BY: ROCANA DASA
Sep 11, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.
Today's "Obeisances" is in response to a Dandavats article by Madhavananda dasa entitled "Criticism".
I hate to appear critical of an article about criticism, but frankly I find Madhavananda prabhu's editorial extremely simplistic. It does not take into consideration many important factors that lead to an appreciation of appropriate criticism.
The writer begins by noting that "Vedic literatures say that tolerating and forgiving our critics is beneficial." This is one of the few original comments made by the author. He goes on to say that this idea is backed up by the Bible, Koran and other religious traditions, but he provides no supporting quotes. Instead, he offers a quote from Aldous Huxley, the English writer who gave us Brave New World. Of course, Brave New World is a criticism of the way he saw modern materialistic culture evolving, which makes Huxley a somewhat confusing example in this context.
The Huxley quote is followed by a number of quotes from Vedic literature. In my mind, the information Madhavananda dasa provides doesn't really address the key points that we, as Vaisnavas, have to consider when dealing with the concept of criticism.
Criticism, as illustrated by Madhavananda dasa, is based on the concept of a less intelligent, materialistic, envious personality criticizing someone who is of greater spiritual stature than themselves. Of course, that's only one angle on criticism. As we know, no one could be more critical than Srila Prabhupada, and he pushed us and encouraged us to be critical of everything that comes into our purview such as scientists, bogus yogis, politicians, and practically anyone, including Aldous Huxley, because he's not a Vaisnava.
Madhavananda dasa goes on to quote several verses from the Vedic literatures, but only two of these come from Vaisnava literature that's often quoted by our Sampradaya Acaryas. One of these is the quote from Srimad Bhagavatam 11:28:2 entitled "Krishna to Uddhava":
"Throughout his life, a brahmana should consider material prestige to be like poison and dishonor to be like nectar. After all, if one learns to tolerate dishonor, then his agitation will subside and he will happily sleep, happily wake, and happily move about. The person who insults him will, because of his sin, become regretful, and his happiness in this and the next life will be vanquished."
This text deals primarily with brahmans who consider material privilege to be like poison, and dishonour to be like nectar. One can actually learn from being dishonored or criticized, depending on who's criticizing you. If it's your guru or someone more advanced, then the criticism should be considered to be like nectar. Of course, someone who unduly criticizes will incur sin, and that's primarily what we find in our Kali Yuga world.
The reason I find Madhavananda dasa's editorial somewhat disturbing is that throughout my years of service in Krsna Consciousness, and particularly during the time when I was serving as a Temple President of ISKCON, I found that the concept of criticism was used as a tool or a weapon to keep the underlings from criticizing anyone who was in a position of authority. The leaders, on the other hand, freely criticized the devotees beneath them as much as they liked. Of course, the 'lesser devotees' were not supposed to respond to such criticism. They were expected to be humble, and were not free to mention even what was obviously out of line with guru and sastra if it had to do with institutional authorities. If the devotees had actually been free to broadcast their critical analysis of the leadership, we could have avoided so many stupendous mistakes and embarrassments that ISKCON has had to deal with.
Given our history, I think we must be particularly careful today when discouraging criticism, as Madhavananda dasa has done. When writing or preaching about criticism, a clear delineation must be made as to the type and quality of criticism, otherwise the message is very likely to be misunderstood given the institutional context it is presented in.
In the quote from Manu Samhita, which Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur commented upon in Brahmana O Vaisnava, the Acarya clarifies that the ignorant seek to injure the wise. So it's obvious that an ignorant person who's criticizing a wise person will incur sin and get a reaction for doing so. That's very clear. But the rest of the quotes the writer provides from Mahabharata are taken out of context, and there is no commentary on the verses by a Sampradaya Acarya. Very seldom did the great Acaryas quote from Mahabharata (outside of Bhagavad-gita), although that practice is becoming more and more in vogue in ISKCON today.
I'm focusing on this particular article because I've taken the public position in the Sampradaya Sun as a critic of the institution. My intention is to help, not harm, and I believe that the criticisms I assert are accurate and are based on fact. This is supported by the fact that I am seldom challenged by those I criticize. Some, of course, label me an aparadhi offender because I'm willing to publicly criticize my Godbrothers. Some of the devotees - particularly the grand disciples -- are appalled by any criticism aimed at their gurus.
I recently listened to a Morning Walk conversation where Srila Prabhupada said that even though he's not a big expert or authority in a particular subject, he is free to criticize the big authorities because he's like a small boy who has his hand in his father's hand. In this way he is protected by the father, so he can criticize these big people. And of course, the inference is that we should have our hand in Srila Prabhupada's hand, and in such a mood we can also criticize. And Srila Prabhupada taught us a very rigorous type of criticism, to very strongly kick on the face the rascals, mellechas, low class men -- all sorts of very critical statements he encouraged us to make to those who were not inline with the philosophy.
It's quite difficult for a preacher to execute his duty while trying to avoid being in a critical mood when at the same time, he is seeing and presenting the truth. And that truth is that the material world is a hellish place. There's danger at every step, and we have to do our upmost to get out. The best we can do is to see it for what it is and speak out against it, in bold terms. That, of course, will be considered undue criticism by the materialists.
Although I don't consider the Mahabharata quotes provided by Madhavananda dasa to be 100% accurate given that they're not purported, I did find the last quote he presented to be particularly interesting. It refers to one who praises someone to their face and criticizes them behind their back. During my many years in ISKCON, I found this to be a common practice. When "big devotees" come into one's life, whether they're GBC or sannyasis, many devotees will outwardly feign respect, then later criticize these personalities when they're alone with their peers. In many cases there's some substance to the criticism, yet they won't be straightforward and confront the personality directly. As Bhisma said to Yudhisthira, such persons are considered no better than a dog. We should all be encouraged to speak honestly and forthrightly and this is not doglike, so long as it is backed up by guru, sadhu and sastra and is done in the spirit of truth-telling.
So, while being critical of an article on criticism is something of a double negative, I'll take my chances. I'll take my chances.
Obeisances to Dandavats, and to Madhavananda dasa.
