Handling Cognitive Dissonance: what a brahmin priest told me

[Anonymous]

I’m back on the road again, and had lunch with a brahmin priest today. Although he is a colleague of mine in professional life, he comes from a family of brahmins and daily recites slokas, more or less carrying hos own temple with him.

First, i think his personal practice, the ritual of chanting specific sanskrit slokas isn’t exactly my cup of tea, but his personal spirituality and integrity — his positive attitude he brings to the work environment — i’ve come to know him as a close friend.

We talked about the imperfections of gurus. In india, there are many really famous gurus who had really cultish lives, Osho, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Vivekenanda, Sathya Sai Baba, for example. These were really imperfect people, yet created followings now measured in the millions (bear in mind that India has 1.2 billion people). Some of their practices mirror Joseph Smith’s more (ahem) interesting characteristics. So I expressed that my guru, the one who founded the path I follow, had such characteristics.

He brought me back to talking about hindu slokas (verses of the Veda scriptures). Many of the verses of slokas, he said, made absolutely no sense. the marriage slokas, for example, discuss all sorts of prohibitions of having sex wtih other women, animals, etc.,etc., hardly something appropriate for marriage really, but he said it isn’t the words that matter, but rather, the sounds, and th sounds describe an internal set of ‘waves’ that harmonize the husband and wife.

(at this point, I’m thinking this is really way out there — I’ve studied hinduism for decades, and at this moment, I’m thinking I know absolutely nothing.)

He then said something rather interesting. He said, it isn’t what is written in the sloka, but rather, what devotion the worshiper places into the sloka. He said that the chant of the temple ritual (speaking of hindu temples) isn’t about the words said, or even about the gods represented, but about the contemplative experience in the sounds and waves. In fact, to him, the more repetitive and meaningless the experience, the more the truth of atman emerges to the devotee.

He then brought this back to Sathya Sai Baba, a charlatan, magician of a sort of guy who did a lot of very strange, deceptive practices, yet has founded 118 hospitals, and brought tens of millions of people out of poverty. His followers well exceed the size of the LDS church. HIs main ashram is a short distance from my house in Bangalore, and although he died last year, yet his legacy is huge, and his tens of millions of followers continue.

So my brahmin friend explains that if my guru, Joesph Smith, did strange things, how does that invalidate the postiive devotion and benefit achieved by his followers? Isn’t the reality the devotion for which the follower has for the guru more important than the guru himself?

I’m not sure I can fully accept what my brahmin friend told me. Some aspects of the cogdis are too hard to accept by themselves. I recognize that William James encourages a separation of the value of the religion from it’s typically fantastic origins. I reject apologetics. I reject the idea that we can just let the history be past, that we’ve ‘moved on’. Yet here is a man, a deeply devout hindu brahmin priest, encouraging me to accept the path of my guru Joseph Smith, and understand the value of devotion separated from the man itself, in the same way that the religious value of ritual is separated from the words of the scripture.

I think I know nothing right now.

[Anonymous]

This is a great topic, wayfarer. As I read your friend’s words, the following struck me hard – and I’m having a hard time finding the right wording:

Jesus, from the view of a non-believer, was a complete failure. Some of his followers perpetrated some truly horrific, evil things. However . . .

Jesus, from the view of a believer, was a complete success. Some of his followers have done remarkable, marvelous, great things.

What separates a “faithful” torturer of the Inquisition from Mother Teresa?

Both of them claimed to be doing the will of God, via Jesus. It’s not really Jesus that is the key, in any real, material, practical way. It’s the specifics of the devotion of the different followers – the path each took in crafting their devotion, if you will. It’s not the founder; it’s the follower. Iow, it isn’t the “founder” of the religion that is paramount; rather, it’s what followers individually and collectively make of the founding in their own lives.

There is plenty in Mormonism for someone to make a bastard of himself – but there’s plenty in Mormonism for someone to make a saint of herself.

