Encouraging celibacy

[Guest guest]

I would like to commend Ajamila das for speaking openlyand honestly, but with

grace and with out attack. This is far more attractive and more likely to

reap positive results in the long run from both perspectives.

 

In a message dated 8/23/2003 Ajamila.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

> I believe it is only out of love

> for you that devotees are voiceing their concerns. Your style of preaching

> is to be far reaching while H.H. Bhakti Vikasa Maharaja is very conservative

> but both of you are rendering so much very, very valuable service to Srila

> Prabhupada. Perhaps BVS could sweeten the delivery of his loving concern for

> you and perhaps you could move in a bit from those scary broad edges so that

> you don't frighten us all! )

>

 

 

Malati dasi

[Guest guest]

At 16:45 23/08/2003, Malati (dd) ACBSP (GBC) (New Vrindavan/Columbus - USA)

wrote:

>I would like to commend Ajamila das for speaking openlyand honestly, but with

>grace and with out attack. This is far more attractive and more likely to

>reap positive results in the long run from both perspectives.

 

 

I agree very much, the word "LOVE" rarely being seen in such situations. I

am also glad that a potential problem is being "nipped in the bud", as

having had a couple of Guru's fail the hurdles that spiritual life tend to

offer, I have frankly had enough of people being protected, with all good

intentions and some weak hearted compassion, although I am not saying that

is what exactly is going on here, still I expect the GBC to do something

now, whatever that maybe, but with care, affection and some dignity for the

one we are concerned about

 

Your servant,

 

 

 

Ananta Purusottama das .

[Guest guest]

Ajamila Prabhu said:

 

> You've clarified that you used the word 'gay' in a broad sense, not

meaning

> homosexuals but rather people born with various eunuch-like gender

problems.

 

And also:

 

> Srila prabhupada said homosexuality is demoniac; but didn't say the same

> about the eunuchs, and this essentialy is your point. In your lecture you

> were referring to not straight gays and lesbians but to others with

various

> complicated gender problems and how they could be accommodated

> compassionatly, and not that any form of regulative principle breakage be

> accommodated.

 

I will accused of wrangling and ad hominem attacks, etc., etc., etc., for

disagreeing here, but these statements cannot be true for the simple fact

that Maharaja's usage of the terms "gay" and "third gender" in his speech

clearly included homosexuals.

 

[From BTS' lecture] "One devotee in Potomac had committed suicide, and this

person committed suicide mainly based on the anxiety and bewilderment of

being in a body that was third gender and having difficulty trying to

understand his role and position in devotional service."

 

This is a well-known incident. The devotee who committed suicide had at one

point applied to the Mayapura Gurukula to teach. To prequalify for the

service he was queried as to whether or not he was homosexual and he

affirmed he was. He was turned down for that service, and soon after he

killed himself. I'm not saying that it is because he was turned down that

he killed himself, and whatever happened was very unfortunate, but in the

context of this message I'm pointing out that this devotee was homosexual

and it was well known (at least well-known soon after he died), and so the

term "gay" as it was used did include homosexuals.

 

[From BTS' lecture] "As a matter of fact, teenagers who are gay are four

times more likely to commit suicide than other teenagers."

 

This is a broad statement about a population, not simply and individual, and

that this was refering to people who are not homosexual but who have "gender

problems" and not to homosexuals is very doubtful. Homosexuality in America

and other affluent western countries has become ubiquitous, and again,

people who really are eunuchs, like the kind we hear about in history and

scripture, are practically not to be found. I can think of several people

with whom I have been acquainted who are homosexual but none who would fit

the description of a eunuch. I'm not saying that there aren't a few eunuchs

in society; what I'm saying is their number is negligible with regard to

such statistics. Eunuchs barely have a presense, if any, in the Western

cultural consciousness.

 

I partiuclarly object to the way in which words and terms with

straightforward meanings are redefined with politically correct language in

order to make them more acceptable to people who would otherwise take issue

with what is being said.

 

> In your lecture you

> were referring to not straight gays and lesbians but to others with

various

> complicated gender problems and how they could be accommodated

> compassionatly, and not that any form of regulative principle breakage be

> accommodated.

 

What else is a "straight gay" or "straight lesbian" except an impersonal

stereotype? Who has actually met a someone who is a "straight gay"? (And

how would you define one?) You won't find anyone who is a "straight gay"

because when we look at an individual, any individual, we will find many

experiences, beliefs, emotions, etc. that uniquely distinguish him from

anyone else, and some of those unique distinguishing features may certainly

have something to do with his or her being a homosexual.

 

Essentially this means we can't identify anyone as a "straight gay" or a

"straight lesbian" without stereotyping him or her. Since stereotyping is

something good, sensitive, compassionate people are not supposed to do, all

the gays and lesbians disappear and what remains are people who have

"various complicated gender problems."

 

This redefinition of the term "gay" as "various complicated gender

problems", which is something like describing "black" as an ever so subtle

shade of "white", takes its place among other political redefinitions of

objectionable language such as "force packages" for "bombs" and "pregnancy

termination" for "abortion". In this way, through language dangerous ideas

are sugar coated with euphamism.

 

When such repackaged ideas are endorsed by intellectual and social leaders

(as we are seeing here), then it is only a matter of time before the people

under them adopt such ideas as moral values and conduct their lives and

relationships according to those values.

 

Such corruption of language is tantamount to poisoning an otherwise valid

and desireable system of morality. Don't think for a minute that this can't

happen in Prabhupada's movement.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakti-tirtha Swami, Maharajas, and Prabhus

PAMHO AGTSP

 

Bhakti Vikasa Maharaja's last four or so texts on the SW I issue are very

compelling and well supported. Most philosopically sound devotees that I

have spoken to share his concern about certain contents of the book being

too far away from guru, sadhu, and sastra for an ISKCON guru representing

our great and prestigious line of disciplic succession.

 

Krishna-kirti Prabhu has also pointed out shifts and euphemisms with H.H.

Bkakti-tirtha Maharaja's latest clarification of his 'gender' statements

compared with his initial presentation.

 

Clearly there are many advanced devotees very worried about BTS's "unclear

philosophical position on gender" and "going over the border line of guru,

sadhu, and sastra" in SW I.

