Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Emotional Religion: Good or Bad?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    March 2014
    Location
    USA
    Age
    35
    Posts
    67
    Rep Power
    874

    Emotional Religion: Good or Bad?

    Namaskar,

    I was reading something on the website "Original Christianity, Original Yoga" under the tab "Tao Teh King for Awakening" (this is a commentary on the Tao Te Ching) entitled "Unobtrusive Government" and I came across something interesting. Let me share the excerpt from the page:

    "'When a government is unobtrusive, the people are simple and honest. When a government is suspicious and strict, the people are discontented and sneaky.'

    Feng and English: “When the country is ruled with a light hand The people are simple. When the country is ruled with severity, The people are cunning.”

    This really does not need much of a commentary, except to point out that it can be applied to various aspects of life, not just government. The way parents order their family life, the way organizations order their administration, and frankly the way religious institutions carry on their activities. For example, the more obsessed with sin and hell a church is, the more secretly corrupt are the members. Even in my early teen years I saw that the more noise churches made, the more “hallelujah, glory, glory” they were and the more they fumed and fulminated against “sin” the more secretly corrupt they were.

    An acquaintance of mine told me that he knew a very immoral man who was constantly traveling on corporate business. The man was really what is now called a sex addict. He told my friend that when he would come to a town he would get the local newspaper(s) and check where the fundamentalist revival meetings were being held, especially the “holy roller” kind. He said that he had a one hundred percent success rate in picking up a woman for sex at a “Holy Ghost revival.” “I never spent the night alone,” he boasted.

    Emotional religion is based squarely on ego and sensuality. This is not just in Christianity; in every religious tradition where there is intense emotionality, there is intense undercover sexuality. Despite the reputation of “tantrics,” in the context of Hinduism the singing, dancing, shouting Vaishnavas are the foulest of all the religious sects. In Raja Yoga Vivekananda wrote: “All over the world there have been dancing and jumping and howling sects, who spread like infection when they begin to sing and dance and preach; they also are a sort of hypnotists. They exercise a singular control for the time being over sensitive persons, alas! often, in the long run, to degenerate whole races. Ay, it is healthier for the individual or the race to remain wicked than be made apparently good by such morbid extraneous control. One’s heart sinks to think of the amount of injury done to humanity by such irresponsible yet well-meaning religious fanatics. They little know that the minds which attain to sudden spiritual upheaval under their suggestions, with music and prayers, are simply making themselves passive, morbid, and powerless, and opening themselves to any other suggestion, be it ever so evil. Little do these ignorant, deluded persons dream that whilst they are congratulating themselves upon their miraculous power to transform human hearts, which power they think was poured upon them by some Being above the clouds, they are sowing the seeds of future decay, of crime, of lunacy, and of death. Therefore, beware of everything that takes away your freedom. Know that it is dangerous, and avoid it by all the means in your power.”

    What do you all think of this? I have come across both wonderful people and ugly people in every type of religion and sect, so I am not sure if I agree with what is being said or not. I guess for me it could go both ways. In my opinion, whether a specific sect is corrupt or not is dependent upon the situation and the circumstances at hand and more so the individuals running the show rather than the belief system itself (most times, but not always).

    Are the highly emotional religious systems really more prone to corruption or is this a flawed observation?
    ॐ मृत्युंजयाय रुद्राय नीलकण्ठाय शम्भवे l
    अमृतेशाय शर्वाय महादेवाय ते नम: ll

    Sanātana Dharma Worldwide

  2. #2
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    70
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5038

    Re: Emotional Religion: Good or Bad?

    Vannakkam LightofOM:

    As an outsider to emotional religions, I don't see the connection personally, to more corruption. But it could be. I've always been suspicious of jumping around, singing and dancing, etc. but it's more just my preference.

    Aum Namasivaya

  3. #3

    Re: Emotional Religion: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by LightofOm View Post
    Namaskar,

    "'When a government is unobtrusive, the people are simple and honest. When a government is suspicious and strict, the people are discontented and sneaky.'

