Is it possible to be friends with devotees? Options

[0Sophia0]

Greetings.



If one is not a devotee, or is a newcomer, is it possible to be friends with devotees?

This is something I have struggled with from the beginning of my involvement with KC. I just didn't see them as people whom I could be friends with, and the main reason was the difference of religion / difference of realization. I saw them as being higher up in the hierarchy than me (and many gladly took that position), and friendship is impossible among those who are not equals.

I was thus so much more surprised when a brahmacari I have known online for a long time, said that we are friends. The context of this was that I brought up some doubts that I had about our communication. He is very philosophically-minded, reasonable, serious, not someone who would have 5000 Facebook friends, so I didn't understand why he said we are friends. I asked him, but he didn't reply, at least not directly.

I have known several other devotees who claimed they are my friends, but with them it was quite clear that they were aloof toward me, patronizing, the "make friends with those you preach to" kind of friends who are not really friends.


Has anyone who themselves is not a devotee or was a newcomer been able to be friends with a devotee?
How did that work?
What did you think of yourself and of the other person that enabled you to see the relationship between yourself and the devotee as one of friendship?



Thank you.

[Aranesque]

I have been some kind of bhakta for 34 years, and I have friends: artists, musicians, drunks and vagabonds...

Don't know if that answers your question.

[kalki]

Greetings.



If one is not a devotee, or is a newcomer, is it possible to be friends with devotees?

This is something I have struggled with from the beginning of my involvement with KC. I just didn't see them as people whom I could be friends with, and the main reason was the difference of religion / difference of realization. I saw them as being higher up in the hierarchy than me (and many gladly took that position), and friendship is impossible among those who are not equals.

I was thus so much more surprised when a brahmacari I have known online for a long time, said that we are friends. The context of this was that I brought up some doubts that I had about our communication. He is very philosophically-minded, reasonable, serious, not someone who would have 5000 Facebook friends, so I didn't understand why he said we are friends. I asked him, but he didn't reply, at least not directly.

I have known several other devotees who claimed they are my friends, but with them it was quite clear that they were aloof toward me, patronizing, the "make friends with those you preach to" kind of friends who are not really friends.


Has anyone who themselves is not a devotee or was a newcomer been able to be friends with a devotee?
How did that work?
What did you think of yourself and of the other person that enabled you to see the relationship between yourself and the devotee as one of friendship?



Thank you.

The first part of your question, I feel confused by. I think it is perfectly normal for a devotee to consider you as a friend, if he finds you reasonably kind and congenial. Devotees are people too, so of course they like people. When I lived in a temple, we used to have a Mennonite farmer come and deliver us some fresh milk, and I always longed for him to come to our door every week because he was so friendly and basically liked us as customer.

But the second part of your question makes more sense to me. When I was newcomer, I sure did feel intimidated and often couldn't relate to the devotees. They were too weird and strict into only one concept of spirituality. I was into Jesus and they would preach to me that Jesus didn't have all the answers, so I didn't like that. But in retrospect, I think it was just that batch of devotees that had a stick up their ass. Other devotees I met later were really nice and liked Jesus and smoked ganja, so I could relate to them.

So I think the whole thing has to do whether people can relate with each other or not on as many points as possible. That is how people can make friends in the non-devotee world anyway also. I would also say that the non-devotee world can be just as sick and cultish, so what is the difference? Corporations are like big cults also. Schools are also. In my opinion, some governments are also.

But I would admit that there seems to be a bit more liberty to do as one would like to do without any rules when you don't belong to a religion. But I believe it is only seemingly. For instance, we have already accepted the strictures that society puts on us, such as taxes, certain laws and rules, accepting the group think of the nation, etc and once we are born into it, we find so many types of ways to be free, but actually, we are born into slavery.

If you meet some gurukuli kids, they are born into Iskcon with a whole lot of rules, but somehow find a way to tolerate it and find some freedoms and room for expression, and aren't so bogged down with all the programming complaints that newcomers have after getting brainwashed, burnt out and basically leave, and join this forum.

PS, there are a lot of devotees out there with huge Facebook accounts exceeding the figure you mentioned.

[Kalisurfer]

If one is not a devotee, or is a newcomer, is it possible to be friends with devotees?

