Mundane Psychology to fix ISKCON? - comments on ICJ article

I have posted an article called Ascendancy of Psychology Within ISKCON .

About a year after I became convinced that the vedas Srila Prabhupada taught from were genuine, and were all we needed to improve ourselves, what to speak find our way back home to Godhead, I would hear about self improvement seminars within ISKCON such as "The Vaishnava Life Skills and Personal Transformation Seminar".

Knowing that this was probably introduced as a precaution against future abusive situations that have plagued ISKCON, I could not understand why it was necessary when we should have all we need in Srila Prabhupada's books & the Vedas.

Being early on in my attempt at sadhana, I am wondering what others opinions are on this topic. Does ISKCON need this kind of outside help?

So far as I see it, the Acaryas laid out steps to take..a path to follow.., and with sraddha (faith) these steps...this path will plant, water, and cultivate a devotional creeper...leading one to pure love of God...performing on a spiritual platform, where one would no longer be trying to "lord it over material nature" and others, but be totally engaged in devotional service. I still believe that it is all in Prabhupada's books, Vaishnava literature; in the Vedas... and these Oprah like seminars might not be in our best interest?

I however, always try to remain open minded.

Dear Srijiva,

Thanks for posting Krsna Kirti's article. I will try to offer some reflections in response to yours. I am a psychologist, I was in ISKCON for twelve years (joined halfway through my studies) and my training played an important role in my leaving. So I am obviously not neutral on either the psychology issue or the ISKCON issue... but you could hardly have expected to find people here who would be that. Most of us at GD are not ISKCON members.



I don't know about ISKCON, but its members do. Any society -- especially one where children grow up -- needs to have some sort of social and interpersonal competence -- for lack of a better word -- built into its structures. There must be a collective body of wisdom to draw from when individuals need support. And there must be people in the community who possess special skills. I mean the lived wisdom and concrete skill, not necessarily a degree. ISKCON has had little of it. It was an experimental "society" that distanced itself from the Western sources of social and psychological competence, and that had little access to the corresponding Indian sources -- even assuming these sources could be used to help people raised in the West.

Krsna Kirti's article does not take up the question of why ISKCON devotees would appreciate and seek help from (devotee or nondevotee) psychologists, social workers etc. I think it's so because they feel they need support in their personal development and the traditional ISKCON institutions (guru, TP, husband etc.) haven't been able to give it to a satisfactory degree.

I haven't participated in any of the Personal Transformation seminars, so I cannot have an informed opinion about them. I have mixed feelings. I believe that those whose testimonies appear appended to the ads have indeed found something of value. Good for them. But the formulations -- presenting these new insights and skills as the best thing ever in the participants' lives, or as a breakthrough in their spiritual progress -- appear so exagerrated. If anything, they are testimony to how little social wisdom and sensitive personal guidance these devotees must have encountered in their ISKCON careers. If you have spent twenty years in ISKCON and are so lyrical about several-day workshop, be it most professionally conducted, that tells something about how neglected your need for self-insight has been prior to it! Coming from dedicated members in a movement aiming at self-realization, it is sobering.

In general, I believe personal transformation should ideally occur as a process organically tied to the rest of one's daily life, and in small increments. Intense workshops, crash courses etc. can be fantastic growth opportunities but also risky. Isolated from their familiar surroundings, the participants are vulnerable to influence; the speed of change may be too high; will one be able to integrate the new insights with one's normal life outside of the workshop experience? This should however not be read as criticism of the Personal Transformation seminars, only as a general comment.

Every culture has its own psychology. The psychology that dominates universities around the world is the Western one. I think -- addressing Krsna Kirti's concern -- that Western psychology is incompatible with Vaisnavism, in two ways:

-- because of the East-West cultural clash;
-- because of the science-religion clash.

I think psychology is incompatible with any spiritual teaching that is radically dualistic or that has selflessness, renunciation as the ideal. That's because its notion of self is different. The in-built concepts (like mental health, personal development or self-realization) are different than the corresponding concepts in Vaisnavism.

Psychological training gives skills that devotees can and do benefit from (conflict resolution, counseling, crisis support etc.). But along with the skills come value judgments and assumptions on how our minds work, that challenge those inherent in the Vaisnava culture. Psychology -- or more exactly, psychotherapy -- has an ethical code that differs radically from the one in the guru-disciple relationship. A devotee trained in psychology may thus see manipulation, undue influence or even abuse where a devotee without such training sees nothing conspicuous.

This is how I see it. There are devotees who are also psychologists, so it seems one can find a way to make a synthesis. There are also different schools of psychology or psychotherapy, some more compatible with religious value systems and worldview than others. It's perhaps also a question of how compatible a given religion is with psychological principles, broadly understood. I think Vaisnavism in the ISKCON format is quite incompatible.

I think you hit on just about every point that I was going to make, and more besides… This topic seems worth developing.

So, basically, you agree with Krishna-kirti, though from the opposite side of the divide.

It would seem to me that there is an effort at synthesis that is going on, and this signals, as KK fears, a trend in Iskcon in moving away from its "go-it-alone" position. Furthermore, it signals a leaning away from its Indian roots to what we might easily conclude are its more natural Western ones. This is something that is inevitable as Iskcon refuses in general to acknowledge any possibility of guidance from any Indian source. This leaves them with no option but to either try to find answers themselves or from their own pre-Iskcon cultures.

But, as D indicates, there is a general dissatisfaction with the way that devotees themselves feel that their spiritual culture is progressing. We already see in other issues that KK has focussed on that devotees firm resolve to maintain many of the other Varnashram givens is weakening, and there is a tendency to normalization or accomodation with general Western society and its values. This leaves a situation similar to the one in many mainline churches—recently observed in Western Islam, but also a longstanding trend in Catholicism--where the clergy tends to be conservative (and often from other countries) whereas the congregation tends to be more assimilated to the wider dominant culture.

In one sense, the secularized congregation has always had a markedly different culture from the professional priestly class, no matter how dominant. Where priests become overly dominant, the end results tend to be negative. So there could be a kind of laissez-faire modus vivendi between the professional and the secular members of the congregation, the former being custodians of the meeting areas, serving them with some ritual and non-confrontational scriptural teachings (toning down the renunciation rhetoric), etc.

