Philosophy

Sunday Feast - Sitapati style.

Props to Vrajadhama for mixing it up.

Salient points from a recent sermon, courtesy of Pastor Perry Noble - see if you can work these into a class:

• The definition of diligence is doing a little thing a long time until something big happens.
• You will never win if you keep quitting!
• When you are preparing you are out of step with today but in step with what is happening tomorrow.
• The church waits on the world to create a problem & then responds to it–we need to do church in a way that puts the world on its heels!
• Having to be inspired to do what is right is the lowest form of maturity!
• There are people who don’t mind if you fail…but it really bothers them if you succeed.
• Gossip is a symptom of an unfulfilled, boring life. The only way you can focus on my life is because there is nothing happening in yours!
• I want you to be so focused on your future that you don’t have time to talk about other people’s past!

Srila Prabhupada's commentary on the Bhagavatam opens with a life sketch of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the ideal preacher of the Bhagavatam.

The personal character of the preacher is an integral part of the message that he preaches. The Sanskrit word for preaching: pracar has integral within it the Sanskrit word for the personal comportment of the preacher: acar. In English we say that you should "practice what you preach". In Sanskrit, what you practice is what you preach.

In his translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam verse 1.2.18 Srila Prabhupada imports two meanings to the phrase nityam bhagavata-sevaya - "By regular attendance in classes on the Bhagavatam and by rendering of service to the pure devotee". On the trascendental plane the message and the medium are one and the same.

So without being ideal yourself, you cannot preach an ideal message, or cause others to become ideal. The analogy is given that an iron rod may be placed in fire, at which point it takes on the quality of fire and is able to light further fires itself. Our potency to effect change comes from our own submission to the process of change.

For a brahmacari to admit that he is unauthorized by his spiritual master to speak is an admission that his behaviour is less than ideal. For him to then go on to extensively speak on the subject of the behaviour of others and what they should be doing is hypocritical. There is a fundamental incongruity between what you are saying ("this is ideal behaviour and you should be doing it") and what you are doing yourself.

In Bhagavad-gita Krishna describes the austerity of the brahmacaris in this way:

Some [the unadulterated brahmacārīs] sacrifice the hearing process and the senses in the fire of mental control

- Bhagavad-gita 4.26

A brahmacari is offered the respect due the ashram because of his conformance with the ashram. He is a limb of his guru. By this association he becomes worthy of respect. In Srimad Bhagavatam 4.19.12 Srila Prabhupada warns against misuse of the saffron cloth, while explaining how this was first introduced by Indra.

To demand that others "accept Srila Prabhupada's instructions as they are" in the area of social duties while simultaneously failing to do so yourself is analogous to preaching that "you must believe in Jesus" while failing to observe Jesus' basic teachings.

Ravindra Svarupa prabhu in his seminar on ISKCON History talks about the concept of "rectification of names", a concept described in the Analects of Confucius.

If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything. Let the ruler be ruler, the minister minister, the father father and the son son

So let the brahmacari first be a brahmacari before he speaks about what everyone else should be doing.

Otherwise whatever we accept on that faulty basis will have no permanent beneficial effect. Whatever may be good there is mixed with something very unhealthy.

On a related but separate note, further to the points that I made in Preaching in the post-Gay-Marriage World about de- and recontextualized quoting of Srila Prabhupada, I should add that cutting and pasting a whole lot of Prabhupada's statements from different places to create a compendium is also creating a different context, and thus quoting out of context. That is to say, if I take a whole lot of things that Srila Prabhupada said on one subject in different environments to different people, and then stick them all together and present this aggregation in a different environment I may be "quoting Prabhupada verbatim", but I'm doing so in a way and a context that he himself did not do, and one that does not necessarily reflect the same intent that he had when he made those statements.

In order to faithfully represent Srila Prabhupada we have to speak appropriately to the time, place, and circumstance with the same intent and purity of purpose that he had. That takes purification, not mere imitation.

The goal is to help people to become Krishna conscious. It's not just to prove to everyone how "right" we are. As His Holiness Devamrita Swami mentioned the other day, that was Prabhupada's genius - he did not compromise on the principle, but he was flexible in the application. So to follow his footsteps we have to do the same: be uncompromising on principle, and intelligently flexible in application. The Krishna Consciousness movement is not meant for blind following, but for creating independently thoughtful men.

During his recent visit to Brisbane His Holiness Devamrita Swami gave class on an interesting and potentially controversial verse and purport. The Bhaktivedanta purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 10.4.5 contains this paragraph:

As we learn from the history of the Mahābhārata, or "Greater India," the wives and daughters of the ruling class, the kshatriyas, knew the political game, but we never find that a woman was given the post of chief executive. This is in accordance with the injunctions of Manu-samhitā, but unfortunately Manu-samhitā is now being insulted, and the Āryans, the members of Vedic society, cannot do anything. Such is the nature of Kali-yuga.

Maharaja gave the class without touching on this point, so I took the opportunity to ask about it in the questions period:

Question: In the verse Devaki proposes to Kamsa that his son marry her daughter - that would make them cousins. And then in the purport Srila Prabhupada says that a woman should never be a chief executive. Both of these are culturally dissonant with our current society.

Answer: Yeah there are a lot of things in Bhagavatam that are "dissonant" with our current society. There's not much we can do about that. For preaching purposes we may stress such things more or less. They're not the "main thrust" - but they're there, and they're there for a reason.

