In October of 2008 we had a short festival with our little community in New Plymouth. There were about 100 devotees there, or something like that. It was in part to celebrate the birthday of the Guru that many of us shared. It is traditional for disciples to celebrate the date of their Guru's birth with some celebrations, as a form of gratitude.
A few of the monks in the monastery were of the opinion that I was given special attention by our Guru. The leader of our monastery sometimes mentioned this in a rather sour tone. I don't know if it is entirely accurate, but I do know that I was treated differently, I think in part because of the responsibility I held in my position as manager and organiser.
In the lead up to this festival my Guru called me and asked me to meet him at the airport in New Plymouth, a day or so before the festival was to start. He told me to catch a bus to a stop near the airport, and then make my way to the airport however I saw fit. I hitchhiked the rest of the way, which he approved of on several occasions. We spent the night together in a little bed and breakfast in New Plymouth, in a building that used to be a residence for Catholic Nuns. We sang some songs together, and had discussed practical matters about the running of the monastery. I always felt like there was a caring friendship there.
In the morning I helped him with his breakfast, and with his Chinese herbs he was taking. Then, we packed our things back up and made our way to the retreat centre that would be the site of our weekend festival. He had a separate accommodation set up for himself, in a small little house right beside the retreat centre. There was no cell phone reception here, and no internet. I took it as a chance to focus without the distractions that the internet brought. After unloading his belongings into the house, he talked about where his assistant would stay during the weekend. He asked me what I thought about his assistant sleeping under the stars on the deck. I laughed and asked if he was referring to ME sleeping under the stars. As it turned out, he was, though he must have noticed that I wasn't so keen on the idea. In the end he arranged for a vehicle for me to use for the weekend, to run back and forth from the retreat centre and his house, and that was spacious enough for me to put the seats down and sleep in. I think I ended up with the most comfortable bed out of anyone at the festival that weekend.
During the days of the festival I pretty much exclusively sat in my Guru's house, reading, or chanting or chatting with him. Or overhearing his conversations with others. I didn't get to really hang out with any of my friends there that weekend, but I didn't really mind. It was nice to have a break from the monastery life, to not have to worry about responsibility so much. Just to have some peace and quiet.
Sometimes, during other visits, my Guru would invite me over and let me sit in and listen to conversations he was having with other people. I think the main reason he did this was so that I could learn something from the conversations, including how to deal with problems and issues that arose. I often felt that he had big plans for me, sometimes he would hint that that was the case. During this festival I overheard a lot of interesting conversations, there were two things I overheard in particular, I think during one conversation, which really stood out to me.
The first had to do with how to reconcile contradictions between scripture and science. This had always been something I struggled with personally, especially given some ideas that most Hare Krishnas held dear. In my first year as a Hare Krishna I remember having a discussion with a friend about how he wanted to start doing outreach work at the university in Wellington by focusing on controversy, and he wanted to start by publicly opposing evolution. I responded by saying that I don't think that evolution runs counter to the principles of the religion we were following. I was happy to see, over the past year or so, some Hare Krishnas tackling this issue publicly. I don't see how evolution can be taken as a challenge to theism. There are also some interesting, yet incredibly confusing descriptions in the Vedic scriptures regarding the structure of the universe. It's not at all simple stuff to understand, and often devotees would get misunderstand aspects of it, but cling tightly to their misunderstandings. One such misunderstanding if the widely held belief that the scriptures say that the moon is further from the earth than the sun is, which, strictly speaking, is not a concept mentioned in the scriptures it is said to come from. I had many arguments with devotees about this over the years.
In the conversation I overheard during this festival, I heard my Guru make the comment that the best approach to take is the humble approach. If we admit that, actually I don't really know what the scriptures are describing, but I also don't know how to understand or comprehend what the scientists are describing, or how they came to their conclusions, but I accept that the scripture is correct, I just don't know HOW it is correct. In one sense, I guess that is an honest approach, but personally I didn't find it a very satisfying one. I was getting tired of having to reach around my head to touch my nose in order to explain these aspects of the scriptures which didn't at all correlate with the seen world around us.
