|
Thank You, BBT by Rama devi dasi Posted July 5, 2008
I felt very compelled to write in, just to say, how relieved I feel after reading the BBT's decision regarding annotating Srila Prabupada's books. I am still relatively a new devotee, not even ten years yet, and I felt very nervous and confused about the idea of annotating Prabhupada's books. I very much appreciate and feel very thankful, for the decision that the BBT has made and for the clear, concise wording, and it seems that all areas of questioning have been covered. The BBT took a very strong position and they also took into account other things which had not occurred to me, such as, the delegation of responsibilities for guiding the devotees. I feel very honored and humbled to be a part of Srila Prabupada's movement, and to be able to have this opportunity to be under the good guidance of the BBT, protecting and publishing Srila Prabupada's books for all of the world,as well as the GBC for their leadership, and also to be able to share in the association and mercy of so many senior Vaisnavas. The decision that the BBT had made sets a precedent for the future of ISKCON in such a way as to remain true to Srila Prabupada's vision, to his words, and to all of the work that he did.
On June 20, 2008, Paramount Pictures releases The Love Guru nationwide. The film tells the story of Guru Pitka (Mike Myers), a westerner raised at an Indian ashram, who grows up to be a high-profile and eccentric holy man come west. While the level of humor contained in the film is crass, the comedy has drawn significant attention even before its official opening - both pro and con - and from Hindu-Americans concerned that it violates appropriate boundaries in dealing with a religious subject. On behalf of the North American chapters of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), a Vaishnava, or devotional Hindu organization with an ethnically diverse membership, we understand that many Hindus are concerned that the film may mock their faith. At the same time, having seen the film in its entirety, we find it to be a typical satire that does not intend to hurt religious sentiments. While we respect the rights of others within the community to draw their own conclusions, we disagree with the calls to protest or boycott the film. We encourage the Hindu-American community to view the film in its context as a comedy, and to draw on the tolerance and broadmindedness that are hallmarks of our faith. The Love Guru is a satire, a genre that typically replaces reality with contradictions and exaggerations. If however, some mistake satire for truth, then rather than be angered, we could take the opportunity to clarify misrepresentations and educate others about our authentic traditions. If approached in a constructive and proactive way, the film may even lead to increased tolerance, dialogue, and understanding between Hindus and non-Hindus. We believe that pressuring filmmakers to censor , re-rate, or otherwise limit their artistic freedom is generally antithetical to the spirit of pluralism and tolerance within the Vedic, or Hindu culture. We recognize that, in certain cases, media depictions may so egregiously distort or maliciously denigrate our faith that boycotts, petitions, and other acts of protest are warranted. The Love Guru, however, is not such a case. Members of most faith traditions are sensitive about aspects of their tradition being used as sources of humor. However, The Love Guru reminds us that it is wise for people of faith to also maintain a sense of humor-and to take the time to laugh (even at ourselves) once in a while.
Anuttama dasa |
With Thanks to Mr. May... by Niscala dasi Posted September 20, 2008 As a kid I used to enjoy joining up dots and creating pictures. Today I am doing the same thing with our philosophy and still getting much enjoyment. The dots are intriguing points of gaudiya vaisnava philosophy, such as the only truly free thing we can do is to surrender to the will of God. This point and others, such as that we are inconceivably one with and different from God, can be found dotted throughout various literatures on the subject of the absolute truth and of its manifestations of divine love as we experience it at ground zero. It is a truly wonderful experience to break out of the sectarian stranglehold of reading only "our" books and discover that God can speak through anyone, and His voice is always sweet both to the mind and the heart. It joins the dots given in the vedas so that one can see how they fit wholly the picture we call reality. I am in particular gratitude to Mr Gerald May, whose book Will and Spirit is laced with the joy of finding the Lord yet again in an unexpected place. "The true self, whatever its nature, seems to lie beyond, behind, around, or in some other relation to the qualities of self-image, in a different dimension of consideration. We reveal this assumption in speaking of my body, my will, my desire, as if the true "I' possesses these attributes. This of course becomes most paradoxical when we think of my self. This statement, without our knowing it, underscores the mystery of who we are..." This of course is the opening point of many of our lectures on self-realization, and it could easily have been written by a devotee in our line, yet the author is May. After