Free Speech In Iskcon

[Guest guest]

> On 29-Oct-99 11:17: Dvaipayana Vyasa Prabhu & Mataji Madhusudani Radha

> d.d.wrote to Topical Discussions with a copy forwarded by Harsi to the

varnasrma conference:

>

> <<Recently, several attempts have been made to silence certain members of

this

> conference - to stop them from voicing their opinion on Topical

Discussions -

> in a rather dirty way. Certain persons who did not like the fact that on

TD a

> lot of otherwise untouchable subjects may be discussed, approached gurus

of

> persons whose posts they did not like>>

>

> I read this with incredulity since the mataji sent me three letters

attempting

> to curtail my own free speech when I requested joining the Top. Dis.

> conference. The following is a response to her which she refuses to

answer. The

> sentences preceded by a > are the original comments sent by the mataji and

my

> comments follow. It may be of interest to note that I had already

responded by

> stating that I wouldn't curtail anyone's free speech as acknowledged in

her

> opening statement.

 

What you wanted was not mere free speech. It was a free ability to prevent

others from their free speech. This we couldn't allow.

 

> I have never drawn on seniority. However, do you not foresee a situation

> where an older, more experienced devotee should be given proper respect

(not

> talking about me here). Is that a problem for you and your conference? In

> this conference, do you accept any authority(ies) at all?

 

It is certainly not a problem. But the fact that someone is older does not

mean that we should accept anything he says as true, neither does it mean

that if we question his words, that such questioning constitutes an offense

by itself and that thus it (questioning) should be prohibited.

 

> >Will you refrain from criticising members for using their own brains,

> >logic or common sense instead of basing all their answers on sastra?

>

> This reflects what I just stated above. What is your opinion on the

> authority of sastra? What is your definition of brains, i.e. intelligence?

 

Intelligence can also be useful thing.

 

> >Will you refrain from criticising them for using other sources that

> >Prabhupada's books when considering the various issues discussed?

>

> Certainly not. However, when those 'other sources' contradict the

> conclusions of the Bhagavatam, Gita, Srila PRabhupada, the 6 Goswamis,

Lord

> Caitanya, etc., what should be done?

 

In that cases one should defeat such 'other sources' by proper and polite

responses, by quoting Bhagavatam, Gita etc, by quoting Lord Caitanya etc.

Not call them blasphemers.

 

> >Will you refrain from telling them that their time for doubt should have

> >been restricted to *prior to* initiation only and that now, once

> >initiated, they have no right to express doubts?

>

> My understanding is that the doubts should have been breached before

taking

> initiation. Isn't that the process? When you accept a spiritual master, he

> is accepted to be as good as God. So wouldn't someone who has accepted a

> spiritual master without proper deliberation, actually not be

understanding

> the process? How do you define the process and responsibility of accepting

intitiation?

 

Not always would doubts be breached before.

 

First, anyone can make a mistake - so can we. Thus, we may make a mistake in

our initial estimation, but in the course of time we may see that we are

mistaken. Are we supposed to stick eternally to a mistake only because we

made it once upon a time?

 

Second, people change. Person who behaved in a certain way before, and was

evaluated as 'excellent' may also change his/her life. Or he may hide

certain sides of his nature for a while, so we believed in him - but at a

later time, he may show his true colors.

 

Is this, what I talk about here, supported in any way by scriptures and/or

commentaries from acaryas? Yes, it is. I will remind you of the story of

Bali Maharaja and his guru Sukraacarya. Bali accepted Sukra as his guru, yet

he rejected his instruction later, when the instruction was wrong. Of

course, such things like rejecting a spiritual authority are not something

to be done lightly. These are serious matters and an incorrect estimation

may result in a disaster. But it is also not something we should close our

eyes when confronted with - the real life situation won't go away simply

because we do not want to be involved. Actually, by remaining silent when we

know that something is wrong, we gain part of the responsibility for the

situation, and a part of reactions which must arise from it.

 

And from acaryas? Like... Srila Prabhupada?

 

Here is a quote from a Govardhana Puja lecture by Srila Prabhupada

(he is paraphrasing Krsna, who asks Nanda about his sacrifice to Indra):

"Now, if you think that it is very confidential, it cannot be disclosed,

then I think for a person like you who is doing publicly such sacrifice, you

should (sic:) not explain to Me." Na hi gopyam hi sadhunam: "Sadhu, those

who are saintly person, for them there is no secret." There is no secret.

There is no privacy. A sadhu, sadhu has no privacy. Just now in our ordinary

social affairs, there is difference between private life and his public

life. Now, if somebody is teacher... Now, he is very good teacher. He can

very good... He can explain very nicely a subject matter, but his private

life is not very good. Then he is not a teacher. He is not a sadhu. That is

Vedic conception. One must be a teacher according to his own behavior in

life. There is no secrecy or privacy. Now, we think that "We don't mind what

is private character. We don't mind. We are concerned with his teaching."

No. That sort of teaching will not have any effect. Caitanya Mahaprabhu

said, apani acari prabhu jiveri siksaya: a teacher must demonstrate in his

practical life what he is teaching. That is the meaning of acarya. Acarya

means the teacher must demonstrate things by applying the same thing in his

own life. That is called acarya. Therefore Krsna said that "You cannot

disclose anything. You cannot keep anything private. Please disclose.

"Udasino 'rivad varyam atmavat suhrd ucyate: "And even if it is very

confidential, I am your son. You can explain to Him. I am your well-wisher."

(Govardhana Puja lecture, New York Nov. 4, 1966)

 

Now, if it is requires that any matter from the life of an acarya must be

disclosed, why would that be if not for the purpose of ensuring possibility

for constant evaluation of an acarya?

 

> >These are issues that have all been discussed already and the members

> >want to move on to actually discussing the topics on their minds and in

> >their hearts, but without having to deal with the above objections.

> >They have already heard those many, many times, on COM and in their

> >temple communities.

> >

> >This conference is a safe space in which all thoughts and doubts can be

> >discussed in a respectful manner.

>

> Then why are you so uptight about me and my thoughts? Your questions go

WAY

> BEYOND the statement on the conference about free speech. You seem to be

> talking hypocritically since you are trying to establish a protocol for me

> that is different from the others on the conference.

 

As I said: free speech does not mean freely stopping other's free speech.

 

> >We believe that these doubts exist out there and that the only way to

> >deal with them is to do so in a safe and open space. By intimidating or

> >threatening those who are opening up, we only drive them under ground or

> >out of ISKCON.

>

> That may be true but at the same time it is quite possible that ISKCON

isn't

> a place for everyone. That is, there is an accepted morality, lifestyle

and

> philosophy that goes with it as set out be a long line of spiritual

masters.

> Is your conference meant to understand Krsna conscious perspectives of

> topical issues or an attempt to bring down the philosophy and lifestyle to

> the level of one's own understandings and attachments?

 

The aim of the conference is to see what is right and what is wrong in order

to have more Krishna conscious lives in the future. In some cases we will

probably find that accepted morality and lifestyle in ISKCON is better than

our opinion; and in other cases we might find that our perspectives are more

Krishna conscious than that what is accepted in ISKCON today. In any case we

will emerge smarter.

 

> >Then they'll go to the ritviks, or to NM or somewhere else. They may

> >even leave KC all together, feeling that they don't want to be a part of

> >such an intolerant religion.

>

> I am not sure if I understand your point. You talk about being open minded

> and speak highly of developing a tolerant religion but then talk

> intolerantly about the ritvik and NM followers. What if someone's brain,

> logic and other sources convince them that these routes are the ones to

> follow. Are you going to speak out against them? Of course not t because

> that would be intolerant and would incorporate all the values you speak up

> against. I find your logic to be arbitrary and ill-defined. It would seem

> that you might deport anyone from the conference that you don't agree with

> since you don't have any guidelines.

 

In the quote from Madhusudani which you supplied, I really do not see some

'intolerant' opinion about rtviks. I personally think that rtviks are very

wrong, but I would at any time accept an open debate with them, since I am

pretty sure I could defeat them even by sheer logic, what to speak about

sastras.

 

But I would not start the discussion by calling them as blasphemers or by

telling them they will go to Hell. I will leave to God the decision about

who is blasphemer and who will go to Hell.

 

This logic is not ill-defined and it is rather consistent.

 

Since we started to organize Topical Discussions, we gained some 30+ members

in a month, and had to evict two. That is pretty good score.

