In other words, if we assume that the world is an illusion, it becomes really easy to do all sorts of terrible things; if the world isn’t real, then it doesn’t really matter if we pollute it, or brings species to extinction, or exhaust our natural resources, or wage wars; thinking that the world is an illusion may give some people license to damage the earth.

I wasn’t sure how to respond, other than that people who honestly believe that there is something beyond this world would naturally act in ways that help others and in ways that don’t damage the earth…But I thought she had a really important point, that it is really easy to misinterpret this idea of freedom.
How would you guys respond to this? How can we know the correct way to interpret our religion, assuming that my earlier explanation is “correct”?

Related posts:

1. Different approaches to “Overcoming Greed” Today in his lecture at the Vedanta Society, Swami Tyagananda...
2. Thinking of Freedom, Religiously Perhaps April is the month of freedom. It certainly...
3. Psychology and Maya Yesterday in my psychology class, we learned about the nature...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is a gorgeous verse on Kṛṣṇa, in a style that I’ve never seen before. I found it in Michael Coulson’s Teach Yourself Sanskrit (which is a good heavy introduction to the language, but no substitute for personal instruction ), and I was immediately struck by its unusualness of description.

mand(r)a-kvāṇita-veṇur ahni śithile vyāvartayan gokulam / barhâpīḍakam uttamâṅga-racitaṃ go-dhūli-dhūmraṃ dadhat |

mlāyantyā vana-mālayā parigrahaḥ śrānto ‘pi ramyâkṛtir / gopa-strī-nayanôtsavo vitaratu śreyāṃsi vaḥ keśavaḥ ||

I’m going to try to translate it thus:

As the day slackens—

His flute’s music slow and soft, he circles Gokula,

the crest-jewel peacock feather adorning his head all red from the cows’ dust;

embraced by a garland of wildflowers, withered;

tired, and yet beautiful to look at,

May Keśava—

the delight of the gopīs’ eyes!—

bestow felicity upon us.

I’m curious about the possible theological implications of such a depiction of Kṛṣṇa. What does it mean to depict a form of God (and at least for Rūpa Gosvāmin and many modern Hindus, the supreme form of God) in this particular mode? This is a very human portrayal of Kṛṣṇa, much more so than those of Kṛṣṇa as a playful child or a beautiful young man, and associates with him the human qualities (some would call them “failings”) of exhaustion and dustiness; even the flowers he wears are withered. And despite all of that, he is gopa-strī-nayanôtsavaḥ, the limitless joy and exultation of the eyes of the lovely women of Vraja. Why? How? What does this mean?

Related posts:

1. Muhammad Yunus: An exemplary karma yogi? Yesterday, I had the good fortune of attending a lecture...
2. Reason and Faith at Harvard At Harvard, there is a clear emphasis on the importance...
3. Question of the Week: Religion and Existentialism Many of us have heard Karl Marx’s famous statement: “Religion...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

1. A deity

2. A person

3. A goal or inanimate object

Today, I want to bring up a similar question:

Hinduism is a religion with many different viewpoints — and consequently, many divisions and categories. In my experience, the division between dvaita (dualism, or the worship of a personal God that is separate from us) and advaita (non-dualism, or the worship of an impersonal God that is all-pervading, and part of us as well as everything around us) is a major one. I realize that one discussion may not suffice, but it is an important point to bring up:

How do you choose to think of God? Are dualism and non-dualism irreconcilable? And if so, does Hinduism, as a unified religion, actually even exist?

Related posts:

1. Question of the Week: What is one of your objects of devotion? This week, we will think about your objects of devotion,...
2. Not too recent, but always relevant “Finding common ground among faiths can help us bridge needless...
3. A Post-Valentine’s Day Thought In light of the fact that Valentine’s Day was yesterday,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Harmony among the major faiths has become an essential ingredient of peaceful coexistence in our world. From this perspective, mutual understanding among these traditions is not merely the business of religious believers — it matters for the welfare of humanity as a whole.”

