How should a Religion be Analyzed?

[imranhasan 0]

Any thoughts on how one should analyze a religious thought? Where should one begin?

As a starting point, I present below what I have derived from my limited study (I had posted these points in an earlier post, but in my mind it deserves the attention of a separate post):

 

• Evaluating the relevance as well as the correctness of the arguments, on the basis of which, that religion claims to be divine;
• Evaluating the particular religion’s introduction to God and analyzing its bases;
• Evaluating the concept of that religion regarding the purpose of the creation of man in the light of the introduction to God;
• Evaluating the relevance as well as the purpose of the teachings with special reference to the purpose of creation, in the light of the introduction to God;
• Evaluating the arguments given for adherence to the basic articles of faith, and the relevance of these articles of faith with the purpose of life, as propounded by that religion as well as with the introduction to God;
• Evaluating the ethical and moral values promoted by that religion and the basis of these values;
• Evaluating any interpersonal and personal laws propounded by that religion in the light of:

• The introduction to God;
• The basic purpose of creation;
• The basic target of teachings; and
• The basic ethical and moral values inherent in all human beings as well as those promoted by that religion.

• Evaluating the overall coherence of the complete structure of that religion and to see whether any of its teachings are in contradiction with any others.

Any thoughts?

[Guest guest]

My opinion:

 

It is highly unlikely anyone goes into that kind of analysis before chooing a religion. This is my own opinion, but I think strict, unbiased analysis and evalution of religion will turn one into an agnost or atheist.

 

Most people are born into their religion. This is the smoothest and most common as it is easy to adopt the same religion and customs the people around are following.

 

For those who choose a religion other than what they are born into, I have found there is no real analysis. For exampe, someone likes Indian food or Indian classical music or simply bright colors, so they decide to pick an Indian religion. There are many Indian based religions offered in the West these days and it is amusing to examine the reasons for which people choose Indian religions.

 

Analysis, as I have seen, is done to proselytize. You want to convert someone lese over to your view and so you spend a of of time analyzing the strong points of your religion which you can sell and also the weak points of other religions that can be criticized.

 

Cheers

[gHari 0]

I would also like to evaluate a religious school based on how consistent it is with my observations, with the world that I live in. For example: it is difficult to understand creation stories that radically disagree with the findings of archaeology and cosmology.

 

Do the great saints of that religion epitomize the ideals expounded by the religion; that is, does the path lead to where they say it does? For example: does the religion turn out men that seem godly and holy to me?

 

Do the great saints agree with one another? That is, is this truly a path or simply random chance involving a few great souls?

 

Finally and most importantly, do the scriptures validate my experience and vice versa? When I follow the path, do I know that it is working for me?

[imranhasan 0]

Thank you, brothers

 

I see that brother Shiv would not like to analyze religion. For him it would be a matter of taking birth in one or the other religion. However, brother gHari does think that religion needs to be analyzed and evaluated. However, if brother gHari would kindly confirm, he believes that the stated criteria of evaluation should also include seeing if anything contained in that religion is against human observation and those things held to be clear and certain facts.

 

As for my point of view that religion needs to be evaluated, it is based on the idea that religion is not merely a tradition that individuals should be following. It is either the Truth about God or it is not. And if there are many religions claiming to be God's truth, then for an ordinary human being, there is absolutely no option but to evaluate these various claimants and then to accept the one that he/she feels to be correct. Is that not so?

[gHari 0]

Certainly we cannot assume that only one religion is correct.

 

I may describe it from my point of perception as a circle. From your vantage point you describe it as a triangle. Is it a paradox that we are both correct? No, the object was a cone, which from the side looks like a triangle but from the bottom looks like a circle. Limited creatures can see only what they can see.

 

I may say it is a red flower. You may say it is a fragrant red flower. And Shiva may say it is a fragrant red flower with thorns. Correct, more correct, most correct. Then of course, there is the rose itself which is reality, beyond the limitations of words and idioms.

 

There is one God. There is one religion. It is the rose itself, beyond the words, absolute, reality the beautiful. Will our minds keep us caged in words forever?

