Calling a Spade a Spade
BY: ROCANA DASA
Oct 13, CANADA (SUN) — A reply to Kesava Krsna dasa.
In your recent article, "To Be Siddhantic, or Not to Be", you wrote:
"When genuine Vaisnavas converse among themselves, they do so in a criticism and aparadha free-zone. Yes, differing opinions will surface, but the aim is the disbursement of the conclusions of the Vedas as defined by siddhanta."
You state the obvious. What is not clear is whether or not you consider yourself to be in the "genuine Vaisnava" category. Given that your messages to me have been replete with criticism aimed in my direction, I presume you absent yourself from that exemplary group.
How have you criticized me (I'm sure you'll ask)? Here are a few lines from your articles, to remind you:
Them ‘N All Reply
"I see your pain manifesting sometimes as irksome commentaries…"
Clarification
"…your all-too-keen readiness to lash out…"
"…any attempt to cast disdain on Iskcon devotees, or sections of them, is undoubtedly a motivating factor…" [behind what I write]
"…do you have anything nice to say about your godbrothers?"
[your] "…moroseness continues along personal lines.."
"…you argue for the sake of it…"
"…why moan about all the negatives?"
Why Can't We Be One Happy Family?
"…you honestly admit to this potentially divisive means of communication…"
To Be Siddhantic, Or Not to Be
You wrote:
"Do you not observe that since the beginning of our correspondence, I have been niggling at your Achilles heel - your wayward practice in regards to decent Vaisnava behaviour."
Again I am subjected to your critical verbiage in regards to my supposedly indecent, un-Vaisnava-like behavior, which you claim is my " Achilles heel". I trust our readers see the hypocrisy of your position on "criticism of Vaisnavas", but do you?
So many of the phrases used in your articles have the clear ring of ISKCON one-liner's. It's almost as though you've written these pieces immediately after hanging up from a phone call with an institutional authority.
Rather than getting too absorbed in a line-by-line reply to your last article, I'd like to offer a general response, as presented by Srila Prabhupada. In listening to Srila Prabhupada's morning walks, which is my daily practice these days, I came across some of his instructions on the issue of criticism. The following passages come from two morning walks, February 6th and 9th, 1976, in Mayapur. On the February 6th walk, Tamal Krishna Goswami asked Srila Prabhupada to speak on this subject:
Tamala Krsna: [ ] What is the way to draw the line between the following three things: blasphemy, fault-finding, and calling a spade a spade?
Prabhupada: A spade a spade... Just like I am saying that "What you are? You are small fig only." That is reality. And what is the other?
Tamala Krsna: The other is fault-finding and...
Prabhupada: Fault-finding, that is another fault, that... vranam icchanti, maksika vranam icchanti, madhum icchanti(?) Just like the flies, they are finding out where is sore, and the bees, they are finding out where there is honey. So two animals, they have got two business: fault-finding and collecting the good things. These are two... Just like creature. They are two classes. Similarly, there are many rascals who are simply fault-finding.
Tamala Krsna: And blasphemy?
Prabhupada: Blasphemy means you have good qualities, but still, I am defaming you.
Tamala Krsna: So the saintly person tends to overlook the bad qualities and see the good ones.
Prabhupada: Yes.
At first Srila Prabhupada gives what we understand to be the commonplace definition of these three terms: blasphemy, fault-finding, and calling a spade a spade. He provides very short, concise definitions. But a little further on, Srila Prabhupada talks about criticizing, which is essentially what Srila Prabhupada is doing non-stop on many of these morning walks -- criticizing rascals and fools, and people who deny the existence of God or try to minimize God. Srila Prabhupada's response to Hridayananda Goswami's question is very important:
Hrdayananda: Sometimes, Prabhupada, when we expose them, their argument is, "Oh, you are a saintly person. Why are you criticizing me?"
Prabhupada: No, it is not criticizing. It is opening your eyes. You are blind, you are thinking yourself as very big, so we are opening eyes. You are not big. You are not even pig or fig. That is... ajnana-timirandhasya jnananjana-salakaya. You are blind with ignorance, so we are trying to open your eyes. See things as they are. It is favoring you. It is not criticizing you.
When Srila Prabhupada was defining a 'spade a spade' he immediately said: " A spade a spade... Just like I am saying that "What you are? You are small fig only." That is reality." So when talking about "common people", you're really talking about every one of us. We're all just so insignificant. In that respect yes, we're all common folk, commonly insignificant. The problem is with those who think they're big when they're actually small, and the disciples of those who think they're big and who keep telling them they're big when they really don't have any spiritual discriminating power to know how big or small they are, and in comparison to whom?
