Comments added

[Guest guest]

And I will answer Babhru's letter to me soon.

 

--------- Forwarded message ----------

Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:18 -0600

"Akhilesvara (das) ACBSP (Montreal - CAN)" <Akhilesvara.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Vedic psychology <vedic.psychology (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Comments added

 

I didn't check the dictionary before sending my comments on authoritarianism

but I just found that on Prabhupada Said. You think it can help? --Ak

 

SatsvarUpa: And why should they object if we decide to surrender to one

authority?

 

PrabhupAda: They are asking surrender.

 

Hari-zauri: They're actually envious because they want everybody to follow

their idea of going here and there.

 

SatsvarUpa: One person said, "This kind of thing reminds me of Hitler's

Germany. If there's too much authority or blind following, it's not healthy."

 

PrabhupAda: No, too much authority if the authority is wrong... But if the

authority is right, then it is very better to submit in one place and get

everything. Just like we go to some supermarket. We get everything there, we

go there.

 

------ End of forwarded message -------

[Guest guest]

At 01:30 PM 1/20/2002 -1000, Akhilesvara (das) ACBSP (Montreal - CAN) wrote:

>And I will answer Babhru's letter to me soon.

 

Only if you like. I'm think a discussion may be interesting, but I don't

often like the "debates" devotees engage in.

 

>SatsvarUpa: And why should they object if we decide to surrender to one

>authority?

>

>PrabhupAda: They are asking surrender.

>

>Hari-zauri: They're actually envious because they want everybody to follow

>their idea of going here and there.

>

>SatsvarUpa: One person said, "This kind of thing reminds me of Hitler's

>Germany. If there's too much authority or blind following, it's not healthy."

>

>PrabhupAda: No, too much authority if the authority is wrong... But if the

>authority is right, then it is very better to submit in one place and get

>everything. Just like we go to some supermarket. We get everything there, we

>go there.

 

This is nice, of course. But authoritarian regimes are imposed on people,

whereas here he is talking about voluntary submission. That's one important

thing most people (including too many devotees) seem not to understand

about spiritual discipline. When people ask, for example what I can eat, I

invariably respond, "I'm 54 years old and have no serious health problems.

I can eat whatever I want. However, I choose not to eat certain foods." I

also choose to chant 16 rounds of the Mahamantra every day, and I choose to

worship the Lord daily in the form of my shalagram-shila and

Govardhana-shilas. We accept spiritual discipline voluntarily.

 

Okay--lemme have it!

 

Yours in service,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

> This is nice, of course. But authoritarian regimes are imposed on people,

> whereas here he is talking about voluntary submission. That's one

> important thing most people (including too many devotees) seem not to

> understand about spiritual discipline. When people ask, for example what I

> can eat, I invariably respond, "I'm 54 years old and have no serious

> health problems. I can eat whatever I want. However, I choose not to eat

> certain foods." I also choose to chant 16 rounds of the Mahamantra every

> day, and I choose to worship the Lord daily in the form of my

> shalagram-shila and Govardhana-shilas. We accept spiritual discipline

> voluntarily.

>

> Okay--lemme have it!

 

i think you make a very good point, prabhu. by entry into this spiritual

organisation and making vows at initiation, we've already accepted authority

- a step which was, as you point out, voluntary. i may not agree with some

authorities in IKSCON, but i can't claim that anything is ever 'imposed'

upon me. that would seem to me to be a shifting of responsibility/

accountability, which is perhaps more of a disease that our supposed

authority problem, imho.

 

ys

braja sevaki dd

>

> Yours in service,

> Babhru das

[Guest guest]

At 05:15 PM 1/20/2002 -1000, you wrote:

> > This is nice, of course. But authoritarian regimes are imposed on people,

> > whereas here he is talking about voluntary submission. That's one

> > important thing most people (including too many devotees) seem not to

> > understand about spiritual discipline. When people ask, for example what I

> > can eat, I invariably respond, "I'm 54 years old and have no serious

> > health problems. I can eat whatever I want. However, I choose not to eat

> > certain foods." I also choose to chant 16 rounds of the Mahamantra every

> > day, and I choose to worship the Lord daily in the form of my

> > shalagram-shila and Govardhana-shilas. We accept spiritual discipline

> > voluntarily.

