Comments to Babhru

[Guest guest]

On 20 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote:

 

> >Alright, in my subconscient I wanted to start a discussion. Let's start.

You

> >had a problem with what I wrote about authoritarianism

 

> Well, you make this sound stronger than it was.

 

Why does that sound “stronger” Babhru? There is nothing there in my mind that

I determined as strong or stronger when I posted my message. You should me

give that credit or show me the mistake. I was only trying to get straight to

the discussion without flourishes. You know me and I know you by what we

write. My postulate was that we are friends. But now you sound that it is no

the case. How come?

 

How come Babhru? Speak what is on your mind so that we can understand each

other.

 

Sometime ago, on Prabhupada Disciple you complain that no one is interested in

starting a discussion. I wrote to you with gentle concerns that it does not

matter; you should write anyway, etc. I gave you Srila Prabhupada’s example

who says that if nobody comes you should lecture to the walls. You did not

even answer my letter. Not even thanks. Maybe you never got it? Or you took it

badly???

 

I remember also Samba Prabhu. Once –actually more than once- he started a

discussion with me. And then -oops- he disappears; without explanation. In a

middle of a conversation.

 

I wrote that "I write because I like to write". I’m almost sure that devotees

will not start a discussion, especially with me. Not because I am a bad guy;

I'm not (from a material standard). And when they do, they start saying "this

is bogus", "you are an offenderhow dare you speak like thatyou are a

non-sense" and on and on and on. Although what I am trying to do is to start

peaceful conversations based on our experiences and from difficult dilemmas

that are destroying our whole movement.

 

Babhru: You seem to have a problem with anyone not unequivocally assenting to

your insights.

 

Like what for example? Do I have to agree with you if what you say doesn't fit

with my understanding? What is the problem? You just say what you have to say.

You are posing value judgement on me instead of addressing my defects in my

reasoning.

 

You asked for a dictionary definition and I gave you Prabhupada's instruction.

 

You: I looked through the emails, and I couldn't find such a sequence.

 

So you see, it is simple. Just say what the facts are and then we can move on.

It was a mistake that I have done; I have sent that posting only on Vedic

Psychology. I am forwarding it now on this forum (done).

 

Babhru: “I suggested we begin a discussion of this term [...] and you asked

what I meant by "we"--twice--and whether I wanted to lead a discussion.”

 

Yes, because I did not understand what you were asking. I posted that original

message and you were not talking to me. By experience I know that this kind of

discussion don't start the way you are proposing. Plus you were making direct

reference to my text, like I should start to give a definition “he would do

better to explain his objections in greater detail.” What? You want me to

write an essay on authoritarianism? I just pointed out some mistakes in

Narottama’s presentation. He gave an arbitrary definition and I gave a more

universal one. So what’s wrong here Babhru? When you thought that I should

explain myself I gave you Prabhupada’s definition. That’s all what I wanted to

say (and other mistakes that Narottam makes). Do you still disagree with my

definition: “A wrong definition: "An authoritarian leader does not want his

subordinates to think, to discern good from bad, or to analyze various

phenomena." He should have written: "A bad authoritarian leader"?”

 

I am simply trying to clarify what is exactly your intention? I know that you

are a devotee (you worship Salagram and chant your 16 rounds). I know that I

am a rascal (I don’t even follow the four regs). I can understand that a

rascal can be lacking civility in his manners while exchanging with others,

but not a devotee like you.

 

I don’t understand why devotees have so much difficulties in establishing

peaceful discussions on these forums (vaisnava). They are so quick in

insulting, intimidating, feeling offended, attacked, etc. Although I

am -always- asking that we should demonstrated -what to speak of vaisnava

qualities- civil manners. For the fun, I give you an example of what is going

on on these so-called vaisnava forums. I’ll send it in a separate email.

 

You: “I think this may be an interesting topic to discuss; however, I don't

see anyone else juming in.”

 

And I told you sincerely that I did not expect anyone to “jum in”, because I

know its consequences and the devotees philosophy and psychology. But I told

you, sincerely, that we should start it -you and me- if you think. Although I

am not interested, I am ready to start a discussion. That offends you?

 

You: “I'm not interested in contention for its own sake, so if you want

someone to bicker with, you'll have to find someone else. I have a job and

plenty of service.”

 

Here we go again. Thank you anyway.

 

Akhiles

[Guest guest]

At 08:03 AM 1/21/2002 -1000, Akhilesvara (das) ACBSP (Montreal - CAN) wrote:

>On 20 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote:

>

> > >Alright, in my subconscient I wanted to start a discussion. Let's start.

>You

> > >had a problem with what I wrote about authoritarianism

>

> > Well, you make this sound stronger than it was.

>

>Why does that sound "stronger" Babhru? There is nothing there in my mind that

>I determined as strong or stronger when I posted my message.