On the February 9th morning walk, Srila Prabhupada provides a whole different slant on the matter. This was during what could easily be called a "lighter moment", but I think it has a lot of deep meaning. Srila Prabhupada hardly ever talks about his past or his family, but in this case he brought up the fact of his father would indiscriminately invite so many saintly persons to, and he would ask them to pray for his son so that he would become a devotee of Radharani.
Prabhupada: [ ] He used to invite so many saintly persons, and he would pray, "Please bless my son" -- I was very pet son -- "that he may become a devotee of Radharani. Radharani may bless him." That was his only prayer.
Tamala Krsna: Fulfilled.
Prabhupada: Yes. He was inviting so many saintly persons. That is the old system, to receive saintly person.
Hrdayananda: Srila Prabhupada, you said that you were not so much impressed by the saintly persons that were coming.
Prabhupada: Yes.
Hrdayananda: Why was that?
Prabhupada: Not all of them were real Vaisnava. That was my discrimination from the beginning of my life. I never liked these bogus swamis and yogis. I never liked. But my father had no discrimination. "Never mind whatever he is. He is a saintly person. Receive him."
After describing his father's non-discriminatory activities, Srila Prabhupada went on to explain his own position in this regard:
Tamala Krsna: I think your Guru Maharaja spoke strongly against such persons.
Prabhupada: Oh, yes. And from him we learned that intoxication, any kind of intoxication, is bad.
Tamala Krsna: Bhaktivinoda Thakura also was...
Prabhupada: He was also not very serious, but Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was very serious, and we learned from him. No, it is sastriya. No intoxication is good.
Tamala Krsna: How is it that Bhaktivinoda Thakura was not so strict in that regard, yet his son, who learned from him, became very strict, like a rod?
Prabhupada: (chuckles) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was so strict (laughs) that because he married twice, he used to say, "stri-sangi, attached to woman," even his father. (laughter) He was very strict. Sometimes when he would be angry, he'd, "You stri-sangi." And don't discuss this thing. (laughs) He was very strict. No excuse, no compromise.
We know that Srila Prabhupada said his father was a pure devotee. We know that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur was a Sampradaya Acarya. We also know who Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur is, and who Srila Prabhupada is. So I have personally chosen to follow in the footsteps of Srila Prabhupada, and he was following his Spiritual Master. Srila Prabhupada said his father didn't discriminate between real saintly persons and bogus yogis, yet he was a pure Vaisnava. So there are many, many devotees, especially within ISKCON, who may be very strict and serious and sincere, but who have chosen to take the same position as Srila Prabhupada's father. They may not make any discrimination, but are just kind to anyone who's wearing sannyasis garb. They don't criticize even the bogus saints and yogis. But I don't think they're following in the footsteps of Srila Prabhupada.
Making advancement in Krsna Consciousness is very individualized and complex. There are certain types of personalities who seem to thrive and make a certain amount of spiritual advancement in the context of the institution. I don't want to discourage them, but at the same time, the mood that I'm trying to generate, even though I'm imperfect, is to call a spade a spade. I try to do this as honestly as I can. I'm ready to admit that a certain amount of impurities may filter through. I'm open to people genuinely pointing out where my facts and figures, my philosophy, or my history is incorrect. Some, like Kesava Krsna dasa, just say everything is criticism, never pointing out exactly what I said specifically that is unfairly critical. Anyone is invited to address what I said and tell me how what I said was wrong, but just saying that I'm wrong, period, is meaningless and absurd.
Kesava Krsna wrote:
"Yes, you accord common-man status to all devotees except Srila Prabhupada.
I note your use of the terminology, "common man status", a theme you repeat throughout your presentation. Of course, this is not from sastra but is your personal characterization of my preaching methodology. You apparently think that either I put Srila Prabhupada on too high a status and relegate everyone else to a 'common' platform, or you think that I fail to recognize that the institutional leaders are untouchable and beyond critical analysis. Why don't you just be straightforward - the problem is that I see fit to criticize the personalities you hold in great esteem. Of course, what you deem to be criticism I see as pressing for answers to serious problems that have been inflicted upon my Spiritual Master's movement by these personalities. The result of their actions is that a lot of "common men" have been ostracized or driven out.
