Sexism and related topics

[Audarya lila]

Dear Madhavi-devi dasi,

 

I was not trying to point a finger at you by my last post. I was simply trying to change the focus of the discussion and stop the abuse that was going on in the name of stopping the abuse - does that make sense?

 

You are certainly right that it is difficult for anyone to have complete empathy with others without having tread the same path that they have. I truly feel for all souls that are being abused and cheated - and that is all of us until we choose to take a different path.

 

I do appreciate personal stories and I think, as I said before, that there is certainly something to gain by opening our hearts to each other and sharing our tragedies. I just don't think we need to continue them and continue the abuse by abusing others. I am truly saddened that you felt I was attacking you, it couldn't possibly have been farther from my mind and my intentions.

 

The golden rule is so simple and so eloquent and so difficult to put into practice - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That certainly includes treating harshness with gentleness, meanness with kindness, accusations with praise.

 

I personally don't believe that the answer to abuse is to become an abuser oneself. This is the natural egotistical response and one often feels 'justified' in behaving in such a fashion - but in reality it just furthers the cycle and perpetuates it. This takes away our own dignity and puts us on a par with those who choose to behave in that fashion.

 

Anyway, forgive me if you were pained by my words and trust me that they were not meant to hurt, but rather to heal. I spoke them to all readers of this thread in the hopes that it may make us all think a little more before posting derogatory statements meant to demean and belittle others.

 

I also hoped that it would bring Krsna into the picture and I thank Babhru for taking the que.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

 

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Audarya lila:

 

I personally don't believe that the answer to abuse is to become an abuser oneself. Audarya lila dasa

 

 

…………………..

Suryaz: I could not agree with you more – but you have to remember not to act is also to act in more ways than one. Not to act or to act can act to support or act as fallacy.

To promote – VIZ: “see the good in others and cultivate the good in ourselves” as a means to establish truth is wonderful in some contexts. However the promotion of such can also be used as a dangerous form of coercion and oppression. Certainly your above mentioned view can be addressed as moralistic in some context of analysis, however it is also a misleading notion or a fallacy of morality in other contexts. The fallacy of moralistic thought results from the generalization of moral imperative into all of ethics. Yes, without a doubt what you speak of is a moral principle for the positive regulation of life. However it does not fare very well in the context where morally indifferent actions are accepted as the norm. And in the context of this discourse we have already establisher the existence of moral indifference through linguistic distortion. Never mind whether the moral indifference is consciously or unconsciously orchestrated, the existence of moral indifference has been established. And the discourse is about how to establish truth (satyam; satva-guna) as the accepted norm in a social environment influenced by aspects of moral indifference (distortion) (tama-guna).

 

Yes you are very clever. You are keeping the gaze on the self. You are keeping the gaze on the self with the aim to mitigate deception. You are being true to the self. Yes in a particular context it works. But this is about combating those who shifting the gaze onto the “other” to orchestrate deception (whether knowingly or unknowingly). It is not about shifting the gaze alone. We all shift the gaze when we pray; when we recognise our self as das, das, das anudas. It is the negative shifting of the gaze; the shifting of the gaze to establish deception (to promote tama-guna) that is wrong. (and your inactive stance could also be argued as the promotion of tama also; some may argue that to not overtly act against deception is to indirectly promote it- since the deceptive act is in the realm of the overt) It is not just the shifting of the gaze we are talking about it is the overt mitigation of deception and the overt establishment of truth of that that deception occurs socially.

 

And yes, I would like to thank you Audrya, as you have just given us another example of more subtle and indirect symbolic confusion: VIZ fallacy in moral conceptualisation. (interesting).

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-29-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-29-2001).]

[suryaz]

 

Originally posted by M-dd:

And that is not about putting blame for one's own set of conditioned being on another person, rather it is a process to disentangle oneself from entangling association.

 

Suryaz:I say we nip it in the bud. "It begins with misuse of language as the accepted norm. I do no understand why so may are against this, or the elucidation of it. What is wrong with establishing truth?"

 

Originally posted by M-dd: I wholeheartedly agree to your intent of establishing the truth, but I don’t think that abuse simply comes from language misuse. …This kind of abuse is about rage, and it is rampant, very rampant… Still, having said that, there is definitely the phenomenon of misquoting Srila Prabhupada in order to support abusive behaviour, and on that I agree totally with you that it is extremely important to nip such misuse of language in the bud. So I guess I agree and disagree overall on that point.

