Context is everything - Part Two

Originally when I was starting this blog I was going to call it "Philosophical Journeys of a Blind Heart". A few years ago I had the idea of putting together a presentation on my personal philosophical journey through life. I had realised, looking back at my life, and looking at the lives of friends around me, it seemed that people in general have a major inclination to accept philosophical stances not on their own merit, but out of emotional or psychological needs at the time. Sometimes atheists will claim that theistic philosophies arise out of the need to feel like there is someone in control, or that life has meaning. I think that, on one level, this is a fair statement, but I think it needs to be expanded. I think that, equally atheists will accept atheism not entirely out of a philosophical sense of 'rightness' but mostly out of an emotional or psychological need. I feel that if you map out people's lives as philosophical journeys, you will see a network of emotional and psychological triggers which led to their taking up new philosophical stances. I've sat through countless lectures at university hearing about the development of various thinkers and their theories, and throughout there is always a theme arising of personal struggles resulting in the rise of new social theories. I think we do a great disservice to ourselves when we assert that we have accepted certain things as truth solely because of their philosophical 'rightness' and not at least partly because of our own emotional and psychological needs.

When it comes to interpersonal relationships I think this same thing happens. Sometimes, at least in the short term, we will ignore problems in a relationship because that relationship serves some specific emotional or psychological need at the time. And sometimes, in order to dismiss people we will readily accept half-truths as essential elements of a persons character, accept speculations as secret realities, and then filter all our experiences of that person through these new social lenses. In the longer term, however, it's hard to maintain this kind of response in a relationship without a lot of hard work and determination.

I know that, if people want to write someone off, they will, and there is nothing you can do about it. Even to the point where, if you do try to do something about it, they will just take your attempts as evidence of their original claims. So, I know that by dealing with some of the ways I have been dismissed within the NZ Krishna community I may be providing more ammunition for my own dismissal. But I still value the right of replying to these accusations, regardless of how they will be received. Those who matter the most to me seem interested to read my reply, so I will deal with these four things, as I listed in my last entry, which were 1) that my blog is an internet campaign, 2) that my blog is an exercise in creative writing, or in other words that it is fictional, 3) that I have elastic gender inclinations, 4) that these elastic inclinations are something that I bottled up, struggled with for years, and eventually popped because of.

One last thing before I start, I've been asked by a friend to point out that the Hare Krishna world is wide and varied. Every area of the world has different things going on, and what is true for one centre is not true for all. So always take this into consideration whenever you read something I've written.

Issue one: Is my blog an internet campaign, specifically against the Hare Krishnas?

I was always worried that this blog would be considered an attach on the Hare Krishnas, which is why when I started I specifically asked two of my friends, who are still Hare Krishnas, one in NZ and one overseas, to monitor what I wrote and let me know if I started getting off track and offensive. Heck, I even wrote an entry entitled, "This Is Not An Anti-Krishna Blog". Writing this blog as an internet campaign or an attack on a community was never at all my intention. As I've explained several times before, I started this blog for my own personal reasons. Mainly, I was tired of having to explain to people over and over again about why I left the Krishna community, and what I had been up to for the past 7 years while I was absent from their social circles. I also realised that by not discussing things I was not properly dealing with issues I had experienced which I really needed to address in order to move forward.

The responses I received from people, especially when I first started this blog, was amazing. For one, people were able to draw parallels to their own individual lives. I had people who started writing to me about the different communities they were part of, whether it be work communities, religious communities, social communities, activist communities. They were able to say that "yes, my community also suffers from these same problems." I think that viewing the Krishna community as a unique community with unique problems is incorrect. It is also incorrect to dismiss whatever problems this blog may highlight as part of some internet campaign against a specific community. If anything, this blog serves to highlight certain frailties of the human creature in general. I think that the vast majority of people reading my blog are able to see it for what it is, at least I hope so.

The fact that my blog has been accused of being an internet campaign unfortunately says more for those making such claims than it does about my personal blog. It suggests that the people making such claims are unable to acknowledge problems that exist in their own community, or else want to ignore such problems, or keep them out of the view of other members of the community. As someone mentioned as a comment to my last entry, saying that there are no social problems in a community, or even a family, is itself a sign of social problems. Even my own family, which many people say they are envious of, has its own issues to deal with in terms of interpersonal issues. It is no criticism to acknowledge these things, and it is incredibly unhealthy to deny the existence of problems.

Is this an internet campaign? No it's not. It's just me sorting through my experiences in a public place.

Issue two: Is my blog a fictional creation?

This suggestion is probably the most cutting of all the negative things said about me or my blog. Is my blog fictional? No it's not. It's rather insulting to have someone suggest that my description of my experiences over the past 7 years is fictional, as I'm sure you can imagine. I don't really know what parts of my blog people would like to think are fictional, it would be interesting to find out what people think I've made up and why I would have done it. That would be interesting to find out.