I think it depends on the individual devotee, for they are human beings also with unique personalities and varied backgrounds. If I could not have had devotee friends when I was a non-devotee, I don't think I would have been attracted enough to take it seriously or want to join. Now not all those that seemed friendly ended up being friends though. Friends in general are special people to find in life, be it in a devotee community or out of it. The problem with knowing who you friends where when approaching Krsna Consciousness was that it is a preaching mission that has as one of its biggest goals, the desire to convert people to take to what is considered the highest spiritual path that exists. Many friendly people in such preaching missions can be that way for the sake of presenting the teachings as something attractive to those outside it. In the beginning of my devotional life, I had what I thought were devotee friends who become distant and sometimes cold once I took to the process seriously and moved into the temple. This became confusing and irritated me, but I would usually just chalk it up to the hard life communal living would bring on. There was what I called, the "Notch on the Belt Devotee Maker" the type that took some kind of spiritual pride of helping make a devotee, actually counting how many they helped make, though not actually nurturing them once they became convinced to try it out. Once I left the temple, then for sure I learned who indeed was truly a friend, and luckily I did have a few that have stayed that way till this day.

This is something I have struggled with from the beginning of my involvement with KC. I just didn't see them as people whom I could be friends with, and the main reason was the difference of religion / difference of realization. I saw them as being higher up in the hierarchy than me (and many gladly took that position), and friendship is impossible among those who are not equals.

Anytime you have a hierarchical structure in a group, where seniority counts, or people who have studied the system and books and have become proficient at the rules, scriptures and expression of the faith, you do run into problems. In ISKCON, there was a strong seniority system in place, where you had Gurus, Sannyasis, Bhramacharis, Bhramins, then which guru you took initiation from and who got initiations first, all playing a part of an institutional hierarchy, making it difficult for a newbie to navigate when first entering the system. A new person did have a harder time getting to know individuals up on the chain outside of formalities and service opportunities that brought you into contact with them. This of course is what did once exist in the 70's 80's, 90's and into the beginning of the new century, for devotees living communally in temples is something that is not so prevalent now. People can now become initiated without having to live in a temple, so the dynamics of friendship and the cultivation of relationships are probably different now within the institution, though the call for devotee relationships and service to guru and temple most likely are still very much alive.

[Brainiac]

I also feel that my devotee friends are not really "friends" even though we have grown up together but have naturally drifted apart as our lives have taken different paths. When we meet at the temple it is always a 'Hello how are you?' kind of thing and perhaps some brief catching-up, but I wonder how many of them I could have genuine friendship with?

Personally I would have no problem in having devotees as friends even as I no longer share their beliefs and there are plenty of other things to talk about and relate with on a human level. It also worries me how they see me though; am I someone to be 'hooked' in and preached to? Or because I am an 'apostate', am I some sort of challenge for reconversion?

Most don't know I'm an apostate, and I see no reason to tell them. Sometimes the things we have in common are shared criticisms of Iskcon and institutions, so it is possible to agree on some points. I feel that ultimately there are boundaries that can't be crossed and this can restrict genuine friendship because I won't be able to reveal my true mind about something and have a discussion 'from the heart'. I would love to be wrong about this, and I would love to be friends with genuine devotees who will also like me for who I am.

[zanardi]

There are friends and then there are friends. I have read somewhere that a normal person can have approx. 2-5 real friends in his life and even that is pretty good. If I honestly look around myself, this seems to be a fact. Yet I know many people and am at friendly terms with most of them. Some of them are also devotees, even if not that many. Most of the devotees I know from the past do not anymore seem to "get me". The question might be, did they ever? Did I understand them, either?

[0Sophia0]

So I think the whole thing has to do whether people can relate with each other or not on as many points as possible. That is how people can make friends in the non-devotee world anyway also. I would also say that the non-devotee world can be just as sick and cultish, so what is the difference? Corporations are like big cults also. Schools are also. In my opinion, some governments are also.

Sure. My point is that there is - at least to me - an abyss between devotees and non-devotees. The rifts between different socio-economic classes, or between people with different IQ, and other such material rifts are never as profound as the rift between devotees and non-devotees.
And many devotees take it seriously, in fact, are doctrinally supposed to. So it comes so much more as a surprise that devotees would consider non-devotees as their friends.