 

No mistake. It's just that in my experience in law and academia, to "have a

problem with" something is often a euphemistic way of saying you can't

accept something, that you don't like it, or that it's just wrong.That was

Not my intention.

 

>You should me

>give that credit or show me the mistake. I was only trying to get straight to

>the discussion without flourishes. You know me and I know you by what we

>write. My postulate was that we are friends. But now you sound that it is no

>the case. How come?

>

>How come Babhru? Speak what is on your mind so that we can understand each

>other.

 

The tone here seems something less than friendly. It feels like badgering.

And I wonder what I wrote from which you infer that I don't think we're

friends. Is it simply because I didn't stroke you unconditionally for your

remarks? I hope not, because that's not my idea of real friendship.

 

>Sometime ago, on Prabhupada Disciple you complain that no one is interested in

>starting a discussion. I wrote to you with gentle concerns that it does not

>matter; you should write anyway, etc. I gave you Srila Prabhupada's example

>who says that if nobody comes you should lecture to the walls. You did not

>even answer my letter. Not even thanks. Maybe you never got it? Or you took it

>badly???

 

I'm not sure I remember the exchange. Forgive me, but as a college English

instructor, I read literally (no hyperbole here) millions of words a year.

Please don't take it personally if I don't remember one email. I write when

I have time and publish things when I have a sense of the purpose and

audience for a particular piece. I distrust email lists, largely because

too many people (not just devotees, but this is particularly distressing to

see in devotees) fire off whatever comes to mind and press the Send button

without much thought as to the effects their writing may have on others. I

have too often embarrassed myself by doing the same.

 

>I remember also Samba Prabhu. Once -actually more than once- he started a

>discussion with me. And then -oops- he disappears; without explanation. In a

>middle of a conversation.

>

>I wrote that "I write because I like to write". I'm almost sure that devotees

>will not start a discussion, especially with me. Not because I am a bad guy;

>I'm not (from a material standard). And when they do, they start saying "this

>is bogus", "you are an offenderhow dare you speak like thatyou are a

>non-sense" and on and on and on. Although what I am trying to do is to start

>peaceful conversations based on our experiences and from difficult dilemmas

>that are destroying our whole movement.

 

Perhaps Samba and the others found the tone of your writing a bit brusque,

perhaps even harsh. I have experience of devotees making such complaints

about some of your writing, specifically that you become contentious if

they don't accept wholesale what you write just because you like writing.

What I hear from others is that when they present a point of view a little

different from yours, you become a PIt Bull. If I have sometimes seemed

unresponsive to your posts, that may explain why. I don't remember.

 

>Babhru: You seem to have a problem with anyone not unequivocally assenting to

>your insights.

>

>Like what for example? Do I have to agree with you if what you say doesn't fit

>with my understanding? What is the problem? You just say what you have to say.

>You are posing value judgement on me instead of addressing my defects in my

>reasoning.

 

No, you don't have to agree with me. But you seem to get really defensive

if someone doesn't completely agree with you. The only example in my memory

is in the tone of your responses on this subject.

 

>You asked for a dictionary definition and I gave you Prabhupada's instruction.

>

>You: I looked through the emails, and I couldn't find such a sequence.

>

>So you see, it is simple. Just say what the facts are and then we can move on.

>It was a mistake that I have done; I have sent that posting only on Vedic

>Psychology. I am forwarding it now on this forum (done).

 

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.

 

>Babhru: "I suggested we begin a discussion of this term [...] and you asked

>what I meant by "we"--twice--and whether I wanted to lead a discussion."

>

>Yes, because I did not understand what you were asking. I posted that original

>message and you were not talking to me. By experience I know that this kind of

>discussion don't start the way you are proposing. Plus you were making direct

>reference to my text, like I should start to give a definition "he would do

>better to explain his objections in greater detail." What? You want me to

>write an essay on authoritarianism? I just pointed out some mistakes in

>Narottama's presentation. He gave an arbitrary definition and I gave a more

>universal one. So what's wrong here Babhru?

 

Hmmm--how is a dictionary definition arbitrary? The only thing I meant to

point out was that your objections were stated rather briefly without

suggesting an alternative perspective. I also suggested that we broaden the

discussion to include the term totalitarianism. Look, I'm not afraid of

controversy, just tired of bickering that yields no result. 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.

 

>When you thought that I should

>explain myself I gave you Prabhupada's definition. That's all what I wanted to

>say (and other mistakes that Narottam makes). Do you still disagree with my

>definition: "A wrong definition: "An authoritarian leader does not want his

>subordinates to think, to discern good from bad, or to analyze various

>phenomena." He should have written: "A bad authoritarian leader"?"

