The Antichristian Phenomenon

This paper will be a copied version of my exam which deals with Hare Krishna. It should be noted it is lengthy, and can be considered an extension of my previous study visit about Hare Krishna.

Historical and ideological background
Hare Krishna, or also formerly known as ISKCON – International Society for Krishna Consciousness, was formed by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in New York, USA 1966. (Frisk, 2007) The religion’s focal point is the worship of Krishna, an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu. A follower of Hare Krishna is an adherent of the Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas discipline; and it has its roots in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Vaishnavism refers to the worship of Vishnu, and the most important scripture is to be the Bhagavad Gita. (Frisk, 2007, Studiehäfte 2) What differentiates a member of Hare Krishna to other branches of Hinduism is that a member of Hare Krishna considers Krishna to be the supreme god, not Vishnu, and that it is Krishna who is the source of all the other avatars and incarnations, the creation of the world etc. (Study visit 1) Hare Krishna thus seems far more monotheistic its approach than the other polytheistic variants of Hinduism.
Although Hare Krishna appears in a new modern iteration in the West, Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas is far from a new discipline and has its roots all the way back to the 15th century with the Hindu saint Sri Krishna Chaitanya, who was considered a reincarnation of Krishna. (Frisk, 2007) What was new and modern with Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas was that it had been heavily influenced by Islam, and proposed the idea that anyone could become spiritually exalted regardless of caste and emphasized an individual relationship with god rather than the holistic view found in other branches of Hinduism. (Frisk, 2007) Such ideas were quite revolutionary for their time, as Chaitanya considered that the essence of Krishna was reached when singing and repeating the Hare Krishna mantra, not depending on which caste your parents belonged to. (Frisk 2007) The interest in this branch of Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas faded however, until it was born again in the 19th century thanks to Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Bhaktivinoda Thakur thought that spiritual leadership did not have to be passed onto the next generation within one’s own family, but anyone could become a spiritual leader since spiritual quality was not directly linked to physical body. (Frisk, 2007) This idea would become persistent throughout Hare Krishna philosophy, where the thought that we are spiritually equal would later be strongly emphasized. (Frisk, 2007)
Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s son, Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur, would take over his father’s work and create Gaudiya Math, a form of temple that quickly spread over India. Gaudiya Math accepted all kind of peoples who lived as monks and nuns, and some were initiated as Brahmin, the highest social class in India that mostly consists of priests, doctors, teachers, preachers and law makers. (Frisk, 2007) Since the idea that anyone could become a Brahmin, would one possess the proper spiritual abilities, was prevalent in the Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas philosophy, it instantly created a lot of controversy. Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur started to initiate people as Brahmins, among those by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, whom Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur also taught as a guru. (Frisk, 2007)
To spread the religion further, by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada travelled to USA. This was also controversial as it is believed that casteless peoples, such as Americans and Europeans, cannot be taught about Krishna. They are, according to social standards, tainted since they are casteless, and do not thus possess a soul or a spiritual entity. (Frisk, 2007) However, since the primary philosophical idea in this variant of Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas is that the physical body is merely a shell and that we are all spiritually equal, this posed not to be a problem to spread the words of Krishna to the Americans. Well in America, by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada encountered the back then, prevalent hippie culture, and eventually created International Society for Krishna Consciousness. It became highly popular and spread quickly. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada made sure to spread it to other parts of the world as well, and initiated what would be formerly called CGC – Governing Body Comission – which would function as the primary decision-making organ. (Frisk, 2007) Before his death, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada also initiated eleven different gurus that would control one part of the world each and aggressively recruit more members. This would turn out to be a fatal mistake as many of the members of ISKCON were all young and naïve, and instead of cooperating with each other, they fought over the leadership position. Eventually GBC had to ban many of the gurus whom would succeed A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and the movement shifted from being very controlled and conservative, to secularized and democratic. (Frisk, 2007)
During the most recent years, the tension between ISKCON and the rest of the society has more or less completely disappeared, and ideas stemming from India and Hinduism are now often daily practiced and/or accepted, such as the use of yoga and meditation.

