Should The Truth Be Always Spoken?

[suchandra 1]

Here Bhakta Alex suggest - it depends, ISKCON leaders cannot always speak the truth because, "they do it because they have to".

Although sometimes the truth is unpalatable, one should not refrain from speaking it. Truthfulness demands that the facts be presented as they are for the benefit of others. That is the definition of truth.

http://vedabase.net/bg/10/4-5/

 

 

They Do It because They Have To

BY: BHAKTA ALEX

 

Jul 19, OTTAWA, CANADA (SUN) —

In his Sampradaya Sun article,

Tamohara Prabhu

refers to the ISKCON organization as censoring and lying to devotees.

 

Do leaders in the ISKCON organization really deceive people? Is there really suppression of communication within the ISKCON organization? If leaders in the ISKCON organization deceive and suppress communication, why do they do it?

 

They do it because they have to.

 

What would happen if people were encouraged to honestly and openly present the doubts and concerns that are weighing heavily on their hearts and minds? What if it was okay to give honest feedback and, dare I say it, criticism, to leaders?

 

Would it reveal that maybe reality is a bit different from the socially constructed "reality" that seems to be maintained in the ISKCON organization through seemingly control-freak-like methods?

 

What then? Where would we stand? What would happen if we didn't have to shut people up?

 

If I'm honest, straightforward, and I'm telling the truth, do I really have to be afraid of people questioning me, or even challenging me? Do I have to be afraid of people disagreeing with me? Do I have to be afraid of people asking me certain questions?

 

If someone confronts me and tells me that they don't believe that there's such a thing as gravity, and that they don't believe that objects fall to the ground when you drop them, do I feel threatened by that? Do I attempt to shut them down? Of course not, because I know from experience that reality is on my side.

 

On the other hand, if I'm distorting the truth, and if I don't want you to know about it, then I have reasons to fear your questions and the expression of your doubts, your perceptions, and your experiences.

 

If I'm deceiving you, and you present me with what seem to be real facts, what can I answer? Well, I guess I could answer with more deception. But what if you then respond to that deception of mine with more facts? What then? What do I do if you can answer, and even refute, my deception with facts? Do I simply keep deceiving you, hoping that I'll be able to out-maneuver you with ever-more intricate and sophisticated deceptions?

 

No, it's easier for me to shut you up before if even gets that far. At the earliest sign that you're straying from the official version of reality, the socially constructed and socially reinforced version of what's going on, I act to silence you.

 

If you're likely to make small waves, then it's probably easiest for me to ignore you and pretend that you don't exist. If people are likely to take notice of what you're saying, then I better do my best to keep you from saying it.

 

If you've already said it, and people have already heard it, then the cat is already out of the bag. What do I do then? Well, I can misrepresent what you say. I can present a caricature of what you said, and then refute or at least attack that caricature. I can distort what you say, so as to make it seem like what you're saying is irrational and makes no sense.

 

What if that's not enough? Well, I can call you names and attack your character. I can tell people that you're evil, dangerous, incompetent, blasphemous, crazy, unintelligent, dishonest, sick, weak, pathetic, badly intentioned, poisonous, or something else to take attention away from what you're actually saying.

 

I can communicate to people that you've broken a taboo, and now you yourself have become taboo within the organization or community. I can communicate to people that if they interact with you, then they'll also become taboo, guilty by association.

 

If people value my acceptance, and if they value their place in the organization, then they'll do well to stay away from you. This can help to take the spotlight off of what you're actually saying, and get people focusing on their own fear of being ostracized and rejected.

 

Why do I do these things to you when you're only expressing doubts, hoping to have them resolved? After all, aren't the Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam full of questions and answers? Aren't they full of doubts beings expressed, and then resolved? Why can't I do that with your doubts, and your questions? What am I so afraid of?

 

Why do I consistently deceive you and attempt to shut you up?

 

I do it because I have to. I do it because maybe reality is not on my side.

 

If reality were on my side, then I wouldn't fear your questions. I'd listen to you and let you speak your mind. I wouldn't censor you or push you away.

 

What if Joe sees how I'm dishonestly treating you, and is unsettled by it?

