Worth a read

[Guest guest]

>From Siddhanta.com

 

The Essentials of Reform in ISKCON: An Examination of Psychotherapy and its

Compatibility with Krishna Consciousness.

 

Since the beginning of ISKCON, there has been a constant tension between

Western values and Vedic values and which has been a cause of persistent

social unrest within ISKCON. An authentic Krishna conscious society is

steeped in the ideals of Vedic morality, and as such, a genuinely Krishna

conscious society requires a high degree of celibacy from all of its

members. Western society, however, especially since the countercultural

revolutions of the 1960s, has abandoned celibacy as the basis of a healthy

and functional society. To broadly maintain the high degree of sexual

restraint mandated by the principles of Krishna consciousness, a high degree

of social compartmentalization is necessary. This compartmentalization aims

at minimizing social contact between men and women, because, according to

the Vedic conception of human nature, women are like fire and men are like

butter--when the two come near each other, like the melting of butter,

sexual attraction is inevitable.

 

Western society, however, having liberalized its values regarding sexual

restraint, deplores this compartmentalization. Srila Prabhupada noted the

resistance of his disciples to the Vedic social model. Once he remarked, "In

the Western countries, the boys and girls, they mix very freely. And if I

say, 'My dear boys, you cannot see even a young girl,' then finished."

(Prabhupada lecture) On many other occasions he made similar remarks. This

tension was prominent in Srila Prabhupada's time, and now it has come to the

forefront of ISKCON debate on most social and theological issues.

 

The tension between Vedic social values and Western social values has caused

many to misjudge what is appropriate and what is inappropriate behavior

between men and women. This in turn has led to widespread infidelity and

unacceptably high rates of falldown among leaders and gurus. To rectify the

results of this tension--widespread infidelity and unsteadiness of leading

devotees--various reform movements have risen.

 

Ritvikism is the first of these movements. Through exotic interpretations of

Vaishnava theology regarding guru-tattva, the various ritvik movements aimed

at trying to protect the sanctity of the office of guru by taking

responsibility for initiation out of the hands of people who probably are

not qualified for it. This did not address what even the ritviks would agree

is a prominent inability to maintain the basic morality required of the

Vedic social model, especially required for bhakti-yoga, but they apparently

felt that something was better than nothing.

 

A second reform movement that has tried to resolve the tension between Vedic

social values and Western social values has been ISKCON's suffragette

movement, or women's rights movement. This movement argued that the social

unrest within ISKCON was caused primarily by the inability or refusal of

ISKCON's leadership to provide for women's special entitlements, as per the

Vedic model, and the exclusion of women from important social, political,

and spiritual roles in ISKCON. The women's movement posited that because

men, by themselves, had failed in this regard, it was necessary for women to

have access to ISKCON's corridors of power so that women could stand up for

the rights of women. This movement successfully established itself within

ISKCON's leadership hierarchy and has the broad support of the rest of

ISKCON's leadership. Consequently, the social ideals espoused by this

movement, which are close to Western social ideals, guides and informs

ISKCON's social policy. The views and ideals of the women's movement has, in

effect, become ISKCON's new social orthodoxy--effectively moving ISKCON's

working social values closer to Western social values. Like ritvikism, the

successes of ISKCON's suffragette movement have done little to resolve the

widespread difficulties in maintaining the standards of celibacy required by

a Krishna conscious society.

 

A third and complimentary reform movement, related to the other two but

nevertheless distinct from them, is the rising popularity of psychotherapy.

This is not an organized movement in the sense that the various ritvik

movements and ISKCON's suffragette movement have been, but rather among

devotees there has been a broad and spontaneous surge of interest in

psychotherapy. Many devotees are now earning advanced degrees in psychology,

and many others are willing to part with hundreds and thousands of dollars

for therapy sessions.

 

The psychotherapy movement got its biggest boost from dealing with the child

abuse lawsuits that have plagued ISKCON. In this regard, devotees with

advanced training in psychology have been at the forefront of protecting

ISKCON from bad publicity, forming and enforcing policies designed to

protect children in ISKCON schools and temples, and by assuring law

enforcement agencies and anxious devotee parents that their children are now

safe in ISKCON.

 

The establishment of the Child Protection Office is the psychotherapy

movement's equivalent of the suffragette movement's Women's Ministry. That

ISKCON maintains an important office founded on the principles of psychology

symbolizes the legitimacy of psychology within ISKCON. As the CPO has

administered therapy to victims of child abuse, it has been widely felt that

what is good for the children is also good for adults. Many ISKCON converts

have less-than-ideal social backgrounds, and to resolve the personal

difficulties and tensions they have in balancing Vedic standards of behavior

with their personal histories, many have turned to psychology for help.

