Fundamentalism in Gaudiya Vaisnavaism?

[Guest guest]

All religions have their fundamentalists. So does fundamentalism exist in Gaudiya Vaisnavaism? What form does it take?

[Guest guest]

No, it does not exist.

[Guest guest]

I believe fundamentalism is spoken against in GV scriptures. In Bhakti rasamrita sindhu? Personally I've not seen any. But there is sahajiyaism. And since iskcon a lot of fanaticism. And tremendous interfaith syncretism in the guise of 'open-mindedness' and 'truth.'

[Guest guest]

I think you should define what constitutes "FUNDAMENTALISM".

 

Now days, everything is ok. Whatever you do or say that is close to impersonalism and anything that you say makes the majority of the crowd happy is the right formula in this age.

 

and if a person talks against that majority, then we call him a FUNDAMENTALIST?

 

In other words, where do we draw the line between fundamentalist/extremist VS Normalism.

 

You define that and then we will see if ISKCON or anybody fit into your definition of fundamentalism.

 

anand

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

I read somewhere thier is Iskcon as 'body' the material type, and Iskcon as 'spiritual body. Maybe when devotees refer to Iskcon they mean the material organization, not the spiritual one. So that means there is so many Vaishnava in the spiritual Iskcon.

[gHari 0]

FUNDAMENTALISM per The American Heritage® Dictionary

 

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2.

1. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

[gHari 0]

Sectarian

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.

2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.

3. Narrow-minded; parochial.

 

NOUN:

 

1. A member of a sect.

2. One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.

 

 

[Guest guest]

It is a good definition of "fundamentalism". I like the word "intolerance" in the 1st definition as people in general are intolerant.

 

Now, regarding the first part of the definition, not sure it is totally true in my opinion. It says, a religious movement or point of view....who rigidly adhere to their principles, what is wrong with that??? But, yes, we should not be INTOLERANT by any means.

 

Regarding the original poster and going with the 1st definition of FUNDAMENTALISM (i only prefer using the word INTOLERANCE to OTHERS as a show of fundamentalism and not the sticking to religious principles) I think we should understand in ISKCON or be it any spiritual/religious institution, there are many followers. So, the institutions cannot control how one grows spiritually. The level of INTOLERANCE is different for many depending on the individual.

 

Though an indivdual come from a particular faith or background and may show signs of INTOLERANCE (my idea of fundamentalism), it is important to understand the exact nature of INTOLERANCE.

 

For example, we treat National Security with ZERO TOLERANCE. Does that mean, the Government is FUNDAMENTAL in its approach. Similarly, some aspects require zero tolerance like meat eating and so forth and that is why I presume Srila Prabhupada had 4 regulative principles in ISKCON and iam sure there are other regulative principles for other faiths.

 

So, in my opinion, i dont think it is fair to blame a philosophy such as Vaishnavism or Saivism or Islam or anything because people who follow those philosophies extrude their own meanings and practice it in their own modes of nature and hence portray an intolerant/fundamental outlook. Because of that, common man gets emotional, and reacts to the philosophy or the institution while all the time, it is the problem with the nature of the individual or group of people who interpret their philosophy and unfortunately represent the institution they come from and create a situation of FUNDAMENTAL THINKING or THOUGHT.

 

As outsiders we are very apathetic to that INTOLERANT/FUNDAMENTAL person or group of people and to their FAITH as well. in other words, we end up in a judgemental mode towards others intolerance and fundamental attitude. This in a way makes us INTOLERANT/FUNDAMENTAL, cos from our vantage point we judge other's actions as INTOLERANT which means INTOLERANT with our BELIEF SYSTEM or HABIT or WAY OF LIFE.

 

This is the fundamental problem in todays society as everyone gets emotional and jumps on the bandwagon and in order to gain momentum and power in the process aggregate many supporters and ask them to join the band-wagon and by the time we know it, that band-wagon becomes the RULE of the LAND constituting others views as INTOLERANT towards the NORMAl and general acceptance of RULE.

 

For example, now days if we say abortion is a wrong thing, people come out saying we are fundamentalists and narrow. But, some time back, abortion was not even an option. Why the change? Because, probably, some powerful person or group of people started this bandwagon that abortion is ok and today it has come to a point where it is legal.

 

So, the real problem.......not everything can be cookie-cut and put in a box and not everything can be seen as black and white like the dictionary definition of FUNDAMENTALIST.

 

It is important to assess the entire environment on an individual basis and not just paint a broad picture on any philosophy or institution that person hails from.

 

Haribol!

 

anand

[Guest guest]

...oh yes there are a lot of 'fundies' on this path - in one sense we are a path of "Fundamentalism" - how can that be?

 

Look at our ideology - it's much more 'fundemental' than any other - we have more 'thou shalt not' rules than the others - we also have more 'thou shalt' rules.

 

I've been often told that as far as 'that' goes we are worse than the 'born again' people - for the all-consuming nature of our path.

 

In ISKCON there may be still be a bit a problem with this issue - some devotees are very fanatical and it is not good for them nor - the world in general - at some point most fanatic types shall fall away from the Krishna conscious path.

 

BDM

 

[Guest guest]

...yes as our world loses it's moral center - those that balk at it are too often called extremists [no matter what faith they are] - that is not fair - of course - there are more than religious fanatics and fundamentalists in our world - aren't the secular atheists also fanatical in all their activities too?

 

The fanatics I speak of in our midst are not today's dangerous kind.

 

The ones in our midst are the 'holier than thou' crowd - the ones that seem to be 'lording over others' with their K.C. - it has happened too often where some devotees treat others as lower class thinking that they are more 'advanced' than these others - even if they are more advanced - they would never 'lord it over' any others.

 

How many people in the past were broken by such types?

 

This fanatical type of devotee takes it upon themselves to be 'the rod of purification' - for these lesser devotees.

 

In the past it has been taken by them that if one didn't have a near complete breakdown in the process of surrendering to Krishna - then that surrender - was incomplete and/or insincere - so in this way many fanatical devotees have subjected others to harsh mental and emotional abuse - I'm sure that there are those out there - still doing this in some cases.

 

One challenge for our kali yuga survival is that we work on this issue and make it impossible for such types to operate in our midst by being a more solid and informed support for them as they advance in their faith - also - ISKCON GBC must see that it's Temple presidents and Ashram leaders are not operating like this.

 

BDM

[Guest guest]

<<< it's much more 'fundemental' than any other - we have more 'thou shalt not' rules than the others - we also have more 'thou shalt' rules. >>>

 

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Societies have entire law books to govern people. Does that mean the entire society is fundamental?

 

Rules are necessary to keep epople in check. Doesn't mean the rule make or follower is fundamental.