Judge for yourself

[Guest guest]

Judged. The writer seems to be desparate to establish herself as an

intelligent person but she proves her to be exactly the opposite, and unless

i see some surprising explanation of why it was written that way i will

continue believing this.

 

Women ministry should carefully keep check on such women and if possible get

rid of them because otherwise they will not only earn bad name for women

community but also give an upper hand to those who are already after finding

faults in women and in their intelligence.

 

> I wondered whether I should post here examples of contradictions. They

> would let everyone judge for themselves. But I don't want to overload the

> conference. Also, reading a *text* which proves how two other *texts*

 

<snip>

 

> So one can always say, in the worst case, that SP did the wrong thing on

> purpose, to speed things up. There are always ways and means, even though

> Ockham's razor would probably cut many of them.

>

> Your servant,

> Dhyana-kunda dasi

 

this kind of texts are as useless as the following:

 

þ«*<É ×m6Í– ­×*ð€Äün®)·½ «7o^

ºÑèj´jò †ÁffÝ0ºÛm™„¸,Hº×¨²¸^“ W– Òɳ5%UªšÊ¥• BºŠªÊ

åÑ•Í¥J¹I…­Ñ…µ‰…É…¡"…Í¥B-M¡rµ

Q¥ Bš•Í5RzÁ¥¥jRh¤„IU…‘¥r•áÑ1•Ñѕɵ jRÔUáÑͺÊššÒ

Ê•ÍÑ•É‘…åÄŠÒ‚Ê zŠŠ b¥¹•Í½j…‘¡ÕM•Ù¥Ñ…¡"…Í¥

MA5)½µµ•¹Ñz¹é ¢)áÑͺŠª¢ åMÕ¡½ÑÉ…MÝ…¥–?~?~?~?~?~?~_Êçý~?ý

–ÏÁö‘ˆÖ’ÖÅ\ÌÞî(9 el÷[uêÿ´ª@ÕÛ–K‹KË----M50Ê]Ð7·j

 

NO CARRIER

 

they don't stay even in my trash can.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

At 8:37 -0800 11/18/99, COM: Bhadra Balaram (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN) wrote:

>

>Women ministry should carefully keep check on such women and if possible get

>rid of them because otherwise they will not only earn bad name for women

>community but also give an upper hand to those who are already after finding

>faults in women and in their intelligence.

 

Are you saying that the women's ministry is being judged for every action

of every woman in ISKCON? I certainly don't hold you responsible for

every thought and action of every other man.

 

Dhyanakunda is not a member of the women's ministry and never said she was

speaking for them. She had the courage to express some of her doubts on a

conference where this was allowed. She did nothing inappropriate and a very

constructive discussion followed.

 

What was inappropriate was to re-post these out of context to any other forum.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> Are you saying that the women's ministry is being judged for every action

> of every woman in ISKCON?

 

pl don't bring in any speculation here. i didn't mean it nor did i say it. i

am not interested in investing more time over someone's immature remarks on

SP's abilities.

 

I want to simply say that such class of women or men shouldn't be given

chance to represent ISKCON. I heard she is some GBC deputy. This is

objectionable. There must be hundreds of more qualified and sincere women in

ISKCON to replace her. This is, if she doesn't feel reluctant for what she

said.

 

> She had the courage to express some of her doubts on a

> conference where this was allowed. She did nothing inappropriate and a

> very constructive discussion followed.

 

it's pity that you call such senseless writing "the couarge"! do you know

that any uncivilised and ignorant person walking on a street can also speak

the same way or even with more "courage" against Srila Prabhupada? is it

courage? no, it's ignorence.

 

and then you are saying, i don't know out of what duty, that she did nothing

inappropriate! keep in mind that such so called "constructive discussion"

will bring more people to hell. That's all.

 

ISKCON authorities must not tolerate it. I would like to see all people who

speak against Srila Prabhupada or challenge his teachings are brought into

light and are forced to beg apology. Are they running competetion with the

rtviks as to who can commit bigger offense and who can harm ISKCON more?

 

I pray to Lord Krishna on this auspicious day of Utthana ekadasi that their

intelligence be purified.

 

> What was inappropriate was to re-post these out of context to any other

> forum.

 

every single person who is concerned for ISKCON's welfare and Srila

Prabhupada's unique status in it should be made aware of such nonsense. Iam

thankful this thing has come to my notice also. Let others also know of the

disease before they get infected.

 

submitted with maximum possible respect and tolerance.

 

Hare Krishna!

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

At 23:43 -0800 11/18/99, COM: Bhadra Balaram (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN) wrote:

>

>I want to simply say that such class of women or men shouldn't be given

>chance to represent ISKCON. I heard she is some GBC deputy.

 

She's not. Just goes to show you that you can't believe everything you

hear. She's not a GBC deputy, she's not a part of the women's ministry, she

no longer writes for the BTG, and I don't even think she gives classes any

longer. She actually has a lot of integrity.

 

Maybe it would be a good idea to check directly with the personin question

next time, before repeating such rumors?

 

>submitted with maximum possible respect and tolerance.

 

Hmmmmmmmmm... not sure what that means, but I'm glad you're trying to be

respectful and tolerant. Those are good qualities.