The study of ISKCON from an anthropological gender-perspective
While ISKCON’s ideas may have appeared as very controversial and liberal in India, it does not mean all of its ideas were. In fact, a closer look at the religious group seems to tell the complete opposite. It is important to understand that A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada came from a very conservative time, were the values and the view of women was different than today or even sixty years ago, and there’s no doubt that he carried these ideas with him when he would later form ISCKON. (Frisk, 2007) The early years of ISCKON consisted of a lot of dos and don’ts, such as the four principles:

• No eating of meat, fish, onion, garlic and eggs
• No illicit sex
• No gambling
• No intoxication (including alcohol, caffeine, tobacco and drugs) (Frisk, 2007, Studiehäfte 2)

The people who lived at the temples as monks and nuns had to follow other strict rules such as getting up early in the morning to chant the Hare Krishna mantra, and whom to socially interact with. (Studiehäfte 2) This is especially important when looking at the women’s situation in Hare Krishna. An important note is that India has been and still is a patriarchal society where men had and still have a greater social status than women. Women and men were for example supposed to perform different roles in society, where men typically were workers while the women took care of the family. While this idea is not particularly new in any way, it became controversial because women had fought against exactly those ideas not too long before A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada arrived in America. There was thus a stark difference between the liberal ideas found in the hippie culture to the more conservative ones found in Hare Krishna; and it’s speculated that it is exactly this difference that made it so popular during its time. Not only was it exotic because it represented a different culture, but it also gave a sense of worldly order because of the plenty dos and don’ts. (Studiehäfte 2) Unfortunately, it wouldn’t take long until problems would arise. From free-spirited to strictly controlled, many of the young people who became initiated into ISKCON had their lives turned upside down. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada made clear that women and men should be separated, and while women and men are not difference in spirit, they are different in flesh and should thus perform different roles in the society. (Frisk, 2007) It was also made clear that women were inferior to men in such a sense that not only were women less spiritually pure because of their sexuality and ability to reproduce, they were also right-out dangerous to the spirituality of men. (Frisk, 2007) Lotta, a former follower of Hare Krishna, tells us that she wasn’t for example allowed to look a man into his eyes, and she was forced to cover her hair. (Studiehäfte 2) Frisk also mentions how one of her interviewees told her that she (the interviewee) felt verbally abused during her membership, where one of the men once said that the only thing she thought of was of the men’s genital organs. (Frisk, 2007) Other less apparent but social rules particularly pertaining women and women’s sexuality revolve around that they were not allowed to visit others while having their periods, or for the matter cook or be in the kitchen because of the risk of spiritual contamination. At the same time, there is also the idea that women are physically and mentally fragile and must be protected by the men from other men who may potentially harm them. (Studiehäfte 2) A woman cannot for example make decisions of her own, only a man, preferably her husband, can do that for her. This is because a woman is also considered more emotionally driven than men, and she cannot be considered to make rational decisions. The view of women is thus highly paradoxical in that women are considered weak but dangerous at the same time. (Frisk, 2007)
These ideas are far from unique and are commonly found in other patriarchal societies. In Veiled Sentiments, Lila Abu-Lughod argues that female fertility is often considered dangerous and tainted because it poses a threat to men. (Abu-Lughod, 1999) Women are considered to be more sexually driven than men, and their presence among men may thus entice men to engage in sexual activity against their wills. Therefore the only way to prevent women from creating harm is to control them through various means, even if it just means superficially. (Abu-Lughod, 1999) This means that men must control the actions of women, including their emotional and rational decisions. Since it is believed that women are so sexually aggressive to the point where they cannot control it themselves, this explains why women are considered to be less rational than men. (Frisk, 2007) All a woman can and will think about is how to entice a man to engage in sexual activity with her. This also explains why Frisk’s interviewee reported the incident of what she experienced as a form of verbal abuse and why this man said this to her at all to begin with. (Frisk, 2007) Furthermore, since a woman cannot think in terms of rationality and all her actions stem out of her sexual needs and desires, this means she must also be protected from herself, so she will not rush into a sexual relationship with a man who