Interesting comments...

[Guest guest]

>From - http://siddhanta.com/weblogs/culture/

 

Replies can be sent to <krishnakirti (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>

 

July 03, 2004

 

Chakra Profanity Watch

 

The GBC has finally made an official decision regarding chakra and its

penchant for publishing blasphemous, denigrating articles about Srila

Prabhupada.

 

Statement of the GBC Executive Committee

Dear Vaisnavas,

 

Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

The GBC Executive Committee wishes to clarify for all ISKCON devotees that

the website Chakra has no official connection to ISKCON whatsoever.

 

Chakra has posted writings that we find directly offensive to Srila

Prabhupada. In addition, members of its editorial board have repeatedly

published statements on other forums that denigrate ISKCON's Founder Acarya,

and even the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

Vaishnava culture and sastra advise that we must carefully avoid offending

great personalities, especially the Supreme Lord and His representatives.

Such offenses can do great harm. ISKCON members are strongly advised to

avoid such behavior, and in accordance with sastra, to shun offenders.

 

Your servants,

The GBC Executive Committee

 

(The GBC Executive Committee. "GBC Statement: Chakra.org". July 1, 2004.

Source: http://dipika.org. Page:

http://dipika.org/2004/07/10/01_gbc_about_chakra/index.html)

 

This differs from reprimands typically offered in the past in two ways: (1)

it does not mention by name one or more of the offenders, and (2) it is

ambiguous on what actions are being taken, if any. Compare the above to

this:

 

Resolution of the ISKCON Governing Body Commission (GBC) dated Monday March

16, 1987.

1. Whereas Kirtanananda Swami, by his words and deeds, has systematically

obscured and minimized His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila

Prabhupada's pre-eminent position as the Founder-Acharya of ISKCON;

 

2. Whereas Kirtanananda Swami in word and deed rejects the Governing Body

Commission as the ultimate managing authority in ISKCON, and by so doing is

dismantling Srila Prabhupada's vision of unity;

 

3. Whereas Kirtanananda Swami is, in defiance of GBC policy and over the

GBC's protest, establishing in North America, India, and Malaysia, temples

and institutions controlled by himself alone, thus creating a movement

separate from ISKCON;

 

4. Whereas in word and deed, Kirtanananda Swami, while acting independently

of ISKCON authority, systematically misrepresents ISKCON to the public, the

media, and the government, and thereby brings ISKCON into jeopardy;

 

5. Whereas, as indicated by the GBC investigations, numerous, serious

illegal acts have occurred within his jurisdiction;

 

The ISKCON GBC hereby expels Kirtanananda Swami from ISKCON and thereby

removes all his rights and responsibilities related to ISKCON. The ISKCON

GBC further issues a notice of non-participation forbidding Kirtanananda

Swami to participate in the functions of ISKCON.

 

(Anuttama das. "Kirtanananda Swami's Release from Prison". June 20, 2004.

Source: http://chakra.org. Page:

http://chakra.org/announcements/AOtherJun20_04_02.html.)

 

 

 

Aside from the fact that this was recently published on CHAKRA, notice how

this differs from the action presumably taken against the owner, other

editors and author of the blasphemous article. The action order against

Kirtanananda and the action order against CHAKRA are nearly identical in

their charges--both have been guilty of repeatedly offending Srila

Prabhupada. In the case of CHAKRA's owner and editor, Dr. Ekstrand, she

herself has surpassed Kirtanananda's blasphemy of Srila Prabhupada by also

criticising and denigrating the Supreme Lord. So the charges levied by the

GBC against Dr. Ekstrand and her company in some ways are even more serious

than that of Kirtananda's. Nonetheless, in spite of the more serious

charges, in the GBC statement issued on CHAKRA, no person is ever named as

the perpretrator of the offense. Neither the so-called Ananda das who

authored the awful article that sparked this most recent controversy, nor

Dr. Ekstrand, who herself has a long history of either making such remarks

or defending those who make such remarks, nor of others who all too happily

follow suit.

 

Since no one was identified as having "done the deed", practically there can

be no one faulted for it. Hence, the second way in which the statement

differs from others is that no specific action is taken against individuals

or the organization they represent. Thus the ambiguous wording of of the

action ISKCON devotees (and presumably ISKCON leaders) should take against

CHAKRA or the persons who run it:

 

Vaishnava culture and sastra advise that we must carefully avoid offending

great personalities, especially the Supreme Lord and His representatives.

