In search of truth or the pursuit of victory?

[Vedesu 0]

Often devotees debate controversial issues in a rather obnoxious manner, treating the opposition with such a high level of rudeness which would most likely never take place in person. As a result, many gentle, mild-mannered devotees who would otherwise have something tangible to contribute are driven away or sent to the sidelines, with the rationalization that "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." That's all well and good, but at the end of the day what are we left with? Those who have a little knowledge and have honed their debating/word-jugglery/insult skills better than the rest? Is this truly conducive for an Istagosthi type of atmosphere? Are we really seeking the truth, or do we just love to argue? Where are the humble potwashers and draincleaners that we love to glorify as being the pure devotees? Can we honestly say that they stand half a chance here without being blasted into virtual cyberspace oblivion?

 

These are excerpts from Dasanudas Vanacari's recent editorial on the Sampraday Sun http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-07/editorials1667.htm] which I found relevant and interesting:

 

This leads to my second point, which is that through bad association and hearing from materialistic neophyte devotees, we have developed the bad habit of politicizing philosophical discussions. Instead of calmly discussing the message with intelligent reasoning and reference to sastra, we attack the messenger and seek to discredit him. This bad habit is unacceptable in brahminical society. According to the great authority Bhisma, it is prohibited even in ksatriya society to attack or punish a messenger, though he may bring unpleasant news that we do not want to hear.

 

Personally, it is my longstanding policy to ignore any argument or discussion that includes ad-hominem attacks, or unnecessary overuse of capitals and exclamation points. Srila Prabhupada always emphasized that we should discuss Vedic philosophy with a cool head. This means, among other things, not to attack a person just because we don't like their ideas. The inappropriate use of political tactics in philosophical discussions does not convince anyone. It simply alienates actually intelligent people who could contribute their valuable ideas to the discussion, but are turned off by the abrasive tone. This bad habit is also a contributing cause to devotees' lack of philosophical understanding and spiritual realization.

 

We see this dynamic again and again on The Sampradaya Sun and other online communities. When someone raises a philosophical point and the respondents turn it into an ad-hominem attack or political debate, not only is the actual point of discussion lost, but also we risk making offenses by unjust criticism of devotees. Most dangerous of all, we distract the participants' and readers' attention from what the sastra has to say, and focus it on our own opinions. If we cannot free ourselves from these flaws, is it any wonder that whether inside or outside of ISKCON, we have not made advancement to the point of complete self-realization?

[Laulyam 0]

Types of Discussions

 

In the Priti-sandarbha, Srila Jiva Goswami explains why. He says there are three types of discussions- vada, jalpa, and vitanda. In a vada discussion the motive of all concerned is to find out the truth. This is the ideal kind of discussion. It is for persons who are sober and impartial about the outcome; they simply want to know what is the truth of the matter. They are in the mode of goodness. Jalpa is a discussion wherein one is not interested in what is said by others, whether it has some truth or all of the truth, because one simply wants to be heard. Any other view or contribution is of no interest. This is the way for a person in the mode of passion. A vitanda discussion is in the mode of ignorance. In this version the truth is of no value. One simply wants to win at all cost.

 

Excerpt from introduction to In Vaikuntha not even the leaves fall

By Satya Narayana Dasa & Kundali Dasa

[krsna 3]

 

Types of Discussions

 

In the Priti-sandarbha, Srila Jiva Goswami explains why. He says there are three types of discussions- vada, jalpa, and vitanda. In a vada discussion the motive of all concerned is to find out the truth. This is the ideal kind of discussion. It is for persons who are sober and impartial about the outcome; they simply want to know what is the truth of the matter. They are in the mode of goodness. Jalpa is a discussion wherein one is not interested in what is said by others, whether it has some truth or all of the truth, because one simply wants to be heard. Any other view or contribution is of no interest. This is the way for a person in the mode of passion. A vitanda discussion is in the mode of ignorance. In this version the truth is of no value. One simply wants to win at all cost.

 

Excerpt from introduction to In Vaikuntha not even the leaves fall

By Satya Narayana Dasa & Kundali Dasa

 

"In a vada discussion the motive of all concerned is to find out the truth. This is the ideal kind of discussion. It is for persons who are sober and impartial about the outcome; they simply want to know what is the truth of the matter. They are in the mode of goodness."

 

How many who come here to dicsuss spiritual topics philosophically are sober-minded, impartial about the outcome of the search for truth and in the mode of goodness?

 

It seems to be a basic, essential and preliminary pre-requisite for genuine inquiry into the Absolute Truth.

 

krsna das

[Guest guest]

thank you for your inspirational post.

[krsna 3]

 

Often devotees debate controversial issues in a rather obnoxious manner, treating the opposition with such a high level of rudeness which would most likely never take place in person. As a result, many gentle, mild-mannered devotees who would otherwise have something tangible to contribute are driven away or sent to the sidelines, with the rationalization that "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." That's all well and good, but at the end of the day what are we left with? Those who have a little knowledge and have honed their debating/word-jugglery/insult skills better than the rest? Is this truly conducive for an Istagosthi type of atmosphere? Are we really seeking the truth, or do we just love to argue? Where are the humble potwashers and draincleaners that we love to glorify as being the pure devotees? Can we honestly say that they stand half a chance here without being blasted into virtual cyberspace oblivion?

 

These are excerpts from Dasanudas Vanacari's recent editorial on the Sampraday Sun http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-07/editorials1667.htm] which I found relevant and interesting:

 

 

 

 

Doubting is for intelligent people

 

By Manonatha Dasa (ACBSP) -

Truth Or Sense Gratification

 

Doubting is for intelligent people. A spiritualist has to be intelligent or he cannot understand philosophy, which would be like participating to a motor race without the steering wheel working properly. Those who want to know the absolute truth will control their life by intelligence, and those who want sense gratification by the mind.

 

"On Our Own Skin"

How to strengthen intelligence? By study. Not only book study but also by learning through the lessons imparted by life. Just devouring books upon books will not do. It often results in superficial knowledge. We need to learn “on our own skin”. This is why sadhana-life is so important, living at least some years in an ashrama, in a temple. That experience will be extremely important for spiritual life. We have to face the many difficulties resulting from living in a community as an invaluable chance to learn and realize philosophical principles. When something unpleasant happens we have to think, this is a golden opportunity to learn something.

 

Srila Prabhupada never wanted blind following

Studying books and practicing are one and the same thing.When you do not understang something, or when you hear something that you do not agree on, continue asking and try to understand. Srila Prabhupada never wanted blind following, which is another expression for foolish following.

If after a long time of studying and practicing you still have doubts, that means you are not ready for spiritual life. Bhagavad-gita (4.40) says:

ajnas casraddadhanas ca

samsayatma vinasyati

nayam loko sti na paro

na sukham samsayatmanah

“But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next.”

 

This verse doesn’t mean that you are enjoined to accept without understanding, but it refers to a rejection of God, Sri Krishna, coming from the deepest core of the heart, when a person, in spite of so much knowledge and partial realization, still rejects Krishna Consciousness. Why they do that? Because the desire for independent enjoyment and control is still very rooted in the heart. They cannot accept. The more they understand, the more they reject.