime escapes detection

 

Words of truth interpreted

Ask your fellow man

 

Which part of "kill" don't you understand?

Doesn't "Thou shall not" sound like a command?

TEXAS FAITH 48: Should we pray for rain?

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

With the drought creating havoc across Texas, including leading to brutal fires in Central Texas, it's not uncommon to hear people either jokingly or seriously assert that they are going to pray for rain. Gov. Rick Perry even issued a proclamation last April asking Texans to pray for rain over a 72-hour period. Part of the proclamation read this way:

"WHEREAS, throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires;"

What is your view on this?

Should Texans or, for that matter, others afflicted by drought pray for rain?
If so, how would you pray? And what would you expect?
If not, why wouldn't you pray for rain?

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas 

This is an example of one's dependence upon God. Regarding this subject a great teacher, Srila Prabhupada has said,

"If nature likes, there can be profuse rain. That is nature's arrangement. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. Parjanyād anna-sambhavah. Parjanyāt: you must have sufficient rain. And for having sufficient rain, you must execute yajña, or sacrifice. Yajñād bhavati parjanyah. So these leaders are now becoming rascals. They are not performing yajñas. They are opening slaughterhouses. How will there be rain? Instead of performing yajñas, they are opening big slaughterhouses"

According to the Vedic tradition, nature, which is one of God's energies, reciprocates with the activities of man. If we perform our spiritual duties (yajna) and abstain from sinful actions, such as killing the innocent and defenseless (meat eating and abortion) then nature will shower her blessings upon us. A pious society receives all their necessities from Mother Nature.

Our modern so-called materially advanced society does not cultivate an understanding of the dependence upon God. Children and adults alike believe that their food comes from the grocery store and the foolish technologist believes that they can eventually conquer death. The intelligent reject this post-dated check and understand that we cannot live on nuts and bolts but rather only survive by the mercy of God.

The easiest form of yajna in our modern age is the performance of kirtan. Kirtan means to glorify and specifically means the chanting of the many names of God. One can chant Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare or one may chant any name of God from the various traditions. Such chanting is a form of prayer wherein we ask the Lord to engage us in His loving service. By such chanting one can purify one's existence and at the same time directly experience God. God is never ungrateful for sincere efforts of loving service (Matthew 6:26) and therefore provides all that is needed. (BG 9.22)

 

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here. 

TEXAS FAITH 47: Do Jews, Christians and Muslims better understand each other since 9/11?

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

Since September 11, 2001, many conversations have taken place among Muslims, Jews and Christians. There are official interfaith conversations occurring all over the globe, where participants dig into each other's texts. And numerous personal dialogues have been established over the last decade. Many of us have learned more about the three Abrahamic faiths since September 11, 2001 than perhaps we knew before that day.
But here's this week's question, which is simple in its wording but not necessarily simple to answer:
Do followers of the three Abrahamic faiths really understand each other better since 9/11?
Please explain the reasons for your answer.

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas 

Progressing in a clear direction by car not only requires a proper destination, but also knowledge of where one is coming from. I view this question in a similar way. If I am driving to Tulsa, I need not only the route but an understanding of where I am starting from.

By far, most religious philosophies do not deal with the subject of the self, the soul, in great detail. The difference between the body and our consciousness is not really discussed. Nor do we discuss this point: Although we reincarnate from a baby's body through childhood and youth, we, the soul, are the same person.
As a great calculus equation has little value if it is based on the premise that 1 + 1 = 3, so is interfaith and spiritual study without deep philosophical understanding of the self.

Egalitarianism based on the body fails since we are all different. This sentiment can be logically upheld by a spiritual philosophical basis by which one recognizes that the soul is of the same quality in all beings.
By deeper study, one can intelligently accept that there is only one God, by which all can approach with love calling Him by His different names. Allah, Jehovah, Krishna, Christ is just the tip of the iceberg. For as God has unlimited qualities and glories, therefore there exists unlimited names of God.

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.