 

Although the reformers in each of these reform movements have the best of

intentions, all of them have nevertheless pursued reforms that have involved

some measure of changing, rejecting, or adding to the essentials of Krishna

consciousness. Ritvikism's idea of posthumous initiation is unprecedented,

and for its legitimacy has relied on highly creative interpretations of

Srila Prabhupada's teachings. The women's movement believes that social and

political representation are necessary for self-fulfillment, yet they are at

a loss to explain how great ladies from scripture like Kunti, Devahuti,

Sita, and others, were superlatively self-fulfilled under a totally

patriarchal social system. Similarly, the psychotherapy movement is unable

to explain why, if the process of Krishna consciousness is fully capable of

removing all material miseries, they think psychotherapy has any place in

spiritual life at all.

 

Perhaps the greatest error made in the name of reform is in changing the

fundamentals of Krishna consciousness. In any reform, accepting the

self-sufficiency of Krishna consciousness is essential. Especially where

some idea, method, or action is designated as capable of advancing a devotee

on the path of bhakti, it is a mistake to suggest that something outside of

scripture and tradition is also required. Shastra and tradition prescribe a

variety of direct and indirect methods for the conditioned soul's

emancipation from material existence: bhakti-yoga is the direct method, and

varnashrama-dharma along with other kinds of yoga (karma, jnana, dhyana,

etc.) are the indirect methods recommended by shastra and the acharyas. All

of the reform movements mentioned here have violated the principle of the

self-sufficiency of Krishna conscious, as handed down to us from the

parampara.

 

The following discussion on the use and popularity of psychotherapy within

ISKCON will show how external ideas and methods challenge and undermine

Krishna conscious essentials.

 

A variety of reforms within ISKCON aimed at helping devotees transcend

adverse material circumstances have relied on modern psychology, but modern

psychology itself differs from shastra and teachings of the acharyas in

fundamental ways. In trying to show how applied psychology can enhance a

devotee's efforts in removing anarthas, a devotee practitioner of

psychotherapy wrote,

 

A common dynamic is that, when the process of Krsna consciousness reveals

weeds, we will deny they are there, because such adulterations do not

conform with an image of ourselves as advanced and humble devotees,

respectable members of the Vaisnava community, etc. (VLSPT)

 

If we deny the weeds, then how is it that the weeds were revealed to us?

Revelation also includes acceptance, otherwise how is it revelation? The

quoted statement is actually a linguistic contradiction, and it has to be a

contradiction because sadhana-bhakti is a self-sufficient process. If one

steadily follows one's sadhana, then revelation is guaranteed. On the

Vaisnava Family Resources site, other devotees with a background in

psychotherapy make a similar claim:

 

Though our pure chanting and serving dissolve the subtle body (our material

mind, intelligence, and false ego in which our material desires and anarthas

are stored), it is generally a slow process. Our habitual mental patterns

and attitudes often hold us back. They can become so much a part of us that

we often don’t notice them or we think there is nothing we can do to change.

Counseling is one way to facilitate change, and change, or moving toward our

spiritual identity is really what spiritual life is all about. We should be

willing to accept whatever will assist us in our progressive change or

spiritual awakening. (VFR)

 

Again, if bhakti-yoga is the most efficacious process of becoming free from

material nature, then how can another process make it faster? To be fair to

the authors, they say psychotherapy can help devotees come to the mode of

goodness, and it is true that the mode of goodness helps a devotee remain

steady. The above excerpt is a prose form of this deductive argument:

 

The mode of goodness is helpful for spiritual life.

Psychotherapy can help a devotee come to the mode of goodness.

Psychotherapy can therefore be helpful for spiritual life.

There are, of course, several implicit caveats to this: the therapist should

be a good devotee, should be expert, should be ethical, etc. Aside from

these caveats, this deductive argument's basic form is sound: if the

premises are true, then the conclusion must be true--but are the premises

true? The first premise, that the mode of goodness is helpful for spiritual

life, is unquestionably true.

 

The second premise, however, is doubtful. Implicit in the second premise is

yet another deductive (and seductive) argument: Material things can be used

for spiritual purposes, psychotherapy is a material thing, therefore

psychotherapy can be used for spiritual purposes. In this argument,

"varnashrama-dharma" can be substituted for "psychotherapy" and the argument

would still be true. Varnashrama-dharma, after all, is a material thing. It

is also true, however, that varnashrama-dharma is not psychotherapy, and

psychotherapy is not varnashrama-dharma. That something material can be used

for Krishna's service does not mean it can be used in whichever way we

desire. Poison can be used in Krishna's service, but how much, how often,

and for what purpose? What about condoms?

 

Like varnashrama-dharma, psychotherapy is not just any old material thing.

It has specific and essential characteristics that distinguish it from other

material things. This means that a material thing's specific, essential

characteristics must be assessed--not the fact that it is a material thing.