 

Originally posted by Suryaz: Moreover, when abuse (in whatever form, be it action, language, etc. etc.) becomes the accepted norm not only does toxic shame intensify but also the whole society knows only hell (distortion) as truth.

 

Originally posted by M-dd: YES! Wholeheartedly I agree. It is a historical fact that ISKCON became a hell to live in in many places and many ways.

 

---M-d.d. said>>There is a subtle but all-important difference between humility and false humility.

 

Suryaz: Exactly my point. To use anything of distorted origin and promote it as truth is bad enough – but then to present it as presented with humbleness, this brings into play distortion of the most deplorable sort.

 

---M-d.d: ISKCON…gave free reign to abusers due to these mis-truths full of toxic shame.

 

Originally posted by Suryaz: …those who are interested in upholding abuse, injustice distortion degradation etc., etc. at its point of entry VIZ lingo-symbolic confusion etc., etc. shifting the gaze etc., etc. are also as you put it Madhavi, “nothing more than a jailer for the material energy,” and should be rejected. It si simply WRONG to support abuse at any level.

 

---M-d.d: I agree. And we saw historically in the most blatant example, how this foolish 'linguistic' support of abuse supported even the most horrific abuses of rape of children. Without so much of a supporting structure, these thugs would have been rooted out, so in that way, I wholly agree with you. But the misuse of language didn't actually cause the rapes, it just served to allow it to go on so long unchecked

 

... the sad history is that these very women have been categorically blamed for the resultant disastrous volume of ISKCON divorces, lack of submission and lack of chastity being cited, in the name of Srila Prabhupada. The idea, as Srila Prabhupada presented it, was supposed to be that the woman benefits by submitting to her husband because he lifts her up spiritually. I cannot say it enough times that there is an extremely large number of godsisters who did submit to their husbands, only to be dragged down, and I'm not talking about dragged down through sex, which is an oversimplistic idea, but dragged down by abuse, by toxic shaming, usually accompanied by physical violence or the threat of physical violence. That is not to blame the woman's conditioning on the man, rather it is to enlighten society to the fact that when a woman leaves such a situation it is a move on her part up the ladder of spiritual evolution, not down.

 

Suryaz:Why? Because of use (misuse) of language.

 

---M-d.d: I'm unclear here if you are blaming the actual abuse on the misuse of language? I can't agree with that, but I do agree that it was greatly enhanced. … It is conditioned into the abuser to abuse, and the misquoting was simply a vehicle to justify, and in that way, yes, increase their evil behaviour, as it went unchecked.

 

Suryaz: OK knowledge, ethics, social relation, social reality and power relations, are very closely related to the way we use language. We need to take a critical approach to developing an understanding of language, and/or communication dynamics. We need to ask how do we use such dynamics support or hinder abuse and/or truth. How do we use them to distort the truth. We need to explore how language reflects and interacts with society, with particular emphasis on addressing where how and why distortion occurs. To do that we need to look at stereotypes, language taboos, and the powerlessness and power relations in language usage’ and the lived experience of such.

 

Let us start with something of Foucault’s social theory. Certainly Foucault’s work is complex and often ambiguous but he has much to offer.

 

Through our use of language (discourse) we conceptualise and develop 'social power' and this in turn functions as the benchmark for the production and/or reproduction of social relations. Through the deconstruction of discourse (as we have already done further up in this thread) we saw how discourse motivated, encumbered or limited our conceptualisations. We saw how in the course of the discourse some meanings were marginalized. Some were accepted. We saw how this in turn blocked out certain aspects of knowledge and/or limited our understandings of other knowledges. We saw how we were governed by our lingo-social understandings. We saw in your (Madhavi’s) ethnographic posts how social relation were encumbered through linguistic determinism. We saw that certain types of abuse occurred when certain linguistic statements were not only accepted as the socially accepted norm by people, but they also worsened when they were institutionalised (but the institutionalisation bit was follow on from the linguistic bud and can be dealt with later if necessary). Through these select linguistic tools certain notions were constructed and put into play in a distorted manner, using other linguistic tools to support the injustice.

 

We can argue that with a different use of language (discourse) in a similar natural (not social) environment, without a doubt, different sets of lingo-tools for the construction of social reality would occur. Correspondingly, different social relation would develop. Social relations in turn produce specific knowledges about social conditions and on it goes.

 

Foucault goes further, he suggests that in the use of language (discourse) it is not enough to look at what is said but also what is not said, silenced or excluded. With that application one can expand knowledge and break the cycle, the power relation and all that it brings to bear. You gain greater perspective. You look at stereotypes, and language taboos, and not only deconstruct them but also look at what is not said and what social power both charry. For what aim are they constructed? and what is not constructed? In its construction where does the power relation lie? is it just, ethical, logical, what are the fallacies etc., etc., etc.????

 

Meanings are developed through specific ways of organising social power. To shift the meaning produces resistance to the way some social relation have been constructed – what constitutes domination for example.

 

But more importantly we have seen how through the deconstruction language, arguments and practices taken for granted were socially accepted religious belies presented as true, but in fact they were for many especially the most vulnerable of society (those who are to be protected by society) no more than tools of abuse.

 

Suryaz

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-29-2001).]

[valaya]

And yes, I would like to thank you Audrya, as you have just given us another example of more subtle and indirect symbolic confusion: VIZ fallacy in moral conceptualisation. (interesting).

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-29-2001).]

 

Haribol Audarya lila das!

 

Nice try, prabhu. I trust that what you are attempting to deal with here, in your usual calm rational manner, is becoming increasingly clear. Whatever the input, it will eventually be used against you. The more passionate your reply, the more fuel you provide. Certainly there is no possibility of spontaneous discourse knowing that every word, inflection and who-knows-what-all will be picked apart to provide fuel for seemingly unlimited anger and frustration. An unfortunate but obviously hopeless situation. Guess it's up to the `victims` to work together on themselves. So sorry for all real or imagined offenses. It's evident that I have nothing further of any apparent value to offer here, nor do I expect to in the near future.

 

Sincerely (I think...), valaya RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 09-29-2001).]

[Maitreya]

I see the answer right here is Prabhupada's words.

 

We have to recognize all living beings as part of Krishna and not as objects to exploit.

 

No piece meal 'solutions' will prove effective.

 

The fact is many of us have no genuine respect for Krishna or other jivas despite our endless pontificating.But until we experiencea true change of heart all these problems,in various forms, will remain.

 

 

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Every material comtaminated soul wants to usurp Krishna's position as the Supreme Enjoyer, the Supreme Male.

 

While trying to dominate and exploit others we sometimes we find ourselves getting the short end of the stick.Tough for us.

 

When we stop trying to exploit we will find that our own experience of being exploited will vanish in due course.

 

From a lecture on Bg13.1-2 Lect. 9-24-73

 

Therefore those who are actually intelligent, they should not neglect this movement, Krsna consciousness movement. It is the greatest welfare movement for the whole human society to make people God conscious, Krsna conscious, without which there will be so many troubles. It is already there. So everyone is trying to enjoy the prakåti, the material nature. Therefore the question is prakåtià puruñaà caiva kñetraà kñetrajïaà eva ca. This is material nature and anyone who is trying to enjoy this material nature, he is called purusa. Purusa means enjoyer and prakrti means enjoyed. Just like in ordinary life we see a man is supposed to be enjoyer and the woman is supposed to be enjoyed, similarly, prakrti is feminine gender and purusa is masculine gender. Anyone who is trying to enjoy, he is purusa. It doesn’t matter, outwardly he’s dressed as man or women; if he has got the desire to enjoy, that is called purusa. And his object that is enjoyed, that is called prakrti.

 

 

 

[M-dd]

Haribol Audarya lila prabhu! Dandavatts! I much appreciate your gentlemanly approach. I accept your answer that you were not pointing at me. I am glad to let go of it too. I wish to continue this discourse if you have a mind, and feel it is now going in a positive direction. Thanks again for all your input. I will comment on a few things you said now.

 

Originally posted by Audarya lila:

...I was simply trying to change the focus of the discussion and stop the abuse that was going on in the name of stopping the abuse - does that make sense?

 

Yes, certainly. But I also do not see that confronting abuse can be called abusing back. As Suryaz has so intelligently explained, silence has its own ominous possibilities. So I speak up as Supersoul moves me, offering always the results up to Krsna, for His pleasure, even my own personal suffering.