 

> Frankly, I have never found KC to be intolerant but rather have found

> different members within the movment intolerant. That doesn't mean that it

> is a total free-for-all and a laissez-faire situation, either. And at the

> same time, many devotees have left. But quite often it is because they

> cannot handle the discipline and process and head out on their own

anyways.

> Hopefully, you are not suggesting that we change the whole process only in

> order to keep converts. Haven't we learned anything from Kirtananada.

 

No, we are not suggesting that. But we do suggest that there must be a place

for re-evaluation of the process and personalities within.

 

> >I'm not saying that this conference is for everyone. Some people find it

> >too painful to listen to doubts. That's why we're only allowing members

> >who can agree to the above. Having the discussion on the mirror forum in

> >an un-organized way, didn't work. It led to people having parallel

> >discussions that were not seen by the COM members. Thus they felt that

> >their words were being discussed behind their backs. It also meant that

> >anyone could join even if s/he did not agree with the conference

>guidelines.

>

> Who has approved the conference guidelines? They seem rather novel and

> abritrary. Frankly, I am not interested in the process of how the COM

works.

> THis mirror thing is new to me. Why can't all the postings on both the COM

> and mirror forum be cross-posted. If they aren't, then who decides what

goes

> where? [END LETTER]

 

The conference guidelines were approved by sysop of the BBS, that is, of

COM, as is the proper system for a conferences on any BBS. In the course of

time we added few more rules, such as 'no nationalism' and 'no cross-posting

if author does not want it'. These rules were not explicitly aproved by

sysop but we do think that they make sense.

 

Cross-posting is sometimes problematic since some people are not members of

both forums. Thus, when comments are made on their texts, they will not know

it. If they are misunderstood, out of a simple mistake, they will not know

it and thus will not correct the misunderstanding. In such a way, they can

be labeled as offenders without any actual fault on their side.

 

Also, when someone uses just a partial quotation from some text, danger of

misunderstanding is even greater.

 

Thus we are careful with this.

 

> The actual controversy that seems to have been sparked by postings on the

Top.

> Dis. conference that Dvaipayana Vyasa Prabhu & Mataji Madhusudani Radha

write

> about, are what MANY devotees perceive as direct confrontations on the

> parampara and disrespect towards Srila Prabhupada and have complained to

their

 

"MANY"? So far, members of Topical Discussion who are against such opinions

as ours are, and who are even against the possibility that such opinions are

voiced, are in minority. You could count them on the fingers of one hand,

even if you count two which were banned from the conference. (So you can't

say that we banned them to decrease their number).

 

Even if you are counted among them, it is still a small one-digit number out

of (currently) 87 members.

 

If there are other persons who do support your opinion, would you be so kind

as to supply their names, or even better, would they be so kind as to voice

their disapproval personally?

 

> respective GBC members. Certainly, these two individuals aren't going to

> complain about depending upon a system set up to stop deviation by Srila

> PRabhupada himself. And if they are correct then they should just provide

their

> Krsna conscious explanation to the GBC members and certainly there won't

be any

> further problems.

 

We use this system (COM), yes. But what is the purpose of the system? I

think it is much more than just stopping deviations, but even for that, in

order to stop the deviation, a discussion is necessary to see hwat is

actually a deviation. Maybe certain things which have taken root in ISKCON

could also be deviations. Thus we see ourselves as a part of true system as

God would want it to be.

 

> I am not going to include the objectionable statements here because they

are

> hurtful and in fact inaccurate assessments of Srila Prabhupada's teachings

and

> words. Madhusudani Radha's method of discussion, in at least one case, has

been

> to deport him from the TD discussions and now in my case, not to allow

others

> to participate.

 

In two cases + you. And if you want to call some assesment 'inaccurate', you

better give some proof for it.

 

> WHat I find hypocritical is that in my discussions with the mataji, she

> continually harps about free speech while making an obvious attempt at

> curtailing mine. Shouldn't the discussions on the Top. Dis. conference

attempt

> to be trying to understand the practical application of Srila Prabhupada's

> instruction in relation to topical discussions.

 

Right - these discussions attempt just that.

