|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 6, 2009 19:44:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by belinda on Oct 7, 2009 0:00:43 GMT -5
Tapati - another installment that leaves me saying, "What happened next!?" Well, I couldn't wait to find out, so I've been reading the older drafts on your blog. I thought it was interesting that the women were reading 'Fascinating Womanhood.' This is a book that, alongside 'Surrendered Wife', has recently become very popular in western Muslim circles, as we are told, over and over, how being raised in the western milieu has 'ruined' us as wives, and we must learn how to be proper women and wives in the spirit that allah has intended, to stop complaining and fighting for so many rights, speaking up, and being contentious. (http://inspiritysurrenders.blogspot.com/, and themuslimah.com/tag/the-surrendered-wife/). Of course, when women from those groups come out and say they were abused or something, they're told to shut up or ostracized, etc. Not fascinating enough. It was interesting to me that one of the Muslim teachers who was very strong in promoting FW and these books is a woman who is the antithesis of a surrendered wife. She doesn't even cook for her husband.
|
|
|
Post by xara on Oct 7, 2009 9:40:19 GMT -5
Wow. Scary but wow. I need to digest this before I can say more.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 7, 2009 13:45:22 GMT -5
Tapati - another installment that leaves me saying, "What happened next!?" Well, I couldn't wait to find out, so I've been reading the older drafts on your blog. Yes, I also wrote a longer piece covering the time in Keokuk but it's rather x-rated and not suitable for the kids and teens who sometimes read this blog and forum. I tried to expand on the time Mike and I spent together and portray why I fell for him and what I saw in him initially. One of the things I didn't have room for in this post was the part about my friend who was abused by her boyfriend--and how we both thought it was horrible and she should leave him. Ironic, no? But what the abuser believes and how he acts are often two different things--which leads the partner to think that the "good" person who thinks abuse is wrong will win out over the "bad" person who abuses.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Oct 8, 2009 15:06:55 GMT -5
How dumb am I, that I was surprised & shock when he hit you? Ugh. I'm just imagining your neighbors, hearing that and saying nothing...
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 8, 2009 15:30:03 GMT -5
How dumb am I, that I was surprised & shock when he hit you? Ugh. I'm just imagining your neighbors, hearing that and saying nothing... Not as dumb as I was! It just seemed so out of character and so different from how he'd been treating me up to that point. Now I know that there were some warning signs, but not as obvious as with some guys. Of course I hadn't been taught to look for those signs, either. I don't know what they were thinking, if they were too embarrassed or what. I wish I could hear from them and find out, someday. I don't think any of us had phone service so I guess they couldn't call the police. And of course no one wanted violence like that to reflect back on the peaceful Hare Krishna Movement! There were devotee neighbors on all sides.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 8, 2009 16:05:14 GMT -5
This is very useful (thanks again for typing from the newspaper clipping, Grandmalou!) and appropriate to this topic--the list I should have had, from Dear Abby:
1. Pushes for quick involvement: Comes on strong, claiming, "I've never felt loved like this by anyone." An abuser pressures the new partner for an exclusive commitment almost immediately. 2. Jealous: Excessively possessive; calls constantly or visits unexpectedly; prevents you from going to work because "you might meet someone"; checks the mileage on your car. 3. Controlling: Interrogates you intensely (especially if you're late) about whom you talked to and where you were; keeps all the money; insists you ask permission to go anywhere or do anything. 4. Unrealistic expectations: Expects you to be the perfect mate and meet his or her every need. 5. Isolation: tries to cut you off from family and friends; accuses people who are your supporters of "causing trouble." The abuser may deprive you of a phone or car, or try to prevent you from holding a job. 6. Blames others for problems or mistakes: It is always someone else's fault if something goes wrong. 7. Makes others responsible for his or her feelings: The abuser says, "You make me angry," instead of "I am angry," or says, "You're hurting me by not doing what I tell you." 8. Hypersensitivity: Is easily insulted, claiming hurt feelings when he or she is really mad. Rants about the injustice of things that are just a part of life. 9. Cruelty to animals or children: Kills or punishes animals brutally. Also may expect children to do things that are far beyond their ability (whips a 3-year old for wetting a diaper) or may tease them until they cry. Sixty-five percent of abusers who beat their partner will also abuse children. 10. "Playful" use of force during sex: Enjoys throwing you down or holding you down against your will during sex; finds the idea of rape exciting. 11. Verbal abuse: Constantly criticizes or says blatantly cruel things; degrades, curses, calls you ugly names. this may also involve sleep deprivation, waking you with relentless verbal abuse. 12. Rigid gender roles: Expects you to serve, obey, remain at home. 13. Sudden mood swings: Switches from sweet to violent in minutes. 14. Past battering: Admits to hitting a mate in the past, but says the person "made" him (or her) do it. 15. Threats of violence: Says things like, "I'll break your neck," or "I'll kill you," and then dismisses them with, "Everybody talks that way," or, "I didn't really mean it."
