There are different opinions regarding social issues or philosophy among devotees. Any perspective, side of an issue, or point of the Krishna conscious philosophy can be carried to an extreme in relation to others.
By Karnamrita dasa
I tend to be on the middle of most issues, much to the chagrin of those who strongly advocate different perspective or causes. I do have strong opinions on certain issues, yet I am usually not on the front lines of confrontation. Ideally, even when I disagree I try to see the other perspective, and understand why the person holds the conviction they do.
In the traditional way of establishing siddhanta (conclusion of the scripture), one of the processes is to argue in favor of the opposing argument, and then to “defeat” it (although the term “defeat” is not very useful for happy married life). I take this part of siddhanta as really trying to understand the “other” side.
Seeing and appreciating both sides is very useful in couples counseling, where we often have two very different interpretations of past activities, or even current communication. Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle.
In any case, whether one person is “right” and another person “wrong”, my wife and I try to impress upon the couple the conception of “subjective reality”. Sometimes we have to say to a couple, “Do you want to be right, or in love (or stay married)?” Each spouse has to respect the other, and their different views on issues or perspectives on the KC philosophy.
Subjective reality means that each one of us understands things according to our particular psychological “filters” (our past conditioning and experience).
This is the meaning of the “new age” saying that “perception is reality” (not ultimate reality, but personal reality). Some people—including devotees—have a very hard time with this. This can be especially the case when their subjective reality has become dressed in the “clothes” of spiritual philosophy, and therefore must be right.
An example of our subjective reality “being dressed in spiritual clothes” might be when we come to Krishna conscious with strong views about—lets say certain social considerations—and then find some statements supporting them (or that COULD support them). Then we might be unwilling to accept another view even if supported by scripture and/or practical experience or considerations.
As scientists have a “knowledge filter” by beginning with the idea that life comes from chemicals, or that evolutions is true, and then only accept “evidence” that supports this view, devotees also can have knowledge filters regarding their cherished view of the application of the philosophy.
Social positions in general are in the plane of relativity and can be adjusted—and must be if KC is to remain dynamic and relevant—according to time, place, and circumstances. Varnasrama (the occupational divisions and spiritual orders of society) and/or social considerations in general are not part of the limbs of bhakti or listed in the 64 items of devotional service given by Rupa Goswami. They become important by giving support to our spiritual life, not otherwise.
Whatever side a person has regarding social issues if their spouse or potential spouse has a different view, then those differences have to be discussed and at least harmonized and respected. In premarital counseling, we often see how different each devotees views can be on many different issues: from roles of men and women, household duties, earning money, education, child raising philosophy etc.
Some devotees fanatically stress the traditional roles, while others stress that devotees couples should do whatever works for them considering the unique natures of both persons and their type of conditioning and education, etc.(and some devotees fall somewhere in the middle).
These differences can usually be worked out if each person has flexibility, sufficient compatibility, and desire for Krishna consciousness as the ultimate goal. However, these perspectives are best worked out before marriage. Otherwise they are sure to become problems for the couples during their marriage. Couples also have to explore and share their expectations for their marriage, and genuinely and continually appreciate their life partner’s unique perspective and nature.
It is interesting that often a person just before marriage, or newly married, expects their spouse to be a mind reader and know them without discussion, or they just assume their spouse thinks like they do. That type of thinking is a recipe for disaster.
To conclude, we all need to understand the nature of subjective reality in all our relationships, whether as spouse, parent, leader, business partner, guru, brahmachari, disciple, student, employee or whatever our position is. Then we can have meaningful and more respectful communication in all our dealings with others, despite differences.
To borrow from Steven Covey, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”.
This is a subject that desperately needs development. Thank you for addressing this.
When I visited Buckhead Church in Atlanta, Georgia earlier this year I availed myself of the resources in their campus bookstore. They had a number of great books, including these two on marriage, which I have found invaluable:
Cracking the Communication Code, by Dr. Emerson Eggerich
In this book Dr Eggerich explains that men speak the language of respect, and women speak a language of love. A man wants to be respected, a woman wants to be loved. Learning to see things in terms of the other partner’s value structure reduces miscommunications by a huge degree.
iMarriage, by Andy Stanley
In this six part sermon Andy Stanley explains how our hopes and desires before we get married turn into expectations that we load onto the other person after we tie the knot. He explains how to recognize and defuse this process to allow a healthy partnership to take place without hidden agendas.
Both of these are very sattvic theistic presentations, and while we wait for the authorized books to show up in temple bookstores, these ones are gold.
The first part of this article, regarding different opinions and trying to see and appreciate both sides, is very important even outside the context of marriage counseling.
Prabhupada once compared the process of becoming a devotee to the process of getting married: all at once you acquire a new set of friends and relatives, and enemies also. (I do not have the specific reference, sorry).
We are all in Srila Prabhupada’s pariwar, his family. We are in this together. We show our love for him by how we cooperate to push on this movement. In one sense we are like a married couple, or like children and grandchildren in the same extended family: sticking together is often more important that being “right”.
At least, we should be able to carefully define the few instances when it might actually be more important to be right, the very rare (if any) disagreements for which it could be necessary to divorce a schism or faction out of ISKCON. Probably it should not ever be necessary.
I am glad there are devotees with very strong views, who can support them with authoritative statements and establish them as correct for the sake of keeping ISKCON on the right, pure, true path. We do need to work harder as a movement on the kind of communication skills and empathy that will help us understand and appreciate each other’s opinions, and to cautiously define the areas in which we must truly, in a spirit of mutual respect and filial love, agree to disagree.
Religious fanatics claim to know the will of God, and rally their forces against other fanatics who just as fervently claim to know some opposing view as the true will. Of course, the sages and saintly devotees, who actually know, can find the way to bring devotees together.
In Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, with the Union on the verge of winning the Civil War, Lincoln used words to heal the divided nation. Before the war, the Union did not seek to abolish slavery but to contain it and let it slowly die, but the war changed that. Lincoln wisely invoked God’s will without declaring God to be on either side:
“. . . Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’ If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Sorry to quote so much Lincoln. I was afraid paring it further would lose the meaning. Even though he gets his digs in against slavery, he admits he does not know God’s plan, acknowledges that the North should also suffer for the offense, and tries to rally the whole country behind the idea of marching forward to serve God together.
In other words, the North and South had their own “subjective realities” for which they tried to enlist the help of God and justification of scripture, but God has His own absolute reality, part of which involves our bearing the suffering we deserve – “tams titiksasva” – and we must try to cooperate as a nation to serve His inscrutable will.
It reminds me of Sukadeva Goswami’s explanation in 7th Canto of how Vishnu is really neutral, and only appears to favor the demigods because they (generally) submit to His authority. Only the pure devotees, situated beyond the modes of nature, can truly purchase His heart. (Samo ‘ham sarva bhutesu . . mayi te tesu capy aham)
This clear explanation of God’s complete transcendence alongside (and in spite of) His being thoroughly personal, is one of the amazing geniuses of the Bhagavat tradition.
Too often the Abrahamic traditions portray God as siding with one race or community of believers. This makes things simple, but not quite right, and can result in the misunderstanding that spiritual propriety is merely a question joining the right faction or gang.*
[*Bhaktisiddhanta spoke of “henotheism”, the primitive worship by a tribe or clan of some totem or magical ancestor. Often the Jews, Christians and Muslims think themselves more sophisticated than what they perceive as a “polytheistic” Vedic tradition, but many of them still organize their faithful by appealing to such primitive sentiments. Some of us may, too.]
To be sure, there are divine and demonic natures, but the divine nature described in B.G. 16.1-3 is so much more involved than merely choosing a side. The divine Prahlada Maharaja was born in the Daitya family.
In Krishna lila things are magnificently complex, with even Bhisma the Mahajana on the Kurus’ side, and Krishna’s paradoxical neutrality despite despite His internal love, as Partha Sarathi, for Arjuna.
The awesome setting where He speaks the Gita between the two armies right before the battle displays His neutrality and transcendence, and that of His message. Arjuna was not to fight for the victory of his own side, but for Krsna.
Pamho, agtSP!
I like the article and find it very true. But talking about strong opinions I have a strong opinion on “subjective reality”. I can’t accept that term. To me it’s a self contradiction. Reality is never subjective. It’s only how we see the reality that’s subjective. The reason why I oppose this term so much is because it can be traced back to secular atheistic philosophy. When we deny God things start to become relativistic and I don’t think we should encourage such concepts by buying into their ideas. We don’t need such terms to make our points.