    Feng and English: “When the country is ruled with a light hand The people are simple. When the country is ruled with severity, The people are cunning.”

    Emotional religion is based squarely on ego and sensuality. This is not just in Christianity; in every religious tradition where there is intense emotionality, there is intense undercover sexuality. Despite the reputation of “tantrics,” in the context of Hinduism the singing, dancing, shouting Vaishnavas are the foulest of all the religious sects. In Raja Yoga Vivekananda wrote: “All over the world there have been dancing and jumping and howling sects, who spread like infection when they begin to sing and dance and preach; they also are a sort of hypnotists.
    Namaste LightofOm,

    [My personal opinion as a polytheist, let no one take offence of it]

    Seems to me you do not fully understand the Taoist texts you quote, if that leads you to believe that emotional religion is bad as it is based on ego and sensuality. What these quotes simply say is that by repressing things they become uncontrollable.

    There is nothing wrong with ego or emotion, if we cultivate it into subtle states. We need an ego to achieve things, and if we avoid the strong negative emotions, emotion becomes pure art and delight to all beings. It is the very repression of ego and emotion by religion that creates the extremes. It then sees these as proof of her puritanical ideas. Religion with its overstatement of the (rational) mind and rejection of emotion and things material has only created imbalance. The pendulum is made to swing to one side and then unstoppable swings back to the other side. Is it a wonder that in the Bible states of the USA porn consumption is three times higher? No it is not.

    Balance and Harmony can only be found if we stop rejecting the feminine aspect of reality, and give it an equal place. The reason I like Hinduism is that it is one of the few religions that appreciates both male and female aspects of reality. Sadly this forum is not a good reflection of that.

    I would like somewhat more appreciation for the sensual side of reality. It is not evil, or dirty, or destructive. It is often people who lost the path of Dharm to such an extend that their Karma haunts them, and they can no longer feel happy in this world that want to leave the path for good, and see any pleasure in life as a distraction from their goal. It is their extreme life denying goal that makes them think that way. They are like ex-alcoholics on a crusade against any alcohol, but do not understand this is a personal problem caused by imbalance, not by alcohol. The weakness of the mind is projected on the world as evilness.

    But for me, I think enjoying this life in all its aspects is the example that Sri Krishna showed us. Emotional religion? We call that devotional religion, that was one of the paths that was added by Sri Krishna. People seem to think that Sri Krishna is foremost an intellectual the way he acts in the Gita. But I see him as a very sensual person fully enjoying the sensual pleasure this world has to offer. And look at Rama and his family, they were extremely emotional people, but without the selfishness that makes it ugly.

    For those that feel sensuality is wrong, I disagree. Luckily Ma Devi still incarnates to show us our errors: The Sensual World, Eat The Music,This woman's work, Breathing ,Lily (did you recognize the Gayatri?)

    This one is truly delightful: Vishnu tries to kill Lakshmi

    I wish this forum was a little more like that, and a little less a constant repetition of overly intellectual escapist ideas that made monotheism, especially Abramism such life hating ideologies. These ideologies were made for war by Kings. After all a warrior must be motivated to give up his earthly existence, that is why it needs to be devaluated into something inferior (in the sense of lower value). But if you really think that, then tell me: If it is inferior, why does Brahman wishes to be it?
    Last edited by Avyaydya; 04 March 2015 at 11:43 AM.

  4. #4

    Re: Emotional Religion: Good or Bad?

    namaste,

    I am a big fan of Emmy Noether who I think could someday turn out to be the most intelligent human that ever walked the earth in the documented history.

    So, yes I agree with the point made that there is in the nature of Reality a very important essence of the feminine intelligence and divinity that only fools choose to ignore in their path and just blindly follow the dominant narratives defined by patriarchy- imposed by the history of violence, or by the violence of the history, or something else.

    But, more pertinent to the issue at hand, it will be blatantly wrong to identify Vaishnava worship modes of sankirtan (followed by songs and dance) as emotional. Because, to a casual observer all that is visible is - GRACE. Lord Vishnu loves that.

