Quoting Scripture

[water 0]

Quoting Scripture

 

Greetings.

 

 

A very dear person has referred me here.

 

 

I have recently started to read the Bhagavad-gita -- As It Is, by A.C. Prabhupada.

 

Many times when I read something, I am all "Yes, exactly! This is how it is!"

I discuss religion and philosophy a lot, and so I find myself urged to support my arguments with what I have read in scripture.

 

Yet as it occured to me, I am not in the position to knowledgeably and responsibly quote scripture. I may agree with a verse, think that it captures best what I am trying to say.

 

But my understanding of said verse is not necessarily that that is approved by the authorities and members of the religion to which the scripture I am attempting to quote is basic.

 

If I'd be quoting scripture in my arguments, and also give my source, I would thereby overstep my competence -- as I would present my understanding as if it were indeed that of a knowledgeable and responsible member of said religion.

Which I am not.

 

 

So I think that an outsider, who wishes to support his arguments with what he has read in various scriptures, does best if he:

-- rephrases the verse and gives no source,

-- quotes the verse verbatim but gives no source.

 

 

(This goes of course for arguments that deal with more general matters, like why are people prone to sin or why they avoid God. In arguments that deal with particular religious history, like Abraham's ancestors or where a battle took place, the source and the verse should by all means be named.)

 

 

I understand such quoting or rephrasing may be a violation of scripture. But I think that is important that one doesn't overstep one's competences, and always keep to his understanding, without assuming more competence than one actually has.

 

 

What do you think?

 

[theist 1]

What I have found that works best for me is in how I am presenting the verse in question to someone.

 

Kind of like " I read this verse in the Bhagavad-gita about not being the material body and it makes alot of sense to me" then maybe quote the verse.

 

The problem always comes for me if I try to position myself as some kind of "knower of the truth" or an authority of some kind.

 

Also I rarely find a need to quote scripture any more. No one accepts scriptural authority anyway. I do find some way to reveal the source of anything I have learned however so that someone else can take advantage as well. Like pointing to the link at the bottom of this post for example. Hopefully someone clicks on it.

 

 

[gHari 0]

Water,

 

You asked what I think. I think that talking about religion is a waste of time. When we have realization of the truth behind the scripture then we have something to say to anyone, but until then we simply waste our time playing with the words of each religion's idiom.

 

I consider myself very fortunate to have discovered this long ago. I did not have to deal with everyone's doubts and weaknesses - just my own.

 

If we are honest with ourselves about why we talk about it we will see it is merely ego maintenance, solidifying the illusion that the body and its senses are the be-all and end-all. But in actuality, it is the soul that is the be-all and end-all. The mind and the senses are not the route to the soul; they are the shackles of the little world. They keep the mirror of the heart foggy and stand between you and God.

 

Well, that's what I think. But then, if you're gonna talk and debate, it might as well be about Krsna and scripture. Somewhere along the way you may become serious.

 

gHari

 

[theist 1]

gHari,

 

Coversation about Krsna is strengthening and hopefully will spark some interest in the other party, but I really agree with you about debate, it tends to harden the heart and we as neophytes come away feeling strong and empowered, when the only thing strengthened has been our false egos.

 

I notice that the tendancy is to form a clear barrier between 'us' and 'them.' "I am the devotee" and "you are the karmi". This dynamic is not very helpful when trying to share the Most Beautiful with our fellow souls in this world. Qoutes offered from this platform often come across as weapons of intellectual warfare rather than the life preservers of rescue that they are.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Reality we all devotees. Just depends on consciousness at present time. I think may fall into trap of imitating pure devotees. And calling people raskal etc. I.e The example I think of is.. if Krishna called me a Raskal could I say it back to Him? [Don't think!]. Anyway you probably wouldn't. Same say if Guru says to you cannot. But we try to ACT like Guru and call people names. We not even qualified! How dare we?

