Aha!

My preference, ePiTau, is for knotted, whisty-twisty sentence structure of the type which flaunts grammatical conventions.

Especially if replete with (a) hidden yoke that acts as a type of hinge, enabling the reader to either leave the(ir) portal open or closed...

This question interests me, though, (although it was not the one I anticipated having to respond to):

Has the Vaisnava religion been improved by our absence?

Brilliant!
Leaving your readers with at least eight choices is generous indeed. I expected no less of you, Aran.

Thank you, sir.

I often wish we had more active members to respond to such questions...

The forum appears to be a wee bit weary, don't you think?

Of course, I realise I too share that burden; I hardly ever post outside of Twilight Zones these days.

Departure? Yes. Absence? Depends.

Departure: Yes, as it forces the inmates to ponder the causes and legitimacy of someone's departure, which again demands further opening up if an attempt at understanding is made.

Absence: I suppose that's rather up to each individual and their potential as inmates, as otherwise "absence" has no inherent meaning or value --- unlike departure which is an action, not a state of being. As a general principle, absence of an antagonist who challenges the status quo is definitely a loss to the religion and its future prospects with anything broader than the box, while the protagonist preacher prabhu might well make the movement better with his absence.

Aran, you pose some interesting questions.

For one, I don't feel obligated to improve the presentation of a religion I left completely behind. Since Prabhupada's proposition was all or nothing, once I questioned one part (that I was automatically fallen/in maya etc because I was queer) the rest of it was suspect. It was a complete package...and I left it on his doorstep.

Are there elements that I feel contribute to a world view of Divinity? Sure. I just don't think one has to accept the package in order to appreciate those parts or even to incorporate them into your life, as some here have done.

If I have an agenda for improving GV from outside, it is to make people think before they constrict their lives on the advice of an elderly gentleman who, however sincere, was mired in his cultural point of view and his personal prejudices. In that vein I wrote a piece for Chakra awhile back pointing out that if they (ISKCON) chose the course of limiting the lives of their GLBT members, they would lose more devotees like myself who had been passionately committed to Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

that's assuming that the "departure" is dealt with in this way. It's not been my experience. It's too easy for the inmates to write your departure off as you "falling away" due to weakness of one sort or another, not as a loss to the institution.

My take on Aran's question is along the lines of Ananda's response. I was a relatively high-profile ISKCON member before leaving, I served as a manager and GBC deputy, taught seminars, wrote articles for the ISKCON Communications Journal etc. I pushed for reforms but realized after a while that I was getting nowhere. Around 97/98 I began wondering whether I wasn't doing a disservice to the "cause" by continuing, by giving others the impression things might be improving. It became especially acute in 98, when I sat at the GBC meetings in Mayapura, together with a small handful of other devotee women. It must have looked great that we women were invited, but our mandate to accomplish anything was zero. We were "alibi women."

I still remember how some GBC, whose name I don't remember, gave an evening lecture where he spoke about the GBC discussions earlier that day on the topic of women empowerment. "So, why don't we have a mataji lead the mangala arotik tomorrow?" he asked enthusiastically. "Any volunteers?" I and Prasanta (LOK) raised our hands. I was dead scared, years had gone since I last led the morning program, but I wouldn't forgive myself if I let shyness prevent me from volunteering.

Next morning there were throngs of resident grihasthas coming, the news having spread that Prasanta and me would be leading. I even got congratulations from some male SP disciple. I was so nervous. But when I walked into the temple, there was a tight ring of Indian brahmacaris around the microphone. I waited nearby to see if they would disperse but the ring got only tighter. Then Niranjana Swami started walking toward the microphone. I doubt he knew what was up, all he thought of was probably that no one seems to volunteer to sing. I considered walking up to him and asking to let me lead. But I was too shy, plus I liked the man, considered him aloof from politics, and didn't want to inconvenience him.

Ultimately, one votes with one's feet. Outside ISKCON one may have a clearer voice. I also reasoned that ISKCON must take the consequences of its policies by getting the members it deserves. If all women left, it would make a powerful statement. It would also affect those staying, would it not?

Sita, yes many wrote off our departure as falldown, but not all. Also, I believe in modeling an attitude even when change cannot be accomplished. I am sure you influenced many women by persistently being active in the Bhagavatam class, by having questions. you showed them it was possible. Just like I influenced silent doubters when I stated publicly that Prabhupada had made mistakes.

Electronic communication makes it easier for us to record our ideas and motives for others to read. I have been occasionally getting feedback over the years, from ISKCON devotees, stating that my example was important.

If one could rid the inherent need to be a true believer following what is considered the only one highest truth, above and beyond any other faith or religion, coupled to a traditional, conservative, fundamentalist and authoritarian male dominated religious institution, then perhaps Bhagavata religion, Vaisnavism would be more appealing to me. To rid it of these elements would change the nature of Vaisnavism to it core and it would probably not resemble itself anymore, so it will never happen in my lifetime. I don’t doubt that somewhere and at sometime, someone or some group will create a form of Vaisnavism that rids itself if its more traditional, conservative, fundamentalist cultural historical roots and power structure, creating a more liberal reformed version considered an outcast watered down version by the status quo original institutions it left behind.

To reform ISKCON and traditional Vaisnavism is a major task that seemingly will only happen slowly, as people and society changes and transforms itself away from fearful historical authoritarian traditional beliefs and practices that do not resonate with the majority, who now live in a cross-cultural, fast paced, interconnected and informed society where freedom of thought and expression, with an openness to knowledge and learning, are highly valued.

We all seem to be agents of change by our choices.

Every departure will always leave at least the shadow of a doubt one someone or another. The higher up the ladder, the bigger the impact, but every blooped bhakta Joe is remembered by someone, and I daresay at least one person somewhere will be wondering about the motivations behind the departure of each bloopee. As Dhyana put it, "silent doubters". The more, the better. Except for a vocal doubter, of course.

P.S. How'bout splitting out a new thread, starting with Aran's post.

I went to the Manor five years ago. I had heard from a friend that it was a more normal place where the male and female devotees shook hands, for example, and went to the cinema together. I fully enjoyed the kirtans at every arotik, with men and women standing nicely side to side and spent a big part of the day chanting on beads. All was well until one morning I rose for mangal arotik which because of the early hour is the only temple service not attended by the Indian community. As I entered the temple room my heart sank as I saw that the temple women were queueing in their half of the temple room from the back towards the middle and there was no one standing in front. I went there and stayed during the whole ceremony, but did I feel that all eyes were on me.

Later that day Radhanath Swami came and was received the old-fashioned tra-la-la, as they say here in Belgium, another dejavu. He gave a long, but really long talk about the late Bhakti Tirtha Swami, so at one point I stood up and left to check on the kids who were alone in the room. I felt again a wave of disapproval, so I didn't go back to the talk.

I have no doubt that things have changed for the better and that the absence of every devotee who went away is instrumental in bringing the organization down to earth. But as long as the Books with their strong and very clearly formulated message are revered as the last word in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, there will always be a new crop of followers who will accept the message literally and take it to heart.

Was someone holding a parasol over his head?



Whenever I hear of a "falldown" I have a bit of a laugh - falldown from what? Loftiness?

Done!

In my perception, my departure was the catalyst for not much more than a good deal of malicious gossip, peppered lightly with some heated confrontation. I would like to believe that everytime someone leaves, it makes people think. But I don't believe that happened with me.

I think, unfortunately, that Ananda's departure has been a boon to the anti-rasika IGM contingent, who use him as the "perfect example" that raganuga-bhakti is evil and bad and forbidden and etc and etc. This is, of course, stupid, but any example to back up an argument must be seized upon.

I know that when I was a devotee, there was a thick, solid, reinforced wall around my brain. I chipped away at it myself; no outside influence ever had an affect on me. I think that religious communities will always continue on as they always do, unless something changes inside the individual members of the community.

As to Aran's original question - what can be done to improve Bhagavat-religion - I think that would require going back in time to, say, 1964, and either sending someone else to the USA, or perhaps not sending anyone at all. The majority of the world Vaishnava community will continue to harbor, foster and propagate ACBS' presentation, prejudices and mistakes included, for ever and ever, because any cessation or change would entail an offense to Prabhupada.

I am inclined to think that the effect of an individual leaving the fold on one who remains may (despite all the 'don't be surprised who leaves' rhetoric) be in proportion to one's regard for that person. Whether they were someone sincere, a true seeker, someone who had a good grasp of philosophical matters but was also an emotionally evolved person... And the impact that their departure will have may not be immediate but can come back to haunt at a future time.


I have often felt that by leaving when a personal crisis of conscience occurs, we leave the society to carry on erroneously and unreformed. Perhaps Vaisnavism is evolving and changing in structure as it passes into second and third generations (in Europe, the U.S. etc) but much of this may be taking place outside of the institution. For a start ISKCON no longer has a monopoly on the presentation of the culture and precepts of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in the West.

At least Tripurari has already capitalized on this in writing, "Yes --- and he's a Buddhist now." in his Tattva-viveka discussion group. I believe it was the summer of 2008 or thereabouts, if anyone cares to snoop around for the exact quote. It goes without saying that I am a fairly famous cautionary example in Narayana Maharaja's circles.

When I was going through my long goodbye (the edifice took several years to crumble - I'm a wee bit slow on the uptake) one of the chief symptoms was to articulate my doubts and concerns, whether they be theological, ecumenical, or political in nature.

This din made of me - and my family - a target for those of a more extreme persuasion amongst our little flock...

This really started to kick in one summer's eve in London's Green Street area (where I lived along with my wife, children, and friend - a Bengali Vaisanava, and an upstart if ever there was one), when one particularly devoted soul (not a disciple of Sridhar Maharaj, but of a straw sannyasi) who thought himself a ksatriya, took to heart his guru's (not so) veiled instruction(s) that 'something' (wink-wink) should be done about me, and called me up to inform me that if 'I didn't stop sayin' all the bad fings an' everyfing, then he'd have to make me all dead and everyfing, like he'd seen on the telly 'n' stuff'...

It was not long after this little chat ( though, being fair and all that, this particular gentleman did get back to me a few hours later and profusely apologise for his emotional outburst, saying that he had been 'ill advised') that others of a similar temperament (some of them whom I'd known for over a decade) piped up with their own novel twist on how to deal with me...

These were my last days in London - I have not been back since - and a couple of years later, I, more or less, left off all Vaisnava company...

Now, I ask you (though I realise I needn't), how can a congregation, which encourages - through either its tolerance of, or (its mass) consensual silence regarding - such foolishness ever progress?

Perhaps more importantly, however, yet another point suggests itself; one already touched upon by Adrija, and something we've both ruminated over rather a lot since our exile:

Who gains if those of us with genuine grievances, which indicate religion in consonance with the human soul, as a work in progress - a becoming - bid adieu, and no longer give any social expression to what - if any - faith, or vision we have?

Does no one here opine that there is a case for a more grass-roots 'movement', consisting of folk not that unlike ourselves - a multi-faceted (diversified), non-centralised revolution, that would make 'em a-quiver in their over-sized diapers?

I am curious.

It was not too long ago (3-6years ago) that I really believed that ISKCON could be reformed from within. As a disciple of SDG and deeply involved in the production of his books, I thought his example of pursuing his natural inclination to write and create art while practicing Vaisnavism in a more heart full, compassionate, non-judgmental manner, was something devotee’s could emulate while coming to the realization of their personal identity in the service of God. It seems like the beginnings of possibility of being more human and realistic in the face of the perfection dressed in the judgments, rules and regulations that the spiritual practice seemed to hoist upon the devotees.

Find your native talents, pursue them while still chanting and following the principles, suspend judgment, find a community of like minded devotees and life would be sublime. The promise was there, but reality sunk that ship faster than any iceberg or storm could possibly do. The closer I came to the SDG inner circle, the more current reality did not match the promised one. At the time, the man was very sick and debilitated, days in which he would talk and walk like a little child, while word of his falldown was not public, though his closest handlers already knew. Once the cat came out of the bag, all hell broke loose and many disciples left. Those that stayed gave him one more chance, me included, for I was not one looking for perfection, just real world spiritual guidance that included the act of forgiveness. SDG went into therapy and rehab, writing very raw emotional fiction. Soon his books were banned by the GBC, the most current at the time destroyed. There was talk of excommunication and all kinds of drama within and without the movement.

Eventually he was slapped on the wrist and told to not initiate anymore while continuing on his mission of rehab and creating books. Then his closest advisor and oldest disciple swindled land and money away from his caregivers in Mexico, blackmailing them into giving up his care for their assists and property that were illegally obtained. SDG goes along with his closest advisor, never recognizing or admitting to the deceit and corruption that eventually moves him and his entourage to the East Coast of the USA, finding a new donor to take care of their needs.

That was one example of being a devotee who thought change was on the way and that they were part of a reform package in the making. It was not to be, and the manner of corruption, deceit and cover-ups that took place by the GBC, SDG, his handlers and entourage, not to mention my own personal devotee friends and god-brothers within the movement, has painted my perception and experience in a way that I had no choice but to leave it all behind in order to find a life worth living, one of more honesty and caring relationships that was not tied to traditional true believer type of religious teachings, especially anything resembling ISKCON.

That’s just one small-abbreviated story in a book of thousands as to why many who actually thought reform was possible—gave up, though I know many still try.

KS - you remind me a little of Raymond Chandler....

Been there, done that; many years ago. There are always a few, even in a group of liberated devotees, who take things too literally and spoil it for the rest.

It is a bit like Christianity, it is OK as long as you don't take the Gospels too seriously.

Back on the boulevard I went into a drugstore phone booth and looked up Satsvarupa’s residence. He lived on Laverne Terrace, a hillside street of Laurel Canyon Boulevard. I dropped a nickel and dialed his number just for fun. It rang 10 times before one of his cronies answered the phone, the one with no scruples and a wallet in his fannypac that was busting at the seams. I hung up and turned to the classified section and noted a couple of bookstore within blocks of where I was.

