New Thought is an umbrella term for a variety of people and groups who promote positive thinking and the Law of Attraction. One of the most (in)famous examples is in the movie/book The Secret.
The Law of Attraction claims that we attract everything we have in our lives, for good or ill. If you're at all familiar with the self-help industry, you've probably heard this claim before. You may even have an acquaintance who talks about "manifesting" or "putting something out to the Universe."
I have a friend who's really on a kick with this stuff, so I decided to read up on it. I even watched The Secret. The movie makes some pretty outlandish claims, although they're in line with the Law of Attraction if you take it to its logical conclusion. For example, some of the commentators in the movie talk about how people both attract and cure illnesses with their thoughts. Another commentator says that once you master the Law of Attraction, the universe becomes your catalog.
While these claims sound absurd on their faces, I want to address them. Even with the most ridiculous ideas, I think it's important to say why they're actually ridiculous. It's satisfying to dismiss something out of hand because it sounds silly, but many world-changing ideas started out sounding silly, so I prefer to deal with ideas on their own terms.
New Thought actually has some ideas in common with well-known Hindu/Vedanta teachings. Both groups discuss karma and reincarnation. Both groups discourage identification with the physical body and encourage affirmation of positive ideas. For a Vedantic perspective, I recommend this article, particularly the section "Assert Yourself," by Swami Swahananda of the Ramakrishna Order (full disclosure: this is the organization behind the various Vedanta Societies).
Swami doesn't make claims as bold as in The Secret. In fact, I'm pretty sure Vedanta would discourage the idea of treating the universe as a catalog, since it goes against principles such as nonattachment. You might disagree with Swami's ideas about Spirit and Divinity, but I think the worst you can say about them is that they're unprovable.
If it's true that we attract everything into our lives, that implies some serious victim blaming when bad things happen. Of course, just because an idea is harsh doesn't mean it isn't the truth. However, this article in the New York Times implies that scientific validation for the power of positive thinking doesn't look good. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the benefits could be attributed to the placebo effect.
All that said, I do think that state of mind matters, but not in the sense that you can make the universe your catalog (can you tell that this idea really bothers me?). Psychological approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy focus on changing the way you think about situations, and they can be helpful. I can definitely think of instances in my life where changing my attitude about a situation ultimately changed the situation. However, the attitude change was what was important; the situational change was incidental.
This is where I think The Secret really gets it wrong. The commentators put a lot of emphasis on results, and I think that misses the point. I think the real benefit of a positive attitude is the ability to adapt to whatever situation life throws at you. Have a positive attitude, even visualize what you want, but don't forget to put in some hard work, and know that getting what you want often has less bearing on your happiness than your ability to adapt.
Showing posts with label Hinduism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hinduism. Show all posts
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Interesting diet news
In the CNN article I linked to in the previous post, the author mentioned she had started her weight loss using a low-carb plan, although she didn't say which one or whether she continued in that direction. At any rate, one of the criticisms often heard about low-carb plans is that so much animal protein can't possibly be good for you.
Animal-based protein diets increase mortality rate
What the headline doesn't mention is that the study cited in the article yielded pretty good results for low-carb, high-protein diets where the proteins were vegetable-based. In other words, a vegetarian low-carb, high-protein diet can actually be pretty good for you.
So I was on the phone last night with a friend who had read my previous post and asked me how it was going (pretty well, for the record). We got into the specifics of what I was doing (paraphrased):
Me: For lunch I usually have a big salad with some chicken on top.
Him: It's not good to kill a chicken for your food. Americans and their fried chicken... (Ed. note: my friend is Indian)
Me (slightly defensive): No, no, it's not fried. It's grilled, so it's about as healthy as chicken gets.
Him: Yes, but the chicken was healthier before it was killed.