 

BTS is a very enthusiastic preacher and is loved by many tens of thousands

of devotees and people world-wide. He only wants to please Srila Prabhupada

and his enthusiasm knows no limits. But because none of us are equal to

Srila Prabhupada our enthusiasm needs to be checked in the association of

devotees.

 

Although BTS's latest gender clarification is satisfactory yet different

compared with his earlier statements I think we should just accept that the

earlier unclearness was simply the Maharaja's enthusiasm to be compassionate

to everyone and that he has now clarified his actual position and we should

just leave it at that.

 

But in SW I there are some statements that many devotees find unacceptable

for an ISKCON guru.

 

I know BTS exists only to please Srila Prabhupada and that he takes the

association of other serious Prabhupada disciples and followers very

seriously. As a humble Vaisnava I'm sure he'll honour the request of his

loving associates and friends and will adjust things accordingly because he

has already gone so far as to offer to withdraw the book in question, and

has clarified/adjusted his statements on gender. This clearly is proof of

his sincereity of purpose.

 

Srila Prabhupada's policy was always "rectification" before "reject". It is

always easier to reject than recitify. BTS's only fault it appears is his

endless enthusiasm to serve Srila Prabhupada's mission. Many great devotees,

leaders, gurus, and others in our Society have had to check their enthusiasm

which when properly analysed in the association of devotees was found to

have drifted from our strict line of parampara disciplic succession. And

such devotees are still with us today and are preaching gloriously. So it

won't be too difficult for BTS to adjust his enthusiasm to the satisfaction

of his concerned well wishers because he does take loving sadhu-sanga very

seriously. It might be a good policy for BTS henceforward to seek

clarification from certain well wishers before releasing more books. There

are many very advanced devotees in our Society who seek confirmation from

other advanced devotees before doing certain things. We find such examples

in our line of disciplic succession. Krishna das Kaviraja for one.

 

Srila Prabhupada specifically instructed his disciple Yogesvara Prabhu to

always check the contents of his books with at least a few other advanced

devotees before publishing. This is the standard, as given by Srila

Prabhupada and our tradition, and if followed there will never be any

wavering from guru, sadhu, and sastra.

 

So I'm sure H.H. Bhakti-tirtha Sawami will see Krishna speaking through his

well wishing devotees and adjust his publications accordingly in the loving

association of devotees and put us all at ease so that we can all meet in

Mayapur next year for the grand installation of Panca Tattva and chant and

dance in ecstasy with BTS leading one of his most ecstatic kirtans. )

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

Ajamila Prabhu said:

 

> Although BTS's latest gender clarification is satisfactory yet different

> compared with his earlier statements I think we should just accept that

the

> earlier unclearness was simply the Maharaja's enthusiasm to be

compassionate

> to everyone and that he has now clarified his actual position and we

should

> just leave it at that.

 

I agree with Ajamila Prabhu and others that Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja is full

of good intentions and an enthusiastic preacher, and that he is also very

dear to Srila Prabhupada for all the service he has done.

 

At the same time, I don't think we can yet leave this issue for two somewhat

related issues: (1) In the discussion so far, there seems to have been a

general failure to recognize that language has objective meaning beyond

whatever subjective meanings any of us wish to invest in it, and (2) because

the meaning of language (in this context) has been primarily regarded as

something

subjective and not objective, the act of critiquing something spoken or

written is taken as an act of critiquing the character of the subject who

spoke

or wrote what is being critiqued. In other words, evaluating the

correctness of something spoken becomes nearly impossible without

believing the character of the speaker is being evaluated. These two issues

together have led to serious ethical failures.

 

Words are able to describe both mundane reality and transcendence because

Krishna has imbued them with the potency to do so.

 

##########

So, just as the merciful Lord has given us all faculties of perception for

experiencing and describing to others the sensations of sight, sound and so

forth, in the same way He may give someone the receptive capacity to realize

Brahman. He may, if He chooses, create some extraordinary way for words to

function-apart from their ordinary references to material substances,

qualities, categories and actions-that will enable them to express the

Supreme Truth.

(SB 10.87.2 purport)

##########

 

Since the descriptive power of language has its origin in Krishna, language

itself has objective meaning that stands apart from whatever subjective

meanings we may assign to it. This is true for words that describe both

mundane and spiritual things. The implications are that language can

describe reality, and the closer our use of language is to its objective

meaning, the easier it will be to fulfill material and spiritual objectives

through its use.

 

Conversely, if we assign meanings to words and terms that digress

significantly from a language's objective meaning, and then try to use our

redefined terms with others, one of two things can happen: We won't make

sense to others, or they will understand things according to our

redefinition and acquire a misunderstanding of reality. In other words,

such people through the misuse of language acquire an illusory conception of

the world.

 

This is not to say we do not invest our own meanings in language, according

to our beliefs and experiences. All of us do this. But in order to get

along with reality our own custom definitions of language can't stray too

far from its objective meaning without causing harm in some significant way.

 

The relevance of this to BTMaharaja's books and lectures being discussed is

that in the effort to quickly exonerate him from any suspected malintention

or unintentional wrongdoing, the objective meaning of what he has spoken or

written was disregarded. So far we have witnessed a great reluctance by his

peers to evaluate his writing / speech from the vantage point of objective

language. When some passages understood according to common usage were

found to be questionable, it was felt by many that clarification was needed

from Maharaja in order to ascertain their true meaning. Maharaja explained

himself further, and when everyone was satisfied that there was no

malintention, the matter was considered finished. Maharaja did not mean any

harm, and at most whatever he wrote should be accepted as unbridled

exuberance in an effort to glorify Krishna.

 

The problem with Maharaja's exoneration is that no consideration was given

as to what effects his speech might have on others, who probably don't use

exotic meanings ascribed to words in otherwise straightforward (if

embarassing) passages. Aside from the fact that those exotic meanings

themselves were shown to be inadequate, there is an important truth that is

being misunderstood: the effects of a persons actions may differ from his

intentions. Or, as the Christians say, the path to hell is paved with good

intentions.

 

This misunderstanding seems to take the form that the effects of a leading

devotee's actions are determined by his intentions, and this seems to stem

from our tradition of etiquette, wherein the actions of a leading devotee

are never to be criticized.