The first I came to was on the north side, a large lower floor devoted to stationery and office supplies, a mass of spiritual books on the mezzanine. Low and behold there he was, old Sats sitting at a table looking rather peaked and thin. He was reading one of his own banned books that somehow made the purge of officialdom. He had a melancholy look about his mug and his lips seemed to spell Pranada with its moist shadows.

I put my hat over my face and exited to the music section where one could hear the sounds of Sinatra singing, “Lonely is the Heart that Falls.” I ditched my premises with my beliefs years ago, so with nothing to lose I bolted toward the door. Neither of the two people with Sat’s paid any attention to the way I came in or left, although only one of them was now a ghost—and rather dead.

I dunno Aran. I been buzzing around your questions, and before I can answer them they make more questions.

It really depends how you frame a thing. It seems like you want to separate the wheat from the chaff somehow, and find what is essential in a religious system in the first place. But a 'religious system' is different, isn't it, from the core of your desire for a relationship with God, (a god, gods, goddesses, fundamental personal principle of reality, whatever you want to call it). I mean, isn't that what you wanted or thought you had at one time in ISKCON but then found you didn't, or couldn't sustain: your 'social expression to what - if any - faith, or vision we have?'

You see, there's an intercourse between our private experience of our relationship with god, maybe, and it's public expression. Religions seem to me to be formulas, forms, for acting out, improving, sustaining, replicating, (and in most religions, spreading) our private thing with god. And then you got The System, involving family life, social norms, and proselytizing. (The Baha'is seems to be one of the only religions that wait for people to come to them and ask, then they tell about it). Then you have to build a 'society', an 'in-crowd', and make a system for dealing with the 'out-crowd'.

Aaaaallll of this, seems so far away, from that initial impulse, that you love god, you love reality, and that in you that partakes of the whole glorious mess. You want to be kind, you want to turn other people on to it. And of course, we have these ancient handed down formulas, these teachings, that seem to have worked, for helping people know the best things worth knowing.
I mean one thing about most religions, but not all, is they seem to have this cache of antiquity, like, irrespective of time and place and culture, whatever works always works. (Then you got your relatively new creations or discoveries, like anthroposophy..........)

I dunno Aran. I'm not so interested in helping a religious system replicate itself, hahahaha. That seems apart from my flagging desire to have a relationship with god. And that thought, that motive I have, that is apart from the major and minor systems that I know of, that motive in itself seems to go against the grain of 'joining'. But of course you want to be with like-souled people dontcha; it's natural, even for an outlander who plays at being a loner. At the end of the day you wish you could just get around the fire and sing to/about/of/in/toward your beloved, and it's good to do it in a group. Just that, just that knowing and sharing. That I can understand. The rest of it, I"m sorry, I'm too dumb for it and it leaves me cold. Temples gotta be sustained by someone, money, who cleans up, procurement, staff, outreach, politics, normative behavioral rules and regulations of course they'll be needed. If we fail ourselves, how can we not fail each other?

So no, I don't think ISKCON benefits by expelling its troublesome element, no more than we as individuals do. To look at it from the other side, growth always means sloughing off skin, cocoons, safe places, systemic rigid harborings. Live entities are always losing something, to gain something else.

So what's your motive? Doesn't your identity change, always, and become more the way it is really real? What's essential? What's accidental?


P.S. Raymond Chandler. Very funny. Yeah, there was drama, guns, scurrilous double-dealing, personal failure and heroism. At the end of the day, somebody turns up her collar and walks out into the night, with the maha mantra sounding in her ears, like a lonely saxaphone tune played out at the periphery of the row of ashrams.....as someone books it home to prasadam.

Religions would be great--if it weren't for the people in them.

No really, I have no desire to be part of a movement, and especially not a Vaishnava-based one, no matter how open it is. When I write about this stuff at all, it's with the thought that newbies attracted to the various GV orgs should be fully informed and go in with their eyes open rather than innocent and naively trusting as I was, as many if not most of us were.

Sure, if a non-denominational group put on a public festival it would be fun to participate in their kirtan. I'd enjoy a Mass at an alternate Catholic church too, but that's not going to happen.

I think it's already a fact that there are people who practice GV like solitary witches practice Wicca. They are mostly people who were burned by orgs and have no desire to group together in that way again, other than maybe doing kirtans on the weekend with like minded friends. As soon as you try to turn it into something with membership, advertising, and so on, you spoil it.

Kali and A.L.: love the Chandler-esque passages.

I do not think that the Vaisnava religion as such has been improved by our absence, but they sure can keep their faith easier with us being away!

Thank you, one and all, for taking the time to respond to my clumsy - I hope not importune - probing.

I pray I was not misunderstood by my employment of the word 'movement'.

What I was trying to convey was the question:

Does anyone on GR see/feel there is - ever again - any hope of rescuing their original impulse to honour and unite with Hari, not only in (one's) private (perhaps desperate) moments, but to do so in voluntary, non-centralised, congregation with those (however few) of shared temperament and conviction.

Also, if indeed that is one's (secret?) desire (however meagre) - or one sometimes finds oneself entertaining such fantasy - could you imagine yourself partaking of a guiding role in such a sangha - in other words, do you ever suspect/ feel your experience, rather than bluntly being of a negative character, is important and may, perhaps, have a deeper, spiritual 'purpose'...

That there is the possibility that Life may just be teaching us something - apart from the compulsion to abdicate - in and through all this mess?

Just some thoughts...

(I'll try and stay quiet now, and stop being naughty.)

Yes, definitely, but that is just how my life intersects with the greater life. I very definitely do not 'imagine (myself) partaking of a guiding role in such a sangha'....' but sometime, somwhere, I might have something to offer someone because of my experience. And if we could be so bold, of COURSE life may just be teaching us something, and that core impulse is never for naught.

Deep down, I wish I was a healer. But to do that, I would have to heal myself first. I think whatever of schism I've experienced, won't always go to waste. Sure. I certainly don't mean to rain on your parade Aran. If you felt that way, as you said it above, that you could be some central helper, some offerer of a place of safety and light-heartedness, 'rescuing (your) original impulse to honour and unite with Hari'....why, how could that not be a good thing. If I read you right.

I say that because, the one time that I got together with other people and we just sang Krsna's name song, it was innocent, basic, and free, and very wholesome and jolly. Just that, no more. No org, nothing beyond itself, just shared and nourishing. Even I, with my crabbed little heart protected and trammeled and mundane, could partake of that. What to speak of you, who for all your notion of 'naughtiness', have kept these portals open all this time since your 'abdication'.

That's my two cents.

What a dry, timid little post! On second thought,

good Lord what do we want, eh? Farque 'spiritual concepts'! We want Krsna! why do we mince about, why do we prevaricate? THIS is the result of 'us and them' and 'we have it and you don't' thinking. We are live people, and so have an inheritance and innate love. Bleeding Christ on a pogo stick why am I become so dull? Why has anyone doubted or felt themselves spiritual outlanders? Really, love is wild, as I said before, as Hari himself and Radha herself wild. You look up the etymology of the word 'wild' and you'll know what I mean.


Sheesh.

That original impulse never died and in many ways was the reason I had to leave ISKCON, in order to be more honest in my appreciation of still being able to find a connection to the energy of God, Hari, Source, Chi, Tao, Essence, Mind or whatever names human put upon the impulse to unite with something intrinsic and primal to our being. This week alone my home was visited by Mormon, Bahai and Jehovah Witness missionaries. Each had this need to let me know how they wanted to share their faith, which was explained as the one particularly chosen to quench this impulse we are speaking of in the times we are living in. When I was a die hard devotee, I too used to think that I had that impulse quenched and would try to share it with whomever came knocking on the door, but now it is totally different. Now it seems that I can sit back and be much more objective to whatever is presented as the answer or source of all spiritual/material understandings. I marvel at people's one pointed faith, sometimes bothered at how it is presented, especially when it is considered the ultimate one and only truth, but still, I don't argue.

At this point in my life, I have no desire to belong to a group that identifies with one scripture, master or theology. I do miss community though, and that is the one aspect of belonging to a faith that I miss a lot. I practice many diverse things and I am still a believer in some force or creative source, but feel very weary and tired of having to belong to anything or being obligated to an institution, or even having a need to have that impulse explained and verified. It is what it is and I am happy to move forward in life with that mystery unsolved and alive as something to experience in life in the myriad, varied ways it pops up.

I love this question Aran, and if you were not naughty ... well ... you would not be Aran and this would not be GR as we know it!

I don't think / feel there is any chance (chance in statistical sense, not value-charged) of this happening. To posit a God is out of the question for me. Granted, there is usually a faith behind a faith, or a hope behind another hope. My giving up faith in God was based on a faith, and hope, that the world was not evil or abhorrent. Based on what I have seen and experienced through my religious period, postulating the existence of an omnipotent Being (even in a less personal form, such as the Universe that wants to teach us something, etc.) forces one to postulate active or passive evil on that Being's part.

I identify with Marcus Cole, who said: "Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?" [or, to paraphrase: "...or because the Universe wants to teach us something?"]

Atheism is my way of saying, "I hope the absurdity of existence and the suffering in it are at least not intended." It also expresses my hope that my life is authentic -- that it is what it is, even if shaped by chance, even if ultimately meaningless -- not that Someone tries to maneouvre the circumstances to get me somewhere he wants. There is something about theism that feels demeaning to the self.


My experience is important for me and it may be useful to others, perhaps empowering. but I would not undertake to guide others, not beyond sharing my ideas as my ideas.


Yes: that by postulating a teacher we are tempted to second-guess just what we are supposed to learn -- which distorts the learning process. In existential matters I believe in teacherless learning.

I did not leave because I thought the International Society for Krishna Consciousness failed or was flawed. I left because I realized I had made a mistake. It did no longer matter whether "they" were wrong or abusive or less in touch with their emotions or not true to their original tradition(s) or whatever. What mattered to me was admitting to myself my own mistake of assuming I should live my life as if God actually existed. I am not interested in improving religious institutions, preventing them from existing or dissuading people from joining.

That I believed in God for a while is not the fault of any religious organization. I can imagine I could have started believing in God even through contact with a single non-organized individual who was a believer. I do not know whether I would have come up with the idea all by myself, but I do think it is possible.

As for life's teachings, I think it is good to let go once in a while, since the teacher does not know what he is doing.

I read about different persons, who are considered to haven created new religious movmements, some time ago. And I found that practically everyone was in another religion/movement before, and then made a break with it. Clean or not so clean. To mention some names, Jesus, Prabhupada, Rudolf Steiner, etc.
It appears that religion progress by someone breaking out of something that has stagnated, and make something new and fresh. By adding and subtracting, when time has progressed. By the example of ISKCON we can also see first hand how impossible it is to change anything that is old enough to be over the fresh progressive phase.

Someone's been reading this topic, as you can see here.

With regard to your restated question(s), Aran:



I suppose that from outside it might look like I have worshiped more than one God in my life: God of Catholicism, Krishna, myriad Goddesses, Kuan Yin, etc.

What I have been doing from my perspective is sorting through different cultural viewpoints while maintaining a relationship with the same Entity all along. The one that I prayed to as a small child, as a troubled 13 year old, a troubled 15-year old, surrendered to at the temple, and lit candles to when my son was in a coma, it was all the same Person.

While I don't literally believe in any one cultural view of God, whether that be a Blue Cowherd Boy or expressed as a Trinity, I believe that this Divine Presence can appear as any of these visions in order that the worshiper be able to relate to (It/Him/Her).

So I can go to a temple and see the Deities and relate to the Divine Essence They represent. I can see a picture of Jesus and respectfully acknowledge the truths he was trying to convey. I can hear prayers to Allah and again, appreciate that they refer to the same Person I am trying to serve.

But I can no longer relate to the Indian vision enough to want to take up that form of worship again (too much baggage for me personally) or want to be part of a group in any leadership capacity. I don't want to impose my vision of spirit on others in any way. I trust that each person is capable of making those choices.

That's not to say if some alliance of independent folks who are non-preaching oriented were to throw a kirtan or festival, no pressures, I wouldn't participate on a case by case basis. I love the music.

As for lessons, I think there are lessons everywhere. I don't think they have to be directed by anyone other than ourselves, however. I don't picture this loving presence forcing us to go through trials and tribulations. I think we choose that for ourselves sometimes, and sometimes it is chance. My views on karma have changed over the years to something less punitive than I was first taught.

We create meaning, we find meaning, in the largest or smallest events. It's one of the things that makes us human.

I was thinking mainly of Vegman/Kshamabuddhi; I hadn't realized Tripurari actually managed to use it. I'm amused by the pejorative usage of "Buddhist."

Ah, straight to the painful heart of the matter. I have felt this before; for a long time after I left, there was a protracted, conscious effort to see if there was a way to continue to pursue the essence of Vaishnavism. I went through this many times. First, after I left ISKCON, I still wanted to be a devotee, but had trouble seeing how that could be done. My previous level of dedication and single-pointed focus could not be rekindled; I was having too many evolving and maturing thoughts and outlooks. It was being with my (now ex-)fiancee, a Narayan Maharaja disciple, that brought me back in, but it didn't take long for me to start experiencing a sinking, all-pervasive feeling that I was doing something wrong. That's when I left for the last time.

Still, after that, I tried to hang onto the essence; I tried to still live for "the truth" and pursue "devotion," etc. Eventually, that all collapsed, too. I had the same experience that Ek perfectly described above:



So, then I had to reconfigure my entire life, my entire reason for living. That's something I still haven't completed. It's hard to find intrinsic meaning in my immediate life when I once believed I was on a mystic path to self-realization and communication with the World Beyond... you know?

The answer is yes: I still feel a burning need to "connect," and it ebbs and flows. Finding this board was a serious catalyst; it started the thing all over again, painfully wanting to "transcend" while having come too far away from my past ways of thinking to ever throw reason to the wind and live as if I didn't have serious doubts about faith, truth and so on. I feel the drive in the first half of Aran's question, but know that fulfilling the second half would be a heinous act of self-deception.

I was in a Sridhar Maharaja nama-hatta group here for years (with some tension building up) when suddenly in '92 the picture of Govinda Maharaja was removed from the altar. The members of the group were not told why, I had only noticed that there was a lot of phoning going on with the London Math with Sagara Maharaja and Dayadhar Gauranga (I am not accusing Aran of anything, mind you! He just happened to be there and then. And I had to get him into this post somehow) and apparently something was very wrong with Govinda Maharaja. I still don't know what.

So I left the group and started to think about what to do next and make an inventory of what I still believed. I realized then that I didn't believe anymore that Mahaprabhu was Radha-Krishna, let alone Advaitacharya would be Mahavishnu/Shiva, etc. All those avatara's in India make them very unbelievable (lots of saints though). So that was the end of GV (not vaisnavism per se) for me.

I still believe in God or the Divine, I have no names anymore. I still think that there are beautiful treasures hidden in Hinduism but I also believe that in India there is an atavistic consciousness prevalent - as exemplified by the literal interpretation of scripture and also by the Advaita belief -, so I think that for post-modern people (Indian and western) it would be necessary to find a new approach to Hinduism to get those treasures out. And that's work in progress.

The ramifications of ISKCON not teaching proper philosophy are spreading like waves on the water. Then, after a while, we think that those waves are always there. That there is no other way to see the water, but the waves.

Accuse away - I was, regrettably, very much part of it...

By that time I had already finished battling it out with Sagara Maharaj and his followers (much ado about nothing, really), and was living in Scotland with a Bengali sannyasi; Dayadhar was in almost daily touch with the house, and even came up for a while...

The tensions between Govinda Maharaj and certain devotees (both Bengali and otherwise) had become so - at times, almost blindly - intense, that when some inventive soul - perhaps in Malaysia (?) - struck upon the idea of compiling a paper intended for circulation amongst the devotees, listing his (GM's) alleged crimes and misdemeanours, it was greeted with acclamation .

It was all getting too silly for us - just the same old song...

I concentrated on whatever instructions I had received from Sridhar Maharaj, and the then still present B. P. Puri Goswami, and started organising festivals, talks - anything to make it stop!

It did - eventually; just ran out of steam, and keeled over in a ditch somewhere on the M8, just outside Paisley.

All great responses, thanks!

If I can just, for a moment, touch upon this notion of 'meaning' (thank you, Dhyana, for your elucidation):

What I had in mind when I - apparently glibly - employed the 'M' word was more along the lines of an opening up, a making (pregnant) space - an arena of potential - through the seeming restrictiveness and repercussions of our path...

Making space - qua potential, through definition - creation through taking away; like the drawing of a circle...

Can we still 'hear' a calling in and/or through this ostensibly paradoxical process?

Or, perhaps more pertinently, do we ever (even if only for fleeting moments) still feel we are participators - co-creators...Glimpsing - or feeling the pull towards - Union, whatever our philosophical/religious sensibilities now?

For we are God's fellow workers

Bible, 1 Corinthians 3:9

It truly is one big Chaitanya family tree...

Woof! ---- Its been a while since I last read this sort of material. Reminded me of some of the exchanges I had with Tandy Man (Mikael Paul Tandy aka Mukunda-Dutta Das) in the Topical Discussions days. I admire you both, Tapati and Ananda for having the patience to respond in such a civilized manner. I would probably get very, very upset and would have a hard time hiding it. You're setting a fine example there. Wonders who the anonymous walrus is . . .

It is interesting to see how we shared so much in our experiences while devotees and had many similar reasons for leaving the institution and practice, but now many of us look back and have different conclusions, lives, beliefs and understandings. I would imagine that even though we may have all looked very similar and tried to submit and assimilate into Vaisnava culture, beneath those cotton Indian cloths, hairstyles, tilak and diets, we were all rather different and unique individuals, steeped and rooted into the authenticity of ourselves. As much as we tried to cook up as a solitary Vaisnava dish filled with the diverse ingredients that we were, alas, we were a recipe that never made it to the table, as we ended up being the unique ingredients we always were, though more seasoned and wise due to the deep fried experience that it was.

Strange, some of my best friends of the past are still in the subji of the ISKCON religious experiences, but I much more like hanging out and growing with all the produce as it is. Perhaps I'm just a rambling organic bhoga man ... in the end.

Thank you, ePiTau.

My patience is only going to last so long.

But seriously, you know you're doing something right if people feel moved to criticize.

I'm a latecomer as usual - there is so much to do besides sitting before computers -, but I hope it isn't too late. Long post follows, with ideas too complex to express with my level of English.



My own religion (I usually don't call it Vaisnava) definitely improved by my departure from Iskcon. I mean, every devotee has their own religion, their own knowledge about Radha/Krishna, their own rasa - all those institutions are just cast frames to try to make these different personal convictions similar in shape, by adding common elements, out of an agenda that is generally not directly related to bhakti, but may be of some use in passing it through generations. For me, ISKCON was like too much preservative in a food - preservatives have their use, but are not good in excess. So I am now experimenting with home-made preservatives and conservation methods.

Institutions are generally not improved, but - if not properly maintained - get more corrupt and then (in better cases) crumble; improvement happens on an individual level. (Such individual improvement doesn't really depends on the organization that only does the transmission of the recipes of the process. So there might be widespread individual advancement even in an institution corrupt to the core. Such cases may even work some betterment in the institution itself; certain parts of Iskcon have a much better athmosphere than it may have been in the 80s. In other cases, the advancing members can leave the corrupt institution, forming their own groups, their own institutions in varying size - then they must be careful not to let them also becoming corrupt.

So, if you meant whether Iskcon has improved, my answer is no. Iskcon is not the Vaisnava religion - it isn't a religion at all, but an institution for spreading a certain set of religious convictions. And it didn't improve, because as an institution, its natural tendency is not improvement but corruption.





I am in the process right now. While preparing to leave Iskcon, I was believing that I will leave devoteehood, and seeing it doesn't happen was one of the most joyful realization of my life. So Radha and Krishna are right here with me (according to the limited level of my advancement ), and Their presence not depending of me going to the official and approved parampara for that.

Actually, there is a little congregation here with me, consisting of mostly "blooped" Iskconees, once active in the org (and one or two still is), and some who were attracted but never managed to be part of it really. No real unified theology here, only shared attraction to Radha and Krishna. I was always considered a radical there, but as years pass, most of the people there came somewhat closer to positions held by me. We do bhajan, hold a basic and practical Gita lesson from ACBS' edition, share prasadam.



Right after leaving, seeing that I remained a bhakta, and deciding not to go for Trad Gaud, I was considering the thought of starting my own sampradaya for my bhakta-sanga, bhajan and similar needs. Not really out of desiring leadership position - I am a shy, reserved person anyway, and in general, I don't have an attraction for being kowtowed to. As reserved and as inexperienced as I am, I never quite got around to do anything in that direction, but there was already no need either, as I found myself in continuing devotee association that was already adaptable enough. So, so far, I was exempted of the chores and responsibilities of being a leader - except for some kirtans -, much to my ease.

Now sometimes I think that I would be a good organizer, much better (if not in efficiency, then in ethics) than most of those guys who run Iskcon and some other institutions. I like to think myself incorruptible by wealth and power, and if I would be entrusted with the management of a devotional community, I'd made sure it doesn't go overboard with material endeavors like temples and other paraphernalia - ; and I'd ensure with an iron fist that leadership don't exploit or abuse the led.

So I might be a good manager, provided there are other people who actually do the inspiration of the "congregation"; I am very inept in that sort of emotional communication that is required for that. I am not that advanced spiritually either - I have some very basic realizations about the nature of Radha and Krishna, but I wouldn't dare to claim to be some kind of guru. These three are three very different tasks with some interdependence between them, and all the three is called leadership... I think I might be only good for the first one. (Iskconers try to unify these three different tasks all the time in the person of their gurus, and their criteria for filling the positions is based on a fourth task, ie. absolute obedience to the GBC and other authorities. )

In a natural, pure hierarchy - in relation to bhakti, this should be the only type used - leaders are not appointed nor "take over", but rather they are "grown" according to their inborn capabilities and talents, and others will naturally follow them in that task in which they grow to be leaders. Like a kirtan - people with talent for singing and maybe an aptitude for playing instruments will naturally selected to be kirtan leaders; if they begin to sing, others will naturally attracted to the idea of singing after them, and they do so. (That is, assuming no other factors are considered in selection of the kirtan leaders, like appointing by temple authorities etc.) In this sense, I may grow and advance to be some kind of devotional inspirator; after all, I am young enough to have time for that. But if Radha and Krishna want me to be a leader, They will have to grow a group of "followers" around me.

NO
NO
NO

If I had that big of a purpose I'd be starting the whole cycle all over again. My grass roots movement would become an institution leading to others confinement. Joining the temple would provide the means of escape from the world and an opportunity to avoid exactly what Krishna asks in the Bhagavad-gita, "fight!".

It's all a neat parallel to the 12th house in astrology where everything comes full circle with the bottom falling out in the end.

Btw Geenie, nice roast.

I like such conciseness, Sita.
Only shorter form I can think of would be: NO³