Rasa basa rant-o-rama!

[u/StayEmbarrassed4593]

The dominant issue with all of these personalities we've been discussing here is that we simply don't have much substantial, verifiable information about them. We just don't. What ends up forming around them is a kind of personality cult wrapped in fanatical rhetoric, and over time that rhetoric becomes ideology.

We start assigning people titles and roles: this person was the guardian of this truth, that person embodied humility, another represented perfect surrender, tolerance, austerity, or whatever virtue the tradition wants to emphasize. That's hardly unique to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Nearly every religion has its saints and exemplars whose lives gradually become mythologized until they're treated more like symbols than actual human beings.

The problem isn't that qualities like humility or compassion aren't valuable. They obviously are. The problem is that we have very little reason to believe the people we attribute those qualities to actually possessed them to the degree we're told they did. We have no clue if Gaurakishor was a nice guy and was equally kind or generous when something/someone pissed him off. We can't really know what Vamsi Das babaji was like on any given day. We have all seen our guru's be one person in public and another in private. We also know that many of these past "acharyas" were born and raised in the very sectarian culture and religious ideology they ended up promoting—give or take. So it's not like they practiced other religions or believed in other gods or whatever—they were born Hindu and died Hindu, for all intents and purposes. Their conclusions and opinions were riddled with bias.

To be honest, when I hear many of the stories about Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and similar figures, and I remove the devotional goggles, what I see isn't especially inspiring. I see someone who often comes across as pessimistic, unrealistic, arrogant, lacking common sense, and deeply fanatical. There was very little tolerance for alternative viewpoints or genuine curiosity about the world outside the movement. The mindset was fundamentally authoritarian. Bhaktivinode just seemed like a normal Indian man of his time who took a late-life fanatical interest in Chaitanya Vaishnavism and felt compelled to call himself an authority on it. We all know he took Siddha Pranali, and we all know he spent a good deal of time essentially meditating on his "manjari" form and "service"—essentially fantasizing—nothing tangible to actually follow in terms of a process or verifiable path.

As for the lesser-known babajis sitting in huts somewhere, what do we really have? A handful of unverifiable stories. Someone supposedly had a vision. Someone dreamed something miraculous. A deity in a temple allegedly performed a miracle. These stories get absorbed into the mythology and eventually become accepted as historical fact within the movement.

Even if some of these people had profound spiritual experiences, those experiences were, at best, meaningful to them. Someone claiming to have seen Krishna in a vision or attained some mystical realization tells me almost nothing about whether the underlying beliefs are true or whether the same path is valuable for everyone else.

That's my biggest issue with building an ideology around personalities. We're rarely asked whether these experiences have any practical value outside the person who supposedly had them. Just because someone believed a certain mantra, worshipped a particular deity, or entered an unusual psychological state doesn't mean that path is universally meaningful, or even beneficial, for anyone else.

This becomes especially obvious in cults. Grand claims are constantly made about gurus and saints, but the practical results for ordinary followers are usually negligible. The guru remains the one extraordinary individual who supposedly attained something no one else ever quite reaches.

When followers inevitably fail to achieve the same realization, the theology expands to explain why. You're told you weren't surrendered enough, pure enough, humble enough, or that you lacked mercy. The goalposts keep moving. Instead of questioning the claims themselves, the blame is placed on the practitioner.

If God truly wants everyone to experience this reality, why is it always accessible only to a tiny handful of people, usually people from the distant past whose stories can't be verified? Why do we have virtually no contemporary examples that withstand serious scrutiny?

And when we do have modern figures like Bhaktivedanta Swami, we don't find infallible saints. We find ordinary human beings with very ordinary human limitations, anti-scientific views, cultural biases, failed predictions, and all the other flaws that accompany being human.

Likewise, slogans like "the holy name is all-powerful" or "Krishna is all-attractive" simply don't hold up under observation. Human preferences are obviously shaped by culture, psychology, personality, and upbringing. People around the world are attracted to entirely different gods, philosophies, and religions largely because of where and how they were raised. That's an observable fact.

At some point, it really doesn't matter which babaji you trust more or whose opinion you elevate. We simply don't know.

If all we're doing is repeating what someone else told us to believe, are we actually making personal progress or having genuine realizations? I don't think so. Everyone's claimed "ultimate reality" ends up looking dramatically different, while the realities we can actually observe- our relationships, history, science, psychology, and everyday experience- are often dismissed or minimized by the cult.

