A History of Blaming Anyone but me

[Guest guest]

> Why don't we just make up any group

> and blame them. The leaders are leaders because Krishna has put them in

> this position and they have accepted. Why? It must be for the money or

> power. Yea thats it, these corupt GBCS are all getting rich and planning

> to buy a huge farm in Hawaii. Lets all get together and gettVNN to put

> out a special on this new conspiracy. You don't need any facts. Lets

> just play on igonorance and envy. God knows there is plenty of that

> around.

>

> YS

> Dvibhuja das

 

Krsna lets all sorts of people get in big positions, Sai Baba, Maharishi

Mahesh Yogi, some of them even more powerful and wealthy than our

impoverished movement (forced to sell off its prime farms, and defending

itself in courts of law). We had our own leaders who used their power in

unjust ways and were exposed eventualy, Jayatirtha, Kirtananda, etc.

 

Is it not bad enough that cows under ISKCON's jurisdiction have DIED in

abusive situations? This terrible occurence resulting in a spontaneous group

of concerned 'lay' devotees, along with the appropriate ministries

co-operating to formulate a set of laws to safeguard the cows, only to find

that these LAWS are also not followed by the very leaders that ratified

them?

 

What does this say?

 

There is something very wrong going on in Govindas movement.

 

The devotees that you seem to take exception to are all (at least as far as

I can tell) concerned individuals, who appear to CARE, and who are

enthusiastic to do something for the cows and ISKCON. Yet all you seem to do

is to disparage them, to say the least.

 

To say that there is nothing wrong within the ISKCON framework, and that

there is nothing wrong with any of the leaders in ISKCON (given a history

abundant with abusive leaders), would seem to be simply blind. Are we meant

to be blind followers? To blaspheme Srila Prabhupadas body would indeed be

suicidal, but to point out a dangerous malaise that threatens that body is

surely needed? Not that all 'leaders' are to be held to account, but to deny

that there is any wrongdoing is really to be blind.

 

The motivation of these devotees (it seems to me) is to return to the values

Srila Prabhupada has taught us, and to take to task those who may claim to

be leaders, but who are not offering us the kind of selfless, and

enlightened leadership that Srila Prabhupada gave.

 

That is my impression and I am amazed that you seem to find them guilty of

the worst possible misdemeanor. It would be one thing if they were trying to

minimise Srila Prabhupada as some kind of conditioned soul, as is going on

in some other conferences. But these devotees appear to be hankering for the

kind of consistency, honesty, and integrity, that only a soul such as Srila

Prabhupada can give, and not those who may attempt to imitate him.

 

They want to take up Srila Prabhupadas instructions (a mandate that all his

followers have inherited) to wrack their brains to make this movement a

grand success. How can any follower of Srila Prabhupada deny this right to

any other?

 

Surely to meditate on his instructions, and to discuss them with others is

the prerogative of all his followers.

 

Your servant

Samba das

[Guest guest]

Samba prabhu wrote:

 

> >To say that there is nothing wrong within the ISKCON framework, and that

> >there is nothing wrong with any of the leaders in ISKCON (given a history

> >abundant with abusive leaders), would seem to be simply blind. Are we meant

> >to be blind followers? To blaspheme Srila Prabhupadas body would indeed be

> >suicidal, but to point out a dangerous malaise that threatens that body is

> >surely needed? Not that all 'leaders' are to be held to account, but to

>deny that there is any wrongdoing is really to be blind.

 

Right. It all depends on how we speak up. Before mistakes can be

corrected and new protective procedures put into place, we have to

become *aware* of what is wrong. We have to understand what was done

and how it could have been avoided and we have to feel free to

discuss both the problems and alternative methods with others who

care and who have expertise.

 

In child rearing, parents and teachers are often advised to focus on

the *behaviors* that need changing, rather than make negative

attributions to the children themselves (e.g. "it's wrong to hit

another person", rather than "you're a bad person for hitting

him/her"). I don't know if that's possible to apply here, but it

might be worth a shot. If we could simply focus on the behaviors that

have led to neglect and abuse, rather than attribute bad intent to

those who did it, we may avoid some offenses. I think that's what

the cow protection ministry tried to do in their guidelines that were

approved last year (although sadly enough, not implemented). Of

course, this does not mean that abusive and negligent individuals

should simply be allowed to continue what they're doing. The abuse

has to be stopped, but maybe we don't have to label them as bad

people. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. That's not really up to

us anyway and labeling them as such won't necessarily stop the abuse.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

Very good thoughts. Our field of preaching includes everyone we meet. This

type of expertise you are offering due to your experience with education is

very much appreciated.

In order to be successful we have to know what is our goal. One we want

loving cooperation. This is the formula Srial Prabhupada most emphasized.