    Granted everyone cannot be as adept in expressing emotions as gracefully as the dancers- such as in a Bharatnatyam- can do, it is still necessary in the Vasihnava worship - and I presume in all their sub-sects more or less- to pursue artistic modes in order to move closer to Lord Vishnu.

    So sometimes it is better not to judge. There is always a lot to learn.


    P.S.: one of the names in Vishnu sahsranama is "Daksha" meaning: graceful, skillful. In the RgVeda, Lord Daksha is spelt out to be the very first of all Devata-s.
    Things to remember:

    1. Life = yajña
    2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
    to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
    3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
    4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
    5. r = c. x²
    where,
    r = realisation
    constant c = intelligence
    variable x = bhakti

  5. #5
    Join Date
    March 2014
    Location
    USA
    Age
    35
    Posts
    67
    Rep Power
    874

    Re: Emotional Religion: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Avyaydya View Post
    Namaste LightofOm,

    [My personal opinion as a polytheist, let no one take offence of it]

    Seems to me you do not fully understand the Taoist texts you quote, if that leads you to believe that emotional religion is bad as it is based on ego and sensuality. What these quotes simply say is that by repressing things they become uncontrollable.

    There is nothing wrong with ego or emotion, if we cultivate it into subtle states. We need an ego to achieve things, and if we avoid the strong negative emotions, emotion becomes pure art and delight to all beings. It is the very repression of ego and emotion by religion that creates the extremes. It then sees these as proof of her puritanical ideas. Religion with its overstatement of the (rational) mind and rejection of emotion and things material has only created imbalance. The pendulum is made to swing to one side and then unstoppable swings back to the other side. Is it a wonder that in the Bible states of the USA porn consumption is three times higher? No it is not.

    Balance and Harmony can only be found if we stop rejecting the feminine aspect of reality, and give it an equal place. The reason I like Hinduism is that it is one of the few religions that appreciates both male and female aspects of reality. Sadly this forum is not a good reflection of that.

    I would like somewhat more appreciation for the sensual side of reality. It is not evil, or dirty, or destructive. It is often people who lost the path of Dharm to such an extend that their Karma haunts them, and they can no longer feel happy in this world that want to leave the path for good, and see any pleasure in life as a distraction from their goal. It is their extreme life denying goal that makes them think that way. They are like ex-alcoholics on a crusade against any alcohol, but do not understand this is a personal problem caused by imbalance, not by alcohol. The weakness of the mind is projected on the world as evilness.

    But for me, I think enjoying this life in all its aspects is the example that Sri Krishna showed us. Emotional religion? We call that devotional religion, that was one of the paths that was added by Sri Krishna. People seem to think that Sri Krishna is foremost an intellectual the way he acts in the Gita. But I see him as a very sensual person fully enjoying the sensual pleasure this world has to offer. And look at Rama and his family, they were extremely emotional people, but without the selfishness that makes it ugly.

    For those that feel sensuality is wrong, I disagree. Luckily Ma Devi still incarnates to show us our errors: The Sensual World, Eat The Music,This woman's work, Breathing ,Lily (did you recognize the Gayatri?)

    This one is truly delightful: Vishnu tries to kill Lakshmi

    I wish this forum was a little more like that, and a little less a constant repetition of overly intellectual escapist ideas that made monotheism, especially Abramism such life hating ideologies. These ideologies were made for war by Kings. After all a warrior must be motivated to give up his earthly existence, that is why it needs to be devaluated into something inferior (in the sense of lower value). But if you really think that, then tell me: If it is inferior, why does Brahman wishes to be it?
    Namaskar,

    Good reply. I actually agree with all that you have said.

    Just for your information, I did not write the commentary on this Taoist text. I was simply copying and pasting the commentary that somebody else wrote on a website. Therefore, it is incorrect for you to say that I do not fully understand the Taoist text. In fact, I don't really agree with what the author is saying in his commentary. And I understand the text from a different point of view than the author. So please do not think that I am the one providing the commentary here. The point of the thread was to see if you agreed with what the author of this commentary said, not with anything that I said. I guess I didn't make it clear enough that my post was copied and pasted from another website. The only part that I wrote was the very beginning intro and the end where I asked if you agree with what was being said here or not. Clearly you do not agree, and I am of the same mindset as you here actually.