It's funny, because I have had a number of people who lived in the monastery in the past, several who are still Hare Krishnas, saying that they were glad I was finally airing some of the problems that went on in the monastery, and some of the social problems which occurred there. I don't think I described anything that reveals the place to be incredibly corrupt or evil. The fact is the monastery suffered from the same problems as any workplace would, it was just compounded by the close living situations, and intensity of the setting. It happened, it wasn't fictional.

I mean, I do have e-mail records which can verify much of what I've discussed on here, I have friends who lived in the monastery at the times that I described who would be happy to verify what I've described. I don't really see how anyone can claim that my blog is fictional.

In my blog I have tried as best as I can to not deny my own part in negative social behaviour, or community problems. The community I lived in had issues, no denying it, and I played an active role in those problems, I perpetuated the same issues. If I were to write a fictional piece, attacking the community, surely I would make myself come out smelling like roses, but I definitely didn't do that.

Is my blog subjective? Yes it is. It is me describing my subjective experience, looking back at it with a certain mindset and analysing it all with ever changing emotional and psychological needs. If one wanted to dismiss my blog, why not dismiss it based on that fact, and not on the claim that it is fictional. Subjective experience is never fictional, it just may not correlate 100% with someone else's subjective experience of the same thing. While speaking to a friend of mine recently about this all, he made a joke like that, which certainly held truth, he said it was ridiculous how my blog was being dismissed, he said it should be dismissed in one sense for being overly emotional, but not for being fictional, or being the writings of someone with 'elastic gender inclinations', and I think that is fair enough. Read my blog in the context of someone struggling to deal with the feelings one could expect to deal with while making radical lifestyle, worldview and community changes in their late 20s. If you do that, there is no need to make claims that this blog is fictional. It's just subjective. Filter it through the subjectiveness if you must, but acknowledge it as truth, and deal with that truth as you need to in order to continue on with your life, or help you live a better one.

Issue three: Do I have elastic gender inclinations?

I personally don't think this as much of an important issue as the above two, and probably the final one. For starters, what does this claim mean? A friend of mine wanted me to clear up whether the implication being made had to do with gender identity issues or sexual orientation issues. The wording that is being used is definitely both ambiguous and vague at the same time. As I describe the context of this claim I think it will all become a bit more clear.

According to the article I referenced in my last blog, it is claimed that I disclosed in a discussion with another devotee that prior to my taking to Krishna consciousness my "gender inclinations had been elastic". I would like to discuss the context of this conversation, as well as the context of my 'revelation'.

Sometime after I started writing this blog I was contacted by a female devotee who found my blog interesting because of her own experiences within the Krishna community in New Zealand. Because of the segregated nature of the community, I really had nothing much to do with the women Hare Krishnas, I didn't know much about them or how their communities functioned. Since leaving, especially since writing this blog, I have gained a bit more insight into their world. In a lot of ways, it's increased my satisfaction in my decision to leave.

This devotee who contacted me was once being utilized by the NZ Krishna community as a wonderful example of how the powerful process of Krishna consciousness can I guess cure someone from being a lesbian. At the very least, that's what this film suggests - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWSqYruVc-E&feature=related - as it labels this devotees as an 'ex-lesbian'. Feel free to make your own value judgments on that one.

I found myself confronted with a troubled devotee who definitely felt she was being mistreated because of her sexual orientation. My response was to do the same thing I often did when confronted with those types of situations, I discussed my personal history, experience, philosophies and thoughts on the issue of sexual orientation and sexual identity.

When I was 16 I started taking more and more of an interest in anarchist social theories, and all related topics; feminism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, animal rights, environmentalism. What this meant was going through a constant reassessment of my own personal values and personal assumption about myself and society around me. Why did things occur in our society as they did? Was this the best, or even most truthful approach to social interactions? The whole community I found myself a part of, especially as I grew older and moved out of home, was one that was always questioning and challenging social norms, and issues surrounding sex, sexuality and sexual identities were definitely up for challenging. Concepts such as polyamory were/are definitely common within the anarchist and activist communities around the world, and the communities in NZ were also taking interest in these theories and practices. I remember reading 'Refusing to be a Man' by John Stoltenberg, a radical feminist who put forward some very interesting concepts of gender identities, and sex and sexuality. Reading his book was definitely something that, at the time, made me start deeply questioning issues like sexual attraction and sexual orientation. He had a way of putting everything on a continuum, even gender. His claim was that sex is not a black and white label, male or female, but a continuum of identity, even based solely on physical traits, which just happened to have larger percentages at two peaks of the population graphs. It was an interesting way to put things, and reading it made me question my own personal histories and attractions to body types. What was the basis of it? Similarly, sexual orientation was placed on a continuum, many people never really questioning the black and white views of sexual orientation they have been brought up with, and therefore never really analysing their own personal sexual attractions to body types. And anarchist and activist communities I moved within were always challenging such concepts, and encouraging people to challenge them as well. And as I challenged various other societal values I also questioned and challenged it's values when it came to sexuality. I think it was this challenging mood which also led to me happily accepting a life of complete celibacy as well.