 

> The involvement of the Mataji Madhusudani Radha also brings back memories

of

> the VAST conference and their similar nonsense statements. In her case in

> particular, my experience with her is that she is continually trying to

adjust

> our philosophy and lifestyle to bring it in line with her mundane

education

> where contraception, buggery and homosexuality are all accepted

activities.

> Thankfully, it hasn't worked but she and others who share similar views

haven't

> given up. For this, we should be aware.

 

I wasn't on that conference so I will leave it to her to respond to this.

 

> Many members of this conference will recall the discussions between

myself,

> Mother Hare Krsna dasi and Madhusudani Radha where they were advocating

the

> footnoting of Srila Prabhupada books seemingly motivated by some of his

> statements regarding women's position in society.

>

> It may be recalled that they were easily defeated by quoting Srila

PRabhupada's

> words. Now we see that there is an attempt to disparage Srila PRabhupada's

> words and stature within the movement through absolutely petty personal

> criticisms of Srila Prabhupada. If one was to be cynical, it could be

deduced

> that this is the next logical step (to minimize Prabhupada's position in

the

> movement) since they are constantly being defeated with quotes from Srila

> Prabhupada.

 

If someone can be easily defeated, why worrying? Whatever he/she say, you

just defeat them. Under that conditions you can come to TD yourself and try

to defeat others.

 

But defeating does not consist of calling someone 'offender' or 'blasphemer'

or of telling him/her that he/she will ruin his/her spiritual life or go to

Hell or whatever.

 

I do not know your ways of defeating her before; so I did not speak about

them. But such ways of defeating as I described above were present on

Topical Discussions and for such things people were banned from it.

 

> If this is an organized activity or simply a pushing of the lower modes

due to

> mundane attachments is beyond my knowledge presently. However, a pattern

is

> evolving that should provide none of us any solace. It is a cancer which

will

> destroy our movement and will easily eclipse the debates on guru issues

and our

> relation to the Gaudiya Matha.

 

There are a lot of patterns evolving in ISKCON and we are also worried by

some of them.

 

> It is important that our movement doesn't look for leadership or vision

from

> mundane scholars such as Madhusudani Radha, Rochford or their like. They

can

> perhaps help us in understanding issues but unless they are in line with

Srila

> Prabhupada's instructions, then they are useless and insignificant. From

these

 

It is important that you also are not the one who decides. Let people decide

for themselves.

 

> people the best we could possibly achieve is method, never vision. In that

> department, we have Srila Prabhupada and let us all work together to keep

his

> position eminent.

 

His position is eminent; only, it was used for things for which SP would

probably not use it.

 

Dvaipayana Vyasa das

Topical Discussions co-organizer (together with Madhusudani Radha devi dasi)

(and one of 'these two individuals' accoding to your letter)

[Guest guest]

> Haven't we learned anything from Kirtananada.

 

Yes, that self righteously strictly adhering to dogma is counterproductive to

in a

yoga based on love.

 

>

> Many members of this conference will recall the discussions between myself,

> Mother Hare Krsna dasi and Madhusudani Radha where they were advocating the

> footnoting of Srila Prabhupada books seemingly motivated by some of his

> statements regarding women's position in society.

 

Yes, I remember it well. They kept saying they weren't advocating footnoting,

and you went to great lengths to try convince them that that was what they were

saying, and then condemned them for saying what you were convinced they were

saying, despite their efforts to point out they had no interest in the matter.

[Guest guest]

On 6 Nov 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

> > Many members of this conference will recall the discussions between

myself,

> > Mother Hare Krsna dasi and Madhusudani Radha where they were advocating

the

> > footnoting of Srila Prabhupada books seemingly motivated by some of his

> > statements regarding women's position in society.

>

> Yes, I remember it well. They kept saying they weren't advocating

footnoting,

> and you went to great lengths to try convince them that that was what they

were

> saying, and then condemned them for saying what you were convinced they

were

> saying, despite their efforts to point out they had no interest in the

matter.

 

Your memory sucks big time!

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Your memory sucks big time!

> >

 

My memory "sucks"? WARNING - I am an adept and proficient user of slang and

profanity.

 

Please say that your staement is an invitation for me to reply in kind. Oh

please please please please. An opportunity where I can use slang in an ad

homienem attack? Happy is the redneck to whom such opportunities come

unsought!