archives

View a video podcast discussing "the power to annotate"

In his Vedanta-sutra Srila Vyasadeva has described that everything is but a transformation of the energy of the Lord. Sankaracarya, however, has misled the world by commenting that Vyasadeva was mistaken. Thus he has raised great opposition to theism throughout the entire world.

- Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Adi-lila 7.121

If you introduce a commentary into Srila Prabhupada's books culturally relativizing his statements, then you run the very real risk of diminishing people's faith in his words. Do not subject Srila Prabhupada to a meta-analysis in his own book. It is disrespectful.

Introducing this commentary will not increase the faith of those who have no faith in Srila Prabhupada, and it will have the effect of diminishing the loyalty to the GBC of those who do have strong faith in Srila Prabhupada.

You write another contemporary book and create faith in people through your preaching. Then when they have faith in you, they will have faith in the one in whom you have faith - that is service to Srila Prabhupada.

If you do not have potency to do this, then what is the question of having the spiritual potency to comment inside Srila Prabhupada's own book?

The simple message is this: I do not accept the GBC on the same level as Srila Prabhupada. I know that Srila Prabhupada is qualified to write in his book. To put it liberally: I don't know if anyone else is. I prefer for those who "know better" how to make a relevant contemporary presentation to demonstrate their spiritual prowess with their own book. That is honest, and protects Srila Prabhupada's legacy - which is the job of the GBC.

The GBC has left a brahminical thought vaccuum around resolution 311. This does not inspire confidence that this resolution has the potency to pull itself off. Although it is not spelled out in the resolution, resolution 311 is justified on the basis of its effects and the ability of those proposing it to judge potential future effects, rather than scriptural injunction. Given this, the lack of finesse in effecting an introduction to the society, one flanked with significant brahminical support (something a little more significant than republishing a random blog post from Madhava Ghosh prabhu on Dandavats.com), further undermines that resolution 311 has the qualification to do what it wants to.

Why has Sita-pati, who is usually being bashed by the conservatives as a liberal and by the disenfranchised as an ISKCON/GBC apologist, suddenly had to reveal the steel hand within the velvet glove and come out as an arch-conservative? Because this resolution and the way it has been enacted has hit me directly in the heart. That's inexpert, and seems to have been an unforeseen consequence of this resolution. I wonder what other unforeseen consequences are in store? Hard to say what consequences have or haven't been pre-seen, because there is no thus far no brahminical support for resolution 311. If it does exist, it isn't available to the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

It's hard to accept that this is the kind of brahminical leadership that is qualified to comment inside Srila Prabhupada's books.

Just as Romaharsana's disqualifications were not discussed until he exceeded his authority, this resolution brings to the forefront the previous examples that show that the GBC is not on the same level as Srila Prabhupada.

A predictable outcome.

View a video podcast discussing "the power to annotate"

I would like to see reports coming out of the GBC meetings that include such details as how many books are being distributed in each GBC zone, how many devotees are going out on harinam, and how many initiated devotees have actually read the 4th canto, and what is being done to increase these three figures.

I would like to see GBC leaders taking time to meet with local leaders in their zones and sharing their expertise and experience to increase effectiveness at a local level.

Authority in any organization is related to influence. Especially in a volunteer organization like ISKCON, this is effectively all that authority is. If no-one follows you, you're not leading.

When you make calls you need to be aware of how much influence you have, and if the call you are making will exceed that influence.

For example, there is the famous example of Srila Prabhupada approving a disciple's request to divorce and remarry. Srila Prabhupada's secretary, to whom he had dictated the letter, Harikesa prabhu, was puzzled by this and asked Prabhupada why he said "yes" when he had given so many instructions saying that divorce was not allowed. Srila Prabhupada replied that he knew that the disciple would do it anyway. Rather than lose the disciple completely by forcing him into a situation where he would have to disobey a direct order, Srila Prabhupada instead chose to preserve the relationship by not trying to transmit more force across it than it could sustain. In this way he continued to build influence with him and guide him forward from where he was.

Srila Prabhupada was expert in adjusting to the situation without compromising the principles. I don't have sufficient confidence that the current leadership has the same level of expertise to agree to them inserting commentary into Srila Prabhupada's books.

I said in an earlier comment, banned on Dandavats.com, that if the GBC has fully calculated the effects of resolution 311 they have said: "Yeah, some people aren't going to like it, but too bad for them. We can afford to lose those guys, and the positive outcomes in the long run will offset the short term losses. Press the go button."

I can appreciate that, from a ksatriya managerial perspective. Those are the kind of decisions that you make when you're in charge. No-one will agree with everything you do, and you have to do something.

However, I am very worried, because I don't think that they have properly calculated the impact and consequences of resolution 311 and its introduction.

If I were at the helm, or advising those at the helm on this issue, I would have position papers by Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, Prahladananda Swami, Jayadvaita Swami and others flooding out right now to swamp the society. I would also include samsaya (doubt) and purva-paksa (opposing argument) papers to show that it had been robustly considered, and to preempt opposition. Nothing like arguing the case against yourself more powerfully than anyone else... and then defeating it. In fact, that's our brahminical tradition.

This would achieve a number of effects:

1. It would not create a thought leadership vaccuum for persons like Sita-pati and Krishna-kirti to step into.
2. It would give talking points to pro-resolution 311 thought leaders at a local level, who could then retransmit and expand on the arguments and justifications given (that would have been me in a parallel universe, or on another issue where I actually agreed with the principle).
3. It would demonstrate to the non-brahminical membership that there is brahminical leadership in this area, even if they don't understand the issues and arguments.
4. It would give brahminical members something to consider, something to follow, and something to pitch their position against if they disagree.

Brahmanas do not follow orders. They follow explanations. ISKCON is supposed to be a society primarily of brahmanas. It requires brahminical leadership.