We determine how something material may be used in Krishna's service, or if

it may be used at all, by evaluating its specific and essential

characteristics. Only when this has been done can we say whether a specific

material thing can be used for Krishna and in what way.

 

Psychotherapy is primarily an interpersonal treatment that is based on

psychological principles and involves a trained therapist and a client who

has some mental problem. (Wampold) The techniques and tools that are evident

in clinical jargon or are evident from the therapist's couch are not of

primary interest to us here. Rather, we are most interested in the

presumptions embodied in the "psychological principles" on which

psychotherapy is based. We want to know the "psycho" in psychotherapy--its

essential characteristics--so that we can compare them with corresponding

aspects of a Krishna consciousness world view.

 

The psychotherapy popular among ISKCON's members is based on the humanistic

psychology pioneered by Allport, May, Maslow, Rogers, and others. In

establishing an existentialist basis for psychology, these psychologists

departed from the empiricism inherent in Freudian psychoanalysis and the

empiricism of behaviorists like Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner. (Up to the

1950s, the enterprise of psychology was wholly empirical in its

presumptions.) It has been shown in an earlier essay that the testimonials,

terminology, and therapeutic objectives described in the promotional

literature of the Vaishnava Life Skills / Personal Transformation Seminars

closely resemble those of Carl Rogers's "client-centered therapy"--formerly

called "non-directive therapy" or sometimes "therapy for normals." Roy José

DeCarvalho, an Assistant Professor at the State University of New

York-Institute of Technology whose main area of interest is the history of

psychology, writes, "Psychotherapy in its most fundamental bases remains

Rogerian in character. There is no psychotherapist who is not, to some

extent, Rogerian." (DeCarvalho 151) The kind of psychotherapy most widely

practiced in ISKCON is likely to be based on principles of humanistic

psychology, which Rogers pioneered and greatly influenced.

 

Most practicing psychotherapists in ISKCON seem prone to mistakenly assert

that psychotherapy is merely a tool. The co-authors of "Therapy in Krishna

Consciousness" say, "Therapy like anything else--such as the practice of

medicine, law, architecture, etc--is only a tool, and it can be used or

misused." Behind therapy, however, are presumptions that necessarily give

practitioners (and clients) faith that therapy works. If the presumptions

are not believed, even unconsciously, then why bother with therapy? It could

be said that behind medicine, law, and architecture are also presumptions

that must be believed, but psychology is significantly different from most

any other body of worldly knowledge. Unlike medicine, law, and architecture,

psychology specifically investigates the nature of consciousness, the nature

of the self. At the heart of psychological investigation are the ontological

questions "What is the self?" and "What is the self's relation to the

world?" (Within a Krishna conscious world view, these questions are often

rephrased as "Who am I?" and "What is my relation to this world?") Belief

that a therapy works therefore implies belief in a corresponding set of

presumptions about the self. Indeed, the founders of humanistic psychology

(Rogers, Maslow, etc.) argued that "an a priori understanding of human

nature, whether consciously stated or not, was essential in the making of

any psychology. . ." (DeCarvalho 150)

 

By a priori, it is meant that the understanding itself does not require

verification by direct observation. In other words, Rogers and others had to

found their psychology on assumptions that were largely unproven. For them

this leap of faith was acceptable because, they insisted, any psychology has

to proceed at least from assumptions which can be derived from knowledge

already at hand. Because their beliefs rest on questions that are

ontological, about the fundamental nature of being, they still had to take a

wild but hopeful guess as to a human being's fundamental nature.

 

The assumptions of Rogers and his colleagues about human nature classifies

them as existentialists. Rogers borrowed some of his most important ideas

about the self from Kierkegaard, who is considered the founder of

existentialism. From Kierkegaard, Rogers learned to "trust and express his

own experience," and his favorite quote from Kierkegaard was "to be that

self which one truly is." (DeCarvalho 62) Rogers also believed that, to some

extent, the nature of the self was grounded in biology, and he felt that

reality itself was fundamentally subjective. Rogers that reality was more or

less subjective, since there was no other way to understand it but by

personal perception. According to Rogers, "Objective reality, even if there

was one, was always 'reality as-perceived' by the phenomenal field of the

self. This phenomenal self, he [Rogers] argued, had to be accepted with

unconditional positive regard if therapy was to be successful." (qtd. in

DeCarvalho 70) The American pioneers of humanistic psychology were repulsed

by the dark views of human nature typically held by atheistic

existentialists like Sartre and, with the exception of May, believed in

human nature's inherent goodness. (DeCarvalho 72)

 

>From a Krishna conscious standpoint, the self (soul) is fundamentally

distinct from material nature, but on account of misidentifying with it

comes under its control. Both the self and material nature are controlled by

Krishna, the Supreme Godhead, so under all circumstances the self is always

subordinate. The inherent goodness of the self is related to its choices and

circumstances, depending on it state of association. In the state of being

subordinate to Krishna, the inherent goodness of the self is manifest, but

in the state of being subordinate to material nature, conditioned, the

inherent goodness of the self is covered. In the conditioned state, the self

is prone to suffer and to act immorally--even under the best of material

configurations, the mode of goodness.