may potentially physically and/or verbally hurt her, against her better knowing. (Frisk, 2007) It is to be understood that the complexity of this idea lies in that it is still the woman at fault for enticing a man, not the man being unable to control himself. This may appear as highly confusing to a Westerner, where the idea that it is the man who suffers the lack of sexual control, is deeply rooted in our minds. The female fertility is thus the exact opposite of the male spirituality, and it is considered a hindrance towards spiritual enlightenment. The female fertility bonds the woman and the man she is engaging in sexuality activity with to the physical realm, the very thing most religions work against. Since asceticism is the only real way to reach spiritual enlightenment and meet Vishnu in the afterlife in the Hare Krishna philosophy, it is also natural that the woman is dangerous and considered more of an obstacle than of a help towards that goal.(Frisk, 2007)
It thus becomes clear that the view of women generally found within the Hare Krishna movement is highly negative, conservative and with patriarchal roots that bear no relevance in a post-modern society that has been striving for equality between men and women for centuries. Not only is it conservative, it is an extreme form of backwards-thinking which could potentially endanger a society that requires men and women to work in order for the society itself to function. It is also damaging to the women who are active within the movement, as the example Frisk brought up. In Studiehäfte 2, Lotta also tells us about an incident she had when one of her friends who also were a Hare Krishna member tells us that it was not allowed to talk about one’s own unhappiness or emotional distress. In a conversation between the two, Lotta’s friend suddenly bursts out in anger when Lotta tries to comfort her by touching her hair, because she finds herself and her own body so disgusting. Because of the idea that women are more strongly connected to their physical bodies than men, it is also not unlikely that women like Lotta’s friend might have suffered more because of this.
With that said, it should be noted that Hare Krishna is also a movement that has spread very quickly throughout the Western world, and it is unavoidable it too will become affected by the locality in which it is to be founded in. The Swedish movement has for example been noted for the lack of child abuse found within the gurukulas, private schools made for the children of Hare Krishna members, as well as sexual and/or verbal harassment towards the women. An example is how the view of women within ISKCON seems to correlate with the family organizing and marriage. Frisk notes that A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada seemed to encourage women to hold ceremonies, kirtan (the gathering of people who chant the Hare Krishna mantra at least 1728 times in a row) and a community for women living in celibate. It was also common of the young people who were members at the time to marry each other, and A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada also encouraged it to an extent. However, the situation became too uncontrolled and hard to manage, as the couples who married started to have children which cost the movement a lot of money, as well as ending in divorces. (Frisk, 2007) Here the problem, which I previously analyzed in how the women were considered more earthly, becomes apparent, as the dichotomy of the women as family supporters and the virtuous monks will separate the movement in two. The women became an obstacle for the movement once they were divorced from their husbands as they not only cost money since a woman who must support a child cannot work, but they had to demand additional money to feed their children as well. Furthermore, many of the male apprentices were very young, and understandably driven by their sexual desires. Since only men could become a sannyasa, a renouncer, they started to complain about the women enticing them sexually (a sannyasa must live a celibate life).
However, as the movement shifted from being very centralized to decentralized and the focus with a focus on part-time membership rather than full-time, the view of women also changed towards a more positive light. It was no longer possible for married couples with children to participate in ISKCON’s full-time activities, and the economical crisis ISKCON went through also forced many women and men to look for secular jobs outside the movement. This also put a focus on the importance of part-time membership, and the acceptance of having a secular life outside the religious practices. This in turn most likely improved the women’s status within the group as the group needed these part-time members in order to survive. (Frisk, 2007) Since the part-time members don’t live as virtuous lives as the monks and nuns, a greater acceptance thus developed towards women and women’s sexuality since sexual activity for pleasure rather than child-making is something that is kept private between wife and husband and is nothing the religious group should become involved with. Even though an ascetic lifestyle is to be preferred in order to meet Vishna in the afterlife, it is no longer as important as long you adhere to the basics such as repeating the Hare Krishna mantra and not breaking the four principles.