 

Although I'm willing to accept "a bad authoritarian leader," the fact is

that, yes, I do still disagree with your definition. According to the

dictionary, authoritarian means tending to impose authority as opposed to

valuing individual freedom; it also means expecting unquestioning

obedience. We may gain further understanding by looking at how some

synonyms compare. Here's a discussion from the American Heritage Dictionary:

 

"Synonyms: dictatorial, authoritarian, dogmatic, doctrinaire, imperious,

overbearing

These adjectives mean asserting or tending to assert one's authority or

to impose one's will on others. Dictatorial stresses the highhanded,

peremptory manner characteristic of a dictator: ordered the staff about in

her usual dictatorial manner. Authoritarian implies the expectation of

unquestioning obedience: the timid child of authoritarian parents. Dogmatic

suggests the imposing of one's will or opinion as though these were beyond

challenge: "When people are least sure, they are often most dogmatic" (John

Kenneth Galbraith). Doctrinaire implies the imposition of one's theories,

beliefs, or doctrines: "They didn't know the facts... and I don't think it

would've mattered in the slightest if they had. Very doctrinaire" (George

V. Higgins). Imperious suggests the arrogant manner of one accustomed to

commanding: dismissed my opinion with an imperious gesture. Overbearing

implies a tendency to be oppressively or rudely domineering: an overbearing

customer demanding to see the manager."

 

I don't believe a real leader shows any of these characteristics. Srila

Prabhupada shows none of these characteristics. He makes it clear that

devotion is advanced neither by blind following nor absurd inquiry. Out of

love and a sense of obligation that can never be relieved, the disciple

willing submits to the instruction of the guru, and the guru, out of

compassion for us and love for his own guru, gives the disciples whatever

guidance he judges will help them advance in love for Krishna. There's no

imposition of anyone's will involved. Bhakti is the business of the heart.

 

>I am simply trying to clarify what is exactly your intention? I know that you

>are a devotee (you worship Salagram and chant your 16 rounds). I know that I

>am a rascal (I don't even follow the four regs).

 

I hope everyone appreciates your candor here and that no one exploits it to

vilify you. Those who do "follow the four regs" should do so voluntarily,

out of the sense of love and obligation I mentioned above. Srila Prabhupada

never told me to "follow the four regs" (in fact, he never mentioned them

in my initiation letter). Rather, I approached him, told him that I had

assimilated these regulative principles into my life, along with daily

chanting 16 rounds, that I appreciated what he had come to give to a small

degree, and I begged him to engage me in helping him spread Lord

Chaitanya's teachings for the rest of my life. He replied, "You will be

glad to know that I have gladly accepted you as my regularly initiated

disciple." We hope that those who haven't yet assimilated those principles

may eventually be able to do so by regular, progressively profound hearing

and chanting. When we move through the stage of anartha-nivritti, our

service will become steady, uninterrupted, and we'll start to make real

progress in devotion.

 

 

>You: "I think this may be an interesting topic to discuss; however, I

>don'tsee anyone else juming in."

>

>And I told you sincerely that I did not expect anyone to "jum in", because I

>know its consequences and the devotees philosophy and psychology.

 

Dang! There's another pesky typo, and no one else pointed it out to me.

Ain't my face red again!?!

 

> But I told

>you, sincerely, that we should start it -you and me- if you think. Although I

>am not interested, I am ready to start a discussion. That offends you?

 

I'm not sure what indication I gave that anything offended me. Please (as

you have asked me to do) point out where I said this. If you're not

interested, and no one else is interested, what would be the point of any

discussion?

 

>You: "I'm not interested in contention for its own sake, so if you want

>someone to bicker with, you'll have to find someone else. I have a job and

>plenty of service."

>

>Here we go again. Thank you anyway.

 

Now just what the heck is that supposed mean? I'm not saying, "this is

bogus", "you are an offenderhow dare you speak like thatyou are a

non-sense" and on and on and on. I'm just saying that I need a better

reason for having a discussion than to give Akhilesh a reason to indulge

his itch for writing. Please don't take it personally. It's my problem,

not yours. If I knew how to support my wife and myself without having to

work all the time, I'd be a happier man. However, out of a sense of love

and obligation to her and my children, and to my spiritual master, I need

to set priorities in how I spend my time. There is no offense intended, so

I beg your kind pardon if you perceive any.

 

Yours in service,

Babhru

[Guest guest]

On 21 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote:

 

> What I hear from others is that when they present a point of view a little

> different from yours, you become a PIt Bull.

 

You mean that horrible dog!? It's an ugly creature.

 

See you latter. Haribol.

[Guest guest]

At 05:18 PM 1/21/2002 -1000, you wrote:

>On 21 Jan 2002, Babhru das wrote:

>

> > What I hear from others is that when they present a point of view a little

> > different from yours, you become a PIt Bull.

>

>You mean that horrible dog!? It's an ugly creature.

 

The characteristic relevant here is its tenacious and relentless nature.

 

 

>See you latter. Haribol.

 

Here we go again. Thank you anyway.