 

There are several common points of comparison between humanistic psychology

(HPsy) and Krishna Consciousness (KC). At the level of ontology, theory

about the nature of being, HPsy blurs or even tries to remove the

distinction between the self and its environment. KC, however, maintains a

distinction between the self and its environment, material nature, with the

self related to material nature as its subordinate. HPsy's blurring of the

distinction between the self and material nature implies that the potential

for growth and development lies mainly within the self. KC, however,

considers that the potential for growth and self development is extrinsic

and resides with Krishna and appointed agents like the guru. HPsy aims at

emancipating the self by unlocking the self's inner potential, whereas KC

aims at emancipating the self by obtaining the mercy of Krishna and His

devotees.

 

Although both HPsy and KC accept that the self is inherently good and that

this goodness manifests under different circumstances, or states of being,

HPsy and KC differ as to what those states are. HPsy asserts that the self's

inherent goodness will manifest when the self removes internal conditions

that check its growth--conditions thought to be caused mostly by negative,

external influences. KC, however, considers the self's inherent goodness to

be manifest in a state of surrender, when the self subordinates itself to

the control of Krishna instead of the control of material nature. This

explains why the methods of KC stress so much on subordination: The real

power is not within one's self but within Krishna--(aham) paurusham nrishu,

"I [Krishna] am the ability in man"--and so self actualization (realization)

lies mainly in the perfection, or mastery, of being subordinate. According

to HPsy, the true self manifests when the self takes control, but according

to KC, the true self manifests when the self submits to Krishna's control.

 

Building on these differing ontological presumptions, at the level of

epistemology, or theory of how one can know anything, HPsy and KC diverge

further. Because of its subjectivism, HPsy considers the self to be the most

reliable source of information about itself. Other sources extrinsic to the

self are considered significantly less reliable. HPsy considers the client,

not the therapist, to have the greatest and most reliable access to

knowledge about his or her self. From this it follows that the "heavy

lifting" in therapy must be done by the client--hence the term

"client-centered therapy." (Now you know where the joke "How many

psychotherapists does it take change a light bulb?" comes from.) This also

explains why therapeutic jargon is laced with terms like "self-discovery,"

"self-esteem,self-empowerment," or simply "empowerment." Real knowledge

and, hence, real power is thought to exist inside of one's own self, and the

HPsy therapist only helps the client come to a state where the client

discovers his or her own inner potential.

 

Although KC considers the self (soul) to be full of knowledge, this

knowledge cannot be equivalent to the HPsy's subjectivist understanding of

self-knowledge. The self's identity is one with yet different from Krishna,

and so self-knowledge is acquired not by looking inward to one's independent

self but outwardly to Krishna. Because of the self's simultaneous oneness

and difference with Krishna, realization of Krishna automatically results in

realization of the self, just as seeing one's self in the morning also means

seeing the morning Sun. That is why, according to KC, seemingly external

practices like chanting Hare Krishna, hearing about Krishna's pastimes, and

rendering service to Vaishnavas, results in true self knowledge. Knowledge

about the self comes from external sources, but because of the

transcendental relationship between Krishna and the self (jiva) and because

of Krishna's absolute nature, seemingly external knowledge about Krishna has

real, internal consequences. In the matter of obtaining knowledge, Krishna

or his agents have some discretion in bestowing it. This means that (unlike

in psychology, humanistic or otherwise) acquiring knowledge within KC is not

a deterministic proposition. Even if one does all the right things, Krishna

or his empowered agents still have to bless one with knowledge. Although KC

is a process, it is a non-deterministic process. As such, procedure

(sadhana) and mercy are both required. Because mercy is required, "getting

the mercy" by rendering service is therefore a part of the process.

 

These ontological and epistemological foundations, both of HPsy and KC,

suggest practical activity that helps practitioners reach their goals. In

psychology, these practical actions are called therapy, and in KC, they are

known as sadhana, service, and the various regulations a devotee is obliged

to follow. As per the founders of HPsy, it is impossible to have a

psychology without a theory of being (ontology) and a theory of knowledge

(epistemology) that validates that psychology and its corresponding

therapies. Once we are familiar with the presumptions behind any particular

set of therapies, the close relationship between theory and therapy becomes

apparent.