I didn't know it at the time, but he did hit his first wife. He certainly got into a relationship with me quickly, though it was mutual. He didn't seem jealous but I also didn't appear to give him cause (though that doesn't matter with hyper jealous guys.) Let's see, he clearly demonstrated numbers 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and then (14) and (12) with explanations.
I didn't know and he never admitted his past spouse abuse. I bet if you asked him today he's never abused anyone! Number 12, strict gender roles--that was built into Krishna Consciousness but he wasn't fanatical about that. I was probably trying harder to fit into what I thought a "Vedic" wife should be than he was insisting. But he was hyper critical and if I didn't do something well I would hear about it. So he did to some degree--but compared to some of the Hare Krishna men he was almost progressive.
I isolated myself from my family. He didn't ever seem to mind that I had friends and never tried to distance me from them.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 8, 2009 16:06:39 GMT -5
I broke down and ordered a used copy of Fascinating Womanhood since I long ago threw mine away. I want to take out some lines in some of my pieces, things I was trying to do, things that made me feel I had to stay with my husband.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 8, 2009 20:30:09 GMT -5
Tapati ~ I, too, was shocked when I read that Mike actually hit you! Outraged too ~ dammit.
I don't know why, but I really wasn't expecting physical violence so early in the relationship at all. I can understand why you are having a difficult time conveying WHY you fell in love with him in the first place.
I had a hard time with that part too ~ especially because the more I am experiencing and enjoying a healthy, loving relationship with John ~ I'm figuring out that there was nothing even remotely comparable between Warren and me.
I did have positive feelings towards Warren ~ and especially after encountering Nancy Campbell, et. al., I "learned" to love my husband ~ so I would have insisted (in fact, I often did insist) that I was in love with Warren ...
And while I try to let it go and just enjoy the relationship that I have now with John ~ sometimes I can't help but get truly pissed off and depressed when I think about all the years that I missed out experiencing a really quality love relationship ~ I just try to console myself with the thought that, "Hey ~ at least I have all my children as a result of that marriage and for that, I truly am grateful."
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 9, 2009 13:15:37 GMT -5
The problem is that the things that attracted me THEN are not the things that would attract me NOW, for the most part. There are some exceptions.
If I had to list them I would say that I was attracted to him because:
He was good looking (better than the older picture I posted--don't have any from the year I fell in love with him)
He played guitar and had been in a rock band
He knew martial arts
He was funny
He loved books like I did, if not the same kind
He was a good story teller and had lots of stories
He was the cool older guy with a bad boy streak, the kind you date in high school against your parents' strenuous objections
He could be gentle and kind and considerate--in the beginning. These qualities were only intermittently displayed as our relationship progressed
He knew how to cook and had been around the devotees for a long time and had seen Prabhupada more than once
He was an ally against my mom
He seemed to think I was pretty which was a big deal for me
He was sexy--and had a lot of experience
----
Plus in a way, I was in love with LOVE. Being my first mutual love experience, and my first sexual relationship, I was really under the spell of all those love chemicals you read about. I didn't have the experience under my belt to know that doesn't always last. (This is an argument for dating during the high school years so one has a little more experience with relationships before one settles down.)
