archives

Here is one of the unpublished comments that I submitted to Dandavats before commentary was officially closed:

This is not about the 4th Canto’s rape quote. That one was selected as the least controversial, from a devotee point of view, to make the proposal more easy to defend in public debate.

What we are really talking about here are the “women are less intelligent”, “what about homosexuals and black people” issues that the public do bring up regularly, and which are contained in books that we distribute to the public, such as Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 2.

We are talking here not just of adding one endnote or footnote to the fourth canto to clarify something that devotees all over the spectrum can agree on. That is the visible tip of the iceberg. We are talking about more extensive annotations. What you are aiming for here is the ability to unilaterally address the other issues, ones which will not have such a broad base of support.

If you have fully calculated this then you have accepted trading some ISKCON members who have given their lives to these books, for public opinion. I fear you will lose one without gaining the other. Srila Prabhupada’s books are central to the voluntary participation of the members of ISKCON - arguably acceptance of these books is the common platform of ISKCON membership. By interfering with that dynamic you are striking at the very heart of devotees’ sense of self and identity as a member of ISKCON.

If I were doing this, which I wouldn’t, I would have available a website with papers from Ravindra Svarupa, Prahladananda Swami, and other thought leaders in ISKCON, detailing the motivations and showing the consideration that went into this proposal, including alternative strategies, and I would also demonstrate that the GBC had heard dissenting opinions before coming to this conclusion.

“It was felt…” is no substitute for this.

In one week devotees in the community have produced more analysis of this landmark proposal than the GBC has provided for it, after what is supposed to be extensive consideration. His Holiness Sivarama Swami, a GBC member, has given his consideration in a podcast and is not convinced that this is the best thing. In a brahminical society leadership is through illumination and explanation, not simply executive order.

As a brahmana and a local thought leader what am I supposed to tell people around me about this? The most liberal honest reply I can give is: “I don’t know how much thought went in to this proposal”.

That is indicative of an executive, not brahminical approach.

This is the (in)famous encounter between Richard Dawkins and Pastor Ted Haggard [wikipedia entry], then mega-church pastor and head of the American Evangelical Union.

Ted Haggard's subsequent fall from grace and dismissal from his church and para-church leadership have lead to this encounter being mercilessly spoofed.

I award one point each way to Dawkins and Haggard in this encounter and call a tie.

Dawkins baits Haggard, barely hiding his outraged sensibilities as he makes observations comparing the church service to a "Nuremburg rally".

Haggard responds well, maintaining an air of humor. He is used to speaking in public, playing to the camera / audience, and controlling the external display of his emotions.

Remember, in public debate it's about winning the audience, not defeating your opponent. When you win the audience you defeat your opponent. On the other hand, if you defeat your opponent but lose the audience, you lose the debate.

Haggard plays the same game to Dawkins, baiting him in response. The two men, both powerful thought leaders who seek to occupy the same social position - that of setting the value system for society at large, circle each other with their teeth, in Haggard's case literally, bared. The tension is palpable in the room throughout the interaction, and you can almost hear the sparks crackling.

Haggard plays an epistemology gambit. Epistemology [wikipedia entry] refers to "the nature of knowledge and knowing". Haggard challenges Dawkins on the ability of the scientific method to provide conclusive knowledge.

First of all, and this is important to note, he states that he "fully embraces the scientific method". In this way he seeks to envelop Dawkins position. It's the good ol' "embrace and extend" - "Yes, I fully accept your position, and I also contribute this beyond it..."

This is a good angle to come from. He is wrapping Dawkins' position in a metanarrative, which is essentially Dawkins' own strategy.

He then comes up with a knock-out punch. After baiting Dawkins' into an overly emotional response, Haggards chastises him in a powerful monologue to "not be so arrogant". Haggard makes use of his ability to deliver a powerful flow of authoritative, improvised speech, honed through his experience as a communicator in his role as the pastor of a church. Al Khattab also tried this, but with less expertise and impact.