The other option is a reinterpretation of the scriptures and the Vaishnava tradition in a way that is more in line with Western cultural values. I don't think this requires absolute capitulation to the most materialistic vision, but probably requires an acceptance of certain "this worldly" ideas. In other words, a vision that gives spiritual meaning to a life that is not one of complete renunciation, and even accepts the possibility of happiness in this world.

Anyway, thanks for the concise, yet far-ranging analysis, Dhyana.

wow. I knew I would get to read some really good responses to this at Gaudiya Discussions!

I have not much experience with ISKCON, perhaps some experience with psychotherapy on the receiving end. I will try and put my points and views down as best I can here...

alot of us have problems...issues... like most who grow up in a dysfunctional envoroment of drugs, divorce, emotional incest...etc... textbook bad programming let's say. Pasts that influence behaviors today. For instance, I had alot of shame growing up. Put me in a social situation, the shame creeps up...and I try what is available Materially(throwing mental in with material) to avoid it or deal with it, anything so long as I find a better feeling. so there develope many anarthas.

So it would seem, and it makes sense to me, that by quality chanting, hearing from those qualified, good association, following the four regs...all this helps to clarify me like clarifying butter into ghee. Eventualy, thru this process I would become pure, with it inteligence would then develope along with...well...you guys know what I am saying (I am at work and am tyring to type this out quick...lol) (bare with me)

ok, so it seems to me a big problem is devotees not strictly following or haven't purified themselves enough who are then given resposibilities that they might not yet be ready for.

I am not sure if this is true...please correct me... isn't it that when we perform devotional service, we are freed from the modes of goodness, passion, and ignorance? But do we have to first get to a pure mode of goodness before this happens? This may be where psychology comes in handy. Elevating us to a mode of goodness preparing us for devotional service? But then, even if we are coming from passion and goodness, by following this process earnestly, we would become purified?

(darn, I have to leave...more soon....)

I have no need to be secularized to be highly resistant to sending my children to a Gurukula where no parents are allowed in to check on their children! I'm sorry, given ISKCON's track record with Gurukula previously, I think it will be many years before parents regain their trust in the institution's ability to protect their children properly.

From my point of view, ISKCON needed a good dose of psychotherapy right from the beginning, as soon as large numbers of people started trying to live together. From my verbally abusive temple "authority" who took my ignorance of properly cleaning wool without shrinking it personally, shrieking for half an hour about how "fallen" I was when I shrunk her sweater, to my physically abusive devotee husband who was afraid of intimacy after growing up with his clingy mother, many devotees needed some counseling. While in time, chanting and reading and following the rules of bhakti may bring one to that level, we had to live together as neophytes and try to make it work. Suddenly people who had been studying and chanting just a year or two were thinking that they had this whole bhakti thing wired. If we had a problem we just weren't fixed up enough, never mind that we were being overworked, mistreated, going without proper sleep, or being abused. If we were physically sick (and I notice no one is suggesting doing without medical care) we were "not that body prabhu." So yes, we could have used some secularization or maybe just a big dose of common sense. Anything can be dovetailed in Krsna's service, right?

I personally think the therapy that best dovetails with Krsna Consciousness is cognitive therapy, because it's all about controlling your mind. It doesn't matter if your understanding of what the mind is differs for it to work.

However, I think it should be voluntary.

As for concerns that if ISKCON turns to therapy it will be seen as offering nothing different, I don't see anyone trying to turn it into some big encounter group. Therapy is designed to help us with the mundane tasks of life and interpersonal relationships according to our cultural paradigm in the West. (Psychology operates differently from culture to culture; I took a class in "Psycholgoical anthropology" that was utterly fascinating.) Our spiritual needs are another thing altogether and can only be served by attending to our relationship with God.

Most therapists are religious as well and really aren't out to interfere with your spiritual path. Mine is a Buddhist so we get along quite well.

Briefly, my original point before DK wrote her post was this: Let us reduce "bhakti" to its absolute minimum definition--it is the affection portion of the psyche. The intellect (jnana) and the motor (karma) portions of the psychic makeup are the three principle elements of the person. (I am going to use these three categories without looking for more for the time being.) [Please excuse the homegrown pop-psych, DK.]

All three of these process require discipline to advance the cause of human perfection, and there are backers of all three as the principle elements in driving us towards it. Now, nearly everyone will agree that a happy human life requires some balancing of the three--work, intellectual understanding, and affective satisfaction.

According to our makeup, we generally adopt an attitude to life in which one or the other of these aspects dominates. Now, the 19th century was all about rationality (jnana) and discipline/work (karma). It took Freud and those he influenced to bring the importance of affects back into the picture.

The argument of the bhaktas, in general terms, is that affects are the most important aspect of the psyche, because they both drive the psyche energetically and are the ultimate motivating factor. We have a whole constellation of subconscious goals--love, acceptance, approval, etc. The values of jnana (rational understanding, meaning) are very important to many people, but even in them, the irrational elements of "feeling" can surge up and overthrow jnana's mastery of the self. Finally, karma, the sheer satisfaction of doing--working, accomplishing, excelling physically--is an essential part of the total makeup, but lags behind the other two in overall meaningfulness.

So, to make this whirlwind summary brief: bhakti leads, the others follow. It's not that bhakti replaces intellectual understanding or physical activity, but that it is the ultimate controlling factor. This is reduced to a cliché--it is ultimately the heart that has to lead, rather than the head. The head is meant to serve the heart.

Now coming back to the specific example of the Iskcon situation and psychology. The goal is bhakti, to serve Krishna. To attain love of God. As long as this goal, which rises out of the heart, is front and center, the rest--finding a way to function psychologically in order to attain that end--is legitimate.

But I sense that a big part of the question comes out of the fundamentalist "Vedic" position that we don't need any modern knowledge, everything is in Prabhupada's books, etc. This is pure tripe. If you are ill, you go to a doctor. If you want to travel, you buy a ticket on American Airlines. So if devotees are synthesizing psychology in order to make it useful for devotees in their own life situation--family, temple life, preaching, etc.--then this can only be positive.

