Going Back to School for What?{To preach up a storm ?}

[krsna]

Interesting article taken from ,http://siddhanta.com/weblogs/culture/ bringing up salient points about 'devotees' who choose to go back to school for 'preaching':

 

**************************

 

 

Going Back to School for What?

 

by krishna kirti das

 

The last three weeks have been hectic for me--moving my home, attending a wedding in my family out of state, and having Bhakti Vikas Maharaja at my home for the past week (nectar!). So things are finally settling down. As such, I have a little time to post something relevant to many of us in ISKCON--particularly those who are going back to school to get a University education.

 

Getting trained in the University is ostensibly for two things: to get better money-making opportunities or to teach. Teaching is considered the higher of these two objectives; Lord Chaitanya as the baby Nimai was offered coins or the Bhagavatam to see which path in life He would take. He chose the Bhagavatam over the coins.

 

However, teaching also means learning. Nowadays, one has to acquire certain recognized credentials in order to be recognized by society as a teacher. The Universities confer these credentials on persons who have satisfied their teachers that their students have sufficiently learned from them. The danger associated with learning in the University is that a set of presumptions also come with the techniques for study. These presumptions are many times incompatible with a Krishna Conscious world view. This reference (recently posted here on ISKCON Cultural Journal) is posted here again because it nicely makes the point:

 

What these [historical] methods meant for the Bible was that it would be treated, as was often said, just "like any other book." Once this initial move was made, of course, one was on a scholarly track that would yield conclusions consistent with the premise, namely, that the Bible was a cultural product just like any other book.

(George M. Marsden. The Soul of the American University, From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief. Oxford University Press, New York, 1994. Page 207)

 

 

 

The techniques of academia can be dovetailed with preaching, of course. That is yukta-vairagya. However, a persistent danger with dovetailing something (especially something dependent on a non-Krishna Conscious world view) in Krishna's service is that which is being dovetailed may imperceptibly be co-opted by dark, ulterior motives hidden within our hearts. How many excesses were formerly perpetrated by us devotees in the name of preaching? Within ISKCON in the 80's and 90's was found on the lips of devotees the parody "Preaching is the Excuse," which of course was derived from Srila Prabhupada's "Preaching is the Essence." Similarly, the subtle danger with academic technique is that when we come to rely on it as a source of knowledge, then the temptation to rely on it to tell us things about Krishna Conscious topics may be too great to resist.

 

For many in academic research, "preaching" may in fact be the "old excuse" in a new bottle. An alternative reason for devotees going back to school may be they have doubts about the shastras and Prabhupada's teachings they have failed to come to terms with. Hence, the primary motive for education may not be preaching so much as it is to somehow learn Krishna Consciousness in such a way as to keep our own prejudices intact.

 

If ISKCON wishes to avoid the label of naive realism, a number of strategies suggest themselves. One is to also acknowledge the strength of pramanas other than shabda in order to make conditional allowances for historically contingent, "relative" knowledge. Prabhupada himself shows that this may be done. While certainly favoring revelation over reason and perception, for audiences unfamiliar with the text tradition he makes ample use of logic and everyday examples. Further, following the lead of nineteenth-century theologian Bhaktivinoda Thakura (1838--1914),9 ISKCON can reexamine its traditional texts and reappropriate them in ways consistent with modernity, discerning the symbolic through critical scholarship.

(Tamal Krishna Goswami, Krishna Kshetra Das, "Re-Visioning ISKCON", as printed in The Hare Krishna Movement, The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, Columbia University Press, New York, 2004. Page 418 - 419)

 

 

 

Here we have an example of an attempt to understand shabda, or shastra through the lens of mundane scholarship. The justification for doing so was that Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself had done so. However, it has been shown that the unspoken assumption that Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself actaully held scholarly views of scripture that treated the Bhagavatam as an ordinary book are unfounded. Just because a great devotee uses mundane knowledge to help others understand shastra does not mean he relies on such knowledge. Some other notable features of this attempt by devotees to see shastra from the mundane platform are that sense perception and inference are given undue weight vis-a-vis shabda. If shastra and our acharyas say the Bhagavatam was written 5000 years ago and mundane scholars claim it was written 1000 years ago, then why should we try to "make conditional allowances for historically contingent, 'relative knowledge"? The different conclusions arrived at by our acharyas and by historical critical methods are not compatible--even paradoxically. Accommodation with presumptions (such as the idea that the Bhagavatam evolved) that are inherently antithetical to Krishna Conscious presumptions (that the Bhagavatam is revealed scripture) has to eventually lead to the establishment of one set of presumptions over the other. In this case, we are seeing the establishment of mundane precepts over transcendental precepts. (Bolding and color added.)

 

If ISKCON is to be rid of residual sexism, a theology is needed that interprets his comments in the spirit of bhagavat dharma, taking into account the hard realities of present life, even if in doing so the principles of varnashram dharma are set aside.

