Guest guest Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 I have a couple of comments on Akhilesvara prabhu's comments. One is that, if he hopes to get a discussion going about the nature of authoritarianism and whether it accurately describes ISKCON's leadership, he would do better to explain his objections in greater detail. I also suggest that he start with some dictionary definitions, as Narottama does in his article. My American Heritage dictionary defines authoritarianism as "Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom; of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience." Another word I once used to describe leadership in ISKCON is totalitarianism: "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed." I felt this described how things were in ISKCON in the '80s. Things may be somewhat different today, but I still see instances that remind me of how I felt then. I don't know how things are in temples in your area, but I have seen many devotees banned from rendering service at ISKCON centers, and even from attending any programs at ISKCON temples, because they attend programs featuring leaders of other Gaudiya vaishnava missions (not a problem if they go to a mosque, a Catholic or Methodist church). I think any discussion of Narottama's article is more likely to bear good fruit if we conduct it carefully. Otherwise, I fear that we may just get a rash of sourpuss vivification of ISKCON's leadership countered by true-believer denunciation of the sourpusses and their friends as motivated my nasty desires. I have no interest in such discussions. Babhru das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Note: In my recently posted comments, there was a typo that completely changed the meaning of the sentence in which it appears: I typed "vivification" in the last paragraph instead of "vilification." (Actually, I think most of us would welcome some vivification of ISKCON's leadership.) Balarama prabhu was kind enough to point out the error to me. Here's a corrected version" I have a couple of comments on Akhilesvara prabhu's comments. One is that, if he hopes to get a discussion going about the nature of authoritarianism and whether it accurately describes ISKCON's leadership, he would do better to explain his objections in greater detail. I also suggest that he start with some dictionary definitions, as Narottama does in his article. My American Heritage dictionary defines authoritarianism as "Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom; of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience." Another word I once used to describe leadership in ISKCON is totalitarianism: "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed." I felt this described how things were in ISKCON in the '80s. Things may be somewhat different today, but I still see instances that remind me of how I felt then. I don't know how things are in temples in your area, but I have seen many devotees banned from rendering service at ISKCON centers, and even from attending any programs at ISKCON temples, because they attend programs featuring leaders of other Gaudiya vaishnava missions (not a problem if they go to a mosque, a Catholic or Methodist church). I think any discussion of Narottama's article is more likely to bear good fruit if we conduct it carefully. Otherwise, I fear that we may just get a rash of sourpuss vilification of ISKCON's leadership countered by true-believer denunciation of the sourpusses and their friends as motivated my nasty desires. I have no interest in such discussions. Babhru das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 On 19 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote: > if he hopes to get a discussion going about the nature of authoritarianism By now dear Babhru I lost hope. I just write because I like to write. > I think any discussion of Narottama's article is more likely to bear good > fruit if we conduct it carefully. Otherwise, I fear that we may just get a > rash of sourpuss vivification of ISKCON's leadership countered by > true-believer denunciation of the sourpusses and their friends as motivated > my nasty desires. I have no interest in such discussions. What exactly do you mean here by "we"? You like me to discuss it with you or that more devotees get involved so that you accept to start a discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 At 09:48 AM 1/19/2002 -1000, Akhilesvara (das) ACBSP (Montreal - CAN) wrote: >On 19 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote: > > > if he hopes to get a discussion going about the nature of authoritarianism > >By now dear Babhru I lost hope. I just write because I like to write. > > > I think any discussion of Narottama's article is more likely to bear good > > fruit if we conduct it carefully. Otherwise, I fear that we may just get a > > rash of sourpuss vivification of ISKCON's leadership countered by > > true-believer denunciation of the sourpusses and their friends as > motivated > > my nasty desires. I have no interest in such discussions. > >What exactly do you mean here by "we"? You like me to discuss it with you or >that more devotees get involved so that you accept to start a discussion? I thought you might be posting your comments to generate some discussion. If not, that's fine. Also, I want to mention that two typos have been pointed out to me: "vivification" should be "vilification," and "motivated my nasty desires" should be "motivated by nasty desires." (It would not help anyone to discuss my nasty desires, considering how deep-rooted they are and how carefully I nurture them.) Babhru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 On 19 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote: > I thought you might be posting your comments to generate some discussion. > If not, that's fine. What exactly do you mean here by "we"? You like me to discuss it with you or that more devotees get involved so that you accept to start a discussion? Sincerely, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 At 02:24 PM 1/19/2002 -1000, Akhilesvara (das) ACBSP (Montreal - CAN) wrote: >On 19 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote: > > > > I thought you might be posting your comments to generate some discussion. > > If not, that's fine. > >What exactly do you mean here by "we"? You like me to discuss it with you or >that more devotees get involved so that you accept to start a discussion? I didn't mean anyone or anything in particular. I thought that you may have meant to start a discussion. If I was wrong or presumptuous, please forgive me. Babhru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.