KC resources on spiritual abuse Options

[Kalisurfer]

The Vedas also can be contradicted by the Vedas, there is a lot of contradictions all over, take the ones that fit, throw out the others.

On the grounds of what?
With what justification?

•
• • • • • •
•

On the grounds that it is your choice, that you have the freedom to choose based on your personal intelligence and life experiences. Read, listen, ask questions, debate and make choices, it's all anyone does, even those who end up choosing to strictly follow a hierarchical authority or someone who chooses to follow no one but their internal voice. If one ends up a Born Again Christian, a strict devotee, or an interfaith practitioner, or a realist relativist, or to the other end of the spectrum an atheistic anarchist, it's all a personal choice that is made and followed, up and until you decide that the original choice does not serve you anymore, then you make adjustments, create new directions, but you keep on going, to the surprises that ends up your story, your life, which is why we are all so different and interesting.

Even when we join a group that has a structure that asks for rigid conformity and beliefs, the individual differences between people leaks out, you just can't contain it. So be Sophia, you're doing a good job so far, you are very unique and different, so trust your mind, instincts and choices, for there is no right or wrong ones based on someone else's opinions or decisions, just yours. Teachers, family, friends, strangers with advice, books, religions and the bhramachari with the frown handing out books, are all guideposts along the road with directions to different places through different routes, all we need to do is ask ourselves, just what do we want in this life, learning to know what moves us, what satisfies our inner most deepest desires and needs, then go towards it and see what happens, for I don't think there is any one right or wrong route ... just our own route.

I think we often bang our heads too hard against the walls of philosophy and dogma, looking for the perfect fit, the one suit to wear throughout life, when in fact, it's many pieces of clothing that get worn, then worn out and changed. OK, I've run out of methaphors and actually feel somewhat uncomfortable giving advice, for after any years, I'm still on the road going in new directions, wearing different suits, though the past stays like echos, shadows. scares and wrinkles, which I embrace. I am no authority, just a person sharing his own personal experiences, so as my friend Meta said above about the Vedas, I say about advice you get here on this forum, "there are a lot of contradictions all over, just take the ones that fit ... and throw the rest out."

•
• • • • • •
•

[metamorphosis]

The Vedas also can be contradicted by the Vedas, there is a lot of contradictions all over, take the ones that fit, throw out the others.

On the grounds of what?
With what justification?

grounds
[ plural] a good reason for doing, believing, or saying something
grounds for (doing) something Mental cruelty can be grounds for divorce.
There are strong grounds for believing his statement.
have grounds to do something
Did the police have reasonable grounds to arrest him?
on moral/legal/medical etc grounds
The proposal was rejected on environmental grounds.
on (the) grounds of something
Flying was ruled out on grounds of cost.
'You're under arrest.' 'On what grounds?'
on the grounds that
We oppose the bill, on the grounds that it discriminates against women.

jus·ti·fi·ca·tion
noun
1.
a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends: His insulting you was ample justification for you to leave the party.
2.
an act of justifying: The painter's justification of his failure to finish on time didn't impress me.
3.
the state of being justified.
verb (used with object)
1.
to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2.
to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.
3.
Theology . to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.

On the grounds of that the Vedas are ancient knowledge arguably the oldest in written form, some is outdated and does not work anymore, but other parts do, which can help one to enlivened to be more moral and close to the standard common amongst all religions, so it is good for some.

It is justified because the Vedas can be just, and good, in some places which is good and justifiable, i think.

There is no limit really to the vedas i think, so there is a lot to sort out, and i have been told there is a lot of contradictions.


Accepting and Rejecting, that is what it is about

[Brainiac]

Metaji I admire your thoughts.

[0Sophia0]

Kalisurfer -

You have been changing/adding the images!

I have read your post, thank you.
But I cannot really relate to it.

[0Sophia0]

Something that I think is worth noting is that there is a categorical difference between the people who were born and raised into a religion, and those who joined as adults. The first had no choice about joining, the latter had full responsibility for joining.
So I think there is also a categorical difference between how these two kinds of people will approach matters of spiritual abuse within a religion.

[Kalisurfer]

Kalisurfer -

You have been changing/adding the images!

I have read your post, thank you.
But I cannot really relate to it.

•
• •
•

I like to illustrate posts that have meaning to me,
a sense of graphic experimentation which I do a lot around here,
which is why I added photos in the post, not because I was trying to get your attention.

Wow, unrelatable, OK ... oh well ... then take care.
• • •
•

[0Sophia0]

Wow, unrelatable, OK ... oh well ... then take care.

I am sorry, I don't mean to be difficult.
I have a long history of confronting myself with sobering discourses. I used to listen to this song a lot, started twenty years ago (video - lyrics). It says many things that you said.
But as much as I want this to have an effect on me, as much as I think it should have an effect on me - it just doesn't. It is too abstract somehow for me to understand.
I know it's frustrating for other people. But if they have such clarity on these matters, how come they cannot or will not explain it to me so that I may understand it as well?

[Dhyana]

I like to illustrate posts that have meaning to me,
a sense of graphic experimentation which I do a lot around here,
which is why I added photos in the post, not because I was trying to get your attention.

Your images are striking, Kalisurfer, they are so simple but they just hit directly. I especially liked the first one (man in orange coat). I haven't seen you doing things in this style, I like it very much!