Ys, Ajita Krishna Dasa
Hare Krishna Ajita: Thanks for your comment. I do understand your point, though I have a different perspective.
One feature of our tradition is to use terms already in new use in new ways to suit our devotional purpose. The Goswamis took terms in use at the time by the Mayavadis and interpreted them in devotional way. Our Prabhupada also took ideas, expressions and terms of the day for his purpose. We like to quote Prabhupada, “Impossible is a word in a fools dictionary”, yet this was first said by Napoleon—and their are others as well.
Some devotees don’t believe we should have anything to do with therapy because it was begun by secular thinking people. Yet devotee therapists use many of the practices of therapy and combine them with Krishna conscious philosophy to support that path of Bhakti. In addition counseling has changed over the years, and there are a number of perspectives and methods which are quite compatible with bhakti. So much of anything we do depends on our intent. We can use many things that are not inherently bhakti if our aim is to serve Krishna and to help others to do the same. We have to judge by the results.
Ultimate reality is not subjective, but personal reality is. That is what I am speaking about. You may be especially sensitized by this term, yet to me and other devotees who use it, it has nothing to do with buying into atheistic philosophy. Atheists don’t “own” the term subjective reality—let us use it for our devotional purpose. One senior devotee criticized a BTG article my wife wrote that used the word “compassion”. He doesn’t like the word “compassion” because to him, that word is used so much by the Buddhists, and he becomes incensed when he hears the term! That was his subjective reality!
Jai Akruranatha: Your comments are always thoughtful and help unpack and explore the points made by the authors! I loved the quote by “Honest Abe”.
That ol’ jealous angry God! Watch out cus he’s on my side of the argument! :-))
And yes Vishnu is neutral in the world, whereas for devotees Krishna is partial to them out of love! Krishna is so merciful that he even gave Putana a position like a mother in his eternal lila. As Vidura says, who could worship any other form of God?
Ajita Krishna prabhu: Our philosophy is that reality *is* ultimately subjective, as rasa, or relation, is superior to tattva. Objective reality, tattva, culminates in Brahman.
To distinguish this from secular relativism with the conditioned jiva in the center our Gaudiya acaryas have sometimes called it “Super-subjective Reality”.
Two conditioned souls having an argument about something have different views based on their subjective or if you like, relative perspective. To help them, as a third party, we bring up the point that they see from a relative view. They need to at least accept that each person has a bias, and sees differently. That is what I am referring to. My wife’s parents after 55 years of marriage still argue over the exact details of certain events from many years ago. Who is “right”?
Now you are speaking on a different level. Certainly in the Lila, there is real subjective reality that our rasa is best. Krishnadas Kaviraja puts forward the idea that objectively—or sorry– he says if we see from the “neutral” view, then Madhurya is the best, yet for each devotee their relationship is the best.
When I said, “ultimate Reality”, it would have been clearer to say the “truth” of what actually occurred on this plane, whereas an individuals perception is imperfect especially when ego is involved.
So Ajita Prabhu, where do we go with this? You haven’t addressed my points. Am they wrong in your estimation?
I understand that for you the word “subjective reality”, due to being used by atheists should not be used by devotees. I respect that. I am reminded of Sarvabhuma Bhatacharya who could not tolerate the word “mukti” being used because of what it used to mean to him, and so he changed the Bhagavatam verse from muktipade to bhaktipade.
aho baki yam stana-kala-kutam . . .
“Alas, how shall I take shelter of one more merciful than He who granted the position of mother to a she-demon [Putana] although she was unfaithful and she prepared deadly poison to be sucked from her breast?”
(S.B. 3.2.23)
This is a great verse. It is the verse that Mukunda Datta quoted which sent Pundarik Vidyaniddhi into ecstasy and showed Gadadhara Pandit Pundarik’s real quality as a great Vaisnava.
In the Purport, Srila Prabhupada writes: “. . . It is said that a noble man accepts the good qualities of a person of doubtful character, just as one accepts nectar from a stock of poison. . . . The Lord accepts the least qualification of the living entity and awards him the highest reward. That is the standard of His character.”
