Comments added

[Guest guest]

On 25 Jan 2002, Malati dd wrote:

 

> 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.

 

Mataji, I am an old devotee. I gave that detail just because of a certain

argument. But in my case, I consider it a small detail. If I was to tell you

what "eats" me, I wouldn't be able because of my emotion. Sometimes I cry and

experience what it means to be inondated by tears.

[Guest guest]

At 09:57 AM 1/25/02 -1000, Braja wrote:

> > 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.

>

>well no, of course not. that stands to reason. but because i don't agree

>with akhileshvara's writings doesn't make me a bad person either

 

Gosh, I hope not, because I'd be in the dog house with you.

 

> > 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.

>

>i don't agree, sorry. why is it assumed that akhilesvara's "practice" is

>what stops a person from appreciating his writing attempts? i think the two

>are very different things.

 

I don't know--and I don't even have enough conviction in my earlier answer

to defend it. I was just guessing at GK Maharaja's motive for brushing

Akhilesvara's book off the way he did. I have barely ever met Maharaja and

know Akhiles only from what he writes here. If I was mistaken in my

assessment of Maharaja (or Akhiles), I apologize.

 

Babhru

[Guest guest]

Babhru prabhu wrote;

 

> 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.

 

on the last text i posted, i wrote:

 

i don't agree, sorry. why is it assumed that akhilesvara's "practice" is

what stops a person from appreciating his writing attempts? i think the two

are very different things.

 

i would like to elaborate by saying that there are many, many writers whose

"practices" are not even a consideration in their popularity and in one's

own ability to read and absorb what they are saying - William Shakespeare

springs to mind! i could list thousands, but i think you know what i'm

saying. it may be that some find confusing and rambling texts with no real

purpose or discretion a waste of time to read, thus rendering them

unpopular. i don't know akhilesvara personally, but we are pretty much

judged on these forums by what we write. if something is interesting and

valuable and can be applied to our lives, then we appreciate it, don't we? i

know many non-devotee writers/psychologists/educators etc who have assisted

devotees in their own learning process - it didn't matter that their private

"practices" were dubious, at best. as Prabhupada said, you can take gold

from a filthy place. of course, we are not taking William Shakespeare as the

Absolute Truth - that we only want to hear from the pure devotees. but some

things are there to assist us, if we can use them properly - regardless of

who wrote them.

 

ys

braja sevaki dd

[Guest guest]

At 01:21 PM 1/25/02 -1000, Babhru (das) ACBSP (San Diego - USA) wrote:

> I was just guessing at GK Maharaja's motive for brushing

>Akhilesvara's book off the way he did.

 

Speaking of GKG, does anyone know if he still has his picture on the altar

in the Delhi temple? We keep getting complaints to Chakra about it and I

saw it myself in 1999, but I haven't talked to anyone who has been there

recently who could verify it. Does anyone here know?

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> 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.

 

I know that. Most devotees don't read it. When I try to explain it and

describe exactly what I consider wrong or could be improved, everyone see it

as an offence. (I guess it's the tone of my voice, mood or writings. I will

say that critics are seen as undesirable. Kind of aparadha.)

 

Just a few words about what you think I said about the dictionary. I wrote:

"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." I did not mean that the dictionary was arbitrary,

although it can be and it is most of the time when it comes to that kind of

definition; that is why you give a reference when you quote a dictionary. This

is why also Madhu gave the relative notion of bad or good according to

different societies. What I meant is that Narottam gave his own

interpretation. My real objection, which I did not mention since I did not had

the intention, is that he is arbitrary in the sense that he says that Iskcon

was authoritarian. I don't know who is Narottam but that left me with the

impression that there are other religious institutions that are not

authoritarian or that their gurus are not, but their teachings are based on

Vaisnava literature. Have you read what I sent on Narayana Maharaja speaking

about the ritviks? That’s what I call authoritarian! That is the reason I

question Narottam’s definition.

 

Last year, Kavicandra Swami wrote: “How does one of America's most decorated

and loyal soldiers define the word "loyalty?" General Powell: "When we are

debating an issue, loyalty means giving me your honest opinion, whether you

think I'll like it or not. Disagreement, at this stage, stimulates me. But

once a decision has been made, the debate ends. From that point on, loyalty

means executing the decision as if it were your own."

 

Maharaja wrote further: “The next time someone confuses loyalty with blind

obedience, read them the words of General Colin Powell.”

 

So I asked: “You will excuse me if I am a little slow here (my English), but

some explanation on this interesting conclusion will have been much welcome.