One of my favorite questions when it comes to discussions of culture, practice, doctrine, etc. is, “Lord, is it I?” “We are” “The Church” – in every way that matters, and, I believe, it is up to us (as individual “I am” within the collective “we are”) to own that question – not to “outsource our sin” by blaming others for what “we are” but to model the devotion we hope to see from others “within our own we”. It really isn’t about Joseph, since there are good and bad “Mormons” sharing his heritage; it’s about me – so I need to ask myself regularly, “Lord, is it I?”

[Anonymous]

Thanks for sharing, wayfarer and Ray.

What struck me was the sound your friend mentioned. In yoga, the “ommmm” sound is not a word with any meaning to me, but a sound with meaning. Something best experienced than explained in words, but a remarkable way to create a vibration (sound) that can bring me closer in tune with the universe.

I think this can be similar to hymns, prayers, amen, bearing testimony, or repeating sounds in the temple, to bring one closer into harmony with the Spirit and with Zion.

Now, my upbringing and thoughts immediately go to God and Joseph Smith and truth. I can easily accept Hinduism and Brahmans like Sathya Sai Baba can be wise and share goodness to millions (billions) having a greater impact on more people than Mormonism (along with all the other good things in history that have far out reached Mormonism). But, is it important to believe while those things are good, truth from the prophet and teachings from the Book of Mormon are greater, more eternally important truths, with covenants and saving ordinances that are critical to progression in the Eternities? I’m sorry that seems to be missing your point and off-track, but so much of Mormonism is finding the One True Church, that my mind seems to go back to this line of thinking…was Joseph a more special Brahman or just another Brahman with another following?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It’s not really Jesus that is the key, in any real, material, practical way. It’s the specifics of the devotion of the different followers – the path each took in crafting their devotion, if you will. It’s not the founder; it’s the follower. Iow, it isn’t the “founder” of the religion that is paramount; rather, it’s what followers individually and collectively make of the founding in their own lives.

I don’t know much about Eastern religions or philosophy but this resonates with me. Maybe I spend too much time trying to solve the “problem” of our religion and not enough time simply experiencing it (apologies to Kirkegaard). A calm(er) acceptance of the things that usually bother me and a focus on humble worship and service may be a change in the right direction (for me anyway). Definitely food for thought.

[Anonymous]

CogDis is a bit of a buzz phrase, but I think it is also an evolutionary mechanism. I prefer the term “doublethink”, but basically I think it allows our minds to see both sides of a problem, rather than just one.

Quote:

It’s not really Jesus that is the key, in any real, material, practical way. It’s the specifics of the devotion of the different followers – the path each took in crafting their devotion, if you will. It’s not the founder; it’s the follower. Iow, it isn’t the “founder” of the religion that is paramount; rather, it’s what followers individually and collectively make of the founding in their own lives.

I’ve always found Jesus more inspirational than his followers! Look at some of the atrocities they committed.

[Anonymous]

I contemplate sometimes a very different sense of “follow the prophet.” What most people think that means is to believe the concepts they teach and to obey the commandments they revealed. Joseph Smith was a radical who broke “the rules” and experimented with all manner of things he found fascinating, an eclectic collector spirituality from his 19th century milieu.

So one path is to dogmatize his teachings, create quasi-creeds, and create a static institution that resists change. It freezes the content of salvation in places at the expense of the process.

The other path might be to follow the process at the expense of the content. Do what he did: in the very broad sense of breaking down the church of the devil in our own heart and mind, of stretching beyond our comfort zone, and in gathering all WE find true in our own day. Jump off the cliff in to the arms of God and follow the Spirit of “revelation.” That’s what Joseph did.

[Anonymous]

Gerald wrote:

Maybe I spend too much time trying to solve the “problem” of our religion and not enough time simply experiencing it (apologies to Kirkegaard).

Good thought, Gerald!

[Author]

Posts