In the beginning he was on his best behavior and the signs were more subtle. In the beginning he never called me names or yelled at me or hit me. As you can see, none of that happened until I was thousands of miles away from my family and committed to the relationship.
I imagine in many ways I was the ideal woman for him at the time: young, inexperienced, insecure about my weight, alienated already from my family, idealistic about being subservient to him--it sure must have looked to him like I'd never leave him--which is what batterers fear and one of the things that arouses their violence, fear of abandonment. There is a deep insecurity in them that drives the controlling, violent behaviors. They can't believe anyone can really love them and want to stay.
His first wife had already left him. Deep down was the fear that I would, too.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 9, 2009 16:55:54 GMT -5
I came across the beginnings of an essay I wrote years ago about why devotee men shouldn't beat their wives. The same arguments would of course apply to any women who beat their husbands--I did hear of at least one who did so and I assume there are at least a few.
I had intended to flesh it out with scriptural references and so on but never completed it. I didn't even come up with a title but apparently put it away with some literature on domestic violence and forgot about it.
So...here is a look into my former devotee mind, for what it's worth. I am guessing it was written in the early 80s.
For several years now, wife-beating amongst so-called Vaishnavas has been hidden, rationalized, or simply ignored. Men have apparently come to believe that it is their right and their duty to physically punish what they perceive as their wives' transgressions. That such "punishment" far surpasses the limits of decency, and generally becomes a savage and brutal beating that only in Kali-yuga could be rationalized as being justifiable seems to escape the notice of these self-appointed conscience-keepers.
But for the sake of argument, let us suppose that such physical punishment stays within reasonable bounds. Still, is it not stunting the spiritual and even mundane psychological growth of the wife if the husband treats her as a child? As an adult, she must make her own mistakes and learn from the natural consequences. She must be allowed her free will; it is given by Krsna Himself. The husband is to guide the wife, not to be a dictator. Those men whose identities are threatened by a woman who disagrees with them should understand that they are operating on the platform of false ego. The desire to lord it over the wife, to ridicule or chastise, so that he feels superior to her--is it not this desire to be #1 that brought us to the material world in the first place? Due to conditioning a soul in a man's body desires to be in charge. But when this desire leads to excessive violence or verbal and emotional abuse, clearly the man needs to face this problem and overcome it--with help if necessary--or the offenses he's committing to another devotee will wither his devotional creeper.
Philosophical Arguments [against abusing a devotee wife]
1. The wife is a devotee also; you are committing an offense to her.
2. She is not your property to do with what you will. She belongs to Krsna.
3. Being abused has a detrimental affect on her consciousness, puts her in bodily consciousness besides overwhelming her with strong negative emotions such as rage, fear, humiliation, etc.
4. A devotee is supposed to be developing qualities of tolerance, non-violence, gentleness, and compassion. (Bg.) Wife beating is completely the opposite of these qualities.
5. In Krsna Consciousness the only acceptable cause for anger is when you hear blasphemy of the Vaishnavas or Krsna (NOD, NOI)
6. In regard to verbal abuse, what is the good of carefully refraining from fault-finding with other devotees and then doing nothing but that with your wife? Constructive criticism makes it clear that it is the mistake you are criticizing, not the person. This allows the wife to keep her self respect.
7. As Krsna Conscious parents we have the responsibility to provide a peaceful, Krsna Conscious environment for our children. Violence of this sort is never unnoticed by children. You may instruct them to be non-violent all you wish, but if that is what they see, that is what they'll do. Children learn more from what they observe their parents doing than being told one thing and seeing another. Also, seeing the mother being battered or noticing her injuries is very traumatic for the children. They are afraid for her, wish they could protect her, and often feel guilty for not doing so. Even from another room, just hearing the fight can be terrifying. According to research, girls grow up to be abused wives and boys often become abusive husbands. We have the responsibility to see that our children don't have to take birth again. Wife beating is clearly detrimental to this goal.
8. You must also be aware that Paramatma resides in the heart of your wife. Her body is His temple. Obviously abuse constitutes a direct offense to Him.
