Sun Poll Results - History and Truth
BY: SUN STAFF
May 01, CANADA (SUN) — Of all the polls that we've run in the Sun, we find this to be one of the most interesting, and in some ways baffling. Although the consensus of numbers throughout all the polls in this series indicates that a vast majority of readers are in favour of ISKCON's history being publicly presented, practical experience tells us that this isn't the case.
Over the last few years we have made three separate attempts to integrate or interface with ISKCON, but have essentially been excluded by local temple management on the basis that what I have spoken in the pages of this website, and what I consider to be the truth about ISKCON history, has offended some of the disciples of the gurus who played a part in that history. In many cases, these gurus played an unarguably negative role at certain points in history. Today, because their disciples voice an objection, the GBC consider their views to be of greater importance than mine. Consequently, I have been restricted from participating and barred from giving classes.
Two separate GBC have privately stated an almost identical message to me when these issues have come up -- that in ISKCON, you do not name names in regards to anything in history or current events that can be construed as 'negative'. Last summer, Bir Krishna das Goswami gave me that message. Last month Hari Vilasa dasa repeated it. Strangely enough, when I reported the experience with Bir Krishna das Goswami in the Krsna Blog, Hari Vilasa dasa expressed his dismay that I should be treated in such a way. Having now moved to Vancouver, Canada, a more prominent venue, Hari Vilasa's philosophy on the matter has apparently changed. The stone is dropping into a bigger pond this time.
Speaking the truth about historical events and naming names breaks a cardinal rule in ISKCON. You can think it, you can even discuss it behind closed doors, but don't dare to publicly express the truth about specific personalities in leadership position in ISKCON. Even though behind the scenes, the authorities themselves speak the very same truths about the history of the institution and its leaders, it is forbidden for one to do so publicly. Truth is not the issue - control of the public message is.
It's a common fact that history is written by the victors. We know that the version of history a newcomer to ISKCON will get -- compared to the version they'd get from one who actually experienced that history and is now no longer working under the control of the institution -- is vastly different.
ISKCON isn't likely to put any funding behind the writing of a true history of ISKCON, which would include some of the most significant periods such as the Zonal Acarya era, the Gopi Bhava club, the shutting down of various big centers like New York, or the endless personal accounts of grievous encounters that were perpetrated against devotees. So who will be left to write the real ISKCON history? It most certainly will have to be an outsider, not an insider. Alas, the institution has become adept at creating 'outsiders', so the history cannot be kept hidden.
This phenomenon might sit well in a political context, but when you are referring to an institution that is claiming to be 100% inline with our Sampradaya, and the Sampradaya is based on the principle of telling the absolute truth and learning all sorts of lessons from such truth, then it just doesn't sit very well. In our sastra, the mistakes of even the greatest personalities like Lord Brahma, Indra, and Lord Shiva are brought forward and examined. Yet we are not permitted to do that with ISKCON luminaries, even though the majority of opinion among Society members indicates their preference for truth-telling, as indicated by this Sun Poll series.
Poll #1
Should ISKCON history be publicly told 'as it really was'?
Yes - 77%
No - 8%
Not Sure - 15%
There was a high level of participation in this poll, and the numbers were fairly predictable in terms of our readership. The 'Not Sure' votes are understandable, given the percentage of our readers who don't know much about ISKCON. Throughout this poll, as with most others, the dyed-in-the-wool ISKCON members definitely vote in the minority column. Even so, it's hard to believe that even 8% of the people think that the history should not be publicly told. This basically means they think it should be covered up. And that, of course, is precisely what ISKCON does.
Poll #2
Should historical truth-tellers be considered 'offensive' if they name names?
Yes - 6%
No - 88%
Not Sure - 6%
This poll indicates that even voters in the 'Not Sure' column converted their votes to 'No' on this question, meaning they don't feel that historical truth tellers should be considered offensive. Of course, you can be guaranteed that if you ever went into an ISKCON temple and told the truth about history, it would be considered political and you would get instance ramifications and confrontation. Anyone who says anything regarding history that is not rosy in terms of the ISKCON dignitaries will surely be ostracized as 'offenders'.
Poll #3
Is it brahminical to call a thief a thief, or is that 'aparadhi criticism'?
Brahminical - 76%
Aparadhi - 2%
Depends On Who -13%
Not Sure - 9%
You couldn't get any clearer than this when it comes to Srila Prabhupada's opinion on the question:
"According to social conventions, it is said that one can speak the truth only when it is palatable to others. But that is not truthfulness. The truth should be spoken in such a straight and forward way, so that others will understand actually what the facts are. If a man is a thief and if people are warned that he is a thief that is truth. Although sometimes the truth is unpalatable, one should not refrain from speaking it. Truthfulness demands that the facts be presented as they are for the benefit of others. That is the definition of truth."