 

Rogers, like Kierkegaard, thought that the goal of life was to move away

from "oughts" and facades. But while the main aim of Kierkegaard was to

purify Christianity, Rogers addressed issues of psychotherapy instead. In

therapy, argued Rogers, when the individual becomes what he is inwardly, he

is able to hear the inner messages and meanings of the self. When this

happens, a deep desire to be fully oneself in all one's complexity and

richness follows, withholding and fearing nothing that is part of the inner

self. Self-experience becomes a friendly resource and not a frightening

enemy. Psychotherapy was, for Rogers, an avenue to what Kierkegaard thought

was the most important thing in one's life--to become truly what one is

inwardly. (DeCarvalho 65)

 

>From this passage it can be seen how therapies emerge. Moving away from the

"oughts" and "facades" is why therapy based on humanistic psychology is

"client-centered." If therapists tell their clients what they should do,

then they impose "oughts" on their clients--something they are trying to get

away from. Rather, from the philosophy behind HPsy comes a therapeutic

technique called "empathic listening." In one book, written to help social

work students and practicing therapists develop a "sound base of practice

for social work with groups," is this glowing prescription for empathic

listening and understanding:

 

Some of the ways in which the therapist communicates unconditional positive

regard and real interest in the client and what he/she is experiencing are

by giving the client and his/her concerns and feelings full attention,

listening, and then responding with empathy.

 

To further demonstrate unconditional positive regard, the counselor must

have a nonevaluative attitude without consideration of what the client says

or does. Neither positive nor negative judgments are made in regard to the

person by the counselor. For the therapist to take an evaluative position

would only further support the client's propensity to value the opinions of

others rather than developing self-regard. . . .

 

The importance of unconditional positive regard, the counselor's caring

without stipulations on acceptance and without contamination by judgment, is

emphasized by Rogers. His research found that the more it is present the

more likely therapy is to be successful and, conversely, the less it is

present the less likely therapy can be expected to be successful. (Fatout

36)

 

Client-centered therapy and its precepts have profoundly influenced

mainstream American culture. Writing for the American Psychological

Association, Rebecca Clay remarks,

 

For many humanistic psychologists, the recent positive psychology movement

is simply humanistic psychology repackaged. Similarly, crisis counseling's

emphasis on empathic listening finds its roots in Rogers's work. In the

wider culture, the growing popularity of personal and executive coaching

also points to humanistic psychology's success. And Moss believes humanistic

psychology's tenets will only become more relevant as the nation ages,

creating a culture preoccupied with facing death and finding meaning in

life.

 

In fact, humanistic psychology has been so successful at influencing

mainstream psychology and American culture that the field recently suffered

what Maureen O'Hara, PhD, calls an "identity crisis." Had humanistic

psychology permeated the culture so completely that the movement itself was

no longer necessary? (Clay)

 

Indeed, not only has Rogers's work permeated mainstream American culture, it

has permeated ISKCON's culture, too. The terminology of popular self-help

books has made its way into ISKCON lectures and literature, and therapy

based on humanistic psychology--faithful to Rogers's move away from "oughts"

and "facades"--has become a popular attraction for devotees seeking to

improve themselves. In the paper "Vaisnava Life Skills/Personal

Transformation Seminars and the Process of Krsna Consciousness," we find

that the same client-centered therapeutic techniques are recommended:

 

To perceive and recognize the needs, concerns, and desires of others,

whether it be aspiring Vaisnavas, the spiritual master, the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, or any living entity, is the essence of empathic

listening. . . .

 

Upon completion of the courses, especially after the Advanced Course,

participants characteristically experience a supercharged sakti springing

from newly released energies from the soul. Much energy that was devoted to

preserving masks and facades and pushing down weeds and dust is unleashed.

(VLSPTS)

 

Rogers has arrived in ISKCON.

 

In stark contrast to Rogers's client-centered therapy, which eschews

"oughts" and "facades," Krishna conscious technique is fraught with "ought."

>From Krishna all the way down the parampara to Srila Prabhupada, spiritual

life is defined by prescriptions of what one should and should not do. In

the Gita, we find this direct statement:

 

 

tasmac chastram pramanam te

karyakarya-vyavasthitau

jnatva sastra-vidhanoktam

karma kartum iharhasi

 

"One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the

regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one

should act so that he may gradually be elevated."

 

(Bhagavad-gita 16.24 trans)

 

The verse before this one, 16.23, is no less judgmental: "He who discards

scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither

perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination." We should note well

the phrase "according to his own whims" and how this verse disparages it.

Even the realm of thought is permeated by set dos and don'ts: "Always think

of Krishna, and never forget Him"; "O Arjuna, when one performs his

prescribed duty only because it ought to be done, and renounces all material

association and all attachment to the fruit, his renunciation is said to be

in the mode of goodness." (Bhagavad-gita 18.9 trans) Other well-known dos

and don'ts in Krishna consciousness include, "one should rise early in the

morning and attend mangala-arati" and "one should not allow oneself to sit

on the same seat even with one’s own mother, sister or daughter. . ." All

these "oughts" and "ought-nots,shoulds" and "should nots," follow from

the Krishna conscious idea that the means of uncovering the true self are

mainly extrinsic.

