An assessment at the root of the Satvatove controversy

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

The question that ignited the controversy still stays:

Was it good that the Satvatove course was

openly marketed on one of ISKCON's large communication channels (COM)?

 

The controversy has now raged for some days, with a number of early harsh

exchanges. As a common, active member of ISKCON, I felt

compelled to make a number of comments, mainly to criticise the way

the critique against the

courses was presented, as I do not endorse verbal warfare. To me, the way we

follow standard rules of ethics and Vaishnava behavior are not merely

external and superficial, but the very means to reach and maintain

integrity, strength, and unity in diversity within our movement.

 

I was recently asked to relate more directly to the matter at stake, besides

promoting issues of etiquette, so I offer my stand now.

 

As far as I understand, what makes the issue of the courses confusing in

different camps is

its being tied up with two fundamental, underlying issues:

 

1 The fact that Dhira Govinda Prabhu has an ongoing discussion with the GBC

about the guru issue (the prominent link and subsequent responses). He has

presented his case in the proper Vaishnava fashion and received a

comprehensive response. To my knowledge, however, he has not changed his

position, which may in a subtle way, consciously or unconsciously,

permeate the courses' atmosphere and ideological foundation. I personally

disagree with his position.

 

2 The fact that the courses are based on technics and well-proven methods

of the self-discovery humanistic psychology of the 1960's

and 1970's, adjusted and improved to fit spiritual purposes. These

tools, however, are alien to our tradition, and may foster a sense of

over-independence and excessive self-reliance, although not necessarily so.

We don't have, unfortunately, any study or statistics of the long term

outcome of the courses.

 

Besides, the courses imply freely mixing men and women in

the workshops, and release inner tensions and anger, all

in all methods that are rajasic rather then sattvic, and

not entirely compatible with standard Vaishnava ethics and behavior.

 

I took the courses a few years ago for recovering after the

traumatic collapse of the

North European zone in 1999. The courses were helpful in many ways, although

I did not follow up on them since then.

However, while having plenty of respect for Dhira Govinda Prabhu, his

integrity and honesty of purpose, my feeling is that because of the above 2

issues, the courses have the potential of creating a number of severe

conflicts and confusion among the devotees as this controversy has shown.

 

One of the reasons is that, no matter how good the intentions are, it is

very difficult to entirely separate in the mind of the partecipants and the

rest of ISKCON devotees what the courses offer from points 1 and 2.

 

A second reason, more importantly, is that in good faith there is no

guarantee that because of the underlying philosophical and methodological

assumptions of the creator and promoter of the courses and the courses

themselves, some devotees may not be affected and loose faith and commitment

to their present guru in one subtle way or another.

 

A third reason is that the principle of personal empowerment of the

humanistic psychology may come in conflict with the vaishnava

ethics of being a humble servant of the servant, and create internal

conflicts and subtle personal ambiguitites.

 

Because of the above mentioned challanges, real or potential

as they may be, and

since the relation to the guru is so essential in our tradition, I tend to

think that the courses should not be advertised in any official

ISKCON channel. They should preferibly

be promoted outside of ISKCON's information channels (COM), or by word of

mouth, friend to friend, for those who wish to do so.

 

Now, COM is not owned by ISKCON, and is today a free forum for Gaudiyas

of different orientations,

but it is still mainly used by

ISKCON members, and advertising the courses does seem to offend, with good

reason, many devotees' sensibilities, causing bitter verbal exchanges.

 

To summarize: my opinion and personal experience is that the course has a

good potential to heal those devotees who have been damaged by their

experience in ISKCON through mental, physical or social abuse. There

are, however, also those who were disappointed and did not

benefit as much as they wished, as Parivadi Prabhu have stated. There are

also no comprehensive studies to assess the long term benefit or damage of

the courses. I find it problematic to think of the courses as a standard

bona fide way to promote personal development for

devotees until issues 1 and 2 are somehow resolved in a satisfactory way

in tune with the large institutional frame of ISKCON, Gaudiya ethics and

etiquette. It is doubtful, however, whether the courses are useful for

active, healthy, committed devotees no matter how good they will ever be.

 

My answer to the initial question is: no, it was not good to market the

courses here.

 

My proposal is that at present the courses should be operated and

advertised outside mainstream ISKCON and its main communication

channels as one of a number of other professional, devotional therapeutical

offers available on the global market.

 

Your servant,

Pranava das