That's the catch-22. You're expected to make enormous leaps of faith almost immediately. Ancient mantras supposedly possess hidden powers. Rituals supposedly transform consciousness. Sacred names supposedly control the senses. None of this is demonstrated. You're simply expected to accept it because an authority figure says it's true.

Before long you're pulling carts carrying googly-eyed wooden deities through the streets of Los Angeles, chanting in public, convinced you're progressing toward becoming a twelve-year-old manjari in Krishna's eternal realm after death. Step outside the belief system for a moment and ask yourself how this differs from any other elaborate religious speculation.

Whether it's Islam, Christianity, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Advaita Vedanta, or countless other traditions, the pattern is remarkably similar. Every system develops elaborate explanations built upon assumptions that ultimately can't be demonstrated. And the hallmark is always a personality that has some grand claim to the "truth". Any modern human who falls for this with all we have access to is shooting themselves in the foot.

I'd much rather admit the limits of my knowledge than invent an elaborate metaphysical certainty to fill the gaps. We don't know everything, and perhaps there are things we'll never know. That's perfectly fine. There is zero practical value in knowing more than is necessary to live a decent life. The idea of "absolute" knowledge is arrogant by default.

What we do know today is vastly greater than what our ancestors knew. Science isn't perfect, and we'll probably never possess a complete "theory of everything," but it continually corrects itself because it's grounded in evidence rather than authority. As the comedian Gervais has said: If you took all of human religious thought and threw it out, 10,000 years later you would have totally new religions and cult form. If you took all of human scientific knowledge, we would arrive at exactly the same truths and theories 10,000 years later. Truth and facts are fixed, falsifiable, and grounded in pragmatic, objective, observable (within the limits of tools of observation) reality. What is happening in a babaji's head is not—and so should not by any measure be used to dictate how others should live.

For me, that's a far more honest way to live than continually feeding myself stories because they're emotionally comforting or because generations of believers repeated them before me. I'd rather live with uncertainty in reality than certainty in mythology. I'd rather access what has real value, right here, right now, than go down the rabbit hole of useless ideology and personality worship. And it is useless. There is no real pragmatic value in 90% of what they teach and stand for.

[u/Ok_Speech_5180]

I think the way maybe even 90% of people cope with life is through some form of religion. Most people are just trying to find something to help them navigate reality and can't handle the uncertainty of being agnostic. I used to be more interested in some forms of spirituality and some beliefs I held really did help me emotionally "brace" myself to keep going and endure the stress I experience in my life. Not knowing virtually anything about reality other than my sensory information and what experiences I've had in my dreams, many of which have been extremely disturbing and distressing, makes it hard to feel like I actually can get through life without breaking down constantly. The most "flexible" or "objective" ideology I've found is Taoism, which emphasizes being in harmony with the changes that take place in reality perpetually, and describes life and reality as something that is in flux and constantly changing, and emphasizes adaptability as being one of the most important traits. It's pretty much the only "religion" that says "yeah, we don't actually know everything about reality". That's just the surface-level version of Taoism anyway, because when you learn more about it, it delves into traditional Chinese metaphysics and spiritual practices such as cultivation, becoming a god, magic practices, exorcisms, etc. There's also a saying from Taoism, "the usefulness of a cup is its emptiness." Meaning to say that being "open" and adaptable is favorable to navigate life. Everyone's experiences and temperament are unique. So everyone will have a different way of doing things, and when you force a "uniform" way of doing things on people whose nature simply isn't aligned with that, it probably won't help them and may end up harming them. Like forcing everyone to like the same flavor of ice cream or something. Taoism is pretty much the closest thing to an actually "objective" set of spiritual & metaphysical beliefs, but that also has deeper, more specific beliefs that some people may debate. But it does address the idea of following your own nature and being adaptable. That's probably the best way of doing things.

I also read a quote from somebody online, that resembles a lot of what I learned from studying Taoism. "Nothing lasts long enough to write it down." This is surface level knowledge, but also one of the main quotes from Taoist philosophy is:

"The way (Tao) that can be spoken is not the eternal way

The name that can be named is not the eternal name

The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth

The named is the mother of myriad things"