There will be, as DK noted above, some inherent difficulties in synthesizing things, especially as many of the fundamental beliefs in Iskcon are centered around mind-body dualism, ultimate renunciation of the body (rather than finding a harmonious relationship with the body), and the inevitable result of this dualism--misogyny. But it is nevertheless an effort that might have important consequences for Iskcon.

As a matter of fact, I think there are underplayed elements in Vaishnava philosophy that give a much more honorable place to the body--namely the idea that the senses are sacralized in devotional service, in particular at the time of initiation. But I'll have to leave that there.

Regarding the clash of East versus West

It is a pity as Jagat says that members of ISKCON are so averse to understanding traditional Vaisnava (Hindu/Indian) cultural values. Even in India the populace are struggling with the Westernization of their culture, as are all the peoples of the World, due to the information revolution and the spread of democracy.

I am not saying that Vaisnavism cannot be practiced in a completely Western cultural setting. I believe a form of Vaisnavism certainly can. However the (ancient and/or modern) Indian social system works and is compatible with traditional Vaisnavism. The Western system may also work but there needs to be more indepth investigation to find how to adapt Vaisnavism to it, without losing Vaisnavism's essence. I think that this can only be attempted by those who understand first the traditional Indian system. Ideally a Westerner who has a deep understanding of the Eastern system and/or an Indian who has a deep insight into Western culture would be able to offer some sort of hybrid form. Of course we all hoped that Srila Prabhupada would be that person. One who could sucessfully translate Vaisnavism into a Western context. And to a certain extent he was, and the seeds are certainly there in his instructions to continue the tranformation to a hybrid Varnashram society.

However many of the cultural values and systems introduced by Srila Prabhupada to us Westerners were done only superficially. In time they may have become more substantial with his guidance. Afterall he was able with a simple word to change how we thought or worked.

What ISKCON needs badly is to see how traditional Indian Vaisnava communities work. Not communities exactly like Vrndavan where the majority of persons are renunciates. But more culturally normal Vaisnava communities like Sri Rangam where practically everyone is a Grhasta with a wife, family, job, place in society, as well as a strong affiliation with the spiritual culture of the place and the temple. In Gaudiya terms we badly need an example like Bhaktivinode Thakura. A successful Vaisnava housholder with a well respected position in society. Sucessful well adjusted hybrid Vaisnava examples.

Regarding the secularization of ISKCON. What we are actually seeing is the normalization of ISKCON. Just as the Catholic church is vastly different culturally in India, Africa, and the Western countries, so ISKCON will become normalized with the cultures of these countries and societies. This is not necessarily a bad development. However it would be better if the adaptation of Vaisnavism to these other societies was more of a planned affair rather than the typical unplanned evolution we have seen ISKCON go through uptil now. Whether by action or inaction the onus of how this evolutiion will play out is on the members of ISKCON themselves, especially those in leadership positions.

Regarding the clash of Religion versus Science.

I do not see the acceptance of scientific knowledge as opposed to Vaisnava religion. Sri Vaisnavas accept empirical knowledge based on pratyaksha and anumana. It is only when faced with questions about that which lies beyond empirical (ie transcendental) subjects that one needs to accept sabda pramana. Even then Sri Vaisnava's give ultimate respect and authority only to the sruti pramana. Other forms of sabda, either smrti or the words of authoritative persons past and/or present are secondary.

I call upon all sensible Vaisnavas to accept the empirically proven precepts of material science. Embrace it. Do not shy away from it. Accept it, and then move on. Understand that there are things that will always be beyond empirical science. Those transcendental things are the realm of the philosophy of Vedanta and the theology of Vaisnavism. So don't sweat the material science stuff.

I also call upon all Grhastas and those who will become Grhastas to accept the fourfold goals of human life (purusarthas) of regulated sense gratification, economic development, adherence to honesty and righteousness, and the pursuit of liberation. Don't be ashamed to make money to support your family, don't be ashamed to engage in regulated sattvic sense gratification, be true to yourself and others, and don't forget your sadhana however insignificant or intense it may be. In this way you are on the safe ascending path. Life is not black and white so of course we can aspire to be completely selfless however the reality is that one has to situate oneself in a position from which one can make advancement and not artificially try to adopt a social position one is not suited for.

And for those few of you out there who have taken the path of renunciation. Be strict with yourselves and very lenient with others. Be perfect examples and if you make mistakes, make amends, and admit freely your faults, and then situate yourselves properly. Above all be humble examples to the rest of us, not only in your words but in your actions also. Encourage those who cannot renounce like you to live full happy Vaisnava lives with their families.

I am understanding this better now, I think.

I can see how by using psychotherapy to help improve one's devotional service certainly would not be mundane by any means.

I think my interest in this article certainly stems from that I once aspired to take initiation from Prithu prabhu... that I ended up choosing otherwise, I can only attribute to {?}....

Prithu prabhu told me once in response to a question I had (which was simular to this topic, actually) that to seek direction outside of one's Guru would be likened to a married man going to a prostitute. If I recall, I asked if devotees should go to 12 step meetings along with practicing devotional service. I thought it was an important question. He kind of left me feeling like a total idiot for asking. Didn't seem to care. He said the same for listening to lecture tapes from others...in ISKCON, even! This was about three years ago. He is trying to be a devotee, like I am trying. I wish him all the success in pleasing Srila Prabhupada.

All I can say from one in my "generation" in ISKCON. we certainly have alot of examples of how not to perform devotional service.

OK, I like your categories. Karma, Jnana and Bhakti. I have hear this before from the Gita.



These three can also be aligned with the three purusarthas IMHO. Without Jnana there can be no discrimination and therefore no righteousness or honesty (because without discrimination one is unable to know right from wrong). Without Karma there will be no economic development. And without Bhakti (both spiritual and material) there is no kama or sense gratification either spiritual or material.



Rather than Bhakti leading, is not Bhakti supported by Karma and Jnana? Bhakti without a basis in Jnana is sentiment. Much as Srila Prabhupada said Religion without philosophy was sentiment. And Bhakti without Karma is simply Dhyana (which of course it can be). But just as Catholics call for works to be the expression of faith similarly Bhakti is usually expressed by devotional works or Karma.



Interestingly they adopt this fundemental position without actually knowing it.



Yes, they see only black and white, good or evil. A very simplistic World view.



An exploration of the Tantric elements of Pancaratra and Hatha yoga would go a long way towards solving this. The acceptance of kama (regulated sense gratification) as a bonafide purusartha is necessary also.

Sad, but true.

I would say that you also have more than a few examples of how TO perform devotional service. You just have to look for them, where ever they are, inside or outside ISKCON.

I'm not one of them but there are plenty here.

I hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but then what is obvious to most of us may not be so obvious to others. What I am referring to is some of the underlying deficiencies in the aforementioned institution, which have nothing to do with all of the misbehavior that has been cited. It is those missing vital components that have contributed to the dysfunctionality, if we are to have any faith in what Caitanyaism teaches. Based on that premise, it does not really matter what improvements are undertaken, because a house is only as stable as the foundation upon which it rests.

By saying bhakti leads, I mean that we follow our emotions (often unconscious forces) more than we realize. Bhakti is about directing emotions to Krishna rather than allowing them to act wthout restraint. But yes, bhakti should lead, and everything else, jnana, karma, should serve bhakti.

I don't know if you ever read this article, Keshavaji, which I wrote about the "philosophy/speculation//religion/fanaticism" dictum (which I think we have discovered originates with Einstein, unless there is an earlier source they both got it from.)

The Tao of Krishna Consciousness.

Mina, what you say is very true. Please elaborate.

I don't know if I agree with you Mina. I mean I agree that Iskcon has extremely deep problems. But I don't think that it is necessarily incapable of saving itself. If there are enough people with sincere commitment to Srila Prabhupada--or even if there is one visionary who can present a viable spiritual way out of the impasse--it may well be possible.

I mean there are plenty of societies with even less meaningful philosophies. It's really a question of adaptability.

One thing in its advantage is its great decentralization.

I would like for Mina to elaborate also. I'm sure that will be quite informative.

In the meantime, whatever its foundational deficiencies--and I'm sure we can cite more than one--people are going to keep joining it and I would like to see them get exposed to the concepts of bhakti in a less abusive and more conducive atmosphere. If they'd like to go deeper and are not satisfied fully by what they find there, they can certainly explore elsewhere. Inertia has a way of maintaining institutions in some form or other once they've begun. Even if they can't tear it down and rebuild the foundation, can't they stop the roof from falling in? Put some shutters on the windows? Light the fire in the fireplace? And hear a few stories about Krsna instead of the interminable bickering for prestige and power?

Srijiva wrote:



In the beginning, when you come to KC, it indeed seems so. In fact at that time anything seems possible because you are riding a huge wave of inspiration. You have found a spiritual path that resonates with you, that is alive and you feel the connection with transcendence in a very tangible way.

Yes, there is an enormous amount of information in Srila Prabhupada's books, the problem is how to select what is best suited to your individual circumstances. Prabhupada said and wrote so many things. E.g., he also said "First become conscious, then Krishna conscious" which to me very clearly says, First find yourself, resolve your issues, become normal, be in balance -- and then go further and become transcendental. Bhaktivinoda Thakura even wrote that unless the mind, the heart and body are satisfied and balanced, one cannot chant properly and advance. (I am quoting this from memory, I heard this in a seminar on BVT by Sachinandana Swami from Germany some 8 yrs ago.)



I think Kundali Prabhu's writings will be helpful to you, he elaborates a great deal on this topic and is a great writer. I think his webiste is http://www.kundali.vaisnavi.com/

Good luck on your journey!

Yes, Kundali is no doubt one of the pioneers of "Vaishnava psychology." However, he is almost totally devoted to Erich Fromm. Not that I don't think Erich Fromm has not a lot of important things to say, but I really don't think that Kundali has much feeling for the mystical aspects of Vaishnavism. Fromm has a very Judaic understanding of the Deity as a kind of superego figure and I just don' t think it does justice to Vaishnava theology.

So to me Kundali illustrates the kinds of compromises Vaishnavism might or will make with other world views that were mentioned above--Kundali emphasizes the humanistic aspects of Prabhupada's teachings above all others. I think he would be quite embarrassed by Manjari Bhava, for instance, and really at a loss to explain it.

I actually had this discussion with Kundali some years ago. I was defending Jung's approach as being more suited to the Vaishnava world view (as it is to most religions).

That being said, most traditional religions or approaches to personal transformation are behavioristic in character. Behaviorisms usually favor external intervention, some kind of directed training. Following a sadhana, in other words. I think that this kind of results oriented approach would be favored by Iskcon, even though it is somewhat barren when it comes to true self-understanding (IMHO).

That being said, the question is: "Is there only one Psychology?"

I mentioned Kundali because Srijiva asked about progressing through the modes of nature and also mentioned his uneasiness with people who don't follow strictly the sadhana as outlined in ISKCON but are given responsibility. I haven't read any of Kundali's books, only separate articles sporadically, and attended his seminar on the modes of nature which gave a nice perspective to what I had learned about the modes from SP books. My experience is that for somebody who knows about Krishna consciousness only from ISKCON, Kundali can be very helpful.

Otherwise I admit that I don't know much about psychology, that I am my own psychologist and psychotherapist, and the more I think about it the more I am tempted to be my own guru as well Yeah, I really think I am that smart to know best what is good for me

No, I am very glad you brought Kundali's name up. Why don't you read his books? They are quite worthwhile, and quite entertaining.

I have all his books (including the ones he co-wrote with Satya Narayana Das Babaji) and i found them back in those Iskcon days very, very helpful.

Completely off-topic (well, maybe a little on topic), but I just finished reading Monastic Practices, which covers the Trappist ideas of Work, Reading and Prayer, and building the day/life around them. I thought there was a nice correspondance to Jagat's breakdown above.

Jung was more open, than Fromm to varieties of experience. i just remember reading through my studies his small book Psychology and Religion, from Yale Uni. Press. Amazing stuff.
Totally agree with you....

Thank you Indranila prabhuji for your suggestion.

