No pejoratives or slanderous remarks, please

[Guest guest]

> On 15 Oct 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote:

[blah, blah, blah...]

 

On 15 Oct 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

[blah, blah...]

 

If we all were allowed to rake the muck about anyone and everyone, no one

would be spared some deprecating remark. ISKCON leaders are no exception to

displaying character and behavioral flaws. Let's not follow that course, or we

will join PADA in our level of uncouth discourse.

 

With all due respect, Bhuta-bhavana Prabhu is no position to say anything

about anyone. At least it was only "ice-cream" (so the contention goes

anyway). Or would he have me inform our gentle audience of what I have

personally found him ingesting on numerous occasions in the past?

 

I don't wish to proceed along this tact any further.

 

 

What I find hyprocritical is that because this is an ISKCON "channel," many

members here find they can make uncouth remarks and have them accepted as

politically correct (viz, Orwell's "newspeak") if they are directed to

personalities outside the institution. But if we suggest anything could be

amiss with ISKCON's fearless leadership, there are strong objections (as well

as official sanctions).

 

I humbly request all the members of this conference to refrain from making any

further uncalled-for criticisms and character assasinations and maintain a

decent sense of respect for all Vaisnavas. I call upon the conference

organizer to enforce proper standards and to issue warnings to those who

violate them, as well as words of admonition for those who feel obliged join

in the chorus.

 

Otherwise, what kind of civil discussion can we have?

 

Repeating hearsay is *gramya-katha.* When such hearsay implicates a Vaisnava

in good standing, it becomes *sadhu-ninda.*

 

Repeating 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand accounts of questionable info tells us more about

the character of its propagators (in terms of what we can directly see and

experience) than the referent (who is unknown and the allegations are yet to

be substantiated). Let's face the facts.

 

When such specious "info" (hearsay) is volunteered to intentionally slur the

character of a Vaisnava, we are only hacking at our own devotional creepers.

Even if there was some truth to the accusation, it is irrevelant and totally

inappropriate. It is very risky to criticize a superior even when there is

some merit. We should be so cautious about criticizing superior Vaisnavas --

best to refrain completely. Only if our so-called "truth" speaking is

necessary for everyone's welfare or will help the person being criticized (ie,

he is present, not making untoward remarks behind his back) do we have any

reason to criticize.

 

Otherwise, we stand only to hurt ourselves by such impertinent and reckless

comments.

 

As a sincere friend,

Dasanudasa,

 

Srila dasa