 

That the techniques that follow from HPsy are so radically different than

the techniques that follow from KC should be no surprise, since HPsy and KC

differ so markedly at their foundations. HPsy is, fundamentally, a

self-centered idea of the person, and KC is a Krishna-centered idea of the

person. Indeed, in mainstream American culture (and its worldwide

extensions) this difference between the culture of therapy and a society

that once stood for values has been noted by Christopher Lasch in The

Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations,

 

Even when therapists speak of the need for "meaning" or "love," they define

love and meaning simply as the fulfillment of the patient's emotional

requirements. It hardly occurs to them—nor is there any reason why it

should, given the nature of the therapeutic enterprise—to encourage the

subject to subordinate his needs and interests to those of others, to

someone or some cause or tradition outside himself. (Lasch 13)

 

An important consequence of humanistic psychology's radical emphasis of the

self is that the role of society in helping individuals is diminished. To

understand how this can be a problem, and why it is often not perceived as a

problem even though it is, it will help to examine the utility of speed

limits on roadways. In America, a typical speed limit in residential

neighborhoods is 25 miles per hour, but it is also seen that drivers

frequently exceed the speed limit in these 25 mile-per hour (m.p.h.) zones.

As it is impossible to police every road and enforce speed limits, it is

mostly up to individuals to drive within speed limits. When individuals

choose to follow their own whims over legally mandated speed limits, which

can be seen as an imposition of society on its members, untold things can

happen. In a real-life tragedy, a man driving at 40 m.p.h. in a residential

area with a speed limit of 25 m.p.h. accidentally hit and killed a child who

ran in front of his car. In court, an expert witness testified that if the

driver had observed the speed limit, he would have had enough time to stop

the car before hitting the child. Consequently, the man was found guilty of

manslaughter and sent to prison.

 

>From this example we can see that a premise of society is that looking out

for others also means looking out for one's self. When this social sense of

concern for others is eroded, then the protections one might otherwise

expect from society are also eroded. Erosion of social responsibility

usually happens gradually, it seldom manifests as sudden collapse (although

it can). Most people who speed in residential areas don't end up killing

children, yet it is also true that people who speed in these areas are more

likely to do so. If policing these neighborhoods becomes less frequent, or

the level of disregard for speed limits increases, or both, then the number

of fatalities caused by speeding in residential neighborhoods will most

likely increase. Again, even with the increase in fatalities, it will still

be the case that most people who speed will not be involved in an accident,

but the increase in fatalities will nevertheless be noticed and likely

result in some sort of political action. In all cases, it is a minority of

law breakers who cause problems, and it is a minority of activist citizens

who do something to control those problems. Despite law-breakers and

activist citizens being minorities, the actions of both nevertheless have

consequences that reach deep into the rest of society.

 

Of course, most everyone still agrees that killing people, what to speak of

killing children, is a bad thing, which means any reaction to an increase in

fatalities will result in a reimposition or strengthening of the law and a

bolstering of law enforcement. But what happens when society begins to

disagree on the goodness of a particular value, which is often caused by a

competing value that is gaining social worth? With the ascendancy of the

competing value, confusion and turmoil that defies resolution is likely to

ensue.

 

Within ISKCON, the fundamental requirements of celibate behavior compete

with an ethos of gender equality, and this competition has been behind much

of ISKCON's long-standing social turmoil. Among all the falldowns that have

happened to gurus, the vast number of them involved illicit association with

a woman. This condition has been both unacceptable and persistent because,

on the one hand, the standards for celibate behavior are unalterable, and on

the other hand gender equality is considered almost as important--it is

wrong to deny a devotee service because she happens to be female. Of course,

for a lady devotee to massage a sannyasi would go beyond limits, but other

forms of male-female association, respectable in modern societies but

frowned on or forbidden in traditional societies, when accorded some measure

of acceptability result in a higher incidence of fall down. An outstanding

feature of modern society that goes hand-in-hand with gender equality, after

all, is sexual permissiveness. Conflicts between competing social values

have, to some extent, have eroded the sense of social responsibility shared

by ISKCON's members (which some argue was eroded to begin with). This eroded

sense of social responsibility, in turn, has been a cause of persistent,

social unrest within ISKCON.

