|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 15, 2009 9:10:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 15, 2009 11:12:26 GMT -5
Please feel free to ask any questions you may have. I'm away most of today but will check in tonight. This was a difficult installment to write. I didn't want to mentally go back there...but I'm glad to have finished it.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Aug 15, 2009 21:40:05 GMT -5
Something that's surprising to me about your story so far, Tapati, is the similarity between the language you used as a Hare Krishna, and the language that a Christian would use. It makes the story feel very familiar, even though there are so many other differences between the two religions.
I don't know much about Hare Krishna beyond what you've described (and actually would be thrilled if you wouldn't mind summing up some of the core beliefs), but I had the (false, I think now) impression that it was a more impersonal religion like many forms of Buddhism, while it seems to have more of a personal element like Christianity. I noticed that you asked for specific prayers, and your statement "If I stay out of maya it will only be by Prabhupada’s causeless mercy" seems closely equivalent to the Christian saying "if I stay out of worldliness it will only be by Jesus' causeless mercy" (and I've heard variants of that many times). Likewise, the allegation that your friend had been tempted by the world, but Krishna would bring her back to himself is a very familiar parallel.
Would you consider the "personal" aspect that you seemed to be expressing to be analogous to Western religion, or did it mean something completely different to you?
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 15, 2009 23:35:39 GMT -5
Tapati ~ as I was reading this post, I was imagining just how suspenseful and downright scary some of these confrontations must have been for you as a 16-year-old. Taking the gun away from your mom ~ wow! And then when she discovered your suitcase in the trunk of the car.
Thank you so much for sharing ~ I can certainly understand why recalling these memories would be difficult ~ I appreciate you making the effort so that we all can benefit and learn from your experiences.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 16, 2009 0:41:02 GMT -5
Something that's surprising to me about your story so far, Tapati, is the similarity between the language you used as a Hare Krishna, and the language that a Christian would use. It makes the story feel very familiar, even though there are so many other differences between the two religions. I don't know much about Hare Krishna beyond what you've described (and actually would be thrilled if you wouldn't mind summing up some of the core beliefs), but I had the (false, I think now) impression that it was a more impersonal religion like many forms of Buddhism, while it seems to have more of a personal element like Christianity. I noticed that you asked for specific prayers, and your statement "If I stay out of maya it will only be by Prabhupada’s causeless mercy" seems closely equivalent to the Christian saying "if I stay out of worldliness it will only be by Jesus' causeless mercy" (and I've heard variants of that many times). Likewise, the allegation that your friend had been tempted by the world, but Krishna would bring her back to himself is a very familiar parallel. Would you consider the "personal" aspect that you seemed to be expressing to be analogous to Western religion, or did it mean something completely different to you? Bhakti yoga, the yoga of devotion to God, is a very personal branch of Hinduism. While there are many different opinions among Hindus as to which of the pantheon of Gods is the One Supreme God (with the others being like officials in a presidential administration), there are just two main branches of thought as to the nature of that Supreme Being. Either we are completely one with God, just under the illusion that we are separate (the Advaitins or what the Krishna movement calls Mayavadis or Impersonalists) or the Personalist (exemplified by the Hare Krishnas and other Vaishnavas) or Dvaita school of thought. You can read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DvaitaIt is a very complex philosophical difference of opinion that is too lengthy for me to explain in detail here--one could and people have written whole books about it--but the most basic expression is this: We believed that (and I still do in my own way) that while we are made up of the same "stuff" or "essence" as God in terms of our spirit soul (the real person within this material body), we are also eternally different from Him quantitatively. We are part of the whole but eternally individual. The example often used by Hare Krishna devotees is that of a drop of water from the ocean compared to the whole ocean. I prefer to say that we are like one unique piece of a jigsaw puzzle, unlike any other and yet made of the same material and contributing to form the Whole. Advaitins would say that we are under the illusion that we are separate in any way and our job is to peel away that illusion so we can merge into the bliss of the all pervading energy of the universe in an impersonal fashion. So you can see that while both groups may engage in practices of bhakti yoga to dispel what we see as illusion, we disagree about the end result of that practice and the nature of the Person we are devoting ourselves to. The personalists or dualists really do have a rather Christian-feeling sense of attachment to God and do pray in a personal manner to be given the strength to serve, the grace to endure tribulations and so on. The language is slightly different but the reverence and love is the same. The sense also, common to other fundamentalist traditions, of Us and Them, of our society and Their society, of spiritual vs. material or mundane, is also very similar. The isolationism is much the same--hence the resistance to public schooling, media, and other forms of contact with mainstream society except for preaching or witnessing. So yes, the parallels you are seeing are really there, which is why I reacted to the things Vyckie wrote as being very akin to my own experience and why I thought my story would have value for any questioning QF women or older children. I will look for some pages by the Hare Krishna devotees themselves about their core beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 16, 2009 0:50:12 GMT -5