9. For the wife: to remain and tolerate abuse when the husband is making no serious effort to stop (such as seeking therapy if needed), you are allowing him to pile on offense after offense, becoming more and more hard-hearted. There is nothing unchaste about separating until your husband has taken steps to overcome this. Staying regardless of abuse encourages him to think he has ever right to abuse you without worrying about the consequences, such as karma.
10. When you believe that the spouse has the responsibility to "make" you happy, then you are destined to be disappointed and angry. You are expecting a conditioned soul to do what only pure devotional service can do. A loving relationship with Krsna, the all-attractive, perfect Person, is what we're all looking for. If we expect a jiva to be perfect and without faults, we are unreasonable in our expectations. We should remember that we only see the false ego at this stage, so naturally there are faults in all of us. No one deserves to be abused for these faults.
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Oct 9, 2009 17:46:59 GMT -5
Wow, Tapati, that is powerful! Thank you for sharing it with us! Articles like this can do so much to make people aware of how they hurt each other, and realize when they are being abused.
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Oct 9, 2009 18:30:55 GMT -5
Tapati: You said . . . . But for the sake of argument, let us suppose that physical punishment stays within reasonable bounds. Still, is it not stunting the spiritual and even mundane psychological growth of the wife if the husband treats her as a child. If you read the words of Jesus we are told the we should become as little children or that we are the masters sheep. Sheep are notoriously brainless and children, lacking life experience, are generally very easily manipulated too (see 'Jesus Camp') so it appears to me that in most religious scenarios the followers are supposed to be non-thinking and while most ministers don't beat their parishioners physically (as far as I know) they surely browbeat them into compliance with their interpretation of THE WORD. So with ANY indication in 'Scripture' whatsoever that women are the inferior sex and might be in need of correction it's easy to see where these fundagelicals end up thinking that they have the right, and possibly the mandate, to verbally and perhaps physically chastise their wives. You've all probably seen this video or something like it (and there's a lot of them on YouTube as you'll see) but it's still rather mind blowing to me that men anywhere feel they have this right. I fear that despite our vaunted technology we're still not too far removed from our clubs and our caves . . . . all that's lacking is the mastodons. www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUKphr9v1Mg&feature=relatedBe good to yourselves, eh? John
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 9, 2009 22:29:36 GMT -5
Tapati:
I'm new here, and I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask these questions, but I've been following your posts, and there's one question that keeps nagging at me. So, anyway, if this isn't appropriate, feel free to table this....
While I know that the movement was started by religious leaders from India, I am still curious why you've called your series "Patriarchy Across Cultures." From the reading I've done over the past few days, my sense is that this is primarily a movement led by white Anglo-American devotees. Not only that, but that there is substantial debate--and doubt--among Indian Hindus as to whether or not this is really a legitimate Hindu movement. Moreover, I have been finding some documents alleging racism/ethnocentrism within the movement. Of course, I know that the movement is not 100% white, but I'm talking in generalizations here.
So, basically, I'm wondering... Is this really "across cultures," do you think, or is the movement now (regardless of what it may once have been) more of a white/Western cooptation of a belief system within Hinduism? And... Even if you believed that you were engaging in a cross cultural religious movement at the time... Do you believe that now?