    Anyway, thank you for the reply and the links, it was very informative. You provided another angle to look at from which we can approach the spiritual path...an angle that is not often spoken about. I like that you did that. I believe we need to remain open-minded on these types of things.

    Pranam.

    LightofOm
    ॐ मृत्युंजयाय रुद्राय नीलकण्ठाय शम्भवे l
    अमृतेशाय शर्वाय महादेवाय ते नम: ll

    Sanātana Dharma Worldwide

  6. #6

    Re: Emotional Religion: Good or Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by LightofOm View Post
    Namaskar,
    Good reply. I actually agree with all that you have said.

    Just for your information, I did not write the commentary on this Taoist text. I was simply copying and pasting the commentary that somebody else wrote on a website. Therefore, it is incorrect for you to say that I do not fully understand the Taoist text. In fact, I don't really agree with what the author is saying in his commentary. And I understand the text from a different point of view than the author. So please do not think that I am the one providing the commentary here. The point of the thread was to see if you agreed with what the author of this commentary said, not with anything that I said. I guess I didn't make it clear enough that my post was copied and pasted from another website. The only part that I wrote was the very beginning intro and the end where I asked if you agree with what was being said here or not. Clearly you do not agree, and I am of the same mindset as you here actually.

    Anyway, thank you for the reply and the links, it was very informative. You provided another angle to look at from which we can approach the spiritual path...an angle that is not often spoken about. I like that you did that. I believe we need to remain open-minded on these types of things.

    Pranam.

    LightofOm
    [Warning,these are personal views from a polytheist perspective, please do not feel offended by them]

    Namaste LightofOm,

    My apologies, I read the text without proper attention, and indeed mistook what was comment and what was quote. Actually I do agree to a large extend to what he is saying, except that in the end he then goes overboard in his own generalizations of emotion, devotion, sensuality, sexuality. He then exposes himself as another puritan, not so different at all.

    And that is symptomatic for Western culture that has some deep defects in its thinking, flaws in the weaving, that are so deeply ingrained they can not be noticed by thinking itself.

    One is the rejection of emotion and seeing it as the opposite of reason. This idea was created by Plato and followed ever since. Plato was such a philosophical giant that it was remarked that everything since Plato were mere footnotes. But he was not perfect either. Science is proving that rational thinking is rather built on more subtle emotion than its opposite. Emotion (ex-motion) simply means: to move out. Emotion is expression of the inner on which thinking is based. But the Greek philosophers had a rather negative view of nature and the Gods. They saw Nature not as a source of order but as erratic, wild and the Gods as irrational, often creating havoc for man. They were regarded by them as the spoilers of man�s effort to create order in the universe. Emotion they saw as of the same wild nature, but within. It had to be controlled and subjugated by all means. The result of that is a frustrated human being.

    The westerner tends to find it more difficult to express himself in a natural way because of that. There are a huge number of people who do not even know any more how to do that. They are constantly formatting their emotions. They are constantly falsifying them and rationalizing them. It is almost pitiful the way they do their best to be liked, and express their emotions in a pre-described good way. They live in mental cage. And they are as much theists as atheists.

    But religion uses this captivity to let people out for a short time, and then they start acting totally erratic, but to them it is a huge liberation. As the preacher makes them believe this is the workings of God, they think they had a liberating religious experience. Outsiders condemn this as the total madness created by religion. But this is the byproduct of a deeper problem created by Greek-Roman-Jewish thinking which has some deep flaws.

    When you reject Nature, you cut yourself off from true happiness. People then start to seek happiness in pleasant thoughts, that priests hold out to them. You can sell desperate people anything, so gullible are they, and so in need of liberation. Religion then indeed becomes a problem of its own making. A business akin to drugs dealing which also sells people relief for short periods of time. With self-convinced dealers who say they bring liberation to mankind.