 

Well, then I'll tell Joe that I'm doing it to protect him, and to protect the organization, from people like you. I'll present what I'm doing behind a mask of altruism. I'll pretend that I'm primarily concerned with protecting people's spiritual lives, with Joe's spiritual life.

 

Joe might even believe me. Joe is a pretty honest guy, and he's naïve in that way that many honest people tend to be. Joe listens to me, and assumes that I'm telling the truth.

 

Why does Joe assume it? Well, Joe generally tells the truth, so he tends to assume that others also tell the truth. He projects his own qualities onto me...

atmavan manyate jagat

. Plus, Joe sees me as an authority. It's impossible that I would lie to him about stuff, isn't it?

 

Joe sees me as so much more spiritually advanced than he is. Spiritually advanced people don't lie, do they?

 

If Joe notices some anomalies in my behaviour, he tends to assume that it's his own perceptions that are at fault. He assumes that he's so fallen, neophyte, new, and "moded out" that he can't see me as I really am. He assumes that he can't appreciate my high level of spiritual advancement. I tell Joe that the rope is a snake, and Joe dutifully tries to make himself believe it.

 

Of course this results in a lot of tension inside Joe. He has a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. His map of reality doesn't fit the territory. He has experiences that he can't make sense of within the confines of his current paradigm. It's getting harder and harder for him to suppress his doubts and questions. Joe's getting anxious and stressed. Maybe he even gradually gets physically sick from all of the internal tension, from all of the suppression of reality.

 

Joe doesn't have a philosophical way of understanding what's going on around him, but in his gut he feels that something's wrong. He starts to lose enthusiasm. He avoids me. He doesn't open up to me anymore, or ask me questions. He's starting to feel that maybe this whole thing is not for him.

 

Joe feels that there's no point to talk to me, because I avoid answering some of his more uncomfortable questions. Joe even feels guilty about this. He doubts himself. He engages in all kinds of mental gymnastics to rationalize away what he's experiencing.

 

At some level I know that I'm doing Joe a disservice, but I suppress that knowledge, pushing it down, pushing it away. I rationalize away what I'm doing to Joe and to others like Joe. To be honest, I'm kind of glad that he doesn't come around anymore. His questions made me feel uncomfortable, and they brought up my own doubts about myself, my doubts about the organization, and my doubts about what my peers and I are doing to the Joes under our care.

 

How long can I keep this up? What am I supposed to do? Can I convince myself that I'm doing it all for Prabhupada? Can I convince myself that it's selfless, that it's all for the highest good of all persons involved? If I can't convince myself, how will I be able to convince the Joes?

 

Or have I simply gotten cynical? Maybe I don't really believe any of this stuff anymore. Maybe all of this has just become my technique for pursuing my own interests. Is that where I'm at now?

 

What am I supposed to do? Drop everything? Get a job? Who do I turn to? How can I face all these Joes? What would I tell them? Why do I do this?

 

I do it because I have to.

 

What would the Joes say if they knew even half of what I know about what goes on behind the scenes? What if they knew what I know about their spiritual heroes in the organization? What if they knew about some of the things I've done?

 

No, we have to stick together. We have to watch out for each other. It's service to the devotees. The Joes don't understand what we go through. They don't know what it's like.

 

We do it because we have to.

 

 

[AncientMariner 0]

I like Bhakta Alex, I have read his writing on another board. Seems to be a very sensible devotee of Krishna.

[mahak 0]

But I still call him abayasraya das. Just because he took initiation from someone who no longer is into sadhana bhakti, this doesw not invalidate his initiation.

 

See, I have to teach the rtviks their own philosophy. Why reject a name because your teacher has had troubles. If they believe that the authority was as officiating acarya, then accept it as such, despite what the priest says. Mario, alex, all these guys. Throwin out babies with bathwater.

 

But alex is a class act, he is very tolerant of those with diverse opinions, unlike most revisionists. His blog is okay too, but I really cant go there because rtviks hate me more than they hate Jayadwaita, probably because I like jayadwaita. Alex aint like that, and Dhira Govinda is also a class act. And a couple of folks who are rtviks are also class acts as well.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[suchandra 1]

 

But I still call him abayasraya das. Just because he took initiation from someone who no longer is into sadhana bhakti, this doesw not invalidate his initiation.

 

See, I have to teach the rtviks their own philosophy. Why reject a name because your teacher has had troubles. If they believe that the authority was as officiating acarya, then accept it as such, despite what the priest says. Mario, alex, all these guys. Throwin out babies with bathwater.

 

But alex is a class act, he is very tolerant of those with diverse opinions, unlike most revisionists. His blog is okay too, but I really cant go there because rtviks hate me more than they hate Jayadwaita, probably because I like jayadwaita. Alex aint like that, and Dhira Govinda is also a class act. And a couple of folks who are rtviks are also class acts as well.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

Ultimately Vaishnavas surely dont hate each other, how then can they be Vaishnavas? However, when considering how Vaishnavas like Grandfather Bhismadev and Arjuna's friends, uncles, cousins and other family members took to the wrong side so easily and suddenly found themselves in the opponent camp of the Kuruksetra disput - the borderline seems to be very easily overstepped.

 

[Alex J 0]

 

But I still call him abayasraya das. Just because he took initiation from someone who no longer is into sadhana bhakti, this doesw not invalidate his initiation.

 

See, I have to teach the rtviks their own philosophy. Why reject a name because your teacher has had troubles. If they believe that the authority was as officiating acarya, then accept it as such, despite what the priest says. Mario, alex, all these guys. Throwin out babies with bathwater.

 

But alex is a class act, he is very tolerant of those with diverse opinions, unlike most revisionists. His blog is okay too, but I really cant go there because rtviks hate me more than they hate Jayadwaita, probably because I like jayadwaita. Alex aint like that, and Dhira Govinda is also a class act. And a couple of folks who are rtviks are also class acts as well.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

Dear mahaksadasa Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your words of appreciation. I feel touched and honoured to read them. For whatever it's worth, I don't self-identify as a "ritvik", though I don't have a problem with people who identify themselves in that way.

Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, from whom I received the name "Abhayasraya dasa" in 2000 in Philly, continues to engage in sadhana bhakti, and is a leader within the ISKCON organization. I feel genuine gratitude towards him, in connection with many of the things that I feel I've learned from him. That being said, I no longer consider him an authority in my life. For that reason, and for some other reasons also, I don't use the name that he assigned to me.

I have a friend who self-identifies as a "ritvik", who consistently calls me "Abhayasraya". I guess it's not a big deal, though I honestly prefer "Alex".

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Interesting analysis, to be sure.

 

Of course, like all broad generalizations, it is ultimately impersonal.

 

ISKCON is made up of embodied spirit souls. No two are the same.

[Guruvani 0]

 

ISKCON is made up of embodied spirit souls.

Of course, like all broad generalizations, it is ultimately impersonal.

[mahak 0]

Hare Krsna, prabhu. I have read attentively all your articles, and appreciate your research.

 

I have the same issues with past associates. I did not continue to follow them for various reasons, but my own way (not a way I expect others to follow) I freeze that point in time when they were an authority or acting with divested authority. Makes things much easier for me to always think of Sudama as Sudama Swami, to think of him as the song and dance man in front of Srila Prabhupadas Rathayatra Cart making Him soooo very happy, rather than dwell on his death from AIDS.

 

If I freeze things like instructions from siksa gurus in time, these instructions always prove to be fully authentic, therefore, I consider the source to be none other than Lord Nityananda.

 

It relates to this topic as well, this truthfulness. It seems that those who I hold with great admiration and respect for the authority they did have is that they told the truth, which was often unpalatable. Why are all my siksas those who got expelled from iskcon? Or had major conflicts with the leadership? Maybe it was because they told the truth?

 

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Of course, like all broad generalizations, it is ultimately impersonal.

 

You got me.

 

More accurate would have been: "ISKCON, the religious institution, not ISKCON, the eternal movement of Sriman Mahaprabhu, is made up of embodied spirit souls, and various properties, both intellectual and real estate, with the occasional nitya-siddha descending to take part."

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

To address the question of the thread, "should truth always be spoken", personally, I have no taste for lying. My few attempts in the past have been very stressful (who wants to remember all of their lies (and to whom they were told) in order to not be discovered to be a liar??), and I have no desire to repeat those experiences.

 

However, I have taken a lesson from the playbook of my Mother's Jewish ancestors, and become proficient in the art of "equivocation". Under the Catholic rule in Spain, the Jews had to be very careful lest they become victims of the Inquisition. They went to Church on Sundays while conducting their Sabbath services in secret.

 

Since Judaism prohibits lying, Jewish people learned to avoid telling the complete truth by answering in a somewhat evasive manner.

 

There are times when I feel it's best not to be fully frank with someone. In those instances, I try to change the subject, or simply keep my silence. Sometimes, I'll equivocate.

 

From the examples of the Vaishnava acharyas and other empowered preachers, I've noted that, often-times, the preacher will not answer the question as posed by the questioner. Rather, the preacher cuts through the crap and answers the *true* question that is at the heart of the matter. Is this evasiveness?

[Alex J 0]

 

Interesting analysis, to be sure.

 

Of course, like all broad generalizations, it is ultimately impersonal.

 

ISKCON is made up of embodied spirit souls. No two are the same.

 

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your comments. My understanding is that there are individuals, and then there are groups. General patterns or dynamics can manifest within groups. Groups can have different degrees of internal homogeneity. Different individuals within a given group may be affected by general patterns and dynamics to various degrees.

I don't believe that generalizations are inherently impersonal, I think they can be accurate acknowledgements of patterns within a group.

For example, in a letter from 1970 to Hanuman Prasad Poddar, Srila Prabhupada writes:

"I knew that Western people are too much addicted to so many forbidden things according to our Vedic conception of life."

The above is a generalization. In other words, it's the description of a perceived general pattern. Is it impersonal? Certainly Western people are spirit souls, no two are the same.

Based on my experience, I get the impression that certain aspects of the culture of the ISKCON organization rest on a foundation of self-deception. I also get the impression that these patterns of self-deception tend to affect, to various degrees, and in various ways, people who participate in the organization. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

 

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

What you say is all true.

 

At the same time, we are endowed with minute free will. We have choices (a baffling array of them).

 

We can choose to focus on generalized truths that can apply to groups, or we can choose to focus on the individuals who make up those groups.

 

Sripad Srutasrava Prabhu, in his class at the Seva Ashram last night, highlighted that the Vaishnava does not judge *anybody*.

 

Gurudeva has said many times that his religion is to find fault with himself (Srutasrava Prabhu dreams of completing the "Religion:" field on some form with "finding fault with myself") while seeking to give all honor and respect to others.

 

So, we can choose find fault with the environment, or we can choose to harmonize with the environment and find fault with ourselves.

 

The choice is ours, and, to me, the choice is clear (though I often fail in my attempt not to judge others).

 

We can call for justice, but what we really want (for ourselves and others) is Divine Mercy.

 

 

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your comments. My understanding is that there are individuals, and then there are groups. General patterns or dynamics can manifest within groups. Groups can have different degrees of internal homogeneity. Different individuals within a given group may be affected by general patterns and dynamics to various degrees.

I don't believe that generalizations are inherently impersonal, I think they can be accurate acknowledgements of patterns within a group.

For example, in a letter from 1970 to Hanuman Prasad Poddar, Srila Prabhupada writes:

"I knew that Western people are too much addicted to so many forbidden things according to our Vedic conception of life."

The above is a generalization. In other words, it's the description of a perceived general pattern. Is it impersonal? Certainly Western people are spirit souls, no two are the same.

Based on my experience, I get the impression that certain aspects of the culture of the ISKON organization rest on a foundation of self-deception. I also get the impression that these patterns of self-deception tend to affect, to various degrees, and in various ways, people who participate in the organization. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

 

[Alex J 0]

 

 

We can choose to focus on generalized truths that can apply to groups, or we can choose to focus on the individuals who make up those groups.

 

(...)

 

So, we can choose find fault with the environment, or we can choose to harmonize with the environment and find fault with ourselves.

 

(...)

 

We can call for justice, but what we really want (for ourselves and others) is Divine Mercy.

 

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu,

 

Thank you for sharing with me your thoughts and realizations on this topic. I acknowledge that I'm responsible for the consequences of the choices that I make, including where I choose to put my focus. For whatever it's worth, when I write an article such as the one that was posted in this thread, I feel like a weight has been lifted off my chest. I feel my sense of clarity, my feelings of hope, and my enthusiasm for Krsna Consciousness increase.

 

Sincerely,

Alex

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Glad to know that! Also, thank you for not taking my observations personally

 

Of course, I myself need to remember that everything has its place, and that includes your incisive analysis/analyses.

 

Keep hope alive!!

 

 

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu,

 

Thank you for sharing with me your thoughts and realizations on this topic. I acknowledge that I'm responsible for the consequences of the choices that I make, including where I choose to put my focus. For whatever it's worth, when I write an article such as the one that was posted in this thread, I feel like a weight has been lifted off my chest. I feel my sense of clarity, my feelings of hope, and my enthusiasm for Krsna Consciousness increase.

 

Sincerely,

Alex

[krsna 3]

<TABLE id=table1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="99%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="5%"></TD><TD width="95%">truthiness noun /truns/

the quality of stating facts that you believe or want to be true, rather than stating facts that are known to be true

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="5%"></TD><TD width="95%">truthy adjective /trui/</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>‘A better word could not have been coined to describe the current debate over global warming … The … most bizarre example of truthiness is that we have a number of cheap, nonpolluting and renewable sources of energy we can exploit.”

 

("]The News-Press, Florida,18<SUP>th</SUP> January 2006)

 

 

‘The Bush Administration has shown that bold-faced lying works like a charm. As long as they speak with “truthy” conviction, they persuade people, despite the overwhelming evidence that they are leading us down the garden path.’

(The Progressive, 31<SUP>st</SUP> January 2006)

On 6<SUP>th</SUP> January 2006, in its 16<SUP>th</SUP> annual vote on new or significant English words, the American Dialect Society declared the word truthiness as overall winner, giving it the esteemed title Word of the Year for 2005.

So just why, amongst a range of more obviously topical or popular candidates such as podcast, Sudoku or rendition, did a dark horse like truthiness claim the crown? The answer seems to be that truthiness, which refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts that you wish to be true, rather than concepts or facts that you know to be true, somehow embodies the zeitgeist of recent years, conveniently placing itself somewhere between the actual truth and the conviction of belief or opinion. Though the word initially prompted mixed reactions across the media as a rather unlikely choice for word of the year, possibly partly due to its more limited exposure relative to the other candidates, people quickly cottoned on to the word’s potential to fill a lexical gap for something fundamental about human nature. Truthiness is a very useful concept in today’s society because the truth is often inconvenient or simply boring. Truthiness has therefore been quickly associated with political spin and fabrication in general.

 

Soon after the announcement by the American Dialect Society, a controversy surrounding a best-selling book entitled A Million Little Pieces, by author and convicted criminal James Frey, acted as a catalyst in truthiness’smore widespread recognition and potential survival.It was claimed that the book, dealing with Frey’sdrug addiction and criminal activities, was filled with fabrications and lies. In a widely publicised interview on the The Oprah Winfrey Show, Frey was confronted about how far his memoirs constituted truthiness rather than actual truth.

Background

The word truthiness was first brought into the public eye in October 2005 by US comedian Stephen Colbert, who featured the term in his satirical news commentary programme The Colbert Report. Though Colbert exploited the non-intellectual, ‘made-up’ character of truthiness for humorous effect, the word was not his own invention and in fact dates back as far as the 1800s. The Oxford English Dictionary contains an entry for the adjective truthy, which is defined as ‘characterised by the truth’ and includes the derivation truthiness. Truthy and truthinesswere originally used as straightforward variants of truthful and truthfulness. Though Colbertcan’t be credited with inventing the word, he is certainly responsible for re-introducing truthiness and truthy into 21<SUP>st</SUP> century English, giving them a new, ironic meaning.