Pertinent article by Krishna Kirit Prabhu...

[Guest guest]

Stop Rejecting Sastra, And You'll Have

Peace

 

BY KRISHNA-KIRTI DAS

 

EDITORIAL, Dec 17 (VNN) — In the past two months, we have

seen an open COM conference in which Srila Prabhupada has

been

criticized, and more recently, an incident in Vrindavan

where a section

of ladies challenged the authority of tradition (as well as

the temple

management) with regard to offering respects to sannyasis.

Although

these incidents are separated by time and place, and the

people are

different, these separate incidents are nonetheless

related: The basis of

such protest, criticism, etc., is a result of an outright

rejection of

scriptural authority.

 

Scriptural authority, sabda, includes three main sources:

guru, sadhu,

and sastra, with sastra being the basis of guru and sadhu.

 

Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says,

sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya aikya. One

should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words

of saintly people, the spiritual master and the

sastra. The

actual center is the sastra, the revealed scripture.

If a

spiritual master does not speak according to the

revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted.

Similarly, if

a saintly person does not speak according to the

sastra,

he is not a saintly person. The sastra is the center

for all.

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrita 20.352 purport)

 

Pratyaksa (sense perception), and anuman (inference) are

also

accepted as genuine sources of knowledge. However, without

the

support and confirmation of sabda, one cannot have perfect

knowledge (particularly of metaphysical subjects, which are

altogether

beyond the purview of the mind and senses):

 

maya-javanikacchannam

ajnadhoksajam avyayam

na laksyase mudha-drsa

nato natyadharo yatha

 

Being beyond the range of limited sense

perception, You are the eternally irreproachable

factor covered by the curtain of deluding energy.

You are invisible to the foolish observer, exactly as

an actor dressed as a player is not recognized.

 

[from the puze="1">Editorial, Dec 11 (VNN) — A

Window of Opportunityunity

 

In the Mayapur meetings of 1993, the GBC passed a

resolution to conduct a worldwide survey of

ISKCON's membership. The purpose of the survey:

To gather data so the leadership would have a basis

for a stronger and more unified society. It sure

sounded like a good idea. That report was submitted

to the GBC over a year ago, and seems to have died

at birth.

 

yah sastra vidhim-utrijya

vartate kama-karatah

na sa siddhim avapnoti

na sukham na param gatim

 

He who discards scriptural injunctions

and acts according to his own whims

attains neither perfection, nor

happiness, nor the supreme

destination.

(Bhagavad-gita 16.23)

 

Now, we turn to the incident of criticizing Srila

Prabhupada, in the erstwhile Topical Discussions

forum.

Here is something spoken, openly, by a devotee (see I

Just Have A Big Problem Trusting Persons):

 

About Prabhupada's self-confidence

and absolute faith in the opinion of

sastra XYZ devi dasi says:

 

"Another thing that bothers me is that

Srila Prabhupada is always so sure of

himself. He is fully confident in his own

judgment. He is fully confident that the

world is full of girls, that in certain

places all people are rascals, that "Bad

things means Western type of

civilization," etc. Very strong, super

simple black-and-white general

statements. Where ordinary people

would soften their statements by saying,

"as far as I know,I am convinced

that,to some degree,in this

respect,from my experience,most

probably,at present it looks like..."

etc., Srila Prabhupada passes absolute

judgemnts, and he is not even consistent

in them.

 

I am ready to believe the source of his

certainty is direct link with Krsna's

absolute knowledge, *if* it can be

proven he was absolutely right each

time.

 

Up till then, I will rather suppose

Prabhupada's absolute self-confidence

was a feature of his own individual

character."

 

Let's take a look at this statement: "Another thing

that

bothers me is that Srila Prabhupada is always so

sure of himself."

 

What is Srila Prabhupada's status, and how is her

statement consistent with that status? As this

movement's

Founder-Acharya and who performed amazing deeds to

spread the mission of Lord Caitanya, Srila Prabhupada

is undoubtedly a pure devotee, and, therefore,

liberated

from the effects of the material energy. Now, what are

the qualities of a pure devotee?