"You will prove your love by how much you cooperate." This starts with of

course each of us on every level.

I just appreciated the remarks about not trying to just label, but

actually try and find a way to become more succesful in our service to Srila

Prabhupada. We are a vibrant spiritual movement. Very progressive and

extremely successful. There is very much to be grateful for. Let us at

least mention that there are so many wonderful aspects of our movement from

the top to the bottom. We are not in despair, so we should not become

morose, but remain enthusiastic, stay in the association of devotees, etc

and thus Krishna will help us. These of course are the instructions of

Srila Prabhupada.

 

YS

Dvibhuja das

 

Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Mill Valley, CA - USA)

<Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Cow (Protection and related issues) <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Varnasrama

development <Varnasrama.development (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Wednesday, March 01, 2000 10:00 AM

Re: A History of Blaming Anyone But Me

 

 

>Samba prabhu wrote:

>

>> >To say that there is nothing wrong within the ISKCON framework, and that

>> >there is nothing wrong with any of the leaders in ISKCON (given a

history

>> >abundant with abusive leaders), would seem to be simply blind. Are we

meant

>> >to be blind followers? To blaspheme Srila Prabhupadas body would indeed

be

>> >suicidal, but to point out a dangerous malaise that threatens that body

is

>> >surely needed? Not that all 'leaders' are to be held to account, but to

>>deny that there is any wrongdoing is really to be blind.

>

>Right. It all depends on how we speak up. Before mistakes can be

>corrected and new protective procedures put into place, we have to

>become *aware* of what is wrong. We have to understand what was done

>and how it could have been avoided and we have to feel free to

>discuss both the problems and alternative methods with others who

>care and who have expertise.

>

>In child rearing, parents and teachers are often advised to focus on

>the *behaviors* that need changing, rather than make negative

>attributions to the children themselves (e.g. "it's wrong to hit

>another person", rather than "you're a bad person for hitting

>him/her"). I don't know if that's possible to apply here, but it

>might be worth a shot. If we could simply focus on the behaviors that

>have led to neglect and abuse, rather than attribute bad intent to

>those who did it, we may avoid some offenses. I think that's what

>the cow protection ministry tried to do in their guidelines that were

>approved last year (although sadly enough, not implemented). Of

>course, this does not mean that abusive and negligent individuals

>should simply be allowed to continue what they're doing. The abuse

>has to be stopped, but maybe we don't have to label them as bad

>people. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. That's not really up to

>us anyway and labeling them as such won't necessarily stop the abuse.

>

>Just some thoughts.

>

>Ys,

>Madhusudani dasi

>

[Guest guest]

> Samba prabhu wrote:

>

> > >To say that there is nothing wrong within the ISKCON framework, and

> > >that there is nothing wrong with any of the leaders in ISKCON (given a

> > >history abundant with abusive leaders), would seem to be simply blind.

> > >Are we meant to be blind followers? To blaspheme Srila Prabhupadas body

> > >would indeed be suicidal, but to point out a dangerous malaise that

> > >threatens that body is surely needed? Not that all 'leaders' are to be

> > >held to account, but to

> >deny that there is any wrongdoing is really to be blind.

>

> Right. It all depends on how we speak up. Before mistakes can be

> corrected and new protective procedures put into place, we have to become

> *aware* of what is wrong.

 

Absolutely, and sometimes our awareness may also be clouded by false ego, so

we have to make sure that that is not an influencing factor (not always

easy!). Thats why it is best to not attack people, but rather attack bad

actions. If the facts are not verified, then attacking people is dangerous

(aparadha), but there is no harm in pointing out faulty action which can be

corroborated in sastra.

 

> In child rearing, parents and teachers are often advised to focus on the

> *behaviors* that need changing, rather than make negative attributions to

> the children themselves (e.g. "it's wrong to hit

> another person", rather than "you're a bad person for hitting

> him/her").

 

Exactly my point. Training is an essential tool in this regard.

 

I don't know if that's possible to apply here, but it

> might be worth a shot. If we could simply focus on the behaviors that have

> led to neglect and abuse, rather than attribute bad intent to those who

> did it, we may avoid some offenses.

 

Yes, considering that aparadha can DESTROY our spiritual lives, or at the

very least, make us lose our taste for spiritual practice, it pays to be

mightily afraid of the danger of commiting it, so if we refrain from naming

names, when we have no clear evidence of wrongdoing, we are safe.

 

Even if a person is verified as guilty, according to sastra, and also common

sense, that person must be chastised by an *authority* (Ksatria), someone

who can actualy have a positive influence on the person, or at least be

effective, authorised, and swift. What is the use in simply criticising, if

one can have no actual effect? A devotee is interested in the welfare of

all, and will not interfere if his actions are not helpful. In other words,

we cannot take it upon ourselves to chastise others.