 

Your servant,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 19 Nov 1999, Bhadra Balaram wrote:

> I want to simply say that such class of women or men shouldn't be given

> chance to represent ISKCON. I heard she is some GBC deputy. This is

> objectionable. There must be hundreds of more qualified and sincere >women

in ISKCON to replace her. This is, if she doesn't feel reluctant >for what she

said.

 

Yes.

 

> it's pity that you call such senseless writing "the couarge"! do you know

that any uncivilised and ignorant person walking on a street can also speak

the same way or even with more "courage" against Srila Prabhupada? is it

courage? no, it's ignorence.

 

Exactly.

 

> and then you are saying, i don't know out of what duty, that she did

>nothing inappropriate! keep in mind that such so called "constructive

>discussion" will bring more people to hell. That's all.

 

Definitely.

 

> ISKCON authorities must not tolerate it. I would like to see all people >who

speak against Srila Prabhupada or challenge his teachings are >brought into

light and are forced to beg apology. Are they running >competetion with the

rtviks as to who can commit bigger offense and who >can harm ISKCON more?

 

I agree.

 

> every single person who is concerned for ISKCON's welfare and Srila

> Prabhupada's unique status in it should be made aware of such nonsense. > I

am thankful this thing has come to my notice also. Let others also > know of

the disease before they get infected.

 

Again you are correct, prabhu.

 

> submitted with maximum possible respect and tolerance.

 

All glories to Srila Prabhhupada and his loyal followers!

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

>

> [Text 2791005 from COM]

>

> ISKCON authorities must not tolerate it. I would like to see all people

who

> speak against Srila Prabhupada or challenge his teachings are brought

into

> light and are forced to beg apology. Are they running competetion with

the

> rtviks as to who can commit bigger offense and who can harm ISKCON more?

 

I wander why we are not hearing ISKCON authorities yet. People blaming

Srila Prabhupada

must inmediatly being correct and first by their Diksa or Siksa Gurus. It

is one more of so many embarrased things that are destroying ISKCON.

Prabhupada himself said that nobody will destroy ISKCON just from within,

who can sincerously think that is helping someone speaking against Srila

Prabhupada? How far do this madness will go?

 

>

> every single person who is concerned for ISKCON's welfare and Srila

> Prabhupada's unique status in it should be made aware of such nonsense.

Iam

> thankful this thing has come to my notice also. Let others also know of

the

> disease before they get infected.

 

I agree with you prabhu.

 

ys, Sdd

[Guest guest]

> >I want to simply say that such class of women or men shouldn't be given

> >chance to represent ISKCON. I heard she is some GBC deputy.

>

> She's not. Just goes to show you that you can't believe everything you

> hear. She's not a GBC deputy, she's not a part of the women's ministry,

> she no longer writes for the BTG, and I don't even think she gives classes

> any longer. She actually has a lot of integrity.

 

ok. tha's clear.

 

> Maybe it would be a good idea to check directly with the personin question

> next time, before repeating such rumors?

 

yes it is.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

> I wander why we are not hearing ISKCON authorities yet. People blaming

> Srila Prabhupada must inmediatly being correct and first by their Diksa or

> Siksa Gurus. It is one more of so many embarrased things that are

> destroying ISKCON. Prabhupada himself said that nobody will destroy ISKCON

> just from within, who can sincerously think that is helping someone

> speaking against Srila Prabhupada? How far do this madness will go?

 

I think you are very wrong here, would you have followed the discussions in

the Topical discusions conference you could have realized that disussing

this kind of things can help everyone grow in the corect understandings in

regard tp SP and other matters and resolve such onesl doubts or

misunderstandings.

 

We are living in a free world where everyone should be alowed to expres his

opinion and realizations freely even if they may not fit with ours.

 

The point should be to convince someone with corect arguments not with

threats. We are not in a dictatership nor do I think that Prabhupada would

have encouraged such an atitude.

 

In friendship

Harsi das

[Guest guest]

Making comments on SP is one and expressing doubt to pull in the expertise

of others to held understand is another. The questions if any should be

asked with humility from Guru/Siksha Guru and others and not make a

statement and confuse others too. It is because of the tone of her message

<Dhyanakunda Mataji> that others felt she is making a judgement and that too

of the most revered Spiritual father or Grand father of all. This is

vaisnava aparadha. there could be some who are misled by these statements

and think that YES Srila Prabhupad is wrong.

ys

SVd

 

>

> COM: Harsi (das) HKS (Timisoara - RO) [sMTP:Harsi.HKS (AT) bbt (DOT) se]

> Sent: 21 November 1999 02:26

> To: COM: Babhru (das) ACBSP (San Diego - USA); COM: Bhadra Balaram (das)

> JPS (Mayapur - IN); COM: Secretary (of the) EC (Executive Committee of the

> GBC); COM: Tirtharaj (das) TKG (Brisbane - AU); COM: DMW (Dharma of Men

> and Women); COM: India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum)

> Cc: COM: ISKCON India (news & discussion); btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net

> Subject: RE: Judge for yourself

>

> [Text 2795339 from COM]

>

> > I wander why we are not hearing ISKCON authorities yet. People blaming

> > Srila Prabhupada must inmediatly being correct and first by their Diksa

> or

> > Siksa Gurus. It is one more of so many embarrased things that are

> > destroying ISKCON. Prabhupada himself said that nobody will destroy

> ISKCON

> > just from within, who can sincerously think that is helping someone

> > speaking against Srila Prabhupada? How far do this madness will go?