That question aside, thanks for your posts. I've been fascinated by your story here.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 10, 2009 3:01:09 GMT -5
Tapati: I'm new here, and I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask these questions, but I've been following your posts, and there's one question that keeps nagging at me. So, anyway, if this isn't appropriate, feel free to table this.... While I know that the movement was started by religious leaders from India, I am still curious why you've called your series "Patriarchy Across Cultures." From the reading I've done over the past few days, my sense is that this is primarily a movement led by white Anglo-American devotees. Not only that, but that there is substantial debate--and doubt--among Indian Hindus as to whether or not this is really a legitimate Hindu movement. Moreover, I have been finding some documents alleging racism/ethnocentrism within the movement. Of course, I know that the movement is not 100% white, but I'm talking in generalizations here. So, basically, I'm wondering... Is this really "across cultures," do you think, or is the movement now (regardless of what it may once have been) more of a white/Western cooptation of a belief system within Hinduism? And... Even if you believed that you were engaging in a cross cultural religious movement at the time... Do you believe that now? That question aside, thanks for your posts. I've been fascinated by your story here. Hi, KM! First off, I didn't originally name the series, but that name came from the first post in the series. When I was talking about "across cultures" in my "Connecting The Dots" post, I was picturing each patriarchal religion and subculture that exists, from FLDS to QF to Islam to the patriarchal branches of Indian faith. Some of these are subcultures of American Christianity. ISKCON is a culture unto itself with its own cultural norms that are a hybrid of Indian culture and each parent culture in which it resides. There are temples in many parts of the world and each will have a slightly different flavor, therefore. I think that at least some of the problems within the hybrid culture are a direct result of the two cultures melding in an unhealthy way. I once wrote an article about women in the movement that explored that, and some of that material made it into "Connecting the Dots." The founder of the movement, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, was known to have made a number of racist, homophobic and sexist remarks, though those sentiments were not supposed to apply to his disciples. There has been a lot of dispute over the years about how those "isms" of modern sensibility should be viewed by Vaishnavas who believe that one must discriminate in various ways "on the material plane." As for how "Hindus" view ISKCON or other Western devotees (some have taken initiation in other branches of Vaishnavism), that varies. Many Indians appreciate that there are temples in the West where Deity puja is taking place with a high standard and they can observe their festivals. ISKCON has from the beginning catered to the Indian population, even observing non-Vaishnava centered holy days. Certainly there are tensions in India over how ISKCON conducts itself there and how authentic the movement is, etc., and whether a Westerner can ever truly understand Vaishnavism the same way a native can. These are very valid points. However, at the ages of 15, 16, 17 and so on I wasn't aware of issues like colonialism and cultural appropriation. I do remember thinking that if Christians could send missionaries to India like India was in dire need of a new religion, turnabout was fair play. Western devotees of Krishna took on Indian standards of hygiene, dress, method of eating, sleeping, learned languages (though I didn't learn more than songs and scriptures in Bengali and Sanskrit myself), got doctorates in related subjects, and some lived in India for many years. Indian food is what I first learned to cook, both Northern and Southern. I spent hour after hour after hour reading the classics of Indian religion and meditating. Some of these habits have remained even after all these years. For instance, I still eat with my right hand only, and use the left hand for toilet-related tasks. But in any event, I can't speak for the current state of affairs in ISKCON since I've been out of ISKCON proper since 1979 and out of the lifestyle and philosophy as a whole since 1989. Interestingly, I hear that the Eastern bloc nations are experiencing a boom in conversions to the Hare Krishna movement that looks a lot like the 70s in America and Europe and South America. To read about current events check out chakra.org. But keep in mind, these days there are as many devotees of Krishna outside of ISKCON as inside, if not more. There are also second generation devotees. I'm just telling the story in the hope that others can see how patriarchal religion looks much the same regardless of beliefs and outward culture. It has the same fatal flaws wherever it is and whatever name is used to invoke God or whatever scripture is used to justify limiting the lives of women and strictly controlling the minds and hearts of children rather than nurturing their independence. I hope this answers your questions.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 10, 2009 8:57:25 GMT -5
"However, at the ages of 15, 16, 17 and so on I wasn't aware of issues like colonialism and cultural appropriation."