[Disclaimer, as is most likely necessary for some readers]
Those who know me would agree that I would be the last person to play the “sexism” card. I dislike the behavior and views of anti-male feminists as much as I can’t stand misogynists. I have no desire to change “History” to “Herstory” or demand pronoun awareness where his or her/himself or herself/He or She, etc, replaces every gender-neutral “he”. While I would like to see gender gaps lessen in terms of pay rate and promotional opportunities in many fields, but I understand that we’re living in the midst an age of change. Theoretically. For an independent, driven woman, I’m not really much of a feminist, as I have trouble seeing where the alleged misgivings feminists generally cry about are. Men and women do generally have different strengths and weaknesses and trends and interests… I’m perhaps what you could call a gender moderate. I actually resent being drawn into discussions about gender because I find the entire topic completely inconsequential and inane, similar to discussions about race. However, sometimes…

I will be focusing on the female end of this issue as that is the side I identify with. Hopefully comments will provide us with a male perspective. Additionally, my experience is based strictly in America, as that is where I was born and raised, and perspective on both genders from other countries may be a bit different. I can not say definitively. Keep in mind also that the religious portion is only one part of this problem. I am not saying it is the only contributer, just a major one.[/disclaimer]

Despite the fact that most of us living in the developed world are adapted to living in a post- feminist society, used to seeing women working in positions previously dominated by men, actual gender roles are still a hurdle. There is no front I see this promoted more on than on the religious front. However, here I will not be discussing the horrors of female circumcision or the outrage of Muslim law, but rather two cute little Christian children’s books I found on the shelf of K-mart last week.

Its a sad and quite inaccurate misconception that all little girls love pink, frilly Disney princesses, Barbies/Bratz/etc., jewelery and makeup, waiting for their princes on white steeds to slay the dragon, and all little boys love sports and Tonka trucks, Transformers, video games and Legos, slaying dragons for the (weak) little girls. I’m sure many readers here broke the stereotype in one way or another. Personally, I never fit the little-girl stereotype. Not once.

I was more interested in classifying Dinosaurs, illustrating stories, and reading fantasy novels than anything else, and had more fantasies about slaying (or taming) the dragon myself (while wearing bloody, blackened armor, usually with powerful magic or in league with some dire wolf companions) than having a knight in shining armor do it. STILL I am repulsed by the color pink and the cliche “feminine” niche I was expected to fill through middle school and high school, and even to a small degree in college (though honestly at an art school, gender lines basically do not exist). I, and many like me, do not want to grow into the cliche female gender niche, our primary purpose being the bearing and raising of children, taco night, shopping for fun, and enjoying what luxuries our husbands bestow on us. And honestly, in this age, the pressure to grow into that niche is significantly less, especially as the SYF (single young female) lifestyle grows more prevalent. So why is it that girls growing up today DO feel pressure to conform into this lifestyle, and are impressed upon to enjoy the pink and frills and wait for their knights in shining armor? Similarly, why are boys impressed upon grow into protectors and providers for the weak and needy (read: females), fixing things around the house, disarming the robbers, bringing in the majority of income, and so on?

Here, we’re forced to look back into the child’s upbringing. It’s a simple fact that childhood affects adulthood, as is easy to see in the indoctrinated, and the propagation of religion and belief systems within family structures. Tradition maintains subtle but important aspects of interaction such as gender roles. Again, it is arguable that these roles have become obsolete and more of an illusion in society today, between gay rights movements, women’s move into the workplace, and similar movements in conjunction with acceptance of previously unusual or “dysfunctional” family structures. In these previously unusual structures we can see men and women switching roles, as stay-at-home dads come into existence–males doing housework and fixing dinner while women bring home the bacon, or there are two men/two women in the house instead of a traditional heterosexual relationship, single moms or dads, or even the woman holding a higher paying job than the man.

However, it is on religious fronts, not the social, that we see the obsolete concept of the stereotypical, concrete, gender role persisting. I’m not going to take time to go into Islam here, we already know and agree that they are medieval in their beliefs, honor-killing women for showing skin in public or falling in love with the wrong person. No one except the Muslims themselves would agree that this is acceptable behavior. Just as many of us will deny that moderate Christian beliefs are a destructive force in society. They’re not the crazy fundamentalists teaching their kids that the world is 6000 years old, or sending them to Jesus Camp, etc. They’reкомпютри just good, average citizens, promoting good strong values in their children. They’re probably also buying their kids books like this: God’s Little Princess Devotional Bible and God’s Mighty Warrior Devotional Bible.

I was in K-mart when I walked by these. Read the product descriptions. Remember my ramble earlier about “stereotypical” boy and girl interests? Don’t these seem a bit familiar? Click around on a few of the recommended girls books, too. “Gigi – God’s Little Princess” and “Will – God’s Mighty Warrior”, all receiving four or more stars, all promoting the stereotypes I outlined earlier.