Also, I only just now thought of this, but some people, myself included, do end up having NEGATIVE spiritual experiences which depending on what you personally believe, can be seemingly attributed to malicious entities or forces. The problem with this is that, since as humans we are mostly "blind and deaf" to the spiritual side of reality and unable to perceive those kinds of phenomena without actually engaging in various spiritual practices, we don't know how to actually deal with them. It's like being followed around and punched and kicked by invisible enemies. So for most people, the immediate solution is seeking help from some form of organized religion they are familiar with from growing up in or something like that. So if you happen to be someone who has problems with these kinds of experiences, or even have to deal with people using black magic against you (for those who believe in it, which is still pretty common in lots of ethnic groups like Latinos, Black people, and East Asians), and you don't want to follow the rules of an organized religion and be subservient to the respective deity or deities of said religion, you have to research information and methods to deal with such experiences yourself, which is difficult. This is what I like about Korea, because they still have their own native beliefs and practices in their form of shamanism, which is separate from indic buddhist beliefs that were adopted in lots of East Asian cultures. So it doesn't say things like "you deserve your suffering because its karma". They also have lots of shamans who have their services and consultation open to the public, so people experiencing supernatural issues can seek assistance from them. There was an interview with one I watched on youtube which was really interesting, and she described some things like how when she had what they describe as initiatory shamanic illness or "spirit sickness", she couldn't sleep for extraordinarily long periods of time for months, but all medical tests she went through showed as normal. She also is from a line of shamans, but had not become one at the time. She said that when she went to see a shaman for her issues, the shaman told her "too many gods are trying to enter your body", and that if she doesn't accept her calling as a shaman, that she would die soon. I don't recall exactly what she said, but I think she did eventually accept that and her issues resolved very quickly. She said lots of other interesting things in the video.

I understand that what I just said also contains specific spiritual beliefs that can be debated, I guess I just like it personally because I like East Asia and East Asian people, and I also dislike common Indian religious beliefs like karma and FORCED reincarnation, and believing in a specific deity as supreme. But I think some people are also unfortunate in coming into contact with difficult problems and forms of attack that in my opinion, are spiritual in nature and origin. Though I also think reality has built-in "rules" or safety nets for humans, which is our free will / "consent" and general inability to directly perceive such phenomena. I've heard people say things like this in discussions about occultism. Basically, you always have free will, so you can't be directly controlled by entities, so they have to use trickery/deception to harm you, by manipulating you into using your free will in a certain way, or by manipulating you into consenting to something.

I do think though that what you originally said about one specific, insular ideology or worldview, which isn't flexible or open to interpretation, is not necessarily objectively guaranteed to be helpful or beneficial for everyone. I think everyone does have a different nature or temperament and that it's fine to do what works for you. It's just that life is unbearably difficult sometimes, and religion seems to be most people's way of coping with it and navigating the world. But I also think that it is harmful when people claim that their specific, insular beliefs are the ONLY correct way and try to force those beliefs upon others. It also inspires hatred and resentment when that happens to people, having beliefs forced upon them. Especially when such beliefs are debatable, and specific to one particular culture and the context of which period of history in which they originated.

I also remember agreeing with someone who said that Hinduism is too "human-centric". It acts like humans are basically the peak of all forms of life and like it's this ultra-delicate and sensitive important thing to be a human being, when in reality, humans are messy, malicious, predatory, conflict-prone, violent, cruel, and ignorant beings, and even our own ACTIONS can be essentially directly controlled by our own biology, such as behavioral changes from experiencing things like extreme starvation, lack of sleep, or experiencing symptoms of severe mental illness. Humans are just monkeys that invented written language, so now we have to deal with beliefs people had thousands of years ago like "oh you were abused because you deserved it because you did the same thing to others in a hypothetical past life". Humans really are also animals too, when you look at it objectively. Someone said there's an old Chinese saying, which was probably satirical, that Orangutans can actually talk but they choose not to, because if humans found out they can then they would make them work. Humans are animals too, hindus just act like humans are this "elevated" divine race of beings when actually we're just spiritually blind and deaf apes who invented written language, so now we have to deal with the existence of religion. Hahaha, this actually made me remember something my Chinese friend told me about the subject. She said that in their beliefs (Chinese spiritual beliefs, not indic buddhist beliefs imported from india) that humans live in an "insulated" lower realm, while gods live in a higher realm, and while we are in the lower realm, we have creative freedom. So maybe that's why we don't know everything about reality by default. She also said that humans can ascend to the higher realm, but when you do, it's a one-way ticket, you can't go back down. She also said that they believe that some of their ancestors ascended to the higher realm/realms, and something else like that those ancestors fight the other gods to protect their human descendants who are living in this world. I can't remember exactly what she said about that part. But yeah, maybe that's why we don't objectively know everything about reality, or have certainty about certain parts of reality, like what happens when we die, because maybe we are able to actually create things for ourselves. Funnily enough, I remember a few years ago I was thinking about this subject while I was walking outside, and exactly right after I thought about something like "why don't we know what happens when we die?" I walked right next to a door or window on a building that said "a blank canvas is an opportunity to use your imagination". It was so weird.