At the time, the same friend who had previously made the comment about publicly opposing evolution was doing an about-face in terms of how he approached science and the scripture. We had a few chats, though I was still attempting to reconcile science and scripture, he was taking a more radical approach. He made the point that aspects of the philosophy were amazing as standalone philosophies, like the suffering in the world because it's temporary nature, the concepts of Vedic theology, which were very beautiful, the nature of the self etc. But then there were aspects which just seemed beyond belief, and fantastical. He was at a point where he seemed to be approaching the fantastic with caution, but embracing the parts he appreciated. This pick and choose approach wasn't very much appreciated by the wider community.
So, overhearing this conversation left me wondering how to reconcile it all. It felt anti-intellectual to say that the best approach is an "I don't know but scripture must be right", I didn't feel like I could take that on. I think it was from that point on that I started becoming a little more firm in my approach to these aspects of the philosophy and religion. I couldn't be against science so much, though I don't think I would ever say that science or technology is flawless, or even benevolent in many ways. But I couldn't deny it's validity, which was such a common stance in our monastery. It just made me feel uncomfortable to hear anti-science statements sometimes, often with little knowledge behind them.
The other thing I overheard during that weekend was a conversation about some devotees who had rebellious, or anti-authoritarian stances. It was suggested that some of these persons were suffering because of feelings of anger towards their fathers who had cheated on their mothers. I thought that was an interesting suggestion. Coming from a family in which my parents had an incredibly tight relationship, I couldn't entirely relate to it, but I thought it was an interesting social observation. I'm not willing to say it is accurate, I just think it's interesting, and the sense that I wonder what the thought process would look like to reach that analysis.
On the Sunday of the festival we had a special birthday party for our Guru. As part of this celebration some of the devotees present had the opportunity to read out homages that they had written. Because there were around a hundred or so Hare Krishnas there for the festival, there was a short list made of the persons who would be allowed to read out their homages. The first list was made by one of the organisers of the festival. She had made the list based on how long persons had been involved with the Krishnas for. However, our Guru wasn't so keen on that system. He said that the list also needed to take into consideration date of initiation, whether someone had received second initiation, and also whether the person was taking on extra responsibility, as that extra responsibility was an extra credit to getting these kinds of special privileges. He turned to me and smiled when he said that I would get to read out my homage as well, as a recognition of the responsibility I was taking on my shoulders. It was a nice exchange and gesture.
I have always felt comfortable with public speaking, almost scarily so. But there are some occasions where I just feel completely shy doing it. Last month I had to give an impromptu talk at an animal rights conference, and I've never felt so embarrassed when speaking in front of others in my whole life. This day was another time that I felt embarrassed. It was difficult to read out my homage. There were a lot of thoughts going through my mind while I did so. One such thought was that I realised that I wasn't certain if I actually did feel all the words that I had written. Saying them out loud made me doubt my statements more. I also realised that the main reason I liked reading these homages out in front of others was because I hoped others would recognise my literary skills.
After the celebration came the feasting time. This was another awkward situation. As I was assisting my Guru during this event, it was my job to look after his meal until he was satisfied. That meant that I couldn't sit and eat with my friends until he was done his meal. My two favourites things, eating and talking, and I had to suppress those desires until he had decided he no longer needed my services. It was a tough task, though in a comical way. I am comfortable laughing at myself about things like that, and there were more opportunities to laugh later on.
When he finally decided he didn't need me, he said I could go and eat with my friends, and then we would return back to his house after that. I filled up a big plate and sat down with some people I knew. And I started eating and talking. Actually, mostly talking. To much talking that I actually did very little eating, or at least not quick eating. By the time I had just about moved onto dessert I felt a hand on my shoulder. I looked up to see my Guru staring down at me with a bit of a friendly frown on his face. He said "Are you eating, or talking?", to which I had to reply honestly and say "Talking mostly." He laughed at me, then said "If I knew you were going to take this long I would have just told you to bring it back to the house to eat!"
When we returned to the house he was staying at I apologised for getting side-tracked during my meal. I said "Sorry, but I have a real big mouth sometimes, and I just have to talk." He looked out the window and said "So, you're a big talker huh? Well, that's okay, but from now on just talk about Krishna."