> >

> > Okay--lemme have it!

>

>i think you make a very good point, prabhu. by entry into this spiritual

>organisation and making vows at initiation, we've already accepted authority

>- a step which was, as you point out, voluntary. i may not agree with some

>authorities in IKSCON, but i can't claim that anything is ever 'imposed'

>upon me. that would seem to me to be a shifting of responsibility/

>accountability, which is perhaps more of a disease that our supposed

>authority problem, imho.

 

I agree. Even though until recently I lived a block form the San Diego

ISKCON temple, I accepted what made sense (what helped my spiritual

progress) and ignored what didn't. Now that I live where there is no

temple, it's even simpler for me in many ways.

 

Yours in service,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/20/02 7:40:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Babhru.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

<< When people ask, for example what I can eat, I invariably respond, "I'm

54 years old and have no serious health problems. I can eat whatever I want.

However, I choose not to eat certain foods." >>

 

This is the way I respond to the same question. Most of the time someone

doesn't ask what do you eat or what do you not eat, but what can you eat.

Actually, since I live pretty far away from most temples and work in a

"normal" job where my coworkers know that I am a "HareKrsna", I feel letting

people know that I can eat whatever I want but choose to not eat certain

foods for specific reasons, is one of the only services I have at the moment.

 

This seems a little off subject, but really it is not. Many devotees don't

see the distinction between blind following and voluntarily following the

authority. Because of suffering under an authoritarian regime of some sort,

for many the knee-jerk reaction was to reject all IsKcon authority. Perhaps

we are finding our way back to the center rather than the extremes. Taking

the role of temple authority is also a service rather than a privilige if it

is properly approached. Voluntarily following is also based on "leadership"

rather than just authority.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/21/2002 6:41:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Kanti.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

 

> Taking

> the role of temple authority is also a service rather than a privilige if

> it

> is properly approached. Voluntarily following is also based on

> "leadership"

> rather than just authority.

 

Good point, and by way of reinforcing that paradigm, we don't even use the

"authority" term over here (Ohio). Rather, we introduce "Rasa Manjari,

president-servitor of the devotees and the temple." (Actually, we do use the

"authority" term, in reference to Srila Prabhupada)! Our entire spiritual

heritage is based upon servitorship and when that is really practiced, it

becomes an agreeable essence.

[Guest guest]

> This seems a little off subject, but really it is not. Many devotees don't

> see the distinction between blind following and voluntarily following the

> authority. ... Voluntarily following is

> also based on "leadership" rather than just authority.

 

i think this is a nice point you made in reference to your work, which you

also see as your service at present. i am in a similar situation, and i have

been for many years. it seems to me that the approach Babhru prabhu and you

have mentioned is a much more mature one, and one which reaps much more

positive results. to offer the explanation of "i'm a hare krishna" to

someone's question about your dietary choices sometimes seems to be both

defensive and an obstacle to further discussion - it often creates an

instant barrier. i find personally that others accept my being a hare

krishna much more readily once they have *already* accepted the guiding

principles that go with that - guiding principles that they understand i

have *chosen* to live by, not which are *imposed* upon me due to my status

as a "hare krishna", and which ultimately are seen as an attractive option,

not a "cop out".

[Guest guest]

On 20 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote:> Okay--lemme have it!

 

Babhru: “I accept that it was a simple mistake. I saw what you posted later

and realized your intention. No real problem. And see--I didn't accuse you of

anything, either. So take a deep breath and relax.”