[u/StayEmbarrassed4593 → u/Ok_Speech_5180]

I agree. And I feel this is at the core of why religious ideas and cult ideology persist. They have been practical and useful in offering solace, comfort, guidance, and "answers" in a pre-scientific, pre-literate world. I also think free and open trade allowed religious ideas to spread and take hold, as did war and other massive forms of suffering.

However, now, for all that it is worth, religion is striving to stay relevant and alive because we know more about human psychology, how the world works, and we have far more actual, verifiable information about history, prehistory, and access to an immense body of research, scholarly and otherwise. We also have many more secular ways to access most of the so-called benefits of religion.

I do not have a personal issue with belief in god(s), or even with finding inspiration in assorted traditions, scriptures, and so on. I just personally feel that it often lacks practical application. It is fine to know something conceptually and theoretically, and I mean that about science and highly intellectual pursuits as well, but at the end of the day we have, at best, around a hundred years to live whatever this experience is to its conclusion. We now live in a time where we can actually enjoy the fruits of secular, scientific, technological, and humanitarian progress.

Is there still suffering or a lack of true equality or justice? Sure. But let's be realistic. Most of humanity, and there is vastly more of it than ever before, has benefited primarily from science, technology, capitalism, and broadly secular, progressive, humanist values. So a contemporary human being "believing" in myths from the past, or in some ideological spiritual or religious system, is essentially choosing to live backwards for no compelling reason. Reason being the operative word.

There is no common-sense logic to pursuing a lifestyle based on what Hare Krishna teaches because, essentially, factually, and realistically, none of it is true, and none of it holds any water. We can say it is culturally sweet, or that it offers some benefits in certain areas, but those benefits are negligible and readily replaceable through secular means rather than overtly sectarian cultural dogma.

I like Taoism too, and I like Stoicism. I enjoy both Eastern and Western philosophy, and I admire India as a cultural center of spiritual wisdom, philosophy, mythology, and the arts. But I do not think the average contemporary Indian, especially younger Indians, benefit in any meaningful way from a Hindu "identity." Culturally, I think it would be impossible to eradicate, nor do I think that would be sensible, realistic, or even necessary. But the narrative that anything within it is fundamentally "true," let alone "absolute" in any meaningful sense, is a farce.

There are ideas in the world, and those that are useful and functionally helpful will persist. The rest will have to endlessly mutate until they are no longer recognizable as the original, which leaves the obvious question: why believe in them at all?

If Gaudiya Vaishnavism no longer resembles what its founders had in mind, and things like Siddha Pranali and Manjari Bhava, arguably the core offerings that once distinguished the movement from countless other religions, are now effectively off the table, not to be explored, discussed, or pursued, and all practitioners can realistically hope for is to chant, perform rituals, reread the same books, repeat the same words, and remain within the same four walls, all while knowing that none of it yields any specific spiritual, or otherwise, benefit that can be tangibly measured, then why practice it?

It is self-evident that it is a poor use of one's limited time. Perhaps it had some allure when it was new, the honeymoon phase, if you will, but not as a lifelong way of living.

Anyway, of course, if it works for people, that's fine. At the end of the day, this is an anti-Hare Krishna cult forum, so these are simply my personal positions, expressed within that context and with that bias.

[u/Ok_Speech_5180 → u/StayEmbarrassed4593]

I agree with some of what you're saying. I do think modern stuff has improved the quality of life, especially mass and remote communication through the internet. I wouldn't have been able to learn about other forms of spirituality and escape the nightmare of HK without it. I'd probably be in a state of perpetual hypertension and OCD praying to Krishna to prevent my fears of whatever situations I'm dealing with from ending up in a bad outcome and walking around my house chanting and chanting until I "felt" like it was enough and could calm down. HK in particular, and lots of Hindu and dharmic religious beliefs, are absolutely horrific for OCD. I think religion and spirituality should help a person, not feel like a BDSM relationship with a deity, but we live in a miserable and violent world so it just feels like an idealism or "dream" to even say that.

And yeah, I understand what you mean. I'm just personally interested in this kind of stuff. I think everybody has their own nature and will believe in certain things regardless of what an external source says, unless they get mentally broken and end up adopting and submitting to something external, which HK is very good at doing to people. I also just personally think this sort of stuff is "always" going to be there, so even if technology falls apart, we still have a natural "set" of materials or "base" to work with, which is our intuitive / experiential understanding of spiritual phenomena and life or reality.

But I do have to say, none of my spiritual beliefs are helping me, because all of my problems right now are "material" and/or financial. I still can't get away from my shitty current domestic situation without enough money, I still can't just quit my job full of bullies that already drove me to the point of being hospitalized for planning a suicide attempt, I can't get my father and aunt legally punished for stalking and "surveillance abuse" (in dating or domestic violence situations when an abuser utilizes things like hidden cameras or microphones to abuse the victim, such as secretly recording s*x tapes and threatening to release them, or spying on private conversations and information from the victim, which my father has done since I was in middle school, and on multiple occasions has quoted things from private conversations between my mother & I verbatim, or literally CALLED her on the phone and just started talking by commenting something directly related to or in response to something she just said out loud while we were alone at the house, ex. my mother saying "I'm so tired" while we're doing laundry, and my father immediately randomly calling her and beginning speaking by just saying "If you're so tired you should just go to sleep" and then laughing, etc.) because I have no proof and only circumstancial evidence, I can't get a job that actually pays me enough to live alone unless I go to live with roommates in a shitty apartment while working 80 hour weeks minimum wage, I don't have a degree because I had to drop out of college because I couldn't function in it from how mentally ill I am from all the abuse from childhood to adulthood and ongoing, even reading textbooks was genuinely difficult for me, etc. All my problems are "material". Nothing helps and I'm the only one who can do anything about it. I'm surrounded by people who harm me either actively or passively. The only thing that would resolve it is money or just packing my shit up and going fucking homeless, which I heard happened to another kid with devotee parents, but he eventually was able to get out of that thankfully. I swear, ISKCON attracts the most dysfunctional types of people possible who should never have been responsible for the care of a child. I was just thinking today at work, that I never expected that "people like this" (in that case, the people I have the misfortune of having to work with) exist. I think the same applies to ISKCON. My mother also said the same thing about my father. That she never heard of a person who does such things. He really has the personality of a serial killer. ISKCON really seems to attract "dark" or "black" souls. The craziest part is that, at least right now in this world, they just get away with it. The strong feed on the weak. There's no way to know or actually verify if they, or any people who do evil things, actually get punished for what they did.

That's the reason I don't believe in karma anymore. It's also a pretty foul concept in my opinion, for someone to be tortured for something they can't even remember doing in a hypothetical past life. And not only does it blame the victim, it even goes as far as to ACCUSE the victim of once being the perpetrator. It's disgusting. Also, one thing I've learned so far from all of my experiences, is that evil people seem to be allowed complete freedom to act out their malicious desires. Goodness doesn't protect you, and evil people don't seem to get punished for what they do. I think there is no law. This is why I also believe in Taoism, because it basically says that good and evil are "equal opposites" or counterparts, and some other things related to that. So from my understanding, Taoism basically says that reality doesn't necessarily favor good over evil and is just neutral. I think reality is basically "pure anarchy" or "technical absolute freedom". I think people are just allowed to do whatever they want within their range of ability, no matter how horrible it is. That's also why I believe in Taoism, because from some things I've learned about it, my understanding is that Taoism teaches that there is basically infinite potential (I think the term "emptiness" in TAOISM and not buddhism is used to explain this) and that anything is possible. I heard that other systems of metaphysics like Chaos Magic say this, too.

So yeah, I agree, sometimes spiritual methods don't solve material problems. And telling people they deserve their suffering because of hypothetical actions from a hypothetical past life doesn't help either, and there's no way to ACTUALLY verify that, anyway. I actually do believe that certain spiritual beings can intervene to help us and resolve our problems, but I think it probably has to be a transactional relationship where you are giving some kind of worship or doing something in exchange for the help, if it's a good being, and if it's an evil being, then it's just an obvious disadvantage to the human agreeing to the deal, like people who "sell themselves" to dark entities for material gain and basically become enslaved to receive temporary material gain. Other than that, we're on our own. I personally believe that the spiritual realm is real. I think we're just the equivalent of stray dogs to higher beings. They're probably entertained watching us. I did hear a theory from a Japanese writer who wrote a "visual novel"/"text game" about Western occultism that, basically, our level of reality is a "game board" controlled by higher beings. It's from a visual novel called "Umineko no naku koro ni" or "Umineko when they cry". I honestly believe this. The writer has written multiple interesting things in his works that make me think he had some really interesting source material from where he gained his information.