I still like talking non-stop, given the opportunity, I guess this blog is an extension of that. But in some settings I will just be the quiet person, almost like I have two complete extremes of socialising. My mother is a big talker, my dad is a quiet one. I guess I have both qualities at certain times.
If I analyse my relationship with my Guru I have to accept that there was a bit of a paradox to it. There was the one side that I felt he cared about me, and treated me like I had a lot of potential. I did like talking with him about things when given the opportunity. But, if I am honest, and I know this blog is about honesty, I also struggled sometimes watching the way he related to other people. A lot of my friends and family had met him over the years, and although they never said anything at the time, they now admit freely that they felt a little uncomfortable around him, and during his classes at the yoga centre. At times it was like a relationship where you care for someone, but you also worry when introducing them to new people, because you know that they have a personality type that a lot of people won't gel with.
On the week that I left the Krishna community, I talked to a friend who regularly visited the yoga centre. He asked if one of the reasons I left was because of the harsh statements made during the class by my Guru the previous Sunday. I hadn't thought about it at the time, because I had many reasons for leaving. But not long after a friend within the community e-mailed me, asking for my reasons for leaving, and then also asked what my relationship was like with my Guru before I left. It started me thinking about this point. I can completely understand why people don't like him, and I think that was always at the back of my mind. At the same time, I appreciated the care and attention I received over the years. As some of the monks said to me, sometimes I did feel like I was treated like a favourite son, and I think that helped me to overlook things that others complained about.
I don't want to analyse it all too much here. I think it's a very complicated issue. I don't think most people can relate to the dynamics of the relationship, nor to the social structure in which it occurred. Which I think may be telling in itself. I will say that when I first left the community I thought that the biggest emotion I would have to face upon leaving the community was the feeling of guilt for breaking my relationship with my Guru. I was both surprised and disappointed to discover that that wasn't the case at all. I was surprised that it didn't really occur on my mind at all. I was disappointed to discover that there were many more emotions that were much more difficult to deal with that arose after leaving.
i know 'Guru' sometimes makes some bold statements, blunt statements or confronting statements, but harsh statements?
ReplyDeletei've never found His talks hash, if harsh is defined as "unpleasantly stern, disagreeable, unkind or cruel or uncivil, sharply disagreeable, or abrasive."
His talks are pretty upfront, especially in terms of discussing the temporary nature of material life, such as relationships. i was taken aback at first by that, and can see how my non-spiritual friends could be put off by it. the truth hurts.
i guess also, me and you (but you obviously much more) see/saw another side of Him outside the talks. i was in tears of joy last week from recieving His praise about my progress in KC, he was so kind.
I wasn't 100% certain whether or not to publish the above comment. The reason being that I know that some of my readers WOULD describe some treatment they received as harsh, but I DON'T want this blog to be cluttered up with comments about that.
ReplyDeleteI do understand what you mean though. I think perhaps harshness isn't exactly what I meant, it was just the word I chose at the time. I do think that, judging from some of the stories I have heard from others over the past few months, perhaps there have been moments of harshness, or at least moments where others perceived harshness. I can't judge that really.
In general, this isn't entirely an issue I want to talk about too much. My reasons for leaving were about ME not other Hare Krishnas, not Gurus either. I find it hard to find my own opinions of the issue amidst the varied opinions and thoughts I hear from people on all sides of the spectrum these days.
Hey Mikey, I'd like to repost my comments from your Facebook page, about understanding the Bhagavatam, because I think they are relevant to this post:
ReplyDeleteIn terms of epistemology, we had some interesting discussions at our recent retreat, where we discussed the six philosophical systems over three days. One point that came out is that Prabhupada's explicit hermeneutical strategy ("As It Is") is largely rhetorical. For example, he contradicts it in Bg. 3.29, where he renders a purport practically in contradiction to the verse, using an interpretative strategy other than "As It Is".
His rhetorical choice of hermeneutic is linked to a previous philosophical interpretation that he is seeking to refute - Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta had in turn refuted a previous school, Karma-mimamsa, which used exactly the hermeneutical strategy of "As It Is". The Karma-mimamsa epistemology was that scripture was of divine origin, and so everything in it was literally true. Thus, if you perform the rituals in there, since the scripture must be true, the result must come.