[gHari 0]

Soon Lord Krsna will reveal the essence of yoga, of all religions in verse 6.6:

<center>bandhur AtmAtmanas tasya

yenAtmaivAtmanA jitaH

anAtmanas tu zatrutve

vartetAtmaiva zatru-vat

</center>

bandhuH--friend; AtmA--the mind; AtmanaH--of the living entity; tasya--of him; yena--by whom; AtmA--the mind; eva--certainly; AtmanA--by the living entity; jitaH--conquered; anAtmanaH--of one who has failed to control the mind; tu--but; zatrutve--because of enmity; varteta--remains; AtmA eva--the very mind; zatru-vat--as an enemy.

For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy.

 

PURPORT

The purpose of practicing eightfold yoga is to control the mind in order to make it a friend in discharging the human mission. Unless the mind is controlled, the practice of yoga (for show) is simply a waste of time. One who cannot control his mind lives always with the greatest enemy, and thus his life and its mission are spoiled. The constitutional position of the living entity is to carry out the order of the superior. As long as one's mind remains an unconquered enemy, one has to serve the dictations of lust, anger, avarice, illusion, etc. But when the mind is conquered, one voluntarily agrees to abide by the dictation of the Personality of Godhead, who is situated within the heart of everyone as ParamAtmA. Real yoga practice entails meeting the ParamAtmA within the heart and then following His dictation. For one who takes to KRSNa consciousness directly, perfect surrender to the dictation of the Lord follows automatically.

 

<center>jitAtmanaH prazAntasya

paramAtmA samAhitaH

zItoSNa-sukha-duHkheSu

tathA mAnApamAnayoH

</center>

jita-AtmanaH--of one who has conquered his mind; prazAntasya--who has attained tranquillity by such control over the mind; parama-AtmA--the Supersoul; samAhitaH--approached completely; zIta--in cold; uSNa--heat; sukha--happiness; duHkheSu--and distress; tathA--also; mAna--in honor; apamAnayoH--and dishonor.

For one who has conquered the mind, the Supersoul is already reached, for he has attained tranquillity. To such a man happiness and distress, heat and cold, honor and dishonor are all the same.

 

PURPORT

Actually, every living entity is intended to abide by the dictation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is seated in everyone's heart as ParamAtmA. When the mind is misled by the external, illusory energy, one becomes entangled in material activities. Therefore, as soon as one's mind is controlled through one of the yoga systems, one should be considered to have already reached the destination. One has to abide by superior dictation. When one's mind is fixed on the superior nature, he has no alternative but to follow the dictation of the Supreme. The mind must admit some superior dictation and follow it. The effect of controlling the mind is that one automatically follows the dictation of the ParamAtmA, or Supersoul. Because this transcendental position is at once achieved by one who is in KRSNa consciousness, the devotee of the Lord is unaffected by the dualities of material existence, namely distress and happiness, cold and heat, etc. This state is practical samAdhi, or absorption in the Supreme.

 

[imranhasan 0]

 

I may describe it from my point of perception as a circle. From your vantage point you describe it as a triangle. Is it a paradox that we are both correct? No, the object was a cone, which from the side looks like a triangle but from the bottom looks like a circle. Limited creatures can see only what they can see.

I would be forced to agree with you, if religions were mere understandings of various peoples, with their limited perspectives. However, when a religion claims to be from God, such an explanation of a certain perspective would not hold.

 

I may say it is a red flower. You may say it is a fragrant red flower. And Shiva may say it is a fragrant red flower with thorns. Correct, more correct, most correct.

However, if you say its a red flower and I say that its actually two red flowers and Shiv says its only a small white horse. These three can only be true if they are referring to three different things, not to one.

 

There is one God. There is one religion. It is the rose itself, beyond the words, absolute, reality the beautiful. Will our minds keep us caged in words forever?

We can only communicate our ideas and understandings through words, unfortunately.

[gHari 0]

 

I would be forced to agree with you, if religions were mere understandings of various peoples, with their limited perspectives. However, when a religion claims to be from God, such an explanation of a certain perspective would not hold.

Effective communication: know Your audience. The words and idioms I use to describe something to a child will differ from the words I choose to speak to a learned man. As I wrote earlier, "People can only see what they can see". The words "if religions were mere understandings of various peoples" should actually read "religions are mere understandings for various peoples". God will describe quantum physics differently to a layman than to an accomplished scientist. But in both cases He is nonetheless describing quantum physics.