>

> I think you are very wrong here, would you have followed the discussions

> in

> the Topical discusions conference you could have realized that disussing

> this kind of things can help everyone grow in the corect understandings in

> regard tp SP and other matters and resolve such onesl doubts or

> misunderstandings.

>

> We are living in a free world where everyone should be alowed to expres

> his

> opinion and realizations freely even if they may not fit with ours.

>

> The point should be to convince someone with corect arguments not with

> threats. We are not in a dictatership nor do I think that Prabhupada would

> have encouraged such an atitude.

>

> In friendship

> Harsi das

[Guest guest]

> it's pity that you call such senseless writing "the couarge"! do you know

> that any uncivilised and ignorant person walking on a street can also

> speak the same way or even with more "courage" against Srila Prabhupada?

> is it courage? no, it's ignorence.

 

Regarding 'Topical Discussions', I have the following comments to make.

 

As we are from the Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta tradition, we are definitely

into free inquiry. We want to have our doubts dispelled, etc. We want to

know. In fact, Jiva Goswami and Baladeva Vidyabhusana in our line, have

dealt with various doubts in the area of philosophy and theology in their

writings. So there is nothing wrong with inquiry and doubts. But there is a

day-and-night difference between 'free speech' and 'free inquiry'. Let me

explain.

 

In free inquiry, we follow certain protocols in accordance with the

established traditions of knowledge-acquisition, particularly of that

educational institution that one happens to be a member of. Srila Prabhupada

wanted ISKCON to be an educational institution. So for those who are

seriously interested in clearing their doubts, yes, we must provide all

facilities PROVIDED they follow the protocols of knowledge-acquisition that

go along with such a free inquiry. You can't just say what you want. That's

not intellectual, that's pseudo-intellectual, especially to come to

conclusions if you don't have sufficient evidence to back up your points.

 

Let's take Dhyana Kunda's statements on Srila Prabhupada. She looks through

the VedaBase and finds contradictions between statement A made on date

aa-bbb-19cc at place X and statement B made on date dd-ee-19ff at place Y.

Then she has a doubt, "How is it possible for a consistent individual like

Srila Prabhupada to make such contradictions?" (At this point, I assume that

Dhyana Kunda and others do accept the authority of the Vedas and the Gaudiya

Vaishnava sampradaya, though I am not so sure, after having seen her comment

on Lord Caitanya's father.) Now what do we do with these contradictions?

 

An honest inquisitive Vaishnava (a follower of the Vaishnava intellectual

tradition) would consider doing the following in an attempt to objectively

analyze the issue at hand:

 

1. Examine the context of the conversation wherein statement A was made.

2. Examine the context of the conversation wherein statement B was made.

3. The above two can be done in the following ways:

(i) by interviewing individuals who were there with Srila Prabhupada at

the time statements A and B were made.

(ii) by checking the memoirs and other sources of biographical or

historical information from disciples of Srila Prabhupada who were present

surrounding those events

4. Many disciples of Srila Prabhupada state that Srila Prabhupada was a very

consistent individual. I have personally heard this from HH Jayapataka Swami

who had a lot of association with Srila Prabhupada. So I know that this is

more reliable than the interpretation of Dhyana Kunda who who didn't

associate with Srila Prabhupada.

5. If one does accept sastra and previous Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas as a

source of authoritative objective knowledge, then there are statements by

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Padma Purana (Bhagavata-mahatmya), Caitanya

Mangala and Brahma-vaivarta Purana, which predict a great personality will

come who will take KC from Vrindavan/India to the foreign mleccha countries.

These logically point to Srila Prabhupada.

6. If one does accept point 5: Then you can take up the logic that Srila

Prabhupada being a maha-purusa, cannot be making contradictions in his

teachings.

7. Srila Prabhupada also made statements in mild or in jest, which he never

said are part of his teachings. By 'teachings', we mean the 'import of the

disciplic succession'.

 

So an inquisitive Vaishnava will not ridicule an individual, especially if

he happens to be a maha-purusa mentioned in the Veda, without sufficient

background research. If one does it, like Dhyana Kunda, then it is indeed

pseudo-intellectual and fit for the garbage.

 

Educational institutions have certainly regulations on how knowledge is

transmitted and how research works are done. In no university, will they

allow a student to criticize the professor, his knowlege, etc. publicly, No.

You have to SUBMIT to the process of knowledge-acquisition in the

university, once you have enrolled into one. If you don't follow the

protocols of that university, you have to hit the road, because your

behavior would be considered 'offensive'. If free speech were something so

valuable, then why is it that there is a distinction in a university between

who can teach in a class and who should listen and follow the university

rules as students?

 

This isn't blocking inquiry, but regulating how you go about it. ISKCON is a

Vaishnava educational institution (we learn from Srila Prabhupada and teach

based on it) and therefore these Vaishava protocols have to be followed.

 

Madhusudani Radha dd mentioned that Dhyana Kunda has a lot of integrity. If

that is the case, why is she shuttling her subjective opinion (which is not

backed up by sufficient research) which is definitely offensive according to

Vaishnava protocols in this educational institution ISKCON as if they were

objective facts?

 

I repeat: we are all for 'free inquiry' but not for mleccha-type 'free

speech'. We are interested in knowledge and some protocols for knowledge

acquisition need to be followed, since we are part of the Vaishnava

tradition.

