Unity in diversity; quarrel; misunderstandings

[Guest guest]

> Misunderstandings between devotees can be understood to be like those in a

> national legislative assembly. Despite strong disagreements, the central

> point is to serve the nation-or in the case of devotees, Krsna.

 

What type of disagreement or "misunderstandings" are we talking about?

Please elaborate.

 

> The central point of agreement is that Krsna

> is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and that our duty is to serve Him.

> Those who are disagreeing could conduct their disagreement better if they

> remembered this point: We have far more to agree on than to disagree on.

> And what we agree on is more important than what we disagree on.

 

Ultimately, yes. But many of us are working to find a proper basis for the

social structure of our society. Creating a proper social structure has been

neglected to a great extent in ISKCON, and I believe that to be one reason

why so many cases of child and woman abuse have been seen within our

society. I personally believe that to push the women down is the last thing

we need in ISKCON right now, and I am willing to fight against those who try

to do that, even if we agree on basic philosophical points.

 

> Our Society is like one big family and our relationships should be based

> on love and trust. We must give up the fighting spirit and use our

> intelligence to push ahead. Letter to: Upendra, 6 August, 1970

 

I agree. And I suppose that means that the GHQ (General head quarters)

attitude is hereby erased. Who manifested the fighting spirit here? Was the

name GHQ used as a coinsidence?

 

> Srila Prabhupada wrote that disagreement between devotees need not to be

> anything to worry about, for they are all spiritual.

 

Ok. If all of the GHQ members stop trying to accomplish any of the goals

agreed upon on the GHQ conferance, I will stop fighting against you. Then we

can just agree to disagree. But as long as you continue to pursue your goals

(which obviously are based on fighting to shut down the Women's ministry,

remove women from all management positions etc), I will allow myself to work

against you on that, because I think those goals are very wrong and would

lead us on a very dangerous path.

 

> If there is difficulty, we should discuss among ourselves and clear it,

> but there must be thorough discussion and understanding. 720405SB.MEL

>

> And in discussion devotees should try to be sympathetic, even if there is

> strong disagreement.

 

I am sympathetic with all GHQ members, but not on the issues you discussed

there. I will fight against anyone who stand for the goals agreed upon by

the GHQ members, not on a level meant to make problems for that person to

execute devotional service, but to stop the person from pushing through

points which may be damaging to others.

 

> Sometimes quarrels are due to misunderstandings. They can come from

> misjudging others' actions or intentions, incorrectly hearing what others

> have said, or by receiving wrong information about others. It is prudent,

> therefore, if we feel we have been slighted, not to jump too quickly to

> conclusions about other people's motives.

 

All GHQ members have been asked to clarify their participation on the GHQ

conferance. I have not seen one single apology even from those who used

harsh words, for what they said on that conferance. You were addressed by me

to clarify your use of the expression "feminazi". You just ignored it by

saying that it is not so bad. I don't agree, especially in the context and

mood it was used.

 

> If not rectified, misunderstandings can lead to serious rifts that can

> continue over many years and spoil our movement.

 

What misunderstandings are we talking about here?

 

> Therefore if a dispute does take place, it should be resolved, not allowed

> to simmer for years. When devotees have a serious disagreement, it is best

> they discuss it in the presence of a neutral party whom they both respect.

> Sanatana Goswami used to mediate disputes between the Brijbasis, who would

> accept his judgment as final.

 

If Srila Prabhupada would have been present, I am sure everyone would accept

his judgement in this case. Since he is not, it may be difficult to find one

person who everyone accepts as a bona fide judge.

 

I agree that it would be nice to just agree on this issue, and leave it

behind us. I am afraid that it will be difficult as long as the GHQ members

uphold their goals.

 

I am sure that a common statement from the GHQ members stating that they

will forget about removing the Women's ministry, and forget about removing

all women from authority position in ISKCON, would be enough to make us all

very greatful and peaceful. Please think about it.

 

Your servant,

Jatukarnya das

[Guest guest]

COM: Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

 

> [Text 1940776 from COM]

>

> Misunderstandings between devotees can be understood to be like those in a

> national legislative assembly. Despite strong disagreements, the central

> point is to serve the nation-or in the case of devotees, Krsna.

>

> It is not possible for everyone to think uniformly, but it is possible to

> find a central interest. For instance, in our Society for Krsna

> Consciousness, our central interest is Krsna. People are working in

> different ways, but everyone is convinced that he is working to render

> service to Krsna. (Dialectic p. 419; Marx)

 

Nice sentiments and quotes. If meant to be a response to the GHQ controversy,

it hardly covers the situation. One item on the agenda of the GHQ that got

such a reaction was a very specific list of devotees who were targeted to be

stripped of their positions and expelled from ISKCON. Most of the following

quotes have to do with working together despite differences. Lobbying to expel

devotees falls outside those quotes.