Singleminded in purpose

[Guest guest]

Dear Pancha tattva

All glories to Srila Prabhupada. My obeisances.

 

Sometime ago you wrote back these lines and I could not answer you

immediately. Also I wanted to do it. So, here, it is. (I am sending this

also to VD.)

 

> I thought I pretty well defined what I meant: accepting the authority of

> the spiritual master, being singleminded in purpose. (That kind of >

dedication to guru is often called "fanatical" by the nondevotees.) Still, >

I accept your criticism - I guess that means I am less than fanatical, at >

least by your definition....

 

That's good. We should always look for the best of a devotee. I only hope

that, in your dedication, which you equate with being fanatical to the

authority, you don't range me amongst the unfaithful devotees and other

kinds.

 

You bring to my memory some souvenirs. In 1983, because I did not want my

wife to be initiated by Bhagavan, I had to leave France. I was labeled as a

"demon". When I arrived in Canada, Gopal Krsna Mj. said that I was send by

Krsna to help the yatra! After a while, he was deceived when my wife refused

to be initiated by him either. The 80's were kind of hell for us, if I could

say. For, anywhere we will go, my wife and me, we were more or less excluded

from ISKCON family; we were not fanatical enough or singleminded. In

Detroit, one of my old acquaintances chastised me because I told her my

doubts about Bhavananda. In this years, the fanaticism was to its summon.

Disciples were singleminded in purpose with their spiritual masters. The

result was dramatic. At least for me, for I feel that it was different for

you.

 

I can clarify a little bit more my criticism, if you don't mind.

 

Being fanatical can be beneficial as you defined it and a civilized person

should respect such dedication. It is very personal. The problem we're

having, particularly in religious movements, is when a fanatical devotee

wants the others to be as fanatical as himself. That can become very

annoying, to say the least. A preacher is heavy with someone who is ready,

he COMPREMISES (is this the right word?) when his audience is not ready. Or

he lies in some cases.

Like a needle ...

 

Can the question be put this way: should Krsna's understanding be brought to

our level or shall we bring people to Krsna's level, so we can progress?

 

Some will strictly side with either one of the propositions, but the answer

lies between the two. And that requires a lot of knowledge of the material

laws. Of course, if you are purely Krsna conscious it will be for the

better. But one without the other is not sufficient to form a society. The

material qualifications are not necessary you may argue, since Srila

Prabhupada said about experts: there are so many of them out there, a

spiritual leader should just use them. The problem is that we don't apply

such advice. We want that everyone surrenders first, then his knowledge may

be used by us. Like an onion, we will take off all the peels trying to find

the essentiel, the spirituel. (But real devotees don't buy it. Wrong

example.)

 

What interested me really in your answer is the first sentence. I am always

stroked with astonishment at the use of certain expressions, like in this

case: 'being singleminded in purpose'. If you could define exactly what you

want in life, for you, first, then for the community, then for the whole

world, then we could, maybe, agree with your intention. Being singleminded

is easier for a gostianandi, but it gets complicated for a preacher. Because

it means to relate with so many individuals whose goals and visions are

never completely the same than yours in their details.

 

Your example of a singleminded person you have in mind is certainly Srila

Prabhupada. But you perfectly know that he could not work with his

godbrothers, or vice versa. He was too dedicated to his spt. master.

However, he prevented us to reproduce the same pattern. Prabhupada is an

exception. His vision was mainly otherworldly. He had the means. Trying to

imitate him in that dimension brought us great difficulties. He foretold

this, and for this reason he asked us to implement varnashrama dharma. Not

the vedic copy, but a modern one. That's requires dedication, compassion and

a lot of brain. We are in need of cooperation, not rejection; union, not

division, openness and not sectarianism. This, you will get it if your

philosophy focus a little bit more on the science of human psychology. To me

it means getting into varnashrama; to be more human; to add practicality to

our plans, not just be otherworldly. But devotees have decided otherwise. In

BTG, the backbone of the movement, Satsvarupa Mj writes: 'Our editorial

staff decided BTG would be relevant by focusing on this unique attempt to

become otherworldly.' (Very interesting article called Otherworldliness,

April 1999.)