 

Why Babhru? Did I say something bad about that? I use it as an example as how

the discussion should go on. I will make an extra effort then. I am sorry to

sound like a Pit Bull but I will use all my talent so that I don’t irritate

you. It is true that I am a rough guy, especially when people think they know

about something that is wrong in my eyes. Do I like to bicker? Well, if you

say so. But usually when that happens it doesn’t last long. After two or three

‘rounds’ I retire myself from the debate. Especially when devotees start being

‘badly authoritarian’. (Oh! I did not send yet the discussion I had with some

devotees, as I promised. But I will, soon.) The fact that you are not giving

your proper judgement on me (someone said that I was a Pit Bull), astonishes

me because whatever I write, you can read it. The only forums I am really

participating on are Prabhupada Disciples, now GBC Unmoderated, Vedic

psychology and another one on . On this forums, as you can see by

yourself, there are hardly any discussion going on, apart from time to time. I

don’t bicker much if you have noticed, just sometimes I object or say

something. I don’t to any mailing list and don’t read any mail

unless I recognise the devotee’s name or that the headings invites me to do

so, which is rare for both cases. But when a devotee writes to me personaly or

about something I wrote, I always read carefully and send back a note. Even if

I desagree with what he says. I also rarely go on the Internet. Maybe once or

two a weak, I check Chakra or VNN to find something interesting... You can

imagine how exciting it is?

 

Last year, I was particularly quite active on a certain forum. I liked it

because it satisfied my intellectual propensity and the ethic was of a high

standard; to my taste, I mean. At one point, I got a disagreement about meat

eating with a member who I like to see as a friend despite of all, but is a

meat-eater. My argument was that on my table-companion I don’t tolerate meat.

After a few difficult exchanges with some of the members, I left the forum.

Maybe I acted like a Pit Bull but I did it in a civil manner. (Is that

possible???)

 

Pit Bull. Yes, I remember also a few weeks ago when I wrote that Kundali has

written something, a devotees made a jock by saying that there are so many

Prabhupada’s books to read instead. And I was rather peremptory in my answer.

That’s because I very often hear devotees criticising other devotees when they

write books. I use to buy books in quantity from these authors, to promote

them, and sell them to the devotees. I know what I am talking about. Once, in

Mayapura, I presented to Gopal Krsna Maharaja a book that took me two years to

write: ‘The life of Sri Krsna-Caitanya’’ with a sub-tittle ‘The monotheism in

whole its splendour’. In French of course. Maharaja speaks French. I know him

because he was GBC for Montreal. He did not read anything. He just say:

Prabhupada already wrote ‘Teachings of Lord Caitanya’; what’s the use of your

book? I was so dumfounded that the Pit Bull in me stayed in its niche.

 

I still wonder why "the itch for writing" about Krishna Consciousness

philosophy from a person who doesn’t follow the regs cannot be seen as a kind

of devotional service by those who follow them? A theoretical question of

course.

 

I am sending you a few notes, tonight I hope, on authoritarianism.

 

Akhiles

 

PS. Sorry for writing that quick, I don’t have much time these days.

Sincerely.

PS. I noticed that I made a mistake about my posting on Satsvarupa’s article.

It is Schopenhauer who is negative not Lebniz. No one has made a remark

anyway.

[Guest guest]

At 11:18 AM 1/24/02 -1000, you wrote:

>On 20 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote:> Okay--lemme have it!

>

>Babhru: "I accept that it was a simple mistake. I saw what you posted later

>and realized your intention. No real problem. And see--I didn't accuse you of

>anything, either. So take a deep breath and relax."

>

>Why Babhru? Did I say something bad about that?

 

No, I don't remember that you said anything bad; it's just that the tone of

your writing conveyed impatience and seemed defensive. I didn't intend to

put you on the defensive. All I did was suggest that, if others found the

subject of authoritarianism interesting to discuss, perhaps we could

include some other perspectives as well.

 

>The fact that you are not giving

>your proper judgement on me (someone said that I was a Pit Bull), astonishes

>me because whatever I write, you can read it.

 

I think I generally withhold judgment. I was paraphrasing other members'

opinions expressed in private emails. Actually, I find that many devotees

are too quick to press the Send button, and you don't stand out in my mind

as a nasty person. However, the way you write makes you seem defensive; you

appear to get a little excited if someone doesn't just immediately

congratulate you for your brilliance. I don't think that's a very unusual

trait, since most of us like to be appreciated. But it sometimes makes you

seem contentious, and I think that's what others respond to.. (Remember

that I and many other participants know nothing more of you than what we

read here.)

