Selective Perception

[Gauracandra]

I’m writing this posting as a way of explaining a phenomenon I’ve noticed over the years with regard to analysis of spirituality and religion. It seems to me that within spirituality we have a constant struggle between the rules and structures that help guide us and the individual spiritual experience that brings meaning to our lives. At times, structure or organization can dampen those spiritual experiences by focusing so much on the tasks at hand, the daily routines of maintaining and developing that structure. At the same time we should recognize that the loss of structure and discipline often leads to whimsical decision making with regard to a true spiritual experience. Most people think they are more spiritually advanced than they are in fact. Not all who reject structure are immature, though often immature people reject structure because of an over-inflated sense of self. Similarly, spiritually immature people will be found within institutional structures, finding safety in numbers rather than forging ahead and taking the risk to capture that individual spiritual experience. But I believe most people within various religious institutions are mature and sincere. They find rules and structure helpful in guiding them towards finding that individual experience.

 

Now comes the tricky part – how to balance these two ends. This can only come about through introspection and a development of a true sense of one’s own spiritual advancement. This is difficult, and it seems to me more cultural than intellectual – developing a sense of refinement.

 

This being said, let me get a little bit more specific. Often times people will criticize those within religious institutions. They will point to the faults of individuals and ascribe ridicule to all. But here comes a key point – the faults they criticize are often based on selective perception that people within these institutions have these faults, while those who follow a less regulated system don’t fall into these categories. For instance, in Iskcon, if tomorrow a sannyasi “fell down” and decided to get married, instantly you would hear criticism of him, and some people would point to Iskcon and say “Look at those people in Iskcon. They claim to renounce the world, and then they fall prey to the charms of a woman.” As such they take an individuals personal spiritual failing, and judge a group of people. But why are they able to pinpoint this individual? Simply because Iskcon is a large organization, with many different people. There are also those who follow the less structured road, who renounce the world, and then fall prey to the charms of women. But do we ever hear of them? No. It’s a selective perception. The reason why people are able to criticize organizations is because they are large entities, made up of the same fallible people as those following the less structured road. Those following this less structured path fly under the radar, no one notices them. They have just as many faults, but they can blend in with the masses.

 

Let me show this same selective perception in another way. With all examples, there are bound to be problems so please accept the essence of what I’m about to say. One of my hobbies that I love to do is going to see movies. Now over the last several years a similar “selective perception” problem has occurred in the movie arena – we have the division between the independent filmmakers and the “Studio” filmmakers. There are those who will insist that the independent filmmaker is the last source of personal creative expression. They view the studio system as not capable of creating those true gems of films. You will often hear “Oh those Italian filmmakers make such beautiful, personal films. The European filmmakers are so much more subtle and meaningful.” So here is the essential question: Are Italian filmmakers inherently better directors than American filmmakers, or are we again engaging in selective perception.

 

Italy has say a population of 100 million Italian speaking people. Their film industry is geared to the home market. The best of the Italian films will leave the home country’s borders and go to other markets in Europe (Belgium, France, England etc….). If it is successful in these other markets, it may be put up for an award at the Cannes Film Festival. And if it should win awards there, it may be picked up for international distribution by Miramax, and be brought over to the U.S. Once in America it will be shown in the “independent film” theaters. If it is successful in these theaters, then more people will hear about it and come and see it. They will then come and see it and conclude “Oh those Italians make such gems of film”.

 

But guess what, there are tons of bad, and I mean really bad Italian films. The independent film community does produce some really fine films (“Life is Beautiful” (an Italian film), “Hoop Dreams” etc….) but they produce far, far more bad films. The naïve person will conclude that European films are the best. But they aren’t. If anything, I would say American Studio films more often than not are better as a whole. Certainly America produces bad movies, but because the English speaking market is larger, they can afford better cinematography, higher production values etc…. The Studios create some fantastic movies: Schindler’s List, The Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show, The Last of the Mohicans, The Mosquito Coast and I could go on and on.

 

What we have to recognize is that both systems have benefits and both systems have drawbacks. The Studio system, because of its structure, may not always allow the independent director to create “his” vision. In such cases, that person may turn to the independent route, and create good, bad, fantastic, really bad, who knows? Movies.

 

So what should a movie lover like myself do? Very simple, when “Life is Beautiful” came out, I went and saw it, and when “Schindler’s List” came out, I went and loved it. There are some things that small filmmakers can do that large filmmakers can’t, and there are somethings large filmmakers can do that no small filmmaker could ever hope to accomplish. The key to understanding and appreciating these films is not to view them as exclusive and competing, but rather understand that they each have very different scopes.

 

This is why I will appreciate an institution like Iskcon, or Gaudiya Math, which preach all over the world. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said that one day his name would be chanted in every town and village. Today there are people wearing Gaudiya tilak in Russia, in Chile, in Saudi Arabia, in Portugal, in Taiwan, (and I could go on and on,) performing Harinam every day. These institutions are trying to do something big. And sometimes they will fail and sometimes they will succeed. I spoke before about how at my temple, we have a homeless man who comes to the temple, chants japa-mala, and comes to see the deities. Who else is going to take this person in? He may not make us look good, he may make us seem unrefined, and perhaps we will be criticized because of his presence, but personally I don’t want to lose that individual. That person. At the same time, I will appreciate, I will not criticize someone who is living in Vrindavan, with a pair of kartals, chanting Hare Krsna. To me that’s wonderful. We have different scopes. We are each trying to express Sri Caitanya’s will in our own unique way. I think if we understand this, then it will only intensify our own spiritual understandings.

 

[animesh]

Hi Gauracandra ji,

I agree with you that just because some people in an organization turn out to be bad, one should not label the whole organization as bad. But very often it is found that when one person from an organization is caught in an illegal or immoral act, then others in the organization try to defend him. As an example, recently I read a news that in one school, a teacher got angry with a student. The student (who was just a few years old) was beaten so much that he died. Frankly speaking, I got so angry on reading the news that I really felt like killing the teacher. I also read in the news that the Principal of the school was trying to defend the teacher. He was trying to prove that the death must have happened for some other cause. It is not that the Principal must have asked the teacher to kill the child. But the very fact that he was trying to defend the teacher proves that we must blame him too. Likewise, assume that some people who belong to ISKCON are found to do bad acts. If seniors in the organization accept that the acts done by that person are bad and they try to take best measures to ensure that such acts are not repeated, then one should not blame the whole organization. But, if they try to defend their colleague, then the organization must be blamed.

[Bhakta Shakta]

Previously posted by GC:

--

"This is why I will appreciate an institution like Iskcon, or Gaudiya Math, which preach all over the world. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said that one day his name would be chanted in every town and village.

--

 

And I look forward to that day.