© 1999 VNN
|
EDITORIAL December 31, 1999 VNN5183 Related VNN Stories Highlighting Srila Prabhupada's Teachings BY BASU GHOSH DAS EDITORIAL, Dec 31 (VNN) — Namonamah. Jaya SrIla Prabhupada! The following "editorial" was written & sent to me by a devotee who wishes to remain anonymous. They are his comments on a controversy that is now "raging" about remarks made by the Editor of CHAKRA, Madhusudani Radha devi dasi (who obviously will not put the following editorial on CHAKRA) and another Mataji, Dhyanakund dd, (who has since announced her resignation from ISKCON). The latest in this regard has appeared yesterday on CHAKRA in an article by Ananda das (Canada) wherein he freely slanders a number of his godbrothers and other concerned devotees by labelling them "misogynists" - because they have endeavored to highlight from Srila Prabhupada's teachings themselves the traditional role and duties of women. Vaisnava dasanudas, Basu Ghosh Das Brahma-Tirtha Prabhu wrote: "Doubts raised for further knowledge are quite necessary. Doubts raised in a challenging manner are not recommended in the BG and are best handled one on one."This is true, at the same time, there is a proper way of expressing a doubt, and an improper way of expressing a doubt. And I agree that unless you ask questions that could be construed as blasphemous, it is likely that you will not get a complete understanding of a subject matter. However, there is a proper way of expressing such doubts, even those that are blasphemous: "Maharaja Yudhisthira inquired: What kind of great curse could affect even liberated visnu-bhaktas, and what sort of person could curse even the Lord's associates? For unflinching devotees of the Lord to fall again to this material world is impossible. I cannot believe this." (SB 7.1.34) "The bodies of the inhabitants of Vaikuntha are completely spiritual, having nothing to do with the material body, senses or life air. Therefore, kindly explain how associates of the Personality of Godhead were cursed to descend in material bodies like ordinary persons." (SB 7.1.35) Notice that Maharaj Yuddhisthira himself made such statements: "this is impossible", "I cannot believe this." Then he described the nature of his doubt (samsaya), which is the conflicting of two perceptions: one being scriptural authority (that the Lord's unflinching devotees do not fall down - sounds familiar, no? bona-fide gurus falling down? anyway. . .), and the second being historical evidence (that it actually did happen). Then, finally, he appealed to authority (Narada Muni) to explain the apparent contradiction. This is the proper procedure for asking even blasphemous questions. Now, having said that, this question should arise: "How does this apply in 21st century Kali-yuga academic-vaishnava discussions?" There have been claims made that those who are not trained in academic methods are not able to properly discuss such questions with those who are academically trained. And this is true, for the most part. After all, if you aren't a physicist, or an astronomer, how can you discuss questions that relate to these fields? Or most other fields? You can't. By the methods of emperical science, scientists and other academics try to ascertain what are the qualities and nature of reality -- based on observation and inference, they make claims that, "Reality is like this, it is like that, etc." And in our Vaisnava circle, besides the methods of empirical science, which are based on pratyaksa and anuman, we also accept sabda (verbal testimony - guru-sadhu-shastra) as an authoritative source of understanding reality. Scriptural testimony accomplishes what empirical methods attempt to do. Scriptural testimony makes a pronouncement that "Reality is like this, it is like that, etc.," on both physical and metaphysical topics. We also accept sabda as valid. Since empiricism and sabda have this in common, that they both make pronouncements on the nature of reality, and since scriptural testimony is accepted as being superior to empiric methods, the correctness of conclusions about reality arrived at via empiric methods are subject to evaluation by those who are well versed in Vedic literature, even though they may not be academically trained in the area concerned. For example, it is not known that Srila Prabhupada had any sort of rigorous training in physics or astronomy, yet he could evaluate the correctness of such a conclusion as, "The Sun is further from the Earth than the Moon." In fact, he pronounced, on the basis of scriptural testimony, that this conclusion is false. Now, if we claim that the conclusions of academic and scientific discussions are not subject to such scrutiny, then we would also have to accept that Srila Prabhupada's evaluation is invalid. This, of course, is an absurd conclusion. Now, a person who is well versed in Vedic literature but is not well versed in scientfic/academic techniques and knowledge will not have access to the empiric details that describe HOW a particular conclusion is true. Just like, for example, the academic details of HOW the Sun is closer to the Earth than the moon is incomprehensible to the non-academic devotee. Yet, the non-academicly trained devotee is in a position to evaluate the CORRECTNESS of the conclusions arrived at by the academic devotees, because the correct understanding is based on aural reception, and not empiric technique. This is where the barrier lies: the conclusions of acadmic research are subject to evaluation by those who are well versed in scripture, but discussions which relate specifically to the academic methods and techniques to arrive at those conclusions are not subject to evaluation by those not trained in those techniques. Technique is subject to scrutiny, however, as far as Vedic literature describes that technique for acquiring knowledge. The example of Maharaj Yuddhisthira, above, as to how one should inquire, is quite fitting (it is, after all, a technique), and it seems that the Mataji Dhyanakunda's presentation did not conform to these specifications. Since most, I