Communication and Intention

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.