Emotions and Logic in Written Communication - The limits of written expression

There has been much discussion over emotions; considering others' emotions, expressing ones' emotions.

Unfortunately the communication of emotions is very limited in written form, as it lacks the depth of an interpersonal encounter. We do not see the facial expressions, we do not hear the tone of voice, we do not sense the emotions. All we are left with is a collection of words on the screen. Words, which are probably not carefully thought over and edited over and over again to maximize the accuracy of expression in reflecting one's emotional state. This evidently leads to myriads of misunderstandings, to all the quarrels the internet forums are so infamous of. Futile debates, temper tantrums, all brands of name-calling and slander. The expression of emotions is very limited in a written form.

On the other hand, logical thought is easily conveyed in written form, and rarely leaves room for misunderstanding among thoughtful readers. Therefore, it is recommendable that all discussions stay within the framework of logical thought, leaving emotions to the background. If this principle is not followed, a forum easily transforms into a hive of madness. This has been witnessed over and over again.

This does not mean to say that you should surpress your emotions altogether. Certainly not -- they are a natural aspect of human existence. However, there is a time and place for everything, and an internet discussion forum is not the place for a flur of emotions.

Those who are very emotionally inclined and unable to control them in favor of logical thought ought to spend less time in internet forums and more time with their friends in person.

I agree with this up to a point, and it is a very excellent point. On the other hand, emotional content can actually enrich one's writings, especially if someone is moved in a positive way about rAgAnugA bhakti. I do not think expressing one's feelings is necessarily a problem. It is just when it starts to affect one's judgement and the heart begins to rule the head, rather than the other way around, that things tend to get out of hand in chat room discussions. One suggestion I would lke to make is to disagree respectfully rather than outright attacking one's opponent while debating. The same goes for the guru of one's opponent.

Often times we may write things while in an emotional state, only to regret it later after we have calmed down and are thinking more clearly. I suggest that if you are upset, that you force yourself to wait a couple of days to respond to someone, just as if you were about to get in a car and drive, which is also not a wise thing to do while very angry or distraught.

If you fee like you are surrounded by those that do not share your point of view, maybe it is time to consider finding another forum to participate in. I know that I am taking part here instead of in many other bhakti related forums for that very reason. I have once upon a time chatted on certain sites, but when I decided to bow out, I did not leave in a huff with some harsh statements. I just stopped posting and reading the posts of others.

Exactly so, the problem is with emotions overriding good sense.

I didn't give much consideration to the positive side of emotion in this regard, given that I particularly had some of the recent posts in my mind.

Bravo!

Some of us may have been trained, whether in our families, our business involvements, or our spiritual pursuits, to brand those with whom we disagree as "demons" or "offenders" or "evildoers" or "our inferiors."

That approach is not conducive to the trnad api sunicena dictum that Mahaprabhu gave us.

Instead, we would do well to assume the BEST regarding others, rather than the worst. Most of the followers of Bhaktivedanta Swami are well-meaning and good-hearted people who are doing their very best to develop their Krishna consciousness, according to their own understanding, and to share it selflessly with others. We can say the same about the followers of any number of gurus in the "traditional" parivaras, and even the "non-traditional" camps where a charismatic leader (be it a Jagadbandhu or a Kripalu, etc.) is somewhat outside the normative bounds of "orthodoxy."

Even so, good intentions don't make a person's views correct. Many sincere people are sincerely wrong. But those sincere people need to be treated with respect, love, and deference to their own misconceptions and sensitivities to the fullest extent that we are able. We shouldn't deliberately trample on others' emotions except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Yet until we are siddha-mahatmas, we will necessarily misjudge, to some degree, what those extraordinary circumstances might be. So caution is advisable.

If we wish to come to a discussion with the attitude that "My guru said that all these other gurus are demons, and I need to tell them so," then we really ought to keep such discussion within our own circle of guru-brothers. Such an attitude is often the result of a desire to identify with a movement larger than oneself, in an effort to bolster one's own unacknowledged lack of self-esteem. Even when there is a significant disagreement, if we cannot offer our "dandavats from a distance" to a fellow Caitanyaite with some genuine affection and appreciation, we may be better served by examining our own spiritual life rather than coming into a forum and belittling others' spiritual lives and the choices they have made.

Even if you believe that someone else's guru has made a serious mistake, isn't it best to avoid personalizing the disagreement? For example, you can discuss:

- Is it vital to have a physically unbroken diksha succession?
- Is a guru "less merciful" or "less empowered" if he chooses not to preach, or not leave the Holy Dhama?
- Should siddha-pranali be revealed from within when one is advanced, or should it be given by one's guru in the beginning stages of practice?
- Are bheka and/or sannyasa essential for our lineages, or are they late accretions that can be done without?
- Did we have some connection to Krishna's pastimes before we entered the material world?

...and so on, without impugning one guru or another.

It is also important to remember that we cannot expect everyone around us to appreciate our guru exactly as we do. If we tell others that our guru is infallible, or extraordinary in some way or another, then we should expect others to question his actions if they seem to disprove his infallibility or suggest his ordinariness. So, just as we should refrain from abusing other gurus, we should be careful that when we glorify a guru we do so within the bounds of Vaishnava etiquette.

And if another Vaishnava sincerely appreciates our guru, but doesn't appreciate him in exactly the same way that we do, we shouldn't be so quick to call that other Vaishnava a blasphemer. Should we keep our distance? Perhaps, or perhaps not, depending on the circumstances. But should we threaten a Vaishnava with gruesome punishments from the Fifth Canto because he respects our guru differently than we do? Never!

