Do No Harm

[Guest guest]

> Three things are to be very greatly feared: The eyes of the rishi, the

> eyes of the snake, and the eyes of the weak. If a weak person cries out

> but finds no protector, then the king and all his ministers sink into

> hell.

 

 

My apologies, but I made a bit of an error with this quote as I was in a

hurry when I wrote the text. The actual statement by Bhishmadeva should be

as follows:

 

"It is said that the Creator created power for protecting weakness.

Weakness is a very great being, for all things depend upon it. The eyes of

the weak, the eyes of the Rishi, and the eyes of the serpent should be

considered as unbearable.

 

You should regard the weak as being subject to humiliation. Take care that

the eyes of the weak do not burn you with all your kinsmen.

 

Weakness is more powerful than even the greatest power, for that power

which is scorched by weakness is absolutely rooted out.

 

If a person who is afflicted cries out for a protector but finds none, then

divine punishment overtakes the king and brings about his fall." (Santi

Parva Ch.91)

 

Just to illustrate the importance of how powerful leaders must use their

power to protect, or suffer the consequences. Bhishmadeva, of course, saw

for himself how the Kurus' failure to protect Draupadi resulted in their

utter destruction.

 

ys

KDd

[Guest guest]

|Krsna-kirtan asked:

|Is there not one devotee this "newer devotee" trust enough to approach for

|personal advice? Are we that alone in devotional service?

|I do not understand your point here? Of course for some devotees preaching

|independently in a remote part of the world that might be a judicious

|advice, but I think this is an extreme case, rarely to be found in ISKCON,

|or? Do you have something in mind when you say that? Could you give us a

|recent or practical example to illustrate your point here?

 

When framing the question, I said, "If after trying to clear up that

doubt through discussion and as much sadhu, sastra and guru as possible,

what does one do if the doubt remains?"

 

"Sadhu" has two meanings: (1) The saintly persons of the past whose

activities and realizations we read about in the scriptures, and (2) Current

senior devotees whom we can approach for the realizations and guidance. The

question assumes one has already approached trusted senior devotees and does

not feel satisfied with the advice.

 

You asked for an example:

 

Imagine you are a devotee living for the last three years in one of the

Indian temples that went over to the ritvik side. The entire body of senior

devotees in whom you have personal trust s to the ritvik cause and

urges you to "get with the program" and preach the ritvik line to the life

members. You do not feel comfortable with this, but want to continue

preaching there. The ritvik position is attractive, but you have doubts it

because you don't remember hearing anything in the sastra or from the

sampradaya about it. You have many discussions with the local devotees and

they seem to find many examples. So your doubt is not resolved. In fact,

it's been made clear to you that preaching the ritvik line is not optional.

Since you haven't bought into the program, you understand you're not going

to be allowed to preach to the life members much longer. But that is the

only service you know. Many members are very attached to you. You have no

money, no family to go back to, and you've never been out of the city in

your life. You're going to have to decide which side of fence you're on

soon. On what basis should you decide what to do?

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

[Guest guest]

|Krishna Dharma wrote:

|Regarding your doubt: It may well be that such problems will arise. I

|think we can have a measure of protection in the institution if we put in

|place systems of recourse, where if someone is dissatisfied with his

|immediate authority he can go somewhere else for arbitration. In fact, this

|is one of the great advantages of ISKCON, that it can provide accountability

|on every level. At the end of the day though, there needs to be a final

|authority. Without doubt there will always be some people who will end up

|going away dissatisfied. But we should do everything we can to ensure that

|these are always in the smallest minority.

 

It is a good idea to have a system to arbitrate such an issue. That way, at

least one can be satisfied that the issue is not just a problem with a single

individual. If the arbitration process leads one to understand that the

questionable policy is authorized by ISKCON leadership, then one is in a good

position to decide whether or not one wants to be part of ISKCON.

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

[Guest guest]

|Krishna Dharma wrote:

|One thing I am picking up on from yourself, but which I did not catch in my

|reply, is that you feel a certain aversion to using the term 'power' when we

|are talking about ISKCON authority. You feel that power is synonymous with

|force. I just wanted to say that I use the term in a different way. I

|believe there is such a thing as legitimate power, and it does not have to

|be abused. I think it is necessary to establish within any society or

|organisation who holds the power, so that order can be maintained.

 

No, I think power must be present and used appropriately. I'm only saying

that it is often a poor choice of a strategy in a society such as ours. Because

we know that Krishna Consciousness is a voluntary process, leaders must try

hard

to motivate through means other than power, because then the devotional aspect

is usually squashed. But in any kind of organized culture or society, the power

to settle an issue, when push comes to shove, without getting the willing

cooperation of the participants must be available for appropriate use.

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

[Guest guest]

Krsna-kirtana's answer:

> |I would find a park or an empty church and would chant, read Prabhupada's

> |books and pray. I would not follow them, if I think they are wrong, even

> if |I have nowhere to go. I am confident Krsna will always provide for me

> and |protect me fully. I do not see here your point about 'not hurting

> anybody'. |How is it linked to this example? How does one follow the

> other?

 

Sri Rama Prabhu replied

> The potential harm is that in following the orders of the temple

> authorities one would have to preach a philosophical deviation which could

> adversely affect the listeners for lifetimes. Alternatively, one could

> leave the temple and depend on Krishna.

 

> These are two unpleasant choices. But that is not the real problem. The

> root of the matter is that this individual is not sure that his

> authorities are wrong. He has a doubt. His dilemma is that he must choose

> a personal course of action without a clear sense of right or wrong. If he

> knew that leaving was the right thing to do, he could make the painful

> choice and bear the consequences, depending on Krishna to protect him. Or

> if he clearly knew that his duty is to stay and follow the authorities, he

> could surrender to it. But he does not know.

 

> This is not unlike Arjuna's condition at the beginning of the Battle of

> Kurukshetra. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." In his case, the

> problem is solved because Krishna gives him unequivocal instructions. So

> in my example, if this individual could ask his guru, the dilemma would be

> quickly solved. But since he can't do that, he has to rely on the orders

> he already has.

 

> So does he follow Srila Prabhupada's order to,

 

> "benefit by taking authorized direction," or

> "remain independently thoughtful," or

> "?"

 

> The question is not, "What decision should he make?" but rather, "On

> what basis should he make a decision?" Remember that the root of this

> discussion revolves around the question of following authority.

> Your servant,

> Sri Rama das

 

Yes. You are right. That was the main point. But why is that devotee not

depending on Krsna, just like Arjuna on the battlefield? Why is he not

praying sincerely to get proper guidance? Is Krsna not available to one who

sincerely depends on Him? Can we, at any time, be lost in devotional

service? If somebody is confused in his life, isn't it a symptom, that he is

not genuinely taking shelter at Krsna's lotus feet?

 

I am personally confident that Krsna takes special care of His devotee, and

never lets His sincere servant in a painful situation without guiding Him

personally out of it. Is it not so, according to your personal realizations?

 

Thank you for kindly sharing your intelligent and devotional thoughts with

me. Your servant, Krsna-kirtana dasi.

[Guest guest]

|Sri Rama said:

|> The question is not, "What decision should he make?" but rather, "On

|> what basis should he make a decision?" Remember that the root of this

|> discussion revolves around the question of following authority.

 

|Krsna-kirtan replied:

|Yes. You are right. That was the main point. But why is that devotee not

|depending on Krsna, just like Arjuna on the battlefield? Why is he not

|praying sincerely to get proper guidance? Is Krsna not available to one who

|sincerely depends on Him? Can we, at any time, be lost in devotional

|service? If somebody is confused in his life, isn't it a symptom, that he is

|not genuinely taking shelter at Krsna's lotus feet?

|

|I am personally confident that Krsna takes special care of His devotee, and

|never lets His sincere servant in a painful situation without guiding Him

|personally out of it. Is it not so, according to your personal realizations?

 

 

Sri Rama responds:

 

One can depend on Krishna, but one cannot force Krishna to answer your

prayers or to intervene in any specific way. He is independent and one must

always be open-minded to Krishna's way of doing things. I must be one of those

who could not take genuine shelter at His lotus feet, as I once spent eight

years praying for an indication on how I should fit in to the Hare Krishna

Movement. If Krishna sent the answer, it went right over my head. So I just

continued on, doing what I could (or would, as the case may be).

 

So maybe I was insincere, or perhaps Krishna just chose not to help me

figure

this out. I'll probably never know unless I ask him face to face, should I ever

be that fortunate. But in a practical sense, in relation to this question, it

doesn't really matter. Devotees most certainly do fall into this situation

where

they must choose to follow or not follow what may or may not be the "authorized

direction."

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

[Guest guest]

> |Krishna Dharma wrote:

> |One thing I am picking up on from yourself, but which I did not catch in

> my |reply, is that you feel a certain aversion to using the term 'power'

> when we |are talking about ISKCON authority. You feel that power is

> synonymous with |force. I just wanted to say that I use the term in a

> different way. I |believe there is such a thing as legitimate power, and

> it does not have to |be abused. I think it is necessary to establish

> within any society or |organisation who holds the power, so that order can

> be maintained.

>

> No, I think power must be present and used appropriately. I'm only

> saying that it is often a poor choice of a strategy in a society such as

> ours. Because we know that Krishna Consciousness is a voluntary process,

> leaders must try hard

> to motivate through means other than power, because then the devotional

> aspect is usually squashed. But in any kind of organized culture or

> society, the power to settle an issue, when push comes to shove, without

> getting the willing cooperation of the participants must be available for

> appropriate use.

>

> Your servant,

> Sri Rama das

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. I agree.

 

KDd

[Guest guest]

> |Krishna Dharma wrote:

> |Regarding your doubt: It may well be that such problems will arise. I

> |think we can have a measure of protection in the institution if we put in

> |place systems of recourse, where if someone is dissatisfied with his

> |immediate authority he can go somewhere else for arbitration. In fact,

> this |is one of the great advantages of ISKCON, that it can provide

> accountability |on every level. At the end of the day though, there needs

> to be a final |authority. Without doubt there will always be some people

> who will end up |going away dissatisfied. But we should do everything we

> can to ensure that |these are always in the smallest minority.

>

> It is a good idea to have a system to arbitrate such an issue. That

> way, at least one can be satisfied that the issue is not just a problem

> with a single individual. If the arbitration process leads one to

> understand that the questionable policy is authorized by ISKCON

> leadership, then one is in a good position to decide whether or not one

> wants to be part of ISKCON.

>

> Your servant,

> Sri Rama das

 

 

Indeed. Free will is always there.

 

KDd

[Guest guest]

Follow your heart for Krsna will help you "Krsna tu svyam bhagavan"

Please excuse the miss spelling. Give up all forms of religion and

follow me (sadhu, shastra and sanga) 1Krsna 2Brahma 3Narada 4Vyasa

etcetra to #32 AC Bhaktivedant Swami Prabhupada

> Imagine you are a devotee living for the last three years in one of the

> Indian temples that went over to the ritvik side. The entire body of senior

> devotees in whom you have personal trust s to the ritvik cause and

> urges you to "get with the program" and preach the ritvik line to the life

> members. You do not feel comfortable with this, but want to continue

> preaching there. The ritvik position is attractive, but you have doubts it

> because you don't remember hearing anything in the sastra or from the

> sampradaya about it. You have many discussions with the local devotees and

> they seem to find many examples. So your doubt is not resolved. In fact,

> it's been made clear to you that preaching the ritvik line is not optional.

> Since you haven't bought into the program, you understand you're not going

> to be allowed to preach to the life members much longer. But that is the

> only service you know. Many members are very attached to you. You have no

> money, no family to go back to, and you've never been out of the city in

> your life. You're going to have to decide which side of fence you're on

> soon. On what basis should you decide what to do?

>

> Your servant,

> Sri Rama das

>

> [srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

> [http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

[Guest guest]

Sadhu, Sanga, Shastra - Arbitration is there depending on the angle of

vision but all three must be in line.

 

"Srirama (das) ACBSP" wrote:

>

> |Krishna Dharma wrote:

> |Regarding your doubt: It may well be that such problems will arise. I

> |think we can have a measure of protection in the institution if we put in

> |place systems of recourse, where if someone is dissatisfied with his

> |immediate authority he can go somewhere else for arbitration. In fact, this

> |is one of the great advantages of ISKCON, that it can provide accountability

> |on every level. At the end of the day though, there needs to be a final

> |authority. Without doubt there will always be some people who will end up

> |going away dissatisfied. But we should do everything we can to ensure that

> |these are always in the smallest minority.

>

> It is a good idea to have a system to arbitrate such an issue. That way,

at

> least one can be satisfied that the issue is not just a problem with a single

> individual. If the arbitration process leads one to understand that the

> questionable policy is authorized by ISKCON leadership, then one is in a good

> position to decide whether or not one wants to be part of ISKCON.

>

> Your servant,

> Sri Rama das

>

> [srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

> [http://www.krishnagalleria.com]