Guest guest Posted November 3, 1999 Report Share Posted November 3, 1999 > Dear Mahanidhi prabhu, > Thank you for writing. My reply to Antardwip prabhu: We discussed "higher philosophical views". As far as consistency is concerned, I do maintain the view of understanding happenings in term of "action - reaction". In that term, if there was some crime committed, the bad reaction is to occur in some future. I am sure we'll both agree that the horrible abuse of children that took place in this institution may be classified as vikarma. However, we seem to be departing when it comes to viewing the court case that (some) victims are now ready to log against the same institution. You will classify it as abuse (vikarma), while I see it as a vikarmic reaction. Now, you accuse me of being philosophically inconsistent, and a supporter of an another abuse. However, I simply tried to stick to the same philosophy that we all learned all these years. There is something called "action" and there is something called "reaction". The child-abuse is an "action". What is the "reaction"? No reaction? Is ISCKON immune on that? Is it that whatever bad happen to us must be seen as abuse on us, only? This is what I would rather call - inconsistence in philosophical understandings. The bad reactions are constantly happening, in so many forms. ISCKON is getting deeper and deeper into the troubled waters. But we still insist keeping the same odd "higher philosophical view": "They are our enemies, they abuse us. And anybody who has another understanding is on their side." Yes, that is how you make people to indeed become distanced from your case, and even eventually turn against you -- you keep insisting that they are against you. Mahanidhi d. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.