You wrote:
"In your last reply you chose not to mention, let alone respond to my query about your strange poll conducted on the efficacy of Vaisnava aparadha. I said that as Rupanugas, Srila Rupa Goswami's dictates on the matter should suffice. In your case however, you appealed to vox-populi to determine the merits of aparadha. This is a clear siddhantic deviation. How can you legislate a standard for your website based on public opinion? Of all subjects, you tender Vaisnava aparadha to the market-place of the public, some of whom are possessed of avenging mentalities below the level of Srila Rupa Goswami's pristine conclusions. History teaches us that the likes of Pilate, Caligula and others also pandered to the whims of a bloodthirsty public. The poll of the day was the crowd's braying ye or nay, intent upon whether an individual like Jesus survived or not with either a thumbs up, or a thumbs down. It seems you are dithering on whether the standard bearer is Srila Rupa Goswami or public opinion. You dare point out the perceived asiddhantic failures of others, yet the poll is a glaring example for all discriminating minds to see."
As you insist on bringing up the Sun Poll again, I'll reply. The reason I do all my polls is to get a clearer idea of what the readership thinks on different issues that are obviously controversial and current. When one talks about Vaisnava aparadha, first of all you have to determine who's a Vaisnava, and on what level. I find that there are some astounding opinions amongst the devotees on this issue, and great variegatedness in their assumptions about who is and is not a Vaisnava on a particular level. As we know, the Vaisnava aparadha concept has also been used by the leaders as a stick. In fact, the whole conversation between us has been bogged down on this aparadha idea, apparently because you feel that those you have affection for should be beyond any criticism whatsoever, while I chose to highlight some of their relevant history as I make my points.
For obvious reasons, Vaisnava aparadha is an interesting topic to explore public opinion on. In no way are we trying to set precedent, nor do we ever consider or infer that the results of the Sun Polls indicate something to do with sastra, or have any absolute value whatsoever. Your angle of attack on this Sun Poll is laughable, and is just another diversion.
You wrote:
"The moment you engage free speech to do your bidding on the pretext that all but Srila Prabhupada are common people, and therefore open game for censure, the readers become afflicted, some of whom among your sympathizers may reflect your views with greater vigour and intensity as to multiply the reactions to the effects of slandering honest devotees."
Here we have more of your criticism of me, wrapped up in somewhat bewildering rhetoric. In response, and in answer to your question #1 below, I do not categorize the devotees by putting everyone except Srila Prabhupada in the "common people" group. To assert that I do so is wrong and intellectually dishonest. The science of Krsna Consciousness describes the tremendous variegatedness amongst devotees. In my writings, I often refer to the symptoms of advancement described in sastra, and how those symptoms are or are not manifest in certain personalities. Your "common man" charge is baseless, and is a simplistic reply to philosophical problems you have appeared to be unwilling to address. variegated
You wrote:
[1] Can you please show me any phrase, quotation or otherwise from Srila Prabhupada's writings to substantiate your opinion that Vaisnavas are common folk liable to be subjected to the kind of language used by yourself or your sympathizers? Unless of course, if someone happens to be Srila Prabhupada.
[2] Can you prove sastrically that only Srila Prabhupada is exempt from criticism, but every other Vaisnava is not?
These questions are answered by my comments above. Again we have the issue of degrees of advancement, and how we judge particular individuals in that regard. Perhaps you would like to discuss the qualifications and symptoms of advancement exhibited by some of the particular individuals I have criticized, so we can determine whether or not they are above the criticisms I express about them?
You wrote:
[3] Can you provide any historical record of whether the serious topic of Vaisnava aparadha has been tendered for the public to assess and whose consensus guided thought patterns thereafter?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Has the general community of devotees ever publicly discussed the issue of aparadha? Yes, of course they have. It was been discussed many times on the Internet over the last ten years. By historical records, are you asking me to provide archival records of those discussions? If so, no, I haven't saved them for posterity. Try Google. As for "whose consensus guided thought patterns thereafter", it sounds like you're back on the Sun Poll issue. Each individual guides their own thought patterns. Consensus is generally formed around sastra, and each person's interpretation of it. And as I previously stated, there is great variegatedness in their interpretations - so much so that one would be hard pressed to point to consensus on the matter. Please read the upcoming Sun Poll editorial, which will no doubt emphasize that very point.
You wrote:
"If you can furnish me with relevant information and convince me, we can proceed. Forgiveness is such a powerful action as to free one from all the pent-up anger and resentment. Forgiveness is the scent that the rose leaves on the heel that crushes it. Vaisnava's do forgive, and the scent can freshen and revitalize the atmosphere ready for dialogue - to be siddhantic."
OK, the air is now fragrant with forgiveness. Are you finally ready to debate the philosophical points that have been raised?