H.H. Radhanatha Swami gave such a magnificent class in August, 2007 at San Jose temple, about how Srila Prabhupada also exemplified this quality of Krishna. He was so grateful for the service rendered by his disciples, he never forgot it, but he was able to overlook their shortcomings, which would eventually be rectified.
To exemplify “amanina manadena” means we have to accept each other’s good qualities and overlook each other’s shortcomings.
Krishna accepted Putana as a mother because she offered her breast, even though she did so in a false disguise to murder Him who she took to be an innocent newborn.
And Lord Nityananda delivered Jagai even though he offered nothing but violence. Mar kheye prema de. Where is such mercy and compassion to be found?
If we could exemplify a little of these qualities our relationships with spouses and other devotees would be much better.
We have to tolerate each other’s faults. It is our karma. But if we appreciate each other’s devotional service, we will become fit to associate with the transcendental devotees.
Let the Bin Ladens concern themselves with “smiting”. Those who smite will get smote. (smited, smat, smitten, whatever). :-)
Those without sin can cast the first stone. If the Lord really was interested in going around smiting all the wrongdoers there would be no one left in this kali yuga. It is the material disease to overlook our own faults and feel ourselves fit to criticize and punish those of others.
We need to emulate Lord Krishna’s neutrality. When He kills someone He liberates them. Evertything about Him is beneficial to all. He even gives the highest position to Putana. Jaya!
There is a Psychological theory known as -” Transactional Analysis ”
Originally concieved and developed by-Eric Berne, MD who also wrote several books on this subject matter – I very much recommend reading about this science – some premises of Psychology are bhogas or out of line with Vedic conceptions due to lack of KC connection ,as in souls connection with God – However some psychology theories are in line with vedic conceptions for instance “Maslow’s” chart of “self actualization” as in first one has to meet basic needs to then rise higher in consciousness –
Maslows Ideas is Its pretty much based on original Bhagavad Gita Psychology as in first be regulated in eating sleeping and then when one has balance in these aspects of life ones consciousness can go higher.
“Transactional analysis” is based on three aspects to ego manifestation of self.
( its a complex subject matter if looked at minutely, not so much determined by consciousness as in material or KC but is more simply understood, as general principle’s of ego aspects rarther than defining ego as a whole as such, in either liberated or non liberated states. )
The three states of ego expression are Child ego Adult Ego and Parent Ego
During the day we go in and out of these three states of ego manifeatation.
Child ego is more innocent aspects of self more childish aspects of self etc.
Adult ego is more commen sense logic reason and basically the main part of of our functioning ego self.
Parent Ego is more Nuturing both fatherly and motherly nuturing aspects, it has though a flip side though and can be used or misued more in negative condescending way or dominating way.
So parent ego can be nuturing,productive and at same time it can manifest as being unproductive at times.
As we endevouring to beocome free of maya and also to be more in preaching mood then we tend to express more of the parent Ego aspects of self ( especially in terms of our highly regulated life and authority institutional stucture ) –
At times though due to immaturity in ones dealings with others or oneself ,due to personal struggles within ones self, we can tend to project some of our own intensity of ones own self towards others in sutle ways either intentionally or unintentionaly at times.
I think anyone who wants to survice in marriage life or who is looking after dependants and preaching or living in temple life. Would benefit from reading about this science of ego expressions of self.
As the title of this article implies, it is a fancy way of identifying with the bias of the spouses. Reality is unfortunately quite unglamorous, unless one or the other partner accede to the strengths or otherwise of the wedded for life.
I find that mature devotee couples know when to walk away from potential causes of friction, even if they are right. The inevitable tit for tat never really solves problems. So one bit of golden advice to couples unsure about who is boss or whatever, is, just walk away – even if you are 100% correct in any brewing argument. In this regard, many spouses joke that they had never known what hell was like until they got married.
The lasting relationships also have space created to accommodate each partners strengths and weaknesses. For instance, if the female spouse has some talent which requires her to be socially forceful in preaching and other areas of interaction with other people, the male may feel somewhat impotent in his supposedly guru role. I have seen relationships break due to this. Subjective reality would have such a situation helped by some ‘give and take’ without demeaning one another.
I think it would be an educational experience for prospective newly weds to spend some time with mature couples to learn how conflicts are resolved. The battle of the egos will always clash one way or another, even in successful marriages. The knack of knowing how to minimize any unpleasantness is an ability to grasp, on a practical level, the highly arcane import of subjective reality. Couples who endure reasonably well are clever people.
Things are easier said than done however, and to educate, or to revive problematic relationships I think, is best done within a family domain, which is what Iskcon is trying to foster. Just like Srila Prabhupada said that the best way to learn how to cook is by observing a trained cook, young couples can imbibe lessons from stable marital relationships. Of course, human beings are far more complex than rolling pins and dough.
Wouldn’t this do more than extract sometimes abstract psychological theoritical concepts and applying them in reality? Don’t these works apply more because of the distance created in family life by western values? The uncles and aunties should be able to translate scientific verbiage into warm cuddly words of comfort.
Ys, Kesava Krsna dasa.
Kesava Krsna Prabhu! Pranams! Nice to hear from you again.
Whether we use “subjective reality” or some other term couples have to understand that everyone sees differently and has their own bias. Studies have shown that in successful marriages many conflicts are not solved but managed!!(as you suggested) Another golden rule in marriage is that both persons have to truly appreciate the qualities of their spouse, respect their views, and yes—shall we dare say it– love the other person in the best sense of the word. Real love on the earth plane comes after the infatuation when we have to chose to be loving. (Love is as love does.) We are not competitors in a marriage but partners who are helping each other in the service of Shri Guru and Gauranga and Nitai!
Yeah we don’t need “abstract theoretical concepts” but good examples from successful marriages. The problem is that devotees don’t often talk about their marriage problems and can be rather isolated. I read something by Rohininandana a long time ago, where he told of a guest who was visiting the London Temple who told him: “You have a great philosophy, but no fellowship”. There is some truth to that in my experience. We have to create structures where devotee couples can support each other and learn useful marital skills like how to emphatically listen, communicate and deal with conflict.
To help in this regard the Grihastha Vision Team (www.vaisnavafamiltyresources.org) has created a Grihastha course for teaching healthy marriage skills and is trying to find devotee mentors in every Temple to be the first line of defense for marital problems. There is a great need for these classes and for mentors and the work has barely begun. We are limited by our manpower and lack of funds.
There needs to be elders who are active in every community who can serve like surrogate Parents or Grandparents to offer their experience and wisdom. This is very evident when my wife and I do premarital counseling, as we are old enough to be their parents and feel we are sharing not only concrete skills but our own experience.
Pamho, agtSP!
I’m sorry for not responding to this before. I’ve somehow forgotten about this until I came across it again.
In philosophy the term “reality” usually refers to the state of being as it actually is, independent of people’s knowledge or perception. If something is real it is an actual fact. It is true. From reading your nice article I got the impression that you think that it’s possible that the “subjective reality” can be in conflict with the “objective reality”. In other words that the “subjective reality” can be false. But can it then really be called a “reality”? Of course in the word jugglery of philosophy everything is possible nowadays, but my point is that I think it’s dangerous to by into terms which are popular among relativists, because we are very much opposed to their philosophy. Instead of using the term “subjective reality” I would prefer terms like “subjective experience” or “subjective perception.”
Thank again for a good article and I must again apologize for this very late answer!
Your servant, Ajita Krishna Dasa
I agree that semantics are important, and I appreciate the words you give as an alternative. At the same time I believe word understandings depend on the context or the arena we are focused on. In one sense we can agree that “reality” means the truth of the way things are. However, I feel that putting “subjective” before reality qualifies reality to be seen in a more relative way. Obviously you take exception to that, and we may not come to an agreement. Such is the nature of discussions. It is good to have them to seek further clarification, yet we still have our “subjective reality” or bias regarding the meaning of reality or the understanding of any word.
In popular culture there is an expression that, “Perception is reality”. Now it is easy to dismiss this idea as “new age”, and totally false. But that depends on your context. My question in encountering any popular expression is, “is there any truth in this”. For me and many people “perception is reality” means personal reality not ultimate reality(though there are some that see them as the same.) Again you may not agree by your definition of reality, that there is “personal reality”, yet I think with discussion the meaning should be clear.
Pamho, agtSP!
Dear Karnamrita Prabhu! Thanks for taking the time to discuss my objection with me. I appreciate that. I guess we don’t agree. But then again, it’s not the end of the world :)
Ys, Ajita Krishna Dasa