More on Ethics and devotion

[Guest guest]

Just a few words as I promised about the article on “Ethics and devotion” in

the BTG*. Before starting, I would like to say -once more- that in my open

letter to Tripurari Swami I have already addressed the matter quite clearly

and elaborately. For those of you who didn’t or want to read it again, here it

is: www.

 

In the BTG’s article the preoccupation on morality is quasi absent, although

the author’s intention is to talk about its “practical values in today’s

business world” Madhavananda Dasa dixit. His lecture at The National Seminar

on Values and Ethics in Business (India) deals with form instead of contents

and it is so vague that the lesson has not much meaning. Do we really think

that we help and educate our members by such catechism? On one of the pages is

a frame divided in five columns which resume the ethical systems. One is for

the immoral materialists, with a brief comment on their ethics, philosophy and

motives. In this case, there are selfish. In the second column come the

non-theistic moralists; there are also selfish. Then the theistic moralists;

selfish. The pretenders; selfish. And at last, the devotees; selfless! No

argument against that since it is an ideal presentation. Although the whole

point of ethic and morality is to deal with practical problems generated by

pluralism of faiths and not with its exclusive theoretical reality. Who,

amongst devotees do not know that Krsna is the supreme goodness and His

devotees not different from Him? Then what is the value of repeating this

eternal truth in an article supposed to deal with morality and its complex

philosophy? Someone kills, should we talk about ideals or how to punish him in

the context of the XXI century?

 

A devotee is selfless is put as an axiomatic truth. But when does he start to

be selfless? Who is a devotee anyway? One who reads the BTG, is he a devotee

or not? If so, is he selfless or not? Once he is selfless, is he always

selfless or can a selfish propensity overcomes him from time to time? If this

happens, should we say that he is still a devotee? Immoral? Or should we stick

to the injonction of the scriptures which declare that he should be considered

a saint at all times? Therefore he is selfless, moral. I think that dealing

with these questions could have made the essay very interesting. But does BTG

or our readers need that? No, it seems better to point out the defects in

other systems to be more effective in our preaching. And never show that

certain philosophical aspects are not yet under our control. Does that make

Krsna Consciouness greater?

 

There is a whole pedagogic approach behind the BTG editorial, specifically

regarding the philosophical presentation, prejudiciable to the vaisnava

interests. Please, don’t think I am trying to destroy Iskcon and Srila

Prabhupada most cherished object, BTG. Krsna, You know! But I think it is my

(moral) duty -like yours- to help the thinking potential of our readers, I

mean those who read the philosophical articles. By doing this I feel like

participating in enhancing the BTG’s quality regarding the philosophical

section. But why do we have to focus only on non-educated people to join our

movement or read BTG? For if I give the BTG with that kind of articles on

ethics to some of my acquaintances, they will laugh. Why not take the

challenge to produce something really serious? Or just stop publishing that

kind of stuff? And have only beautiful images of pilgrimage places with nice

Vedic stories.

 

Does that answer your question Maharaja?

 

I suggest dear Prabhus, that you do like me; read “Ethics and devotion” for a

better idea.