Such offenses can do great harm. ISKCON members are strongly advised to

avoid such behavior, and in accordance with sastra, to shun offenders.

(Statement of the GBC Executive Committee, posted July 1, 2004. Dipika.org)

 

 

 

This is interesting in that the advice offered by sastra refered to herein

is directed at those who least need it--those who don't offend the acharyas

or the Lord. Why was the advice of sastra on what to do with people who do

these things not used instead? The sastras are very explicit on what to do

with such people.

 

yo vetti bhautikam deham

krsnasya paramatmanah

sa sarvasmad bahis-karyah

srauta-smarta-vidhanatah

mukham tasyavalokyapi

sa-celam snanam acaret

 

"One who considers the body of Krsna to be material should be driven out

from all rituals and activities of the sruti and the smrti. And if one by

chance sees his face, one should at once take bath in the Ganges to rid

himself of infection. People jeer at Krsna because they are envious of the

Supreme Personality of Godhead. Their destiny is certainly to take birth

after birth in the species of atheistic and demoniac life. Perpetually,

their real knowledge will remain under delusion, and gradually they will

regress to the darkest region of creation."

 

(Prabhupada. From the Brhad-visnu-smrti, as quoted in Bhagavad-gita As It

Is, Chapter 9, verse 12, purport.)

 

In his Bhakti-sandarbha (313), Jiva Gosvami quotes this statement concerning

the blaspheming of Lord Visnu:

 

 

ye nindanti hrsikesam tad-bhaktam punya-rupinam

sata-janmarjitam punyam tesam nasyati niscitam

te pacyante maha-ghore kumbhipake bhayanake

bhaksitah kita-sanghena yavac candra-divakarau

sri-visnor avamananad gurutaram sri-vaisnavollanghanam

tadiya-dusaka-janan na pasyet purusadhaman

taih sardham vancaka-janaih saha-vasam na karayet

 

 

"`One who criticizes Lord Visnu and His devotees loses all the benefits

accrued in a hundred pious births. Such a person rots in the Kumbhipaka hell

and is bitten by worms as long as the sun and moon exist. One should

therefore not even see the face of a person who blasphemes Lord Visnu and

His devotees. Never try to associate with such persons.'"

 

(Prabhupada. Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya-lila Chapter 15, text 261 purport)

 

And there are many more such verses from scripture, such as

Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.4.17. Prabhupada's own explanations of all these and

other verses make it very clear that somehow the offender is to be put at a

distance by various means. Yet this statement by the GBC seems to stop short

of this. They did not say specifically that Ananda das or Dr. Ekstrand were

habitual blasphemers and should therefore be dismissed from ISKCON. Nor did

they say that devotees and especially ISKCON officials should no longer

patronize CHAKRA.

 

Since devotees up until now have been associating with the individuals who

run CHAKRA in various ways, and since such association with these

individuals has not been explicitly forbidden, then does that mean that

things between ISKCON's faithful and Dr. Ekstrand and company can go on like

before? "Shunning" the offenders could mean wagging a naughty finger at them

but then carrying on as usual. And why not? In other circumstances what

ISKCON members were supposed to do was spelled out quite clearly--not

allowed in centers, notice of non-participation, forbidding to participate

in any ISKCON functions, etc. There are no specific, binding actions which

ISKCON's leadership are obliged to adhere to. The statement by the GBC Exec

could have said that no ISKCON official (temple president, officer, etc.)

may submit notices, articles, etc., in the name of ISKCON to CHAKRA, but the

statement they offered stopped short of that.

 

The conventional wisdom is that if something is not forbidden, it is not

disallowed. That is why all other previous actions by the GBC against the

same kinds of offenders were explicit in what was forbidden and what was not

forbidden. But the statement against the people who run CHAKRA is different:

in essense, nothing in the statement made by the GBC Executive Committee

forbade anything to neither the blasphemers nor to ISKCON's faithful.

 

Conclusion: the blasphemers won.

 

Email comments to Krishna-kirti das (HDG) at 03:28 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 02