On spiritual abuse

[Guest guest]

Amidst pressing duties, I managed to read Dhyanakunda Dasi's paper

"Spiritual Pain and Painkiller Spirituality: Issues of Spiritual Abuse,

Religious Addiction and Codependency in ISKCON" and here are a few words on

it.

First, however, let me make it clear that I appreciate the paper, as it is,

ostensibly, based on a careful review of relevant sources as well as the

author's honest field-work and clinical practice. What follows is merely to

suggest ways in which to expand the range of discourse -- if there is any

interest in such an expansion, that is.

 

My suggested points are basically five:

- self-awareness (as a foundation for the practice of Krsna consciousness);

- individual and collective karma (since in any group whose members are not

madhyama-adhikari or higher the victims are the perpetrators and the

perpetrators are the victims, victims and perpetrators will switch roles as

circumstances permit);

- jyotisha, Vedic astrology (as a "scientific" or "objective" base for

self-awareness and counseling);

- the gradual approach to the practice of full-fledged bhakti-yoga

(according to the individual's process of personal development);

- chanting the maha-mantra (a careful, conscious approach to its tremendous

power).

 

Dhyanakunda, of course, deals with point two, which is a major topic in her

piece:

 

>By disregarding the individual's innermost voice (the Supersoul, intuition

>and conscience), on the grounds that it might be cheating us, we sow seeds

>of spiritual abuse. Discernment is required, not censure. Intuition is the

>inner compass that protects us from being abused. Conscience is what

>prevents us from abusing others. The two are inseparably connected, so

>much so that a victim of spiritual abuse almost inevitably becomes a

>perpetrator, if placed in an authority position.

 

Here, as I said, I am merely trying to expand her presentation from a

different angle (for one thing, I am not a psychologist).

 

>It is still not very common for a devotee who has been in the movement for

>more than a few years to have the inner experience of growing through his

>sadhana [practice of worship], of genuinely coming closer to Krsna, of

>doubts being dispelled and direct vision of spiritual reality beginning to

>shine in the heart. It may of course be due to lacks in the individual's

>spiritual practice. It may also be that even with best sadhana, it will

>take long before these higher stages are reached. Yet, the further away

>the experiential validation of a belief is pushed into the future, the

>more cautious one should be.

 

Perhaps both the sadhana and the goals would have to be adjusted to suit

the individual.

Thus if one person's life issue is that they are stuck in childhood issues

(parental support, etc.), they would probably benefit from focussing more

on karma-yoga. If another person's life issue is that they are stuck in

adolescence issues, then they would probably benefit from focussing on

jnana-yoga. If someone else is a real mature adult, then they are ready to

dive into full-time, full-fledged bhakti, and are also qualified to take on

responsibilities as "spritual authorities" if desired. (Others may become

karma-yoga or jnana-yoga instructors.)

In essence all three would be doing bhakti-yoga, i.e. practicing Krsna

consciousness, but the emphasis, procedures, relationships with others,

etc. would be slightly different.

(Sorry, all this is my opinion; I don't have Folio or time to do a specific

and comprehensive research on these matters.)

 

>... depersonalization can occur in a spiritual context (even in the

>context of such a decidedly personalistic theology as Vaisnavism), when in

>the name of spirituality, followers are led to discard their self-trust

>along with the capacity for self-determination and self-evaluation.

 

If there is no self-awareness -- knowledge of my own past, present, future;

knowledge of my own, peculiar patterns of interaction among body, mind,

intelligence, soul; mature acceptance of my destiny, my skills and

propensities, my limitations; etc. -- either among the so-called leaders or

among the so-called followers, depersonalization is just around the corner

as the next, inevitable step.

 

>As those in charge of the local center are faced with the problems the new

>devotee has created, they feel confused and frustrated. "Who taught her

>this fanaticism?" they wonder. "We have gone through so much pain to

>ensure that our preaching is fair. We do everything to make sure our new

>members don't become social dropouts or alienate the public... and she

>behaves as if she has been taught just the opposite!"

 

The laws of karma and their high-level managers, the grahas, bring people

together in the right place at the right time. Every perpetrator (a victim

of their own karma) has been chosen as the most appropriate person to

execute the (similar) karma of their victims (who are former and potential

perpetrators). There always seems to be a degree of homology in the

behavioral patterns and modes of operation of the people who find

themselves in the same family, group, or society; that's how they can

easily switch roles -- now victim, now perpetrator -- endlessly.

How have the leaders "gone through so much pain to ensure that our

preaching is fair"? Are they talking about cosmetic adjustments (new rules

and regulations, newsletters, signs on the doors, half of the temple-room

space, and the like)?

How about self-awareness? Are both leaders and followers working on

self-awareness? Have they studied their personal birth charts? Have the

leaders screened the people they take in? Have they studied the

institutional karma as well? Do the leaders know why is it that this

institution attracts this kind of people? Do the leaders know how to deal

with the kind of people they attract?

Doesn't Krsna say in Bg 7.16 that four kinds of people approach Him or His

representatives? What to do with all those who do not come to Krsna

consciousness out of pure piety or an abstract philosophical interest?

 

>"Oh, if this has happened because of me, then I must not be pure enough.

>Maybe I am skipping a syllable when chanting the Maha-mantra?"

 

>More often than not, the devotees' hope that chanting and other spiritual

>practices will automatically eradicate their "mental" problems remains

>unfulfilled.

 

With no self-awareness, is it, perhaps, that the way one chants the

powerful maha-mantra is instrumental in solidifying, reinforcing,

strengthening one's karmic patterns -- rather than liberation?

If I chant, for example, unconsciously immersed in the same body language I

live my "normal" daily routine, wouldn't my (physical, mental,

intellectual) tension patterns become deeper and deeper and ever more

"normal"?

Or, wouldn't *singing* the maha-mantra, rather than *chanting* it, be more

beneficial for some individuals or under particular circumstances?

How about making the chant an actual yoga-and-meditation event?

 

>Most can be believed to be actions undertaken with the devotees' best

>interest in mind; this may help one forgive the abusers but it does not

>make their actions any less damaging. The gardener may be eager to see the

>young plant that he cultivates grow high and bear flowers, but will it

>help if in his impatience he forcibly pulls it up? When plant after plant

>die, one would expect the gardener to learn not to repeat the mistake.

 

Does the proverbial old dog ever learn a new trick?

 

No matter how eternal and ageless and ever fresh the soul is, if I am not

aware that I am letting the soul wither in a (collective and individual)

karmic straight-jacket, I may as well "chant and be happy", no?

 

Respectfully,

your servant,

Kunti-Devi dasi