 

Within ISKCON, the pervasive use of psychotherapy has broadly introduced a

radically subjectivist idea of the self, and this idea competes with the

Krishna conscious, Krishna-centered idea of the self. These differing

conceptual ideas of the self are likely behind some of the lapses of

judgment that have led to some fall downs. An outstanding example of this

involved one of ISKCON's senior-most leaders, a sannyasi, who had a

therapeutic relationship with a godsister. His godsister acted as his

therapist, and, in conformity to ethical standards current in the field of

psychotherapy, their relationship to begin with was not considered

inappropriate. But from a traditional, Krishna conscious perspective, this

relationship at some point was unethical well before it became unethical by

current standards of therapeutic practice.

 

Between HPsy and KC, much of this difference in judgment--as to when a

particular relationship becomes unethical--arises from their divergent views

of human nature. On the one hand, HPsy's view of the self affirms the

intrinsic goodness of human nature, and thus HPsy predicts that as the

client gradually gets in touch with his or her inner self the goodness of

the client will shine forth. On the other hand, KC has a more varied view of

human nature, where human nature is considered intrinsically good or

intrinsically bad, depending on the self's state of surrender to Krishna. In

other words, HPsy says that human nature is fundamentally good, but KC says,

"it depends."

 

The KC view of human nature is also darker than HPsy's. According to KC,

even if situated in the best of material configurations, the mode of

goodness, one is still intrinsically prone to immoral behavior, as shown by

this verse from the Srimad-Bhagavatam:

 

 

matra svasra duhitra va

naviviktasano bhavet

balavan indriya-gramo

vidvamsam api karsati

 

"One should not allow oneself to sit on the same seat even with one's own

mother, sister or daughter, for the senses are so strong that even though

one is very advanced in knowledge, he may be attracted by sex."

 

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 9.19.17 trans)

 

Within ISKCON or before its inception, some have said (often enough,

apparently) that this verse refers to less educated or less cultured

individuals who are unaware of good behavior. Srila Prabhupada, however,

dispels this notion:

 

"Learning the etiquette of how to deal with women does not free one from

sexual attraction. . . . even if one is highly advanced, materially or

spiritually, he may be attracted by lusty desires. The object of attraction

may even be one’s mother, sister or daughter. Therefore, one should be

extremely careful in dealings with women." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 9.19.17

purport)

 

In the matter of evaluating the ethical dimension of a relationship, HPsy's

view of human nature is more optimistic than KC's, which means that HPsy

will tend to consider as ethical some relationships that KC does not. All

therapists know that when the client and therapist are of the opposite sex,

there is always extra risk that a romantic bond may develop between them.

But because HPsy considers human nature to be intrinsically good, it is

judged that an opposite sex relationship between client and therapist can be

managed. In HPsy, the level of risk is acceptable because, if the client is

cooperative and the therapist competent, the client will automatically

improve as he or she makes progress in discovering his or her inner self.

 

But KC has a darker view of human nature, so KC predicts that if even if all

goes well in therapy and the client gets in touch with his so-called

inner-self, that inner self is still the false ego. The so-called inner-self

is still a misidentification with material nature and therefore remains

highly susceptible to immoral behavior. Under the right conditions, immoral

behavior becomes highly likely, and it so happens that some conditions

acceptable within the ethical boundaries of HPsy are unacceptable in KC.

 

In HPsy, the extra risk in an opposite sex client-therapist relationship is

something like people driving at 40 m.p.h. in a residential area with a

speed limit of 25 m.p.h. At 40 m.p.h. there is heightened risk of an

accident, but for many, the risk appears tolerable. According to KC's darker

perspective of human nature, however, any opposite sex relationship outside

of marriage is something like people driving at 60 m.p.h. in the same

residential neighborhood and sometimes ignoring stop signs. If the KC

perspective on male-female relationships is true, then HPsy standards of

acceptable opposite sex client-therapist relationships are clearly

unacceptable because they are too risky.

 

The opposite sex client-therapist relationship scrutinized here is but one

example that reflects the kinds of misjudgments that are not uncommon within

ISKCON--at all levels--and the misjudgments that are all too common in

mainstream American society. As has been shown here, HPsy has become so

pervasive in mainstream society, well beyond the domain of psychotherapy,

that the existentialist, subjectivist ideas and presumptions about the self

and the world have therefore saturated mainstream culture. From mainstream

culture, these ideas have entered ISKCON--especially through the widespread

use of psychotherapy. The practice of psychotherapy within ISKCON has

reinforced a conception of the self that is incompatible with a

Krishna-centered conception of the self. This in turn has promoted some

measure of confusion about right and wrong behavior--confusion as to what

ultimately leads one to Krishna or leads one away from Krishna.

 

At this point some may still ask whether some aspects of therapy can be used

in Krishna's service. The answer is yes--some things, but not all and

certainly not in any way we may like. Empathic listening, for example, can

be put to good use but within limits. For people who are coming to Krishna

consciousness, people who are disturbed, people who are angry, or people who

hold views we disagree with, empathic listening can help overcome barriers

to communication. But sometimes people are unreasonable and stubbornly so,

and helping them become reasonable often requires a less-than-empathic

response. Becoming Krishna conscious means becoming considerate of others,

so empathic listening is not always the best means of helping others become

more considerate, though it can be helpful.

