Extremely disappointed

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhus,

 

I would like to say that I find Mukunda's line of

argument to be in incredibly bad faith. If discussion

is to be based on the merit of the individual rather

than of his discourse, then we are in a realm of pure

subjectivity. Who is to decide who are the elect to

whom we shall listen and who are not?

 

I am rather astonished that Mukunda, after many years

in the academic world, could still argue in this

fashion. Does he write his dissertations in this way:

"Majumdar was a Sahajiya, so nothing he writes can be

taken as meaningful?Radhakrishnan was a Mayavadi,

so his scholarship is meaningless." etc. etc. More or

less in the manner of Satsvarupa's little Vedic reader

so many years ago.

 

If someone has a bias, it is legitimate to point it

out, if it can be shown that he manipulates data or

evidence, or if his conclusions are not justified by

it. If on the other hand, you say that because he has

a bias the data and evidence must have been

manipulated, you cross the line and reveal your own

irrational prejudgements. Remember: Biases often come

as a result of the evidence and not the other way

around, for no one studies any evidence without

wanting to arrive at some conclusion.

 

If a conclusion drawn from evidence does not fit in

with one's theology, then it is the theology that must

be brought into question. After all, both theology and

philosophy deal with the rational harmonization of

truth/reality with a global and meaningful vision of

the world and God. If one closes one's eye to truth

because it comes from the gutter, then one's

philosophy is bound to be flawed. This all seems

rather self-evident to me.

 

Of course, I realize that such discrimination against

guru-tyagis has a very limited purview and I happen to

be one of those who is being singled out for such

treatment. I am sure that Mukunda in his academic life

would never dare approach matters in this way, and I

am surprised that he would weigh in so heavily in this

manner here.

 

The only message I get is "We don't want you here. We

are not interested in what you say. Your opinions are

different from ours, therefore meaningless." Fine.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagadananda Das.

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Jan Brzezinski <jankbrz> wrote:

 

> Of course, I realize that such discrimination against

> guru-tyagis has a very limited purview and I happen to

> be one of those who is being singled out for such

> treatment. I am sure that Mukunda in his academic life

> would never dare approach matters in this way, and I

> am surprised that he would weigh in so heavily in this

> manner here.

>

> The only message I get is "We don't want you here. We

> are not interested in what you say. Your opinions are

> different from ours, therefore meaningless." Fine.

 

I would like to say a few things here.

 

First of all, I believe I have spoken with all the parties involved,

and I feel somewhat reassured that we will not be entering into

lengthy character debates and instead try to focus on the

philosophical issues. I am in agreement that the evidence itself must

be examined rather than making subjective assesments of a person's

character. If the character of the guru becomes the issue, then it

should be assesed according to mutually agreeable standards -

scripture, the behavior of previous aachaaryas, etc. For example, in

defense of Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta's line of preaching, many

references were made to predecessors in the sampradaaya right up to

Lord Chaitanya Himself. I do not wish to discount this historical

evidence about what Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is - clearly, there is

something wrong with a critic who claims to have a true understanding

of Lord Chaitanya's teachings when his behavior and/or teachings

differ markedly from that of Mahaaprabhu's example. All I ask is that

we try to be nice about it in the interest of keeping the discussion

civil and productive, and that we continue to quote evidence to back

up significant claims.

 

Secondly, we need to keep in mind that this is a forum dedicated to

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism in the line of Srila Prabhupada. Others are

welcome to question and debate, but remembering that *none* of us

would likely be here discussing these lofty topics if it were not for

*his* mercy, we ought to remain appropriately humble and even

thankful. This is not meant to discourage doubts or debate; I simply

ask that we try to be a little cultured about all of this.

 

Third, I am not terribly sympathetic to self-declared "enlightened"

thinkers who publicly complain on the list of being "singled out" by

the majority. (*) As far as discussions go, it honestly seems to me

that if one has firm conviction in what he believes, then the fact

that many others disagree shouldn't come across as threatening to

him. To put it simply, if you want to debate, then by all means

debate. But if it bothers you that your views aren't warmly received,

then perhaps you should reexamine the nature of your faith.

 

Please join with me in just saying NO to the persecution complex.

 

I sincerely hope this is the last time I am going to see people

complaining about each other on the list. Let's stick to the

discussions, please. And remember, this is not just a philosophical

forum. We still welcome Krishna-katha, and we want to keep it

flowing.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

(*) Of course, flame mails are always prohibited, and I do not look

kindly on netters sending personal e-mail flames over topics

discussed here. If someone is engaged in e-mail flaming, the rules

make it clear that this should be reported to the moderator

(achintya-owner).

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Jan Brzezinski wrote:

> I would like to say that I find Mukunda's line of

> argument to be in incredibly bad faith.

 

It might be beneficial for some of us to discuss the nature

of sraddha (i.e., faith) itself.

 

 

 

 

> If discussion

> is to be based on the merit of the individual rather

> than of his discourse, then we are in a realm of pure

> subjectivity. Who is to decide who are the elect to

> whom we shall listen and who are not?

 

 

It isn't necessarily an either/or situation; I think both

discourse and character are essential.