That doesn't mean we have to, you know, get out on the streets, have a big harinam party, carry banners: "Do you know what the Manu Samhita says? It says that XYZ should never become president or prime minister. Ha ha! What do you think of that?"

Sometimes when Srila Prabhupada would speak about these controversial things in the sastra he would even directly say: "I know this won't be appreciated." Especially he would get on the Americans case: "I know you Americans won't like this." And then he'd say it anyway.

So he would acknowledge that there is controversy. At the same time, he stuck to what the sastra says but he was liberal in his application - that was his genius. He didn't compromise on the principle, but he could be flexible in the application. That's a big difference than being uncompromising on principle and application.

One of my all time favorites. It's not Dawkins, but Sunsara Taylor, the head of "World Can't Wait" [Sunsara's blog].

I award this one squarely to Bill O'Reilly [wikipedia entry].

O'Reilly actually has two guests on, Taylor and Ron Luce [wikipedia entry], the head of "Battlecry USA". O'Reilly ostensibly acts as the moderator between the two. However, he expertly uses his position to slant the debate to Ron Luce, whom he obviously favors.

There is a saying: "If you want to make money from gambling, own the table." In the same way, the way to significantly influence public opinion is not to get on TV, but to own the TV station. Since O'Reilly is able to determine the terms of debate, he is able to make it a walk home for Luce.

His Holiness Kavicandra Swami wrote recently about Battlecry and their agenda. In this clip we get to hear what Battlecry are all about, and Luce even manages to get his website into the conversation.

Luce is clearly an expert in dealing with the media. He remains smiling and positive throughout the exchange. People will remember this. They may not remember what he said, but they will be left with a favorable impression of a smiling, upbeat, and positive person. For the same reason it is important for devotees to always smile on harinam. People may not understand what the heck is going on, "but it sure looks like they're having fun, so it can't be bad".

Luce also continually restates his position. He has a number of points that he wants to get across, and he just keeps making them. O'Reilly is easy on him and doesn't really ask him any hard questions. Taylor, on the other hand, gets the "slanted table" treatment from O'Reilly.

Rather than allowing her to speak on the basis of her platform, O'Reilly puts her on the defensive by questioning the tone of her dialog: "Why the name calling?"

Taylor has allowed herself to be put into a corner. At a strategic level, unfortunately, her position is defined as being "anti-Battlecry". This immediately adds more authority and weight to Battlecry's message. It got her onto television, but not on her terms. O'Reilly then turns the focus of the debate to the form of her dialog, rather than the substance.

In this way he appears to be neutral, but by defining the terms of the debate he is able to "put Gajendra in the water" (a reference to this pastime in the Srimad Bhagavatam that means put her onto an unfavorable battlefield).

Taylor could have escaped from this killing zone by simply saying: "Yes, I admit that we lowered the tone of the debate, and I apologize for that..." and then gone on to continually restate her points. She could have said that "people used those words because they are very upset, for the following reasons..."

This would have had the effect of neutralizing O'Reilly's positioning, which he uses throughout the debate to corner Taylor. Of course, Taylor might lose some of her internal support by doing this. The troops who used those slogans, perhaps even contributed to by Taylor, would feel that they had been betrayed.

She might have tried the weaker option of: "I acknowledge that...", and then gone on to state her position.

Instead, Taylor is made out to be a petulant, childish personality unable to come to an adult level of dialog. O'Reilly frames her message as naive, emotive, and irrational.

This is an important point for moderators and maintainers of meta-frameworks. You can cut people down without disagreeing with their message, by attacking the appropriateness of their dialog. As an example, the GBC could have undercut Caitanya das' blog by pointing out that a 20-something year old brahmacari has no credibility to speak about women's issues, and that such speech is inappropriate for that ashram.

They could have hammered on this point to the extent that it isolated him, without having to "take a side" in the issues that are under discussion.

This would have had the flow-on effect of deprecating his arguments, just as O'Reilly puts Taylor's position down the gurgler, but it would have been done in an overtly "clean-handed" way. It's overtly about "raising the tone of the dialog", and enforcing proper behaviour in ashrams. You can't demand proper behaviour in the grhasta ashram (which women belong to in all phases of life, according to Srila Prabhupada) while simultaneously displaying improper behaviour in the brahmacari ashram. Pointing out this inherent contradiction should have been enough. Reward rational presentation, punish bad behaviour.

O'Reilly maintains a metaframework that accommodates diversity of opinion and the right to expression. At the same time he clearly takes Taylor out and promotes Luce. There is a valuable lesson for moderators everywhere in this exchange.

Key Points:

• Keep smiling - no matter what
• Know what your main points are, continually restate them
• Do not define your position in opposition to the other guy's, but have a coherent platform that you promote
• Cast a positive vision and a positive spin
• If the moderator corners you, slip out. Acknowledge his point (you don't have to agree with it), then restate your position yet again
• If you get inextricably caught in the kill zone make like Gajendra and remember the lotus feet of the Lord
• If you are moderating, slant the table without getting involved in either side - "put Gajendra in the water" and then let them have a "fair fight"
• If you are moderating, keep the tone of the conversation high - it's actually a valid aspect of the role, and one that O'Reilly discharges well

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.

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.

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.