Me: *sigh*
You may be aware that many Hindus are vegetarian. This is because one of the core principles of almost any Hindu group is nonviolence (ahimsa in Sanskrit), and many choose to extend this to animals as well as humans. The Vedanta Society does not require or expect its devotees to be vegetarian (although many are), but generally, the food served at our functions is vegetarian, with the exception of the very occasional fish dish.
So if I can eat a healthy diet without meat, it's certainly worth considering. The plan I'm on has a vegetarian version, so it's certainly doable. I have to battle my inner Vincent Vega on this, though (NSFW, language, etc.):
Not the best quality video, but I'm sure you get the idea. I'll keep you posted.
Animal-based protein diets increase mortality rate
What the headline doesn't mention is that the study cited in the article yielded pretty good results for low-carb, high-protein diets where the proteins were vegetable-based. In other words, a vegetarian low-carb, high-protein diet can actually be pretty good for you.
So I was on the phone last night with a friend who had read my previous post and asked me how it was going (pretty well, for the record). We got into the specifics of what I was doing (paraphrased):
Me: For lunch I usually have a big salad with some chicken on top.
Him: It's not good to kill a chicken for your food. Americans and their fried chicken... (Ed. note: my friend is Indian)
Me (slightly defensive): No, no, it's not fried. It's grilled, so it's about as healthy as chicken gets.
Him: Yes, but the chicken was healthier before it was killed.
Me: *sigh*
You may be aware that many Hindus are vegetarian. This is because one of the core principles of almost any Hindu group is nonviolence (ahimsa in Sanskrit), and many choose to extend this to animals as well as humans. The Vedanta Society does not require or expect its devotees to be vegetarian (although many are), but generally, the food served at our functions is vegetarian, with the exception of the very occasional fish dish.
So if I can eat a healthy diet without meat, it's certainly worth considering. The plan I'm on has a vegetarian version, so it's certainly doable. I have to battle my inner Vincent Vega on this, though (NSFW, language, etc.):
Not the best quality video, but I'm sure you get the idea. I'll keep you posted.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The siren song of pseudoscience
Many freethinkers are accustomed to opposition in the form of bigoted homophobes, scientifically ignorant creationists, etc. But every so often, irrationality comes in a really attractive package that seems to beg you to pick it up, if only for a moment.
I've been having many conversations lately with someone about past-life regression. As you might guess, I think the whole thing is nonsense. Interestingly enough, many Hindu groups seem to agree with me on this. While they certainly believe in reincarnation, they generally don't consider it worthwhile to investigate the events of past lives. So while the idea of reincarnation has its roots in Hinduism, past-life regression seems to be mostly a New Age thing.
Of course, there are several people out there who bill themselves as "regression therapists" and will, for a fee, take you through some of your past lives. You can find the source of your problems and maybe even your long-lost soulmate!
Now, I totally understand the appeal of this stuff. It absolves us of responsibility for things in this life. If someone's your soulmate and you're meant to be with them, why would you want to do something so mundane as work on your relationship or (gasp!) show some consideration to your partner? If your problems can be traced to past lives, then you don't have to be honest with yourself about how you've contributed to the situation in this life.
It shouldn't surprise you that high-profile cases of so-called regression that have been closely examined have been debunked, such as Bridey Murphy and the Bloxham tapes. While the concept is appealing, generally cases can be attributed to factors in this life. Don't give these charlatans your money. If you want some feelgood treatment, book a massage instead.
I've been having many conversations lately with someone about past-life regression. As you might guess, I think the whole thing is nonsense. Interestingly enough, many Hindu groups seem to agree with me on this. While they certainly believe in reincarnation, they generally don't consider it worthwhile to investigate the events of past lives. So while the idea of reincarnation has its roots in Hinduism, past-life regression seems to be mostly a New Age thing.
Of course, there are several people out there who bill themselves as "regression therapists" and will, for a fee, take you through some of your past lives. You can find the source of your problems and maybe even your long-lost soulmate!