 

You are certainly right that it is difficult for anyone to have complete empathy with others without having tread the same path that they have. I truly feel for all souls that are being abused and cheated - and that is all of us until we choose to take a different path.

 

True, and only a pure unalloyed devotee can be completely empathic with another no matter how close the experiences match or not. But I am not personally looking for empathy, I'm looking for understanding and admittance to certain historical truths that have been traditionally misunderstood and denied to the detriment of society. Yes everyone is exploited and abused in the material world, in the absolute sense, but I wish to separate the concept to the relative sense due to their being a vast difference to the everyday give and take, which will include some fighting and hurtfulness as well as some loving and sharing, and out and out viscious abuse, which is a very mis-understood phenomenon, and a very different matter. I am educated on this 'pop-psychology' both through education and reading, as well as direct experience of myself and others. As for the dismissing of the entire field of knowledge into the label 'pop-psychology', I retort that in the Nectar of Instruction it is clearly stated that 'one must learn to culture nescience with knowledge side by side'. It has been Krsna's arrangements that led my life down this particular path of study and I wish to share the bits of realized knowledge I now personally carry, as I equally wish eagerly to hear from all of you all the bits of realizations I'm sure you carry many of too.

 

I do appreciate personal stories and I think, as I said before, that there is certainly something to gain by opening our hearts to each other and sharing our tragedies.

 

Me too, and I hope that our sharing will increase and deepen as we go along making our individual attempts to connect on a real level, and that more and more people will also benedict us with sharing of their hearts too.

 

I just don't think we need to continue them and continue the abuse by abusing others.

 

Again, confronting abuse, standing up to a bully, should not be called 'counter-abusing'. Only abuse should be called abuse. I won't stoop to continued entanglement over my chastizement of another by challenging you to state which of the above you consider my actions. I stand by my actions and I know that my heart is true, as is my sharing. That's all I can do, and all anyone can be expected to do.

 

I am truly saddened that you felt I was attacking you, it couldn't possibly have been farther from my mind and my intentions.

 

I am truly sorry for saddening you. Truly. Please don't give it another thought, I fully accept your stated intentions and won't give it another thought either. You are an exemplary gentleman and worthy of my praise.

 

The golden rule is so simple and so eloquent and so difficult to put into practice - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That certainly includes treating harshness with gentleness, meanness with kindness, accusations with praise.

 

It also includes necessary chastizements, confrontations and challenges. Maybe I come off as more confrontative than many others, but I believe in the value of it, and it's use as a vehicle to open up deeper relating and understanding. I also don't believe in falsely taking the humble stance, as in 'jai prabhu', but feeling inside anger or dislike at someone's injustice. It's the way I am, we're all different. Even when I was still a bhaktin my godsisters pushed me forward to speak for them, and it happened over the years enough for me to get used to being the one to stick my neck out, take the risk, challenge the untruth or misapplication.

 

I personally don't believe that the answer to abuse is to become an abuser oneself. This is the natural egotistical response and one often feels 'justified' in behaving in such a fashion - but in reality it just furthers the cycle and perpetuates it.

 

Yes, definitely, when it is based on egotism. I don't consider anything I've said here to be based on egotism. In some minute way I am always involved, and sometimes in bigger ways too of course, with the conditioning remaining in my own slowing down fan, but I am not immersed in these discussions for bolstering my own ego, and when I believe I have made an ego mistake, I happily wish to know it and apologize. But sometimes minor infractions in wording lead others to assume that it was only based on ego and attack for no good reason. I don't deny I have false ego operating intertwined with the real purpose of my soul, but I also know for a fact that I am speaking honestly from my heart, and I don't come down hard on someone if I have not confirmed in more ways than one that I am not unfairly judging or egotistically counter-abusing.

 

This takes away our own dignity and puts us on a par with those who choose to behave in that fashion.

 

Yes, and we know we've blown it sometimes simply by our embarassment of other's reactions. We also have the capability of knowing when we are speaking from mundane motivation and when we are speaking true, if we are habitually honest with ourselves.

 

Anyway, forgive me if you were pained by my words and trust me that they were not meant to hurt, but rather to heal.

 

There is nothing to forgive, but thank you for caring. I wasn't pained either, as, like I have stated, I am not saying these things from the platform of emotion.

 

I spoke them to all readers of this thread in the hopes that it may make us all think a little more before posting derogatory statements meant to demean and belittle others.

 

Yes I understand your intent now, and appreciate very much how you've helped significantly in hopefully turning this thread back to healthy exchanges. Please forgive me for misunderstanding your intent.

 

I also hoped that it would bring Krsna into the picture and I thank Babhru for taking the que.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

 

I appreciate this sentiment too, but for myself, Krsna was never out of the picture.

 

Thanks again for all your inspiration, even-minded and gentlemanly input and for your honest caring of other persons, including my humble self.

 

Aspiring to become servant of the servants of the vaisnavas,

Madhavi-devi dasi

 

 

[valaya]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

I see the answer right here is Prabhupada's words.

 

We have to recognize all living beings as part of Krishna and not as objects to exploit.

 

No piece meal 'solutions' will prove effective.

 

The fact is many of us have no genuine respect for Krishna or other jivas despite our endless pontificating.But until we experiencea true change of heart all these problems,in various forms, will remain.

 

 

Guess my change of heart wasn't `true` enough for some here, although it certainly seems real to me and those who know me personally. Have we all assembled here to destroy faith in ourselves and each other in the name of service to Sri Gurudev, Guru-Gauranga and Radha-Krsna or is that just what's happening most of the time? Must one individual or group always gain at the expense of another? Isn't there enough of God and His Love to go around?

 

Maitreya, please give us a means to contact you when you get to India, like a hotmail Email which you can access anywhere. Don't recommend you take a laptop with you though. Wish I was going with you, prabhu!

 

valaya RR

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 09-29-2001).]

[M-dd]

Originally posted by suryaz:

 

Many great points you are making Suryaz prabhu. Keep it up! Though I confess to having lost a little of the esoteric thread of Focault, I still get your thread of thoughts and explainations.

 

I take your answer to my question on whether you blame abuse solely on linguistics to be that in the case of distorted religious truths, they can cause as well as support, and I would concur with that now. Even these false linguistics are used to beat devout followers over the head in toxic shaming attempts by envious fools.

 

I'd like to take the 'term' 'institutionalized' and reject the beloved new age idea that ISKCON was just some 'institution' and that Srila Prabhupada's sincere followers were institutionalized sectarean robots, and worse, simply took to Krsna consciousness for the sake of being part of an institution!

 

This idea is folly, and fosters much abuse and offense, just like you keep explaining about linguistics. It is used by the envious to slamdunk those who still wish to speak the Absolute Truth as His Divine Grace has given it to us, trying to shut them up, and often due to simple mysogenism. It is a good example of what you are explaining. Some of us, believe it or not, joined for the right reasons and are more sick and tired of the abusive demonic structure that developed than any fool who wants to bander about accusations like 'brainwashed' 'zombies' and so on can even begin to imagine or understand. But these envious souls cannot see the Truth.

 

I agree that to present a distortion and to further distort with a show of false humility is despicable. But I also think people do these things in lesser degrees and are much less guilty, and I would view such persons as still on the path of true knowledge. If the fan is unplugged, the blades keep going around, but it's eventual complete stop is inevitable. A sincere soul, however, will accept challenges to his/her 'pet' ideas when shown to carry these linguistically twisted ideas. An envious person will instead react with indignation and sulking and try to character assassinate the opposition instead of looking within to see if something needs to be adjusted, a weed or two pulled, and some real humility entertained. I think it is hard for all of us, and we can all make mistakes without being condemned, but some who keep the plug in the fan and try to pretend otherwise, those are the real enemies of the soul. And the use of linguistics to cover this up is just what you say it is.

 

And that brings me to what in my opinion is your most important point right now, and that is the fact that to say nothing can be as deplorable as to speak miscon-truths. Double meaning intended.

 

YS,

Madhavi-devi dasi

 

 

[suryaz]

This quotation is from another forum

 

Quote

"The 81st verse of Narada-bhakti-sutra also mentions Sandilya among the authorities of bhakti, besides quoting him in the beginning."

 

"The 81st verse:

 

Tri-satyasya bhaktir eva gariyasii bhaktir eva gariiyasii"

 

"For the one who is truthful in three ways, devotion is dearest, devotion is dearest to him"

 

"[Truthful in thee ways – with body, mind and words. His activities, thoughts and speech are coherent with each other.]"

 

 

"Is this not the foundation for any functional social relation – what to speak of spiritual love (bhakti)?" End of Quote

 

--

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 02-05-2002).]