thus laying waste to our assumed sense of identity, he proceeds, in this book, to make an examination of the anatomy of spiritual ecstasy and its ramifications for the soul, undesirable ramifications that we may call "anarthas". That spiritual bliss could cause anarthas to arise reminds us of Visvanatha Chakravarti's warning that "anarthas arise from bhakti herself". How bhakti, or spiritual love of God can give rise to anarthas, is certainly bewildering to us, so how could a so-called karmi, or a devotee outside our line, shed any light at all on the matter? As soon as we think in such terms of owning or having a monopoly on spiritual truth, the Lord who is Its embodiment, escapes from our sight, as purported by the story of Radharani being left by Krishna, only because she started to think that she was somehow special, or specially favoured by the Lord. Thus this pastime is an example of anarthas caused by bhakti. Not that Radharani really had a problem with feeling special or favoured- the Lord covers His devotees to teach us lessons. It is we who have a problem with it. What is the origin of such feelings and how to overcome them? May describes the ongoing struggle between the self which longs for loving union with God, and the ego or sense of separate self-image, a struggle that goes on even though such loving union brings one ecstasy, or even because it brings ecstasy: "As soon as one becomes aware of some spiritual growth, one also becomes vulnerable to spiritual narcissism. Simply stated, spiritual narcissism is the unconscious use of spiritual practice, experience and insight to increase rather than decrease self-importance. It is a subtle turnabout in which ego manages to identify self-image with "trying to become holy" or -worse yet- with actually having become holy, thus making the spiritual quest a self-aggrandizing process rather than a journey of deepening humility" May makes liberal use of the word "ego" and how it offers constant opposition to the nature of unconditional love. It is clear however by "ego" he is referring not to our true identity or who we really are, but the image we have of ourselves, which we call the "false ego". He makes this clear in this passage on what is idolatrous: "All of us are to some extent idolatrous. If we are relatively free from mistaking image from reality in other areas, we at least idolize our self-images. When I speak of myself, I am almost always referring to the image I have of myself, and I habitually assume that I am talking about something solid and objectifiable. I forget that my true "self" is mystery born of mystery. This happens simply because it is more comfortable to forget than to remember. It feels safer, more secure, and certainly more entertaining to assume that my image of me is really me, because then I can glory in "my" triumphs and wallow in "my" miseries...throughout this colourful arena of heroic and tragic self-entertainment, the mysterious reality of who I really am is studiously ignored. It would require too much sacrifice, humility and willingness to admit that in thinking "myself" I am referring to nothing other than "this symbol I have of myself" Clearly, there is a difference between parrotting "aham brahmasmi" and actually experiencing it! Even if we theoretically acknowledge the existence of false ego, and do the motions of full surrender, we can get caught up into thinking ourselves the "doer" in relation to grand preaching successes or subtle successes like triumphing over sex desire. We may even memorize slokas which state that Krsna is the ability in man, that Krsna acts through us, that not a blade moves without His hand, and so on. Preaching it is one thing; believing it another; living it is a totally different ball game. What can be done to actually live it? Actually we all without exception live it at some time or another. Everyone at some time has had an encounter with God, some time when one feels His guidance or protection or love, some time when self-image falls away and one sees no difference between oneself, others and the universe. This is common to all human beings regardless of race, creed, age or personality type. It is an experience that is had by both the materialist, the seeker, the faithful and the non-believer; its just that we all deal with it differently. Many people repress such experiences and need outside promptings to even recall them; others who may be already spiritually inclined may start to feel themselves special or "blessed" or "advanced". Both are wrong responses in that they interrupt one's audience with God, being manifestations of the false ego whose business is self-definition, self-image, separateness. The modus operandi of the false ego is what May calls "willfullness", with "willingness" being its opposite and ultimate threat. May explains the subtle differences between these two essential attitudes thus: "Willingness and willfullness cannot be explained in a few words for they are very subtle qualities, often overlapping and very easily confused with each other ("the weed may look exactly like the creeper") But we can begin by saying that willingness implies a surrender of one's self-separateness, an entering-into, an immersion in the deepest processes of life itself. It is a realization that one is already a part of some ultimate