(Tamal Krishna Goswami, Krishna Kshetra Das, "Re-Visioning ISKCON", as printed in The Hare Krishna Movement, The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, Columbia University Press, New York, 2004. Page 421)

 

 

 

"Hard realities of present life" means that (Western) karmi society is now the standard by which Vedic culture is to be evaluated. Setting aside "the principles of varnashram dharma" means guru-avajna, or disobeying the order of the guru. Srila Prabhupada stated consistently, emphatically and frequently that varnashram dharma must be introduced in ISKCON and in society in general. Although the above reference claims that they are following bhagavat dharma, their conclusion is actually a transgression of the order of the spiritual master. Following the order of the spiritual master is also bhagavat dharma, so transgressing his order cannot be bhagavat dharma. The above has to be understood as mano-dharma.

 

Can our agenda be pushed further? A radical discontinuity with Chaitnaya Vaishnava theology within the realm of sambandha might mean, for example, blurring the divide that separates personalists from impersonalists. . . . Still, only faint praise is given brahmavadins, while mayavadins are censured with the harshest rhetoric.13 Indeed, Prabhupada defines his mission in terms of their defeat.14 To be fair, the reverse is equally true: those adhering to the advaita viewpoint often depreciate the Vaishnavas. Impersonalists and Vaishnavas rarely perceive each other as fellow travelers, despite having much in common. For ISKCON, at times this has meant alienating many in its diasporic Indian congregation who feel confused, if not deeply offended, by what they perceive to be sectarian conflict in ISKCON's condemnation of revered people, past and present, because of impersonal beliefs.

(Tamal Krishna Goswami, Krishna Kshetra Das, "Re-Visioning ISKCON", as printed in The Hare Krishna Movement, The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, Columbia University Press, New York, 2004. page 420 - 421)

 

 

 

The above reference leads with the question, "Can we push our agenda further?" Essentially, they recommend accommodation with impersonalism in order to pander to the impersonalist misconceptions of some Indian guests at ISKCON temples. Condemnation of "revered people, past and present" is code for Mayavadis like Vivekananda, Rama Krishna and Sai Baba-all of whom Srila Prabhupada certified as rascals. In other words, they want ISKCON's devotees to accommodate both with Mayavada as a philosophy ("blurring the divide that separates personalists from impersonalists") and offer lip service to Mayavadis like Rama Krishna and Sai Baba. So this is the agenda, and accommodation with Mayavada is its superlative objective. If we get there, then there can be no further pushing since everything will be totally ruined. The fact that some ISKCON leaders wrote what is quoted above means that unless we do something quickly to stop this, ISKCON is on target for becoming yet another Mayavada institution.

 

Perhaps I'm just being a reactionary fundamentalist, but the results we seem to be getting from academic studies (all on the pretext of preaching of course) are curiously similar to those obtained by Protestant Christian institutions in America around the 1960s (bolding added):

 

David Riesman in 1956 described American academia as a "snakelike" procession, in which parts that were behind the leader, especially those in the middle, constantly try to follow the changing direction of the head.23 Keeping up meant hiring faculty with loyalti4es to national academic standards more than to church concerns. It also meant dropping anything that might be interpreted as religious indoctrination. Measures of academic success emphasized evidence that students were being taught to think for themselves, as opposed to "conformism" or submission to "authoritarianism." 24 All these factors added to the impulse for mainline church-related colleges to define themselves in terms less and less distinct from their secular counterparts.

During the 1960s a number of well-funded studies examined what church-relatedness meant for a college.25 As David Riesman and Christopher Jencks commented in 1968, "Organizations like the National Council of Churches as well as individual denominations are constantly commissioning investigations aimed at defining a unique mission for those colleges which remain Protestant, but the very idea that such questions require research is a tribute to the triumph of academic over clerical values." The concluded "Very few Protestant colleges admit that the substance of what they teach is influenced by ideological considerations."26 By the end of the 1960s, mainline Protestantism's own studies were saying little more than that their colleges should learn from the universities.27

 

(George M. Marsden. The Soul of the American University, From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief. Oxford University Press, New York, 1994. Page 415 - 416)

 

 

 

It looks like going back to school is resulting in something similar for ISKCON. "Re-visioning ISKCON" is euphemistic code for reshaping Prabhupada's movement as something more secular, more accommodating of Mayavada.

 

krishna_kirti das

[VNV]

Wow that is a scary thought that ISKCON might actually be evolving into something that won't praise Krishna personally. I don't know if I can really see it happening though, because even if they allow these people in ISKCON I think the devotees would probably try to teach them the errors of their ways and lead them to a personal relationship with Krishna, at least I'd like to think that would happen. This is one big problem with Christianity in my eyes, it's very laxed, not that it is always a bad things. But when this position directly interferes with the core teachings of your religion then it does become something of a bad thing, and a danger to the cause.

[jayaisvara]

Hare Krsna. Jai Guru Gauranga.

 

This is temporary, since Srila Prabhupada has said this movement will go on, and also Krsna has said so.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

But thinking you can preach better by going to Uni is not very intelligent. Thinking you can utilize it To preach maybe better. Like I use HTML knowledge to make my Site. I don't think HTML is any good by itself.

 

I think problem is people try to go away from KC {like sort of Maya} I will goto Uni/college see what I can learn then preach KC. I am not sure. Comments

[Guest guest]

Krishna Kirti misses the whole point he is trying to criticize.

 

It goes like this.

 

Thesis-Being less antagonistic and more diplomatic, when dealing with people who are easily offended by harsh condemnation of their cherished preceptors and beliefs, will be more intelligent in certain circumstances i.e you catch more flies with honey then with vinegar.

 

Krishna Kirti's Antithesis-We are too naive and malleable in our own beliefs. Any kind of softening of our rhetorical stance, any kind of "compromise" or accommodation for other peoples long held feelings and beliefs, will lead us to fall into the "trap" of secularism. Unless we shoot from the hip, unless we are "brutally honest" in our presentation of our belief system, we will fall under the spell of Maya, and our integrity will be lost. We will have replaced Krishna consciousness with that which we want to replace.

 

He argues that the devotees cannot preach or interact with others, on their level. Why ? We then become more like them.

 

Why not the reverse, why won't they become more like us ? Which "side" has more potency ?

 

This paranoid "us versus them" approach to society at large, is probably the main quality that most people are turned off by when encountering devotees.

 

The idea that there should be no politeness, no compromise when dealing with others and their beliefs, that we must smash their illusions, no matter what, for our own good, is counter productive to the preaching mission.

 

Krishna Kirti is not criticizing going to get an education in order to have a skill, rather, is he criticizing Vaisnavas who "compromise"? in the way they treat others? and how they present Krishna consciousness to the secular world?

 

Yes.

 

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..But they just may get it, if Krishna Kirti meets them.

 

It's really a totalitarian outlook he is promoting. "My way or the highway", "Our way is absolutely right, any other way is absolutely wrong".

 

He exhorts us to call him a reactionary or fundamentalist, I disagree. By putting forth himself and his views, as victimized, by secularization and by those devotees who want to "erode the message of Godhead", casting them as churlish libertines, and insincere faithless materialists, he shows his real agenda.

 

He is just trying to position himself as acarya. Those who oppose his views, are calling him a reactionary fundamentalist i.e true to the original message, orthodox. Therefore anyone who disagrees with his views, they are unorthodox, and not true to the original message.

 

It's a conniving bit of sophistry.

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

Philosophy, everybody differs some people are out to defeat {command and conquer}. Some people have genuine belief in Guru. Didn't Srila Prabhupada say that each Sadhu differs in opinion otherwise he cannot be called a Sadhu or was that a philosopher? I very much doubt trying to defeat anybody non-Vedic is what anybody desires to do. Like in previous thread 'changes of heart'. I met some people of Faiths such as Christians and Muslims even Voodoo believers who say they like Krishna Consciousness. Did they hear chanting? Book maybe?

 

[krsna]

September 29, 2004

Apology

Dear Vaishnavas and others,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances at your feet. All glories to ISKCON Founder-Acharya Shrila Prabhupada.

 

After hearing the opinions of other devotees regarding two essays that were recently written by me ("Going Back To School For What?" and "ISKCON's Gay Marriage Debate Defrocked") and after much deliberation and introspection, I have come to realize that my writing in these two essays specifically has been tainted by offense, anger and envy.

 

I realize that in my foolishness I have hurt the feelings of many devotees and thus offended them--specifically Tamal Krishna Maharaja, Krishna-kshetra Prabhu, their disciples, friends and followers, and also Praghosh Prabhu, disciple of Satsvarupa Goswami and the current Chairman of the GBC Executive Committee. I offer my apologies at their feet.

 

In this regard, although I have removed these essays from my web site, I realize that they still exist in cyberspace, on computers somewhere in the world, and I also realize that the hurt that many have endured as a result of my envious and prideful writing will persist. Furthermore, there is much that I have said and have done outside of writing these two essays that is also displeasing to the Vaishnavas and to the Lord, and making amends for all these things is, I think, harder to do than trying to "unring" a bell. I'm not going to ask for forgiveness because I don't think I deserve to be forgiven. Nonetheless, this apology is offered specifically to the devotees I have directly offended, offered to the Vaishnava public, and offered also to the non-devotee public, who depend on our example for their progressive advancement toward Krishna, simply because it is the right thing for me to do.

 

Once again, I offer my apologies to all my readers.

 

Krishna-kirti das

 

P.S. I have posted this message prominently on my web site (http://siddhanta.com) and have forwarded this personally to all the other devotees whom I know are aware of these transgressions. But there are others whom I am not aware of but are nonetheless hurt by my actions. So the only thing I have to ask of my audience is that, if you have distributed, forwarded, these essays mentioned herein, that you also, if it pleases you, forward this apology to the people or forums you formerly sent these essays to.