Now, I totally understand the appeal of this stuff. It absolves us of responsibility for things in this life. If someone's your soulmate and you're meant to be with them, why would you want to do something so mundane as work on your relationship or (gasp!) show some consideration to your partner? If your problems can be traced to past lives, then you don't have to be honest with yourself about how you've contributed to the situation in this life.
It shouldn't surprise you that high-profile cases of so-called regression that have been closely examined have been debunked, such as Bridey Murphy and the Bloxham tapes. While the concept is appealing, generally cases can be attributed to factors in this life. Don't give these charlatans your money. If you want some feelgood treatment, book a massage instead.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Merry New Year!
If you think the title is a mistake, first, shame on you; second, go see Trading Places already.
In the Ramakrishna movement, January 1 is known as Kalpataru Day. According to Hindu tradition, Kalpataru is a wish-fulfilling tree. Of course, no known physical tree has this property, but that's not really the point. In fact, most of the stories about Kalpataru illustrate that people getting what they want does not always truly benefit them.
Anyway, the significance of this date in the Ramakrishna movement is that it was the day in 1886 when Sri Ramakrishna revealed himself to a group of devotees as an avatar, an incarnation of God on earth. He had already been quite ill with throat cancer, and in fact, he passed away later that year on August 16. In most of the days leading up to January 1, Ramakrishna couldn't even get out of bed. But on this particular day, he felt well enough to get up and walk around a bit. Since India was still under British rule at the time, January 1 was a major holiday, so many of his lay devotees had come to see him.
Prior to this, whenever someone called him an avatar, Ramakrishna would ignore such claims. But on this day, he asked one of the devotees, Girish Chandra Ghosh, what made Girish want to tell people that Ramakrishna was an avatar. Girish bowed at Ramakrishna's feet and said that even the authors of great Hindu epics such as the Mahabharata (which includes the Bhagavad Gita) and the Ramayana could not sufficiently express the devotion that Girish felt for his guru.
Ramakrishna responded, "What more need I tell you? I bless you all. May you all be illumined!" This was the first time he had embraced these ideas. He went into ecstasy after saying this, and when he came out of it, he touched each of the devotees present, and they had their own ecstatic experiences, including visions of their Chosen Ideals (although Hinduism is famous for its many gods, most Hindus choose one to focus on, which is the Chosen Ideal, or Ishta Devata).
Although the name Kalpataru Day has stuck, most in the movement seem to find it somewhat inaccurate. Notice that these devotees did not receive anything material. But some say that Ramakrishna helped transmit his own fearlessness (which I'll discuss further in a future post) to these devotees. Whether he actually did it by touch or the devotees were just so moved by seeing their guru is irrelevant.
At any rate, this is obviously an important day in the Ramakrishna movement. In fact, the celebration held by the Vedanta Society was at the main Hindu temple, as the Vedanta Society's grounds would not have been able to hold everyone who came.
Brief aside about the Hindu temple: they were having their own event today, a big worship of Ganesha (he is often invoked for beginnings). The temple and parking lot were packed, and I thought, This must be a small taste of what going to India would be like. Crowded, chaotic, and leave your shoes in the lobby. That said, the temple workers were friendly and helpful. I think I got sprinkled with a bit of water from the Ganesha worship on my way out.
In the Ramakrishna movement, January 1 is known as Kalpataru Day. According to Hindu tradition, Kalpataru is a wish-fulfilling tree. Of course, no known physical tree has this property, but that's not really the point. In fact, most of the stories about Kalpataru illustrate that people getting what they want does not always truly benefit them.
Anyway, the significance of this date in the Ramakrishna movement is that it was the day in 1886 when Sri Ramakrishna revealed himself to a group of devotees as an avatar, an incarnation of God on earth. He had already been quite ill with throat cancer, and in fact, he passed away later that year on August 16. In most of the days leading up to January 1, Ramakrishna couldn't even get out of bed. But on this particular day, he felt well enough to get up and walk around a bit. Since India was still under British rule at the time, January 1 was a major holiday, so many of his lay devotees had come to see him.