    Religion that does not rely on science and personal experience, but on blindly accepting the revelations of some person considered a perfect human being is very tricky. Then this person better be an ethical superman. I think Rama and Krishna are up for the task. Though Krishna is not an easy figure to understand, as he takes ethics to a higher level, challenging the more straightforward ethics Rama brings us. So he is easily misunderstood and abused too, which Rama is not. The Gita does not state it is to be kept secret for nothing. But if it sells it sells.

    However the prophets in Abramic tradition are of such low ethics that they more often lead people astray then guide them. I often felt more people live well in spite of religion than thanks to religion. Luckily good people are as immune to unethical texts as evil people are to ethical texts. But the ones in between can indeed be led astray (As we can see from the idealistic young men that are now cutting throats for IS after a short group brainwash). The ethics in Abramic scripture is such a mess that for many lines of text they need to write a long commentary to explain it means something completely different. Scholars like that, it makes them feel learned, they have a better understanding of God than others.

    Yes, religion is a mixed bag. But Hinduism at least is a free market. You pick what agrees with you. That is a freedom the West did not have for a very long time. Nowadays we have it again, and that does wonders for society. Ideas are again competing with each other on their own merits, not by the monopolistic control monotheist like to impose to safeguard their market.

    Being the longest open free market on Earth, Hinduism created a staggering wealth of religious thought easily encompassing all the rest. But it can also make some Hindus somewhat ... complacent. They seem to underestimate the revolution in thinking that has been going on in the West. Thinking based on science which is I believe the true foundation of Sanatan Dharm be it in a broader concept of knowledge than modern science accepts. The words Veda and Science actually mean the same thing: knowledge.

    We live in interesting times indeed. We should not worry too much about the extremes, that actually belongs to freedom of expression. They always exist, either hidden or in the open. Nor should we make the mistake of seeing the USA as the West. They are a truly unique country, but incomparable to other western countries. Everything is bigger and faster there by the influx of new minds in a very open society that also combines old remains of colonialist thinking and new empire thinking.

    What are the Gods brewing for us?
    Or as the Americans say:
    Watch the next episode.
    Last edited by Avyaydya; 04 March 2015 at 09:43 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    March 2010
    Location
    Bangalore, India.
    Age
    31
    Posts
    208
    Rep Power
    0

    Light Re: Emotional Religion: Good or Bad?

    Hello everyone,

    bad... bad... bad...
    good... good... good...


    I'd say both good AND bad...

    It depends on what emotions we're dealing with. If it is unconditional love (platonic), combined with open-mindedness and an open ear with tolerance... good. If it is a. attachment, sensual love or b. a way of getting out of your problems, an excuse to the sorry state of the non-conscious fear, "what is going to become of me? Omigosh! I'm a sinner! let me just fall on god's feet for the sake of that alone... (not devotion, not curiosity for knowledge, not a pleadge to be righteous/dharmic)"

    If it's fear with the mask of love/pledge, then it leads to Fanaticism, because, extra fear leads to paranoia, which leads to paranoid fanaticism and psychotic disorders.

    If it's unconditional love, then it leads to positive self-esteem.

    But, we can't get into the heads and minds of people and check what emotions make them call themselves a devotee. So, we really can't categorize "Emotional Religion" and dump it under the labelled categorical concept of "good" or "bad." From Analogy, I'd like to ask, Are humans good or bad? Let me know...
    I don't know who I am, nor what I am.
    I don't know what I need to know.
    I don't know who you are, nor what you are.
    All I know is that you love me, Oh Sarvathma.
    Lead me on the righteous path, so that I may reach you.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Christianity, politics of conversion in eyes of Mahatma Gandhi
    By Parikh1019 in forum Abrahamic Religions (Closed For Posting)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01 December 2011, 09:06 AM
  2. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 30 June 2011, 09:44 AM
  3. Dharma (Religion)
    By jasdir in forum On Dharma
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 November 2010, 11:31 AM
  4. Omniscience In Varying Degrees
    By yajvan in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 18 November 2009, 10:38 PM
  5. Jesus of History
    By saidevo in forum Christianity
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 28 March 2009, 08:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •