It seems that the reasons people have for leaving KC/ISKCON/GV are not supposed to be questioned here; that it is to be taken for granted that people are/were justified to leave or distance themselves.


But for me, personally, this is precisely the crux of the matter: I don't feel justified that I distanced myself from KC/ISKCON/GV, and I want to have a justification that could withstand all the internal and external objections against my leaving/distancing.


I was hoping that the posters here at GR would have such superior justifications, and that we could discuss them.



* * *

I wanted to clarify this, because it appears that my motivations so far have been questioned by some posters.

As you have noticed, I have a rather analytical and critical mind, fortunately, or unfortunately. I have received much advice that was surely well-meant. But for a mind like mine, something more is necessary, a stronger argument than something like "Believe in yourself" or "Everyone is free to choose their own religion" or "Science has the answers".
I know I am not an easy person, and I do make an effort to be nice and to get along with others. But I also cannot simply undo the way my mind works either. Unfortunately, this can wear some people out.

I don't want to be sad and angry for the rest of my life, and I want to come to a happy conclusion about my KC experience.

Well said. But what are you looking for? Everyone has come to their own justification for leaving GV. But you didn't come to one yet. But you will get there only if you can conclude what you don't like about GV.

Actually, I believe it would be wrong for someone to give you a justification because just like trying to convince someone of a religion is questionable, trying to convince someone out of a religion is questionable. But if you need help assessing your experience, why not lay out in point format your likes or dislikes about Iskcon/GV/KC. If it is all layed out in one post, it might be easier to see what is going on and maybe members could identify with some of the points and also share a commentary?

For what it's worth, I don't think it is wrong to ask questions to people about why they left GV. Or at least, I don't personally feel threatened by such questions. I think they are good, because it gives me a chance to remember and exercise my memory.

If you are looking for a justification that can withstand "internal and external objection", how about that it is simply embarrassing to be associated with ISKCON? My own schtick is that the teachings are a load of bollocks because I spent a great deal of time studying the philosophy, reading the scriptural texts and all, but simply considering the history of the institution would be enough to make people think that it doesn't sound like something to be willingly associated with?

For an example of what I am talking about, have a look at one of the recent histories, available as a chapter in a book on new religious movements (NRMs). It's quite clear that post-Prabhupada events were tumultuous to say the least, with the most horrible results manifesting as child abuse. I wouldn't want to be associated with an organisation that has suffered child abuse scandals, murders, rapes, beatings, suicides, gangster-ism, and so on.

I'm with Kalki. Why, exactly, did you leave and why don't you feel it was justified? I'm concerned a bit that you're looking for external justifications (a "failsafe" reason) from other people. What were your internal reasons--and what is wrong with them?

I am not sure how much my likes and dislikes matter, though. What if I am wrong? How wise is it to go by my likes and dislikes.



If all I have are internal reasons, then it feels like solipsism - that it is "all in my head" and that I don't have any real reasons.

Thank you.
I will make a list of likes and dislikes, and then we can see what to do with it.




LIKES:

L1: GV seeming like having the potential for being a true religion.

L2: That it is on principle applicable 24/7.

L3: Monotheistic, with karma and reincarnation.

L4: Piousness.

L5: The four regulative principles.

L6: Organized as a community/congregation (as opposed to being conceived of as a lone-ranger effort).

L7: The concept of disciplic succession and long tradition.

L8: Regular daily practice.

L9: The teaching that the Absolute Truth is a person.

L10: The teaching that we are parts and parcels of God.

L11: Some definitions of Krishna (for example that He is the source of creation and the friend of the distressed).

L12: To my knowledge the only plausible refutation and contextualization of annihilationism, materialistic eternalism, consequent determinism, nihilism, solipsism, chaotism.

L13: The teaching on the five factors of action.

L14: That the problem of circularity and ipse dixit proofs is directly addressed.

L15: Easy enough to learn.

L16: Provides peace of mind in relation to the problems of birth, aging, illness and death.

L17: Some delightful stories in the scriptures.





DISLIKES:

D1: A general vibe of hostility, anger and distrust among devotees.

D2: Emotional aloofness of devotees in personal matters.

D3: The sense that there is a lot more going on inside of them, but that they keep it bottled up. And being expected to do so myself.

D4: Few or no opportunities to clarify philosophical issues.

D5: Patronizing by senior devotees.

D6: Poor common courtesy and poor decency of devotees too frequent.

D7: Criticitzing "karmis", while at the same time being dependent on them for jobs.

D8: Clique highschool mentality among women.

D9: No meaningful position for women like myself who per Vedic standards are not eligible for marriage.

D10: Numerous philosophical and practical things taken for granted (such as that one has full conviction, or that one can financially afford this or that).

D11: Negative experiences with particular devotees, and no way to come to a reconciliaton or closure.

D12: Superficiality of communication.

D13: Foreign to the culture I am originally from and in.

D14: Practicing it to the full extent as envisioned by ISKCON would mean dysfunctionality in daily life, not being able to hold a regular job.

D15: Newcomers being left in a social void where they have no friends among devotees, nor among other people.

D16: I cannot, do not trust Srila Prabhupada.

D17: Saris, India, Hindu culture, Hindu character.

D18: The notion that anyone who is in any way senior to me has the say over my whole life, and I must subject myself to that person.

D19: Worship of Radha-Krishna, Gaura-Nitai, most other deities. These are foreign to me.


I might add some more later.

I remember a period when I was asking myself what are the actual beliefs or philosophies(if you like) that I am still prepared to stand for. I went through them all one by one and tried to be as honest and pragmatic as possible. The list got shorter and shorter. Finally it became obvious that there was nothing much to stand for any longer. In a way it was not a pleasant discovery, but at least I felt honest in my existential nakedness, which I do cherish even to day. During that introspection I also became agnostic, so I am not sure how appealling that is, but that is the way it went in my case.

Long before that I had already come to conclusion that there was no real point in being a member of any particular society. Yet I continued to think that the religious beliefs were a-ok, it was just the comrades whom I found not so attractive anymore. Maybe that all led me to questioning my beliefs, I dont know.

None of these dislikes seem to include anything on the Theology of GV, only a distrust of SP and problems you have encountered with the Iskcon organization and the people therein.

As the theology of GV seems to me to be more important than Iskcon, I would like to suggest, if you don't mind, that you try to test the theology first from a different point of view than SP & Iskcon and if you're still interested, try to fit that in with a life in a culturally different setting than India. Which probably will mean that you're on your own.

To do so you would have to get a new set of books, other translations than provided by SP & Iskcon, for instance:

Franklin Edgerton, The Bhagavad Gita Amazon;

C.L. Goswami, Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana Amazon;

Tony K. Stewart & Edward C. Dimock, Caitanya Caritamrta of Krsnadasa Kaviraja, Amazon;

David Haberman, The Bhaktirasamrtasindhu of Rupa Goswami, Amazon

David Haberman, Acting as a Way of Salvation: A Study of Raganuga Bhakti Sadhana Amazon



(Amazon is only for reference purposes)





-------------------------------------
This post hasn't been edited much

Yet one could approach the whole issue from another point of view. I mean, why all these books? Why not just ponderwonder with ones own brain and heart? Most of us at least have done so much reading, listening and discussing, maybe even too much. There is always some Joe who can explain all these topics this way and that way, yet it is mostly just words and words, plenty of hot air so to speak. Even this is too much!

I have edited my above list.

Thank you for the suggestions!

And yes, I have already begun to acquire new books, although so far mostly from Buddhism and Christianity, and I'm also planning to look into atheism.
I have also begun to formally look into topics such as religious and cultural diversity and pluralism, religious tolerance, the epistemology of disagreement, the ethics of evangelism, literary socialization and competence. I used to think these were abstract, useless topics, but now I see I very much need to have an understanding of them, so as to be better able to find my way in this modern world.

I have made this decision about new books quite consciously. (Of course, there is some internal brake that tells me I shouldn't and such.)




This one looks very interesting!
I think I will also try to get Gandhi's translation. I have seen passages from it, and they seemed clearer than in SP's BG.

For one, because one will probably run into the problem of solipsism quite soon that way.

Of course, if one already has trust in one's brain and heart, then there's no problem. But if such trust does not exist, then some help from the outside might be necessary.



The fact is that we are beings who think, and trying to dumb ourselves down tends to backfire.

I also felt this way, slowly crossing off each belief that I could no longer believe in, until there was nothing much to stand for. Some people used to ask, what about the moral lessons of GV? I could only look at them and ask, 'What morality?' The "morality" of GV is nothing special when compared to the "morality" of other religions, all essentially centering around the principle of being kind to others, so I didn't need to believe in GV's hoopla just to be kind to others. I can do that perfectly well by myself. When you come down to it, the 'moral principles' are nothing special that necessitate belief in the whole enterprise.

Generally I have also seen that many people's grievances against Iskcon/GV mainly relate to bad experiences within the organisation and with fellow practitioners. Perhaps this is one reason why I used to study the theology and philosophy, because I was convinced that all of the organisational problems were - at it's root - all doing to poor understanding of the theology/philosophy, and that if people had a good understanding of the beliefs and practices and followed that, modifications in their behaviour and interpersonal activities would automatically follow. In retrospect I can see that it causes a very serious disconnect between the ideal world and the real world. How practical is it, for instance, to meditate constantly on the timetabled activities of Goloka Vrndavan, when the whole temple is falling down and crumbling around my ears? How practical is it to sit absorbed in kirtan and not hear the screams of a woman being beaten or a child being sexually abused? It bothers me that I failed people in this respect not once, but twice, and in that respect I feel ashamed of myself. Here, too, we have seen examples from people's writing of their organisational experiences, domestic abuse, misogyny, and so forth, and there seems to be this unsaid agreement lurking in the background that in spite of all that, the teachings themselves are "mostly good stuff".

That makes me think that perhaps one benefit of having spent the majority of my time with my head buried in the books was just so I can speak from that perspective. Just so I can say, no, the teachings are bollocks also.

I agree. Those of us who spent time following the traditional paths of CV as opposed to IGM may have exulted over "technically correct" translations by sources outside IGM, but what difference does it make in the end? Does having technically correct translations translate into technically correct behaviour? I doubt it. It turned out that even when coming in touch with the true beauty of CV, it ultimately didn't offer anything more than anything else.

Who were the traditional followers of CV that you associated with?

Did you live in India during that time, under a guide?

I like your point.

I just wanted to comment on the ones that found commentable by myself. If you are looking for reasons to dismiss KC, then,

L7: The disciplic succession cannot be proven in any way and is certainly not unbroken as Iskcon claims. There are huge gaps in time, and i am not even sure if all the people are real in that successsion.

L9 to L11: Well I don't see why you like these things because in another post, you thought offering things to Krishna was kinda weird and illogical, right?

L12: Buddha's teaching are an excellent refutation against the things you mention, especially nihilism, contrary to what Iskcon teaches.




These things are not necessarily things you will find in every Iskcon center. In North America, the differences between centers and the devotees that inhabit and manage them are like night and day. So devotees get burnt out in one center and then just hop over to another and everything is fine. Some things are things you just can't change, but have to tolerate a bit or encourage a different environment by your own effort. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.



Why? Did they find something wrong with you? Are you too old? In Iskcon, old people get married all the time, to the point I think it is even weird.





Some people find a way to understand KC through their own cultural mindset. Similarities can be found among Vedic customs and other world customs. If you don't like the Indian one too much, then try your own culture and see if it can mesh on any level with the Hindu or Iskcon one.


Not necessarily. A monk of course doesn't work outside. Lay people do. There is room usually for a functional life. Bhaktivinoda Thakur was a court magistrate in Bengal.





I think this one says it all, and I don't know what justification you might need. If the founder acharya savior of the whole f****'n universe does not float your boat, then you need to move on. Plenty of tradtional lines and Gaudiya Math branches out there, but you still need to at least like Krishna. So if you don't like either, then time to move on. There may be still some wisdom to hold on to in KC as you mentioned in your likes list. I often contemplate the crossovers between the four regs of Iskcon and the 4 lay vows of Buddhism. I like to compare doctrines of humility in both. I think Siksatakam is wonderful but I like Tibetan Buddhist 8 verses of Thought Transformation or LoJong, even better.

If you don't trust the guru, then what is there left for you? Don't look for further justification. The guru should shine light on the darkness of ignorance that exists in your mind, and if he doesn't, then move on and find him. Be sincere in finding the one who is your guru, and you will find him or her.

How much of this crossing off beliefs was actually due to a growing awareness of epistemological problems as such?



But you couldn't do it yourself if you would have been raised by wolves.

IOW, your parents and the community you were raised in do deserve the credit to instill in you certain principles of morality and wellbeing that you would have not received if you were raised in a severely dysfunctional situation.



One probably doesn't need to believe that God has a bluish complexion so that one could practice being kind to others.
But to consistently and wisely be kind to others (and oneself) requires quite an elaborate philosophical system.



But the scriptures also talk about the effects of Kaliyuga and that devotees are on different levels, in different modes, and that living beings have free will.
How do you reconcile this with your idea "that if people had a good understanding of the beliefs and practices and followed that, modifications in their behaviour and interpersonal activities would automatically follow" -?



"To consider chanting of Hare Krsna one of the auspicious ritualistic activities offered in the Vedas as fruitive activities (karma-kanda)." is an offense against the holy name.
If people engage in chanting in a ritualistic manner, they will inappropriately assess what is happening around them, and they will (also) offend the holy name.
It is characteristic that ritualistic behaviors lack empathy, lack compassion. When we behave in a ritualistic manner, our usual sensitivities are stifled.
There is the story of the brahmanas who were so wrapped up in their ritualistic worship of God that when God appeared before them, they didn't even notice Him. The wives of the brahmanas were wiser, though.


I am mentioning this because there are GV explanations for what you have witnessed and experienced.


EDITED to add the story of the brahmanas.

I thought that all of us had done a proper warm up before joining by studying this, that and the other thing, to finally just throw away ones selfcentered heart and brain and simply surrender to the process of sravanam kirtanam. If one has come to sort of an end with all that not being too much satisfied, what else is there than to go back to trusting ones own brain (what else is there anyway?)and instinct(whatever that is)? You say that there is no trust anymore, but of course there is. That is why you wrestle. Is it not?

Plenty of people leap before looking. I have met a number of devotees that don't know jack about anything with regard to religions or philosophies. Some people are like sheep and are easily convinced.

It seems most are that way now, at least who join, and then there are the Sindus

Well, I know for a fact that I didn't, and secondly, I thought that it would be impossible to do so in advance.
But I also never formally joined either.

I think I have changed quite a bit in the process of trying to get to know GV/KC. I think I have become a lot more skeptical, and much better able to express my skepticism.



I do seem to have some philosophical inclination, so I wrestle with thoughts, it's in my nature.

I think this is a bit more complex. I think that nowadays, many people are extremely unhappy and have lost faith in philosophy and science, so they have an approach to spirituality (and many other things) that closely resembles addiction.

Like I said, I appreciate the concept of the disciplic succession. It is for this reason that I hold the Catholic Church in higher regard than the Protestant ones.
Whether a particular disciplic succession really is what it says, that is another matter, and open to debate.



No, just that the process as layed out in ISKCON and the whole baggage of devotee interactions was too much for me, and this became especially obvious when trying to offer food.



Oh? How old are those women? I know that quite old men get married, but old women?



Sure, there is some overlap. But again, the devotees do not appreciate it.



If one has the faith, that is, and feels accepted in one's congregation.



But what do I do with all the things that I did learn from SP?

Now that you point out theology, I did think of a theological problem:

I can see that! Actually, Sophia, now I remember a period soon after I had left the movement when all those different kind of books did appear on my desk. That did not last too long, just some months, but hectic study and comparisons were going on for sure. It wore me out! Healthy it was, though.

Sure that might be out there I agree with you. It would make for a nice article in a cosmetics magazine or something too. But I still seem to have met many many people who are simply what I said. Fairly hippie dippy and leap before looking. In a way, I don't disagree with it. They see something they like, and go for it before finding out the bad parts too. In a way I admire it, but I am not like this at all. I look at all sides before participating and continue to check things out.

Maybe it is a location thing. The people where you are might not be the same.

Frankly, I do not believe such a person exist, at least not as a human. I don't think I could ever be so immensely impressed by a human.
Perhaps I am just not ready for a guru nor organized religion.


There is one more issue though, I can't really tell whether it is a like or a dislike, but it has great power for me. I wasn't sure whether to bring it up or not.

I had been in online communication with a devotee that I've met at a devotee forum. First, we talked only about philosophical things, so I wasn't concerned, nor was it anything special. But over time, he would disclose more and more of his mind. And that offered me a look into KC in a very different way. He was the only devotee with whom I could openly talk about my problems and doubts about KC, and he had problems too. It was very unusual. He did sometimes take the "standard line", but often, he did not. And he was initiated for fifteen years, a devotee for twenty, an active member.
Even though this was online, it made for a very visceral experience. And I don't quite know what to do with it.

Assimilate it and move on.

Hello Sophia!

I have been thinking of your question since you started this thread, although I had no time to respond. It is a mighty challenge you are setting for yourself, and I can see how it is necessary for a person with an analytic mind like yours to come up with answers that aren't just platitudes or circular reasoning.

You and I have different worldviews I think, but your questions remind me of something similar I have gone through. Maybe you will find something useful in my story.

I grew up an atheist but attracted to religion. When I joined ISKCON, believing that there was a God was a leap of faith. It made sense that there would be a God, but it was never instinctive or obvious for me.

Through my ISKCON experience, I came to the point where God was harder and harder to believe in. Obviously I could never rule out that a God existed (by definition, it's something beyond our comprehension), but all the things I had heard about Him, that made Him approachable and worshipable, did not square with what I experienced and what I saw around me.

From then on, all the important choices I made in life -- starting with leaving ISKCON -- had to be made for reasons that would hold whether or not God existed. Since I could never rule Him out for sure. Some form of reverse Pascal's wager. Or algebra, where an equation must hold no matter what value is substituted for a variable.

It forced me to go back to whatever it was I believed so deeply that it needed no justification or proof. (Regardless of whether I could prove it to others or not.) Of course such beliefs can be false too, but I realized I would never, ever be able to find any firmer ground to stand on. To question that which I experience as axiomatic, in favor of a religious teaching that does not ring true to me, would be to lose my mind.

For me, one such belief was that a good person -- and God should be a good person -- would try to understand me and treat me with kindness, as a subject, not object. I am lucky to have this belief, it is probably my parents I have to thank for. If I were "raised by the wolves" it would be harder! Maybe then I would have to go back to such values as courage against all odds.

So I quickly concluded that I was not ready to do violence to myself for just any God that might exist. I would only care for a God who was good, meaning he would try to understand me, be kind and respect my free will. And such a God would have understanding for why I could not keep my faith in ISKCON, even if my reasons were faulty. He would not consign me to hell for it.

Now if there was a God and he was not good and kind, so be it, I will find out at death if I end up in hell or not. That's a risk I have to take. But I was not going to throw away my chance for authentic life due to fear of hell. What kind of God would it be anyway, who would try to get worshipers by threatening them with eternal damnation? F*ck him, I say -- hell or not.

And so it continued. There is no value, among the values I seek to follow, that I can argue for in an unassailable way. One could easily despair and become a nihilist, and I have felt the pull. But ultimately, if everything is arbitrary and nothing is certain, and I cannot believe in a transcendent meaning with existence, then I have no choice other than myself be the judge of what is good and meaningful for me.

Even if it turns out to be ultimately useless, no other choice is better.

Ultimately, our need for superior justifications, unassailable arguments, points to our adherence to a deeper principle. You have an inner judge who demands to see your justifications, that's why you are looking for them. Find your judge instead.

Gurus in certain Goswami families in Mayapur and Vrindavan. Other luminaries such as Ananta das Babaji. Followers of the same, those who could speak English anyway.


No.


Thanks.


Epistemology probably had something to do with it. It was a very gradual process. Also I became disgusted after witnessing examples of human nature at it's worst. If you're interested, I tried my best to sum up my transition in these two posts.


Can't people just be nice guys?


As the scriptures constantly advise on proper behaviour (BG 16.1-3) for only one example), it is generally assumed that followers of such scriptures would study them in depth, learn the lessons there and attempt to practice them. As for Kaliyuga and different modes etc., there is indeed a distinction based on depth of practice and also depth in understanding. It was seen that engaging in common (or communal) beneficial activity such as the chanting of all-purificatory harinama would eventually dissolve these distinctions and allow those practitioners to ultimately transcend their conditionings.


I think this is one of those cases where dependence on mistranslations can lead to misunderstandings. 'Ritualistic' in this context didn't refer to ritualistic behaviours, but more to the idea that indulging in harinama while thinking it is a means to an end, such as that 'chanting such-and-such number of rounds will bestow grace on me, making me very rich' (yes there are examples of this) is an offense. It is an offense because it is like trying to make a deal with God: you do this for me and I'll do this for you. That wasn't seen as an example of the "pure" devotion that is characteristic of GV theology, which is to render devotion to Krishna without any expectation of rewards and untinged with desires for (material) knowledge, material benefits, etc.

Would you mind if I ask you what this has to do with my point about the disconnect between the 'ideal world' and the real world? I didn't see the relevance, perhaps you can help me understand?


I understand. I still think that in some ways GV is a beautiful philosophy. I guess the problem is that the more deeper I went into theory and practice, the more irrelevant I found it to be in addressing issues in the real world. So all of those explanations I once found beautiful, explanatory and all-encompassing, ultimately proved unsatisfying. At least for me.

What do you mean by "assimilate"?

Excuse me, that was rather curt of me.

What I meant was, if you learned anything from the experience, then remember that and move on with your life.

If not, then remember that and move on with your life.

There is little point in clinging to, and mulling over, these sorts of things unnecessarily.

I can't get your point. In the other thread about abusive teachings (the split off thread), you said this:

But the concept of "pleasing Krishna" is just as alien to me.
I mean, it raises numerous questions for me: Does God exist? Is Krishna God? How can I know? What exactly does the young man of bluish complexion as painted in the pictures have to do with the Supreme Personality of Godhead? When devotees speak of "pleasing Krishna", whom are they actually trying to please - that young man of bluish complexion? Is this the person who listens to one's mantras? Or how is all this ...

So it looks to me like it is not just the baggage of other people, but there is something intrinsic to the idea of offering and worshipping a supreme being. So I am only saying that I don't get it (your point).



Pretty old I guess. 50's. Two 50 year olds find each other in the temple, and when nobody is looking, they run off and get married and sometimes divorced later.


But hey, come on. Which devotees don't appreciate it? The one's you know? The one's I know are different.


Well, I did make a point to you somewhere earlier that it all comes down to faith (shraddha).

