TEXAS FAITH 70: Are we a nation of Osteens & Obamas? Is that the state of religion in America?

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.

How would a foreign visitor with little knowledge of America see the state of religious faith today?

One way to assess the state of religion in America today is to ask how a newly arrived foreign visitor - say, from another country or another planet -- would see it. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat asks that question in his new book and comes to fairly blunt conclusion: The visitor would see a nation of Osteens and Obamas. On one hand, here's Joel Osteen preaching a sunny Gospel to a packed house at a baseball stadium in Washington. On the other hand, there's President Obama defending his shift on gay marriage "on explicitly religious grounds." In Douthat's view, we've become a nation of heretics who've abandoned the orthodoxy of faith.

Osteens and Obamas? Is that what a modern-day De Tocqueville would see? Or would the visitor see instead the rise of the megachurch? Or the growth of non-traditional forms of faith? Or conversely, the popularity of Richard Dawkins-style atheism, the political firefight over Mormonism or the tensions over Islam? What to make of all this?

So, how would a foreign visitor with little knowledge of America see the state of religion here today? Our Texas Faith panel weighs in.

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

I have spent time in other parts of the world and what is most apparent is the ever increasing materialism of America. Materialism is a by-product of spiritual degradation. Materialism is ever rampant in religious groups as well and often religion is marketed as a good luck venue to fulfill one's material desires.

The very first lesson in spiritual life is that the soul is different than the body. Those who are wise invest their plan for happiness in something that is internal and eternal and those who are foolish materialist invests in the external and temporary.

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

TEXAS FAITH 69: Same-sex marriages and changing attitudes

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.

How do religious institutions or organizations know when to change?

That's the question I would like you to think about this week, in light of the announcement by President Obama that he now favors the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The president isn't the only person who has changed his views over time. Last week, the New York Timestraced how attitudes on same-sex marriage have changed significantly since just the 1990s.

In 1996, the Times reported, 27 percent of Americans favored same-sex marriages. Now, 47 percent favor them.

Views on other issues, such as interracial marriage, also have shifted. In 1972, the Times noted, 59 percent of Americans favored it. By 2002, the number had risen to 90 percent.

But on other topics, nothing has really changed. In 1975, 75 percent of Americans thought abortion should be legal under either certain conditions or in all circumstances. The Times reported that number is virtually the same today. In 2011, 77 percent favor the right to abortion in either limited or unlimited circumstances.

Of course, most of us will claim that we make our decisions by principles, not polls. And that is undoubtedly true. What's more, many principles don't change over time. For example, stealing remains an offense today much like it was when the Ten Commandments were handed down.

But clearly societal attitudes change in some key areas. And religious organizations, like many other institutions, are forced to respond.

So, how do they do that, especially when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage, where attitudes are clearly changing?

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

We never compromise on our principles but the details of practice will change according to time, place, and circumstance. Such a change must be carefully done by a spiritually advanced person of proper discrimination under the guidance of sādhu, śāstra, and saṅga (the saints of the past, the scripture, the saints of the present).

One example is this is Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura (1874-1937), who had taken a vow of sannyasa, a renounced monk, for the purpose of serving God as a preacher. Such sannyasis were forbidden to ride in vehicles as it was seen contrary to the act of simplicity. Such an act is to support the principle of not coveting objects for our enjoyment.

But Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī did not see the vehicle as material item but rather as God's property and usable for His service. However, he did stipulate to himself and his students that if their spiritual progress and outreach functions is at all decreased by use of vehicles they should then not use it at all.

Therefore, the overall result can be judged by those who are sufficiently spiritually intelligent and can know what is of true benefit.

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

CW News Video–Hare Krishna temple damaged by fire.

Fire In Kitchen Ruled An Accident, No One Injured

Daniel Novick CW 33 News DALLAS—

The members of the Hare Krishna Temple in Dallas tried Saturday to move past a fire that started in their kitchen and caused damage to some of their building Friday night.
A large amount of damage was done to the kitchen and great hall where members hold feasts on a regular basis.
Children took to upbeat drumming Saturday while standing just feet from their charred and heavily damaged Hare Krishna temple.  It was the children who set the tone for everyone at the temple just one day after fire ripped through their building.
On Friday night, 500 people had gathered in a nearby park for the marriage of the son of temple president Nityananda Dasa.
“During the marriage ceremony, we saw smoke going out of the building.  So we all ran over here and we realized it was the kitchen here,” said Dasa.
Everyone was worried about the same thing.
“I was really concerned that there might have been somebody in there.  My only concern was, because we have children and all of our children are very free willing,” Dasa told CW 33 News.
The fire was put under control quickly, and most importantly, no one was injured or killed.
“They went inside and said there was nobody in there, so we felt great relief,” said Dasa.
On Saturday, temple members gathered for chanting.  The main room where they prayed was unaffected by the fire, and their spirits were not doused by the damage.
“Yes, of course we lost our kitchen and that is causing some disruption, but you know, life has disruptions in it, it happens to us all the time.  People go through much worse than this,” said Dasa.
The minister at the Hare Krishna temple, Nityananda Granger, said the fire was a reminder to not invest happiness in temporary and material things.
“Buildings may come and go, but you’re relationship with God, that is what is most important,” said Granger.
The popular vegetarian restaurant the temple owns, Kalachandji's Restaurant, was not damaged by the fire.  However, due to gas lines being cutoff, the restaurant will not reopen until Monday or Tuesday at the latest.