PS, there are a lot of devotees out there with huge Facebook accounts exceeding the figure you mentioned.

Oh dear. When do they chant their rounds ... or are they really not from this planet ...

[metamorphosis]

I have been some sort of Bhakta also for 34 years, like Aran, and consider everyone here as my friends, especially you Sophia. But i also pray some to Lord Jesus the Christ, so maybe that has something to do with it?

[kalki]

Sure. My point is that there is - at least to me - an abyss between devotees and non-devotees. The rifts between different socio-economic classes, or between people with different IQ, and other such material rifts are never as profound as the rift between devotees and non-devotees.

I can see what you mean. When I left the temple to immerse myself back into the world and integrate into society, and it sure wasn't easy, I felt this way that you are saying, a rift. All the more reason that I wanted to relate to others who were definitely not devotees so that I would not experience this kind of rift. But I found out in due course of time, that some secular grouping does occur outside the temple to the degree it appears to be a religion. I mingled with Feminists, Anarachists, Anarcho-feminists, Environmentalists, Democrats, Punks, Vegans, raw foodists. Personally, I soon found out that within these groups, quite a bit of group think was going on and and if you didn't fit in, you were cast out and some phrases of condemnation were uttered. Sound familiar?

So as not to be vague, I will give an example. Some feminists would contend that white, male, American citizens are endowed with economic privledge and power like no other human on the planet. Well I am not white, so I asked if I was also guilty, and they said because I was born a male and i am likely to rub elbows with those in power, that I was guilty also. And if I asked what was the solution, to "purify my obviously negative karma," the answer was given that I should share my wealth and any amount of privelge that I had with other women. But if I had not much to give, because at the time I was homeless having left the temple, basically the right thing to do was to sizzle in the guilt of being a man. When I saw by the way one of those girls enabling a man who I had identified as more or less an abuser, a mysogynist or something like that, it didn't really matter to them because that was the girl's boyfriend or sex partner. But to say that my testimony speaks for all feminists would be wrong because I have definitely met the type that doesn't agree with such behavior. But to say that this was an isolated group and bears no resemblance to any other feminist group would be also incorrect because this line of reasoning is all over the web and networked especially within youth activism and eco movements.

So my realization is that such a twisted point of view with over generalizations is just as systemic as the problem that they were calling out to be systemic. The basis of their attack was that they were fighting a systemic dysfunction in society. My conclusion is that there are a lot of systemic problems in the world, and the best way to fight the system is where it begins, which is within ourselves. Any group that sees problems externally rather than internally are not really going to the root of the problem in my opinion. So many Hare Krishnas are doing just that, while others, I think are not doing that at all. There are some devotees that are so wonderful that it would be great to be their friend, but they are too busy with their own bhajan to reach out and be available. They might want others to pursue bhajan by their example rather than wasting time in relating on superficial levels of friendship.

Ultimately though I can relate to what your saying. I am certainly not trying to join any temples again because I don't believe in a God anymore, so it just wouldn't work out. Personally also, any group I have tried to identify with outside in the real world have shown similar symptoms of fanatic rifts of thinking so I have found it tough personally. The only solution I have come to is to try and find as many points in common with others and continue my own spiritual practice internally and not discuss it much.

I find myself most friendly and close with those who can sit with me and not discuss too many things so neither one of us lays a trip on the other person.

[0Sophia0]

Sure. My point is that there is - at least to me - an abyss between devotees and non-devotees. The rifts between different socio-economic classes, or between people with different IQ, and other such material rifts are never as profound as the rift between devotees and non-devotees.

I can see what you mean. When I left the temple to immerse myself back into the world and integrate into society, and it sure wasn't easy, I felt this way that you are saying, a rift. All the more reason that I wanted to relate to others who were definitely not devotees so that I would not experience this kind of rift. But I found out in due course of time, that some secular grouping does occur outside the temple to the degree it appears to be a religion.

Actually, I mean the rift between devotees and non-devotees in a much more drastic sense.
Namely as one that exists between those that God loves, and those that God doesn't love.
To me, the theists in general have God on their side, but the rest of us doesn't. So the rift between them and us is so immense. And I am always painfully aware of this rift even if I just think of devotees.

