Discussion and Philosophy

[Guest guest]

Mukunda datta prabhu wrote:

 

> I agree that this is a real problem. Since we seem to be at a

> juncture now, maybe we could devote this list to discussing it

> instead of the GBC or child abuse. It's not by any means less

> important than either of those two topics. It's probably even more

> important than both combined, if we're interested in *acting* as

> pure Vaisnavas.

 

It would be indeed interesting to have a discussion that is removed from the

emotional issue of child abuse. As we have seen, focus on the side issues

detracts from the real issue - no one advocates child abuse. We don't even

*have* to discuss whether it is an issue or not. I agree that what needs to

be discussed here now is ultimately more important than anything else.

 

> That's probably because no is allowed to question it there;

> read the TD conference rules. Those who question it (even politely

> and with all reference to Srila Prabhupada's books) have been deemed

> to be merely "challenging the conference rules" and thus treated as

> troublemakers--if they're allowed to stay on TD at all. That's a

> very serious problem.

 

But the rule of thumb is "we use all sorts of sources here - not just

Prabhupada's books", but I never saw anything that put Prabhupada's books

above any other source: especially supposed 'common sense' and

'intelligence', both of which are questionable without spiritual guidance.

Personally I'm not content to rely on the interpretation of someone who dug

into their great 'source' of 'common sense' when discussing an issue as deep

and intrinsic as karma. That concept alone is ridiculous, what to speak of

any 'conclusions' that come from it. THAT is common sense.

>

>

> > If I point it out it is considered impolite because, gee, it could

> > hurt someone's feelings.

 

> This behavior of the moderators needs to

> be addressed responsibly, with reference to our books. I cannot

> imagine why any sincere devotee would avoid doing so.

 

That seems to be the bottom line, though. No sincere devotee hangs around

there very long, do they? And there is a difference between 'questioning

with intelligence' and 'outright slamming', as far as I know. I saw one or

two doing so on TD, others were simply there to make themselves feel better

about all the 'ills' ISKCON had 'inflicted' upon them in a group of people

who felt much the same way. I can't for the life of me imagine why someone

would even think that such a site has anything to do with ISKCON, and I

can't understand how the organisers of pamho can maintain some level of

integrity and respect without questioning it themselves.

 

 

> Your statement may be seen as a conspiracy theory, but at the

> very least, it would only be responsible of those accused of

> accomodating and/or encouraging such questionable "poetry" to openly

> discuss the valid concerns many others (including their seniors)

> have expressed about them.

 

Such 'questioners' are no doubt labelled in much the same way as other

'stupid followers' of a 'cult' are.

 

> Again, I find it very telling that at

> least within my experience, they never have. It isn't my intention

> to discredit anyone, but if this issue is as serious as it looks to

> me, there's hardly a need for that anyway.

 

Babhru accused me of launching a 'campaign' against Madhusudani Radha. It

wouldn't matter if it was her or not - I'm simply not content to sit by and

watch Srila Prabhupada be undermined by someone who thinks they have all the

answers, and who deflects philosophical discussion with accusations of being

without compassion and heartless. This whole discussion went off track NOT

when [according to MRdd] Jahnu and I "objected" to fighting child abuse, but

rather when MRdd wrote that the introduction of philosophical points are

considered mere "arguments" or "deflective techniques" to avoid the "real"

issue, which according to her was child abuse. These are not "arguments"

that were raised: they are our philosophy. There is a gulf of difference

between making a philosophical point and arguing mindlessly, but it requires

a certain level of spiritual intelligence to distinguish the two, which

ultimately seems to be the greatest lacking on her part. It may not be

considered "polite" to point that out publicly, but if, as you suggested, we

are to get to the heart of the problem, lets start with facts. I have yet to

see any evidence - here or anywhere else - of such spiritual intelligence on

her part. Several previous discussions on GBC Unmoderated have left me in no

doubt as to this.

 

> Since there is no conference rule prohibiting anyone here from

> asking about such crucial deviations as you and others vehemently

> oppose regarding TD, I would like to invite Madhu to explain this

> (and this only, please) right now.

 

I second that.

 

 

> For those who don't know, TD practically embraces

> various nonVaisnava epistemologies, for reasons that to my knowledge

> have never been explained (not even by private email, despite my

> repeatedly inviting that too) and are apparently kept as guarded

> secrets of some sort.

 

It does seem to be a guarded clique, and there seems to be more emphasis

placed on discrediting someone who objects to their 'rules' than one who is

openly offensive. Definitely within the paramters of pamho rules, there

should be some lines drawn on a philosophical basis.

 

> It seems to me that most of the opposition you and Braja have

> received stems from posts that were, in my opinion as well, pretty

> rude. However, again, if you spoke out of anger about the

> abovementioned spiritual abuse that goes in in some circles now, it

> isn't at all difficult to see why you're angry, for those who care

> to see at all.

 

I apologise to anyone who was offended by the few texts I posted that were

insulting (not anywhere near the 300 quotes by Mukhya) but it *was* my anger

that propelled it, and although it is perhaps un-Vaisnava like to display

that anger, in some cases it is warranted. It is also incredibly un-Vaisnava

like what is going on underneath all this, so some deeper understanding is

necessary, and less sentiment.

 

All that aside, I would also like answers. I would like to see less

grandstanding and some explanation. Less condeming as 'heartless' and

'compassionless' and more explanation on a philosophical basis. If we can't

manage that, then what is the point of ANY contribution?

 

Ys

Braja Sevaki dd