Fact-finders or Fault-finders?

[Guest guest]

On 29 Sep 1999, Ramiya das wrote:

> Enough is enough.

 

Yes I agree. We should stop giving the dog a bad name so we can hang him, but

instead try to discuss the issues frankly, without mxing our own twisted

agendas in with the "facts."

 

> Srila prabhu is conveniently misinformed and

> twisting the real facts.

 

In this connection, I beg to inform Ramiya that he was not the only

"eyewitness" present there, as he himself admits. I have the right to choose

my authority as to whom I listen to get the "real facts," and I frankly prefer

to get my information from someone who doesn't have a preconceived purpose or

"hidden agenda" to fulfill. In other words, we need to find "an objective

observer," as much as that is humanly possible.

 

But for starters, let's examine Ramiya's story.

 

> An eyewitness told me....

 

Okay, Ramiya is supposedly on the scene giving us "real facts," but from the

getgo he is sliding in 2nd-hand reports and passing them off as "factual".

"Facts" can be *verified.* Can he give names? quotes? Other witnesses?

 

> these 2 devotees were actually introduced to HH Narayan Maharaja face

> to face the day before the reinitiation took place and he told them

> that "Oh you are xxxx's disciples, very nice!"

 

> The authorization or statement of reason signed by these devotees to be

reinitiated, I got to personally read. It did not mention anywhere their

ISKCON's guru or problems with him . It only stated that they had "lost faith

in ISKCON"

 

I am impressed by Ramiya's "digging deeper" investigative reporting to able to

access the original document (what is his motivation, though?).

I would only comment here that Maharaja is not always presented with the

particulars of who is getting initiated, papers, names, etc. Gaudiya Math

standards are remarkably less strict for 1st initiation than ISKCON's

standards. Prabhupada gradually evolved from the Gaudiya Math method

(established by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati) to his own style only after several

years of preaching in the West. After Prabhupada left in 1977, ISKCON

standards became even more formalized and inflexible. So let's not blame

Maharaja for not conforming to ISKCON standards; he's not obliged to. (Unless

we want to fault Prabhupada for changing BKS's methods?)

 

> The devotee that interviewed them to "qualify for

> initiation", on the morning of the reinitiation, told me directly

> that he did NOT know them personally and said that some "preaching"

> had to be done to one of them to convince them to surrender.

 

My own observation of how Maharaja's secretaries operate is they are quite

unique. However, there is some insinuation in Ramiya's commentary

("preaching") that goes beyond the *factual* to the *speculative*, inducing us

to come to possibly erroneous conclusions. Let's honest, Ramiya: you don't

know what conversation was exchanged between them nor how much Maharaja

actually was aware of, yet you will later false attribute that Maharaja fad

FULL knowledge. This is dangerous speculation on Ramiya's part, and far from

being FACTUAL.

 

Prabhupada trusted his GBC leaders implicitly to fulfill their roles, but the

fact is the GBC committed so many blunders even during his time. Similarly,

you can't hold Maharaja responsible for -- or that he is expected to know --

everything his secretaries do. (Unless we also want to fault Prabhupada for

all the stuff his GBC secretaries perpetrated.)

 

> So this is direct evidence that HH Narayan Maharaja DOES REINITIATE

> ISKCON devotees with FULL Knowledge which he conveniently denies

> later as a trick.

 

This is where Ramiya's pretense at being impartial completely breaks down and

leads him and all of his followers (those who take his words as *factual*)

into perilous waters. Because as I have attempted to show, his assumptions

fill in some very big spaces in the gaps between the facts, where Ramiya

"conveniently" (his term) injects his own preordained conclusions.

 

> His followers also do a very strong job of "preaching"

> to prepare some of the followers for the 10 minute reinitiation job. > The

so-called interviewers have little knowledge of the canidate or whether he/she

is following any principles at all.

 

As I have already explained, Gaudiya Math standards are different. I suggest

Ramiya's clearly personal invective betrays his one-sided perspective: from

the very beginning he is looking for "evidence" to confirm what he already

believes -- *self-confirming bias*, we call it in the social sciences.

 

> His followers' "preaching" is squarely and predominantly ISKCON

> bashing as a motivator to new potential followers.

 

This is pure speculation twisted with emotionalized interpretations.

Otherwise, please supply us with some substantial "facts" to go on -- names,

quotes, witnesses, etc.

 

> And HH even initiated one person, about whom it was commented, was

> given his first instruction after initiation to check into a drug

> re-habilitation clinic (he is known locally to be a heavy, regular

> drug user).

 

What did Prabhupada do for the first few years when he came to America? Why

don't you criticize that?

 

> I also find it quite improper and against Srila Prabhupada's moods,

> when I see HH Narayan Mh., during Srila Prabhupada's Guru Puja,

> accepting flowers offered on his feet by Prabhupada's disciples

> (women and men) followed by their full dandavats to him right in

> front of Srila Prabhupada's Vyasasana.

 

Shades of the Zonal Acarya days! I suppose? Let's be careful about projecting

our own personal bad experiences and misgivings onto sincere souls who want to

offer their heartfelt respects to someone (whom they feel) is a genuine

representative of sri-guru. Ramiya's attitude is highly presumptuous as well

as condescending. ISKCON's idiosyncratic practices of guru-puja as they have

survived through years of disappointment and betrayal don't have to become the

standard for the entire world.

 

> Somehow I do not take these actions to be indicative of someone whom

> Srila Prabhupada is their siksha guru. DO YOU?

 

Siksha-disciple is not one who merely IMITATES every move of the guru. We saw

how our most prominent GBC leaders in the name of so proudly posing themselves

as "*strictly following* Srila Prabhupada" make wholesale havoc of the entire

mission, did we not? *Niyamagraha* or obsession with details is not the

qualification to be a siksa disciple. *Saragrahi*, extracting the essence, is.

 

According to Bhakticharu Maharaja, a *siksa*-disciple is more on the

spontaneous platform than a *diksa* disciple, who is acting more on the

platform of rules and regulations. We consider disciple in terms

of *siddhanta* and fulfilling an inner desire of the guru. There can be many

siksa-disciples, what is the harm? It is not an exclusive position. We all

know what it says in Adi lila 1.35, "There is no limit to the numnber of

siksa-gurus one can accept."

 

 

> Maybe the experts in Gaudiya siddhanta can explain this?

> I cannot understand the position of such a person. Nor can I believe there

is any substance to a claim to Srila Prabhupada being his siksa guru.

 

This is all Ramiya's opinion and personal doubts. It is everyone's right to

seek their own spiritual inspiration and association, but to deride other

Vaisnavas unnessarily simply to boost one's own conception is uncalled for and

bogus. To propagate our personal doubts about another Vaisnava as FACTUAL is

called SLANDER, *sadhu-ninda*.

This is the plain and simple *fact*.

 

Are we going to be *fact-finder*s or a *fault-finder*s? This is the real

question.

 

As a matter of factly,

 

Srila dasa