Arguing with women is sex life.

An intelligent grhasta learns to expertly manage the situation to make it unnecessary.

Serious brahmacaris have better things to do.

We went to Auchenflower this week. It was a small party - Prahlad and I were the only guys there, otherwise it was all ladies. Most of the other guys who regularly come were getting ready for today's Nrsimhadeva Appearance Festival, which is going to be a humdinger.

We went through the residential streets of the neighbourhood. As always people were happy to see the festive procession of devotees chanting the Holy Names. We also spent some time on Milton Rd, a main artery into the city, where we got a lot of exposure.

Not many photos this week - I left my camera set to the low-res setting I use to shoot in Atma at night, and Suvilasa didn't know to change it. So the photos are all chunky lo-res ones.

Here's a short video so you can check it out.

And remember kids: this is the sankirtan movement. Go out! :-)

Jayananda Thakura demonstrates the character of a devotee who is natural in his relationship with both siddhanta and other living beings. He was unusual at the time because he was in his 30s, whereas most of the new devotees were still in an adolescent phase of life.

Hari Vallabha: We came to the temple, and the car pulled up right in front of the carts. They had three carts up the hill in a little alley by Frederick Street near Kezar Stadium. We were getting out of the car when, all of a sudden, this person comes walking down like King Kong with all this power and force. Jayänanda walked right up to us. “Who’s this devotee?” I was buff. I was a surfer.

They said, “That’s Bhakta Harry.”

He says, “I want him.”

I said, “Hey, I thought I was going to work in the kitchen?”

“Well, Jayananda needs men, you know. He needs strong guys. He’s building the carts.”

So I started working with Jayananda. As soon as he saw me, he wanted me. It was very active service, and I really felt someone was engaging me. We were buddies right from the beginning, building the carts. From the first time you met him, he made you feel like a friend. He was so interested in you. Jayananda would quote Prabhupada, but he was always really interested to hear what you had to say.

“Oh, you surf? Wow! What’s it like to ride those big waves?” He’d get right into it with you. He didn’t say that surfing is maya. He was never like that. “Yeah, I’d like to do that—ride those big waves.” He would just be your friend. He wasn’t a fanatic obsessed to only preach. He hardly ever preached in the formal sense. He’d always give me a hug and talk to me and make me feel wanted.

-- Radha-Damodara Vilasa, Vaiyasaki das

This is the classic "Dawkins getz 0wned" video.

Dawkins is asked in an interview: "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which is seen to increase the information in the genome?"

First of all, a little bit about this question. It strikes directly at the heart of the contradiction between our understanding of basic physics and the complexity of biology. According to physics "energy flows downhill". This is Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics. This means that a system will lose energy over time. In layman's terms: " Everything runs down". That's why there are no perpetual motion machines.

This is called entropy. Another aspect of entropy is that disorder increases over time. Information is lost as time progresses. Leave anything, and the force of time will move it from an ordered state to a disordered state. The tendency of matter is to return to the inert, unmanifested state of the pradhan. You can see this happen to the body when the soul leaves - the material elements lose the structured order that they assumed during the manifestation of life and merge back into the environment.

The only way that information increases in a system is if it is input from outside. Your bedroom tends automatically to a disordered, messy, dirty state - even if you just leave it alone. To counteract this effect you have clean it up - you have to input energy and information into the system.

So how can evolution function in a universe like this, without the input of information? How can things go from less complex to more complex? Well, they can't. Theoretically they can't, and empirically there is no evidence for the theoretically impossible. Of course, it has to be possible for a universe without God, but unfortunately for their theory evolutionary biologists can't demonstrate the increase of complexity in systems (organisms) caused by a mundane, impersonal arrangement.

Of course theists are at no such loss to explain the development of complexity. They explain that the intelligence and energy behind this is the Supreme Lord. The Sun, the source of energy output in this region of the universe, which holds back the tendency to darkness, has been recognized as a manifestation of the power of the Supreme by humans for millennia. In the case of the material elements of the body the energizing and organizing principle comes from the individual spirit soul, the microcosmic manifestation of the Supreme Soul that animates and sustains the entire universe.

Dawkins' scientific narrative does not account for this - it does not have an explanation. He is on the back foot with this question. He attempts to wrap the question in a metanarrative, but really there is no answer for this. It is a very real hole in his story.

His comeback is passable, and some people will be satisfied by this - they already believe and they just need reassurance. However, what makes this a stunning blow is the amount of time he takes to formulate this response. This gives the appearance that he is stumped, and drastically reduces the effect of his response for those who are undecided. In an interview with no pause it would be a minor point, but the silence draws attention to it. How it is interpreted will be dependent on the underlying viewpoint of the audience. Supporters will hear a thoughtful pause, detractors will hear a stunned silence, the undecided will most like perceive it according to the interpretation of a commentator.

Consider this video response for example.

What Dawkins should have done, and what you should do in this situation is say: "Give me a moment to think about that one - what's your next question."

Stay on the offensive. If you're not attacking you're defending, and if you're defending - you're losing.

As a preacher of Krishna Consciousness there are some things that will be "holes in the story" - these are the kind of carefully researched and posed questions designed to bring you down. The philosophy of Krishna Consciousness is so powerful that if you understand it you will be able to answer any philosophical question with no hesitation. The kind of questions that will take you down in today's environment are those relating to social issues or historical issues within ISKCON. In other words, not philosophy, but application. These ones will require thought to respond to sensitively and accurately. This thought should take place before you find yourself in this situation.

While I was in Peru I was interviewed on television as a spokesperson for ISKCON. A camera was shoved in my face and I was asked: "What do you think about the war in Iraq?"

It was then that I realized that preachers need to train on these points like martial artists do in their dojo. I would like to see a book "Hare Krishna Frequently Asked Questions" (it probably needs to be a periodical) where senior practitioners of the art of public communication share their insights on the kind of questions that are likely to provoke "thoughtful pauses" in communication.

Key Points:

• Be Prepared. Think about the kinds of questions that someone can corner and kill you with and work out your strategy to talk your way out of them - ahead of time
• Use the deferral tactic - "Give me a moment to think about that one. What's your next question?" This gives you time to think, may dismiss the question altogether, and disrupts your opponent's flow if this question is the first in a multi-punch combo.
• Remember to restate your main points. You may not answer the question, but most people will probably overlook that and remember your point.
• Avoid the uncomfortable silence at all costs.

View Larger Map

Location: Corner of Eton St and Sleath St, Auchenflower
Date: Saturday 17th May
Time: 1 pm

There is one harmonious platform where all differences dissolve. This is participation in sankirtan, the congregational chanting of the Holy Names of the Supreme. It is the prescribed means for elevating the consciousness of the people in general. It benefits the performers and everyone who hears. It purifies the environment. It is 100 times more powerful than individual spiritual practice [source].

There are so many disturbances and imbalances in our environment today, both externally and internally. Here in Brisbane we are under level 6 water restrictions, the most restrictive ever. In recorded history Australia has never known such a drought.

The world is groaning under the burden of materialistic consciousness. We must throw it off. Now, more than ever before, the world is in need of a revolution of consciousness. This sankirtan movement has come about just for bringing about such a revolution in a misdirected civilization.

Join us! :-)

Yesterday was an Ekadasi day. Ekadasi is Sanskrit for "eleven", and the ekadasi day occurs twice in each lunar month, on the 11th day after the full moon, and the 11th day after the dark moon. On these days Vaisnava devotees fast from grains and beans.

Sometimes it can be a challenge to arrange for something to eat. Last night Prahlad and I stayed over at the local temple, to wake the Deities in the morning. We got there at 6.25 pm and all the ekadasi prasadam was gone. Luckily we were able to go back into town to Atma and get something there. We had to go back anyway to drop Stefan off at the airport for his flight to Thailand, so it worked out well.

Julia and Suvilasa cooked. Julia has been influencing the cooking lately with her Spanish styles and some unique recipes that she got from her mother.

Here's the hovering aerial shot of the whole plate - salad, potato pie, subji, and quinoa patty. The secret to simple, healthy, and tasty prasadam is in the ingredients, the consciousness of the cooks, and the sauces.

Here's the salad. You can see a marigold in there. Sometimes we bring maha-marigolds from the temple or home and add them to the salad after it's been offered.

This is a quinoa patty with a tomato and coconut sauce.

Now this was interesting - it's some kind of vegetable pie made with a layer of sweet potato and a layer of potato. Tasted at least as good as it looks.

There was also a nice dessert, a confection of coconut, nuts, and fruit. I didn't get a picture of it, but it was awesome.

So we got to eat well, and after dropping Stefan off at the airport made it back out to the temple to take rest.

To relieve that "burning of the universe" feeling... here's something about what I've been up to.

On Tuesday night Prahlad and I dropped by the Shabazz School of Self Defense, run by local Master Warrior Ali Shabazz. Ali Shabazz is also known by the name Abhilasa dasa. In addition to being a student of martial arts traditions he is also a student of the ancient Vedic spiritual tradition, and was one of the youngest of the disciples of the great world teacher Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

I shot some video for the Master Warrior for his youtube channel, and Prahlad picked up some instruction.