 

Take for example, Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita. In the Fourth Chapter of the

Gita, Lord Krsna says that He taught Vivasvan, the lord of the sun-planet,

teachings of devotional service. Arjuna becomes doubtful of this fact. But

watch how he brings this up his doubt. Note how he meticulously follows

Vaishnava/Vedic protocols:

 

arjuna uvaca

aparam bhavato janma

param janma vivasvatah

katham etad vijaniyam

tvam adau proktavan iti

 

arjunah uvaca--Arjuna said; aparam- junior; bhavatah--Your; janma--birth;

param--superior; janma--birth; vivasvatah--of the sun-god; katham--how;

etat--this; vijaniyam--shall I understand; tvam--You; adau--in the

beginning; proktavan--instructed; iti--thus.

 

"Arjuna said: The sun-god Vivasvan is senior by birth to You. How am I to

understand that in the beginning You instructed this science to him?"

 

Worthy of noting is his submissive wording: katham etad vijaniyam

(kathan--how; etat--this; vijaniyam--shall I understand) "How am I to

understand..."

 

With this wording, Arjuna makes it clear that he may not be able to

understand many things in life, especially about Krsna. Therefore, he asks,

"How do I understand...?" He doesn't assume certain pseudo-intellectual

conclusions: "Krsna contradicts reality", etc. He submissively asks Krsna

(pari-prasnena) how he can understand statements made by the Supreme Person.

 

*Within* Vaishnava intellectual traditions, there is a protocol of behavior

and reference to one's spiritual master or previous spiritual master,

founder-acharya, etc. Therefore I say that one can't make unsubmissive

statements about Srila Prabhupada, even if it is an attempt to understand

apparent contradictions in his statements.

 

Without making a proper and intelligent analysis of an individual, how can

he/she make remarks about the individual's integrity, motives, etc?

Especially if he/she makes such remarks in the name of free speech, *within*

the Vaishnava tradition, it is not accepted as honest inquiry or

non-egoistic intellectualism. That is why I consider Dhyana Kunda's

statements and Madhusudani Radha's policies regarding Topical Discussions

trash.

 

Your servant,

Vidvan Gauranga das

[Guest guest]

Vidvan Gauranga wote:

 

>>That is why I consider Dhyana Kunda's

statements and Madhusudani Radha's policies regarding Topical Discussions

trash.>>

 

Just a slight correction, these are not *my* policies. The conference was

started by the COM sysop based on an identified need. The conference has two

co-organizers (one male and one female) and its members agree with its

policies. Please don't polarize this issue any more than necessary.

 

On a related topic, maybe it is because English is not your first language,

but it's not exactly good manners to call someone else's view "trash".

However much I disagree with you and some of the very hurtful things you did

and said last year while on the GHQ conference, I would never call your

writings "trash" in public. Let's try to keep this conversation civil and

respectful.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>there could be some who are misled by these statements

>and think that YES Srila Prabhupad is wrong.

>ys

>SVd

 

Or there could be some who had similar thoughts and doubts but didn't dare

speak them. They may however have benefitted greatly from hearing some of

the responses to Dhyanakunda Prabhu's texts. These replies were given from

mature thoughtful Vaisnavas with great appreciation and love for

Prabhupada. They didn't threaten or try to intimidate. They didn't blast

her. Instead they very gently shared their understandings which differed

from hers and thereby impressed both believers and doubters.

 

Why all these calls for banning, censorhip and punishment? Haven't we

learned yet that those strategies don't work? That's why we have VNN, PADA

and tons of disgruntled, frustrated, angry and bitter ex-members who are

trying to hurt ISKCON in so many different ways.

 

Let's try a different strategy; listening respectfully even to those with

whom we differ. It doesn't mean that you have to let them influence you.

It just means we start communicating and treat each other as human beings.

I guarantee you that this will have better results than responding in

anger.

 

>> The point should be to convince someone with corect arguments not with

>> threats. We are not in a dictatership nor do I think that Prabhupada would

>> have encouraged such an atitude.

>>

>> In friendship

>> Harsi das

 

Excellent point!

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

Wonderful.

SVd

 

>

> COM: Vidvan Gauranga (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)

> [sMTP:Vidvan.Gauranga.JPS (AT) bbt (DOT) se]

> Sent: 21 November 1999 08:23

> To: COM: Babhru (das) ACBSP (San Diego - USA); COM: Tirtharaj (das) TKG

> (Brisbane - AU); COM: India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum)

> Cc: COM: DMW (Dharma of Men and Women); COM: Granddisciples (of Srila

> Prabhupada); COM: ISKCON India (news & discussion); COM: Secretary (of

> the) EC (Executive Committee of the GBC); btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net

> Subject: Re: Judge for yourself

>

> [Text 2795631 from COM]

>

> > it's pity that you call such senseless writing "the couarge"! do you

> know

> > that any uncivilised and ignorant person walking on a street can also

> > speak the same way or even with more "courage" against Srila Prabhupada?

> > is it courage? no, it's ignorence.

>

> Regarding 'Topical Discussions', I have the following comments to make.

>

> As we are from the Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta tradition, we are definitely

> into free inquiry. We want to have our doubts dispelled, etc. We want to

> know. In fact, Jiva Goswami and Baladeva Vidyabhusana in our line, have

> dealt with various doubts in the area of philosophy and theology in their

> writings. So there is nothing wrong with inquiry and doubts. But there is

> a

> day-and-night difference between 'free speech' and 'free inquiry'. Let me

> explain.

>

> In free inquiry, we follow certain protocols in accordance with the

> established traditions of knowledge-acquisition, particularly of that

> educational institution that one happens to be a member of. Srila

> Prabhupada

> wanted ISKCON to be an educational institution. So for those who are

> seriously interested in clearing their doubts, yes, we must provide all

> facilities PROVIDED they follow the protocols of knowledge-acquisition

> that

> go along with such a free inquiry. You can't just say what you want.

> That's

> not intellectual, that's pseudo-intellectual, especially to come to

> conclusions if you don't have sufficient evidence to back up your points.

>

> Let's take Dhyana Kunda's statements on Srila Prabhupada. She looks

> through

> the VedaBase and finds contradictions between statement A made on date

> aa-bbb-19cc at place X and statement B made on date dd-ee-19ff at place Y.

> Then she has a doubt, "How is it possible for a consistent individual like

> Srila Prabhupada to make such contradictions?" (At this point, I assume

> that

> Dhyana Kunda and others do accept the authority of the Vedas and the

> Gaudiya

> Vaishnava sampradaya, though I am not so sure, after having seen her

> comment

> on Lord Caitanya's father.) Now what do we do with these contradictions?

>

> An honest inquisitive Vaishnava (a follower of the Vaishnava intellectual

> tradition) would consider doing the following in an attempt to objectively

> analyze the issue at hand:

>

> 1. Examine the context of the conversation wherein statement A was made.

> 2. Examine the context of the conversation wherein statement B was made.

> 3. The above two can be done in the following ways:

> (i) by interviewing individuals who were there with Srila Prabhupada at

> the time statements A and B were made.

> (ii) by checking the memoirs and other sources of biographical or

> historical information from disciples of Srila Prabhupada who were present

> surrounding those events

> 4. Many disciples of Srila Prabhupada state that Srila Prabhupada was a

> very

> consistent individual. I have personally heard this from HH Jayapataka

> Swami

> who had a lot of association with Srila Prabhupada. So I know that this is

> more reliable than the interpretation of Dhyana Kunda who who didn't

> associate with Srila Prabhupada.

> 5. If one does accept sastra and previous Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas as a

> source of authoritative objective knowledge, then there are statements by

> Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Padma Purana (Bhagavata-mahatmya), Caitanya

> Mangala and Brahma-vaivarta Purana, which predict a great personality will

> come who will take KC from Vrindavan/India to the foreign mleccha

> countries.

> These logically point to Srila Prabhupada.

> 6. If one does accept point 5: Then you can take up the logic that Srila

> Prabhupada being a maha-purusa, cannot be making contradictions in his

> teachings.

> 7. Srila Prabhupada also made statements in mild or in jest, which he

> never

> said are part of his teachings. By 'teachings', we mean the 'import of the

> disciplic succession'.

>

> So an inquisitive Vaishnava will not ridicule an individual, especially if

> he happens to be a maha-purusa mentioned in the Veda, without sufficient

> background research. If one does it, like Dhyana Kunda, then it is indeed

> pseudo-intellectual and fit for the garbage.

>

> Educational institutions have certainly regulations on how knowledge is

> transmitted and how research works are done. In no university, will they

> allow a student to criticize the professor, his knowlege, etc. publicly,

> No.

> You have to SUBMIT to the process of knowledge-acquisition in the

> university, once you have enrolled into one. If you don't follow the

> protocols of that university, you have to hit the road, because your

> behavior would be considered 'offensive'. If free speech were something so

> valuable, then why is it that there is a distinction in a university

> between

> who can teach in a class and who should listen and follow the university

> rules as students?

>

> This isn't blocking inquiry, but regulating how you go about it. ISKCON is

> a

> Vaishnava educational institution (we learn from Srila Prabhupada and

> teach

> based on it) and therefore these Vaishava protocols have to be followed.

>

> Madhusudani Radha dd mentioned that Dhyana Kunda has a lot of integrity.

> If

> that is the case, why is she shuttling her subjective opinion (which is

> not

> backed up by sufficient research) which is definitely offensive according

> to

> Vaishnava protocols in this educational institution ISKCON as if they were

> objective facts?

>

> I repeat: we are all for 'free inquiry' but not for mleccha-type 'free

> speech'. We are interested in knowledge and some protocols for knowledge

> acquisition need to be followed, since we are part of the Vaishnava

> tradition.

>

> Take for example, Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita. In the Fourth Chapter of

> the

> Gita, Lord Krsna says that He taught Vivasvan, the lord of the sun-planet,

> teachings of devotional service. Arjuna becomes doubtful of this fact. But

> watch how he brings this up his doubt. Note how he meticulously follows

> Vaishnava/Vedic protocols:

>

> arjuna uvaca

> aparam bhavato janma

> param janma vivasvatah

> katham etad vijaniyam

> tvam adau proktavan iti

>

> arjunah uvaca--Arjuna said; aparam- junior; bhavatah--Your; janma--birth;

> param--superior; janma--birth; vivasvatah--of the sun-god; katham--how;

> etat--this; vijaniyam--shall I understand; tvam--You; adau--in the

> beginning; proktavan--instructed; iti--thus.