 

yadyapi nityananda sura-badi yaya

tathapio haya nityananda-raya

 

"Even if I see that Lord Nityananda has entered a liquor shop, I shall not

be diverted from my conclusion that Nityananda Raya is the Supreme

Personality of Godhead." (CC Antya 3.11 purport)

 

'So Swamiji said, "No, no, it's all right." So I left. As I was putting my

jacket on I saw that about two inches of the envelope was unstapled and the

tape was open to view. You could actually squeeze the thing, and although it

couldn't fall out, it was visible. So I walked back in the room and paid my

obeisances and said, "Swamiji, you can see the tape inside." Prabhupada

immediately hit his hand on the table loudly and yelled, "The spiritual

master is never at fault! And even if he is, it's your duty as his disciple

to do whatever he asks." He went on for at least half an hour about how one

should be very observant of what the spiritual master says and not

criticize. It was like he was saying, "I will be your spiritual master, and

I will instruct you, but what can I do if you won't take my advice?"' (SP

Lilamrita, Vol. 7, Ch. 56)

 

So here we have the well known epithet "Even if the guru is wrong he is

right." This is part of our tradition, and so it is also valid, yet it

conflicts with the need to objectively evaluate the use of language even by

leaders. There is a clash of morals here, and what has happened is that the

"guru/leading devotee is always right" moral has taken precedence over the

moral of objective evaluation (which includes understanding according to

guru-sadhu-sastra). The ethical problem is that if we try to objectively

evaluate a top leader's speech, then that opens the possibility that the

leader (who is often-times a guru) may be at fault. And since Prabhupada

himself many times overlooked the faults of his disciples, the tendeny is to

act similarly with regard to others--particularly those in leadership

positions.

 

The casualty is objective evaluation, or evaluation according to

guru-sadhu-sastra, can no longer be used to nip speculation in the bud

before it become a full-grown apasiddhanta with many followers. (This has

happened before.) This is an ethical failure because one moral (objective

critique - guru-sadhu-sastra) is suppressed in favor of ignoring the faults

of a senior devotee (particularly a guru) when both morals need to be

practiced intact. Since guru-sadhu-shastra along with correct language use

and even reason has been suppressed in favor of "even if he is wrong he is

right", we tend to favor subjective explanations of our siddhanta.

 

Some of the apasiddhantas that have blown through ISKCON were easy to

identify because they were so ridiculous. (Think New Vrindavan) But what

would happen if an apasiddhanta that was not so obvious visited us? What if

it crept up on leaders and the rest of devotees in small, incremental baby

steps over the course of decades instead of months or years so that it would

be scarely recognizable? That is, scarcely recognizable until it was too

late... The demise of the American Episcopal Church is a case study for

us. It took decades--thirty years--for the concept of openly gay clergy and

blessed same-sex unions to become established as religious principles in

that institution. The same can very well happen in ISKCON.

 

For all we know, ISKCON may at this time have one or two such apasiddhantas

gestating, but we won't know it as long as we continue to suppress the means

we have to objectively ascertain reality.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

[Guest guest]

Krishna Kirti Prabhu wrote :

 

>(1) In the discussion so far, there seems to have been a

general failure to recognize that language has objective meaning beyond

whatever subjective meanings any of us wish to invest in it.

 

Prabhu,

 

PAMHO. AGTSP.

 

My understanding is, words have primary meaning and secondary meaning. If

it is not specified in the context, that the intended meaning is secondary,

then one must always take primary meaning. That is the rule of language.

 

In the dictionary the first meaning given is always the primary meaning, and

the meanings given after that are secondary meaning. The rules of the

language are very clear and there is no confusion if we know the rules of

the grammar as above.

 

For example : gay -- adj 1. happy and full of fun. 2. brightly coloured 3.

homosexual.

 

When ever the word gay is used one must always take primary meaning, unless

it is clearly indicated in the context that it is secondary meaning.

 

Another example for this what I am trying to say is :

 

One devotee may say,

 

"Paramatma is one. Jivatma is also one". and then he stops at that. Then a

devotee who knows the simple language rules of primary and secondary

meanings will (and ofcourse knows our philosophy also) object, that first

devotee is telling philosophy. As the person who knows grammar will take

the primary meaning of one which is the smallest whole number 1 (noun) or

single (adj). So he will correct the first devotee

 

"Paramatma is one. Jivatmas are many"

 

Then the first devotee may say actually he meant is "individual" which is a

secondary meaning of "one" and he actually meant

 

"Paramatma is individual. Jivatma is also individual", and criticise the

second devotee "Prabhu you are unnecessarily criticising me. You got me

wrong totally".

 

In this case the first devotee is not wrong philosophically and what is in

mind, he is not deviating, but definitely he is ignorant of language rules

which might make people jump. The second devotee is fully correct if he

objects and corrects the first devotee, as otherwise some one outside may

get confused, who is new to philosophy, but he may take the primary meaning

of the word "one". If some one wants to use the secondary meanings then

they can directly use secondary meaning word, or if they use the primary

word like "one" in the above example then he must add one more sentence to

clarify what he actually meant.

 

"Paramatama is one. Jivatma is also one. They never become one at any

point of time" gives a whole some meaning.

 

or simply one can say

 

"Paramatma is individual. Jivatma is also individual"

 

Now Krishna Kirti Prabhu please clarify from where you got this "objective

meaning and subjective meaning" concept.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

>In the dictionary the first meaning given is always the primary meaning,

>and

>the meanings given after that are secondary meaning. The rules of the

>language are very clear and there is no confusion if we know the rules of

>the grammar as above.

>

>For example : gay -- adj 1. happy and full of fun. 2. brightly coloured 3.

>homosexual.

>

>When ever the word gay is used one must always take primary meaning, unless

>it is clearly indicated in the context that it is secondary meaning.

 

This is where we also need to be aware of current cultural usage. If you go

around North America and start using the word "gay" to describe someone as

happy, you will get strange looks. If you don't live in North America,

trust me on this.

 

>Now Krishna Kirti Prabhu please clarify from where you got this "objective

>meaning and subjective meaning" concept.

 

If you read the rest of the letter you won't need to ask.

 

ys KKdas (HDG)

 

_______________

MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

[Guest guest]

pamho agtsp!