I mingled with Feminists, Anarachists, Anarcho-feminists, Environmentalists, Democrats, Punks, Vegans, raw foodists. Personally, I soon found out that within these groups, quite a bit of group think was going on and and if you didn't fit in, you were cast out and some phrases of condemnation were uttered. Sound familiar?

Sure, life is usually like highschool, with all the cliques and such.

There are some devotees that are so wonderful that it would be great to be their friend, but they are too busy with their own bhajan to reach out and be available. They might want others to pursue bhajan by their example rather than wasting time in relating on superficial levels of friendship.

I've never thought of it like that ...

Personally also, any group I have tried to identify with outside in the real world have shown similar symptoms of fanatic rifts of thinking so I have found it tough personally. The only solution I have come to is to try and find as many points in common with others and continue my own spiritual practice internally and not discuss it much.

I find myself most friendly and close with those who can sit with me and not discuss too many things so neither one of us lays a trip on the other person.

I can relate and I appreciate your perspective. It is something I would like for myself too. I think I have treated my spirituality and my privacy too cheaply for such a long time. I even think it would be a good idea to discuss important spiritual topics only with someone whom I have first payed a considerable amount of money or done a considerable favor to, as that would really force me to rethink and be more careful about whom I talk to, about what, when, where, in what way, for what purpose.

[Kalisurfer]

I think I have treated my spirituality and my privacy too cheaply for such a long time. I even think it would be a good idea to discuss important spiritual topics only with someone whom I have first payed a considerable amount of money or done a considerable favor to, as that would really force me to rethink and be more careful about whom I talk to, about what, when, where, in what way, for what purpose.

I am trying hard to understand why you feel that you need to pay someone something before you could discuss spiritual topics with, or do them a favor which means that they would have a sense of indebtedness toward you? Unless you are talking about talking to a professional counselor or therapist, then yes, payment is the avenue of exchange for their experience and expertise.

For myself, I would want to know someone better through discussion, having gone through a session of verbal give and take, establishing a relationship of trust first before discussing deep personal topics, for the exchange of money or favors is no guarantee that you end up with someone who can be trusted in confidence, or whom would have your best interest in mind.

[0Sophia0]

Like I said - first paying a considerable amount of money or doing a considerable favor would really force me to rethink and be more careful about whom I talk to, about what, when, where, in what way, for what purpose. This would be a way to take responsibility for whom I talk to, what questions I ask, how I respect my personal boundaries.

It seems like a drastic step to me too. But after much experience with these things, I think that a question like "Does God exist? How can I know?" should be asked with utmost precaution, lest I collect even more confusion.

[kalki]

I even think it would be a good idea to discuss important spiritual topics only with someone whom I have first payed a considerable amount of money or done a considerable favor to, as that would really force me to rethink and be more careful about whom I talk to, about what, when, where, in what way, for what purpose.

I agree with Kalisurfer that it is way better to get to know someone before paying them anything for their spiritual views. On the other hand, if you just mean that life is about give and take, I would agree that if someone offers me guidance, I owe them big time for sure. But that can manifest in many ways...money, food, favors, referrals, etc.

I kinda like the system that any sensible devotee has out there, which is give whatever knowledge he has for free, such that the person can seek out the temple and get more. But if they want a book, then minimum amount to cover the printing cost is enough, and anything more is better. And if I don't want to pay, then they usually have a library somewhere at the preaching center or temple or I can borrow a book somehow after doing some seva at the temple, like washing pots, or floors or whatever. Sometimes they just give you a book. Well if you get a free book, then you must have paid in your past life!

I gave free books to people if I already collected enough from other people. But I gave all the money to the temple. Some distributors are expected to use the money for their toothpaste, gas money and so forth, so then every penny counts.

[0Sophia0]

It is implied in the concept of "considerable amount of money or a considerable favor" that I would be urged to research first whom I am getting into discussion with about important spiritual topics, which includes talking with this person too, but not automatically taking them seriously and believing everything they say. That latter would come only after the "considerable amount of money or a considerable favor."

I think I am just not mature enough to hold discussions on important spiritual topics without getting all messed up sooner or later. So the "considerable amount of money or a considerable favor" would act as a hindrance to such getting all messed up.