I do hear at the temple Srila Prabhupada's point stressed time and again, that first we become conscious, then become Krsna conscious.

Jagat,

I agree about Kundali.



...just tried to visualize Kundali desiring to become a manjari...!


Keshava,



Wise words. I agree with you, Keshava Prabhu.



A most sensible approach to the science-religion dilemma. There is, however, an additional specific problem with psychology: it not only attempts to understand reality by methods other than those of religion, it also analyzes an aspect of reality that has traditionally been religion's domain: the soul (psyche). The mind. The human quest for meaning. It even attempts to understand and explain religious experience. Thus the challenge posed by psychology to religion is double. Maybe this is why devotees who have no problem accepting the inventions of electronics (like Krsna Kirti, who runs a website), find other devotees' acceptance of psychology as problematic.

Historically, people involved God and divine intervention wherever their "mundane" knowledge and skill fell short. To understand, and be able to predict, individual's actions, thoughts and experiences threatens to push God away from the field, figuratively speaking. The more you understand yourself and others in psychological categories, the harder it may be to accept the religious interpretations.

It can be a bit hard on faith. Certainly if one associates with devotees unfamiliar with and dismissive of psychology. Of course psychology can never explain away God, but well some of the phenomena that motivate people to believe in God.

I am trying not to put any value judgment on it. I can't say which mode of explanation is more true or better. This is a philosophical question, not an empirical one. Religion certainly has one great advantage over psychology: it answers questions like "why" and "what for". Psychology, like all other sciences, can only answer the question of "how". It provides no reason for living.

Tapati,



Ahhh... yes. We all have such stories to tell...



I agree. Different therapies fit also different personalities and different problems.



I don't agree that it's only the "mundane tasks of life", and don't agree that our spiritual needs are another thing altogether. These may be different levels but organically connected. Influence one and you've influnced the other.

A crude example: our image of God has a lot in common with our image of your parents. Work through the relationship with your mother and you will see the Mother with new eyes, even feel differently toward Her.

(And since we are at it: Thank you, dear Tapati, för your posts on Paganism! I have never really known what it is about.)

-- Dhyana

My first encounter with Kundali was during the Rasika Explosion of the early 90s in Vrindavan and let's just say that he was positively militant and sarcastic toward raganuga bhakti. I recall him sitting on the vyasasana in the Krsna Balaram Mandir declaring that he was there to "represent the tradition" and stop the rot. I later lived across the hall from him and came to appreciate him more.



Krishna Kirti had an earlier article expressing the conservative view on psychological treatment. It might not be clear from reading that article, but the depressed person being referred to was not Prthu but someone else who is known to me. The proposed solution--hearing and chanting--is quite a ridiculous suggestion in this case as that person was living in Vrindavan and was a simple, desireless (if somewhat quirky) person who was dedicated to sadhana bhakti. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who wasn't "taking the [spiritual] medicine" in as heavy a dose.

He had also attempted suicide. Years ago a friend of this person had also committed suicide in Vrindavan, throwing himself under the Radharani Express. And that is why Krishna Kirti and his ilk really must be called to task. They are playing with people's lives, with their sense of self-worth and with their sraddha. What is their qualification for doing so? They simply have belief and ideals. Quite frankly, I think the time has come for the divinely/self-appointed experts to put up or shut up. Show us the success stories and explain the pain that numerous sincere souls have undergone at the hands of the literalists.

This is a really interesting topic. One thing I would warn against is generalizing about what Iskcon is, especially since most of us have little to no direct interaction with Iskcon. From my limited experience I would have to say that many types of people consider themselves to be part of that institution. Some obviously do have the fundamentalist view that 'everthing is in Prabhupada's books' and we therefore have nothing to learn from any other source. But I honestly think (again from a very limited perpective having little interaction with Iskcon members) that this is a very minority view. Many devotees have matured and realized that life has many facets and that lessons can be learned from many diverse sources.

I only lived in the Iskcon society for about 5 years back in the late 70's and early 80's. I remember one instance of the above mentioned mentality and my own reponse which was paraphrased by Tapati in one of her posts. There was a young brahmacari who was placed in charge of the small gurukula at the temple I was residing in. I knew him and due to the fact that I knew he had no teacher training and no formal experience that qualified him to take up such an important task I suggested to him a way to gain some experience and take advantage of one who did have specific knowledge, experience and training. It just so happens that one of my brothers is a child psychologist and was also a trained educator. I suggested to this devotee that my brother would be happy to come to the temple, administer tests to the children to assess their level of academic competency and then help to develop lesson plans specific to their capabilities and needs. This devotee scoffed at the very idea of a 'karmi' helping him with anything. My response was that everything and everyone can be utilized in service to Krsna. Needless to say, he did not agree with my assessment and he did not take me up on the offer.

This experience disturbed me quite a bit. I was fairly new to the movement and it left me feeling disappointed that the perfect service for my brother who was favorable, due to his affection for me, would not be available due to the shortsighted vision of this individual. It also gave me that sober lesson that just because someone is chanting and following a program of sadhana it does not make them necessarily wise or give them some sort of 'divine' access to all knowledge necessary to funtion either as a well-balanced devotee or a contributing member of society (of course I knew that intuitively but this was a dramatic practical example of it).

Of course I knew fairly quickly after joining the movement that there were many flaws with individuals and with the society and the way it functioned as well. There are many branches of knowledge and it was fairly obvious that while devotees did have access to spiritual knowledge and the means of developing themselves spiritually, they were severely lacking in many important other areas. Who had good managerial skills? Who was trained in the science of education? Who understood social dynamics? Who could teach ethics in an environment dominated by machiavillian ideas where the only moral code was - if it serves Krsna then the end justifies the means? Who really was expert in any field of study? Most devotees came to the movement with minimal education and even those that did have a college degree were not encouraged to pursue their studies further. Of course I am generalizing here, but I do think that this was the norm rather than being only true in exceptional cases.

From a practical point of view I did see that whatever skills devotees had were for the most part utilized if possible - but that certainly wasn't always the case either.

I like Jagat's definition that in the bhakti ideal the heart guides the head, but where do we see this practically played out? In Iskcon, for instance, how many times do it's members ignore their inner feelings and the intuitive nature of their hearts to follow what they are told is right? Granted in the overall picture they are following their hearts by commiting themselves to become Krsna conscious, but on a practical day to day level why are they being trained to ignore their hearts?

I know each of us who have ever lived in Iskcon for any amount of time can cite many examples of what I am talking about. The quickest and easiest for me was the practice of collecting money by less than honest means. I remember the embarassment I felt for devotees the first time I saw them in Paul Revere outfits in Sausalito. I intuitively felt 'right' about telling people who I was and what I was giving them and why instead of mumbling some nonsense about collecting for kids or any of the other idiotic lies used to panhandle money from the public. I was uncomfortable with the whole concept of sankirtan = bringing Laksmi to Krsna. That is just one small example, there are so many more. I think this is one of the biggest dangers to communal living and what transformed an institution founded upon high ideals into a dangerous cult that leaves it members socially and psychologically disfunctional.

From my own perspective people should be taught to truly follow their hearts. Don't do things that don't resonate with your inner conscious. Adopt those devotional practices that you understand, agree with and find great inner satisfaction in performing. I personally don't think anyone should be taught to do things without understanding what they are doing and why. That's one of the reasons I insist on anyone working in my labs have at least a bachelors degree in chemistry or a related scientific discipline and also why I insist that the laboratory personnel understand what they are doing and why. No question is a bad one. Granted, we don't always have perfect answers for everything and some things just seem to work even if we can't fully explain them - but we should still do our best to really understand what we are doing and why we do it.

I know I'm rambling a bit - it's late and I couldn't sleep so here I am. We had an interesting problem with one of our products recently. It is a mounting medium used to prepare stained tissue sections for visualization under a microscope. It also serves to help preserve the section. Anyway, one lot of this particlar medium failed to function properly when tested. The problem was that the counter stain on the sections, hematoxylin, was fading very rapidly. Our first thought was that the pH of the medium might be too low. This is a parameter that isn't controlled or tested during the production process. We have been producing the product for over ten years and never had this problem before. At any rate, when we tested the medium pH and compared it to lots that were previously approved for sale we did find that the pH was about 1 unit lower in the failed batch. We tested all the individual raw materials and couln't find any differences between lots used to make acceptable material and those that went into the failed batch. I don't want to get into any more detail but I will say that we never determined whether or not the lower pH was attributable to a raw material variation or a variation in process - but what we did determine was that by adjusting the pH with sodium hydroxide the medium could be resurrected. The supervisor in charge of the production area would like to know the cause of the failure, as would I, but for practical reasons of cost and limited resources that need to be employed on bigger problems we don't have the luxury of answering that question satisfactorily. The only answer I can give her is that it is either a raw material or a process issue and that what is important to her work center is that there is a solution. Boy - thats a convulted way to explain the principle of action based on limited knowledge, intuition and favorable outcome!

Now I think I have to follow my heart and retire for the evening - an event after having read this post for which I am sure you will all be quite grateful.

good night.

It is indeed interesting that Tapati should come to join our group at the same time as this topic. First of all, as I observed in a private discussion with her, many of the people doing the Belief-o-matic quiz scored very high for Neopaganism. So there does seem to be a kind of unstated or little understood compatibility between the two. This was admittedly a bit of a surprise to me, and is something that perhaps can be explored on the thread Tapati herself started on the subject of Paganism.

The reason I bring it up here is because one of the first books I read when I returned to university studies in 1986 was a book by Naomi Goldenberg, "The Changing of the Gods." The name itself was fascinating to me, as I had already been thinking along the lines of the significance of conversion as a psychological phenomenon. Naturally, we all had to read William James's "The Varieties of Religious Experience." So there was a connection.

Goldenberg is a Jungian feminist Wiccan--and it is possible to say, "Is there any other kind?" Wicca is probably the most Jungian of all religions (though I think that Scientology may be the most "psychological," despite its mostly hidden science fiction belief system). Anyway, Goldenberg is one of the pioneers of taking the feminist critique of the Jahwehian patriarchal God and replacing it with a neo-polytheism, which sees gods and goddesses as archetypal projections. The Wiccans (as Tapati has pointed out) are very accepting of individualized religious experience, because of their Jungian approach to the Unconscious communicating to us through archetypal forms, and the significance of such archetypal experiences as genuine theophanies with fundamental psychological and personal significance, which they generally express through the use of the word "empowerment."

Now Jung himself was wary of making any theological pronouncements, even though he has probably influenced most Western theologies to some extent or another. At the same time, he was wary of "psychologism." One of the papers I wrote in my graduating year was called "Implicit theologies in Freud and Jung." Though the job of deconstruction was done rather haphazardly, I still believe in my insight, which was based on what I saw as a distinctly Jahwehist structure in Freud's psychology of Id, Ego and Superego, whereas Jung fits distinctly into the neo-Platonist school (or Gnosticism, which for shorthand purposes can be said to parallel Shankarite monism). Jung's own mystical experiences were of the "Pleroma," or underlying ground of being. Nevertheless, he would not pronounce on the question of whether the Ideals (the Archetypes) actually had real existence separate from the psyche (which he dubbed psychologism, i.e. the idea that God is purely a projection of the psyche and nothing more).

(I realize that for clinical psychologists, both Freud and Jung are considered to be somewhere in Lala Land, but I continue nevertheless.)

This is one of the reasons that my approach to understanding my own experience in Krishna consciousness has always been very Jungian. I assume that there is personal meaning for me in Krishna, to the extent that he is a whole constellation of psychological meaning, or a "complex" in Jungian terms. So even in the darkest days of doubt, I always centered my efforts on understanding Krishna in his different manifestations, and what was the significance of my attraction to him, and specifically what they meant to me psychologically, in terms of my own personal self-realization. In other words, what did my choice (imposed by my Unconscious, or prAktana-saMskAra) of Krishna as God mean about me as an individual human being? What was the objective significance of becoming a Hare Krishna rather than a Buddhist or a Jehovah's Witness? And for an answer I was looking for something more than the glib drivel and pop psychology of the anticultists.