 

> >When ever the word gay is used one must always take primary meaning,

> >unless it is clearly indicated in the context that it is secondary

> >meaning.

 

i did this many years back, i.e. knowing the primery meaning of the word

"gay" i used it while talking to a devotee who was coming from North

America. I was simply talking about some devotees in mayapur.

 

> This is where we also need to be aware of current cultural usage. If you

> go around North America and start using the word "gay" to describe someone

> as happy, you will get strange looks.

 

as soon as said "gay". that devotee who was coming from north america was

shocked and asked me with utter concern "are they gays???"....before i

reply, I think he or his wife understood my problem and explained that in

america homosexuals are called gays, or that gays means homosexuals! it

sounded quite disgusting to me.

 

this reminds me of the words "sadhu" and "babaji" that nowadays some

devotees are using sarcastically to criticise those who are not actual sadhu

or babajis. in india sometimes they even use the word "guru" for someone

who is cunning. i hope devotees can avoid this.

 

Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

>This is where we also need to be aware of current cultural usage. If you

>go

>around North America and start using the word "gay" to describe someone as

>happy, you will get strange looks. If you don't live in North America,

>trust me on this.

 

> If you read the rest of the letter you won't need to ask.

 

> ys KKdas (HDG)

 

We are not talking about cultural usage of words or ignorant people's usage

of words. We are talking about language and grammar rules followed by

cultured and civilised people, who know the rules of the language. We

understand there are primary and secondary meanings to words. I have not

come across, the concept of objective and subjective meanings to words.

Prabhu, I read your whole text, before asking for clarification. I felt the

source of this objective and subjective meaning concept is not from any

standard rules of language. That is why I sought for your clarification,

from where you got this? I will be obliged if I can get some better

understanding on this matter.

 

Kaliyuga has taken over so much, that even among cultured society, people's

minds have become so much perverted, that a simple term like gay, they

forget the original primary meaning and take a secondary meaning even though

a cultured man may use the word with the intention of the primary meaning.

 

Like Srila Prabhupada said, that cultured people or gentlemen do not use

these words, or not supposed to use these words. They are unmentionables.

However we do use them when we are dealing with uncultured people, to make

them understand, at their frequency. To deal with the less fortunate people

some of us go over the edge to a certain degree and some of us go to a highe

degree to bring them to Krishna.

 

Kaliyuga has taken over not only in North America but also in Asia where the

word "gay" is the word of the day for power politics. There is big debate,

here among public, and colleges, whether *gays* (homosexuals) should be

allowed to run for the parliament and ministerial posts.

 

In ISKCON which is a society of cultured people we may use the word gay with

primary meaning, and if necessary we can use directly the word "homosexual"

if it has to mean otherwise.

 

Yes we are supposed to set the example all over the world, and not follow

common man, whether in North America or in India or in Singapore.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

> I have not

> come across, the concept of objective and subjective meanings to words.

> Prabhu, I read your whole text, before asking for clarification. I felt

the

> source of this objective and subjective meaning concept is not from any

> standard rules of language.

 

That's because the analysis was primarily ontological (ontology, the branch

of philosophy that deals with the nature of being). Use of terms such as

"objective" and "subjective", "noumenal" and "phenomenal" are quite common

with regard to ontology. The pramans offered from SB 10.87.2 was an

ontological answer to an epistemological question (epistemology, the area of

philosophy dealing with how we can know things) posed by Pariksit Maharaja.

 

The relevance of this analysis to this discussion is that language is not

something purely subjective--otherwise, how can we even get by in this world

what to speak of understanding the Absolute through words? This means there

are unavoidable consequences when words meant for describing reality are

used in subjective, imaginary ways.

 

Mayavada is an example of such usage. The redefinition of "gay", as we are

seeing here, is another example. This is very dangerous.

 

ys KKdas (HDG)

[Guest guest]

Ajamila Prabhu said,

 

> Although BTS's latest gender clarification is satisfactory yet different

> compared with his earlier statements I think we should just accept that

the

> earlier unclearness was simply the Maharaja's enthusiasm to be

compassionate

> to everyone and that he has now clarified his actual position and we

should

> just leave it at that.

 

Many devotees have expressed such sentiment. However, what is questionable

is why BTS' elucidation should be accepted as valid when it is admited that

it is inconsistent with what he said at the time? Maharaja never said he

wasn't thinking of homosexuals in his usage of "gay". When used to describe

people with a queer sexual preference, since when does the word "gay"

exclude homosexuals? It doesn't.

 

BTS: "Gay is a modern term that is not limited to Homosexuals."

 

But "gay" certainly includes homosexuals.

 

ys KKdas (HDG)

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Kirti Prabhu

 

> Ajamila Prabhu said,

>

> > Although BTS's latest gender clarification is satisfactory yet different

> > compared with his earlier statements I think we should just accept that

> the earlier unclearness was simply the Maharaja's enthusiasm to be

> compassionate to everyone and that he has now clarified his actual

> position and we should just leave it at that.

>

> Many devotees have expressed such sentiment. However, what is

> questionable is why BTS' elucidation should be accepted as valid when it

> is admited that it is inconsistent with what he said at the time?

> Maharaja never said he wasn't thinking of homosexuals in his usage of

> "gay". When used to describe people with a queer sexual preference, since

> when does the word "gay" exclude homosexuals? It doesn't.

>

> BTS: "Gay is a modern term that is not limited to Homosexuals."

>

> But "gay" certainly includes homosexuals.

>

> ys KKdas (HDG)

 

Rather than go on more about BTS's correct or incorrect usage of words I

think we should move on since BTS has declared that his intention is never

to condone illicit sex in any form. Your input and that of many others has

created a healthy situation to keep us all in line. In the future many will

be watching BTS's preaching and this will be revealing.

 

Some private discussions are going on to resolve the SW I issue. Many, many

devotees agree that BTS's projections on mother-ship, skull and bone society

of aliens controlling Earth, and his "attunement" source for all this

"knowledge" has nothing to do with guru, sadhu, and sastra and that

involvement with this kind of stuff is very inappropriate for an ISKCON

guru. Not many books by other ISKCON gurus get this many complaints, and so

something is obviously wrong.