 

However, if you say its a red flower and I say that its actually two red flowers and Shiv says its only a small white horse. These three can only be true if they are referring to three different things, not to one.

Again we have the circle and the triangle. We must not be hasty in deriding apparent differences. Humility is the intellect's greatest ally. After all, billions of people have found something real in these various sets of words we presume to sit in judgement over. Statistically, those billions and billions cannot all be accursed fools.

 

We can only communicate our ideas and understandings through words, unfortunately.

Yet is God also so limited in His communication methods? And this question brings us once again to the essence of religion, the essence of all religions, true religion, religion beyond words. The words point us, but we have to make the journey ourselves, beyond the words. Otherwise we remain poseurs licking the outside of the honey bottle for the adoration of fools, the most unfortunate of which is ourselves.

[imranhasan 0]

 

Effective communication: know Your audience. The words and idioms I use to describe something to a child will differ from the words I choose to speak to a learned man. As I wrote earlier, "People can only see what they can see". The words "if religions were mere understandings of various peoples" should actually read "religions are mere understandings for various peoples". God will describe quantum physics differently to a layman than to an accomplished scientist. But in both cases He is nonetheless describing quantum physics.

a) "God is eternally unincarnate";

b) "God has incarnated a million times";

Can you please indicate how these two statements can be taken as simulaenously true or an "explanation of the same quantum physics"?

 

After all, billions of people have found something real in these various sets of words we presume to sit in judgement over. Statistically, those billions and billions cannot all be accursed fools.

I do not have to judge who the "accursed fools" are. But I would most certainly have to rely on my judgment on what is right and what is not. For, not doing so, would only make me an accursed fool.

 

Yet is God also so limited in His communication methods?

I really do not know the methods available to God and those are surely beyond my reach. But if God is to comunicate anything to men, in general, he'll have to resort to a method that would be effective for the purpose.

[gHari 0]

Imran,

 

I would have to agree that the subject of God, of reality, is certainly much more complicated than quantum physics. God only knows. I have long ago dropped the arrogance of trying to fit Him into the synapses in my tiny skull.

 

I think He purposely made me realize my inadequacy for the task in order to show me that another approach would be required. Perhaps this too is the purpose of your study - to find the limit of the mind then to reach with your entire being beyond the capacity of syllogism and idiom. The more we are dwarfed by His greatness, the more we are able to accept Him as the master of our existence. Then it will be He who decides "what is right and what is not", for indeed only He is qualified.

 

I still feel that you are on target, and the heart will take you beyond the stumbling blocks of words soon enough, to something concrete, something so real that your mind can no longer distract you with petty argument and doubt. I would like to wish you all success in your endeavour to perfect your life.

 

gHari

[imranhasan 0]

 

I would have to agree that the subject of God, of reality, is certainly much more complicated than quantum physics. God only knows. I have long ago dropped the arrogance of trying to fit Him into the synapses in my tiny skull.

I would just like to clarify that the study of religion is not really the study of God. It is, on the contrary, the study of something that claims to be God's guidance to man. Our mind is not capable of fully grasping God, but is it also incapable of understanding the guidance that He has given to us? If that is true, then why has God even taken the trouble of sending any guidance at all? I cannot bring myself to accept the fact that God has not given an average person like myself the capability to understand His guidance.

 

I think He purposely made me realize my inadequacy for the task in order to show me that another approach would be required.

Humility and realization of our inadequacies is one of the most beautiful human qualities. However, losing confidence in God's greatest gift to man - his faculty of understanding - would only lead us to blind following. It is understanding that I seek, even at the risk of committng a mistake. For then, my mistakes can also be corrected through the same process of understanding.

Thank you for your kind words.

[gHari 0]

Yes, understanding the guidance, then following the guidance. The process is designed to help us know God.

[imranhasan 0]

 

Yes, understanding the guidance, then following the guidance. The process is designed to help us know God.

Precisely, just not from an absolute perspective, but only as much as God and His actions relate to us. In other words only, as much as God wants to let himself be understood by us, by the limited abilities that He Himself has given us.