One of the things that I immediately recognized was that, psychologically speaking, there is more than one Krishna. The distinction made by the Goswamis--different Krishnas in Vrindavan, Mathura and Dvaraka--seemed to have not only a historical raison-d'être, but a psychological one. The idea of the "changing of the Gods" seemed particularly significant historically, as the Bhakti movement in 16th century India was a mass opting for a very personal, intimate, human God in an atmosphere where other, much more aggressive God figures (Allah and Kali) were dominating the discourse.

I can imagine that those with a pure traditional understanding of Vaishnavism may find my interpretation dangerously close to psychologism. But even the Vaishnava scriptures (such as Gita 4.11, Bhagavata 3.9.11) talk about the element of subjectivity in the relationship of the individual to God. The Hindu way of approaching the question is that God [him]self changes form for the sake of the devotee--Krishna is not the same person for Kunti Devi, Arjuna, Radha or Yashoda. This is probably one of the most significant messages of the Goswamis--take Brihad-bhagavatamrita for example. One God, multiple forms. One form, one lila, one entire spiritual universe for each and every individual soul, as a matter of fact. Sampradayas are common associations of shared perceptions of the Deity, where individuals voluntarily share these universes. But in this kind of understanding, the idea of establishing a universal theistic standard ("one fits all vision of God") is something of an affront.

Garuda Das (Graham Schweig) has coined the rather unwieldy term "polymorphic bi-monotheism" to pinpoint some of the above (the polymorphic part). "Bi-monotheism" is a reference to the Vaishnava Godhead as the combined Radha and Krishna, which is, as far as I can see, the ultimate Jungian archetype, and yet not really present in any other living religion in the world. Even Mahaprabhu is a living archetype of Jung's idea of psychological "perfection," the coniunctio oppositorum. The idea of the male possessing female characteristics is present throughout history in the Androgyne, as was the idea of synthesizing opposites in the psyche. But symbolically represented as Mahaprabhu, there is what I see a paradigm shift. This is a rejection of Mars, not necessarily in absolute terms, but certainly away from the paradigm of pure sexual identities. No one is uniquely female or male in this world, and yet at least for men, an opening (so frightening for so many men) to the female aspects of their own psyche is a sine qua non of spiritual insight. Thus Newman's dictum, so beloved of Gaudiyas (here paraphrased), that "even the manliest of men cannot approach God unless he first becomes a woman."

My principal objection to Kundali, and indeed to the greater part of the Gaudiya Math approach (with due respect to Audarya Lila, there are definite moods set in place by Prabhupada, and if some of his disciples of his are wider ranging than others, it is only because some believe he opened a door, while others think he shut it) is that their God is not my God. And if their God is mine, then let us explore the implications for us HERE, in this world.

The journey to God is only half the journey. The other half is the journey back.

I had forgotten that I cited a few snippets from Goldenberg's book on the thread Polytheism some time ago.

I found what Audarya-Lila prabhu said very interesting. As I am one who is in contact and active in ISKCON (though my experience is just with Prithu's gang) I just can't imagine how it must of been like in the earlier days, for it is nothing like what my experience is. My only dissappointments stem from my own attachments and hesitations in my struggle for consistancy... I truly think ISKCON has much hope and has changed for the better. I feel that ISKCON members would benefit from the association of those who have left, if they would come back and see how it is now. I can't speak for everywhere, but I know that in Portland, the devotees are very dedicated, yet casual and funloving.

I wanted to say that I know that just because someone chants and follows strictly, it doesn't mean they can't be a rascal. It definately takes time, doesn't it? I think responsabilities were dole'd out before alot were anywhere near "cleansed"(speaking of the early days). And too, quoting from "Cool Hand Luke" ..."sometimes there are those you just can't reach..."

I saw a quote in a book that by replacing an inferior engagement with
a superior one, the inferior can be given up.... I can't recall the Sanskrit term. It is at home, sorry. I was wondering what everyone's experience with this might be, if you have found it to be true, or is this a time taker too?

You're thinking of Gita 2.47, rasa-varjaM raso'py asya paraM dRSTvA nivartate.

Yes! That's it....
I saw it quoted by Srila Prabhupada in The Journey of Self Discovery....Thanks!

Srijiva,

Please forgive me if I upset you in any way. As I said in my post, my exposure to Iskcon is very limited at this time and I believe that is true with most of the sadhakas who post on this board. That's why I would caution about making definitive statements about the institution. But also, from my own observations, it appears that the institution is very diverse and is accomodating of a broad spectrum of devotees.

By affiliating with any institution the individual is by nature somewhat compromised. By that I mean the individual may not agree with many things and even strongly oppose some institutional practices and policies but for whatever reason may remain closely affiliated with the institution. I know there are many disciples of ACBS who were given direct orders to remain within Iskcon and try their best to serve him within the society. Many of them are faithful to those instructions and work from within the institution to bring about meaningful change.

I have great respect and admiration for many devotees in Iskcon and I associate fairly closely with some of them. I left the institution in 1983 for many reasons but I still feel great admiration for all devotees. I find it fairly easy to overlook any differences I have personally with various devotees and that whatever those differences may be we can still come together in service to Mahaprabhu.

Having said that - it is also true that my Guru Maharaja is liked by some in Iskcon and not by others. He is welcomed with open arms by some and shunned by others. This is mostly due to the fact that he stands seperate from the institution of Iskcon and has his own voice. His voice is welcomed by some and not by others - which really shows just how diverse the Iskcon institution really is.

At any rate - please forgive me if I upset you in any way by previous post. What I was really interested in pointing out is that there are so many experts in so many fields of knowledge and all of them can be utilized nicely in Krsna's service. But it is not a fact that by simply chanting and serving nicely all knowledge will come to the sadhaka. If you know nothing about architecture now and chant for a live time without studying architecture you will still know nothing about architecture. Therefore I wouldn't recommend starting a building project without the help of someone who is expert in the field. I also wanted to point out that the ideal of following the heart, which is why one takes to the devotional path to begin with, can be easily covered over by conforming to an institution or institutional policies in deference to one's own conscience.

Audarya Lila Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeicences!
All glories to Sri Sri Nitai Sacinandana!