[Dhyana]

Yes, those books are moving examples. They tend to make a point of combining scriptures in such a manner that nobody is demonized and with a happy ending for all. It's apparent that they speak in goodwill and compassion.

I think it is possible to combine KC resources in such a manner as well - but I have never really seen it in full, just bits here and there.
Most devotees I have known seem to be of the kind to come up with such a combination of the teachings that aim to silence the other person. It's a lot like what is in Christianity known as Pharisees, legalism and performance orientation - and much discussed there, but not in GV.

I agree with your observation. Combining scriptural teachings in a non-abusive way requires a measure of revisionism -- a licence to emphasize certain teachings over others traditionally carrying more weight. Occasionally italso requires presenting abusive teachings as metaphorical, meant for another time, or otherwise downplaying them. This is only possible in a religious institution that affords some legitimacy to non-literalistic interpretation -- and where the authorities won't excommunicate you or burn you at stake.

It is not only what you believe, but how you believe it.
It wasn't easy when Jesus tried it, and it isn't easy in ISKCON now. In today's Christianity it has become easier.

In the Columbia University Press volume, edited by Ekstrand and Bryant (title, from memory: The Hare Krishna Movement, The post-charismatic fate of a religious transplant), two ISKCON gurus (Tamal Krsna Gosvami and Krsna Ksetra Prabhu) submitted a chapter with an outline of just such a project, rethinking the Gaudiya theology / epistemology to make it less oppressive / abusive. It was a very gentle presentation, carefully worded with lots of disclaimers. One idea I remember was that the triad of pratyaksa, anumana and sabda implies that pratyaksa is a valid way of understanding, even if it is not sufficient. That we should not dismiss it and rely just on sabda.

From what I read on the net at the time the book came out, TKG and KKP got attacked for their proposal, although it was so toned down.

It does not speak well of ISKCON's capacity to evolve.

[0Sophia0]

It does not speak well of ISKCON's capacity to evolve.

But on the other hand, perhaps it is not ISKCON's aim to evolve (in that particular direction).

ISKCON is a preaching mission. It's not interested in pleasing or accomodating people.

A preaching mission is interested in supporting its members only inasmuch this is necessary to keep them capable of promoting the mission, but not beyond that.

It seems that many people who joined or approached ISKCON did so without much awareness that this is a preaching mission.


I don't mean to criticize or belittle anyone, I am just trying to find an explanation for myself and for my own sour experience with ISKCON and the devotees.

[Brainiac]

Something that I think is worth noting is that there is a categorical difference between the people who were born and raised into a religion, and those who joined as adults. The first had no choice about joining, the latter had full responsibility for joining. So I think there is also a categorical difference between how these two kinds of people will approach matters of spiritual abuse within a religion.

The above, coupled with this observation about differences in approach by Westerners and Easterners, I find to be very astute observations. And ones which I rarely hear, but which I think are often at the heart of conflicts and disagreements, or even just some differences in view. There is indeed a grand deal of difference between people who practiced GV for only a few years versus those who have been immersed into it from birth. Perhaps choice only matters insofar as one takes to the role willingly (there are cases of hereditary gurus who strenuously avoid their 'responsibilities') but in most cases people make their own choices. Experience and level of absorption are certainly contributory factors to an educated understanding of the temporal and spiritual issues that occur.

Anyway I am glad that someone has seen and acknowledged those observations though.

[0Sophia0]

I think one big problem with ISKCON is that their preaching is essentially designed for people who grew up in Vedic monoculture/monoreligion and are well-familiar with it, but who just didn't take to it seriously. So all they need are some small reminders. Basically, it's for Hindus from some 100 years ago.

Preaching to people who are used to living in a multicultural, multireligious society which (despite its variety) generally does not operate with concepts of karma and reincarnation is a very different matter.

Westerners tend to get stuck on theodicy, Original Fall, they have a specific kind of identification with the mind, they are not used to chanting or lengthy practices, and they tend to think that the Vedic scriptures are just another set of many scriptures, all of which might be man-made.

But perhaps ISKCON is interested only in "picking the ripe fruit", and isn't interested in educating and training people from scratch.

[0Sophia0]

Anyway I am glad that someone has seen and acknowledged those observations though.

Yes, thank you for acknowledging that you have acknowledged my observations!

[metamorphosis]

I think one big problem with ISKCON is that their preaching is essentially designed for people who grew up in Vedic monoculture/monoreligion and are well-familiar with it, but who just didn't take to it seriously. So all they need are some small reminders. Basically, it's for Hindus from some 100 years ago.

Preaching to people who are used to living in a multicultural, multireligious society which (despite its variety) generally does not operate with concepts of karma and reincarnation is a very different matter.

Westerners tend to get stuck on theodicy, Original Fall, they have a specific kind of identification with the mind, they are not used to chanting or lengthy practices, and they tend to think that the Vedic scriptures are just another set of many scriptures, all of which might be man-made.

But perhaps ISKCON is interested only in "picking the ripe fruit", and isn't interested in educating and training people from scratch.

That might be in Amerika that there is mostly preaching to hindus, i think, cuz' they are "making" devotees in other parts of the world where it isn't mostly sindus.

[Homer]

That might be in Amerika that there is mostly preaching to hindus, i think, cuz' they are "making" devotees in other parts of the world where it isn't mostly sindus.

Lots of families bring their kids to nurture the culture. Now that ISKCON is largely locally administered by the professional class Indians and many temple Indian imports run the preaching programs it has become a very family affair.