Fair point. Thanks for your response. I look forward to reading the rest of the series.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 10, 2009 11:43:06 GMT -5
"However, at the ages of 15, 16, 17 and so on I wasn't aware of issues like colonialism and cultural appropriation." Fair point. Thanks for your response. I look forward to reading the rest of the series. Besides, I don't think it is appropriation when the natives are asking/pleading/demanding that you take it. After being seen for years by the British as savages with no real culture to offer, some Indians (and some joined ISKCON and were among the leadership) felt proud that Westerners were coming to them to learn something for a change.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 10, 2009 11:49:34 GMT -5
Tapati: You said . . . . But for the sake of argument, let us suppose that physical punishment stays within reasonable bounds. Still, is it not stunting the spiritual and even mundane psychological growth of the wife if the husband treats her as a child. If you read the words of Jesus we are told the we should become as little children or that we are the masters sheep. Sheep are notoriously brainless and children, lacking life experience, are generally very easily manipulated too (see 'Jesus Camp') so it appears to me that in most religious scenarios the followers are supposed to be non-thinking and while most ministers don't beat their parishioners physically (as far as I know) they surely browbeat them into compliance with their interpretation of THE WORD. So with ANY indication in 'Scripture' whatsoever that women are the inferior sex and might be in need of correction it's easy to see where these fundagelicals end up thinking that they have the right, and possibly the mandate, to verbally and perhaps physically chastise their wives. You've all probably seen this video or something like it (and there's a lot of them on YouTube as you'll see) but it's still rather mind blowing to me that men anywhere feel they have this right. I fear that despite our vaunted technology we're still not too far removed from our clubs and our caves . . . . all that's lacking is the mastodons. www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUKphr9v1Mg&feature=relatedBe good to yourselves, eh? John My daughter told me that Muslim men are often so much older than their wives that they do act like they are the father (she married a moderate Muslim). I'd like to know what they think their duties as a husband entails if a wife is supposed to be obedient. They would be shocked at the idea that a spouse should be an equal partner. They don't know what they're missing. Recently I received a note from Nielsen Homescan, a consumer panel I am on, that asked us to make sure the "head of the household" took a particular survey. It further explained that the "head" is the person who makes decisions for the family. Now, at least they didn't write it as if they assumed this head of the household was a man. But they are assuming that one person is dominant and makes the decisions and that rather startled me and I intend to write them a letter. Things don't work that way in our household. I know we aren't the only ones who discuss and make decisions by consensus.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 10, 2009 11:50:06 GMT -5
Wow, Tapati, that is powerful! Thank you for sharing it with us! Articles like this can do so much to make people aware of how they hurt each other, and realize when they are being abused. You're welcome, Grandmalou.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 10, 2009 12:02:15 GMT -5
"Besides, I don't think it is appropriation when the natives are asking/pleading/demanding that you take it. After being seen for years by the British as savages with no real culture to offer, some Indians (and some joined ISKCON and were among the leadership) felt proud that Westerners were coming to them to learn something for a change."
I don't know. I do think that cultural appropriation is sort of inevitable whenever religions spread outside their regions of origin--and that this bears examining when a number of Indian people have named it as cultural appropriation. I'm not saying that you should've been aware at the age of 16, but I have been curious about your thoughts on the whole thing in retrospect. I read that some Indians joined ISKCON and that it was sometimes the only organization building temples in some places in the US (so that some Indians ended up going to the temples by default--because there was nothing else nearby).