Prior to this, whenever someone called him an avatar, Ramakrishna would ignore such claims. But on this day, he asked one of the devotees, Girish Chandra Ghosh, what made Girish want to tell people that Ramakrishna was an avatar. Girish bowed at Ramakrishna's feet and said that even the authors of great Hindu epics such as the Mahabharata (which includes the Bhagavad Gita) and the Ramayana could not sufficiently express the devotion that Girish felt for his guru.
Ramakrishna responded, "What more need I tell you? I bless you all. May you all be illumined!" This was the first time he had embraced these ideas. He went into ecstasy after saying this, and when he came out of it, he touched each of the devotees present, and they had their own ecstatic experiences, including visions of their Chosen Ideals (although Hinduism is famous for its many gods, most Hindus choose one to focus on, which is the Chosen Ideal, or Ishta Devata).
Although the name Kalpataru Day has stuck, most in the movement seem to find it somewhat inaccurate. Notice that these devotees did not receive anything material. But some say that Ramakrishna helped transmit his own fearlessness (which I'll discuss further in a future post) to these devotees. Whether he actually did it by touch or the devotees were just so moved by seeing their guru is irrelevant.
At any rate, this is obviously an important day in the Ramakrishna movement. In fact, the celebration held by the Vedanta Society was at the main Hindu temple, as the Vedanta Society's grounds would not have been able to hold everyone who came.
Brief aside about the Hindu temple: they were having their own event today, a big worship of Ganesha (he is often invoked for beginnings). The temple and parking lot were packed, and I thought, This must be a small taste of what going to India would be like. Crowded, chaotic, and leave your shoes in the lobby. That said, the temple workers were friendly and helpful. I think I got sprinkled with a bit of water from the Ganesha worship on my way out.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Expanding on "drop by and lie"
In a previous post, I mentioned Jennifer Michael Hecht's phrase "drop by and lie" to refer to nonbelievers who participate in religious practices for whatever reason. I also raised the issue of whether I was doing this with the Vedanta Society. Here's my follow-up.
It boils down to how you define your terms. That probably sounds like I'm trying to weasel my way into or out of something, so let me illustrate my point with some examples.
If I were interested in converting to Catholicism and wanted to know what they believed, the Nicene Creed would be a pretty good summary. More importantly, not believing those statements is a deal breaker (this is also true of Orthodox and many Protestant denominations). If I wanted to become a Muslim, I would be expected to pray five times a day in the prescribed manner and regularly recite the Shahada. So if I didn't believe that Muhammad was a divine messenger, that would be a deal breaker between me and Islam.
So what does the Vedanta Society expect of me? Well, there isn't a creed or list of commandments. There are some ethical guidelines, but they are just that--guidelines, not rigid absolutes. Besides, the ideas in those guidelines are hardly extreme. I think most people would agree that honesty and refraining from stealing are good things! Regarding the philosophy, this page provides a starting point. A lot of the terms they use may be familiar, but in many cases those terms are defined differently than in the Abrahamic religions.
For instance, a lot of the Vedantic literature, especially Advaita (nondualistic) Vedanta, talks about unity with Brahman. Some try to equate Brahman with God, but that's not necessarily accurate. As you may have guessed, there are varying schools of thought on just what Brahman is. One way to look at it is as a sort of Uncaused First Cause, but without the personal attributes that Abrahamic religions typically give to such an idea. Another perspective would be in terms of Albert Einstein's description of "the orderly harmony of what exists" or Stephen Hawking's "embodiment of the laws of the universe." (Sources: the Einstein quote is mentioned in The God Delusion, and the Hawking quote is mentioned here.) I won't say that Advaita Vedanta is inherently pantheistic, but it certainly seems to allow for that interpretation.
A related question is how to define theism in the first place. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins defines theism as belief in a supernatural being who created the universe and intervenes in its events. If you define theism in that way, you could end up calling a lot of religiously observant people atheists. In fact, my favorite Pew Forum survey indicates that at least in the US, majorities of Hindus, Buddhists, and even Jews do not believe in a personal God. Some people use the term nontheists to include atheists and people who reject the idea of a personal God but are still religious in some form.
Applying nontheistic ideas to the Abrahamic religions is often considered blasphemy, although some have tried. But in Eastern religions, these ideas are at least considered valid interpretations, if not necessarily universal ones. The Resident Minister at my local Vedanta Society told me, "When you pray, you're having a dialogue with your Higher Self." Of course, even nondualistic Hindus perform rituals involving various deities, but the deities are generally considered to be useful metaphors. So while it may seem slippery to Westerners to conceive of God as Einstein and Hawking described, these ideas are well within the mainstream of Hindu thought. There are certainly Hindus who disagree with nondualism, but in the arguments I've seen, nobody has claimed their opponent is not Hindu for disagreeing with them (for an entertaining study in contrast, type "you're no Buddhist" with the quotes into your search engine of choice).
In summary, at no point in my interactions with the Vedanta Society have I been asked to profess anything I don't believe. In fact, I have discussed specific doubts with the Resident Minister as they've come up, and she always tells me I don't have to believe those things (because I'm slow on the uptake, I keep asking). And there's precedence for her answer in the tradition.
So, if I don't believe in anything supernatural or that there's an immortal soul within us that survives death, why do I bother? So far, I've found that the philosophy and practices I've learned about in the Vedanta Society help me detach from the ego. I'm fully aware that many do not consider detachment from the ego to be desirable, or that religious language is useful in any case. But those are personal preferences, not empirical truths.
I know this arrangement may be untenable in the long term. It's entirely possible that as I learn more, I'll find something that I can't support or cast aside. If that happens, I'll walk. Either way, I'll keep telling you all about it.
It boils down to how you define your terms. That probably sounds like I'm trying to weasel my way into or out of something, so let me illustrate my point with some examples.
If I were interested in converting to Catholicism and wanted to know what they believed, the Nicene Creed would be a pretty good summary. More importantly, not believing those statements is a deal breaker (this is also true of Orthodox and many Protestant denominations). If I wanted to become a Muslim, I would be expected to pray five times a day in the prescribed manner and regularly recite the Shahada. So if I didn't believe that Muhammad was a divine messenger, that would be a deal breaker between me and Islam.
So what does the Vedanta Society expect of me? Well, there isn't a creed or list of commandments. There are some ethical guidelines, but they are just that--guidelines, not rigid absolutes. Besides, the ideas in those guidelines are hardly extreme. I think most people would agree that honesty and refraining from stealing are good things! Regarding the philosophy, this page provides a starting point. A lot of the terms they use may be familiar, but in many cases those terms are defined differently than in the Abrahamic religions.
For instance, a lot of the Vedantic literature, especially Advaita (nondualistic) Vedanta, talks about unity with Brahman. Some try to equate Brahman with God, but that's not necessarily accurate. As you may have guessed, there are varying schools of thought on just what Brahman is. One way to look at it is as a sort of Uncaused First Cause, but without the personal attributes that Abrahamic religions typically give to such an idea. Another perspective would be in terms of Albert Einstein's description of "the orderly harmony of what exists" or Stephen Hawking's "embodiment of the laws of the universe." (Sources: the Einstein quote is mentioned in The God Delusion, and the Hawking quote is mentioned here.) I won't say that Advaita Vedanta is inherently pantheistic, but it certainly seems to allow for that interpretation.
A related question is how to define theism in the first place. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins defines theism as belief in a supernatural being who created the universe and intervenes in its events. If you define theism in that way, you could end up calling a lot of religiously observant people atheists. In fact, my favorite Pew Forum survey indicates that at least in the US, majorities of Hindus, Buddhists, and even Jews do not believe in a personal God. Some people use the term nontheists to include atheists and people who reject the idea of a personal God but are still religious in some form.