Will: heroically rescuing his sister, adventuring through the jungle, doing anything with God’s protection! He goes on a creepy-cave adventure and pretends to be a pirate with his friend
Gigi: Learning to dance beautifully to make God proud of her! Confidence because she is a daughter of the King! She has a tea party and becomes cheerleader of a soccer team!

Why?

Anyway, of course, I must have just found flukes, right? I’m sure these were the exceptions because we, as moderate Christians, clearly do not espouse such outdated values in this day and age. We’re enlightened and progressive!

Gigi, God’s Princess, also has an animated show, a doll, a pop up purse, a sticker book, and is recommended right alongside Veggie Tales and an Aslan necklace on Family Christian Stores, as well as BooksforChristians.com and countless other sites that I just don’t have the time or interest to explore. Her books all have 4+ stars and reviews gushing with praise. The author, Shiela Walsh, also writes devotional bible studies for women (as opposed to men or everyone?) and inspirational books on prayer, as well as Christian-friendly romance novels. If these books had been printed in the late 80′s/early 90′s, they would have been presents from relatives. My brother would definitely have had a Will Warrior book (that I would have read jealously). This is not a fundamentalist publication by a crazy extremist author, and the stereotype divide is not alien to Christian children’s publications and movies, even today, in this “progressive” age.

Ok, so what? These are great kid’s stories, have wholesome messages at heart, and promote the Faith in a family friendly, non-violent, safe way! Getting worked up over something so innocent seems a bit reactionary and unnecessary, right?

Maybe it IS just a personal issue, the fact that I personally can never relate to Gigi, religion totally aside for sake of this argument. Maybe it is my personal belief that a human should be self defining, not defined by who their father, mother, or spouse is. Gigi is told to be proud that her FATHER is a King, not that SHE is a princess. Its technicality of language here, but the two mindsets are totally different. One mindset promotes the idea that you should value yourself based on your relationships with others, and the other promotes the idea that you should value what you are. It just so happens that women in the past have been defined based on who their father or husband was rather than on their own terms. This is an outdated mindset that no self respecting person should take on in the 21st century, and these “wholesome” Children’s books are encouraging it!

The other problem that might be considered more of a “personal” problem is that I can not relate to any of the activities Gigi does. I am more interested to read about Will’s pirate adventure or the creepy cave than Gigi’s tea party or dance class. But I am not the target audience of the Will books. I struggled with this sort of thing as a kid — to come to terms with interests outside your gender can be very difficult, and creates unnecessary tension throughout adolescence. I’m not just referring to crying about getting the wrong toy in a Happy Meal, but deep-seated issues such as sexuality and morality. When it is imprinted beginning in childhood that is “wrong” for a boy to like pink and flowers and “wrong” for a girl to enjoy questing and dragon-slaying, what will a boy or girl think when they find themselves drawn to the forbidden interest? What about the boy who would rather have a tea party, or the girl who would rather explore the creepy cave? Are they “wrong”? Obviously, looking at this from a mature perspective, the answer is a resounding “NO”, but from the child’s perspective, it is not so clear. Children should not be worried about fitting into traditional gender roles anymore! There is absolutely no need for the anxiety or alienation from peers that sometimes results, nor the guilty soul-searching that results through adolescence, when the family and culturally impressed perception of “wrong” conflicts with reality and the child becomes old enough to understand the nature of the conflict and its potential moral consequences. Am I wrong in other ways? Am I evil? Am I a monster? Why don’t I fit? Am I gay (sometimes yes, sometimes no)? Am I sick? I’ll never find another like me. I’ll never be accepted. Etc… etc… All based on the inability to conform to the illusion of gender roles.

Unfortunately, the ideal where these questions need not be asked is not the reality yet. I was not the only girl who slew dragons as a child, and those who did have similar stories of alienation and the feeling of “wrongness” throughout adolescence and at the age of reason. While good Christian publishing houses release family friendly children’s publications promoting a clear stereotypical gender line will fly under the radar and help keep this illusion in place.

After all, didn’t Susan, the queen of Narnia (who filled the niche of a strong, independent girl), get dramatically rescued by Prince Caspian anyway, while her brother, Peter the High King, fought the Big Bad Guy to protect the land?