 

The solution is simple: Srila Prabhupada wanted devotees to first have their

KC preaching writings thoroughly checked with other senior devotees before

publishing. This is a good system that every "humble" author should submit

to because Srila Prabhpada wanted it, and if adhered to everything that

comes out will be according to guru, sadhu, and sastra and there'll be no

complaints.

 

So we are imploring H.H. BTS to agree to this principle and to get BVS to

warmly encourage him to do so.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

>Some private discussions are going on to resolve the SW I issue. Many, many

>devotees agree that BTS's projections on mother-ship, skull and bone

>society

>of aliens controlling Earth, and his "attunement" source for all this

>"knowledge" has nothing to do with guru, sadhu, and sastra and that

>involvement with this kind of stuff is very inappropriate for an ISKCON

>guru. Not many books by other ISKCON gurus get this many complaints, and so

>something is obviously wrong.

 

If HH BTS had told that this mothership and skull bone society is based on

"guru-sadhu-shastra" then it would be wrong or bogus or cheating. He

himself has clearly said that this is based on some thing else and not pure

knowledge. He has also clearly said that this is for some other audience

and not for pure devotees.

 

Yes we can move on with our lives.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

>That's because the analysis was primarily ontological (ontology, the branch

>of philosophy that deals with the nature of being). Use of terms such as

>"objective" and "subjective", "noumenal" and "phenomenal" are quite common

>with regard to ontology. The pramans offered from SB 10.87.2 was an

>ontological answer to an epistemological question (epistemology, the area

>of

>philosophy dealing with how we can know things) posed by Pariksit Maharaja.

 

>The relevance of this analysis to this discussion is that language is not

>something purely subjective--otherwise, how can we even get by in this

>world

>what to speak of understanding the Absolute through words? This means

>there

>are unavoidable consequences when words meant for describing reality are

>used in subjective, imaginary ways.

 

>Mayavada is an example of such usage. The redefinition of "gay", as we are

>seeing here, is another example. This is very dangerous.

 

>ys KKdas (HDG)

 

Dear Krishna Kirti Prabhu,

 

PAMHO. AGTSP. ISKCON Guru Vrinda Ki Jaya.

 

Thanks for your clarification. But why do you have to base your analysis on

Ontology? Surprising really. When we talk of meanings ascribed to words we

don't talk subjective meaning and objective meaning. There is nothing like

that. Subjective and Objective meaning concept is pure mental speculation

of some fertile brain. Language has definite rules and they are followed by

all **acaryas** to defeat mayavada philosophy. Even mayavada philosophy is

based on language rules, but perverted way. They will do word jugglery, that

is using secondary meaning in place of primary meaning etc,. Ontology and

Epistemology has got nothing to do with "meanings of the words". You are

mixing up things and confusing every one.

 

Analysis has to be done according to primary and secondary meanings of

words. You have given pramana 10.87.2 but totally neglected, founder

acarya's teachings in 10.87.1. just one verse before. And your pramana of

10.87.2 is totally out of place, to support your ontological analysis.

 

"We should consider that words have three kinds of expressive capacities,

called abda-vttis. These are the different ways a word refers to its

meaning, distinguished as mukhya-vtti, lakaŠ€-vtti and gauŠa-vtti. The

abda-vtti termed mukhya is the primary, literal meaning of a word; this is

also known as abhidh€, a word’s “denotation,” or dictionary meaning."--

Srila Prabhupada 10.87.1

 

"Beside its mukhya-vtti, or primary meaning, a word can also be used in a

secondary, metaphorical sense. This usage is called lakaŠ€. The rule is

that a word should not be understood metaphorically if its mukhya-vtti

makes sense in the given context; only after the mukhya-vtti fails to

convey a word’s meaning may lakaŠ€-vtti be justifiably presumed. The

function of lakaŠ€ is technically explained in the k€vya-€stras as an

extended reference, pointing to something in some way related to the object

of the literal meaning." SB 10.87.1

 

"GauŠa-vtti is a special kind of lakaŠ€, where the meaning is extended to

some idea of similarity." SB 10.87.1

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

> >Some private discussions are going on to resolve the SW I issue. Many,

> >many devotees agree that BTS's projections on mother-ship, skull and bone

> >society

> >of aliens controlling Earth, and his "attunement" source for all this

> >"knowledge" has nothing to do with guru, sadhu, and sastra and that

> >involvement with this kind of stuff is very inappropriate for an ISKCON

> >guru. Not many books by other ISKCON gurus get this many complaints, and

> >so something is obviously wrong.

>

> If HH BTS had told that this mothership and skull bone society is based on

> "guru-sadhu-shastra" then it would be wrong or bogus or cheating. He

> himself has clearly said that this is based on some thing else and not

> pure knowledge. He has also clearly said that this is for some other

> audience and not for pure devotees.

 

Yes, the good news here is that BTS does not directly state that his SW I

projections are from guru, sadhu, and sastra, but since he is an ISKCON guru

who is obliged to speak mainly about bhakti and from guru, sadhu, and sastra

it becomes worryingly inappropriate.

 

I could lay down all the quotes about what a guru should ONLY be doing but

most have heard them all before. It is only out of loving concern that

devotees object to the non-sastric aspects of SW I because it is an ISKCON

guru speaking and using not his legal name but ISKCON guru name. So we are

hoping and praying that things will be adjusted for the satisfaction of all

very soon.

 

ys

 

ada

 

 

 

 

> Yes we can move on with our lives.

>

> Hare Krishna,

>

> Your humble servant,

> Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhadra Govinda Prabhu, PAMHO AGTSP!

 

>When we talk of meanings ascribed to words we

>don't talk subjective meaning and objective meaning. There is nothing like

>that. Subjective and Objective meaning concept is pure mental speculation

>of some fertile brain. Language has definite rules and they are followed

by

>all **acaryas** to defeat mayavada philosophy. Even mayavada philosophy is

>based on language rules, but perverted way. They will do word jugglery,

that

>is using secondary meaning in place of primary meaning etc,. Ontology and

>Epistemology has got nothing to do with "meanings of the words".

 

Epistemology in particular deals with how we can know things, and perceiving

anything through anuman and shabda usually requires the help of words.