~ Bhagavad-Gita As It Is. Ch 10:4
We don't see Srila Prabhupada clarifying that it depends on who the thief is, or who the truth teller is. Rather, the focus is on the need for people to be warned, and for even unpalatable truth to be spoken for the benefit of others.
76% of voters felt it was brahminical to call a thief a thief, while only 2% thought it was aparadha. A somewhat surprising 13% thought it depends on who the thief is.
One of the reasons truth-telling is considered to be a brahminical quality is because there's an assumption that a brahman doesn't gossip, isn't malicious in their dealings with others, and is able to see the facts and speak on them without caring about any kind of ramification. In Vedic society, the brahmanas were essentially the same as the press, and in that regard there was freedom of the press. When it comes to management or politics, the ksatriyas tend to be diplomatic, whereas a brahman is not. But how to exist in a society where the brahmanas are told not to criticize political leaders? When political leaders are simultaneously taking the position of guru - and that's where the real problem lies in ISKCON - the problem becomes particularly difficult.
Poll #4
Is truth-telling comprised of facts, concepts, or both?
Facts - 35%
Concepts - 3%
Both -57%
Not Sure - 6%
This question deconstructs the content of truth-telling into both fact and idea. The intention of the question was to determine how important voters feel that actual facts are, and whether or not truth can be told by concept (or truth-story) alone. Whether voting for 'Facts' or 'Both', the great majority of voters were in favor of the importance of truth-telling, and only 5% were not sure.
In this case, 'the facts' are synonymous with naming the particular individuals involved, regardless of whether or not their friends, family or followers are going to be upset by it. When it comes to being able to interpret the facts and determine how they stand according to guru, sastra and sadhu, and whether or not they're worthy of being broadcast in another format (conceptualized), there's a need for analysis and interpretation. Until one is absolutely pure of heart, there will always be a certain degree of concept, or interpretation of facts. We know that people don't always see the same facts, as each interprets a given situation. But that doesn't alleviate us of the duty to make the effort to honestly speak. Truth-telling is most important when, if it is not done, people will needlessly suffer. Consequently, the duty can be a very important one. Ultimately it's up to the individual, and many will not take the risk of truth-telling. This means that they accept illusion over truth, and this is a very painful situation for a devotee. When choosing not to speak the truth, one also has to accept the karmic reaction for not doing so, and thereby allowing the potential for others to be harmed. They also have to justify their illusion, which leads to speculation and changing the philosophy to suit one's personal circumstances.
Poll #5
Is criticism the same as 'fault-finding', even if the truth is being told?
Yes - 15%
No - 81%
Not Sure - 4%
The criticism inferred in this question is that which is not tinged with enviousness, vindictiveness or anger. Rather, it is criticism that is synonymous with truth-telling. The fault-finding, of course, is commonly used terminology in ISKCON for finding fault where there isn't any fault, or finding the spots on the moon. That type of criticism is not good, but it's not what we're talking about here.
If the truth is told, it is good for everyone, including the person who is at fault, what to speak of the general public. It's the truth-teller who's putting himself in jeopardy by speaking out. If one genuinely feels that it's for everyone's benefit that the truth be presented, then they should be encouraged rather than discouraged from doing so. But in this material world, and in today's Society, there's a great deal of pressure not to speak out for fear of being called a fault-finder, and ostracized. Therefore, the person who is really at fault is getting tacit consent to continue on with whatever fault or nonsense they're engaged in, which can only perpetuate itself. This is especially true if they're leaders, but whoever the person, they themselves are harmed by such tacit consent.
Surprisingly, a great majority of voters say you should be able to truth-tell without being labeled a fault-finder, although that's clearly not the case in real-life ISKCON. As for the 15% 'Yes', in my estimation this represents those totally dedicated to ISKCON, where it's an absolute principle that you may not mention any names, particularly of leaders, senior people, gurus, or sanyasis. There's no permission whatsoever to air one's grievances publicly. Even if shared privately, speaking such truth puts one at risk of being considered a fault-finder.
In my analysis of human society as it exists on the planet today, the societies, countries and nations that have introduced and support the concept of freedom of the press and freedom of expression are the ones that are prospering. While this may be a perverted reflection of the concept of brahminical open-mindedness, it's much better than a repressive regime where these freedoms are excluded by those who want to be free from any criticism whatsoever.