[water 0]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

 

 

theist,

 

 

 

The problem always comes for me if I try to position myself as some kind of "knower of the truth" or an authority of some kind.

 

 

But isn't it, so often, that the other person puts you in this position?

Like, "If you quote source XY, then I take you must be proficient in XY."

Many people are eager to label a person, and if you quote the Bible, "then it must be that you are a Christian". (And then one can spend a while explaining that one is not a Christian, and then the other wonders why then quote the Bible at all.)

 

 

* * *

 

 

gHari,

 

 

 

You asked what I think. I think that talking about religion is a waste of time. When we have realization of the truth behind the scripture then we have something to say to anyone, but until then we simply waste our time playing with the words of each religion's idiom.

 

I consider myself very fortunate to have discovered this long ago. I did not have to deal with everyone's doubts and weaknesses - just my own.

 

If we are honest with ourselves about why we talk about it we will see it is merely ego maintenance, solidifying the illusion that the body and its senses are the be-all and end-all. But in actuality, it is the soul that is the be-all and end-all. The mind and the senses are not the route to the soul; they are the shackles of the little world. They keep the mirror of the heart foggy and stand between you and God.

 

Well, that's what I think. But then, if you're gonna talk and debate, it might as well be about Krsna and scripture.

 

Somewhere along the way you may become serious.

 

 

Thank you for saying this! I copied it into my notes, I hope you don't mind.

 

I have only lately begun to realize why I was debating and discussing religion so much: It was my way of fighting my own atheism.

I had so many theories piled up in my head, and was far from knowing what it is that *I* think. Somehow, all those theories seemed to have very little to do with me. I started out in those discussions as an atheist, but something always seemed wrong. I went at reason with reason -- and found it cannot stand its own rigour. Soon, I had no argument against theists anymore, plenty against atheists, and the landscape cleared to make room for a decision.

 

 

* * *

 

theist,

 

 

 

I notice that the tendancy is to form a clear barrier between 'us' and 'them.' "I am the devotee" and "you are the karmi". This dynamic is not very helpful when trying to share the Most Beautiful with our fellow souls in this world. Qoutes offered from this platform often come across as weapons of intellectual warfare rather than the life preservers of rescue that they are.

 

 

As an outsider, I see that such a barrier is necessary and useful though. Not in the sense of one person against the other, or the one inside against the one outside, but in the sense of spiritual thoroughness.

 

Perceiving these barriers and dealing with them is a good challenge to my vanity.

[theist 1]

But isn't it, so often, that the other person puts you in this position?

 

Like, "If you quote source XY, then I take you must be proficient in XY."

Many people are eager to label a person, and if you quote the Bible, "then it must be that you are a Christian". (And then one can spend a while explaining that one is not a Christian, and then the other wonders why then quote the Bible at all.)

 

 

Yes that's right people will assume that. And we know they will. So the temptation will be to let them think that and play of their assumption in ways that reinforce that assumption. This is done through mannerisms tone of voice etc. This used to be characteised by people imitating Prabhupada's voice and accent. That has probably disppeared but it is a perfect illustration for those that remember.

 

Since we know people will assume that when we quote something we should go out of our way to let them know of our beginner status and avoid all mannerisms that signal our "authority" on the issue.

 

 

[theist 1]

 

In reply to:

--

 

I notice that the tendancy is to form a clear barrier between 'us' and 'them.' "I am the devotee" and "you are the karmi". This dynamic is not very helpful when trying to share the Most Beautiful with our fellow souls in this world. Qutes offered from this platform often come across as weapons of intellectual warfare rather than the life preservers of rescue that they are.

 

 

--

 

 

 

 

As an outsider, I see that such a barrier is necessary and useful though. Not in the sense of one person against the other, or the one inside against the one outside, but in the sense of spiritual thoroughness.

 

Perceiving these barriers and dealing with them is a good challenge to my vanity.