Maharaj Pariksit's question was epistemological (how can words describe the

Absolute?), and he especially asked about words--there is no doubt about

that. Sukadev Goswami's reply was ontological: words can describe the

Absolute because Krishna has imbued them with the ability to do so. Because

the discussion in the Bhagavatam was ontological, about the nature of words,

it cannot be wrong to analyze words ontologically. But this is a minor,

tangential point.

 

The real concern was with Maharaja's usage of words, which included

redefinitions of "gay" and the presentation of euphamistic terms such as

"third gender" to describe homosexuals and others who may not unambiguously

be described as heterosexuals.

 

Even refering to some of the rules of word usage, as you have quoted,

secondary or metaphorical meaning is justified only if the primary (lexical)

meaning fails. If we applied this rule to BTMaharaja's own definitions of

"gay", then we would have to conclude that in spite his explanation was

inadequate. For example, Maharaja offered this definition of "gay":

 

BTS: "Gay is a modern term that is not limited to Homosexuals."

 

Contrast this with the below dictionary definitions:

 

>From the Merriam Webster (American) Dictionary:

1 a : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or

inducing high spirits

2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color

3 : given to social pleasures; also : LICENTIOUS

4 a : HOMOSEXUAL b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights

movement> <a gay bar>

 

And from the Collins Concise (British) Dictionary:

1. carefree and merry: a gay temperament.

2. brightly coloured; brilliant: a gay hat.

3. given to pleasure, esp. in social entertainment: a gay life.

4. rakish or dissolute; licentious: a gay old dog.

5. a. Inf. homosexual (used esp. by homosexuals of themselves). b. (as n.):

a group of gays.

 

There is little difference between both dictionary definitions, and the

context of this discussion only concerns the last definition of "gay" in

each dictionary entry. The lexical definition is specific about gay

refering to homosexuals, no one else. This differs from Maharaja's

definition. Lexically the definition offered by Maharaja cannot be true.

 

Lakshana (or secondary meaning), as refered to in the purport of 10.87.1,

deals with meaning based on an extension of the object. The purport gives

the example of gangayam ghosha, with the literal meaning being the "village

in the Ganges", but that because the literal meaning is absurd, ganga is

extended to a related object, namely the bank of the Ganges. However, the

terms offered by Maharaja themselves are not absurd or unambiguous. "Gay"

and "modern term that is not limited to homosexuals" each make sense

lexically. Here lakshana- and gauna vrtti are not only irrelevant to

Maharaja's definition but are inadequate to describe Maharaja's statement.

 

What maharaja has done is assigned a custom meaning to the word "gay". Such

custom meanings are called "stipulative definitions", wherein a word is

freely defined--usually for a specific purpose. For example, if we want to

write a report on land use in India, we would specify in the report exactly

how the words, agricultural, industrial, and urban would be used. So

Maharaja has offered a stipulative definintion for the word "gay".

Assigning custom meanings to words is quite common, and in many cases

necessary.

 

And to be fair, in and of itself there is nothing wrong with Maharaja

offering a stipulative defintion for the word "gay". It may even come to

pass that ten years from now the lexical definition for "gay" might resemble

his definition. However, at this time the offered definition itself is

problematic for various reasons:

 

With reference to the excerpt of his lecture published on VNN, it is not

known if at the time the lecture was given anyone listenting felt that the

term "gay" as it was used needed further clarification. Probably no one at

the time felt the need for an elucidation of "gay", which means everyone

listening most likely took the word "gay" at face-value. Maharaja in his

speech specifically refered to the well-known incident of a devotee who

killed himself on account of his homosexuality (among other references), so

no one would have been wrong to think that Maharaja's definition of gay

included homosexuals.

 

Since that definition includes homosexuals (and he hasn't said it excludes

them), using the term in describing the Lords pastimes suggests that the

devotees who visited the Lord could have been homosexuals. Even if Maharaja

did not mean it, others could very well be understanding it in this way.

Viewing this circumstance benignly, we would at least have to conclude that

using the term "gay" in this way is reckless and should be discontinued

since there is a high likelyhood that others will understand "gay" in terms

of its lexical meaning and not whichever stipulative definition the speaker

prefers.

 

And finally, there is the question of whether or not the misuse of the term

"gay" (and the introduction of the term "third gender") is due to human

error or due to attachment for mental speculation. All of us make mistakes;

we learn from them. However, many of us suspect that such misuse of the

word "gay" and other words is likely due to excessive attachment for mental

speculation because in the past, this issue has visited BT Maharaja before.

Here are some simple facts:

 

- In some lectures, Maharaja has speculated excessively: "Mother ships",

"skull and bones society", aliens, etc.

 

- Maharaja has been confronted before, in private on this issue. Last year,

Bhakti Vikas Swami met with BT Maharaja in a closed-door, GBC mediated

discussion on this very topic.

 

Since in the past there has been at times excessive speculation, and since

Maharaj had been confronted about it, the continuation of such speculative

speaking and writing likely conveys a general disregard for speaking

according to guru-sadhu-sastra. This is our main point.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

[Guest guest]

I suggest the HH Bhakti Vikas Swami to head up a committee to scrutinize all

of HH Bhakti Tirtha Swami's books and list whatever they find to be

objectionable.

[Guest guest]

Is anyone else getting tired of all this semantics. While millions of

conditioned souls are rushing to hell, should we sit around arguing over

words?

[Guest guest]

Krishna Kirti Prabhu wrote:

 

> This is our main point.

 

My main point I have been trying to make over the last couple of days is:

 

People who are accusing some one's improper usage of words are themselves

not following the right rules. This is where the clarification was sought

and this has been brushed off as a minor tangential point. Especially when

you are accusing some one, atleast the accuser should be following rules

correctly.

 

My very initial submission was that both the speaker and audience follow the

language rules then there is no confusion. Instead the accuser is

presenting so many theories as "cultural usage of words", "ontological

analysis which gives subjective and objective meanings of words" which all

lead to submission.

 

One side trumpeting "guru, sadhu and shastra" and otherside oneself not

following the "guru, sadhu and shastra" for the "meanings of the words" and

giving so many so called scholarly analysis of words, which are against

"guru sadhu and shastra" is very confusing.