By no means was I upset by anything you wrote....Please, prabhuji, It was just the opposite, infact! I really found what you wrote to be interesting and insightful. Your account of the devotee declining the service and expertise of your brother was an important example.

I just felt like adding that I do go to an ISKCON Temple, wanting to perhaps tell everyone that my experience with ISKCON so far has been positive. Not that it really matters, I suppose.

I just feel bad you misunderstood my reply. By no means was I upset, offended or put off. Sometimes I feel like such a neophite here.

You all write so well and have many nice points to make and have experience to draw from. I really like this forum, it is different than others. There is quality and quantity. I scrape together what ever "two-cents" I can throw in so I can be in your association. In time I hope to get to know more of you better. PLease feel free, anyone, to PM me.

There is lots of weird stuff in the vedas. One shouldn't be so quick to accept its many statements as genuine.

Pesonally, I feel one should pick and choose what it is to be one's Absolute Truth.

But of course it does, dear Srijiva, and I am sorry if I or anyone else here have given you the impression we felt ISKCON was bad through and through... or that we KNEW it was bad and no one else's experience mattered.

ISKCON is not monolithic, and we are all individuals. I am glad to hear you have had a positive experience. I have had lots of good experiences in ISKCON as well. No spiritual society is problem-free.

Leaving aside whether "the Vedas" are the three, the four, or the five, what does it mean that they are genuine? What does it mean that their statements are genuine?

Webster's entry "genuine":
a. actually having the reputed or apparent qualities or character
b. actually produced by or proceeding from the alleged source or author

As for a., let us say they are eternal.
As for b., they are the breathing of Narayana.

One can become convinced, if one needs to, that it is so.



Can one choose every day? Every moment? Are all choices valid?

-ek

Perhaps then the operative term I was looking for is then that not all that is vedic is fit for human consumption or He that is purported to have written them or breathed them has some serious psychological imbalances, imho.



Are all choices valid? All choices are binding and may make you an invalid until you choose otherwise in the moment.

Today we had the fortunate association of Her Grace Malati devi dasi ACBSP., who gave Srimad Bhagavatam class... I asked her what she thought on this topic and her answer was simple. ..."If you fall off your bike, you'll go to the hospital, right? Well, the mind is apart of the material body,and if it is ailed and is hindering your performance of bhakti yoga, you should get proper treatment." ...(not a direct quote, I am paraphrasing)

I feel comfortable at this forum, by the way. Everyone seems very courteous in the exchanges. And I don't feel like I am in the pressence of a bunch of ISKCON haters or anything.

One thing about what Babu had said...


boy, where to start. I just shared this with my wife...she said, (and I quote) "we were at one point living in a car, bashing religion!"... I interjeted that yes, infact I was driving that car... "from there living in my grandmothers spare room with a huge wake of destruction behind us. And we are supposed to discern what is the absolute truth and what is not?"
(well said Hunnee Buneee)

It dawned on us that we were certainly not the measure of all things here. What intelligence I did have I could only use to draw the conclusion that I did not know anything worth a hill of beans. All the bits of this book and Ideas from that book I had read up till then only got me thinking I could play God... thinking I could figure out life's mysteries, if only I could get my act together and find the right drug.

Philosophicaly defeated, I think I was finally open minded enough for me to accept Srila Prabhupada as an authority on what is the absolute truth...

Picking and choosing what I wanted to accept as truth or not is what got me this body in the first place.

Sure, I'll be the first to admit there are lot of strange things in the Vedas...there is alot of cool stuff too. That is what fascinates me about them. For now, I only concern myself with the cream of the vedas, the Srimad Bhagavatam, and Vaishnava literatures. I don't feel the need to read outside of that for now. I have a big enough reading list as it is.

Haven't had time to read thru all of the new posts as of yet, but they look interesting...

I'll reply to the 2 queries (Keshav & Tatapri) & 1 response (Jagat).

I did not really want to elaborate upon the structural defects, so I won't give all of the details, for they have already been discussed to death on the boards for years now. Also, I think Jagat that you were perhaps reading more into my statement than was intended. Its not that I think the situation is completely hopeless, just that until the cracks in the foundation are repaired, all efforts are in vain. If I put new windows in the house and reshingle the roof, that takes care of drafts and leaks, however it does not solve the problem with the risk of the whole building collapsing when the foundation eventually crumbles. It also does not solve the problem of seepage and water that will cause damage in the basement and all kinds of mold/mildew to grow.

I personally don't really think it is so much an issue of culture clashes East/West nor of Westerners being inherently ill-equipped for sAdhana. I agree that a strong community is vital and that one built on extreme asceticism is a mere utopian pipe dream (what have those people been smoking? one has to wonder...).

I have been harping on the principle of balance, as anyone who has been reading my many posts over the years knows full well. The sAdhaka community in India has found its own balance for its own culture. A western sAdhaka community will probably need to have a different approach to eventually reach a state of equilibrium.

My niece and her husband recently finished their doctorates in pyschology and are working on their internships. She's in research on neuro-transmitters and he's in clinical practice. They have had some interesting things to say regarding so-called 'pop pyschology' and the current trends in the field. Needless to say, it is a developing discipline that is perhaps still in its infancy.

ICJ and ICJ

When yr duped, yr duped!

Although I appreciated some articles by Krishna-kirti das at ISKCON Cultural Journal, How I found the site was when I was looking for the ISCKON Communications Journal.

I noticed that today he has changed the site to Hare Krishna Cultural Journal, per the request by the GBC.

What all this means to me at this point? I dunno...don't really care anymore. I don't think I would have posted that article if I had found it today, having the fog lift a little as to who the community of Gaudiya Disscusions is. How we change day to day.

Yet the overall issue of psychology's relationship to religion is a very good one and I do intend to respond in more depth to the topic when I have more time and more sleep, which have been in short supply lately along with my cold slowing me down. I wish my materials for my psychological anthro class weren't presently buried and I will try to unearth them.

You put the topic in the IGM section and there are still people here who are curious to discuss such things, so no harm done. People who don't want to be disturbed probably don't read this section.

(Meanwhile people are muttering in the background, "My God, she never shuts up, how much will she write when she REALLY has time?" To which I answer, "You don't want to know!")