Everything there was literally true: "as it is". They de-emphasised metaphysics by saying that anything that wasn't an instruction on how to achieve a result was not important.
To undermine the influence of this school, Sankaracarya accepted the Vedic scripture, but introduced a different hermeneutic.
Sankaracarya stated that pramanas (epistemological sources) have their domain of authority. The authoritative domain of scripture is transcendence. In other mundane areas, such as cosmology, if sastra-pramana contradicted pratyaksha and anumana (empirical observation and logic), the description of scripture could be retired. Sankara called these paramarthika (the transcendental part), and vyavaharika (the mundane part)
With this hermeneutical strategy many modern-day ISKCON controversies, such as the relative distances of the Sun and the Moon, or the structure of the universe, disappear.
However, Sankara then applied this hermeneutical strategy to descriptions of Brahman, designating some of them as saguna (mundane) and others as nirguna (transcendental). I personally feel that he overstepped the mark with this, and I'm not the only one.
Rather than quibble over where this distinction should be applied, Prabhupada has opted to for the Karma-mimamsa hermeneutical approach. This gets rid of some problems - such as Sankara's characterisation of some descriptions of Brahman as mundane, but introduces others - such as cosmological controversies, and instances where he violates his own stated hermeneutical strategy.
Once you understand that, it becomes possible to consider the Bhagavatam using Sankara's hermeneutic, but without his fault of over-extension (ativyapti in Sanskrit). This is precisely what Bhaktivinode Thakur does in Sri Krishna Samhita. Bhaktivinoda Thakura also uses Sankara's terms paramarthika and vyavaharika often, while you won't find them in Prabhupada's writing.
You can understand why this approach isn't a standard practice amongst ISKCON devotees too - most people would be thoroughly confused just reading this, what to speak of trying to apply it.
However, it is also part of the tradition.
I have to say that in a number of cases of my godbrothers who have given up on the philosophy, my feeling is that it is because they didn't go deep enough into it. Of course, that is discouraged in some circles, but at some point we have to own our own relationship with the tradition.
Darn it, I had typed out a response to this, Sitapati, but then I lost my wireless connection and the reply disappeared.
ReplyDeleteAnyway. Thanks for posting this comment. I think it does relate to this blog entry, primarily because from my memory the conversation I over heard was one that YOU were part of.
I definitely think the hermeneutics you've described above is valid. However, I have some fears of such an approach. For one, I don't know how easy it would be to draw a clear line separating what could and could not be subject to the ruling of pratyaksa or anuman. The other is that, it seems that some authority would be required to determine for certain whether a mundane description is fit for retiring. The problem here is I guess one that I encountered, that being that the dominating culture that I experience Krishna consciousness in was rather opposed to the suggestions that perhaps the mundane aspects of the scriptures were incorrect.
A third doubt I have about this is the question of why one should accept a scripture which contains mundane information that is incorrect, while still accepting the transcendental descriptions. Lord Caitanya, when arguing against the Chand Kazi, said that the Quran was to be rejected because it contained mistakes.
I remember reading your articles about evolution and the Bhagavatam, and I was always inspired by that. I think to take such a stance in the current atmosphere of scriptural study in ISKCON is bold for sure. I would almost say that, rather than faulting some for not going deep enough into the philosophy, part of the problem would be that perhaps not everyone is bold enough to take a stance of apparent opposition to the mainstream views that are held within the society of devotees.
I have often heard devotees faulting the Bible for having undergone changes over the millennia. I think that is problematic, because evidently the Vedas have also undergone the same types of changes over an even longer period of time. I think, for myself, when contemplating the fact the scriptures have undergone changes over thousands of years AND they contain information which is inaccurate according to mundane proofs, then it seems to require a much firmer conviction to maintain confidence in them, and it requires a very well thought out hermeneutics. I admit openly that as time went by I think I failed in those areas.
I always took issue with the 'be humble' approach - I am a scientist, it is my business to understand the arguments of the scientists. I understand them to a complex and nuanced degree. Therefore the idea that one can suspend disbelief between their inability to understand the epistemology and nuances of both science and sastra is inapplicable for me. I have never resolved this issue to date.