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 10, 2009 12:07:26 GMT -5
Oh, and I'm not implying that you *haven't* examined it either, by the way. I was just curious about how you look at it now.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 10, 2009 12:41:43 GMT -5
"Besides, I don't think it is appropriation when the natives are asking/pleading/demanding that you take it. After being seen for years by the British as savages with no real culture to offer, some Indians (and some joined ISKCON and were among the leadership) felt proud that Westerners were coming to them to learn something for a change." I don't know. I do think that cultural appropriation is sort of inevitable whenever religions spread outside their regions of origin--and that this bears examining when a number of Indian people have named it as cultural appropriation. I'm not saying that you should've been aware at the age of 16, but I have been curious about your thoughts on the whole thing in retrospect. I read that some Indians joined ISKCON and that it was sometimes the only organization building temples in some places in the US (so that some Indians ended up going to the temples by default--because there was nothing else nearby). Other Indian people disagree. (As opposed to Native Americans who rightfully object to the way their beliefs are literally ripped off and watered down by others.) So who's right? I think the difference between these two situations is that many Indian people are seeking converts directly, whereas the majority of Native Americans have clearly stated that they find it offensive. Therefore, despite being attracted to what I have read about their beliefs and practices, I wouldn't take them up myself. Gaudiya Vaishnavism as it was presented to us was based on preaching. The original sankirtan performed by Krishna Chaitanya in the 16th century was meant for everyone who observed to take part in--including Muslims. It was a preaching device. The Holy Name was intended for everybody. Perhaps other "Hindu" faiths see things differently, but the Gaudiya Vaishnavas had no restrictions on who could or should practice their beliefs. Now, whether or not outsiders to the culture will see and practice it in precisely the same way is another matter. I don't think that's possible. I think it adapts to the new environment. But I don't think it's offensive for Westerners to respond to the missionary efforts of Indians and take up these practices and beliefs. If you look at the history of Christianity, it has been forced on native populations repeatedly around the world. Each native population was forced to abandon their own Gods and Goddesses. They took their worship underground, using the symbols of the Church. The flavor of Christianity is different in these various environments, therefore. I don't think you can keep religions within borders, though, even if you try. Like any thought or idea, religion is not something that can be contained and fenced off. It changes and adapts to culture in an interactive manner, both reflecting and changing culture. It's a very complex process. Some Native Americans, for instance, are writing books about their beliefs despite the feelings of others that their religion should remain private. Others are holding sweat lodges in the tradition of the Lakota Sioux. I do think that anyone who takes up the practices of an oppressed group of people should also learn about the struggles of those people and become allies.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 10, 2009 12:58:23 GMT -5
"It was a preaching device. The Holy Name was intended for everybody. Perhaps other "Hindu" faiths see things differently, but the Gaudiya Vaishnavas had no restrictions on who could or should practice their beliefs."
Right, I know. It's true that many other Hindus see things differently, though. The Hindu temple near my home was explicitly for people born into the religion, and my Hindu friends have always said that their religion did not proselytize (I think what I'm realizing from reading your story, though, is how many variations of Hinduism are actually being practiced in the world.). My friends told me that the discouragement of preaching was generally a historical response to the zealotry of Christian missionaries in India.
And the white people who take up Native American traditions have always been a personal pet peeve of mine. I saw a lot of that happening in liberal Christian denominations with no acknowledgement of the appropriation that was happening--and all of it completely dumbed down and stripped of meaning. That's one reason I couldn't handle sticking around even in a liberal Christian tradition. I found it offensive in ways different from the fundamentalist crap I'd been exposed to, but offensive nevertheless. And white folks taking up other traditions without even a trace of reflexivity seems to transcend general liberal/conservative dichotomies.
As a result of some of my experiences, I have a real aversion to faith conversions--it's one of the reasons I call myself an "agnostic Christian" and am not really seeking out any alternative spirituality. I don't much care for the white celebrities who become superficial Buddhists either... Sorry, not trying to derail.
So, anyway, I think you're right that there's a distinction to be made between people taking up the religious practices preached by missionaries and white people taking up traditional religious practices as a shallow sort of "ritual of the week." I think they're related, but I can see the distinction you're making.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 10, 2009 13:08:02 GMT -5
"If you look at the history of Christianity, it has been forced on native populations repeatedly around the world."
Right, I know... This probably has a lot to do with my aversion to conversion teachings of any kind--and with the kinds of questions I'm asking.
How much of the Gaudiya Vaishnava zealoutry for conversion really comes from traditional Hindu teachings? Do you know? I found several articles claiming that the preaching was largely a response to Christian missionaries. Along the lines of what you said: "Well, why shouldn't other missionaries send devotees to the West?" And I really can't dispute the logic there.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 10, 2009 13:38:25 GMT -5
I have a fairly high aversion to non-convertive religious traditions too, because it seems a fine line from not wanting anyone new to come in, and vilifying, persecuting, etc. those "born into it" and yet who leave.
I dunno, it's just I don't think it's *possible* to be BORN 'as' some particular religion. I don't know how much sense I'm making here but I do think there is harm done when it's assumed that religion is a matter of *birth* as much as when it is pressed on a local population by rich colonizers.
|
|