I am starting a new thread here on the topic of how language affects our perceptions of what is. There are two avenues to show the scope of the topic. One is coming from the philosophy of language which clears up issues by showing how words create realities that do not have independent existence. Another avenue is our direct experience of how our language is formed through habitual usage of words, in the context of our "spiritual" lives how we got used to hear and read and thus acquire a vocabulary of construction and destruction.

I placed this post here: http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index...t=80&#entry2915




Not to under-appreciate the punishment of having to sit through classes where one guy after another pours out his undigested wisdom, making fun of others, aggrandizing themselves at every step. For me the biggest punishment was to read those books over and over again in translation (I was working in the German BBT, translating and editing as far as possible). The original English may contain some originality, especially in the face of an American average usage vocabulary of 200 words... But that same chewing-gum of purports translated into an even less original German... there is no more cruel flaggelation conceivable than this. While English is a somewhat one-dimensional language (everyone in the world learns its first steps relatively easily) other languages are extremely sensitive and complex. Now that purport stuff, already worded in a stereotype fashion in the "original" English version, being expanded there in those books and poured unto one's being all the time, that was the most difficult experience to face day by day, for me being somewhat language-sensitive at least with my native German.

This is very true and a frustrating aspect of cross-cultural spiritual quest. Especially because in spiritual pursuits, concepts are sublime and don't always lend themselves to universal connotation.

When I first started exchanging e-mails with Bharatkumar Goswamiji he told me to understand the Pushtimarg I would need to read in Gujarati, or at least Hindi (if not Braja-bhasa). He explained that to transliterate is not sufficient to convey the real meanings. I thought that was an honest thing to say.

In my dabbling in Hindi and later Bengali I was astounded that even at my rudimentary attempts to read books in their original language, how different the flavor was! There are nuances, rhymes, and cultural idiosyncracies that cannot be translated.

Language certainly comes from culture. This brings to light what has always troubled me in general about taking a faith out of the original cultural context. There are bound to be linguistic and cultural adaptations, and inevitably losses. There is an interesting book I read recently called, The Sacred Thread edited by Raymond Brady Williams, about diaspora Indians and how they attempt to preserve thier culture, languages, and religion in Europe and America.

As far as I know, the translation loss was exactly the reason why Islam forbade the translation of Quran to any other language than Arabic.

I'm admittedly undereducated in the field of language philosophy - my most relevant read in this theme is 1984. And there was the Iskcon seminar on "nama-hatta preaching" I participated in, where basics of language manipulation were also discussed - mostly with the admitted goal that we can manipulate ourselves. An example for this: as a nama-hatta group, a cell grew, it was supposed to divide to two parts, which then begin to function as an independent cell, and reaching sixteen members, they would also divide. But we was taught not to call the process "division" - instead we were supposed to use the word "multiply", for it carries the concept of a growth, a positive process, and not the negativity of "division".

I experienced two main forms of the language manipulation: the first is shaping the categories of our thinking - having new words which created new categories within an already existing, or vice versa, having a broader term which then replaces some other categories. The usage of the sentence "bhaktas and matajis", which was widespread in the Hungarian yatra, was a means to unconsciously create two distinct category within the category "bhaktas" - ie. to make "matajis" secede from it; the "karmi" was the example for the other one, as it unified the "non-Iskcon-member" with the "atheist" and "doer of fruitive activities". And the second method, which was most extensively used, was loading the given words with certain emotions. Generally, both of the methods were used - "karmi" was used not only to speak about non-devotees or non-devoteeness, but also to invoke despisal - and fear (of becoming so).

But not only the language influences our thinking - our thinking also influences the language we use. (That's what I didn't understand what merit it had for Muslims to not translate the Quran - the non-Arabic Muslim's thinking will influence even his understanding of Arabic!) The only deciding factor is which is stronger, I guess. In my nama-hatta group, the word "authority" became something like "dictator", and "authorize" began to mean "dirigate, command for the sake of commanding".

True. And the saddest thing is that Germany has such an established and long standing tradition in indology, with many of the classical works translated directly from Sanskrit into German long before ISKCON was founded. One German girl once told me how she dropped in a library while on sankirtan and found by chance some purana translated directly into German. She was so enchanted by the beautiful language that she ended up spending more than an hour there while she was supposed to be in the street.

The main goal of the BBT in the early 80's was to translate ACBSP's books as quickly as possible, fidelity (read literal translation) was the main consideration and the translators and editors didn't undergo any training. This is how the German and the Swedish books were produced. Priyavrata told me that he used to translate 100 pages a day into Swedish from the Krishna Book. This is just madness.

In the mid 90's some of the main books were translated again, which was expensive and by that time the ISKCON lingo was firmly entrenched.

But there is really only so much you can do with ACBSP's books, the originals are badly edited, full of inconsistencies and technical mistakes. I attended a number of seminars on translation, some organized especially for the BBT with professional translators and English professors from the Moscow university. They all invariably said that the English text is very crude and a faithful translation will result in an equally crude and ambiguous text. They suggested polishing the English and then translating into the standard literary target language.

There was one lady professor who was such a linguistic wizzard and could somehow de-indiasize SP's English in a way that native speakers like Gopi and Dravida couldn't or wouldn't dare. Or maybe they couldn't put themselves in ACBSP's place because they couldn't see their native language from the perspective of a non-native speaker. We had the idea to ask her to redo the whole English Bhagvad-gita As It Is stylistically and to use her edited version for future translations because the Gita is such a nightmare to translate, it takes years to get done, in any language. Everybody stumbles upon the same places, but they are too many to compile in a translation guide. Unfortunately this professor died, she was over 70, and the idea was never realized.

And the special language was just one aspect of that virtual reality. Special dress, Indian, but not quite; ISKCON has its own fashion. When in India I noticed that the local women don't wear the same saris that we do, nor do they wrap them in the same way. Special building standards or lack thereof. In Sweden, a new bathroom was built by devotee builders and they used floor tiles for the walls, it just felt right that way.

Special food which is also neither Western nor Indian. And not only special language, but also special definitions of universal concepts like humility (means "to do everything for the spiritual master"), love (only for the guru and Krishna), pride, mercy, etc. Lots to unlearn and reclaim!

(angrezi)

Culture and language, culture and religion, they do a dance of influence back and forth. When you take a religion out of its original culture and transplant it--it will change. If it becomes the dominant religion of the new culture, it will change the culture as well.

Change, in and of itself, is not good or bad. Some of those changes might even be improvements to the religion. Some changes could be viewed either way, depending on the perspective of the observer.

In the case of Vaishnavism, I think it is too soon to tell what will happen to it as a transplant. What we are seeing right here and right now is that these concepts of Vaishnavism have escaped the institution of ISKCON, and that it does not have the final word in how it will adapt to the Western world or how the Western world will adapt to it in the long term. I think the ISKCON version of Vaishnavism is not particularly viable for the long haul, and that those who practice it in a more liberal form outside the institution will end up growing in far greater numbers.

As time goes on, people from each of the cultures Vaishnavism has been transplanted into will all be writing original Vaishnava literature in their own languages. Each language and culture will impart their own flavor and their own world view, as language has always both shaped and been shaped by how we view reality. The Bhagavad Gita itself has already been translated yet again by various followers of Prabhupada, and this trend will continue as each generation contributes their understanding and vision.

While I would certainly suggest that those who are able learn the languages necessary to view source materials in their original languages, I would also say--don't be limited by the original understandings. Religion is a living, growing thing, in my opinion (from the perspective of Anthropology), and it is meant to change over the years. How else can it meet the needs of society, which is also growing and changing?

We were sold the idea that we could practice a pure revival of an ancient religion as it was practiced 5000 years ago. I bought that for awhile, until I woke up one day and realized I was never going to be that idealized Vedic woman that existed only in my mind. I live in America and my spirituality needs to be viable here. And it can be, just not in its original form.

For that matter, no one in India today is living that lifestyle either. Their society is changing and their religions will continue to change as well. There will continue to be interchanges between Indian Vaishnavism and the transplanted forms, and we may even find some cross pollination of ideas. That would really be exciting.

In a global society, sooner or later no aspect will be untouched by influences from other cultures. Maybe that's how we'll make peace--by becoming so intertwined that we have nothing to fight over anymore. In a few thousand years, maybe?

Sorry--didn't mean to write a book. I get carried away over cultural issues.

Yes, I wasn't meaning to imply change and adaptation are undesireable. They are inevitable if a religion and culture are to survive the test of time, and can often incorperate favorable changes in their presentation.

Admittedly, I am a bit of a 'purist' and like to understand things as far as possible in their 'original' settings, I take my inspiration from that, but I don't advocate that it is neccessary for all. But of course what is 'original' anyway? 'Originally' there is evidence in the 'Hindu' traditions that brahmans ate beef, ekadasi comes from Jainism, vegitarianism from Buddhism, etc.

Personally, I value the mystical side of religion to the cultural. In my opinion a path should make available an experience in what ever context works for the individual. When the experience becomes subordinate to the cultural context, religion seems to just become another mundane social institution rather than the spiritual and transformative force it can be.

Then you may find the idea expressed in the following quote inspiring. It's from an article by Frances Vaughan about Ken Wilber's thinking:

While the legitimacy of a particular religion may be determined by how well it meets the psychological needs of a given population, Wilber has pointed out that its authenticity depends on the degree to which it actually facilitates transcendence.

A speculative reasoning based on that quote: let's say you take a religion out of its cultural context and transplant it into another context but strive to change as little as possible, in the name of preserving its authenticity. If the new practicioners of the religion find the cultural clash a major obstacle to their spiritual experience, then that religion has lost its authenticity anyway!

There are people who take the original context of a particular religion very seriously. They are called Reconstructionists because they are trying to "reconstruct" as much of the original as possible. There are many issues which such individuals and groups encounter, but for many it is a valid religious practice which has a profound positive effect on their life.

I think that language is important: the words we use to label things affects how we view them. Definitions are a big issue in my religion right now: what is Wicca, and how is it different from witchcraft and paganism? What is magic, ritual, prayer? People sometimes get into big arguments about who has the right to use a certain word. These can get very tricky, especially when some people are trying to "(re)claim" a word like "witch" which has a dozen or more definitions and hundreds of years of usage -- it's almost impossible to get everyone to agree to use one, new definition. So religious groups form their own speech communities and often talk very differently from other people, even though they are using the same "language." Using the specific language of your religious group marks you as a member of a group and in so doing, makes you into a member of that group (performative identity). We transform ourselves through speech and re-create our identities each day in different contexts. (Think how differently you talk in a "corporate identity" at work versus "casual identity" when hanging out with your friends.)

Myself being from a culture that communicates in a non-Anglosaxon language, I notice how much my expressions differ structurally due to the type of syntax offered by the English language I happen to write in here. I notice how my thinking is different in different languages. Most of the world's present discussions on culture are in English. All the major presentations of thought-systems from the East are channeled via English into the West (and geographically/physically via California, I think). English has a totally different "feel" than say French or Italian, or German. All these languages have different bodily expressions, are universes to themselves.

English seems to be the instrument of universalization of ethno-specific thought/experience-systems. Gaudiya-vaishnavas are Bengali vaishnavas by definition... Via the universalization of an ethno-specific tradition all are offered an opportunity to become Bengalis at least at heart

To really experience the transition from universal to ethno-specific that language capability needs to be acquired.

How hard as I may try, I will never be anyone else than myself.

And still, Gaudiya Vaishnavism seems to have an internal drive to be an universal dharma.
"In every town and village, the chanting of My name will be heard."

sure, that is to be expected from the view point of today. But if you look at the members of the Gaudiya community, you find hardly any non-Bengalis there. It is questionable whether that statement attributed to Gauranga (by Krsnadas) really meant every town and village of the world. If that was meant by Gauranga, he could have contacted Christian missionaries of his time and sspread it the world over through them. Did he have to wait for some former Chemist turned sannyasi to perform this feat?

I doubt sincerely that that statement was meant like that. If anywhere it was meant for Iindia.

But the real universal character lies in its foundational theology itself. Inspite of this I doubt that it has the structure of a universal dharma. You have to become a kind of Bengali to really dive into the core essence of the tradition.

Nowadays, many westerners come to become Traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas, embracing all the necessary Bengaliness - and even before the ex-chemist's predecessor, there were already two Gaudiya preacher in the West, who achieved considerable success. This shows that GV tried to become universal before IGM, despite Caitanya himself - barring his extensive journeys in South India and Vrindavan - staying in Bengal and Orissa.

Caitanya is - according to the Gaudiya theology - a yuga-avatara. A God - being God is certainly an universal concept in a monotheistic mindframe. He supposed to have had the whole universe liberated... though it may be that Caitanya wasn't as ambitious as described by the later writers and theologists (who established his Godhood). Still, I find it difficult to imagine a concept of yuga-avatara which restricts himself to Bengal or even the whole India - especially if we consider that all the other three were meant to establish the universal yuga-dharma.

Can we say that the mission of post-Caitanya Gaudiya Vaishnavism is kind of Bengalizing the universe?

An interesting coincidence of two "incompatibilities", on one hand the universal claim of a spiritual realization-potential for everyone, on the other hand the localized identity of the medium... the Bengaliness, the necessity to at least in mind stay in Vraja Dham, etc.

What happened to us when we got that seed planted in our hearts to not be alright and at home where we were, but to yearn forever to go to India, to bridge that unbridgeable gap of being other than ourselves?

Unbridgeable, indeed. I marvel at people who do seem able to do it. I couldn't. Meditating on Vrindavan full of cows, peacocks, tropical vegetation, flowers whose smell I did not know...

There may be an advantage to the exotic, too. I remember Dravida (ACBSP) giving advice on the proper mindset when chanting those prayers he so loved -- sensuous descriptions of Radharani in Sri Radha-krpa-kataksa-stavaraja for example. How can a brahmacari do it? Dravida said his trick was to only chant the Sanskrit and visualize based on it, avoiding pronouncing the English translation or using English as a medium for visualization. He said that for him, the Sanskrit word for breasts, for example, was free from the mundane lusty connotations of the English word.

I am pasting in here something I had once written on a related subject.

I believe it's a matter of longing for the beloved country, the place where the soul can find rest, the place where it is at home. I feel that way about my little piece of land in Hawaii as a stopping place where I can perhaps glimpse Vrindaban better than other places. But I know I will still die in Hawaii and so I long for that eternal home, that place beyond time and space, birth and death. It's a longing I have always had.

I'm just so attracted to Radha Krishna, Vrindaban and madhurya leela because it is so sweet. I could imagine a different sort of spiritual world and Krishna would probably reciprocate, but it is so much easier when there is a devoped mythos, theology, practices, and lots of other persons imagining the same thing. That's why a babaji told me to never leave Vrindaban.

I don't have to be a Bengali, but I need to make the lofty transcendental mood of the Bengali and Vrindaban devotees my own and live it here and now.

The last several posts in this thread, exploring the issue of "lusty feelings for Radha-Krishna", have been split off to form another thread. Thank you, Evakurvan, for suggesting the split.

The thread can be found here:

http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index...st=0&#entry3199

I believe the effects of ISKCON's use of language were incidental rather than a thought out campaign, I think all groups develop a sort of group think language in order to reinforce the cultural identity. I think that is especially true when it is a small group trying to live a life at odds with the mainstream culture.

As I have engaged in soul searching over the sexual dysfuntion topic I couldn't help but think of the actual use of terms like "falldown" to reinforce the norms of ISKCON.

Falldown is such a rich term as used to discourage breaking the rules. Falldown doesn't just connote "falling down from the spiritual to the material world" but even falling down from the material world to its lowest level--hell. The imagery of the hellish planets and the Yamadutas coming for us were the enforcers (in almost the mafia sense) of our compliance.

You gotta be high before a fall is possible.

How do you fall when we are surrounded by the Absolute? We fall from the Divine into The Divine!

Maybe we were just looking into the sky and thought we were soaring birds?

Because of being unable to think of it as different, non-difference is perceived.

Because of being unable to think of it as non-different, difference is perceived.

Thus, non-difference and difference are accepted and they are both unthinkable.

Sri Jiva (paraphrase)

ACBS most probably didn't know that the liturgy and language he employed were effective manipulating techniques as well. And of course, many religions make use of special language and other such tools - they are evolutionary traits which made expansion easier and stability greater, after their happenstance invention. Some of the disciples though may have had some information about it from their university years and from read boooks, and this knowledge may have influenced the language usage later, when they emerged into leadership position.

"Falling down" as a term originally contained both the high relative position of the user(s) of the term, and the low level of those whom this term is used on. In a polarised world with a height dimensoion, "falling down" can be understood, but once in Homer's coordinate system, it loses its meaning.

In reference to my distance of the establishment and its hierarchical rules, I still call myself "fallen down" from a GBC point of view, for I didn't find a better word yet.

Liberated!

Freed up!

Iskcon introduced a somewhat reduced kind of vocabulary, but also an ideology and a cult-experience which is without precedent in the Gaudiya context. The interesting thing for me is how it could get away with posing falsities as truths, and now continues to uphold them when they had been exposed long ago.

One of the major falsities proposed by the founder is the one about the fall from the original state, and the necessity to reawaken everyone's counsciousness to regain that original state. This is not Gaudiya teaching, and it is not even Gaudiya Math teaching, but Mr. Swami established it, and with it the claim of disciplic succession in which truth is revealed, while he himself did not receive his proposed truths in such succession.

In terms of transpersonal experience, it may be a relief to hear that you were actually in a pure kind of state in the origin, but then fell from it into the world of Maya. I think this is the basic misconception that corrupts, spoils the whole human experience of bhakti. States of consciousness, when a matter of definition, become instruments of power for the sake of control of others (and of oneself as the ultimate "other" to be conquered). Someone defines what is good and what is bad, while real experience is stiffled and negated.

What is interesting with the Iskcon-zoo is how realities were created and then taken for granted by everyone accepting the language games introduced and ruminated on a daily basis. That institution, along with others in the GM world, is a labyrinth of mirrors without an exit, just with an entrance.

It is certainly interesting, but - for me - it isn't particularly surprising. Given that the subject - the origins of the jiva as either a Vaikunthan pre-existence or coming from a tatastha-sakti - can't be validated by our experiences in this lifetime, it remains an open area for beliefs and speculation. Especially if someone doesn't hear any other ideas; if not for the internet, I'd have never realized that there are Gaudiya Vaishnavas who don't believe that souls came not from the spiritual world as I was taught, and most probaly the question would have never emerged in my mind. (And probably I still not understand clearly what the non-Iskconite Gaudiyas believe. )

Even if the topic would be objectively provable, people tend to resist truth if it isn't comforting, and choose to believe even an obvious lie instead of it. At least that is how my cynical mind believes. The same is the case if they invested enough "faith capital" into a certain statement. One who lived for tenty years with the knowledge that he was a [insert a svarupa here] in the Divine Lila will be reluctant to admit that s/he was wrong - and this is even more true if the given conviction required great sacrifice.

It is justified to argue that this is not a traditional gauDIya teaching, but how on earth do you decide which teaching is true and which is false? That can only be decided in a relative way, within one of the frameworks, and this is not acceptable when it comes to determining truth. To me, it is meaningless to label any of them "true" or "false" in any objective way--both teachings are constructs, created by human minds.

Yes, we have to connect with the passport holders to get our visa to wonder-and-marvel-land.