>

> "Arjuna said: The sun-god Vivasvan is senior by birth to You. How am I to

> understand that in the beginning You instructed this science to him?"

>

> Worthy of noting is his submissive wording: katham etad vijaniyam

> (kathan--how; etat--this; vijaniyam--shall I understand) "How am I to

> understand..."

>

> With this wording, Arjuna makes it clear that he may not be able to

> understand many things in life, especially about Krsna. Therefore, he

> asks,

> "How do I understand...?" He doesn't assume certain pseudo-intellectual

> conclusions: "Krsna contradicts reality", etc. He submissively asks Krsna

> (pari-prasnena) how he can understand statements made by the Supreme

> Person.

>

> *Within* Vaishnava intellectual traditions, there is a protocol of

> behavior

> and reference to one's spiritual master or previous spiritual master,

> founder-acharya, etc. Therefore I say that one can't make unsubmissive

> statements about Srila Prabhupada, even if it is an attempt to understand

> apparent contradictions in his statements.

>

> Without making a proper and intelligent analysis of an individual, how can

> he/she make remarks about the individual's integrity, motives, etc?

> Especially if he/she makes such remarks in the name of free speech,

> *within*

> the Vaishnava tradition, it is not accepted as honest inquiry or

> non-egoistic intellectualism. That is why I consider Dhyana Kunda's

> statements and Madhusudani Radha's policies regarding Topical Discussions

> trash.

>

> Your servant,

> Vidvan Gauranga das

[Guest guest]

At 04:23 AM 11/21/99 +0000, COM: Vidvan Gauranga (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)

wrote:

 

>Educational institutions have certainly regulations on how knowledge is

>transmitted and how research works are done. In no university, will they

>allow a student to criticize the professor, his knowlege, etc. publicly, No.

>You have to SUBMIT to the process of knowledge-acquisition in the

>university, once you have enrolled into one. If you don't follow the

>protocols of that university, you have to hit the road, because your

>behavior would be considered 'offensive'. If free speech were something so

>valuable, then why is it that there is a distinction in a university between

>who can teach in a class and who should listen and follow the university

>rules as students?

 

I'm not sure where you live or of the extent of your experience with

university life; however, I've taught at a university for the last 10

years, and I'd like to assure you that students certainly may and do

criticize their professors without fear of sanction by the university.

There may be some etiquette involved (although that is certainly changing),

but such challenge is considered part of the academic process. It's not a

prison.

 

Your servant,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

> I repeat: we are all for 'free inquiry' but not for mleccha-type 'free

> speech'

 

precisely.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/21/1999 1:00:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Babhru.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

>

> I'm not sure where you live or of the extent of your experience with

> university life; however, I've taught at a university for the last 10

> years, and I'd like to assure you that students certainly may and do

> criticize their professors without fear of sanction by the university.

> There may be some etiquette involved (although that is certainly changing),

> but such challenge is considered part of the academic process. It's not a

> prison.

>

> Your servant,

> Babhru das

 

So, we do not care what goes on in mundane educational institutes where the

so called teachers are drinkers, smokers, animal killers, etc., where the

challenging nondevotee students of nescience with no concept of respect for a

learned soul resembles a free for all.

 

A sincere Vaisnava understands that the path of transcendental knowledge is

completely different from so-called education of the demoniac society. For

real knowledge to transpire, there have to be two stipulations, Srila

Prabhupada explains in the First Canto if the Srimad Bhagavatam. First, the

speaker must be qualified. This means that the speaker must be a bonafide

representative of the line of knowledge from Krsna and the speaker is a

transcendentally realized soul who is repeating everything without any

change.

 

Next, the second qualification is the that the hearer must be submissive. He

must hear with humility and submission, and service to the realized soul.

This is required. Without such submission and humility, or without the

speaker being Krsna's representative, then transcendental knowledge cannot be

received.

 

Challenging spirit, arrogance, lack of humility...these are all there in the

mundane academic atmosphere where materialists approach unqualified and

sinful men for some scientific knowledge for sense gratification.

 

So although you teach at a university, I hope you do not think that what is

going on there is in any way similar to the transcendental process of the

absolute truth being passed down through disciplic succession from fully

realized souls who are not touched by material nature.

 

I am surprised that so many devotees are defending the right of a second

generation disciple to express their doubts of Srila Prabhupada's

transcendental nature in such a manner as to be offensive according to

Vaisnava philosophy.

 

Mahananda dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Badhru Prabhu, I just reread my post and I certainly don't want you to

think I was talking about you in your present position. I only meant mundane

education in general, as spoken about by Srila Prabhupada. I wanted to clear

that up quickly before you read my post and take offense. Certainly none was

meant even in the teeniest way. I remain your humble servant. Mahananda dasa

[Guest guest]

Mahananda das wrote:

 

> In a message dated 11/21/1999 1:00:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> Babhru.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

>

> > I'm not sure where you live or of the extent of your experience with

> > university life; however, I've taught at a university for the last 10

> > years, and I'd like to assure you that students certainly may and do

> > criticize their professors without fear of sanction by the university.

> > There may be some etiquette involved (although that is certainly

> > changing), but such challenge is considered part of the academic

> > process. It's not a prison.

> >

> > Your servant,

> > Babhru das

>

> So, we do not care what goes on in mundane educational institutes where

> the so called teachers are drinkers, smokers, animal killers, etc., where

> the challenging nondevotee students of nescience with no concept of

> respect for a learned soul resembles a free for all.