 

>I remember also a few weeks ago when I wrote that Kundali has

>written something, a devotees made a jock by saying that there are so many

>Prabhupada's books to read instead. And I was rather peremptory in my answer.

>That's because I very often hear devotees criticising other devotees when they

>write books.

 

I agree with you here. Srila Prabhupada told us all to write. It may be

that they joked about it because Kundali's writing is condemned by the GBC

or something. I think they don't like him because of the evidence he shows

for a different perspective on the ontological nature of the jiva.

 

>Once, in Mayapura, I presented to Gopal Krsna Maharaja a book that took me

>two years to

>write: `The life of Sri Krsna-Caitanya'' with a sub-tittle `The monotheism in

>whole its splendour'. In French of course. Maharaja speaks French. I know him

>because he was GBC for Montreal. He did not read anything. He just say:

>Prabhupada already wrote `Teachings of Lord Caitanya'; what's the use of your

>book?

 

And Srila Prabhupada already gave classes on Srimad-Bhagavatam and

Bhagavad-Gita, so what's the use of his classes? It's hard for me to

comment on the attitude displayed by such remarks without risking

vaishnava-aparadha.

 

>I was so dumfounded that the Pit Bull in me stayed in its niche.

 

Strong chain, eh?

 

>I still wonder why "the itch for writing" about Krishna Consciousness

>philosophy from a person who doesn't follow the regs cannot be seen as a kind

>of devotional service by those who follow them? A theoretical question of

>course.

 

We find ways to judge and rank others, and "following the regs" has become

one of them. That's probably because we don't have the vision to really see

how spiritually advanced others are (and often delude ourselves about how

advanced we are). I had an interesting experience in 1976. My wife and I

were living here on Hawaii, and we went to Honolulu (on Oahu) in May to see

Srila Prabhupada. A couple of years before, we served as the head pujaris

for the Deities there, and we thought it would be nice to cook an offering

for Them, or some other similar service. The temple president refused to

let us do any service because we lived outside the temple. (And we not only

followed "the regs," but chanted at least 16 rounds daily and had mangal

arati, classes, and festivals in our little home--and he knew that, because

he had visited us a few months earlier.) He had been trying to convince us

to move back to Honolulu and "join" the temple, but it seemed to me that it

would be much easier to lure people by making them feel like family than to

make them feel like outsiders. That such attitudes as his still exist in

the family of devotees, almost 26 years later, is very discouraging.

 

>PS. Sorry for writing that quick, I don't have much time these days.

 

Neither do I.

 

>PS. I noticed that I made a mistake about my posting on Satsvarupa's article.

>It is Schopenhauer who is negative not Lebniz. No one has made a remark

>anyway.

 

That may be because the article made little impression on many of us. I

have kept my subscription to BTG out of a sense of loyalty, but I generally

read it in a rather cursory manner. When we moved, we gave our BTGs away.

 

Your aspiring servant,

Babhru

[Guest guest]

> I agree with you here. Srila Prabhupada told us all to write. It may be

> that they joked about it because Kundali's writing is condemned by the GBC

> or something. I think they don't like him because of the evidence he shows

> for a different perspective on the ontological nature of the jiva.

 

i was one of the people who wrote in regard to this, and what you've written

here, Babhru prabhu, is precisely why i did object. i don't have any problem

with devotees writing, but when it takes the form of Kundali's? yes. i know

kundali personally, and i quite like the man. i simply don't agree with some

of his writings, and if there's a choice between Prabhupada and kundali?

well .... i doubt very much whether Kundali himself would be offended by

me saying that - he'd probably laugh! so there's no need for anyone to

become "offended" on his behalf.

 

ys

braja sevaki dd

[Guest guest]

On 24 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote: “Hmmm--how is a dictionary definition

arbitrary?”

 

Particularly on the term “authoritarian” it can be. You can choose to see it

the way you want. Just like you are doing. (I am sorry, but swear that I am

not rude here. Just explaining how I understand the problem). I don’t have a

proper English dictionary with me but I know its meaning since I deal a lot

with it in my writings. But since you have awoke in my interest (the Pit Bull)

I will write my understanding about it. After you have done yours of course.

And if you want (kindness, please). You are senior.

 

You wrote: “This is nice, of course. But authoritarian regimes are imposed on

people, whereas here he is talking about voluntary submission.” But Babhru, in

an authoritarian regime you are free to stay or live if you don’t like it.

Only if you qualify it with the word “totalitarian” that makes the regime

really hellish. “Totalitarian” cannot be applied to Krishna Consciousness

movement. I know that people in general use this word, like also fascism and

Nazism, lightly and to all kind of governments that they don’t like, but that

is not right. It just demonstrates a wrong historical understanding and at the

end it doesn’t help. (Sorry again Babhru, but you can tell me that I am wrong

here and I will keep relax. Don’t worry.)

 

Babhru: “Although I'm willing to accept "a bad authoritarian leader," the fact

is that, yes, I do still disagree with your definition.”

 

You mean that a good authoritarian leader cannot be? To me a king is an

authoritarian leader. Also a guru is. He has the absolute true. Once you have

accepted, like Srila Prabhupada, you don’t argue with him. You accept his

order unconditionally. You can choose to go to the army “out of love and a

sense of obligation” or not to go, but once you are in, you cannot discuss the

order of the commandant.

 

Babhru: “According to the dictionary, authoritarian means tending to impose

authority as opposed to valuing individual freedom;”

 

That is completely right. Individual freedom is a modern notion. In the past

for example, women and children did not have individual freedom. A woman can

discuss with the father the choice of the bride, but ultimately she has to

depend on the good will of her father who has complete right on her. What I

understand from you, is that if the father is liberal he is not authoritarian.

Which makes sense, since liberal is the contrary of authoritarian. I am right?

If so, this is where our contention stands.

 

Babhru: “it also means expecting unquestioning obedience.”

 

Didn’t Prabhupada teach that? A disciple towards his master?

 

Babhru: I believe Our discussions should be aimed at deepening our (and

othres') understanding of and faith in Krishna consciousness as it is

presented by our acharyas.”

 

A wise instruction. And that is based on authoritarianism. "If you don't

understand now, just have faith in the authority and one day, by purification,

you will be able to recognize that the authority is right."

 

Do you have any material which will support what you are saying? That

vaisnavism is not based on authoritarianism? If so, it will be -to my eyes-

quite revolutionary since Vedic culture and vaisnavism are based on a

principle of submission to the authority. Akrura is a good example.

Akhiles

[Guest guest]

At 06:11 PM 1/24/2002 -1000, Braja wrote:

> > I agree with you here. Srila Prabhupada told us all to write. It may be

> > that they joked about it because Kundali's writing is condemned by the GBC

> > or something. I think they don't like him because of the evidence he shows

> > for a different perspective on the ontological nature of the jiva.

>

>i was one of the people who wrote in regard to this, and what you've written

>here, Babhru prabhu, is precisely why i did object. i don't have any problem

>with devotees writing, but when it takes the form of Kundali's? yes. i know

>kundali personally, and i quite like the man. i simply don't agree with some

>of his writings, and if there's a choice between Prabhupada and kundali?

>well .... i doubt very much whether Kundali himself would be offended by

>me saying that - he'd probably laugh! so there's no need for anyone to

>become "offended" on his behalf.

 

Ditto--I also like Kundali and think much of his writing is quite valuable.

It's even important to know the sources for the concept of jiva he

advocates: those sources are Jiva Goswami, Bhaktivinoda Thakura,

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada, and even Srila Prabhupada himself.

I'm not sure I draw the same conclusions as he, but that doesn't make him a

bad person. And the campaign of vilification of Kundali is symptomatic of

what I have often called a culture of Vaishnava aparadha. But that's

another story. . . . But it's probably connected with the attitude they

have toward Akhilesvara's attempts to write--because his practice is not to

their standard, his service has no value. I can't accept that.

 

Babhru

[Guest guest]

At 06:13 PM 1/24/2002 -1000, you wrote:

>On 24 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote: "Hmmm--how is a dictionary definition

>arbitrary?"

>

>Particularly on the term "authoritarian" it can be. You can choose to see it

>the way you want. Just like you are doing. (I am sorry, but swear that I am

>not rude here. Just explaining how I understand the problem). I don't have a

>proper English dictionary with me but I know its meaning since I deal a lot

>with it in my writings. But since you have awoke in my interest (the Pit Bull)

>I will write my understanding about it. After you have done yours of course.

>And if you want (kindness, please). You are senior.

 

I appreciate your passion in this regard. And I appreciate your

perspective; of course, authoritarian can be a positive term. But no word

is free of context, and if we insist on using a word without acknowledging

all its connotations, we risk missing a chance to communicate our realizations.

 

>You wrote: "This is nice, of course. But authoritarian regimes are imposed on

>people, whereas here he is talking about voluntary submission." But Babhru, in

>an authoritarian regime you are free to stay or live if you don't like it.

>Only if you qualify it with the word "totalitarian" that makes the regime

>really hellish. "Totalitarian" cannot be applied to Krishna Consciousness

>movement.

 

Totalitarian cannot be accurately used to describe actual Krishna

consciousness (except, of course, when you get to the later verses of

Siksastaka). However, ISKCON's leaders have sometimes conducted the

movement in a totalitarian fashion. And some devotees may want to discuss that.

 

>I know that people in general use this word, like also fascism and

>Nazism, lightly and to all kind of governments that they don't like, but that

>is not right. It just demonstrates a wrong historical understanding and at the

>end it doesn't help. (Sorry again Babhru, but you can tell me that I am wrong

>here and I will keep relax. Don't worry.)

 

I'm not sure these terms are always used lightly. It may be that they're

used somewhat figuratively to make a point. I'm not saying you're wrong;

I'm saying there may be other perspectives. You may not accept that, and I

acknowledge that you have that right. (I'm still smilin'.)

 

>Babhru: "Although I'm willing to accept "a bad authoritarian leader," the fact

>is that, yes, I do still disagree with your definition."

>

>You mean that a good authoritarian leader cannot be? To me a king is an

>authoritarian leader. Also a guru is. He has the absolute true. Once you have

>accepted, like Srila Prabhupada, you don't argue with him. You accept his

>order unconditionally. You can choose to go to the army "out of love and a

>sense of obligation" or not to go, but once you are in, you cannot discuss the

>order of the commandant.

 

Perhaps, but the guru is different in many ways from a military commander.

This relationship is based on love, and the love must grow and mature until

the disciple has an intimate relationship with the guru (as Rupa Goswami

says, "vishrambhena guror seva"). Love is inherently dynamic, never static.

 

>

>Babhru: "According to the dictionary, authoritarian means tending to impose

>authority as opposed to valuing individual freedom;"

>

>That is completely right. Individual freedom is a modern notion.

 

Perhaps. Or perhaps we can find evidence in the goswamis' writings for a

different kind of individual freedom. After all, even Srila Prabhupada said

we must ultimately fly our own planes. Basic training requires a

conditioning to unquestioning obedience. But there's life beyond boot camp.

 

>In the past

>for example, women and children did not have individual freedom. A woman can

>discuss with the father the choice of the bride, but ultimately she has to

>depend on the good will of her father who has complete right on her.

 

What about svayambhara ceremonies, where the bride would choose the

husband, and the father would acquiesce? So was Janaka a liberal? Let's not

propagate an oversimplified version of what Vedic life was--in fact, we

have very little idea of what it was really like. The dynamics were no

doubt much more complex than any of us realize.

 

>Babhru: "it also means expecting unquestioning obedience."

>

>Didn't Prabhupada teach that? A disciple towards his master?

 

Not blind following. Vishrambhena guror seva: intimate, perhaps eve

friendly, service. We have examples of such intimate relationships even

with Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

>Babhru: I believe Our discussions should be aimed at deepening our (and

>othres') understanding of and faith in Krishna consciousness as it is

>presented by our acharyas."

>

>A wise instruction. And that is based on authoritarianism. "If you don't

>understand now, just have faith in the authority and one day, by purification,

>you will be able to recognize that the authority is right."

 

I would suggest it's based on faith, which also must grow and mature. It's

a different dynamic.

 

>Do you have any material which will support what you are saying? That

>vaisnavism is not based on authoritarianism? If so, it will be -to my eyes-

>quite revolutionary since Vedic culture and vaisnavism are based on a

>principle of submission to the authority. Akrura is a good example.

 

My understanding is that vaishnavism is based on love. Please read Sri

Chaitanya-charitamrita. What we find there is that the Absolute comes under

the control of His loving servant. Those of us who can respond only to

authoritarian demands are well advised to do so. Those who cannot even

respond to the guru's authority, who haven't even assimilated the boot-camp

discipline, may be ineligible to appreciate what lies beyond. Unless we

complete our undergraduate work, we're usually barred form Ph.D. programs.

 

I'm not suggesting that you're wrong but that there may be more to

consider. If you'd rather not, that's fine with me. I'm not here to control

you, to defeat you. Let me first learn to control my senses and mind, to

defeat my impulse to exploit others. Then maybe we can talk.

 

Your aspiring servant and friend,

Babhru

[Guest guest]

Braja Sevaki wrote:

 

> i think you make a very good point, prabhu. by entry into this

> spiritual organisation and making vows at initiation, we've already

> accepted authority - a step which was, as you point out, voluntary.

> i may not agree with some authorities in IKSCON, but i can't claim

> that anything is ever 'imposed' upon me. that would seem to me to be

> a shifting of responsibility/ accountability, which is perhaps more

> of a disease that our supposed authority problem, imho.

 

That is a good point. I think regarding our philosophy we have to be

extremely authoritarian in Iskcon to maintain the purity of Srila

Prabhupada's teachings. As for our day to day practical life there is

no authority imposed on devotees, unless they are brahmacaris and live

in the temples. And now a days everyone in Iskcon basically does what

they want, anyway.

 

Ys, Jahnu das

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/24/2002 7:15:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Babhru.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

 

> >Once, in Mayapura, I presented to Gopal Krsna Maharaja a book that took me

> >two years to

> >write: `The life of Sri Krsna-Caitanya'' with a sub-tittle `The monotheism

> in

> >whole its splendour'. In French of course. Maharaja speaks French. I know

> him

> >because he was GBC for Montreal. He did not read anything. He just say:

> >Prabhupada already wrote `Teachings of Lord Caitanya'; what's the use of

> your

> >book?

>

> Question: while Maharaja's remarks definitely appear insensitive, you are

still holding on to them while he has probably forgotten all about it. Why

didn't you address it on the spot, not through attack and defend, but

actually answering his question? After all, he did ask you a question.

[Guest guest]

On 25 Jan 2002, Malati dd wrote:

 

> > Question: while Maharaja's remarks definitely appear insensitive, you are

> still holding on to them while he has probably forgotten all about it. Why

> didn't you address it on the spot, not through attack and defend, but

> actually answering his question? After all, he did ask you a question.

 

I am not always a Pit Bull. If that was the book of someone else, I would

certainly "address it on the spot", but since it was mine, I just smiled.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/25/2002 4:51:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Akhilesvara.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

 

>

> I am not always a Pit Bull. If that was the book of someone else, I would

> certainly "address it on the spot", but since it was mine, I just smiled.

>

>

Again, for what it is worth, I did not suggest the "attack and defend

Pit-Bull"n type of reply. Rather, a simple response to the question would

have been appropriate. Why assume that a response needs to be on the caliber

of a Pitt-Bull? What was the value of a "smile" that ignored the issue which

still eats at you? I am only trying to offer the point that there are other

solutions, and they might work.