Tapati ~ as I was reading this post, I was imagining just how suspenseful and downright scary some of these confrontations must have been for you as a 16-year-old. Taking the gun away from your mom ~ wow! And then when she discovered your suitcase in the trunk of the car. Thank you so much for sharing ~ I can certainly understand why recalling these memories would be difficult ~ I appreciate you making the effort so that we all can benefit and learn from your experiences. It was already part of my "to do" writing list so I'm glad to have an extra push to get it done. Yes I was petrified even as I put the suitcase in the car, for fear it would wake her up when I went outside and opened and shut the trunk. I almost died when she opened it and saw the suitcase because her temper was by then well known to me. The gun thing was just over the top and people have said to me, "But why would your Aunt expect you to go retrieve the gun?" The only answer I can give is that my family continually forgot my age or overlooked the implications of my age. I was told at thirteen that I should take care of my mother and that if I tried to leave home and she killed herself it would be my fault. They seemed to have no clue that I was not an adult yet. Therefore when the devotees told me I was an adult at 16 according to "Vedic" culture, I finally just gave in and figured, "OK, I guess I'm an adult." One consequence of all this was that as an adult, no one owed me any nurturing and so I learned not to expect it and to provide for myself as best I could. I had already been taught in many ways throughout my life that I was supposed to take care of my mother's emotional need for intimacy and a confidant. I should say that later on my mother and I vastly improved our relationship but it took years of being a bit reserved with her to get her to separate from me in a more healthy manner. The primary drama of her life was that her mother did not appear to really love her and favored her younger sister. This drove everything about her, really, and contributed to what I suspect was borderline personality disorder along with depression. In the last week of her life she confided to me that she knew her mother would never love her. I think she knew by the chest pain she was having that she was soon to die, within two days of my aunt Gin who was in a coma after a surgery. I wrote about this also on my LJ.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 16, 2009 0:56:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 16, 2009 1:14:52 GMT -5
The personalists or dualists really do have a rather Christian-feeling sense of attachment to God and do pray in a personal manner to be given the strength to serve, the grace to endure tribulations and so on. The language is slightly different but the reverence and love is the same. The sense also, common to other fundamentalist traditions, of Us and Them, of our society and Their society, of spiritual vs. material or mundane, is also very similar. This really fascinates me, Tapati. Here's something that I wrote to my uncle Ron recently (and btw ~ someone, anyone really ought to say, "Wow ~ you're writing to Ron again ~ that's so awesome!): Most of the time, when I'm asked [what I believe about God these days] my response is something like, "Well, I don't really like to think of myself as an atheist ~ but it doesn't scare me ~ and it is the correct term for someone who doesn't believe in God ~ which, I guess ~ makes me an atheist." For those who are interested enough to pay attention while I give a more detailed explanation, I like to tell about how C.S. Lewis was really the one who talked me out of monotheism when I read in his book "Miracles" the distinction he makes between naturalists and supernaturalists ~ do you remember this? [NOTE ~ this is actually copied from the letter that I wrote to Ron about two years ago.] Here's more from Lewis: "The Supernaturalist agrees with the Naturalist that there must be something which exists in its own right; some basic Fact whose existence it would be nonsensical to try to explain because this Fact is itself the ground or starting-point of all explanations. But he does not identify this Fact with "the whole show." He thinks that things fall into two classes. In the first class we find either things or (more probably) One Thing which is basic and original, which exists on its own. In the second we find things which are merely derivative from that One Thing. The one basic Thing has caused all the other things to be. It exists on its own; they exist because it exists. ... The difference between the two views might be expressed by saying that Naturalism gives us a democratic, Supernaturalism a monarchical, picture of reality. The Naturalist thinks that the privilege of "being on its own" resides in the total mass of things, just as in a democracy sovereignty resides in the whole mass of the people. The