 

 

What you call barriers I prefer to call lines of distinction and these make themselves apparent naturally. The great example is that in the beginning of Prabhupada's western ministry he used to just take place in line for the shower in the morning and take his turn. Can you imagine? As people gained knowledge they saw their mistake. No need for Prabhupada to shove his way to the front.

 

What do you mean by an outsider? Outside of what? Acceptance into a religious group of some kind. And others as being insiders in that religious group. In that sense may Krsna please grant me eternal outsider status.

 

Some are insiders. That means they are residents of the internal energy of the Lord and live in that realm. The rest of us who live in material consciousness are all outsiders. We live in the worlds of outer darkness as the Christians may say.

 

True insiders in this world are rare. To artifically pose as an insider is not a good thing.

 

[water 0]

theist,

 

 

 

Since we know people will assume that when we quote something we should go out of our way to let them know of our beginner status and avoid all mannerisms that signal our "authority" on the issue.

 

 

And this can backfire -- "If you aren't speaking with authority, then you aren't worth listening to at all."

What do you suggest to handle such a situation?

 

 

 

What you call barriers I prefer to call lines of distinction and these make themselves apparent naturally. The great example is that in the beginning of Prabhupada's western ministry he used to just take place in line for the shower in the morning and take his turn. Can you imagine? As people gained knowledge they saw their mistake. No need for Prabhupada to shove his way to the front.

 

 

How exactly is this to be supported?

What do you say, do, if someone shoves his way to the front?

 

 

 

What do you mean by an outsider? Outside of what? Acceptance into a religious group of some kind. And others as being insiders in that religious group.

 

 

Yes. I have great troubles shaking off the sense of elitism.

(In elementary school, all children in my class were Catholic, and I was the only one that was not. They would shun me for that. And later too, I've made some bad experiences with elitism -- I am quite conditioned into it.)

[theist 1]

 

And this can backfire -- "If you aren't speaking with authority, then you aren't worth listening to at all."

What do you suggest to handle such a situation?

 

 

Who are you quoting? Anyway I suggest being honest. Certainly faking authority is worth nothing at all. Worse because it is designed to misdirect the person you are speaking to. Instead of pointing them to Krsna such a speaker would be pointing to themselves.

 

There is a type of guru who is known as the one who points the way. That is sufficient. Do you think one has to be a big authority to ask someone to chant Hare Krsna and be happy? No, a child can do this and it's perfect.

 

[theist 1]

 

How exactly is this to be supported?

What do you say, do, if someone shoves his way to the front?

 

 

Supported?

 

Get out of his way and let him be in front. I just would have to question if I wanted to hear him speak on topics of Krsna.

 

[theist 1]

 

Yes. I have great troubles shaking off the sense of elitism.

(In elementary school, all children in my class were Catholic, and I was the only one that was not. They would shun me for that. And later too, I've made some bad experiences with elitism -- I am quite conditioned into it.)

 

 

It's natural to want to belong and fit in somewhere. But that place is only love for the Lord.

 

Perhaps Krsna will continually bless you in this same way and not allow you to become comfortable and filled with that false sense of belonging and saftey that comes with being secured inside such an accepted position.

 

[water 0]

Theist,

 

 

First of all, I am glad I came here to this forum. I like the brevity and the conciseness of thought that I am finding here. It's good.

 

 

 

Supported?

 

Get out of his way and let him be in front. I just would have to question if I wanted to hear him speak on topics of Krsna.

 

 

Yes, I thought so too, intuitively. I was wondering though how to put it in words. Maybe that is not necessary, but said person may honestly wonder why you are ignoring them.

 

 

 

It's natural to want to belong and fit in somewhere. But that place is only love for the Lord.

 

Perhaps Krsna will continually bless you in this same way and not allow you to become comfortable and filled with that false sense of belonging and saftey that comes with being secured inside such an accepted position.

 

 

It seems so, and no worldly comfort is in sight!