 

The pure devotee is none other than Krishna Himself:

 

jive sakshat nahi tate guru caitya-rupe

siksa-guru haya krsna mahanta svarupe

 

Since one cannot visually experience

the presence of the Supersoul, He

appears before us as a liberated

devotee. Such a spiritual master is

none other than Krishna Himself.

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 1.58)

 

Further evidence:

 

acaryam mam vijaniyan navamanveta karhicid

na martya budhyasuyeta sarva deva mayo guruh

 

One should know the acarya as Myself

and never disrespect him in any way.

One should not envy him, thinking him

an ordinary man, for he is the

representative of all the demigods.

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 1.46)

 

So, it is the verdict of sastra that the liberated

spiritual

master, the acarya, is to be regarded as Krishna

Himself. He is, indeed, the Servitor Personality of

Godhead. In contrast to a pure devotee, a conditioned

soul's unique, distinguishing features are that he

commits

mistakes, has imperfect senses, is prone to illusion,

and

has a cheating propensity:

 

"The difference between a conditioned soul

and a liberated soul is that the conditioned

soul has four kinds of defects."

(Sri Isopanisad, Introduction)

 

To claim that Srila Prabhupada had these defects is

contrary to the definition of what a liberated devotee

is.

Just to show you how anti-devotional this is, consider

the following logical progression:

 

A person who is free from the four defects is a

liberated soul.

Srila Prabhupada is not free from these defects

(at least one of them--he commits mistakes).

Therefore, Srila Prabhupad cannot be a liberated

soul.

 

But if we accept the above definition of a pure

devotee

(who is therefore a liberated soul), and you accept

that

Srila Prabhupada was such a liberated soul, then we

must conclude that Srila Prabhupada did not commit

mistakes.

 

It may be argued, "There is this contradiction, that

contradiction, this didn't work, etc." But that in

itself

does not indicate that Srila Prabhupada actually made

mistakes. We can understand that the perception of

mistakes or other faults does not at all indicate that

the

liberated soul is prone to the same defects of a

conditioned soul.

 

For example, Ramacandra Puri could find so many faults

in Lord Caitanya, does that mean the Lord had faults?

Or for that matter, when Lord Krishna and Lord

Balarama entered the Kamsa's wrestling arena, many

different people saw Krsna according to their own

disposition:

 

"To the unintelligent, He [Lord Krsna]

appeared to be an incapable personality."

(Krsna, the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, Ch. 43)

 

Does this mean Lord Krsna really was unintelligent? Of

course not. Another name for Krsna is adhoksaja, or

one who is beyond the range of limited sense

perception. The pure Vaisnava is also not

understandable to the common man:

 

"A Vaisnava is always engaged in the

transcendental loving service of the Lord,

and thus neither karmis nor jnanis can

understand the activities of a Vaisnava. It is

said, vaisnavera kriya-mudra vijneha na

bujhaya: even the most learned man

depending on direct perception of

knowledge cannot understand the activities

of a Vaisnava."

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrita, Madhya-lila

7.66 purport)

 

Since it is established by scripture and by our

acaryas

that

 

1.a pure devotee does not commit mistakes, and

2.conditioned souls cannot understand the

activities of the Supreme Lord or His pure

devotees,

 

We must conclude that whatever we see that may be a

so-called mistake, we cannot ever consider that Srila

Prabhupada has made a mistake.

 

To say that Prabhupada made mistakes is always

incorrect, because a pure devotee cannot commit

mistakes. Rather, what you are seeing as mistakes are

simply the actions and reactions of the material body.

That has nothing to do with Srila Prabhupada.

Therefore, saying Srila Prabhupada "made mistakes" is

unacceptable terminology, because it is not consistent

with the facts, as presented by scripture:

 

deho 'pi daiva-vasagah khalu karma yavat

svarambhakam pratisamiksata eva sasuh

tam sa-prapancam adhirudha-samadhi-yogah

svapnam punar na bhajate pratibuddha-vastuh

 

The body of such a liberated yogi,

along with the senses, is taken charge

of by the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, and it functions until its

destined activities are finished. The

liberated devotee, being awake to his

constitutional position and thus

situated in samadhi, the highest

perfectional stage of yoga, does not

accept the by-products of the material

body as his own. Thus he considers his

bodily activities to be like the activities

of a body in a dream.

