QUOTE (kalki @ May 17 2011, 09:43 PM)
QUOTE (Sophia @ May 17 2011, 03:27 AM)
QUOTE (kalki @ May 17 2011, 04:22 AM)
When a temple authority rubs me the wrong way, then I just remember the immortal lyrics of Escape by Metallica
But this seems to mean that you have a personal philosophy that is above the religion you follow. How does that work?
And why would you say that?
It is something that seems to almost suggest itself, and it is very common with many people, inside and outside of religious institutions.
One can see this personal philosophy at work when asking a member of a religion "How did you come to this religion?" and they answer something like "I read many books and then I decided on my own".
The crux is that this very religion has doctrines on how it is that people come to said religion - and the answers that people give about how they came to this religion are not the same as the religion's doctrine about how people come to it.
So it is as if those religious people have a meta-system which they deem neutral, independent from the religion they profess. Like acting on plan A, but always being ready and making allowances for plan B.
(Once one learns what the pattern is, one can easily observe it in other people, even without knowing much about them personally.)
But assuming I am a devout follower of
Lord Shri Krishna, if that is what you meant (but if it wasn't then please tell me what you meant)
then I would say that the temple authorities don't know everything in life.
Then you would be a devotee with reservations. If a follower of a religion has reservations, and doesn't see those in position of authority in this religion as being the highest authorities - then is he really a follower?
And more importantly, if he is not really a follower, than what is he doing there?
Even Prabhupada, according to my readings of his letters, from time to time thought that management should not restrict another devotee's devotion, if the devotion could be seen clearly as a benefit to the living entities. He showed this many times in his defiance of the GBC. One devotee who was doing service was getting restriction and mandates from the GBC to stop his service, but Prabhupada intervened and told the GBC to leave him alone. (that was when a big book distributor was being told not to do his stuff).
This is interesting. My impression has always been that unquestioning submission to the authorities is necessary, or one is an apostate (and should repent or leave). Because in some instances, SP did make the point that the GBC and the 11 were as good as him as far as instructing people is concerned.
So authoritarian control is something I was against, and I believe Krishna was against it also. He was an anarchist as far as I can see, but some of the acharyas for some reason were conformists. So Metallica tells me to break a way from the so-called standards (vaidhi bhakti rules and regs), and see through people's blurry site (maya), and live my own way (personal bhajan), thus breaking away from the endless cycle (of repeated birth and death).
This is a rather individualistic way to see things!
My impression has always been that thinking, feeling, speaking and doing in any way differently than ordered by those above me, is a mistake, that I have to understand such thinking, feeling, speaking and doing that is in any way different than ordered by those above me as a rebellion against the authorities and thus a rebellion against God; and that I will forfeit my chances for making spiritual progress should I ever not think it a mistake and rebellion.