 

So, you may not care, thats your free will and your business, but why speak

for someone else who may care.

Prabhupada said that one can learn something even from a dog, so why not

from a "so called teacher" at university?

 

> A sincere Vaisnava understands that the path of transcendental knowledge

> is completely different from so-called education of the demoniac society.

 

A sincere Vaisnava understands also the art of tolerance and he is

not a religious fanatic.

 

> For real knowledge to transpire, there have to be two stipulations, Srila

> Prabhupada explains in the First Canto in the Srimad Bhagavatam. First,

> the speaker must be qualified. This means that the speaker must be a

> bonafide representative of the line of knowledge from Krsna and the

> speaker is a transcendentally realized soul who is repeating everything

> without any change.

 

That may be so, but should he therefore be just a robot who repeats

something without using his own intelect and power of discrimination?

 

> Next, the second qualification is the that the hearer must be submissive.

> He must hear with humility and submission, and service to the realized

> soul. This is required. Without such submission and humility, or without

> the speaker being Krsna's representative, then transcendental knowledge

> cannot be received.

 

> Challenging spirit, arrogance, lack of humility...these are all there in

> the mundane academic atmosphere where materialists approach unqualified

> and sinful men for some scientific knowledge for sense gratification.

 

Ok, so who invented and constructed the computer that you use to argue

against this so called "unqualified and sinful man". If they would not have

invented and build it, I would not even know that you exist.

 

> So although you teach at a university, I hope you do not think that what

> is going on there is in any way similar to the transcendental process of

> the absolute truth being passed down through disciplic succession from

> fully realized souls who are not touched by material nature.

 

So would you say that Srila Prabhupada was never touched by material nature

in his whole life also he lived an ordinary life with family, eleven

children I think, made a lot of money by buisness in order to maintain his

family?

I would rather say he gave the perfect example how to go through material

life and give it up at the end of ones life, reaching spiritual perfection

in complete Krsna consciousness, but I may be wrong at this point.

 

> I am surprised that so many devotees are defending the right of a second

> generation disciple to express their doubts of Srila Prabhupada's

> transcendental nature in such a manner as to be offensive according to

> Vaisnava philosophy.

>

> Mahananda dasa

 

Offense, Offense when will it end...?

 

Respectfully,

Harsi das

[Guest guest]

> On a related topic, maybe it is because English is not your first language,

but it's not exactly good manners to call someone else's view "trash". However

much I disagree with you and some of the very hurtful things you did and said

last year while on the GHQ conference, I would never call your writings

"trash" in public. Let's try to keep this conversation civil and respectful.

>

 

 

Yes, this 'trash' talk is more appropriate for a playground forum as compared

to a Vaisnava forum. Maybe English isn't this prabhus first language, but he

might be accused of talking like an American football player.

[Guest guest]

On 21 Nov 1999, Bhadra Balaram wrote:

 

> > I repeat: we are all for 'free inquiry' but not for mleccha-type 'free

speech'

>

> precisely.

>

> ys, bb

 

 

Yes, 'trashless talk' is such a beautiful thing to listen to!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 21 Nov 1999, Mahananda1 (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

 

>

> I am surprised that so many devotees are defending the right of a second

generation disciple to express their doubts of Srila Prabhupada's

> transcendental nature in such a manner as to be offensive according to

> Vaisnava philosophy.

>

 

 

I guess better they should follow the good example of the first generation.

 

I admit I didn't read the alleged offensive post, but there are ways by which

one can express doubts properly. I would hope that could be done regarding

whatever the topic in question might be.

[Guest guest]

At 04:08 AM 11/21/99 -0500, Mahananda1 (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

>[Text 2795958 from COM]

>

>In a message dated 11/21/1999 1:00:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>Babhru.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

>

>>

>> I'm not sure where you live or of the extent of your experience with

>> university life; however, I've taught at a university for the last 10

>> years, and I'd like to assure you that students certainly may and do

>> criticize their professors without fear of sanction by the university.

>> There may be some etiquette involved (although that is certainly

changing),

>> but such challenge is considered part of the academic process. It's not a

>> prison.

>>

>> Your servant,

>> Babhru das

>

>So, we do not care what goes on in mundane educational institutes where the

>so called teachers are drinkers, smokers, animal killers, etc., where the

>challenging nondevotee students of nescience with no concept of respect

for a

>learned soul resembles a free for all.

 

Vidvan Gauranga apparently did care (perhaps he no longer does, since you

have chaosen to speak for him). He's asserted something about what is andis

not done in universities, and I simply pointed out that my experience is

very different.

 

>A sincere Vaisnava understands that the path of transcendental knowledge is

>completely different from so-called education of the demoniac society. For

>real knowledge to transpire, there have to be two stipulations, Srila

>Prabhupada explains in the First Canto if the Srimad Bhagavatam. First, the

>speaker must be qualified. This means that the speaker must be a bonafide

>representative of the line of knowledge from Krsna and the speaker is a

>transcendentally realized soul who is repeating everything without any

>change.

>

>Next, the second qualification is the that the hearer must be submissive. He

>must hear with humility and submission, and service to the realized soul.

>This is required. Without such submission and humility, or without the

>speaker being Krsna's representative, then transcendental knowledge cannot

be

>received.