 

[from the purport] The following questions

may be posed. As long as the liberated

soul is in contact with the body, why don't

the bodily activities affect him? Doesn't he

actually become contaminated by the

action and reaction of material activities? In

answer to such questions, this verse

explains that the material body of a

liberated soul is taken charge of by the

Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is not

acting due to the living force of the living

entity; it is simply acting as a reaction to

past activities. Even after being switched

off, an electric fan moves for some time.

That movement is not due to the electric

current, but is a continuation of the last

movement; similarly, although a liberated

soul appears to be acting just like an

ordinary man, his actions are to be

accepted as the continuation of past

activities. In a dream one may see himself

expanded through many bodies, but when

awake he can understand that those bodies

were all false. Similarly, although a

liberated soul has the by-products of the

body -- children, wife, house, etc. -- he

does not identify himself with those bodily

expansions. He knows that they are all

products of the material dream. The gross

body is made of the gross elements of

matter, and the subtle body is made of

mind, intelligence, ego and contaminated

consciousness. If one can accept the subtle

body of a dream as false and not identify

oneself with that body, then certainly an

awake person need not identify with the

gross body. As one who is awake has no

connection with the activities of the body in

a dream, an awakened, liberated soul has

no connection with the activities of the

present body. In other words, because he

is acquainted with his constitutional

position, he never accepts the bodily

concept of life."

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.28.38 text and

purport)

 

Therefore, to say that Srila Prabhupada made mistakes

is against the conclusions sastra. Since the body is

taken

care of by the Lord, and since a pure devotee has

nothing to do with the body, who, then, is making the

mistake? Krishna? (Also see A Pure Devotee Cannot

Commit Mistakes)

 

A person who is not pure, but is aware of sastric

injunctions and has reverence for them can still

restrain

himself, because if that weren't possible, he would

automatically commit offenses (which is itself a

self-contradictory idea). Besides this class of jiva,

there

are two classes of conditioned souls who can find

fault

with the liberated acarya: (1) the person who is not

aware of the sastric injunctions, or (2) the person

who

is aware of sastra but has rejected it.

 

Since XYZ devi dasi has been in the movement for

some years and herself sometimes gives Bhagavatam

classes (and thus it is assumed has read all of Srila

Prabhupada's books and is therefore aware of the

above references), XYZ devi dasi's criticism cannot be

ignorance of sastra but must therefore be rejection of

sastra.

 

This is not to condemn her forever, or any such thing,

but for her own good, for the good of others who have

a

similar view, and for the good of our Vaishnava

society

as a whole, we must understand reality from the point

of

view of scripture, as explained to us by our acaryas,

otherwise, we commit offenses, fall down, and drag

other unfortunates with us.

 

The main point in this example has been to demonstrate

that such criticism, even under the guise of being

"academic", "intellectual", etc., is a symptom of

rejecting

the authority of sastra.

 

Now, we turn to a more recent example.

 

At the begining of November (1999) in our Vrindavan

temple, a section of lady devotees tried to prevent

some

devotees in the sannyas order from first offering

their

obeisances to the Deities, as prescribed by standard

Vaishnava etiquette--established by scripture and our

acaryas. On the one hand, the sannyasis were to offer

their obeisances first to the Deities, and then after

the

ghee lamp was offered to the Deities, the ladies would

be able to come forward for darsana. (See Temple

Report - Vrindavan Management's Side) But on the

other hand, the ladies maintained that because they

were

also devotees, many of whom had given many, many

years of service to ISKCON, that they should be given

equal consideration--side by side with their sannyasa

godbrothers. Which view is right?

 

Answer--the view that is in-line with sastra:

 

bhattacarya-sange tanra mandire aila

prabhure asana diye apane vasila

 

When they entered the temple,

Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya offered

Caitanya Mahaprabhu a seat, while he

himself sat down on the floor out of due

respect for a sannyasi.

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrita, Madhya-lila

6.119)

 

More evidence:

 

In the varnasrama institution the

sannyasi, or the person in the renounced

order of life, is considered to be the head

or the spiritual master of all the social

statuses and orders.

(Bhagavad-gita, 16.1-3 purport)

 

The society of human being is naturally

divided into eight by orders and statuses of

lifesannyasi is constitutionally the spiritual

master for all the orders and divisions.