 

Although it is conceivable that other byproducts of psychology and

psychotherapy can be used in Krishna's service, that does not mean therapy

itself can be used. A stool is made up of three legs and a seat. Even though

the seat and three legs could be creatively used in other ways, a stool is

still greater than the sum of its parts. If a leg becomes unattached, the

stool no longer works. Similarly, therapy is not just a set of tools, but it

is also made up of related theories and presumptions about the mind, the

self, and the world the self lives in. Although other branches of

psychotherapy, such as psychoanalytic and cognitive branches, disagree that

presumptions about human nature are necessary preconditions for a

psychology, what to speak of being necessary to produce a set of therapies,

it has nevertheless been demonstrated that all branches of psychology make

important presumptions about human nature and base their therapies on those

presumptions--even if the presumptions are unstated. Saying that

psychotherapy can be used in Krishna consciousness implies using not only

its overt, therapeutic techniques but also implies importing its theories

and presumptions.

 

The overall objective of this essay has been to show why, in the greater

context of reform within ISKCON, a fundamental premise of reform, which must

be accepted, is that Krishna consciousness as received from the parampara is

self sufficient for progress. The growing popularity of psychotherapy among

devotees has been part of a larger cultural reform within ISKCON; from this

we can learn that popularity of a particular reform that is unchecked by

skepticism can be a dangerous thing. If the process of Krishna consciousness

is self sufficient, then what will psychotherapy do that chanting Hare

Krishna, or living according to the principles of varnashrama-dharma--will

not? This same rhetorical question more or less appears in the Bhagavatam:

 

"But if one performs the prescribed duties for his particular asrama or

varna, why are they not sufficient to mitigate all material

distresses?"(Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.15.14 trans.)

This applies not only to psychotherapy but to any other innovation as well.

As a general rule and guideline, reform should generally be a reaffirmation,

a revival, of tradition. Reform that is by nature innovative may also be

accommodated, but only after showing that, at its most fundamental levels,

Krishna consciousness is not being challenged. That an innovative reform is

considered compatible with Krishna consciousness can never be presumed. In

general, any reform that resembles social, political, civil, or cultural

reform movements in the outside world probably has a well-developed world

view that is most likely incompatible with the fundamental tenets of Krishna

consciousness.

 

 

Works Cited

 

 

Clay, Rebecca A. "A renaissance for humanistic psychology: The field

explores new niches while building on its past." Monitor on Psychology. 33.8

(2002): 42. Monitor on Psychology. 8 Sep. 2002. American Psychological

Association. 12 Nov. 2005

<http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/renaissance.html>.

 

DeCarvalho, Roy José. The Founders of Humanistic Psychology. New York:

Praeger Publishers, 1991. Questia. 11 Nov. 2005

<http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14229715>.

 

Dhira Govinda Das (David B. Wolf, PhD). (VLSPTS) "Vaisnava Life

Skills/Personal Transformation Seminars and the Process of Krsna

Consciousness." 23 Sep. 2003. Chakra.org. 12 Nov. 2005.

<http://www.chakra.org/announcements/eventsSep23_03.html>.

 

Fatout, Marian F. Models for Change in Social Group Work. New York: Aldine

De Gruyter, 1992. Questia. 12 Nov. 2005

<http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6162785>.

 

Karnamrita Das, Arcana Siddhi Devi Dasi. (VFR) "Therapy in Krishna

Consciousness." 13 June 2005. Vaisnava Family Resources. 13 Nov. 2005

<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:12wbDP8ISTEJ:www.vaisnavafamilyresourc

es.org/articles.htm+site:vaisnavafamilyresources.org&hl=en>

 

Krishna-kirti das (HDG). "More on Channeling Krishna - Part II of II." 4

June 2004. Hare Krishna Cultural Journal. 13 Nov. 2005

<http://www.siddhanta.com/2004/06/more_on_channel.html>

 

Lasch, Christopher. American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations

American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: W. W. Norton,

1991. Questia. 12 Nov. 2005 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99032064>.

 

Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. (Bhagavad-gita As It Is.) The

Bhaktivedanta Vedabase. CD-ROM. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International.

1998.

 

——— (Srimad-Bhagavatam.) The Bhaktivedanta Vedabase. CD-ROM. Bhaktivedanta

Book Trust International. 1998.

 

——— Lecture, Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.10 -- Delhi, November 16, 1973. The

Bhaktivedanta Vedabase. CD-ROM. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International.

1998.

 

Wampold, Bruce E. The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods, and

Findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. Questia. 12 Nov.

2005 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106494675