|
Post by km on Oct 10, 2009 14:39:57 GMT -5
jemand: Yeah, I see what you're saying. That said, I guess I don't really want to paint all religion in broad strokes--or even all conversion-based religions. I would rather not, eh, make claims about what was toxic for me necessarily being toxic for everyone. Rather, I was mainly trying to outline the reasons for some of my own personal squicks when it comes to religion. I can't stand Bill Maher or most any of the other big name pop culture atheists because I find them condescending in the extreme. Also, I think it's important to keep in mind who's speaking--colonizer or colonized. Because some religious practices are more a form of protest against the dominant religious discourse than they are a manifestation of patriarchy (For instance, many Muslim women I know say they wear the veil for this reason. Many religious rights in Latin America have been politicized in this way as well--I'm thinking of Virgin of Guadalupe worship in Mexico, for instance.). And I would never stand in judgment of that kind of religious practice. If North America had anything like Latin American liberation theology, for that matter, I might still be a practicing Christian.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 10, 2009 15:20:02 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. The thing is, there's no such thing as "Hindu" really. The very term was a misnomer by the British. There is no ONE Hindu tradition. There are many traditions that use overlapping scriptures (with a few added for some of the traditions) but view them very differently. (Much as Christians don't all agree on Biblical interpretation.) Each group views one of the pantheon of Gods and Goddesses as supreme and uses the same scriptures to justify it (which is just fascinating). I imagine there are a lot of different views about proselytizing, and besides that, a lot of different views about willing conversions. (Some religions don't seek converts but do accept them.) I can also imagine that the missionaries to India did leave a bad impression. When it comes to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, some branches don't proselytize, some do. But the influence of Krishna Chaitanya (from whom the term Gaudiya is derived and that branch of Vaishnavism originated) was one of encouraging everyone to chant the holy names. He saw it as the only way in the age of Kali to purify one's self and achieve pure love of God. Believing that, why restrict anyone from taking up the practice? Chanting on the street was a way to make it accessible to anyone, including Muslims--usually seen as villains following their invasions of India. Even the Gaudiya Vaishnavas who don't proselytize generally don't reject willing converts. There is also a school of thought among many former disciples of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami that he exploited us--not the other way around. There was at least (it appears to me) an element of enjoying the attention he got back in India for having so many Western followers and such opulent temples--built up on the labor of the devotees who went out for many hours each day selling books. An argument can be made that this was not inherently a spiritual activity according to scripture, but was made to seem to in order to build this huge movement by bringing in lots of money very quickly. In fact, some say the activity of selling books distracted from the genuine path of bhakti and that we were sold a false notion of bhakti in order to exploit our labor. Selling books is not listed anywhere among the activities of devotional service to Krsna.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 10, 2009 15:35:35 GMT -5
Here's an example of what A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada seemed to want from his disciples:
Speaking with Kausalya and Srimati, Prabhupada praised them for having arranged the Jaipur pandal program.
“You girls are carrying on Lord Caitanya’s movement so nicely,” he said. “Just see! Even without husbands, you go on preaching.” He said that the Western women were different from Indian women, who simply stayed at home. Then Prabhupada discovered that his two women disciples had not actually done a thorough job.
Although the pandal program was to begin in two days, no one had arranged for the large tent to be erected. Prabhupada said it was not a woman’s nature to do such organizational work. The women became morose to hear him. Then they showed him the flyer they had printed advertising the festival, Prabhupada became angry.
“It is not standard,” he said. It did not say “International Society for Krishna Consciousness,” but only “A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami and his foreign disciples.”
“What is this!” Prabhupada shouted.
“What, Srila Prabhupada?” Kausalya asked.
“Foreign! Why do you say foreign? It must be “American’ and “European’. That is what is attractive, that they are American and European. But you are just a woman. What can I expect?” The two women began to cry and left the room.
-Srila Prabhupada Lilamrta 38: No One Listens to a Poor Man
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 10, 2009 15:57:12 GMT -5
Ugh... Wow... By the way, please don't think I'm questioning your story--or debating about whether or not members of the movement were actually exploited or abused. Of course, I believe you; this is consistent with what I've heard about the group for my entire life.
One particular experience that I had with them, though, probably had a lot of influence on the way I have tended to understand the group. I remember being in Washington, DC not that long ago--and seeing signs advertising some kind of "Indian Festival" that was coming to town. I was horrified to find that the festival had no food, nothing identifiable as "Indian" at all other than some ISKCON literature. And most noticably--no Indian people. Everyone had blond hair and blue eyes. It's that kind of thing that I found really, really...well, obnoxious. Also, I was flagged down and offered literature a lot...by some of these blond haired blue eyed people who were trying to convince me to attend "their Indian festival."
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Oct 10, 2009 16:02:31 GMT -5
Ugh... Wow... By the way, please don't think I'm questioning your story--or debating about whether or not members of the movement were actually exploited or abused. Of course, I believe you; this is consistent with what I've heard about the group for my entire life. One particular experience that I had with them, though, probably had a lot of influence on the way I have tended to understand the group. I remember being in Washington, DC not that long ago--and seeing signs advertising some kind of "Indian Festival" that was coming to town. I was horrified to find that the festival had no food, nothing identifiable as "Indian" at all other than some ISKCON literature. And most noticably--no Indian people. Everyone had blond hair and blue eyes. It's that kind of thing that I found really, really...well, obnoxious. Also, I was flagged down and offered literature a lot...by some of these blond haired blue eyed people who were trying to convince me to attend "their Indian festival." Falsehoods were used in a kind of ends-justifies-the-means way. It would have been accurate for them to say "Vaishnava" festival or even the widely accepted "Hindu" term. But not "Indian." In the 70s we could have said "Hare Krishna festival" because we hadn't given the term a bad name yet. And our festivals always had lots of food and music--we hired dancers too. But we had all that cash from the book distributors, aka "sankirtan devotees."
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Oct 11, 2009 8:30:55 GMT -5
One particular experience that I had with them, though, probably had a lot of influence on the way I have tended to understand the group. I remember being in Washington, DC not that long ago--and seeing signs advertising some kind of "Indian Festival" that was coming to town. I was horrified to find that the festival had no food, nothing identifiable as "Indian" at all other than some ISKCON literature. And most noticably--no Indian people. Everyone had blond hair and blue eyes. It's that kind of thing that I found really, really...well, obnoxious. Also, I was flagged down and offered literature a lot...by some of these blond haired blue eyed people who were trying to convince me to attend "their Indian festival." No food? You must have missed that because food is quite a big deal in Iskcon. How long ago was that? Nowadays you see more Indians at these festivals (most likely Rathayatra) than you do caucasians.
|
|
|
Post by km on Oct 11, 2009 8:35:33 GMT -5
"No food? You must have missed that because food is quite a big deal in Iskcon. How long ago was that? Nowadays you see more Indians at these festivals (most likely Rathayatra) than you do caucasians."
It was, well, really not that long ago--some time in 2006. And nope, no Indians were there. It's possible that there had been food earlier in the day, but I never saw any food.
|
|