 

As for who we should listen to, Krsna says (Gita, 4.19):

 

"One is understood to be in full knowledge whose every endeavor is

devoid of desire for sense gratification. He is said by sages to be a

worker for whom the reactions of work have been burned up by the fire of

perfect knowledge."

 

However, if you find this too subjective, you might prefer a more

academic and non-ISKCON discussion; you might find Deepak Sharma's fairly

recent article, "Madhva Virtue Ethics and the Aptaguru, of "Reliable

Teacher'" (JVS, vol.9 #1, Fall 2000, pgs. 69-89) to be useful. Notably,

it discusses the qualification of ideal students too.

 

 

 

 

> I am rather astonished that Mukunda, after many years

> in the academic world, could still argue in this

> fashion.

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

> Does he write his dissertations in this way

 

Following whatever guidance I have been fortunate enough to take

from Srila Prabhupada and his close disciples over the years, I try to

discuss such topics among devotees in light of the crucial distinction

between sabda and anumana. However, much of what I have commented recently

is based on simple pratyaksa too. I'm sorry if this bothers anyone--what

to speak of your good self. There are similar and crucial differences

between secular and devotional scholarship. One could even say there is a

world of difference!

 

Once again, I think recognizing this practically is what really

distinguishes the bhakti-vedantas from armchair Vedantists.

 

 

 

 

> If a conclusion drawn from evidence does not fit in

> with one's theology, then it is the theology that must

> be brought into question.

 

"Anything transcendental to material nature is called

inconceivable, whereas arguments are all mundane. Since mundane arguments

cannot touch transcendental subject matters, one should not try to

understand transcendental subjects through mundane arguments."

 

This is a quote from the Mahabharata (Bhisma parva 5.22), and is cited in

the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (2.5.93) of Srila Rupa Gosvami as well as in

the Caitanya-caritamrta (Adi-lila 17.309) of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja

Gosvami. It's thus pretty standard Gaudiya Vaisnava theology.

 

In a descending process, real knowledge descends from perfect

authorities whose perceptual faculties are "tat-paratva-nirmala" (i.e.,

as transcendentally pure as God is); given his character and spiritual

accomplishments, I think Srila Prabhupada is one of these pure devotees.

Thus, his standard theology isn't really subject to such questioning.

 

 

 

 

> After all, both theology and

> philosophy deal with the rational harmonization of

> truth/reality with a global and meaningful vision of

> the world and God.

 

Yes, rationality is an intrinsic element of sabda--to which

rationality must yet remain ultimately subordinated. I recognize relative

value in reason, but it seems you place more than relative value in it.

Spiritual cognition functions differently, chiefly through grace. If we

put too much emphasis on rationality, we'll probably have a very, very

hard time understanding this. So I suggest that we also appreciate the

practical function of the suprarational--which isn't irrational.

 

That said, have you located an internal inconsistency in something

I've said? If anyone feels I've misrepresented Srila Prabhupada's

teachings, please tell me. It concerns me as much as if anyone directly

or indirectly tries to place his teachings into doubt. At the same time,

I've also noticed that your fairly radical opinions have not been supported

with standard theological references yet, and it's only fair to remind you

of this, since I requested such proof.

 

 

 

 

> Of course, I realize that such discrimination against

> guru-tyagis has a very limited purview and I happen to

> be one of those who is being singled out for such

> treatment. I am sure that Mukunda in his academic life

> would never dare approach matters in this way, and I

> am surprised that he would weigh in so heavily in this

> manner here.

 

I realize you may not want to make such a clear distinction between

spiritual and material reason; however, I think it can easily be shown

that Srila Prabhupada does. I'm willing to further discuss why I think

this is so important in spiritual circles, in case anyone else still sees

it as necessary.

 

 

 

 

> The only message I get is "We don't want you here. We

> are not interested in what you say. Your opinions are

> different from ours, therefore meaningless." Fine.

 

I'm sorry that this is the only message you get; at the same time,

I know you're intelligent enough to have anticipated the response I gave,

given the demographic makeup of this list. Perhaps your statements were

themselves inflammatory, or at least perceived as such. At least you can

consider it in the future.

 

Moreover, as I've already mentioned, I don't wish to make any

personal attacks against anyone here. That would not only be unethical,

but also unnecessary. I feel my argument is strengthened even more by

drawing attention to the fact that so *many* of those who propagate babaji

views (in ISKCON affiliated circles) are of the guru-rejecting class

I typified earlier. That's why I did so instead of naming individuals.

Yes, this is a matter of character (which isn't negligable), but since it

is depersonalized and general, it's also as objective as it can be.

Certainly it isn't a personal attack. I regret that you seem to have

taken it so; please observe that the only name I have mentioned in this

regard is the former Nitaidasa, as Srila Prabhupada did.

 

Especially since we're both starting to repeat ourselves, I've no

intention of arguing about how or why you currently disagree with Srila

Prabhupada, but I do feel an obligation to make such disagreement clear

for everyone to see, all things considered. I also know I'm far from

perfect; I'm only trying to speak honestly on a relevent topic someone

else brought up. Please be tolerant of my many shortcomings and forgive

any offenses I may commit in doing so. Thank you for your patience and

sincere participation as well. I always respect you and therefore value

your good wishes.

 

MDd