 

Thanks for accepting my humble submission and analysing the word 'gay'

according to "primary and secondary meanings of words", and declaring, that

even by that analysis, the accused is really wrong. However the point is

not that. The point is, if there is some confusion in the audience, by some

one's usage of the word, especially the secondary meanings, and the author

clarifies, what he actually meant, then we must accept that at face value.

There is no other way. What other way is there? That too for mlecca bhasa

which is always changing. We will not have the same English over the next

10,000 years. The word "gay" was some time back not there in the

dictionary. This has been included recently as it has become an accepted

word for "homosexual" and one of the meaning is given in the dictionary for

"gay". 'Guru' is also one such word added to English recently.

 

I find the whole episode very silly and amusing. I doubt anyone would ever

get confused with the "skull and bone society" and all the "abracadabra"

with pure knowledge. It is so black and white, and there are no grey areas.

Maharaja has given a very decent, clarification for all the accusations, and

I accept them at face value.

 

If devotees have time and really they would like to take up some thing

challenging, to protect the society over a long run I can submit atleast a

couple of case studies, which are worth while to spend time on. As this is

not very clear like "abracadabra" and "pure knowledge" and very difficult to

see the error distinctly. Here is one such case.

 

Case 1: The book is "Siksa Guru", Author is "HH Sivarama Svami". Many big

names are there in the acknowledgement of the book. Preface is by HG

Badarinarayan Prabhu who mentions that he has personally ordered and sent

copies of "siksa guru" to every TP in the zone that he is responsible for.

 

The author mentions "I hope that this book will be a catalyst for

discussion, further study, ...". So here it is my query.

 

In chapter fourteen of the book "Our (siksa) sampradaya". The term "siksa

sampradaya" I feel is not accrording to "Guru, sadhu and shastra",

especially not according to Srila Prabhupada.

 

I feel this after reading and re reading the whole chapter again and again.

Still not convincing. I had presented "Siksa or Diksa Sampradaya article"

in dipika.org few months back but no one wrote any objection to my analysis.

However if some person or committee officially declares that this "siksa

sampradaya" terminology is wrong then it will be good in the long run.

Otherwise after 30-40 years when all the first generation devotees have left

the planet, the later generations will have no body to refer to and they may

accept this terminology, which I strongly feel is not correct. Or a

convincing clarification that this terminology is correct, then I will be

eternally indebted for whoever giving me the right understanding.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

>Thanks for accepting my humble submission and analysing the word 'gay'

>according to "primary and secondary meanings of words", and declaring, that

>even by that analysis, the accused is really wrong.

 

I didn't accept it, if you reread my letter you will see that your analysis

according to primary and secondary metaphorical definitions was inadequate

because it doesn't cover the case of stipulative definitions.

 

In any case, you remarked at one point:

 

>If HH BTS had told that this mothership and skull bone society is based on

>"guru-sadhu-shastra" then it would be wrong or bogus or cheating. He

>himself has clearly said that this is based on some thing else and not pure

>knowledge. He has also clearly said that this is for some other audience

 

If you'll believe that the mother-ship/skull and bones presentation was

somehow acceptable, then you'll swallow any nonsense. But this isn't your

fault, and you aren't the only one. When zonal acharyaism was in its

heydey, all but a few devotees went along with it. yad yad acarati

shrestas.

 

ys KKdas (HDG)

 

_______________

Get MSN 8 and help protect your children with advanced parental controls.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental

[Guest guest]

Dear and respected Kavicandra Svami Maharaja,

 

I am really tired. I find the whole episode silly and very amusing also.

Thanks for waking me up from my slumber.

 

This is one reason I did not want to be on PAMHO, and infact discontinued

from my membership, but later was instructed to join by my preceptors.

 

Preaching to unchurched souls is more satisfying. Bodhayantah parasparam is

good if it is for glorifying "guru, sadhu and Krishna".

 

Any way this will be my last comment on any discussions on PAMHO, unless I

get some instruction from higher authority.

 

Your most fallen servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

Everything is in Srila Prabhupada's books, but not everyone sees that

"everything" in the same way. Different devotees and gurus see 'finer'

philosophical points differently, and sometimes completely differently,

particularly when it comes to subtle philosophical points such as the "siksa

sampradaya terminology" issue as pointed out by H.G. Bhadra Govinda Prabhu.

 

While it is true that our philosophy is very simple in practise and there is

no need for endless philosophical debates and ramblings there is clearly a

need in our society for a group of devotees who know and understand Srila

Prabhupada's philosophy thread bare. Otherwise, every now and then

philosophical wranglers like the ritviks and others pounce on pockets of

ISKCON with a new spin - usually on the guru issue - that bewilders the

large majority of our devotees and congregation who are not so

philosophically astute and hence we have numenrous disturbances and losses.

 

There used to be a philosophical committee, but I don't know if it is active

or not. But if such a committee does exist then that "siksa sampradaya

terminology" issue could be resolved by that committe with any willing

participating devotees after proper debate with reference to guru, sadhu,

and sastra.

 

I believe this is important and will bear precious fruits for the future

generations because the ritivks and the like seem to wait until we are all

asleep, the gurus are all too busy, and then they pounce with a

regurgitation of the same old stuff again and again as is happening in

different parts of the world right now....

 

ys

 

ada

 

 

 

 

> Krishna Kirti Prabhu wrote:

>

> > This is our main point.

>

> My main point I have been trying to make over the last couple of days is:

>

> People who are accusing some one's improper usage of words are themselves

> not following the right rules. This is where the clarification was sought

> and this has been brushed off as a minor tangential point. Especially

> when you are accusing some one, atleast the accuser should be following

> rules correctly.

>

> My very initial submission was that both the speaker and audience follow

> the language rules then there is no confusion. Instead the accuser is

> presenting so many theories as "cultural usage of words", "ontological

> analysis which gives subjective and objective meanings of words" which all

> lead to submission.

>

> One side trumpeting "guru, sadhu and shastra" and otherside oneself not

> following the "guru, sadhu and shastra" for the "meanings of the words"

> and giving so many so called scholarly analysis of words, which are

> against "guru sadhu and shastra" is very confusing.

