Collective condemnations and religious plurality

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Madhava wrote:> If you feel you still need to address "the

babajis", you would do well to tell us who the babajis are whom you speak

about. There is no universal aggregate of babajis there.>>>

MDd then replies:

>>> I disagree. Not only would such a discussion sink to personal attacks,

but as I've quoted Srila Prabhupada on this, there are fairly generic

characteristics which he criticized in these groups. That's valid too, because

they also represent fairly universal tendencies we all need to avoid. Just as

Srila Prabhupada pointed out the flaws in the mayavadis and sahajiyas without

naming individuals, so he did with the babajis and caste gosvamis. We can all

do likewise, unless of course we're actually just trying to provoke a fight.

<<<

 

Please try to understand why I take objection to such collective, generic

condemnations. "Babaji" is just about as generic an expression as "renunciate",

"householder" and so forth. You cannot accuse such generic groups. Otherwise it

is no better than saying "all gypsies are cheaters" or "all negros are ugly". A

form of racism, an attitude which toasted some six million jews in the recent

history.

 

 

MDd writes:

 

>>> As Narottamadasa Thakura (like many others) suggests above, the verdict of

one's guru must also be respected over and above any other pratyaksa or anumana

evidences; to instead introduce a hopefully impressive array of socio-historical

facts and figures is at best missing the point altogether! At worst, it is but

a shameless ruse deliberately aimed at obscuring this real issue. And I simply

refuse to be drawn into that nonsense; sorry. In fact, I won't even discuss the

logic behind the Sarasvata-Gaudiya parampara, similarly. Trust me or not, as

you will, but ask someone else to discuss it with you, if anyone really wants

to. <<<

Let me check whether I am understanding you correctly. You are not, in fact,

interested or willing to discuss any topic which is in contrast with that which

you have learned from your guru. The theological precepts on the dynamics of

guru-parampara etc. as I have learned of them are the words of guru and sadhus.

You would prefer to dismiss them as pratyaksa and anumana, thus not worthy of

being given serious consideration. However, the words of the scripture and the

teachings of saints are no less pramana than the words of the guru, this is the

threefold division of authority presented by Narottama (guru-sadhu-sastra vakya

hridoye koriya aikya / PBC).

 

Welcome to a world of religious plurality.

 

 

Regards,

 

Madhava

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Madhava wrote:

> "Babaji" is just about as generic an expression as "renunciate",

"householder" and so forth. You cannot accuse such generic groups.>>>

 

You're free to hold whatever opinion if you like, and I simply

disagree with you here; since it's natural to generalize on the basis of

experience and authoritative testimony, we *all* occasionally generalize

like this, if you catch my drift.

 

 

 

 

>>> You are not, in fact, interested or willing to discuss any topic which

is in contrast with that which you have learned from your guru. >>>

 

Certainly I don't see much point in talking serious theology with

dubious characters who have demonstrated a tendency to reject their gurus,

if that's what you mean. After all, that's very sinful activity, plain

and simple. It isn't a question of not regarding others' gurus or their

teachings as worthy of serious attention--as much as (all things considered),

simply wondering about the credibility of some (not all) of their so-called

"disciples." Frankly, I believe the fact that I now have reiterated this

point in a number of ways has made it clear to anyone willing to understand

it.

 

As far as plurity goes, I think the bonafide guru is one, though

he can appear in an infinity of forms, as needed. This is because the

bonafide guru is Krsna Himself in the form of His pure devotee (cf. Cc,

Adi 1.47). That's an acintya-bhedabheda tattva. I'm also willing to

dialogue with members of others faiths, and do so regularly. However, I

think we all know that this isn't really the issue here, so I think it

is destructive to blur the crucial distinction between arnchair philosophy

based on idle speculation, and serious practice based on real faith. I've

said this before too. Are we all willing to get the point?

 

MDd