cosmic process and it is a commitment to participation in that process. In contrast, willfullness is the setting of oneself apart from the fundamental essence of life in an attempt to master, direct, control or otherwise manipulate existence" One is reminded of Prabhupada's Prayer: "Oh Lord, I am merely a puppet in Your hands, and if You want me to dance, then, oh Lord, let me dance..." Feeling oneself to be an instrument of divine love and compassion which are sourced in God, or feeling oneself to loving and compassionate is the subtle difference between bhakti and anartha. Thus May is very good at giving gardening tips to the discerning cultivator of bhakti lata. Still, how to really feel oneself as an instrument, a conduit or a branch instead of a surgeon, electrical current or a tree? Hugely helpful, I find personally, is May's own testimony, given from his own raw data from countless interviews, that everyone has at some time or another had an encounter, or many encounters with God, that we are less searching for God than God is searching for us, and does find us in those moments when our defenses slip, and in those times we are helplessly overwhelmed by His love and beauty. If everyone has had those experiences, then His love is all around us, then I am not unique or saved or whatever. That it comes to even one who does not seek it, or tries to forget it, means that it is truly unconditional. Making myself holy does not guarantee His favour, nor does "falling down" disqualify me. The fallen, the righteous, the faithful and the atheists- all have at one time or another, whether they know it as such or not, have had experience of God's love. It is difficult to find such universality and unconditionality in love between human beings , there are always some conditions which cause love to disappear or even turn into anger or hatred. The reason given by May, is that human beings, by nature, are not sources of unconditional love, by nature, we sometimes feel love and sometimes not. However, being of the nature of spirit, it is spiritual or unconditonal love which we hunger for, and when we look to find it in a human being, we are certain to be disappointed and our need causes us to resent the deficiencies in the other, and an extreme need may cause us to hate. This is not to say that there is no value or meaning to interpersonal relationships, but it is simply to say that they do not satisfy our deepest spiritual yearning. They are not a one-stop-shop for the soul. May proposes that all love is sourced in God, and that some is expressed, be it deficiently, through human channels. Thus, it often happens that a person begins a loving activity from a genuine feeling of love and compassion, and later on it becomes a necessary ritual, something that is part of one's self-image, and then even the most charitable work becomes devoid of feeling. This can even happen in relation to parenthood, as even the most dutiful parent does not always feel love for their children. There may be times when they wish they had never chosen parenthood. Then they start to think that there is something wrong, experiencing terrible guilt about not feeing love all the time. They maybe deeply shocked and disappointed that at times they do not feel love even for their children or spouse, what to speak of ones neighbour. One is simply misidentifying one's self or one's role as unconditionally loving. Expecting oneself to be so causes unneccessary guilt, and expecting others to be so, causes unnecessary resentment. Realizing however, the source of universal love to be God, and that it freely flows to every atom of the creation, one can be at peace with oneself and the world, and on a spiritual level it is a crucial step in overcoming anarthas that arise from bhakti herself, or rather from false ego using the experience of bhakti to reinforce its sense of separateness and self-importance. There is more to it than that, like exactly how - and why- the false ego functions in this way, to separate us from the world...Achieving separateness is a necessary part of growth, as one learns first to become separate and independent of one's parents and later when one is fully mature one can then develop a relationship with them of what may ideally approach unconditional love, where there is nothing material we expect or need back from them. And so it is with our relationship with God, with the essential difference being that God is actually doing everything at every step of our development. It is only under the influence of false ego we think ourselves the doer, and see our future as laying in our own hands, and thus we exert our will and desire for survival. Then when we do approach God, we do so in neediness for His presence that is devoid of the necessity to survive, for that would degrade the relationship into beggar and charity-giver. The illusion that we can supply our own necessities for life frees up the relationship so that it is only a necessity of the heart, only in and of love.
This can be seen in the residents of Vrindavan, who under the influence of Yogamaya,
think that they have to rise early, milk the cows, sell the products and so on, and who
do so diligently, and who therefore look to Krishna not to perform these things for them
but simply to exchange loving feelings and nothing else.