Prahlad will continue with his instruction, as in the future he will either practice or teach it, or both.

Here are some videos of Master Warrior Shabazz in action:

Introduction to Shabazz Defense.

Shabazz defense against a straight punch.

Please read this post on Communication and Intention before continuing here.

This morning I was finally able to articulate what has provoked rage in me over resolution 311.

Here is the logic of the resolution:

Premise A. (explicit in resolution) We have external PR issues.

Premise B. (explicit in resolution) We have internal cultural issues.

Premise C. (implicit) X

Premise D (implicit) Putting annotations in Srila Prabhupada's books is the clearly the best way / the only way to fix this.

Premise E. (implicit in resolution, explicit in Praghosa prabhu's comment - comment #6 here) We are qualified to annotate Srila Prabhupada's books.

Premise F. (implicit in resolution, explicit in Praghosa prabhu's comment - comment #6 here Any downsides to annotating are outweighed by the benefits.

Conclusion: Let's annotate.

Premise D, "annotation is the only way / the best way", has not been demonstrated, nor has sufficient due diligence been shown by the GBC on that or Premise F, "the downsides".

Premise E, "we are qualified to do it", is a cause for alarm in itself. Praghosa prabhu says:

It would seem entirely appropriate for sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada to be the ones who give the definitive explanation on any statements that might, or are being misconstrued by others.

Three things to that, accepting it as true:

1. which sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada, with which take on his teachings?
2. I don't like to have to call your qualification into doubt, here, but out of duty (and based on previous GBC performance) seriously - are you really qualified to do that?
3. Explain all you like in another book, but why change Prabhupada's book?

And this leads on to mystery Premise C, which is what grabs my gut and forces me to speak on this.

Premise C is:

Srila Prabhupada's preaching in his books is the cause of these problems

Devotees intuitively grok this in the resolution. Witness the gut reaction push-back of Pandu, who immediately comes back with (paraphrasing) - "Prabhupada's preaching isn't the problem, it's your leadership".

I also spoke to this point when I said: "It's not Prabhupada's statements but the devotees' behaviour that is the root cause."

Now, to be liberal, what the GBC is probably trying to say is:

"Public perception of what Srila Prabhupada said is contributing to our PR issues.
Devotee misapplication of what Srila Prabhupada said is contributing to our internal cultural issues."

However:

1. The resolution appears to take aim not at devotee understanding or public perception, but at Srila Prabhupada's statements;
2. The resolution is not justified or explained;
3. Vocal support from the community is coming from devotees who openly state their opinon that the resolution is good because Srila Prabhupada's statements are in fact the problem;
4. People are freaking out apart from this about the creation of "the power to annotate" and its potential for misuse, especially with no evidence of managerial competency or due diligence around it;
5. Premise D - "this is the only / the best way" has not been discussed with the alternatives that were considered presented and the reasons for their dismissal documented;

Due to these factors the impression that Srila Prabhupada's statements are in fact considered the cause is reinforced.

I have already stated that I agree that public perception is always an issue in preaching. You are necessarily presenting something new and different to people. So preaching, or relevant communication must be there.

My point again is: why not write books that create faith in people, and draw them to Srila Prabhupada's books?

If you have don't have sufficient spiritual potency to do that, then I am sorry, but I have no faith that you are qualified to do meta-commentary in his book.

About the internal cultural issues, the GBC need to own that. Even if you weren't in when it failed miserably to provide leadership and protection to the society, you still have to own it.

Here in Australia the government recently formally apologized to the indigenous people of Australia for its treatment of them [newspaper article]. Many of the people in the government weren't in it when these things happened, but they still apologize because they are in it now, and it's the same government.

Yes, we know you had no experience in leading any kind of organization, much less a society. Yes, we know you were young. Yes, we know you weren't even in a position of power at that time.

However, you are now the GBC and you have to own it. Just like the Catholic church had to own the responsibility for inaction during the Holocaust [newspaper article].

You are the post. You take the hit - don't try to pass it on to Srila Prabhupada.

I would like to see more articles like Sesa prabhu's article on "Premature Transcendence"
A Personal Reflection on Virtue and Values in the Krsna Consciousness Movement. This is the kind of brahminical leadership that we need, working down to a local level, to effect the internal culture changes that are necessary.

I restate my point - without ideal devotees, no amount of annotating is going to make a difference to these two issues, Premise A and Premise B. With ideal devotees, no amount of annotating is necessary.

Yesterday I spent a couple of hours talking with one of the members of my Sastric Advisory Committee. He is an editor at my work and spent a number of years studying to be a rabbi. He did some editing for me on my recent op-ed piece on ISKCON News (which explains the difference from my normal voice).