ReplyDelete@xmikeyx: I think a clear delineation between that which *can* be empirically proven and that which cannot, can be drawn - which is different from saying with 100% certainty what *has* been proven.
ReplyDeleteFor example: distinguishing what is theoretically able to be proved or disproved empirically from that which is not, is part of my criticism of Richard Dawkins. He goes beyond his realm of authority as a scientist by making claims that are beyond falsification. Things that are beyond falsification through empirical investigation are outside the realm of science. The metaphysics of the Vedas lie in this realm.
(That's basically using Sankaracarya's epistemological argument against Dawkins).
A gray area in terms of what is proven and what is not always remains, due to the limitations of empiricism. Has something been conclusively proven 100% to be one way or the other? That can be difficult to say. In those cases it may be one thing or another thing, but in terms of scripture the conclusion is the important part.
I don't think that the point of the Bhagavatam is to promote particular mundane sciences. You could, on the one hand, "believe" that that was the structure of the universe, but be a gross materialist. I think in this case you have adhered to some detail, but missed the point.
You could on the other hand say: "Maybe, maybe not", or even "probably not", or maybe even "no", but still accept the non-empirical metaphysical descriptions of Brahman and atma, and engage in sadhana. I think in this case you have fulfilled the goal of the scripture.
Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his Vedanta-sutra commentary (probably quoting an earlier Vedantist, likely Sankaracarya), counters the Karma-mimasa idea that "scriptural statements that aren't injunctions are worthless and should be ignored because they do not produce results."
He says that "if I tell a man that his rich father buried a treasure under the house, he will be inspired to dig there. Similarly, descriptions of the Supreme Brahman exist in scripture to inspire the readers to search after that Brahman."
So the point is that descriptions in scripture exist for the purpose of inspiring a particular course of action. If you get to the same course of action "believing" that the Earth is flat, that it is round, or whatever, then whatever. Krishna Consciousness is not about belief, or at least so we are told.
It only becomes threatening if your faith on the scriptures totters on a single point of failure - that it must all be "true", in a particular way, or none of it is, and there is no reliable way to distinguish between vyavaharika portions relating to the mundane world, and paramarthika portions relating to transcendence.
A lot of preaching of Krishna Consciousness is about creating doubt in your own ability or qualification to discriminate. This makes people afraid to approach the scripture with their intelligence ("And I declare that one who studies this sacred conversation of ours worships Me through their intelligence" - Sri Krishna, Bhagavad-gita).
The unfortunate side effect of this is, that since the initial decision to get into Krishna Consciousness, and the decision to accept its epistemology are all predicated on your own independent thought and discrimination, preaching against the validity of decisions made based on that undermines your actual participation. It reduces your agency.
When your psychology or circumstances transform, and your psychological needs are no longer being met in your community of participation around the scriptures, that particular philosophical approach *defeats itself*, by undermining the philosophical validity of your initial decision to participate.
(contd..)
(contd.)
ReplyDeleteI can understand why such an approach works - conservative religion is always going to be the religion of the masses, and ISKCON is Krishna Consciousness for the masses. Too much complexity would make it confusing and unattractive. I say All Glories to Srila Prabhupada for coming up with such an awesome way to put the Bhagavatam in front of the masses in the Western world.
The downside is that a lot of people can get into it due to psychological needs at a particular point in time, and that can remain their primary mode of involvement. This can lead over time to stacking the organisation with people with low agency, and people who like to control people with low agency.
However, if you find over time that this particular philosophical approach doesn't work for you, I would encourage you to look further into the tradition to see if you are really rejecting the tradition, or just a set of circumstances.
What do I think about the cosmological structure of the universe? Most of the time I don't think about it, but on the occasions that I do, I find that both the version of the Bhagavatam *and* the current scientific version provide me with useful insights, fill me with awe at its scope, diversity, and beauty, and inspire me to know its creator.
Maybe that makes me a heretic (from the Greek hairetikos "able to choose") and means that actually all my chanting of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra is a waste of time because I don't "believe" the right things, but I don't think so - but I could be wrong. At the end of the day, however, I continue to do what brought me to Krishna Consciousness - follow my heart. How could I turn my back on that, without invalidating the whole premise of my involvement?