Supernaturalist thinks that this privilege belongs to some things or (more probably) One Thing and not to others ~ just as, in a real monarchy, the king has sovereignty and the people have not. And just as, in a democracy, all citizens are equal, so for the Naturalist one thing or event is as good as another, in the sense that they are all equally dependent on the total system of things. Indeed each of them is only the way in which the character of that total system exhibits itself at a particular point in space and time. The Supernaturalist, on the other hand, believes that the one original or self-existent thing is on a different level from, and more important than, all other things." Of course, nobody likes a monarchical system ~ except, I suppose, the monarch. So, in using the democracy / monarchy comparison, Lewis is certainly not attempting to make the Supernaturalist model to seem more attractive than the Naturalist model. Lewis also says some have suggested that the monarchical construction arose from reading into the universe the structure of monarchical societies, while the democratic construction arose out of the structure of democratic society. Not that such suggestions actually tell us anything regarding the truth or falsehood of either model. Anyway ~ if this is how you believe, I can see why you like it and why Supernaturalism would not appeal to you. It really doesn't sound very appealing to me either. You couldn't have known it at the time, but as I was writing that letter to you ~ my mind had this major paradigm shift from supernaturalist to naturalist.It's the hierarchy that I really have a problem with ~ whether that's monarchy, patriarchy, or the supernatural belief that God is above and over and separate from everything else. I just can no longer get my head around the dualistic thought which used to be so obvious to me. I would say that puts me in the Impersonalist camp ~ except that somehow, I can still see where there could be personality and intention in a non-dualistic system ~ only that intelligence or "mind" belongs to the whole. I really like the Gaia concept ~ the universe (in the sense of everything that exists) as a living organism ~ that makes sense to me. So ~ pantheism? Maybe. I'm also pretty interested in process theory ~ which is a whole 'nuther subject....
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Aug 16, 2009 1:55:22 GMT -5
Thanks, Tapati.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Aug 16, 2009 6:06:41 GMT -5
My heart feels heavy for the young Tapati. Stories like this make me want to get busy on that time machine I've been meaning to build - I'd hop right in and come to help! And Vyckie - that's so awesome! Also, I'd love to talk more about the Gaia concept but I don't want to threadjack...
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Aug 16, 2009 14:02:33 GMT -5
I would be too, Sargassosea - we could start our own thread
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 17, 2009 9:58:53 GMT -5
As a pagan who is still a dualist, I continue to hold to the notion that we are simultaneously one and different from God. We are not the whole, but we are made of the same stuff and are part of the whole. But as a pagan I see us, therefore, as co-creators on our smaller level, also responsible for affecting reality by our consciousness and our actions and our rituals, responsible for doing so with conscious intent rather than going through life just reacting to stimuli. I guess if you want to put it in the monarchy, democracy schema, I am picturing a co-op with maybe one member of the co-op donating the building and the administrative know how while the rest of us decide how the co-op should look and how we'll treat our co-workers and customers. That's as deep as I can get this early in the morning after being woken up by the apartment manager's dog barking (at my husband quietly getting ready for work).
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Aug 18, 2009 0:29:05 GMT -5
Tapati I love how you capture what it is to be an adolescent, you take me back to my own times. Sending you a pm after this post since some stuff I'm not comfortable posting.
I was thinking how aggravating it is that both your family and the temple were ready to do away with your teenage years and label you an adult.. and then I remembered how QF/homeschoolers teach the same thing. They proclaim loudly that adolescence is a myth perpetuated by indulgence and that a 16 year old should be able to run a household (because they older daughters usually are doing so out of necessity!) Really I am sure the hardcore ones will be marrying them off earlier and earlier, especially if they can justify not looking to the state for marriage and just doing it themselves.
As to theology, every time I bother to think about it deeply I find my views have shifted (unbeknown to my conscious mind). I'm kind of vaguely panentheist but truthfully I still want to believe in a parental god. I like changing the gender to female when singing in church or just when praying to the parental god.. this always brings a very different dimension to the parental god experience, LOL. I did not have good parents or good parenting. When I was a small child I continually fantasized about having a mom and/or dad who loved me and wanted to spend time with me and cherished me. So I am not ready to give up this need for a parental god since I never had the human version.
(Interestingly I find parenting my children in a way parents me . I like to do things for my children that take some effort or sacrifice because no one ever did any of those things for me. I feel oddly cared for in being able to do that kind of caring.)