Also, we should not try to use our guru as a weapon with which we will clobber our opponents. Rather, we should see ourselves as fallen, and as unqualified to represent our gurudeva properly. Our attitude should be, "If I tell everyone that I am a disciple of SO-AND-SO, this will tend to bring dishonor to my great guru, who has so mercifully accepted me in my fallen state. Better I should stick to discussions of philosophy and the divine pastimes." Often, in our fallen condition, our attempts to "glorify our guru" are actually attempts to glorify ourselves by proxy. And that's a wrong attitude for a follower of Mahaprabhu.

trnad api sunicena -- it's the law.

Well spoken, Vamsidas. People of various walks of Vaishnava life have been thrown together in this big melting pot of cyberspace - individuals that would otherwise have never exchanged words. There is much to be gained for many in such encounters, as long as they are receptive to messages that may not be easy to hear. It behooves us to deliver any such messages in as diplomatic a manner as possible. There was another forum (I forget which one exactly) where a member of the Sri Sampradaya joined only to be abused by some ill-mannered Caitanyaites. There is no excuse for such behavior.

Religious tolerance is quite a high ideal, but it can be a very elusive one as well.

Jai Radhe, Jai Nitai everyone

There are very interesting points made in this discussion. I think in general we overrate our ability and capacity to convince others by words, and to assimilate what is stated. I think this is true already in non-vital issues which do not touch one’s deeper existence. According to philosophy of language (Wittgenstein) words get their meaning through language games, the way they are used “defines” them in terms of the understanding created. On the subjective side according to phenomenological analysis (Husserl, Gadamer) understanding is a cyclic process, a hermeneutic circle: We only understand further what we have already understood. Someone without the first level of understanding cannot accept the second one either and so on. Here perhaps the quality of grace in the sense of inspiration (Latin from “in – spiritus”, spirit entering) comes in, something certainly not to be judged by anyone.

The understanding of works of art, which is a completely subjective affair with only a few objectifiable criteria, is the prototype for the complexity involved. For some people art is a very vital affair, and any understanding affects them deeply. For most other people however, it is just an arbitrary thing and they are not touched personally by this or that expression of understanding or non-understanding. A forum on spiritual issues as complex as this one will necessarily open up a Pandora box full of “spirits” haunting those involved. If you understand and have integrated already what you discuss and others reflect, not much friction arises. You know the language games and share them with your partners, expanding the understanding by further elucidation in a give and take of the discourse. I think this happens in most of the shastric and historical discussions on this Forum, where experts add to each others knowledge. Most of them are purely objective. In controversial issues, however, where faith determines one’s position, the subjective side is more prominent and should also receive more patient attention. If someone does not comply with the existing language games or introduces new ones competing with them or distracting from them, an element of confusion can arise. Most of the time it is not even that simple, because of the spontaneity and the measure of self-critical inquiry which differs from person to person. Which is why I think a code of behaviour cannot be securely established or enforced, except in authoritarian cuts by the Forum facilitators.

I think this is where emotion might come in. Essentially we are always emotionally responsive, it is not something that can be cut out. Any Input creates an emotion in us, so also any mail or posting we read. Then it depends on such accidental factors as, according to Tantric lore, which nostril is open at the time and which brain hemisphere is active, which will color the type of response we are able to give. Another –to me – important point is that not everyone can argue as well as everyone else. Most of us did not cultivate the art of arguing, not academically, and some of us are simply not equipped (in terms of astrological planets for instance) for this type of exchange, and yet want to participate. Without the force of emotion we would not post any postings, not take the trouble to express ourselves and the risk of exposing ourselves. And I think it is specifically when we differ from what we read or when we feel we should add a perspective, that we feel the need to participate.

As to the exchanges that are occurring between people with totally different orientations, stating one’s own position and then silently quit if that is attacked or rebuffed, as I think Ananga mentioned, seems to be the best choice. If there is a sincere inquiry, it can be answered, and whatever is perceived as an answer will be accepted. However, when answers are already existing, there is no place for any new information. It seems it’s then a question of the sukriti of a person whether he or she got to an adequate source (whatever that may be defined as) at the time the vital question was still open. Once that place is filled, any further answer if differing from the original one will cause a confusion whose pain one wants to avoid. It’s one of the recommendations given in vaishnava shastra not to cause pain in mind or body to others. Since we are mostly dealing here in questions relating to spiritual identity in a larger sense, any choice already made is deeply rooted. To uproot that may cause immense pain and division between participants of the exchange.

I personally struggle with what’s to be done in a case where that identification has not already occurred completely, as when relating to a neophyte bhakta who might drift towards Iskcon or GM views naively, if the discrepancies are not pointed out, the whole offence question arising…

What would be nice is if there was a channel in the forum where emotions, frustrations etc. could be safely expressed. But maybe that is only possible in the safety of the exchange of two people mailing each other.

This channel is called PM. Any member can send a PM (Private Message) to another member by clicking on the little PM button on the bottom of each post in the forums.

If emotions, frustrations and so forth are publicly expressed, they are by no means in a safe environment, given the fact that anyone can freely read and comment on them; among those countless "anyones" there is generally at least one who picks up the axe and wages a war, being irritated by the emotions expressed. Since there are hardly any uniform standards for handling emotion, unlike there are with facts examined through reason and logic, there are little means for resolving such situations.

Better late than never...

...what I actually meant there was if emotions and frustrations could be talked about, from a meta-level that is, not expressing one's emotions at each other. But I guess with some it happens already in their ongoing discussions, like when some of you are joking around, or pulling each other's legs. A lot of it gets really dry here, and only occasional new guests bring in some fresh air, but then disappear real fast. Most of the discussions are on such a high level though, that ordinary bhakta-folks can only stand and stare mouth wide open. I accept that it is part of sadhaka-practice to just sit back and become silent when someone has dropped the guillotine of shastric comment. The wisdom of silence...