For example, once I told my mother that I would always obey her, because I

loved her so much. But then, a few years later, I left home, attracted by a

devotee's nice offer. [---] I like to take the opportunity to share with you

and the members something I read on the subject. It is from Stanley Milgram,

Obedience to Authority. --Ak”

 

Should I give just a little extract from it? Here it is: “The important task,

from the standpoint of a psychological study of obedience, is to be able to

take conceptions of authority and translate them into personal experience. It

is one thing to talk in abstract terms about the perspective rights of the

individuals and of authority; it is quite another to examine a moral choice in

a real situation.”

 

No discussion came out from that. My tone I suppose.

 

What Madhu did was to interpret authoritarianism in modern language, just like

this guy is suggesting. I am still arguing with you based on what you call

“thinking in the line of the acaryas.” I am getting bad here again but I

really think that acaryas had more sympathy for authoritarianism than you and

Madhu. I am sending you some quotes by Prabhupada on the subject in a separate

mail.

 

You see dear Babhru, you have another wrong impression of me. People think

that I think I am brilliant, intellectual, intelligent, etc, but, honestly, I

don't see myself like that. I know too well what it means to be brilliant,

intelligent and intellectual. As soon as I hear or read nice presentations I

simply listen with admiration. If I write or speak it is because of the

non-sense that is going on and the poor quality of what is presented in

general amongst devotees (and acclaimed as some special realisation). When I

see good stuff, like for example Madhu presentation just now, I am satisfied.

Not because the text by itself is a final answer to the contention, but

because it’s intelligent and singular for a devotee; she is capable of

conciliating material and spiritual sources. As I said once (or many times),

we need thousands of devotees like her.

 

You know what? In fact I am a lazy person and I don’t like to work; writing in

English especially is very hard for me. I have also hard time to read serious

work in English. But I will love to go to the temple and hear devotees give

high and intelligent discourses. And just enjoy their association. I loved the

time of my begining in Krsna consciousness because I was learning so much. In

these days, I had a complex, I thought all this brahmanas and sannyasis were

so brilliant and that I was a nuts. I radically changed my view on this. That

is why maybe I am so rough now. (But I was worse at that time!!!)

 

Enough now. Plus it is very late.--Ak

[Guest guest]

At 11:18 PM 1/25/02 -0500, Akhilesvara (das) ACBSP (Montreal - CAN) wrote:

> > 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.

>

>I know that. Most devotees don't read it.

 

That's been my experience too.

Madhu

[Guest guest]

At 06:18 PM 1/25/2002 -1000, Akhilesvara (das) ACBSP (Montreal - CAN) wrote:

>What Madhu did was to interpret authoritarianism in modern language, just like

>this guy is suggesting. I am still arguing with you based on what you call

>"thinking in the line of the acaryas." I am getting bad here again but I

>really think that acaryas had more sympathy for authoritarianism than you and

>Madhu.

 

Yes, you do, and I think that's perfectly fine. If we discuss the issue

with the goal of ultimately discerning what the truth may be, it will feel

different from discussing with the idea that I have the true understanding

already. There are different perspectives on many issues, and even our

acharyas say different things on many issues. My original email was not

intended as a criticism of your response to Narottam's article. I also

think it was rather carelessly thought out. If one of my students had

turned it in as a class project, I would have sent it back as an

interesting first draft that warranted (and certainly needed) more careful

thought and more work.

 

>As soon as I hear or read nice presentations I

>simply listen with admiration. If I write or speak it is because of the

>non-sense that is going on and the poor quality of what is presented in

>general amongst devotees (and acclaimed as some special realisation). When I

>see good stuff, like for example Madhu presentation just now, I am satisfied.

>Not because the text by itself is a final answer to the contention, but

>because it's intelligent and singular for a devotee; she is capable of

>conciliating material and spiritual sources. As I said once (or many times),

>we need thousands of devotees like her.

 

What happened to my pit bull? Why are you purring so? ;-) I agree that

Madhu has an admirable knack for reconciling positions that may seem

mutually exclusive, as well as for synthesizing ideas from different

sources. I think the society of devotees would benefit from many more

saragrahi vaishnavas in our midst.

 

 

>You know what? In fact I am a lazy person and I don't like to work; writing in

>English especially is very hard for me. I have also hard time to read serious

>work in English.

 

I'm just grateful we don't have to do this in French. Sleep well.

 

Babhru

[Guest guest]

Akhilesvara wrote:

 

> I know that. Most devotees don't read it.

 

Most devotees I know read it.

 

> When I try to explain it

> and describe exactly what I consider wrong or could be improved,

> everyone see it as an offence.

 

<snip>

 

I never saw you describe exactly what you found wrong with the BTG or

how it could be improved. You just asked everyone's opinion about the

GBC.

 

Ys, Jahnu das