Sadhu Swami and the Brahmacarya Conference

[Guest guest]

I agree with Hari Sauri prabhu's assessment:

 

> ....This concoction of mantra he is propagating

> along with the "5 regulative principles" is to give himself some

> distinction among the Vaisnavas in the same way that a muni has to come up

> with a new philosophy in order to distinguish himself.

 

but also with Krishna Candra's:

 

> We all know that Sadhu Maharajas preaching is all on sastra. But now (just

> because of some contraversial statments) we just want to remove him from

> the conference.

> This is cowardly.

 

My comment is, why not the conference moderator delay posting

'controversial' texts to the conference until he gets other, qualified

opinion (if he is not able to immediately come to the correct conclusion

himself) on the contensious points? Can he not also edit texts -- indicating

at the beginning or the end or both -- that a text has been edited, before

posting it to the conference. Are these not the kind of thing moderators are

for? If the first kind of proceedure was adopted, besides obviating the kind

of present problem, the writer of contentious postings will have an

opportunity to benefit from the review his utterances is being subjected to.

In the best academic journal publishing this system is used and it is known

as "peer review". Articles submitted -- even by famous scientists or

academics -- are first circulated to a number of recognized experts in the

feild (who constitiute the 'peer review committee') and their assessment

determines whether the contribution is published or not or wether they will

agree to its being published after certain requirements have been met to

their satisfaction, etc. The committe members sometimes make recommendations

on the basis of which the journal's editor returns a contribution to the

author for his consideration. The author's acceptance and implementing of

the committee's recommedations wins publication for his contribution.

Rejection of them bars it. He can enter into private discussion with the

committe members on points of interpretion etc. if he wants to prove his

points and methods valid and he will correct the points in the work. In the

case of scientific journals all this means that it is sometimes weeks or

months (before interent, even years) from the time an article was intially

submitted until its publication.... but it makes for good science. If

certain pamho conferences were to adopt such a method it would certainly

result in a great increase in the quality of the conference postings and of

the conferences themselves.... (maybe even to the point that outside

academics might want to to pamho to access them). The committe

could work through a private conference, with a name like "Brahmacari

conference moderator's committee", specially created for the purpose. Of

course instituting this proposal would mean a temporary reduction in the

number of postings appearing.

 

Ys

 

Rasananda das