(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 1.3.13 purport)

 

The brahmacaris, the grhasthas, the

vanaprasthas and the sannyasis all

belong to the same mission of life, namely,

realization of the Supreme. Therefore none

of them are less important as far as spiritual

culture is concerned. The difference is a

matter of formality on the strength of

renunciation. The sannyasis are held in

high estimation on the strength of practical

renunciation.

(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 1.7.2 purport)

 

Therefore, not only by culture, but by philosophy as

well, sannyasis are given special respect, over and

above those in all other varnas and asramas. With this

understanding, we can now assess the statements made

with regard to the following statements:

 

Neither local custom nor examples set by

Srila Prabhupada obligates ISKCON

managers to enforce a rule that women

cannot take darsana in the front.

(Do the Women Deserve This? by

Pranada dd.)

 

This first quote makes assumptions that aren't true,

that

(1) women were denied the opportunity to take

darsana up front, and (2) there is no evidence that

sannyasis and others should be given special regard.

 

The actual issue was that a section of ladies wanted

to

deny sannyasis the right of having the first darsana.

As

we can see here, from Mahaman Prabhu's version, the

ladies were offered the opportunity to have darsana up

close, but because they were unwilling to offer

respect

to sannyasis, who also wished to have darsana up

close, the offer was withdrawn:

 

Previous to this, several other sannyasis

and other devotees including HH Lokanath

Swami and HH Radha Govinda Maharaj

had also complained that they were

experiencing difficulties in offering

obeisances in front of the Radha

Syamsundar altar. The management

committee discussed this issue and

resolved that sannyasis and men be

allowed to take darshan and offer

obeisances to Radha Syamsundar until the

passing of the ghee wick lamp. The men

would then move towards the Krsna

Balaram altar leaving Radha Syamsundar

altar free for the women till the end of

mangala aratik. This system for darshan

was suggested by the ladies themselves.

The next morning a clear announcement

was made about this decision.

 

On the day when this arrangement was to

begin, I was personally present early in the

temple room and was surprised to see that

some ladies were already holding tightly to

the railings infront of the altar. I requested

some of the matajis to please move back

and let the men offer their obeisances and

after the ghee wick lamp is passed they

could come forward. Some of these ladies

followed my instructions gracefully but

some others like Anada and Parvati

flagrantly refused. Parvati started pushing

even the innocent and obedient ladies to

the front. This created an embarassing

sitution for the men who were surrounded

by the ladies. The management and other

devotees were naturally very upset by this

unruly and defiant behavior. As a solution

to this problem the management team

decided to go back to the system that has

been existing since the time of Srila

Prabhupada, i.e. the men stand in front and

the ladies at the back.

(Temple Report - Vrindavan

Management's Side Mahaman das)

 

So we can see that Pranada Mataji's first accusation

is

incorrect, that the women were denied darsana. Rather,

it was the women themselves who tried to deny darsana

to a section of society, in particular, sannyasis,

who,

according to our philosophy and by practical example,

are supposed to be regarded as the preceptors of all

other varnas and asramas, including women.

 

Another example:

 

The bottom line is this: if we are so

concerned with "following" properly, then

the men should understand one thing: it is

nobody's fault but theirs that the women

are forced to act in this way.

(Vaisnava Behavior? by Braja Sevaki dd.)

 

Here we have a gross misunderstanding of what

constitutes "following properly". Already, it is

established

that the sannyasa order is constitutionally the

spiritual

master of all other varnas and asramas. How is it,

then,

that a conclusion opposed to scriptural authority has

been arrived at? (Namely, that special respect, such

as

having first darsana, etc. should be not be offered to

sannyasis.) Would anyone go before their spiritual

master, or stand in front of him and offer their

obeisances first to the Deities, stand in front of him

while

taking darsana, or take the ghee lamp before him,

etc.?

 

The answer is quite clear that we are seeing a

widespread rejection of scriptural authority. There is

no

such thing as "equal rights" in the varnasrama system.

There are prescribed duties, and one of those

prescribed duties happens to be that lower orders

should offer respect to higher orders such as the

sannyasa order. The fact is that a section of ladies

tried

to prevent such offering of respects.