>

> Thanks for accepting my humble submission and analysing the word 'gay'

> according to "primary and secondary meanings of words", and declaring,

> that even by that analysis, the accused is really wrong. However the

> point is not that. The point is, if there is some confusion in the

> audience, by some one's usage of the word, especially the secondary

> meanings, and the author clarifies, what he actually meant, then we must

> accept that at face value. There is no other way. What other way is

> there? That too for mlecca bhasa which is always changing. We will not

> have the same English over the next 10,000 years. The word "gay" was some

> time back not there in the dictionary. This has been included recently as

> it has become an accepted word for "homosexual" and one of the meaning is

> given in the dictionary for "gay". 'Guru' is also one such word added to

> English recently.

>

> I find the whole episode very silly and amusing. I doubt anyone would

> ever get confused with the "skull and bone society" and all the

> "abracadabra" with pure knowledge. It is so black and white, and there

> are no grey areas. Maharaja has given a very decent, clarification for all

> the accusations, and I accept them at face value.

>

> If devotees have time and really they would like to take up some thing

> challenging, to protect the society over a long run I can submit atleast a

> couple of case studies, which are worth while to spend time on. As this

> is not very clear like "abracadabra" and "pure knowledge" and very

> difficult to see the error distinctly. Here is one such case.

>

> Case 1: The book is "Siksa Guru", Author is "HH Sivarama Svami". Many big

> names are there in the acknowledgement of the book. Preface is by HG

> Badarinarayan Prabhu who mentions that he has personally ordered and sent

> copies of "siksa guru" to every TP in the zone that he is responsible for.

>

> The author mentions "I hope that this book will be a catalyst for

> discussion, further study, ...". So here it is my query.

>

> In chapter fourteen of the book "Our (siksa) sampradaya". The term "siksa

> sampradaya" I feel is not accrording to "Guru, sadhu and shastra",

> especially not according to Srila Prabhupada.

>

> I feel this after reading and re reading the whole chapter again and

> again. Still not convincing. I had presented "Siksa or Diksa Sampradaya

> article" in dipika.org few months back but no one wrote any objection to

> my analysis. However if some person or committee officially declares that

> this "siksa sampradaya" terminology is wrong then it will be good in the

> long run. Otherwise after 30-40 years when all the first generation

> devotees have left the planet, the later generations will have no body to

> refer to and they may accept this terminology, which I strongly feel is

> not correct. Or a convincing clarification that this terminology is

> correct, then I will be eternally indebted for whoever giving me the right

> understanding.

>

> Hare Krishna,

>

> Your humble servant,

> Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

> I suggest the HH Bhakti Vikas Swami to head up a committee to scrutinize

> all of HH Bhakti Tirtha Swami's books and list whatever they find to be

> objectionable.

 

I think H.H.Kavicandra Maharaja's proposal is a positive way forward.

 

I'm sure H.H. Bhakti Tirtha Swami will agree to this proposal since I know

his only wish is to please Srila Prabhupada which is best displayed by

co-operating with loving devotees who have no other interest other than

following Srila Prabhupada's system of guru, sadhu, and satra so that ISKCON

can only thrive.

 

It would be interesting to note if anyone has any objection or addition to

the above proposal.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/28/2003 11:13:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Ajamila.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

> It would be interesting to note if anyone has any objection or addition to

> the above proposal.

>

 

This is under the additional banner: First of all, I don't think any

scrutinizing should be done by a single person, rather it would better be

served as a

group with HIs Holiness Bhakti Vikash as a member, not the sole agent. I would

further suggest the SAC group might be involved, at least in part. Secondly,

in the early nineties, there was a similar effort under the GBC authority, I

don't recall all details but it should be looked into first. I recall that it

involved scrutiny of perhaps the BBT? or some part of it?

 

yr servant,

Malati dasi

[Guest guest]

> > I suggest the HH Bhakti Vikas Swami to head up a committee to scrutinize

> > all of HH Bhakti Tirtha Swami's books and list whatever they find to be

> > objectionable.

>

> I think H.H.Kavicandra Maharaja's proposal is a positive way forward.

>

> I'm sure H.H. Bhakti Tirtha Swami will agree to this proposal since I know

> his only wish is to please Srila Prabhupada which is best displayed by

> co-operating with loving devotees who have no other interest other than

> following Srila Prabhupada's system of guru, sadhu, and satra so that

> ISKCON can only thrive.

>

> It would be interesting to note if anyone has any objection or addition to

> the above proposal.

>

I particularly have an objection to that suggestion. The reason being there

is a violation of ethiquete involved. Bhakti-tirtha Maharaja is a very

senior Vaisnava to Bhakti Vikas Maharaja, thus it will be quite improper to

be suggesting that BVKS head up a committee to scrutinize BTS books. One

thing, Bhakti-tirtha Maharaja and his followers firmly beleive that his

books cater to a particular audience, and he is doing what he thinks best

pleases Srila Prabhupada. Those books and lectures of his have produced lots

of ISKCON devotees and admirers at a time when no one was doing such

preachings in North America. Of course Maharaja got little too liberal

lately in trying to reach out to the homosexuals, but that is something that

can be resolved.

If there should be such a committee at all, it should be by senior and

respected leaders in our movement, such as Satsvarupa Maharaja, Jayapataka

Maharaja and Hrydayananda Maharaja. Not doing so will create a very bad

precedent in our society. We follow a tradition that honors and respects

elders.

Another point is HH Bhakti-tirtha Maharaja is a trained psychologist from

one of the best universities in America, thus he has a particular language.

His preachings and writings are done in his language which caters to the

educated elites, that is not easily understood by common masses. Thus

confusions can arise when one tries to understand his writings in comparison

to what is commonly understood. Is that a fault of his? A book written by

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Sri Krishna Samhita, contains so many points

that many Vedic schorlars today, are still having a hardtime trying to

reconcile various statements made by the Thakura.

Maharaja may as well be a revolutionary preacher that his contemporaries are

having a hardtime digesting his tactics. They want to put him in a box.

Vaisnava preachers cannot be put in a box. Our philosophy is acintya

bheda-abheda, oneness and different, full of varieties.

Bhakti Vikas Maharaja is already full of bias towards Bhakti-tirtha

Maharaja, so how could he give a very candid and honorable assessment to BTS

books?

There are already lots of angers and resentments going on among the

devotees, something like this will simply add to it.

 

ys, Isvara dasa.