TEXAS FAITH 68: How far should religious institutions go in defining the common good?

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.

Here's a follow-up to our ongoing dialogue about defining the common good. This
question comes out of the discussion we had at our first Texas Faith public forum last
month.

And the question is this:

How far should churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious institutions go in helping define the common good?

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly acted upon his religious convictions
and led many other people of faith in protesting the nation's civil rights laws. He believed
his faith was drawing him into the public arena, and his work changed America's course
for the better.

And he hardly is the only person of faith who has acted upon his beliefs about the public
good. You can find examples from peace movements to the religious right.

Yet it also is true that there is a greater weariness today about the mixing of religion and
politics. Polling data from the Pew Center for Religion & Public Life has shown that. In
fact, a recent Pew poll that showed Americans are growing tired of so much religion in
politics formed the basis of one of our questions back in March.

But I'm not talking here simply about religion and politics. Instead, I'm interested in
hearing your thoughts about the role institutional religion should play in helping shape
the common good, which is not always about politics. The civil rights debate, after all,
was as much about changing the culture and the way Americans live as it was about
politics.

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

I do not know of any other institution that can do the work of defining and promoting the common good other than a spiritual institution. To understand what is the common good one must know the distinction between the body and the soul. Those who act for the body alone are never satisfied. Their hunger for enjoyment comes at other's expense.

"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-gītā As It Is 2.70

Those who are not yet at peace within themselves, whose sense of pleasure is invested in the temporary, cannot do good for themselves or others. (even though they may try)

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

Are we all just One? Discussions about non-dualism on Dallasnews.com

Dear Amy Martin,
Thank you for all your great work and great unity that you provide to the Dallas communities. I especially love all the great events that people get access to due to your dedicated seva.

I have a question about the Advaita principle, the principle of "we are one"
The definition is given "the non-dualism of the spiritual-not-religious which holds that we are not separate from God, or from each other, or from the Earth, but are one."

Hinduism is a variety of completely different religions stemming from India. The tradition that has largest number of adherents are the Vaishnava's which are over 580 million in the world. Vaishnava's being monotheistic do not accept absolute monism, or the idea that everything is just one. Rather they claim that Dvaita, duality is also present in the divine.

By analyzing the info of a subject and recognizing the individuality, or its duality, one fails to see its unity.
By synthesizing the info of a subject and recognizing the unity, or oneness, one fails to see its individuality.

Simple example is given in the Vedas:
A drop of ocean water is salty like the ocean
Qualitatively the drop is one with the ocean, both share qualities
But is the drop one in all respects?
Quantitatively the drop is practically infinitesimal in relation to the ocean.
Qualitative oneness exist but there is also a quantitative difference.
Both oneness and duality exist.

Just as you could analyse a painting and say, it is not art, it is just molecules.
or you could synthesize a painting and say, it is not molecules, it is just art.

One party sees the part and does not see the unison of the whole. Whereas the other sees the whole and does not see the individual parts. The Vedas claim, that the divine is not limited to being forced into only one of those different categories.
So one group (Dvaita) will think, "God is up there" and as you say fail to recognize that "we are not separate from God, or from each other, or from the Earth, but are one." Such a vision does not lead to the idea of the sanctity of the planet because, God is not here, He is just up there.

 

However, another group (Advaita) will think, "There is no God up there, I am God, you are God, everything is God, I am you and you are me" Such a vision does not reveal the individual nature of our or God's spiritual existence, God's own individuality. In fact the Bhagavad Gita's first instruction is that we and God are both eternally individuals. As René Descartes states " I think, therefore I am" my individual existence is what is most self evident. Therefore absolute oneness is counter intuitive.

The Vedas also state that everything comes from God. Philosophically for absolute oneness to exist personality, individuality, and form must be an illusion, a falsity. This includes the description of God's forms, avatars, and other forms of God, they are all then seen as a fabric of imagination. However, would it be wise to consider the sun cold after feeling the warmth of sunlight? So similarly is it wise to consider that God is simply one, non-personal, not a being, experiencing our own personal individuality?

Therefore it is said that this world is not false, it is a reflection. So as I have a personality, a form, relationships, and activities so as well does the All Attractive divine. Therefore it is the inconceivable nature of God to be simultaneously one and different from us and everything, achitya beda abeda tattva.

So my basic contention is how can it all just be one? are we then missing a big part of the picture?

In response to another discussion.

Thank you Mike Ghouse,
Now in an email you have written. I hope it is ok to share.
"Dear Mr. Das
We see God as one, none and many. Each belief gives comfort to the believer, does any one need to be wrong? Or right? As beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, God is in the heart of the believer.
Mike"
To this I would state that I encourage everyone to have an intelligent understanding of faith.
and to this I would ask if ANY belief, regardless of lack of rightness or lack of logic, or lack of truth is valid and beneficial if it holds to the standard of giving comfort to the believer?
So many atrocities have been performed by people who believed in religious ideas that gave them comfort. Terrorism, crusades, cleansing and so on. So is being logical, or as you say being right important? Yes, because being wrong, illogical, can be very harmful.

MikeGhouse

Dear Mr. Das,
One cannot claim that his belief is the right one - contrasting with other's belief to be wrong. Your belief is absolutely right to you, just as other's belief is right to the other. Belief is not mathematics to conclusively say 1+2 = 3. There is nothing right or wrong about a belief, it is a belief that works for the believer.

Nityananda Chandra Das

Dear Mike, I humbly disagree. I do not think intelligence should be thrown out the door. That leads to fanaticism. Which I hope we can agree is harmful.
To quote the wise, "Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation. " A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Philosophy means it is not based just on sentiment but rather sound reasoning.

Elsewhere

MikeGhouse

Nityananda,
I wrote the same example, but dropped it due to the length "The Hindu wisdom gives examples of how each drop of an ocean is like the humans, which possess the same characteristics as the ocean, yet they are two different entities of the same whole but not separate from the other"
Instead I substituted with the Namaste in my write up

Nityananda Chandra Das

Thank you Mike Ghouse.
Yes,
Another example the Vedas give is that of a green bird entering into a green tree. Both remain individuals and separate but share oneness in their green qualities. For relationship means a party of two rather than one.
The word 'yoga' illustrates this although most of those who are very familiar with the subject do not understand its meaning. Yoga is where we get the English word union. Uniting two parties.
As religion come from the root meaning meaning re-linking with God
Yoga means reuniting with our long lost soul mate Krishna, or as others say, God, Jehovah, Allah, or Christ.

TEXAS FAITH 67: Are Oprah, Deepak and the "God Within" school good or bad for religion?

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.

In his new book, Bad Religion, author and columnist Ross Douthat argues that since the 1960s, institutional Christianity has sunk to a low place - chock-a-block with heresies. Among them, the "God-within" theology that he ascribes to modern-day practitioners like Oprah Winfrey , Deepak Chopra and Elizabeth Gilbert.

Douthat suggests that bad religion is any religious expression that doesn't go through formalized, orthodox channels. Or as writer Charlie Pierce boils down Douthat's thesis: "Christianity would have been infinitely better off is somebody had stopped the banjo Mass in its tracks." But doesn't Douthat fundamentally have a point? Aren't the formal channels of church, synagogue or mosque, of Buddhist temples or the Hindu Vedas -- aren't they all supposed to rein in makeshift, even self-indulgent, flights into "bad religion"? Put another way, can you find spiritual enlightenment outside a formalized religious structure and, having found it, still be a good Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Jew?

The question this week is this:

Have Oprah and Deepak and the proponents of the "God Within" school caused more harm than good? Have they contributed to the deinstitutionalization of religion? And if so, is that okay?

Agree? Disagree? Read on after the jump.

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

In the Vedas it is described that there are three levels of spiritual realization. Brahman, Paramātmā, & Bhagavān. This can be compared to:

1. Seeing a train from a distance and concluding that it is a bright light
2. Seeing the train up close in the station and therefore understanding its intricacies
3. Riding the train with the train conductor and understanding the person and the further intricacies behind the train.
Brahman realization, realization of the existence of the soul being separate from the body, can be made possible without the help of external information, for it becomes self evident for the introspective philosopher.

However, deeper levels of realization requires the help of a teacher. Krishna explains in the Bhagavad Gita 4.2 that if spiritual knowledge is not passed down, teacher to teacher, then whatever information is being taught is simply theoretical rather than practical. Just as no one becomes a medical doctor simply from medical books alone, medical school is also required. Society holds this standard for any field of sophistication whether it is medicine, law, or psychology. But for some reason we exclude holding the sophisticated subject of spiritual life to this high standard. Thus we faultily conclude that a book alone, or our self alone can reveal the highest spiritual truth.
Therefore we find errors on both sides, the side of tradition and that of individual revelation. Tradition will say "Stick to tradition" but such tradition may not be traditional. One may ask "Where is the lineage of teachers who have, in an unbroken manner, passed down this knowledge from its original source?" Or are we in a situation where we have a possibly unadulterated medical book but no real doctors or medical school to practically show the way of the complexities of medicinal practice.
Therefore there are those who will seek God outside of tradition, and may be blessed with genuine spiritual experiences of a certain level. Nevertheless if they desire to know that which is beyond this world, the information must come from beyond this world, & beyond our own minds. Thus, guru is necessary. Guru is he/she who teaches by example what he or she has been taught. The guru must be a student of another guru and similarly that guru as well. Such a linage must go back to the original teacher whether it is Jesus, Krishna or Mohammad. Otherwise the information may look nice on paper but not be able to produce any valid results.

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