I also never clicked with your Guru. Personally, I felt he was very judgmental and not at all understanding of family life. He never once had a nice word to say to me.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I wasn't certain about whether or not to allow this comment.
ReplyDeleteI am personally trying to avoid criticizing other people directly, where it may appear that there is criticism I am more trying to explain my personal experiences of situations, as opposed to directing blame at another person. Every problem we have in life is two sided, at least two sided, sometimes five sided. For the most part I'm not willing to point the finger unless I'm willing to simultaneously accept my half of the blame.
Also, I would personally disagree with the comment that he was not at all understanding of family life. I've seen his interactions with his householder disciples, and they were always very encouraging and understanding, and in his lectures, even to a brahmacari only audience, he came across to me as understanding of family life.
Very nice thoughts. When I decided to step away from the organized social structure of Krishna Consciousness I had many of the same thoughts Mikey is writing of.
ReplyDeleteNow I am quite established separate from my involvement in organized Krishna Consciousness, I no longer feel any need to defend and justify myself (both to myself and others).
Today I find that the core insights that initially inspired my sojourn in Krishna Consciousness remain undiminished.
I like Krishna and his devotees, and find inspiration in what they have to say. I like the devotional orientation towards the energies of life.
I keep a little garden of treasures that inspire me. I like my little garden :)
Here's to saddhu sanga, in all it's multifarious and non-sectarian forms. Without it, life would indeed be bleak.
Here's to real humility. Without it, life is but a show.
Here's to personal integrity. Without it, what is the meaning of self-realization?
Thanks Mikey for sharing yourself so unguarded. It's nice man :)
PS: Here's to the Internet ;)
I'm dubious about the value of anonymous comments.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the best critique of something you don't agree with is to get over it, associate with people you resonate with, be successful in something that *does* work for you, and then share the value you can mine from your experience doing that with others.
Otherwise we could spend an eternity writing about the unlimited things we disagree with and the countless people we don't gel with, and what's the point? I guess it might be cathartic as part of getting over it, but it can also reinforce a victim mentality and degenerate into vicious (and cowardly) sniping.
That's what I like about your writing Mikey - it's honest and progressive, and you publicly own your experience and your expression of it. That's integrity.
That's not to detract from the validity of the Anonymous commenter's personal perception and experience. I'm just questioning the social effect of expressing it in this way, especially if such expressions were to become a norm.
Good point about the anonymous comments. I've just adjusted the setting so that people must register to make comments. Partly because there have been some nice comments to, and I'd just like to know who to thank!!
ReplyDelete@Sita-pati
ReplyDeleteYour posts on this page, especially the first is absolutely fantastic, I mean its one of the best things I have ever come across in KCon.As you mentioned I was thoroughly confused and had to read quite a few times to make sense of it.
Thank you!
@Mikey
I have the same tendency but unlike you I my talk is not very important. I highly appreciate the way you have portrayed your relationship with your Guru and not just criticized him. I like your honesty. Your reasons from moving away were genuine and I know of many devotees being confronted by the similar problems, if not entirely identical. But not all of them can see the positive side of the movement and its individuals, the way you do. I and I am sure many will agree with what you say that the movement does need some serious restructuring. I like the way you are objectively dealing with the situation without excessive criticism.
thanks!
Wow thank you for this blog! It is really helping me process a lot of unresolved hurt, confusion, and embarrassment, from my time with said Guru and the greater devotee community. I was in a similar boat where I came to KC in a very unique and unforgettable way and Maharaj gave me special treatment. As a naive 19yo girl I was floating around with my head in the clouds and would announce with glee that I got an email response from him the same day to a chorus of groans and confusion from the other beginners while we 'maha' cleaned the kitchen. It wasn't till about a year in when I was woken by a text of encouragement from him and literally looked down at my bunk mate who had been doing actual hard work for him for years and whom he often made cry that I realised how arrogant I'd become from the special treatment. The bubble popped and I moved out soon after. I still don't know what to make of my experiences but it's very helpful to hear yours! Thanks
ReplyDelete