Banned Comments from Dandavats

Here is one of the unpublished comments that I submitted to Dandavats before commentary was officially closed: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