 

The problem right now though is that no one seems to be doing it, and often

some leaders are themselves are implicated. In that case I guess it is up to

the people to voice their disgust at such a state of affairs, and demand

that the leaders make themselves accountable.

 

The only reason I am speaking up here, is that I beleive that it is only by

speaking up, and being heard, that change can come about, if enough people

voice their support for an action, the chances for change become more and

more possible. Let us not be afraid of those who would attempt to intimidate

us, ultimately if no one is doing their duty, then we are all called upon to

act. The disrobing of Draupadi and the shame of the Kauravas who failed to

act is a powerful example.

 

The best thing is to be organised, respectful, yet firm, and persistent.

 

One thing though, something that I am not sure about. If a so called

'devotee' is acting out of false ego, and a desire for name and fame, and

someone harshly criticises that person, recognising the not hard to find

symptoms, is the critic actualy guilty of vaisnava aparadha. After all

vaisnavas do not act out of false ego, or desire for name and fame.

 

I guess if we were really vaisnavas ourselves, we would only recognise the

good in others. But there is a statement by Srila Prabhupada to the effect

that 'there are many envious persons in the Krsna Concsiousness movement,

one need not serve envious persons, such person should be neglected'. Can

anyone find that on vedabase?

 

Sorry I just realised that this is not really a Cow conference topic, so I

guess we'd better drop this thread from the conference.

 

YS Samba das

[Guest guest]

Madhusudhani Radha wrote:

 

Right. It all depends on how we speak up. Before mistakes can be

corrected and new protective procedures put into place, we have to become

*aware* of what is wrong. We have to understand what was done and how it

could have been avoided and we have to feel free to discuss both the

problems and alternative methods with others who care and who have

expertise.

 

In child rearing, parents and teachers are often advised to focus on the

*behaviors* that need changing, rather than make negative

attributions to the children themselves (e.g. "it's wrong to hit

another person", rather than "you're a bad person for hitting

him/her"). I don't know if that's possible to apply here, but it

might be worth a shot. If we could simply focus on the behaviors that have

led to neglect and abuse, rather than attribute bad intent to those who did

it, we may avoid some offenses. I think that's what the cow protection

ministry tried to do in their guidelines that were approved last year

(although sadly enough, not implemented). Of course, this does not mean

that abusive and negligent individuals should simply be allowed to continue

what they're doing. The abuse has to be stopped, but maybe we don't have to

label them as bad people. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. That's not

really up to us anyway and labeling them as such won't necessarily stop the

abuse.

 

 

There is a difference between labelling someone as bad and trying "to

understand what was done and how it could have been avoided and to feel

free to discuss both the problems and alternative methods with others who

care and who have expertise."

 

Plus, we are not dealing with children, we are dealing with adults. Not just

adults, but devotees; not just devotees but leaders. Straightforward speech

is always appreciated in an assembly of devotees or honest men. Not just

"bad" behaviour, but the underlying mentality behind it, the motivation and

so on, have to be examined, or else our solution will be like "blowing on a

boil"

 

This is all part and parcel of identifying our anarthas- we may glorify our

success- the bhakti creeper- but the growth of such is stunted if it does

not also aim at pulling out the weeds, and all our progress will be illusory

and external. We will not progress toward genuine Krsna consciousness,

although we may think we are.

 

To give an example there is confusion between the terms "criticism" and

"vaisnava aparadha". To know the difference between the two is absolutely

essential as one leads to the flourishing of bhakti, and one leads to its

destruction.

 

Bhaktisiddhanta said "One who criticizes me is my friend..." He was

encouraging criticism. Was he encouraging us in vaisnava aparadha- he is

vaisnava! Criticism means to give critical feedback with a motive to

improve the situation or help the person, by honest examination of fact, or

observation of behaviour, and by trying to understand the cause. It is a

far cry from aparadha which is non-factual criticism based on a desire to be

superior (rajas), or on a desire to offend (tamas). Real criticism is based

on a desire to purify the whole thing, or the person, of the lower modes,

and acting in sattva means to act for purification. Rest assured that

Bhatisiddhanta would not give us an instruction that is not based in

purification.

 

No one is saying that our leaders are bad, but they are conditioned souls

like the rest of us, and should be held accountable when they show a lack of

concern for their dependents- cows, children or whoever. This is the litmus

test of good leadership- Lord Rama held himself accountable to the opinion

of a washerman. Sibi gave his flesh to stop the suffering of a dependent. Of

course we can't imitate, but at least we can follow the mood of concern and

learn from these examples and expect our leaders to do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com