The ISKCON Governing Body Commission has recommended to the BBT trustees that we insert endnotes or appendices into Srila Prabhupada's books to explain statements Srila Prabhupada makes in Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.25.41, 4.25.42, and 4.26.26 concerning a woman's attitude towards the aggressive advances of a man and towards a man who is "expert at rape." The GBC has also recommended that the endnotes or appendices explain "other such statements." The BBT directors, at their annual meeting in June of 2008, considered these recommendations and decided to turn them down. The directors have in fact discussed the relevant issues at length during several BBT meetings over the past few years. We have listened to opinions from concerned devotees and nondevotees. And additionally we have sought and received written advice on these issues from a selection of senior devotees, both male and female. The directors have considered several suggested approaches to the issues, including deleting or revising the controversial passages, adding footnotes, adding appendices, publishing free-standing explanatory inserts, publishing separate books of commentary, and doing nothing at all. As a result of our deliberations, we decided that the best approach would be to set up a site on the web where readers can go to get a better understanding of statements from Srila Prabhupada's books that may be controversial, contrary to prevailing social norms, or otherwise difficult to comprehend or digest. As we reprint Srila Prabhupada's books, we plan to include on the copyright page a brief note directing readers to that site for guidance on such matters. This web site was already in development long before the meeting at which the GBC passed their resolution. Addressing these issues on a website offers the following advantages, among others:
We foresee that Srila Prabhupada's followers will eventually write many books of commentary to directly explain and elaborate upon the teachings found in his books, and we welcome this. We see the website as an initial step in that direction. In this letter we also wish to respond to the specifics of the GBC's recommendation. The GBC's resolution gives three reasons for their recommendation. Two are these:
Regarding these two reasons, we recognize that Srila Prabhupada's books sometimes make statements that some readers may consider offensive-offensive to women, to science and scientists, to democratic ideals, to other Gaudiya Vaisnavas, to scholarship and scholars, to homosexuals, to pacifists, humanitarians and philanthropists, to people of various nations or races, to followers of various spiritual or supposedly spiritual paths, to individuals widely revered as saints or incarnations of God, and much more. And we recognize that such statements may discourage some readers from reading further. Nonetheless, we think that adding notes or appendices to explain what Srila Prabhupada intended would be unwise, and potentially disastrous, especially if the purpose of the explanation were to soften the impact of Srila Prabhupada's words, to explain that he "didn't really mean" what he appears to have said-that is, not just to explain but to "explain away." The GBC's remaining reason is this: "Some ISKCON devotees may have used these statements out of context as an excuse to offend, neglect and abuse women." We agree that this is true. But we believe that providing guidance and instruction on such matters is the responsibility of the GBC and ISKCON's leaders, not the BBT or its editors. And we believe that Srila Prabhupada's books are the wrong place for his followers to insert corrective guidance on morals, ethics, or proper attitudes and behavior. We think that annotating Srila Prabhupada's books to keep ISKCON devotees from going off track is simply a bad idea. We are concerned, also, that the GBC has asked us to insert endnotes or appendices to explain not only the statements they quoted but also "other such statements as determined by the BBT." That is not a road we think it wise for us to set off on. Once we get started, where does it end? In conclusion: We do not intend to add anything to Srila Prabhupada's books, or subtract anything, or change anything Srila Prabhupada says, to make his controversial or potentially controversial statements more acceptable to readers or less vulnerable to misuse by ISKCON devotees. We believe that this would be unwise, contrary to our prescribed duties, and potentially disastrous. We also strongly urge whoever our successors may be to preserve Srila Prabhupada's books intact and reject all proposals, however well intentioned, for softening the impact of his words.
Click Here
I appreciated my Godsister Jadurani's rebuttal to the foolish video posted on YouTube.com. I suppose one of the unfortunate side effects of the Internet is that anyone can post anything at all, even if it is completely untrue, adulterated or disrespectful. One of my favorite quotes from Srila Prabhupada has always been, "The dogs may bark, but the caravan passes" and in this regard it is appropriate that the author of the offensive video goes under the name "Barking Dog."
I also greatly appreciated reading Srila Narayana Maharaja's comments on some of Srila Prabhupada's statements regarding women. It is no secret that our Gaudiya Vaishnava leaders hold a special place in their hearts for women and that, indeed, most are actually female in their eternal, spiritual forms. It is an age-old argument over who is more intelligent, men or women, but at least in Sri Radha's camp there is no doubt--women stand supreme! This opinion is openly admitted even by Lord Krsna Himself in the Bhagavad Gita (10.34), wherein He declares, "Among women I am fame, fortune, fine speech, memory, INTELLIGENCE, steadfastness and patience." I suppose women will need their quality of patience while waiting for the proverbial caravan to move ahead.
|
|