That, I think you have to figure out. I have said before to take the things you like and drop the things you don't like. But now this thread has started and you are really looking for a justification to dismiss it all. So why in this moment trying to hold on to something? I don't get it. Your parents said good things to you too I am sure, but you still will search for more answers to other things. You take the good things, and keep them in mind and look for more. Same thing with SP. He wasn't an all bad guy. It is just that he sort of stands for some version of absolute truth which if you don't believe in it, you sort of have to reject that part of him for at least sometime and move on and then come back and appreciate him. Myself, I kinda like him. I think he was a bad mofo the way he could just look people in the eye and make them surrender. But I think he was a bit in maya himself maybe. I don't know. I guess I don't want to make an offense if their is a God and his pure devotee So I can just suffice to say, his trip is not mine anymore. I still like his bhajans, sometimes and I still think he made at least some good points.

He was surely some kind of yogi and some kind of sadhu. Pure devotee, well, I am not sure if there is such a thing. Well I think he may have been a pure devotee, but what he was devoted to, purely is something which I kinda don't believe much in anymore.

Obviously. But you know - one has to tell someone, one can't just keep it all in.

I understand it can be confusing, it is confusing for me as well sometimes.

I can describe it like this: for me, there are two systems, the abstract, theoretical one, and the system that is actually my life as it practically is. And the two are far from matching.

In theory, I love worshipping God, it makes perfect sense. I love the idea of chanting, too. I get warm fuzzies when I think of expressing gratitude to God before I take a meal.

In practice, when I actually sit down to chant, etc., I am bombarded by doubts, bad memories etc.

In Buddhism, they say that the mind is the forerunner. And my mind is definitely far far ahead and away from my bodily life.

I have been working on getting into the present moment, though.

I am torn. I am sorry for the confusion.

GV philosophy, at least as I understand it, is such a fancy system, and I love it for that. This is hard to let go.

Could you say more about this?
What did you experience and saw around yourself that lead you to think there is no God or that you couldn't believe in God?



I just might be more ambitious than I am comfortable to admit. Not everyone loses sleep over the questions of absolute truth, but I do.


Otherwise, I think I generally understand where you're coming from.

I see.

How was it meeting Ananta das Babaji after your involvement with ISKCON?

Did you get the chance to ask him any questions?

A devotee from a Goswami family (who became a disciple of B.R. Sridhara Maharaj) lived with us for around six months; very strict.

Regarding ADB, unfortunately I never actually got the chance to meet him in the flesh. Our contact was through extensive reciprocal letter-writing (and email through some of his disciples) where I was able to ask questions and he answered very kindly. Since this contact took place at the time I was studying, I let him know of my intention to meet (and possibly take initiation) after those studies. It turned out that by the time my studies were completed I had already started critically questioning my beliefs etc., so I didn't get around to meet him. I still think I would like to meet him one day though to see the face behind all those kind letters. Also some of the other Gosvamis I communicated with, specifically Radha-Vinod Thakur Gosvami.

Your experience sounds interesting.

It takes time. I also felt the same way as you.

I also found your account of your online communication with a "doubting devotee" very interesting. I suspect there are many such secret doubters.


Sometimes I lose sleep over what I've written here on GR!

I am bringing up epistemological problems in general. When a person begins to wonder "How do I know I know? How do I know something is true?" These questions aren't just about one's past or current religious beliefs, they pertain to everything.



Could you say more about this?



I had already seen those posts.



I don't think so. We aren't Barbies and Kens.



Scriptures also note that just because someone wears a tilaka and a dhoti, doesn't mean he is a devotee.
There are even scriptures that say it is an offense to consider someone a devotee who isn't a devotee.

IOW, we must be careful with assigning someone as a "follower".
We are doing ourselves a disservice (and set ourselves up for much strife and confusion) if we just blankly assume that everyone who in any way says or looks like a devotee, indeed is a devotee.



When is that "eventually" - after a week, a month, a year, ten years, a kalpa of practice?