—http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/25gyatso.html?src=me&ref=general

Related posts:

1. Thinking of Freedom, Religiously Perhaps April is the month of freedom. It certainly...
2. Christianity borrowed from Hinduism? There is an interesting article on About.com on the similarities...
3. Question of the Week: Why tolerate intolerance? As Saketh discussed in a previous post, religious intolerance is...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Perhaps April is the month of freedom. It certainly is for at least some major swaths of the population: Jews celebrated Passover during April, commemorating their deliverance from slavery in Egypt at the hand of God. Republicans like me hoped for the freedom to pay fewer taxes on April 15. Even stoners thought about freedom on 420, at least until their buzz hit.

Freedom is generally defined as the right to do something without anybody interfering in it. The Jews wanted the freedom to work, live, move, and worship as they pleased. Tea Party protesters wanted the freedom to spend their money as they pleased. Stoners want the freedom to get stoned as they please. The U.S. Constitution generally defines freedom this way: you have the right to say whatever you want, carry guns without anybody stopping you, and keep your personal belongings out of the sight of others.

For a religious person, though, is freedom really all about doing whatever you want? In a world with meaning, governed by a moral order, can freedom be a simple indifference about things?

This definition seems problematic. While freedom of speech, for instance, seems appealing to us, our religious sensibilities generally tell us that spreading hurtful rumors, being sexually explicit, and lying are all wrong, detrimental to ourselves and to the community. The same goes for the free choices we make as consumers: without wanting anyone to sign-off on our book purchases, we still rightly feel disappointment and even anger when people squander money on the new KFC Double Down (two thick and juicy boneless white meat chicken fillets Original Recipe or Grilled, two pieces of bacon, two melted slices of Monterey Jack and pepper jack cheese and Colonel’s Sauce) in a world where people are starving. Freedom is fine, but we still believe very much that it can be abused.

Is it a useless concept, then? Gandhi was once asked to contribute to a campaign to establish a world charter of human rights, in the days before the UN created one. According to Eknath Easwaran, his response was, “In my experience, it is far more important to have a charter for human duties.” Gandhi’s quote is useful for considering what the real basis for freedom is.

Freedom must be understood in the context of responsibility, and our duties as human beings. As religious people, we believe that we have a duty to love one another, and to live in a manner befitting human dignity. We believe that we have to support one another’s spiritual flourishing, and ensure that everyone, especially the poor, has the ability to live the life that God wants us to live. Those responsibilities begin at home, among our families and neighbors, and extend out to the world.

Freedom has to be the freedom to do our duties, not simply a blind relativism towards our actions and those of others. Freedom of speech is most alive when it is used to defend the vulnerable, as seen in the lives of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Archbishop Oscar Romero. They gave their lives and their voices for the sake of the downtrodden, so that the latter might live in a world where they could flourish and love as they are meant to. Freedom of assembly is most alive when it is used to bring together people for the common good, as seen by the amazing charitable work done by free groups of people, like the Grameen Bank and Lions Club International, groups that take an active concern in the welfare of humanity. Freedom of business is most alive when it is used to find innovative ways to help people get the things they need in the highest quality at the lowest prices, thereby meeting people’s material needs and freeing them up for higher pursuits.

Every freedom has to be oriented towards the good, and towards the well-being of the vulnerable. So many of our debates about rights could be conducted quite differently if we paid attention to what is really human and good. Of course people have the right to criticize the government, because criticism keeps government accountable and communicates the needs that people have. Of course no one has the right to advocate violence; the right to speak is dependent on not causing harm to the good of others, and it is founded in the duty of doing good.

Duties play an important role in figuring out what freedom is ultimately ordered towards, and it is religion and moral philosophy that teach us our natural duties. Learning how to bring our religious understanding of human responsibility into dialogue with politics is one of the great tasks that lies ahead for religious people in the next several years; the world is very thoroughly confused about freedom, and very ready to listen once more to the insights religion can offer.

Related posts:

1. Misinterpreting Freedom Recently, I was discussing Hinduism and the ideas of freedom...
2. Question of the Week: What is my duty? Chapter 3, Verse 35 of the Bhagavad Gita reads: श्रेयान् स्वधर्मो...
3. Question of the Week: How do we make time for God? First off, let me thank everyone in Dharma who made...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.