The hearer must also be willing to inquire, to voice his or her doubts in

order that they may be cleared. This may sometimes be a messy process if

they are real doubts, not just pro forma questions as we sometimes hear.

One thing we learned form Srila Prabhupada is that he could be very patient.

 

>Challenging spirit, arrogance, lack of humility...these are all there in the

>mundane academic atmosphere where materialists approach unqualified and

>sinful men for some scientific knowledge for sense gratification.

>

>So although you teach at a university, I hope you do not think that what is

>going on there is in any way similar to the transcendental process of the

>absolute truth being passed down through disciplic succession from fully

>realized souls who are not touched by material nature.

 

I'm not defending university standards, just explaining them. I'm surprised

that you read so much into my very brief remarks. I never said--or

implied--that what happens at a university is better than hari-katha. I

only said that what happens is not what Vidvan Gauranga said.

 

>I am surprised that so many devotees are defending the right of a second

>generation disciple to express their doubts of Srila Prabhupada's

>transcendental nature in such a manner as to be offensive according to

>Vaisnava philosophy.

 

Where in my post do you see me defending what you said above? The real

problem here is that sentiments that should be expressed in confidence were

broadcast beyond their intended audience. This is something the internet is

very good for, and somehting certain devotees seem to enjoy doing to score

points. I have already said what I think of that. Boy, some of y'all sure

have plenty of time to argue. Get ou on the streets and argue with the

materialists. Ever hear of the Yadu dynasty?

 

Your servant,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

At 02:21 PM 11/21/99 +0100, COM: Harsi (das) HKS (Timisoara - RO) wrote:

>[Text 2796308 from COM]

>

>Mahananda das wrote:

>

>> In a message dated 11/21/1999 1:00:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>> Babhru.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

>>

>> > I'm not sure where you live or of the extent of your experience with

>> > university life; however, I've taught at a university for the last 10

>> > years, and I'd like to assure you that students certainly may and do

>> > criticize their professors without fear of sanction by the university.

>> > There may be some etiquette involved (although that is certainly

>> > changing), but such challenge is considered part of the academic

>> > process. It's not a prison.

>> >

>> > Your servant,

>> > Babhru das

>>

>> So, we do not care what goes on in mundane educational institutes where

>> the so called teachers are drinkers, smokers, animal killers, etc., where

>> the challenging nondevotee students of nescience with no concept of

>> respect for a learned soul resembles a free for all.

>

>So, you may not care, thats your free will and your business, but why speak

>for someone else who may care.

 

Actually, I only care to the extent that what Vidvan Gauranga prabhu said

simply isn't the case. The cross-posting of Dhyandakunda's remarks makes

her an easy target for devotees whowant to assert their superiority. As far

as I'm concerned, teaching at the university is just a job. Whan I'm able

to figure out a way to get by without doing that, I'd much prefer to teach

Krishna consciousness.

 

To answer Mahananda prabhu's worry that I might somehow equate what's going

on at the university with the transmission of transcendental knowledge

among qualified vaishanvas, no, I don't. I've read Drilla Prabhupada's

books, and I was with Srila Prabhupada at the Univesity of Hawaii when a

student asked him what was wrong with becoming a dog in your next life,

something Srila Prabhupada expressed amazement at sometimes. And I'm well

aware that there's no department of spiritual inquiry at my university.

It's just my job. So you can relax on that count.

 

Sheesh!

 

Your unqualified and sinful servant,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

> Vidvan Gauranga wote:

>

> >>That is why I consider Dhyana Kunda's

> statements and Madhusudani Radha's policies regarding Topical Discussions

> trash.>>

>

> Just a slight correction, these are not *my* policies. The conference was

> started by the COM sysop based on an identified need. The conference has

> two co-organizers (one male and one female) and its members agree with its

> policies. Please don't polarize this issue any more than necessary.

>

> On a related topic, maybe it is because English is not your first

> language, but it's not exactly good manners to call someone else's view

> "trash". However much I disagree with you and some of the very hurtful

> things you did and said last year while on the GHQ conference, I would

> never call your writings "trash" in public. Let's try to keep this

> conversation civil and respectful.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

 

Yes, a good point is often spoiled, because we use harsh words.

[Guest guest]

>Educational institutions have certainly regulations on how knowledge is

>transmitted and how research works are done. In no university, will they

>allow a student to criticize the professor, his knowlege, etc. publicly, No.

>You have to SUBMIT to the process of knowledge-acquisition in the

>university, once you have enrolled into one. If you don't follow the

>protocols of that university, you have to hit the road, because your

>behavior would be considered 'offensive'.

 

Maybe this is the case in Indian universities. However, having taught in 6

different US universities over the past 19 years (and attended 3), I know

that in many places, it is not only OK, but actually expected that

students will challenge their professors, as long as it is done in a

respectful manner. By the way, the same manners are expected when students

challenge each other. Students can disagree with and criticize any of

their faculty members or peers, and most people consider it a positive sign

that the student is interested in the topic and using his/her brain. That

behavior is considered as following protocol and it's a part of academic

freedom. I have never seen any rules saying that students who criticize

professors have to leave the program, nor have I ever known any students to

whom this happened. And I've seen a lot of student-generated criticism.

The only students I have seen expelled were due to ethical issues

(including violations of the honor code).

 

Maybe we're hitting on a cultural difference. If so, that might explain

some of the different reactions we are encountering.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi