The importance of terminology
If you’ve been reading my blog for some time, you might notice that I frequently eschew common “devotee terminology” for other terms. This is not simply an affectation. Depending on the Sankhya, or elements of analysis, that we use, we will see something different. We may see a particular angle, or at a particular resolution. Marx sees exploitation of labour by capital by analyzing society in terms of economic relationships. A feminist sociologist sees a patriarchy by analyzing using gender as a unit of analysis.
What we look with determines what we will see. What we see determines what we can do.
Many times confusing situations can be resolved easily by changing the Sankhya that we are using to analyze the situation.
This is exactly what Krishna does at the beginning of the second chapter. Arjuna is in a dilemma. Krishna then reanalyzes the situation using different terminology and elements of analysis and suddenly it makes sense. The different terminology that Krishna uses represents a paradigm shift at the conceptual level.
Dilemmas, Stephen Covey explains in his book Principle-centered Leadership, are symptomatic of a broken paradigm. “The seeds of their failure lie in their thinking” he quotes one Japanese businessman saying about the Western car manufacturers future in competition to the Japanese auto industry.
Sometimes we get to the end of the usefulness of a paradigm. Once we get there we find ourselves going around in circles, unable to get out of the rut. We may tell ourselves that we are simply lacking in execution - “if only we could it do more of this, it would work” “if only people were more sincere” “if only people were more surrendered”, and any other of a number of “if only’s” which do not map to reality. Our paradigm has become ineffective.
Mental maps, or paradigms, are represented in our language. We use words to refer to complex conceptual models in our communication, a form of short hand, if you will. Problems occur when two parties to a conversation have a different mental model represented by the same linguistic element. They end up talking at cross-purposes. This is what happens in the conversation between Srila Prabhupada and his disciples that we are going to look at.
Other problems occur when our mental models and the words that we use to describe them are contaminated with deficiencies or defects that guarantee that they will not work, or will scale to a certain point at which they will fail. This may be because they work at a certain resolution - because they have utility in some situations we gain faith in them, use them more and more, until we really believe that the map is the territory. Then one day we encounter a situation where the model doesn’t map well to reality, and then we have a dilemma.
Here is a practical example that I encountered the other day:
“I don’t understand why that devotee offered me marijuana”
“Here we don’t talk about devotees, unless we’re talking about personalities from the Caitanya-caritamrita. We talk about “practitioners of Krishna consciousness“, and “aspiring devotees“. That person is an aspiring devotee.”
“Then the next day they told me they weren’t chanting their rounds”
“Well, if you’re not practicing then you’re not a practitioner are you.”
The confusion that arises from having a “devotee” offer you marijuana (can I trust “devotees” now?) is removed by using the more precise terms “practitioner of the process of Krishna consciousness” and “aspiring devotee”.
In an article entitled “Post-Congregational Preaching” I made an argument against the effectiveness of the term “Congregational Preaching” that demonstrates more of the application of this idea.
I have seen this idea used to good effect in many circumstances. For example in Loft preaching. Much of the output is due to fundamentally different conceptual orientation at a low level that is reflected in the language that Loft preachers use. Stop thinking of your inner-city outreach center as another “temple” (focus on the Deities and the “devotees”) and think of it as an “inner-city outreach center” (focus on the guests) and see what changes that conceptual re-orientation provokes. Stop dividing the people who come into the categories “devotees” and “non-devotees” and start thinking in terms of “staff” and “guests” and see what happens.
Recently I heard from a friend about an experience that two different visitors to one of our centers had. On two separate occasions the visitor was obviously not allowed to eat off the “silver plates” as the devotees scrambled to get them a styrofoam plate.
The plates were stainless steel, but you can see the visitor’s perception - the plates were “silver”, and they were not allowed to use them, instead being forced to eat off a styrofoam plate. Perhaps from the perspective of the “devotees” they were worried that a “non-devotee”, who is possibly non-vegetarian, would contaminate their plates.
If instead there is a conceptual model of “guest” and “staff”, then no, you don’t let the guest eat off the “silver plates” - you bring out a gold plate for them to eat from.
Can you see what a different outcome in terms of relationships with people can be provoked by changing the basic terminology that people use?
In nature complex systems arise from simple fundamental principles. Conceptually speaking these simple fundamental principles are represented in language as the vocabulary we use to describe them.
This vocabulary is “functional description”. Krishna explains: guna-karma vibhagasah - the division is on the basis of qualities and activities - in other words, function.
Brahmanas regulate culture at a conceptual level through the use of words. They “preach”, and create the conceptual vocabulary that people use to comprehend, describe, and interact with the environment and each other.
This is Confucius’ “Rectification of Names” that Ravindra Svarupa talks about in his seminar on ISKCON History. Things should be called as they are.
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.
-Confucius, The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3 (James R. Ware, translated in 1980.)
Our paradigm, and the language we use to represent and communicate it, determines what we can see, which determines what we can do.
When Captain Cook arrived in Tahiti the natives were asking him how he got there. Cook pointed to the sailing ship anchored in the bay. The Tahitians however, could not see it. They simply did not have the conceptual vocabulary to comprehend it.
The Inuit people (Eskimos) on the other hand, have 11 words to describe “snow”. They have a rich conceptual and linguistic vocabulary which enables them to perceive and interact with the environment with a higher resolution.
I had a conversation once with a disciple of Srila Prabhupada who came to visit the Loft (now Gaura Yoga) in Wellington. He was trying to understand what we were doing, and I was trying to explain it to him. “Do you do this?” “No.” “Do you do this?” “No.” “Do you do this?” “No.” “Then what do you do? What is there?”
I was at a loss for words. There was no shared conceptual vocabulary to communicate what was going on. I’ve seen my Guru Maharaja do the translation. Someone will challenge: “Why don’t they chant Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya or Jaya Radha-Madhava before classes?” My Guru Maharaja responded: “It’s not a temple, and there is no formal pracar - they are congregational members running a center”. This doesn’t really give them sufficient information to be able to replicate it though.
Many attempts to replicate the Loft preaching success have not been very successful, because in many cases the basic conceptual elements are different. In nature complex systems arise from simple fundamental principles. Trying to do top-down design by taking the superficial appearance of a system from one environment and imposing on a different environment will not work. We can imitate the way the resulting system looks, but it won’t work. In complex systems a small change produces a wildly different result. The difficulty in transplanting or replicating the success of Bhakti-vrksa is due to the same thing.
In Papua New Guinea during the Second World War US forces built airstrips and received resupply via them. After the war ended natives created what is called the “cargo cult”. Having seen the Americans receive things from the sky they tried to replicate the situation. They put lit torches in a line and built a hut where the priest would sit with coconuts with wooden antennas over his ears. However, no flying canoes came carrying goods.
Sometimes people say: “Oh, preaching with yoga? Anyone could have thought of that,” or “We’ve been doing that in Hong Kong for years”. They’ve missed the point. When I came in 1996, there was no yoga, but there was Loft. It’s something at a much lower level, and many times we don’t have conceptual vocabulary to express it, so we can’t perceive it. It’s amorphous. We can grasp the yoga, we have conceptual vocabulary for that, so we say: “Oh yeah, it’s preaching with yoga”.
In the Loft preaching paradigm the thought leaders regulate the culture by defining the conceptual vocabulary used by the community members. This is the real basic stuff of conceptual orientation - sambandha - our relationship with the environment.
The guest/staff metaphor/story is a transitional one. It is a simple fundamental principle which gives rise to complex patterns of relationship and behaviour, in terms of how people relate to each other, and how they relate to the environment (facilities). It automatically gives rise to complex relationships such as: “Staff serve guests” “Staff maintain the facility” “Staff become purified through doing service” “Guests become purified through collaboration”.
I say that it’s transitional because while it addresses the root causes of temple deterioration around the world (the relationship between the people and the environment) - it creates a barrier between guests and staff that can be difficult to cross. I believe there is a further evolution of this metaphor, but that will come later.