 

Another claim made by Braja Sevaki Mataji is that

women somehow automatically act correctly: ". . . it

is

nobody's fault but theirs that the women are forced to

act in this way." But who forced the women to

disrespect the sannyasis?

 

This is some sort of idea that women, by virtue of

their

gender, are somehow or other pure and faultless. If we

want to take this radical view that a woman is "forced

to

act", then we have to accept that a woman has no free

will, that she is something like an automated vending

machine--you just put in your 50 cents, press a

button,

and you "get what you deserve."

 

If we accept this view, then Braja Sevaki Mataji's

statement is factual, that the women were "forced to

act", because the ladies (mostly westerners, with a

few

modernized Indians) would not have the free will to

choose to act dharmically and thus transcend the

nature

they were born with.

 

But the fact of the matter is that ladies have free

will and

are also subject to pious or sinful reactions for

their

activities, even if they don't believe it. Therefore,

this

idea that "the ladies were forced to act" is utter

nonsense, because they weren't "forced" to disrespect

the sannyasis. How difficult would it have been to

patiently wait until after the ghee lamp is offered

and then

move forward? And patience is, after all, a feminine

virtue: " The seven opulences listedBhagavad-gita

10.34 purport)

 

Ultimately, the women's action was was a rejection of

scriptural authority.

 

And most unfortunately, we see support for such

apasiddhantic thinking coming from official,

managerial

institutions:

 

Unfortunately, ISKCON's Vrindavan

center (and, indeed, other ISKCON

centers in India) have long been seen as

seats of intolerance--and at times even

hatred--toward women in our movement.

Such unacceptable attitudes have been

manifest in the denial to women of many

facilities needed for their spiritual and

material well-being.

(Your Voice Is Needed A statement by

the ISKCON Women's Ministry)

 

Just see how this idea of offering respects to higher

orders is interpreted as "hatred". This is directly in

opposition to scriptural evidence:

 

Lord Caitanya was an ideal sannyasi, and

when He was at Puri His feminine devotees

could not even come near to offer their

respects. They were advised to bow down

from a distant place. This is not a sign of

hatred for women as a class, but it is a

stricture imposed on the sannyasi not to

have close connections with women. One

has to follow the rules and regulations of a

particular status of life in order to purify his

existence.

(Bhagavad-gita 16.3 purport)

 

It is interesting to note that Srila Prabhupada

himself

seemed to have anticipated such feminist ideas, by

preempting his statements with such a disclaimer:

"This is

not a sign of hatred for women as a class. . ." But

nonetheless, we see that a section of our society is

claiming that offering special regard to sannyasis and

keeping a respectful distance is indeed a sign of

hatred.

 

The Vrindavan temple is supposed to set

standards for all other ISKCON temples,

and the GBC has been making an effort to

turn ISKCON Vrindavan into a world

center for education and training.

Vrindavan ISKCON must be exemplary.

Now it is a shame and a disgrace.

(Your Voice Is Needed A statement by

the ISKCON Women's Ministry)

[emphasis to "standards" added]

 

If the Women's Ministry is so concerned about proper

standards being practiced (as opposed to

concessions), then they should encourage women to be

humble and let sannyasis and others like their

husbands,

have first darsana, honor the ghee lamp first, etc.

 

The Women's Ministry ironically harps about

implementing standards, but the very existence of such

a

ministry is in direct opposition to such standards:

 

"My dear brother, by the influence of

destiny you have already killed many

babies, each of them as bright and beautiful

as fire. But kindly spare this daughter. Give

her to me as your gift." (SB 10.4.5)

 

[PURPORT] Here we see that Devaki first

focused Kamsa's attention on his atrocious

activities, his killing of her many sons. Then

she wanted to compromise with him by

saying that whatever he had done was not

his fault, but was ordained by destiny. Then

she appealed to him to give her the

daughter as a gift. Devaki was the daughter

of a ksatriya and knew how to play the

political game. In politics there are different

methods of achieving success: first

repression (dama), then compromise

(sama), and then asking for a gift (dana).

Devaki first adopted the policy of

repression by directly attacking Kamsa for

having cruelly, atrociously killed her babies.

Then she compromised by saying that this

was not his fault, and then she begged for a

gift. As we learn from the history of the

Mahabharata, or "Greater India," the wives

and daughters of the ruling class, the

ksatriyas, knew the political game, but we

never find that a woman was given the post

of chief executive. This is in accordance

with the injunctions of Manu-samhita, but

unfortunately Manu-samhita is now being

insulted, and the Aryans, the members of

Vedic society, cannot do anything. Such is

the nature of Kali-yuga."

 

Please note that (1) Devaki knew politics, diplomacy,

etc., and she was expert in applying them; (2) that

she is

a woman; and (3) she is not only a Vaisnavi, but a

pure

devotee and mother of the Supreme Personality of

Godhead. Inspite of all these points, Srila Prabhupada

still insists, on the basis of Manu Samhita, that a

woman

(even she is Devaki) is never to take up the

occupational

duties of an administrative head.

 

Concessions may be there for time place and

circumstances. At the very best, the existence of a

Women's Ministry and women in managerial positions

can be taken as a concession, not as a standard to be

implemented. However, the agenda of the Women's

Ministry is quite different:

 

. . .women with organizational abilities

should be invited onto managerial teams in

Vrindavan.

(Your Voice Is Needed A statement by

the ISKCON Women's Ministry)

 

Why should they be? Even in Srila Prabhupada's time,

no such concession that a woman was made a temple

president, or a GBC, was ever given. And if, like the

Women's Ministry insists, that Vrindavan is supposed

to

set standards (not concessions, mind you) for the rest

of the world, then let's be strict about it: Women

visiting

there should be strict about respecting sannyasis,

being

shy, patient, and chaste, etc., and they should stop

vying

for managerial positions.

 

The men also must be strict and chivalrous with regard

to women. But if the women are unshy, pushy,

recalcitrant, and do not cooperate with the men, then

how can the men do their duty to protect them? How

can you protect someone who is not surrendered and

uncooperative?

 

Here is what someone said on a COM confrence, with

regard to women being strict:

 

Western women have completely different

cultural background and demending from

them to be like the women of indian

cultural background wouldn't work and it

doesn't work. The purpose of the

International Society for Krishna

Consciousness is to make people Krishna

conscious and not a hindu, or Indian.

Things that work for hidnu women might

not work for the western women and vice

versa.

 

Certainly, this seems reasonable. We can't after all,

expect ladies born in the West to be as strict as

their

Indian counterparts. Now, if recalcitrance,

unsubmissiveness, etc., is to be tolerated because of

their being brought up in the West, then why not

tolerate

similar concessions for men raised in the West?

 

Western men have completely different

cultural background and demending from

them to be like the men of indian cultural

background wouldn't work and it doesn't

work. The purpose of the International

Society for Krishna Consciousness is to

make people Krishna conscious and not a

hindu, or Indian. Things that work for hidnu

men might not work for the western men

and vice versa.

 

Would that be reasonable to argue that men, by virtue

of

being brought up in the West, do not have to protect

women, be respectful to women, maintain them, etc.? Of

course not. Gurus, sannyasis, brahmanas, husbands,

etc., even if they are born in the West, are expected

to

be strict; why should women be the only exception?

That is why this insistence on special concessions for

women made by a section of men and ladies who are

enamoured by karmi, feminist doctrines is one-sided,

selfish, and above all, against the standards of

devotional service that Srila Prabhupada hoped his

disciples would rise to.

 

And after all, what is devotional service that ignores

the

scriptural injunctions, except a disturbance to

society?

 

sruti-smrti puranadi pancaratra vidhim vina

aikantiki harer bhaktir upatayaiva kalpate

 

Devotional service of the Lord that

ignores the authorized Vedic

literatures like the Upanisads, Puranas

and Narada-pancaratra is simply an

unnecessary disturbance in society.

 

The disturbance we have seen in the Vrindavan temple

is

one of many that the Women's Ministry is crying foul

about. Instead of trying to do away with the rules and

regulations, they and everyone else should advocate

that

everyone--both men AND women--be more strict with

regard to following the rules and regulations. Only

then

will you minimize your social troubles. It is

nonsensical to

insist that men must be strict and that women are not

obliged to do likewise. All should be strict. If the

Women's Ministry and its supporters really want to

minimize the trouble in our society, they should stop

insisting on these one-sided concessions, which

themselves perpetuate the very problems they speak

about.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das