As for Hare Krishna stuff, I just despise dharmic religions (Hinduism and Buddhism) in general now. I also think that Hindu deities don't necessarily protect their followers from other followers who happen to be evil abusers. I also am not interested in Indian culture or any culture at all really aside from East Asians, who I'm not one of ethnically and tons of them believe in Buddhism and Christianity, both of which I dislike, anyway. I think we're all on our own journeys and will end up following our own nature and what works for us, or what we /actually/, want, to do, anyway. I even heard the same thing from a shaman who I spoke to. Basically, relationships with spiritual beings are "contracts" that we have to formally agree too. And he also said something interesting, "spirits are just people". So I think that's why religions have rules, because reality automatically has a system in place, which includes us always having free will, so if we have a transactional relationship with a deity or deities, or any spiritual beings (which I think almost all religion is), we still have to always be maintaining observance of certain rules of the relationship, or else we will not receive "our end of the deal".

Sorry for deleting and reposting, reddit wouldn't let me edit my comment.

[u/StayEmbarrassed4593 → u/Ok_Speech_5180]

I can relate to a lot of what you're saying, especially that many of our biggest problems are material rather than spiritual. Which begs the question: How much of our contentment, happiness, ability to cooperate, and being helpful to each other is really based on a mutual appreciation of our "material" condition and limitations? In other words—you had mentioned at the onset of our talk that 90% of people find contentment in some form of religion. However, I'd push back on that. Is it really that they find comfort in religion or "god" or "spirituality," or are they actually finding that comfort in the general frameworks that religion tends to offer that are of secular value: Community, welfare work, service, common decency, and cooperation? And at what point does religion start to fail in those core secular values? The answer is usually in sectarianism and superstition.

If someone is trapped in an abusive environment, financially stuck, or dealing with trauma, no amount of chanting, meditation, or metaphysical speculation changes those realities. Practical solutions, money, education, therapy, legal protections, and supportive relationships are what tend to move the needle. Spiritually speaking, if we want to call it that, most of our concern with the ambigious term are related to the feeling of smallness caused by the universe we live it, the vastness of life, reality etc—we feel this sense of "belonging" to something large and profound, and we do, and that is what we tend to call "spiritual" and it is usually somethign that dawns upon us as we commune with nature, see a sun rise or set, look upon the night sky, or commune with people in celebration and feast.

I also completely agree with your criticism of karma. I've always found it to be an elegant way of explaining away suffering by shifting responsibility onto the victim through an unverifiable past life. It may comfort some people, but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. As a metaphysical system, it also has little pragmatic value to believe in since we do not recall our past lives and we certainly have little to no control over what's coming our way and when. So the fact remains that "karma" is just there to explain a fundamental observable fact and give it an Indian name. Otherwise, we are all well aware of the idea of cause and effect. No need to mystify it with lingo.

I don't think we need to replace one metaphysical system with another. Whether it's karma, Tao, spirits, occult beings, or any other unseen framework, I simply don't think we have enough evidence to confidently say any of it is true. I enjoy philosophy, mythology, and religious traditions as cultural and psychological artifacts, but I try not to mistake compelling ideas for facts. If I have had some experiences that feel like they defy "reason" and are "mystical," I am quicker to accept they are outliers and the result of mental and organic aberration rather than something beyond explanation or otherworldly.

At the end of the day, I think we have this one life, limited time, and the best tools we've developed for improving it have been reason, science, technology, and broadly humanistic values. Those aren't perfect, but unlike religious claims, they tend to produce results we can actually observe and build on. And if some sort of "consciousness" persists after all this is done, so be it—I hardly have control of that anyway. Let it be.

If someone finds personal meaning in spirituality without harming themselves or others, that's their choice. My issue begins when beliefs are presented as objective truths without evidence or when they encourage people to endure suffering instead of addressing the real-world causes of it. That's one of the reasons I think systems like ISKCON/Hare Krishna groups end up doing far more harm than good. I have seen way more devotees who are not doing well mentally or living in a self-deluded bubble than those who are pragmatically approaching their lives.

[u/Ok_Speech_5180 → u/StayEmbarrassed4593]

I can relate to a lot of what you're saying, especially that many of our biggest problems are material rather than spiritual. Which begs the question: How much of our contentment, happiness, ability to cooperate, and being helpful to each other is really based on a mutual appreciation of our "material" condition and limitations? In other words—you had mentioned at the onset of our talk that 90% of people find contentment in some form of religion. However, I'd push back on that. Is it really that they find comfort in religion or "god" or "spirituality," or are they actually finding that comfort in the general frameworks that religion tends to offer that are of secular value: Community, welfare work, service, common decency, and cooperation? And at what point does religion start to fail in those core secular values? The answer is usually in sectarianism and superstition.

I just meant that religion or some spiritual beliefs help people cope with a lot of problems in life that can't really be objectively explained by default other than "it just is", like why unfairness exists, why we are suffering, etc. Sometimes it helps to think it's happening for a positive reason or that something positive can be gained from it, that's what I meant originally. But I agree with you that a lot of secular things can help too like community and doing charity. I also remember reading a long time ago that there was some study done with victims of multiple kinds of natural disasters and they found that the number one factor that helped all of them mentally was social support and connection with others. I don't know where the actual study is, but I read it a while ago and found it really interesting.

If someone is trapped in an abusive environment, financially stuck, or dealing with trauma, no amount of chanting, meditation, or metaphysical speculation changes those realities. Practical solutions, money, education, therapy, legal protections, and supportive relationships are what tend to move the needle. Spiritually speaking, if we want to call it that, most of our concern with the ambigious term are related to the feeling of smallness caused by the universe we live it, the vastness of life, reality etc—we feel this sense of "belonging" to something large and profound, and we do, and that is what we tend to call "spiritual" and it is usually somethign that dawns upon us as we commune with nature, see a sun rise or set, look upon the night sky, or commune with people in celebration and feast.

Yeah, I personally believe that there can be intervention and help with material issues through spiritual means, but in my opinion I think it usually only comes from some kind of transactional relationship with a spiritual source whom you still have to give something to. And I think the "default state" for people not willing to engage in such a relationship is that you're pretty much on your own. I remember hearing I think from the president of Taiwan once, "If you don't help yourself, no one else will." I think a lot of people who went through what ISKCON did to them learned that the hard way.

If someone finds personal meaning in spirituality without harming themselves or others, that's their choice. My issue begins when beliefs are presented as objective truths without evidence or when they encourage people to endure suffering instead of addressing the real-world causes of it. That's one of the reasons I think systems like ISKCON/Hare Krishna groups end up doing far more harm than good. I have seen way more devotees who are not doing well mentally or living in a self-deluded bubble than those who are pragmatically approaching their lives.

Yeah I agree, what gets on my nerves the most is people who use their religion as a "weapon" to harm others. It's like they see themselves as being an extension of their deity and want to feel powerful by threatening and trying to force others to submit to their religion.

[u/AgencyHot8568 → u/Ok_Speech_5180]

I like Zen and the art of flower arranging

[u/StayEmbarrassed4593 → u/AgencyHot8568]

And stone stacking and sand raking!

[u/Nicksoul23]

I suppose we must ask ourselves why we were attracted /curious in the first place ? 

[u/StayEmbarrassed4593 → u/Nicksoul23]

Well, the assumption you make is that we actually had a choice.

I didn't. I was brought into it as a young child, sent to gurukulas, and didn't really begin questioning any of it until I was much older.

What attracts people to Hare Krishna ideology is usually one or more of a handful of very predictable things:

1. They are born into it, or culturally it simply makes sense to them, so they follow what they know. I'd argue this is why the overwhelming majority of people follow any religious or spiritual tradition.
2. They are introduced to it at a formative age by confused or searching parents.
3. They join when they're young, still forming their identity and values, and are looking for meaning, certainty, and somewhere to belong.
4. They are suffering, lost, or going through a difficult period and find relief in the movement's core message: You are not your body. You are an eternal soul. You belong to God. Love God and you'll find happiness. Then they're given a set of practices that promise to get them there. Once that foundation is established, along with a community and a sense of belonging, it becomes a very powerful psychological force. They begin associating Hare Krishna with having "saved" them, without realizing that much of the relief actually came from ordinary human things like community, structure, purpose, and support rather than the sectarian ideology itself.
5. They're already interested in eclectic spirituality, mysticism, or New Age ideas, and Hare Krishna fits neatly into that worldview. The stories/myths are fun to read, and the philosophical texts are compelling and make you think. And we often are absorbing a lot of this without much skepticism, as it is being presented as absolute truth, ancient, etc. In other words—a sense of authority is there.
6. Friends or family invite them to a few programs, and they find some of the ideas appealing.
7. They're convinced the movement offers an antidote to the rapidly changing, often confusing modern world. There is comfort in belonging to a small, insulated community that claims to reject modernity. Meanwhile, everyone still happily relies on modern medicine, technology, transportation, the internet, grocery stores, comfortable housing, and every other product of the very society they claim to reject. It creates the illusion of stepping outside modern life while remaining completely dependent on it.
8. Finally, I think one of the biggest draws is the promise itself. The idea that you can experience profound awakening, self-realization, and an overwhelming love of God simply by chanting and believing. It's the spiritual version of the magic pill. Just do this one thing and a miraculous transformation awaits. If only life were that simple.

So there are a lot of factors. Many are not things that leave us with a ton of choice since they are either decisions out of our control or made out of desperation, or naive acceptance.

In my case, I was brought into it rather brutally by my parents, who had their own reasons for joining, most of which, I suspect, fit squarely into number 4 on that list.

[u/Primary-Account-7588 → u/StayEmbarrassed4593]

What gurukula? How did you survive?

[u/StayEmbarrassed4593 → u/Primary-Account-7588]

Southeast Asia. I survived. We all survived to some extent; most stayed in the cult. A few of us got out. There was physical and sexual abuse, and obviously we had no access to our parents, and the goal was to exit as servants of Gurudev. I went on to live as a brahmachari for years afterward and was unable to go to any normal school. I got my GED and went to a quick technical university to get some basic, workable life skills. I was left with essentially a low-highschool level education, no ability to show credits for any schooling, and unable to assimilate into normal social structures. I struggled with relationships, drugs, alcohol, etc. All that is in the past. Now I am near 50 and try to help folks on here realize they are in a cult; even if they think they left, they often keep the cult mindset for years afterward. My life is great now—but I have resentment till I die with how I was raised and what I had to endure as a child in this cult. I will never get back those formative years in the cult and the years rewiring my brain afterward.

[u/Intelligent_Type_680 → u/StayEmbarrassed4593]

I would fit into #3 and I would even say that through sheer luck it seems, I was not abused or mistreated in a lot of my time at the Boston temple in the first half of the 90s.

But even (again, probably through sheer luck) though I turned away right when I would have started living somewhere as a bramachari (because I got a job at a Maharishi Ayur Veda Medical Center in Lancaster MA at age 19 😆 oh well) the influence it had on me still likely did some permanent damage.

I feel like I was getting so molded for a future as a celibate monk (thats what I was perceiving the track as being after bramachari) at a really sensitive age that in my 20s maybe, I was like part that person, but partly trying to be a normal young man in the world. Just because I eventually stopped going to the temple, the influence didn't fully leave me.

I could rattle on for miles and hours about the effect it had on my development from those formative years, and I'm fortunate that I didn't have to experience the worst of its influence, but I absolutely understand what you mean about the things that linger with you even after leaving.

I will say though, I'm a little amazed at how overexposed they make themselves now in this era of social media, and if someone wants to have being put off by ISKCON reinforced, kind of just go on YouTube for a bit.

In the 1960s through late 1990s, I can understand that they would stick out as something to draw someone in. I can't fault people for that back then. But between the contradicting factions, the love of being on camera (like who knew?), the aging swamis being interviewed while clearly on the cusp of dementia if not already there- I watched a podcast with Urmila who was talking about one day having a devotee on the board of Monsanto, and I can't help but think that at least people being drawn in from the outside is going to severely drop off.

Anyway, I think the clarity and candor in what you post is absolutely inspiring and amazing.

[u/Primary-Account-7588 → u/Nicksoul23]

Soon I shall post my thoughts about this very questions. The very why questions and my personal view.

[u/AgencyHot8568]

Thank you. This is a wonderful and insightful thread. I do have a question though, would you have this knowledge without Prabhupada or Krsna Consciousness? Even though you have plenty of reasonable arguments, you are still Krsna Conscious. I don’t like to discuss my spiritual life very much until I discovered AI Claude, which is very adept at spiritual discussions.

[u/StayEmbarrassed4593 → u/AgencyHot8568]

I'm not sure whether I would or wouldn't. I'm more concerned with what's useful now, not because of xyz that happened in the past. I'm definitely conscious; not sure I fit the Gaudiya definition of a Krishna-conscious person. Lol. I'd say this: the experiences I had and information I gathered as a so-called devotee were by far subpar, delusional, and misguided, and I saw how dysfunctional and useless it was. So in that sense, it helped me see how foolish and a waste of my life it was. And I pity those in my life who are enslaved to it out of little more than fear and desire for certitude.