trust, have seen her complete text, I am only reproducing parts of it: "Another things that bothers me is that Srila Prabhupada is always so sure of himself."One can be bothered in the sense, troubled by some doubt, and one can be bothered in the sense that one is annoyed. We can give Mataji the benefit of the doubt here, and at least consider she has expressed a doubt, and even a disbelief -- seems to conform to Maharaj Yuddhisthira's example. But unfortunately, she does not follow through on the technique: "Where ordinary people would soften their statements by saying, "as far as I know," "I am convinced that," "to some degree," "in this respect," "from my experience," "most probably," "at present it looks like..." etc., Srila Prabhupada passes absolute judgemnts, and he is not even consistent in them."Here, she not only fails to present an humble inquiry or ask others on the conference about this, she makes a pronouncement about the nature of Srila Prabhupada, based on nothing more than perception and inference. Yet we know from scripture that (1) a liberated soul does not make mistakes ("The difference between a conditioned soul and a liberated soul is that the conditioned soul has four kinds of defects." [Sri Isopanisad, Introduction]), and (2) it is not possible to understand the mind of a Vaisnava (vaisnavera kriya mudra vijneya na bhujaya). And finally, she concludes: "I am ready to believe the source of his certainty is direct link with Krsna's absolute knowledge, *if* it can be proven he was absolutely right each time.Now, interestingly enough, this same objection of inconsistency was brought up during the time of Lord Caitanya. This was exactly Vallabhacarya's criticism of Sriddhara Svami's commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam: sei vyakhya karena yahan yei pade ani'"Whatever Sridhara Svami reads he explains according to the circumstances. Therefore he is inconsistent in his explanations and cannot be accepted as an authority." (CC Antya 7.114) And of course, Lord Caitanya rejected Vallabhacarya's criticism, and consequently, his explanation of Srimad Bhagavatam. Had Mataji Dhayanakund actually followed Maharaj Yuddhisthira's technique, and instead of making such a pronouncement about Srila Prabhupada she had just simply said, "On the one hand, I see seemingly contradictory statements, and on the other hand, I have heard that a liberated devotee does not commit mistakes, could someone please explain how this is possible?" She could have asked her "blasphemous" question--nothing different, only a change in technique--and a pleasant discussion would likely have ensued. Devotees who challenged her were right to do so, because her comment was unhumble and offensive (considering the acarya to be a mundane man (with the four defects) makes one a candidate for hell), and it is the 10th major principle described in NOD ch 6 that one should be very intollerant toward the blasphemy of the Supreme Lord or His devotee. Mataji Madhusudani-radha's defence of Mataji Dhyanakund was no less offensive: "Taken together with your many recent texts in which you have put down or threatened other members (telling them they're offensive, that they're ruining their spiritual lives, requesting others not to associate with them etc), your position is becoming very clear. You can not tolerate other people's having opinions that are different from yours or their using their own brains. You do not even want them to have a forum or voice where they can discuss their understanding with each other. This is called intolerance."Yes, it is called intolerance, because that is what the scriptural injunctions prescribe: that one should be intolerant toward such blasphemy. We have to see reality ultimately from the point of view of scripture, and if a certain section of our society refuses to do so, and instead prefers mundane views out of line with the conclusions of our acharyas, it is the duty of senior devotees to do the necessary to rectify the situation. Guru-sadhu-sastra is the guide in our Krishna-conscious lives, and our guide in understanding reality. If we reject that source on the grounds that it does not tally with our experience, then we fall down: yah sastra vidhim-utrijya vartate kama-karatah"He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination." (Bg 16.23) And also, asraddadhanah purusa dharmasyasya parantapa"Those who are not faithful in this devotional service cannot attain Me, O conqueror of enemies. Therefore they return to the path of birth and death in this material world." Such was the case with Dhyanakund Mataji (phalena pariciyate), and it will repeat itself (or ruin the lives of others who tolerate such offensiveness) unless the members and, in particular, the organizers, act according to proper Vaishnava etiquette. Since conference organizers have the responsibility of policing their conferences, we should institue a set of standards, and a test for verifying that all conference organizers are conversant with our siddhanta, and are well versed in proper vaishnava etiquette (otherwise, how can they make a pronouncement on what is proper and what is improper?). To this end, I would recommend that all conference organizers at least pass the bhakti-shastri exam, and that there should be a special exam that tests one's knowledge of Vaishnava etiquette. Only a devotee who has passed both exams may be a conference organizer. And there should be other policing by very senior devotees. Its not that the devotee conference organzer who has been in the movement for 5 years should be able to expell very senior devotees from the conference. In the meantime, closing down all COM conferences except essential ones like the temple presidents conference, BBT conferences, and GBC conferences (and the sannyasi only conferences) should be done in order to minimize the offenses committed via COM, and to give some time to set up a proper system of authorizing conference organizers. Related VNN Stories  Comment on this storyContact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