Instead we have only Praghosa prabhu's brief foray into a soon-aborted comments thread on Dandavats.com, comments from pro-resolution 311 devotees who personally don't like what Srila Prabhupada says in his books and seem unaware of the wider ramifications of bringing into creation "the power to annotate", and a podcast by GBC member His Holiness Sivarama Swami ["Rape and editing"] which is far from unqualified support for the measure.

That this brahminical leadership is missing in the form of resolution of 311 reinforces the conclusion that in its content it is similarly unqualified.

When the position papers come out I'll have something to consider. In the meantime, I'm just at a loose end.

So why has Sita-pati gone from "GBC apologist" to lecturing the GBC? It exceeded its authority (influence) with me by issuing this resolution in this way.

A predictable outcome.

This is Dawkins at his finest. A flawless victory without a doubt. The crowd gives him a wild ovation after a 70 second response to "the simplest question" from an audience member at Randolph Macon Women's College in Lynchburg, Virginia.

The question is: "What if you're wrong?"

Dawkins delivers his stunning oratorial tour de force by enveloping the question using a rhetorical cultural relativity argument that sweeps his opponents legs from under her. Again he wraps his opponent in a metanarrative. He doesn't address the question itself, but rather goes on the offensive, and attacks the questioner and their frame of reference.

This is a prime example of Dawkins at his best - he is playing to a live audience of the public. Remember that he is the sitting chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is a populist orator. He knows how to play to the crowd, and this crowd of Americans cheers him on like he were Hulk Hogan and this were a Friday night Smackdown at the WWE.

In a previous post I explained that a scriptural tradition that is not accepted by another will be interpreted by them as cultural tradition. Dawkins plays to this to present any religious belief as cultural conditioning. He is also playing to the audience's fear of religious fanaticism. This is where religious and cultural groups violently proselytize on the basis of "I am right. You are wrong."

This is a recurrent theme in Dawkins' work, and one that strikes a chord with his global audience. He uses this sympathy to push his own agenda of atheistic science as the answer.

Classical Krishna Conscious preaching, and in fact the Vedic method of harmonization and assimilation rather than cultural negation, more closely maps to Dawkins' method than to the exclusive proselytizing of many contemporary religions.

Consider this excerpt from a classic speech by His Holiness Visnujana Maharaja, delivered in Portland, Oregon, in 1975 (the event that is the opening scene of Radha-Damodara Vilasa):

So this is the warm invitation of Krishna Consciousness. It has nothing to do with black or white, young or old, or believe me, Christian or Jew or Hindu or anything like that. We consider these to be as much a part of false ego—Christian, Hindu, Jew—as we do black, white, young, old, man or woman. Because they were delegated to this body—I'm born in a Christian family, I call myself a Christian; I'm born in a Hindu family, I call myself a Hindu—so because of this body I'm a Hindu, because of this body I'm a Jew, and if I was born a million years ago would I be a Hindu, Christian or Jew? No. But I'd still be a servant, I'd still have my consciousness. See? Suppose you're born a hundred thousand years from now? Are you going to be a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew? No. But you'll still have your consciousness, you'll still have to serve, and you'll still want to be happy.

Visnujana Maharaja uses exactly the same argument that Dawkins does. We have more in common with Dawkins than may be apparent on the surface.

Dawkins uses the cultural relativity argument to dismiss the question. Another example of this tactic in play is when a person said to Srila Prabhupada: "There are so many paths..."

Srila Prabhupada replied to him: "So you choose one, and follow it."

This is a good response. However, it requires an additional layer to deal with the contemporary concern about religious extremism and inability to coexist with other understandings. Dawkins always chooses the most extreme examples to underscore his point.

The other thing he brings into play is the Flying Spaghetti Monster [wikipedia entry]. You should be familiar with this. It is a satirical story used to present the argument that if creationists are allowed to demand that their story be taught in schools with no evidence to support it, then any old story should be allowed.

Underlying this is a dismissal of scripture as pramana (valid evidence), and the presenting of empiric evidence as the only valid and acceptable pramana. This trend has been accelerated in modern cultures due to the clash of cultures with different scriptures, with different and sometimes contradictory cultural prescriptions. As most people can only evaluate things on a cultural basis, especially if they have not studied the scripture in depth, they see only confusion and contradiction as a result.

Dawkins throws this into the mix, as his audience are already familiar with it. He doesn't need to explain it, he just draws on it as an argument by the previous acaryas that supports his position.

Key Points:

• You don't have to speak to the question, you have to speak to the concerns of the audience
• Again, you win by winning the audience, not by defeating your opponent
• Know your audience's frame of reference. By throwing in "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" Dawkins establishes a rapport with them and at the same time draws extensive context and argument support into his 70 second speech, with only a few words
• Show how Krishna Consciousness simultaneously transcends and unites all religions to address the concerns of contemporary Western audiences
• Whatever you do, don't allow yourself to be cornered on cultural relativity. Srila Prabhupada, when explaining the dress of devotees would talk about its utilitarian value in helping them to identify themselves to the public, and reinforce their own sense of self identity. In the same way, be able to justify and explain cultural elements of Krishna Consciousness on a rational basis

Further to Richard Dawkins vs Al-Khattab, one work colleague gave his analysis to me today (speaking of Al-Khattab):

He's living in an adolescent power fantasy. He's full of hormones and afraid of women because he thinks they are like him. In another setting he'd be a Superman fan-boy. He'd be a geek sitting in a basement arguing online about whether Superman can beat up Thor. Same dynamic, different story. This one has more street cred because there are people running around with real guns, otherwise it's essentially the same thing.

This gives you some idea of how a contemporary western audience perceives this kind of proselytizing.

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.