[kalki]

It is implied in the concept of "considerable amount of money or a considerable favor" that I would be urged to research first whom I am getting into discussion with about important spiritual topics, which includes talking with this person too, but not automatically taking them seriously and believing everything they say. That latter would come only after the "considerable amount of money or a considerable favor."

I think I am just not mature enough to hold discussions on important spiritual topics without getting all messed up sooner or later. So the "considerable amount of money or a considerable favor" would act as a hindrance to such getting all messed up.

Oh, I thought the "considerable" meant "a lot of." As in enough to merit the help you receive. But you mean maybe, that you would consider the amount that is required?

Anyway, we get what we pay for, so I don't disagree with making equal exchanges. But I tell you, my whole strategy was to get as many free books as I could without paying. But later after I got hooked, I ended up giving up my life savings for the pursuit of Krishna. So I figure that the devotees always know that it will work out somehow or another.

About discussions, I think it is better not to discuss if it is too complicated. Better to just apply what works and ignore what doesn't. See how it feels and then try a bit more when one is ready. If you try to swallow too much at one time, you get a belly ache

[0Sophia0]

By "considerable", I mean 'a lot', at least 20% of monthly income.

I am not comfortable with getting things for free. If I don't pay for it, I don't want it.
For example, I actually feel uncomfortable chanting the Maha mantra while not being associated with any GV organisation. But when I am afraid (I have to pass a house where they have a nasty dog), I tend to chant, trying to get myself into the right mindstate - but then I feel guilty for having taken a mantra that I have not actually properly paid for ...

About discussions, I think it is better not to discuss if it is too complicated. Better to just apply what works and ignore what doesn't. See how it feels and then try a bit more when one is ready. If you try to swallow too much at one time, you get a belly ache sad.

Words of wisdom!

[kalki]

By "considerable", I mean 'a lot', at least 20% of monthly income.

I am not comfortable with getting things for free. If I don't pay for it, I don't want it.
For example, I actually feel uncomfortable chanting the Maha mantra while not being associated with any GV organisation. But when I am afraid (I have to pass a house where they have a nasty dog), I tend to chant, trying to get myself into the right mindstate - but then I feel guilty for having taken a mantra that I have not actually properly paid for ...

About discussions, I think it is better not to discuss if it is too complicated. Better to just apply what works and ignore what doesn't. See how it feels and then try a bit more when one is ready. If you try to swallow too much at one time, you get a belly ache sad.

Words of wisdom!

I see. Well sure, money is certainly a valuable medium. But I like to look at things from the point of view of resources. Money is just a medium to get resources like food, shelter etc.

One famous Tibetan yogi named Milarepa had no money to offer his guru, Marpa. But to repay his guru, he offered his practice and the guru of course accepted it. Word has it, he attained enlightenment and many are able to follow in his footsteps. Buddhist usually classify offerings in two ways: material and spiritual.

You could for instance, after chanting, offer 20 percent of your results to all living beings in the universe. And reserve a bit of that for the barking do so that he can find peace.

[Emma]

It is certainly possible and I am friends with many types of devotees...I dont pretend to be anything more or less than what I am though. Sometimes I meet someone who seems like they are out of the 80's with their worldview and attitude which gives me quite a fright but once they get an idea of who i am they dont usually talk to me again...

[kalki]

It is certainly possible and I am friends with many types of devotees...I dont pretend to be anything more or less than what I am though. Sometimes I meet someone who seems like they are out of the 80's with their worldview and attitude which gives me quite a fright but once they get an idea of who i am they dont usually talk to me again...

That is a good point you made there, about a devotee with an 80's worldview. The eighties were the time when gurus were getting big in Iskcon and going strong, so devotees which were more or less around from the beginning are probably remarkably different. It would just occur to me anyway, but I haven't really tested it out.

Does anyone know if in the 80's did any Hare Krishna's who lived outside the temple had a mullet? Did any Krishna's go on sankirtan at a Loverboy concert or Bon Jovi? If you ask me, 80's rock and Krishna are totally compatible!

[Emma]

No I dont think so here they were too busy selling Jack Daniels tshirts to hookers...and dont forget the crappy asian oil paintings!