Selective defense

[Guest guest]

> I hardly think that a derogatory mood towards Srila Prabhupada and his

> teachings falls under the category of "unity in diversity" in any sense.

 

Since Babhru Prabhu has never been a member of Topical Discussions, I think

I have to give a little explanation here.

 

Respect for Srila Prabhupada and his teachings is a must for all Pamho

conferences. TD was intended as an experiment where mundane and

controversial issues could also be discussed, and this was specified in its

rules. Some members have written about controversial statements by Srila

Prabhupada too. But Ekanath is the only one who has been sarcastic a couple

of times. Please note that this conference has been in use for a couple of

years and has over 10 000 texts (I was wrong when I wrote 3500).

 

Now with the sentence which I quoted in the beginning of my text, you imply

that Madhusudani Radha shares the same sarcasm as Ekanath and that Babhru

Prabhu defends it as "unity in diversity". I don't think that this is the

case at all. The sarcastic attitude which you are against was displayed only

on TD and only by one particular person.

 

Mdd

[Guest guest]

> I dunno; let's consult our shatra. Let's see--oh, here's one: trinad

> api su-nichena, taror iva sahishnuna, amanina mana-dena kirtaniya

> sada harih. So if our goal is actually kirtaniya sada harih, then we

> should be humble and forbearing and offer respect to all.

 

I am not sure we should offer respect to those who try to discredit

Srila Prabhupada and undermine his teachings.

 

I once heard a class by Srila Prabhupada in which he explained that in

the west we have a distorted conception of what it means to be humble.

He said that humility doesn't mean to be very polite or let everyone

roll over your face. He said that real humility means to uphold the

conviction of your spiritual master with great faith and at all costs.

 

> If we want

> to see how the rheoric of love works, we should consult Sri

> Chaitanya-charitamrita to see how Lord Chatianya and His associates

> discussed things among themselves. If our real concern is exalting

> ourselves and our own conception of Krishna consciousness, then we

> may be rude to those we don't consider ladies and gentlemen.

 

In Mahaprabhu's dealings with His devotees we should note that He

never tolerated slanderous remarks of the previous acharyas, not even

when it was done in a very polite way, as in the case with

Vallabacharya, who thought his commentary on the SB was better than

the original one by Sridhara Swami. We all know what Lord Chaitanya

thought about that. Mahaprabhu also said that He'd rather live in a

cave with a dangerous tiger than live with non-devotees, so His

tolerance and meekness obviously didn't extend to them.

 

> I'd also like to suggest that there are other ways than raising

> questions about the application of Lord Chaitanya's teachings to

> undermine the potency of His movement. Another may be to use our

> underdeveloped understanding of them to bludgeon those whose

> perspective may be different from ours.

 

Your suggestion is noted, although I fail to see the relevance here.

We shouldn't have to defer to philosophical tyros just because we are

outnumbered by them.

 

> We see this taught by the

> example of many of those in leadership positions in ISKCON (and

> other Gaudiya missions as well, no doubt). Srila Prabhupada, on the

> other hand, exhorted us to find unity in diversity.

 

He also said that there are demons in ISKCON dressed up as devotees.

 

> I find it interesting that we tend to identify "them" as kali-chela,

> rarely--if ever--ourselves. I don't mean to pick on Braja by

> pointing this out; hers is just one example of a tendency I've seen

> over the last 33 years associating with devotees. Criticizing

> vaishnavas is a very dangerous business.

 

I find it dubious that you should note this now. You didn't seem to

object to vaishnava aparadha when Srila Prabhupada was being publicly

ridiculed and lambasted. You may not have seen it written but now you

are defending those who did it. At least Braja had the strength of

conviction to object to it. She didn't sit on the side making

mealy-mouthed remarks about vaishnava-aparadha. Who is the vaishnava

you are defending? Are you speaking about Madhusudani Radha? Is that

the "vaishnava" you are referring to?

 

> All shastras and all

> acharyas warn vigorously against it. In 1931, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

> Sarasvati wrote the following to one of his disciples:

> Srimad-Bhagavatam has instructed us not to praise or criticize

> others' nature or activities. It is said also in Sri

> Chaitanya-Bhagavata that one goes to hell by criticizing others. My

> instruction to you is not to criticize others, but to correct and

> purify yourself.

 

That's true. So what should be done about those who are trying to

destroy ISKCON and undermine and discredit Srila Prabhupada?

 

> I am forced to criticize my own disciples and those who

> come to me for instruction. I do not understand why you would go out

> of your way to perform such a difficult task.

>

> One of my interests is observing the manner in which devotees carry

> out these discussions (sorry--I'm trained as a rhetorician, and this

> is a way to purify that mind set). Too much of what I see

> (particularly in myself) is not encouraging.

 

To me it is even more discouraging to see how Srila Prabhupada's

authority is being ridiculed and undermined by a bunch of envious

snakes in the guise of devotees. Imagine we all had to sit around

waiting to become pure devotees before speaking up against them.