The particular angle that Haggard has chosen for this blow is well chosen. The Richard Dawkins Rap - Beware the Believers video on YouTube demonstrates that many people are threatened by Richard Dawkins' intellectually superior positioning, which is necessary for the delivery of his metanarrative:

Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D - he's smarter than you, he's got a science degree
Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D - he's still smarter than you, he studied biology.

Haggard constructs his metanarrative and delivers his blow by assuming a superior position on the basis of personal qualities, chiefly personal humility. This relates to his epistemology, which rests on acknowledging human limitations and the need to hear from the Supreme Authority through scripture.

The weakness of his stance is the appearance of arrogance on his part. Intellectually he has it, but in his own character he is missing something vital to pull this off 100% successfully. The later revelation of the lack of integrity in his personal life unfortunately bears out this impression.

Having delivered a successful on camera knock out punch, Haggard then reverses his own victory. He loses control of his temper and pursues Dawkins and his camera team, threatening them and yelling at them.

If he had control of his mind and senses then his gambit would have been so much more effective. The character of the preacher is as much the preaching as the words he says. The medium is the message.

Acar (action) and pracar (preaching) must be integral and aligned.

For Krishna conscious preachers it means that while we cultivate knowledge we must also work on refining our personal character. Humility is important. It was through a lesson in humility that Haggard knocked Dawkins down. It was through a lack of personal humility that he fell down himself.

Key Points

• Remember: it's about winning the audience over to your point of view
• Control your emotions and keep it good humored
• "Embrace and extend" made Bill Gates the most successful man in the software business - put it to work for you
• Your battle doesn't begin when the camera starts rolling, it begins every day when you wake up. Your personal character is one of your chief weapons, and it's a product of your daily activities
• Don't rely on your own strength - remember that your strength comes from relying on the person who is source of all strength, power, and intelligence

Currently Param Satya is applying for permanent residency in Australia. She is on a bridging visa while she does this. Initially she was on a religious worker visa, sponsored by ISKCON in Brisbane.

It's taken almost two years since we first put the application in. A series of mishaps and lost documentation, the need to get documentation from Perú (a torturous affair), and the last minute addition of Prahlad and myself to the application have made it stretch out waaaaaay looooonger than it should have.

In the time since we initiated the process the process has changed. An "Australian Values" statement has been added to the application. I'm just printing it out now so that we can sign it and add it to the application form.

I mention this to underscore the point that I made in the analysis of Richard Dawkins vs Josef Al-Khattab - cultural diversity and multi-cultural integration are prominent themes in the environment today, as our globalized world increasingly flattens.

Rigid cultural inflexibility and especially proselytizing on the basis of cultural practices (what Al-Khattab was doing) is not acceptable to modern persons. However, you are free to retain your culture, and to adopt the cultural practices of others if you choose. This provides the window of opportunity to go in, and means that members of minority cultures, such as myself and Bhakta Corey (now initiated as Caitanya das BVKS), are free to practice our faith and live according to our cultural values within the host culture without being persecuted in countries such as Australia and the US.

We are free to retain our own culture, others can not challenge our right to practice our own culture, others have the right to adopt and participate in our culture.

The only restrictions are that we respect the rights of others to practice their own culture, and that we participate in the meta-culture of Australia as described in the statement below. It doesn't require us to break any of the four religious principles, so it is not incompatible with our spiritual practice.

If Krishna Consciousness really is superior, then it should be able to win on its own merits. We welcome a situation like the one described in the Australian Values, because it gives us a fair opportunity to compete in the open market of cultural ideas. Now it's just up to us to embody the principles.

Here's the Australian Values statement that we have to sign:

I confirm that I have read, or had explained to me, information provided by the Australian Government on Australian society and values.

I understand:

• Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good;
• Australian society values equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background;
• the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.

I undertake to respect these values of Australian society during my stay in Australia and to obey the laws of Australia.

I understand that, if I should seek to become an Australian citizen:

• Australian citizenship is a shared identity, a common bond which unites all Australians while respecting their diversity;

Australian citizenship involves reciprocal rights and responsibilities. The responsibilities of Australian citizenship include obeying Australian laws, including those relating to voting at elections and serving on a jury.

If I meet the legal qualifications for becoming an Australian citizen and my application is approved I understand that I would have to pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people.