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 18, 2009 1:29:01 GMT -5
Tapati I love how you capture what it is to be an adolescent, you take me back to my own times. Sending you a pm after this post since some stuff I'm not comfortable posting. I was thinking how aggravating it is that both your family and the temple were ready to do away with your teenage years and label you an adult.. and then I remembered how QF/homeschoolers teach the same thing. They proclaim loudly that adolescence is a myth perpetuated by indulgence and that a 16 year old should be able to run a household (because they older daughters usually are doing so out of necessity!) Really I am sure the hardcore ones will be marrying them off earlier and earlier, especially if they can justify not looking to the state for marriage and just doing it themselves. Yes I think there is a parallel there, and I immediately saw it when there was so much coverage also of the FLDS child brides. And any very large family must rely on the older children to do a lot for the family. We were just saying the other day that of my husband's aunts and uncles, only the men have had children out of a family of 6. I think the girls were too burned out to want to go down that road. I have worked very hard to go back to my teenage mind, reading my old poetry and letters to Swarup, playing the same music, and mentally picturing myself back in my room, sitting at my vanity, staring into the mirror and hoping for a better life. I think a lot of abused or neglected children want to grow up and do better by their own kids and it can be healing. I also find the thought of a Goddess who cares about me comforting.
|
|
|
Post by mariaf on Aug 18, 2009 8:01:39 GMT -5
;D
Vyckie, I am a lurker, and I feel bad that I don't contribute to the forums when I love your blog so much. BUT, I need to say this: You are writing to your uncle Ron again ? Wonderful !!!
Maria
PS: Hugs to Laura, and thanks to Tapati, and Princess Jo, and Erika (and anyone else I forgot)
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Aug 18, 2009 9:18:16 GMT -5
One of the things I love about neopaganism is that there are enough gods and goddesses that everyone gets to find one that fits what they need - if you need a mother, dedicate yourself to one of the mother goddesses (or just label the divine Mother Goddess). If you need a warrior to connect to, if you need a sensitive reborn boy child, if you need a wise advisor - there's a face in a pantheon you can choose, or be chosen by. I have had a few friends who practice vodoun or traditional West African religions, and it's the same with those - dedicates are chosen by the Divine that resonates with them.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Aug 18, 2009 15:06:11 GMT -5
I'm kind of vaguely panentheist but truthfully I still want to believe in a parental god. I like changing the gender to female when singing in church or just when praying to the parental god.. this always brings a very different dimension to the parental god experience, LOL. I did not have good parents or good parenting. When I was a small child I continually fantasized about having a mom and/or dad who loved me and wanted to spend time with me and cherished me. So I am not ready to give up this need for a parental god since I never had the human version. I'm sorry that you didn't have parents who wanted to spend time with you. I do think that it's psychologically interesting that you want to believe in a parental god. I had the opposite experience with my parents- my mother in particular just about smothered me- and I don't find anything appealing about the idea of a parental god. When I was growing up, my mother (who didn't work) wanted me to spend all my time with her, go everywhere with her, and be very demonstratively affectionate- so if I heard the voice of god telling me that s/he wanted to be a parent to me, I'd say- yeah thanks but no thanks, I've already had enough parenting of the always present and watching and always demanding outward shows of love variety.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 18, 2009 20:54:01 GMT -5
I prefer my gods be the non-smothering kind, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Aug 19, 2009 1:55:48 GMT -5
Some days I could do with a little smothering, sigh..
But ya know it's very freeing and rather exciting to realize that GOD (if you choose to believe in that concept) is by definition big enough to be the parent, the warrior, the pure child. It is a good journey because I'm no longer looking for the right answer.
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Aug 19, 2009 6:43:40 GMT -5
tapati ~ Your description of your hare krishna days reminds me of some of my own experiences after I divorced the church. I was taking voice lessons at the time (1965-66) and needed to be able to sustain passages longer then I was able and a friend suggested I go visit this 'guy' that was teaching breathing exercises at the St. Claire Hotel in San Jose, CA where I lived then. So I went down to check it out and signed up for the class. Within two weeks I went from being unable to hold my breath for more then a minute to holding it for over two. The guy knew what he was doing, eh? The guy turned out to be Dr. Bhagat Singh Thind and my wife and I became disciples of this teacher until his passing a short time later. www.bhagatsinghthind.com/index02.htmlDr. Thind said more than once in the short time we knew him, "Don't believe what I say, rather prove for yourself what I am telling you". I really appreciated that since I'd been brought up to BELIEVE and HAVE FAITH. He taught that we are like onions in that as we meditate, we peel away layer after layer of ourselves (astral body, etheric body etc. I can't remember them all any more) until all that's left is the Light of God that shines within each of us. Since I was a rather retarded disciple and didn't meditate like I was taught to do I haven't "proved" what he said within myself. The only punishment for which will be that I'll be back again in another life to do the work I didn't do in this. (I've said more