 

Your servant

Jahnu das

[Guest guest]

At 12:03 AM 2/26/02 +1000, Braja wrote:

 

>I hardly think that a derogatory mood towards Srila Prabhupada and his

>teachings falls under the category of "unity in diversity" in any sense.

>Let's try and 'broaden our minds' and 'think more freely' and be 'open

>minded' -- perhaps we can find new ways to be offensive (?) As unreasonable

>as you may find the defense of Prabhupada and ISKCON - yes, even the

>leadership sometimes - I also find unreasonable the constant nagging and

>complaining about the leadership, and the 'bludgeoning' of anyone who

>whispers the philosophy. But I've noticed your unfounded defense of

>Madhusudani Radha before, so perhaps it's a little difficult to be objective

>as she is your friend and you share the same view on things.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "unfounded defense" of MR. (But please don't

flood other folks' In boxes with examples. If you need to defend this

assertion, please do so privately. I can't imagine that many members find

this very interesting or enlivening.) (And, I wonder, would you be able to

find any defense reasonable?) It's true we have a friendly relationship. We

may also agree on many things. There are also many issues where she and I

may not agree, I'm sure. You and I probably agree on many things, but that

shouldn't mean that we have to see eye to eye on every detail. The thing

about me is that I'm not very interested in the alliances, cliques, etc.

I've seen formed here. I have my own friends and my own life.

 

Also, as Mukhya pointed out, much of your case here revolves around Topical

Discussions, and for anyone to make an informed judgement. they'd have to

read all the texts you refer to, not just selected quotations. (Don't do

it, Braja!) I would guess that many members of this forum (I don't even

know how many members this forum has or who they are, unless they post)

don't to TD. I don't, and there's a reason: I found I had no time

for or interest in a lot of the bickering there. If this forum devolves to

the same thing, I gotta go.

 

> >

> > I find it interesting that we tend to identify "them" as kali-chela,

> > rarely--if ever--ourselves. I don't mean to pick on Braja by pointing this

> > out; hers is just one example of a tendency I've seen over the last 33

> > years associating with devotees.

>

>Well in fact it is picking - especially if you are so familiar with MR's

>writings, I'm sure you've seen it a whole lot before I came along. So that

>is why I said initially, I find your objection to it now a little

>bewildering.

 

What's the "it" to which you refer. It's unclear here, since a pronoun need

an antecedent. I'm guessing you mean people ticked off with Madhusudani.

You may be surprised to hear that I'm apparently not as familiar with her

writings as you seem to think. I'm only on a couple of pamho forums, and

they're mostly rather quiet.

 

>There is a tendency that perhaps these sites bring out our lower nature.

>I've seen that in pretty much everyone.

 

Well, dammit, we have to try to fight that, don't we?

 

>However, even if one's words are

>veiled in politeness, sometimes what they are saying is so much more

>damaging and vile than the worst kind of insult. I'm not surprised at all to

>see how much emphasis has been put on *my* texts. Not surprised one bit.

>It's a "diversion tactic". The real problem is much more sinister.

 

Is that, then, the state of Krishna consciousness today? This sounds like

the same sort of majority victim complaint we hear from conservative

talk-radio demagogues like Rush Limbaugh (I hope the reference isn't

completely lost on you because you're not here--maybe Jahnu knows of him).

From what I hear form others, your texts attract attention because of

their strident tone. For some folks, that's a deliberate tactic. I don't

know you well enough to make any such judgments, even if I were inclined to.

 

Your aspiring servant,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

At 05:19 AM 2/26/2002 +1000, Braja wrote:

> > Also, as Mukhya pointed out, much of your case here revolves around

> > Topical Discussions, and for anyone to make an informed judgement. they'd

> > have to read all the texts you refer to, not just selected quotations.

> > (Don't do it, Braja!)

>

>Oops. Too late. But ok, I see your point. However, the essence seems to have

>been lost here, and I'm also tired of it to the extent I will not discuss

>anything further except philosophy. Mukunda datta prabhu did offer an

>opportunity for all to delve further into the problem - that is the 'it' I

>was referring to, which is specifically the derision of Prabhupada and the

>philosophy. Anything I've posted today is in support of that claim. That's

>all. End of story. I will not discuss this side of things further.

 

And I was just about to slap your fingers! ;-)

 

>Well, that would indicate a lot correspondence that I'm obviously not privy

>to. I did tell you that there was a lot of private campaigning going on. And

>maybe the 'strident nature' of my texts is because I'm tired of all the

>pussy-footing around.

 

And from what you said, some private texts generated by you as well, though

I'm sure it's not what you would call campaigning. :-)

 

Whatever the reasons, I find such rancor among devotees repugnant. All of

us, in our neophyte zeal, will easily find reasons to whip the others into

line. Srila Prabhupada said we should act as a lion on the chase and a lamb

at home.

 

Your aspiring servant,

Babhru das