Continued -


Sure.
Also "Chanting will make me famous / give me a good reputation / I will be able to take pride in myself and my spirituality" and such.



Let me ask you a personal question: Why didn't you intervene on those two occasions, when you were sure that something abusive or even criminal was going on?



Somehow, I seem to be able to think of GV explanations for the troubles and disappointments that you and some others have been experiencing as you were practicing KC.
How do you find those explanations of mine? Do they strike you as "the standard line", do you feel uncomfortable about them somehow, do they seem novel or not so usual ...?

I don't know how to treat devotees, how to behave toward them.
To me, there seems to be an infinite rift between devotees and non-devotees, an infinite rift between those who (attempt to) practice KC, and those who don't. To me, devotees seem so foreign that they might as well be from a different planet.

I have often treated devotees in a very stereotypical manner. I didn't exactly see them as humans, fellow humans, but as "devotees", "theists", to the point that there might as well be cardboard boxes there instead of them, boxes with the label "perfect devotee" and in them bits of scriptures and ISKCON doctrine written on small memo cards.

Of course, they themselves often enough endorse such a stereotypical, schematic communication.

But I feel bad that I went along with that, and that I added my own stereotypes.

If nothing else, at least my own experience would perhaps have been different, perhaps not so frustrating, if I went with my usual ways of treating people.
Although I don't know how to see devotees as - fellow - humans.

I wrote about it in an earlier thread at GR:

http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index...post&p=3062

I read these things, but frankly, don't really know what to think of it.

The other day, I saw a note at Facebook by a brahmacari, criticizing the song "Stayin' alive" by the Bee Gees, saying it's about materialistic life, and he was negative about the song, some other posters joined in and agreed.
He posted the last part of the lyrics, where it is repeated over and over again "Life is going nowhere, somebody help me". But it's as if those devotees only hear "life is going nowhere" and "stayin' alive", but not the "somebody help me, somebody help me please."

Many of the fights and accusations that I see or hear of among devotees seem silly to me, not worthy of further attention. But I realize they take those things very seriously. They seem to get offended so easily.
I can't really relate to that.

This sounds nearly exactly like my own inner thought process throughout my life story.

Sophia, it sounds to me like you honestly believe in Krishna consciousness/GV/CV (some philosophical discomforts aside) and that you are mainly just dissatisfied with the institutional/social aspects of it you have encountered. I'm not sure why you are looking for a reason to leave something you seem to believe in or care about so greatly! I think you need a justification for flying in the face of what KC has taught you is important--association, a guru, the deities, etc.--and approaching it in your own way, which may be the only way that will make you comfortable. In that case, the best I can say is that you may as well not subject yourself to misery and psychological damage by participating in affiliations and activities that upset you so much. Just do what you do, believe what you believe, value what you value, and see where it takes you.

For me, I left the institution before I left the faith. I tried to find some other way to practice it, outside all the BS. I suppose I could have been successful in that, or maybe even have found a place where I belonged, but like Brainiac I also began to question the teachings at their core. This was not because I left ISKCON or Gaudiya Math--it was something gradually building within me the whole time. Reading your posts, I can read you two ways: (1) your faith in GV has been damaged by equating it with the external manifestations of it you have witnessed, but ultimately you are still a devotee; or (2) you are slipping out of believing in all this but something--perhaps a fondness for what you wanted GV to be, or an existential fear of having nothing to answer your deepest questions--is directing you to continue to profess belief. I'm not sure which it is, or if your current mindset necessarily leads to total rejection of the philosophy. If it's (1), then my advice above stands. If it's (2), I think the insights of Dhyana are very important in this regard--even if they don't sound good to you just now.

The thing is, if you really were to lose faith in the teachings of KC--if you were really, internally to decide that there is an incongruence between it and you--you would not need to find a justification. Trust me--when the faith itself loses its grasp on you, you will know you've done the right thing by leaving it behind. That's why I think you still care--and you are just out of place.