then once that when I reincarnate I want to come back as a fart in a gentle breeze so that when I pass through folks can say, "Eewww, there's John. Hi John'. LOL ;D) As far as the God Light within . . . Dr. Thinds' wife, Vivian, told me of a time when there son was 5 years or so old and came running into the room where she was exclaiming, "Mommy, Mommy, why does Daddy glow like a light bulb?" She told him that was God shining through and not to bother his Daddy when he was meditating. Proof??? . . who knows, eh? But I like the picture of Dr. Thind glowing like a light bulb. ******************************************** Oh, sargassosea, YES!! I am the Devil . . . I think . . . except that I only have one horn and that's in the middle of my forehead. Does that make me a Unicorn? Or maybe just an Unusualycorny!?!? Anyway, y'all treat yourselves goodly, eh? (an everbuddy else too) John Blessed are they that can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease to be amused.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 19, 2009 17:55:09 GMT -5
I personally don't doubt the effectiveness of meditation techniques. It has been demonstrated scientifically that there are changes in the brains of those who regularly engage in meditation and compared Buddhist monks to Franciscan nuns. Scientists would say this has no spiritual significance but I guess we'll all find out when we die. I just don't think there needs to be all of this controlling cultural baggage attached to it.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Aug 19, 2009 21:48:43 GMT -5
I personally don't doubt the effectiveness of meditation techniques. It has been demonstrated scientifically that there are changes in the brains of those who regularly engage in meditation and compared Buddhist monks to Franciscan nuns. Scientists would say this has no spiritual significance but I guess we'll all find out when we die. I just don't think there needs to be all of this controlling cultural baggage attached to it. well, there are also demonstrated changes to the brains of musicians, or people who lose sight or hearing, or dancers, etc. Pretty much the brain is VERY plastic and will mold to what you do most with it, and if you spend lots of time working on biofeedback control, than yeah, you'll be able to control your breath and heart rate and brainwaves to a greater extent than other people, and the structure of your brain will be different than it otherwise would be. Spiritual significance? Sincerely doubt it, but I do plan to make use of my brain's plasticity to do get what I want out of the life I have here and now. Maybe someday that'll include learning biofeedback and meditative practices.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Aug 20, 2009 7:39:51 GMT -5
I personally don't doubt the effectiveness of meditation techniques. It has been demonstrated scientifically that there are changes in the brains of those who regularly engage in meditation and compared Buddhist monks to Franciscan nuns. Scientists would say this has no spiritual significance but I guess we'll all find out when we die. I just don't think there needs to be all of this controlling cultural baggage attached to it. well, there are also demonstrated changes to the brains of musicians, or people who lose sight or hearing, or dancers, etc. Pretty much the brain is VERY plastic and will mold to what you do most with it, and if you spend lots of time working on biofeedback control, than yeah, you'll be able to control your breath and heart rate and brainwaves to a greater extent than other people, and the structure of your brain will be different than it otherwise would be. Spiritual significance? Sincerely doubt it, but I do plan to make use of my brain's plasticity to do get what I want out of the life I have here and now. Maybe someday that'll include learning biofeedback and meditative practices. I agree there jemand. I'm not inclined to call good stuff that happens to our emotions or brains spiritual. Not really sure what that word even means any more other than.. "mysterious and not explainable in the natural world". To which I would add, "yet".
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Aug 20, 2009 11:46:32 GMT -5
Aside from the changes in the brain, my personal experience with the effects of meditation lead me to believe there's more to it than the purely material. But like I said, it can't be proven to be spiritual. So therefore I feel no need to convince anyone or debate it.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 20, 2009 18:14:49 GMT -5
I have been following your story with great interest, Tapati. Some of it is similar to my own experiences with the Christian cult I was in, in college. I remember my parents' suspicion, and the way I longed so much to be with my new friends in Maranatha, rather than home with my parents. Some of that was part of growing up and going to college, I think-- wanting to forge my own life, separate from that of my parents. But some of it had to do with problems at home and wanting to escape, and some of it had to do with the genuine closeness the members of the religious group had with one another. As for some of the ideas about God that are being expressed here-- it seems to me that if God is the Source and Ground of Being, people could connect with the Divine from any and all of these perspectives. I think what Vyckie was describing-- the idea of God as being in the universe but more than the universe-- is called "panentheism," distinguishable from pantheism in that panentheism tends to see God as having Consciousness, and of containing the universe rather than merely being the sum total of the universe. I don't believe this view need be incompatible with that of Christianity. I'm a bit uncomfortable with Lewis' analogy of monarchy vs. democracy, since I think existence and government are sort of apples-and-oranges when it comes to these comparisons. I see God as upholding and undergirding the Creation, not lording it over the Creation. "I am gentle and humble of heart," Jesus said, and also "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
|
|