As a result of my challenging, and honest, reflection during this time, I personally came to the conclusion that sexual orientation was a very fluid concept. If I was honest I had to acknowledge that there were times when I was romantically or sexually attracted to people of the same sex, to some degree. Essentially, I found myself dismissing the concept of sexual orientation in general, and decided it was much more pragmatic to simply just see whatever developed naturally in terms of relationships. I was never a highly promiscuous person by any means, so it didn't seem to really matter much how I described myself, relationships would develop naturally however they did. Taking that pragmatic approach, I would say that, if I were to give a label to my sexual orientation I would borrow a phrase a friend used for me the other day, 'a bit bi'. And, in my opinion, if more people took the time to analyse their own personal lives, and were willing to actually challenge societal conventions we've been fed surrounding sexuality, I think we would find a large portion of society falling into the category of 'a bit bi'. The only difference was I went through a process and period of questioning, challenging and experimenting.

Issue four: Did I bottle up and deny an elastic gender inclination, and thus suffer through my years in an all-male monastery until I 'popped the cork' and left?

A friend of mine pointed out that this claim makes me sound like I was hiding in the closet, full of lusty thoughts, masturbating while watching other monks get changed, which I personally think is hilarious on so many levels.

The article I am dealing with at the moment makes several claims about this. For one, it is suggested that I was "hiding and bottling up such significant psycho-physical tendencies for some years". Personally, I didn't find that I had significant psycho-physical tendencies to begin with, so the assumption that I was hiding them or bottling up such tendencies is itself a non-issue in a lot of ways. I think that, in my explanation above, I probably would have shown that I took more of a pragmatic approach to my own sexual orientation. Since within the Krishna community, with its general celibacy, and suggested/arranged marriages, my personal pragmatic approach was, for the most part null and void. I never found myself struggling with repressed sexual or romantic attraction to any of the men in the Krishna community, nor to any of the women within the Krishna community for that matter. Since my approach to sexual orientation was based on a wider context of questioning the values of society, I never really found it relevant to the context of the Krishna community. When I entered the Krishna community, I willingly accepted the values and social assumptions of that community, so my pragmatic approach to sexual orientation that I held previously seemed to be irrelevant within this new community, so what value was there in discussing it?

Sexual desire had pretty much zero to do with my reasons for preparing to leave the Krishna community. I mean, unlike many others in the monastery, I never struggled with masturbation, I had maybe 6 'wet dreams' a year, I did not look at pornography on the internet, I never thought of any single member of the Hare Krishna community in a sexual way. It really baffles my mind how someone could make the assumption that this had any thing to do at all with my leaving the Krishna community. It sounds to me to be such a scapegoat, a way to deflect the possible reality that I left because I lost faith in the community, the leadership, the philosophy and scriptures.

Everyone outside of the Krishna community which have viewed these comments about me have made their own observations that they are highly homophobic, and they really are. Which brings up one major fear I have about these comments. In the article I am dealing with, it is mentioned that a monastery/asrama is not the place for someone with any kind of 'elastic' gender inclination. For starters, I do think this is a homophobic statement in general, with certain assumptions that I think are just plain incorrect. But, even more so, I think this is both impractical, and also carries the risk of making potential candidates for the monastic life in the Hare Krishna movement doubt their own sexualities, or deny tendencies that are indeed significant for them.

For starters, what sort of checks would you preform to discover where on the continuum of sexual orientation a candidate monk sits? And where would you draw the line? Would you ask questions like "have you ever wanted to kiss someone of the same sex?" or "have you ever thought another man was good looking?" And at what point on the continuum would you draw the line? How could you discern whether someone had not yet taken an honest look at themselves, and may actually be completely gay altogether? And how would that even really matter if they never found themselves struggling with sexual desire to begin with? Wouldn't an approach like this breed more of a 'don't-ask-don't-tell' situation?

To be honest, after hearing about the ways that the ladies in the Krishna community have been treated who have openly identified as 'queer', I would not fault anyone for not wanting to discuss their sexual orientation within that community. Imagine never being allowed to be left alone with someone of the same sex, for fear that some sexual attraction may develop between to two. Or imagine if you were a lesbian and an entire community tried to 'fix' you sexual orientation. And now, imagine watching someone leave the Krishna community and then hearing accusations that the reason they left was because of bottling up gender inclinations which were 'elastic'. What sort of message does this send to the rest of the community when it comes to issues of sexual orientation? Personally, to me it seems to send the message of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think this is the longest it's taken me to work on any of the updates I've written for this blog to date. And to be honest, I'm not entirely confident that this has really dealt with the issues brought up. Either way, I hope that it provides some extra context and things to think about when figuring out how you will view this blog and the issues it brings up. I'm gonna let this issue rest for now on my blog, though I still may be taking other actions in relation to the public dismissal. In my next update I'll continue discussing the final lead up to my leaving the Krishna community.