During our discussion he made an interesting point.

A characteristic of an adolescent phase of maturation is to consider that the only effects of an action or a communication are those that you intend.

The other side of this is to always consider that the consequences of an action or communication necessarily reflect the intent behind it.

This is important, because I am about to lay down some smack, and I want to preface it with this.

The consequences of the announcement of resolution 311 are not necessarily the intent of the GBC. They are the very real consequences, but they may well be unforeseen ones. This is the interpretation that I am giving them, and that's part of my argument as to why the GBC is unqualified to annotate Prabhupada's books based on their ability to predict the consequences of doing so, which is the philosophical justification implicit in the resolution.

Vaisnavas are liberal and they give people the benefit of the doubt. Witness my recent interaction with Madhava Ghosh prabhu. He could have responded to the error in my commentary by saying: "Clearly you are an idiot, clearly you have evil intentions, clearly you are blinded by your puffed up pride..." or so many other things that would have resulted in a Daksa-yajna blood bath. Instead he gave me the benefit of the doubt, and as a result it became the basis for a loving exchange.

That is Vaisnavism.

My outspoken opposition to resolution 311 is a necessary duty in our society. Someone has to present the samsaya, doubt, and purva-paksa, opposing argument. This is a society, remember - not a cult. As a citizen of the society I have my civic duty. This is political participation, Vaisnava-style.

In this last week we've had complete control of the skies. It feels like the heady days of the opening months of World War Two, when the Luftwaffe had free reign over Western Europe. We've been able to strafe resolution 311 on the ground repeatedly with no opposition. This is a result of the GBC not having properly planned and executed this resolution.

However, I imagine that behind the scenes brahmanas are being engaged to fashion anti-aircraft brahmastras to defend resolution 311 and take us down.

The arguments that we are articulating and talking points that we are giving provide the framework for the GBC to prepare its justification and its response. This kind of analysis should have been done beforehand, but that's all right, because it is being done now in a transparent fashion through respectful dialog.

If I were in the administration, right now I would be firing my policy implementation strategy advisors. Of course, I'm not in the administration, and the current administration should probably be acquiring some, since they apparently have none. Policy implementation strategy advisors are wonks who tell you how to introduce something like resolution 311 strategically.

As a ksatriya you are of course blinded by the brilliance of your strategic initiative. I mean, if it weren't clearly the best thing, in fact the only way, you wouldn't be doing it, would you? Happens to me all the time when I'm leading in my small area of activity [see here].

However, you need detached brahmanas who can consider different viewpoints, and will give you advice on the best way to proceed on communicating the justification of your initiative to others. They consider and predict the response of the stakeholders of the organization.

These guys would have provided resolution 311 with some air cover.

To keep the brahmanas detached you have a separate team that works on Policy Analysis. These are the guys who should have produced the papers laying out the justification and opposing considerations for resolution 311, which the GBC should right now be laying on the table.

You have to acquire these guys, meaning acquire their advisory capacity, rather than hire them, because brahmanas don't work for pay. As soon as you're paying them, they have to tell you what you want to hear.

For my op-ed piece on ISKCON News, I acquired the advice of Krishna-kirti prabhu, who is very good at analysis. And as y'all know - Krishna-kirti is not in the business of telling Sita-pati what he wants to hear. :-)

Back in 2000 I was working at Local Government New Zealand as the Network Administrator. LGNZ is a strategic think tank, and there were policy analysts working there. They would produce reports and analysis of policy and provide this to Local Government who would then use it as input for their decision-making.

To make good decisions you need processes like this. To be credible as leadership in a society you need to be able to show that this is how you operate.

As H.H. Hanumat-presaka Swami told me: to know what to do you can do one of three things - consult a pure devotee, consult a relevant smrti-sastra for the time and place, or failing the presence of either of these consult with seven brahmanas.

Meta-commentary over, back to the issue.

Madhava Gosh's piece on annotations got taken to pieces by Pandu [1 and 2] when it appeared on Dandavats.com in the context of the resolution 311 conversation.

Gosh prabhu starts off his piece by admitting that he hasn't even read the resolution under discussion, so it wasn't hard for Pandu to go from there and take it apart. Gosh caught me with my pants down though, after I commented on his piece when it originally appeared on his blog - without reading it myself. hahahaha, ironic eh? :-)

Luckily Gosh is a liberal Vaisnava and gave me the benefit of the doubt:

Perhaps you were speed reading and assumed...

If he'd been a conservative I might have been in trouble. ;-)

Madhava Gosh prabhu's piece is good for what it is, but a solid philosophical justification or defense of resolution 311 it is not. We're still waiting for something more substantial in that area.