Applying nontheistic ideas to the Abrahamic religions is often considered blasphemy, although some have tried. But in Eastern religions, these ideas are at least considered valid interpretations, if not necessarily universal ones. The Resident Minister at my local Vedanta Society told me, "When you pray, you're having a dialogue with your Higher Self." Of course, even nondualistic Hindus perform rituals involving various deities, but the deities are generally considered to be useful metaphors. So while it may seem slippery to Westerners to conceive of God as Einstein and Hawking described, these ideas are well within the mainstream of Hindu thought. There are certainly Hindus who disagree with nondualism, but in the arguments I've seen, nobody has claimed their opponent is not Hindu for disagreeing with them (for an entertaining study in contrast, type "you're no Buddhist" with the quotes into your search engine of choice).
In summary, at no point in my interactions with the Vedanta Society have I been asked to profess anything I don't believe. In fact, I have discussed specific doubts with the Resident Minister as they've come up, and she always tells me I don't have to believe those things (because I'm slow on the uptake, I keep asking). And there's precedence for her answer in the tradition.
So, if I don't believe in anything supernatural or that there's an immortal soul within us that survives death, why do I bother? So far, I've found that the philosophy and practices I've learned about in the Vedanta Society help me detach from the ego. I'm fully aware that many do not consider detachment from the ego to be desirable, or that religious language is useful in any case. But those are personal preferences, not empirical truths.
I know this arrangement may be untenable in the long term. It's entirely possible that as I learn more, I'll find something that I can't support or cast aside. If that happens, I'll walk. Either way, I'll keep telling you all about it.
Friday, October 30, 2009
I'm a lousy ideologue
I know I'm probably going to alienate a lot of freethinkers here. If you're interested, hear me out. If not, well, don't, I guess!
To be clear, I haven't affiliated myself with a religion, but it's fair to say I'm investigating it.
Here are some quotes (I'll give sources at the end of this post):
The second statement was actually written over a thousand years ago! The tradition they come from is Hinduism, particularly the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism. Philosophically, it's actually very similar to Buddhism. In fact, one of the criticisms directed at Advaita Vedanta is that it's Buddhism in a Hindu framework. Both groups tend to take a skeptical approach to things.
Long before George Harrison chanted the Hare Krishna mantra, some Americans were familiar with Hindu teachings courtesy of Swami Vivekananda. Swami Vivekananda introduced Hinduism to many Americans when he participated in the Parliament of Religions, held in Chicago in 1893. Since that time, Vedanta Societies based on his teachings and those of his teacher, Sri Ramakrishna, have slowly sprung up throughout the United States.
As you may have guessed, there's a group in my area. I've checked out a few services, and have had some very nice chats with the nun who serves as Resident Minister. She told me that the group is basically apolitical and stays out of the bedroom. She also told me that if I have a hard time believing in a particular thing, I shouldn't believe in it until I can verify it for myself.
So what distinguishes them from, say, Unitarians? Philosophically, probably not much. Both groups tend to consider ethics a mostly personal matter and focus what ethical talk they do have on being a good person to those around you. Both groups tend to see mythology as useful metaphor.
The differences come down to practice. In Vedanta, while each member may interpret things differently, everyone's still using the same set of metaphors and symbols. In Unitarian congregations, that tends not to be the case. I can't think of much offhand that actually unifies Unitarians. Also, my experience with Unitarian congregations is that they tend to be more political than they let on. I think I may have mentioned before on this blog that I like my separation of church and state to apply in both directions.
See, if I'm going to give a group (religious or otherwise) significant amounts of my time, there needs to be some benefit. I don't necessarily mean, "What can the group do for me?" as much as, "Does this group have a worthwhile purpose, and can I make a positive contribution to it?" So far, I seem to be able to answer "yes" to both parts of that question with Vedanta. To refer back to the title of this post, I'd rather do some good with people I may disagree with on some things than do nothing with people I do agree with.