In 1998 I went to Wellington with three other preachers and we opened what is now Gaura Yoga. I transmitted, tested, and contributed to helping refine the conceptual principles described by His Holiness Devamrita Swami in his Contemporary Urban Preaching Seminars (these seminars are not the “master plan”, but rather observations of the growth of the network) In 2001 we left there. I came back again in 2004 and found everything that we had left there, plus more, all in an improved and evolved state. In the meantime I had visited a number of different centers around the world, and noticed that there was not a tendency toward improvement, but rather a desperate rearguard action against decay. Mrdangas and harmoniums degrade in most temple environments. They don’t do that in Loft environments - they improve. That’s not a detail, it’s the consequence of complex patterns of behaviour and relationship built up from simple conceptual principles.
If you look at what is going on at Gaura Yoga today, you see that tendency toward improvement still going on. It’s not sleight of hand at the 11th hour, a slight adjustment in the details. It is a fundamental conceptual orientation at the most basic level.
You can see the same conception in an example in Radha-Damodara Vilasa, the book about Jayananda Thakura and Visnujana Swami written by Vaiyasaki das. A van carrying some young travellers breaks down outside the temple. Jayananda Prabhu, who is a mechanic, diagnoses the problem and tells them that they need to wait until Monday for a shop to open to buy a replacement part.
It is Sunday, so he invites them to come to the temple and help him prepare the Sunday feast. They come along and spend the day happily in his association cutting up vegetables. Just before 5 o’clock they go back to the van to get changed. When they return Jayananda is on the door. “The entry is $1.25″ he tells them. “What? We just spent the whole day cutting up!” they protest. Jayananda is adamant. “We don’t have any cash - only cheques!” they counter. “There’s a service station down the road where you can cash a cheque,” Jayananda informs them,and sends them on their way. They return, pay, and enter - to become initiated devotees later on.
Anyway, the point here is not promote a particular conceptual orientation, but rather to give some examples of the principle at work, from my personal experience. We can agree or disagree on details, but the principle is there: paradigms are based on concepts, which are expressed in language. In order to get a new angle of vision on a problem, particularly when we are confronted with a dilemma, a paradigm shift is necessary. A paradigm shift involves a shift in language.
In the example that I am going to give of a conversation between Srila Prabhupada and his disciples on network structure and network development methodology, we will see a cognitive dissonance between the principles that Srila Prabhupada is attempting to communicate, and the practice-specific ideas that his disciples have.
First of all, let me discuss the conceptual element “Vedic”.
Vedic does not refer to some ancient civilization. It refers to any civilization that is based on fundamental natural principles. Dharma is word that means “fundamental natural principles”. These fundamental natural principles are established as part of the fabric of the universe - dharmam tu saksad bhagavat pranitam. The universe in a Vedic metaphor is produced through the breathing of Narayana, and the Vedas are described as the breath of Narayana. What we refer to as the Veda (knowledge) is a collection of any description of these fundamental, inherent natural principles of the universal structure in human language. These are enunciated by incarnations of the Supreme Lord, and by His devotees.
Therefore there is no such opposition between “Vedic” and “contemporary”. Thus in the Loft preaching vocabulary you find the term “Contemporary Vedic Ashram”. Something is either aligned with universal principles (dharma) and thus “Vedic”, or else it’s not aligned with fundamental universal principles, and it’s not “Vedic”.
Taking practices from another era and then slavishly applying them out of context in another epoch with changed environmental conditions is not “Vedic”. Aligning the present situation with fundamental universal principles is Vedic. Therefore the thought leaders of society (the brahmanas in classical Vedic terminology) must understand the local situation and the universal fundamental principles, then apply them appropriately. They thus produce localized guides that are valid for a particular environment. These are known technically as smrti-sastra, and are also Veda. They are a form of Veda that is relatively applicable in letter, but universally applicable in spirit, if you can understand the spirit behind them - which would make you a brahmana.
Manu-samhita is one example of such a Vedic text. There are many others. Problems arise, as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta explains in his essay “Brahmana and Vaisnava” when people begin to consider their particular set of guidelines as the absolute truth, and begin to promote them in opposition to others. Problems also occur when there are no real brahmanas to maintain the relevance of the guidelines with the changing environment and these texts become outdated oppresive codes that are used to exploit people, rather than align society with fundamental universal principles (dharma).
In the next part I am going to deconstruct more terms before showing you the conversation. You will then be able to clearly see how and why the confusion arises.