For the time being, I'm trying to take it slowly. I haven't outfitted my apartment with statues of Hindu deities or anything. I'm aware enough of my own history to know that this might not work out. But for the time being, I'm enjoying participating in a really nice community to the extent that I'm able.
Quote sources: The first quote is from the podcast "Vedanta and Yoga," put out by Swami Tyagananda of the Ramakrishna Vedanta Society of Boston. The episode containing the quote is called "Practice of Raja Yoga" and is dated 11/16/08. I get the podcast through iTunes; I don't know if it's available through other means. The second quote comes from Adi Shankara, the person who consolidated the Advaita Vedanta philosophy. More information about that here.
To be clear, I haven't affiliated myself with a religion, but it's fair to say I'm investigating it.
Here are some quotes (I'll give sources at the end of this post):
Nothing is extraordinary or supernatural in life. There are no miracles. [...]When we classify something as a miracle, we might as well say that, "I do not know how it happened."
If the scriptures say something about [...] the world around us - which contradicts what perception and inference [...] tells us, then, the scriptural statements have to be symbolically interpreted.
The second statement was actually written over a thousand years ago! The tradition they come from is Hinduism, particularly the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism. Philosophically, it's actually very similar to Buddhism. In fact, one of the criticisms directed at Advaita Vedanta is that it's Buddhism in a Hindu framework. Both groups tend to take a skeptical approach to things.
Long before George Harrison chanted the Hare Krishna mantra, some Americans were familiar with Hindu teachings courtesy of Swami Vivekananda. Swami Vivekananda introduced Hinduism to many Americans when he participated in the Parliament of Religions, held in Chicago in 1893. Since that time, Vedanta Societies based on his teachings and those of his teacher, Sri Ramakrishna, have slowly sprung up throughout the United States.
As you may have guessed, there's a group in my area. I've checked out a few services, and have had some very nice chats with the nun who serves as Resident Minister. She told me that the group is basically apolitical and stays out of the bedroom. She also told me that if I have a hard time believing in a particular thing, I shouldn't believe in it until I can verify it for myself.
So what distinguishes them from, say, Unitarians? Philosophically, probably not much. Both groups tend to consider ethics a mostly personal matter and focus what ethical talk they do have on being a good person to those around you. Both groups tend to see mythology as useful metaphor.
The differences come down to practice. In Vedanta, while each member may interpret things differently, everyone's still using the same set of metaphors and symbols. In Unitarian congregations, that tends not to be the case. I can't think of much offhand that actually unifies Unitarians. Also, my experience with Unitarian congregations is that they tend to be more political than they let on. I think I may have mentioned before on this blog that I like my separation of church and state to apply in both directions.
See, if I'm going to give a group (religious or otherwise) significant amounts of my time, there needs to be some benefit. I don't necessarily mean, "What can the group do for me?" as much as, "Does this group have a worthwhile purpose, and can I make a positive contribution to it?" So far, I seem to be able to answer "yes" to both parts of that question with Vedanta. To refer back to the title of this post, I'd rather do some good with people I may disagree with on some things than do nothing with people I do agree with.
For the time being, I'm trying to take it slowly. I haven't outfitted my apartment with statues of Hindu deities or anything. I'm aware enough of my own history to know that this might not work out. But for the time being, I'm enjoying participating in a really nice community to the extent that I'm able.
Quote sources: The first quote is from the podcast "Vedanta and Yoga," put out by Swami Tyagananda of the Ramakrishna Vedanta Society of Boston. The episode containing the quote is called "Practice of Raja Yoga" and is dated 11/16/08. I get the podcast through iTunes; I don't know if it's available through other means. The second quote comes from Adi Shankara, the person who consolidated the Advaita Vedanta philosophy. More information about that here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)