How To Present Controversial Spiritual Subject Matters?

suchandra · May 11, 2008

HH Romapada Swami highlights the importance of presenting controversial spiritual subject matter properly. Sumati Morarji: "I had a firm belief in your mission of spreading the message of Shri Krishna all over the world, but reading the above extract of your lecture I was very much disappointed since therein you attempted to portray an incorrect image of Shri Vallabhacharya."[...]

How to present controversial subject matters?

Vallabhacharya’s criticism on Sridhar Swami’s commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam

source: http://www.romapadaswami.com/?q=node/2894

Summary:

"One should be a lamb at home and a lion in the chase." This is a phrase which Srila Prabhupada sometimes used to epitomize the character of a vaisnava. [srimad-Bhagavatam 1.12.22] Unfortunately, Srila Prabhupada regretfully remarked that the devotees were often behaving in reverse, or "a lion in the home and a lamb in the chase", i.e. being more kind, tolerant, etc in dealings with others than one was with fellow devotees! Cultivating proper manners in dealings with the public, while preaching KC'ness, or extending ourselves in a missionary spirit [see purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.22], can be challenging at times. There are so many ideas floating around in the spiritual marketplace that one needs to be quite discriminating as to HOW to address a particular mentality whereby the desired result will come: acceptance of the teaching of pure devotion and developing pure character.

Often our own character or our achar will be more compelling than the words we choose to speak while preaching, or even the issues which we choose to address. In the passage below, taken from Hari Sauri's Transcendental Diary, you will find Srila Prabhupada expertly weaving his way through this delicate behavior. By his example, he is showing the principle of satyam bruyat priyam bruyat. This phrase is often taken to mean that in the material world only palatable truths should be spoken, and unpalatable truths should be carefully avoided. Herein, Srila Prabhupada demonstrates a slightly different take on this: "satyam bruyat priyam bruyat. They speak only the satyam, although it may not necessarily be priyam." Applying this principle is a very delicate area of speaking on behalf of the disciplic succession that one should be VERY careful to apply with subtle discrimination. [Note that Srila Prabhupada supported the message of his disciples, but then privately corrected his disciples to be more discreet when presenting such controversial matters in his BTG publication in the future, especially when they are likely to clash with the sentiments of the life members.]

Reading Assignment

a) August 6, 1976 -- New Mayapur

Although he was due to depart in mid-afternoon, Prabhupada decided to answer a long letter from Sumati Morarji, the owner of Scindia Shipping and patron of Srila Prabhupada's first voyage to the West. She expressed considerable dissatisfaction with a recently published article in Back to Godhead, Vol. 10.8, which summarized a lecture Srila Prabhupada gave about the qualifications of a guru. In it he referred to the exchange where Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu criticized Sri Vallabhacarya for claiming that a commentary he had written on Srimad-Bhagavatam was actually better than that of the ancient commentator Srila Sridhara Svami. Since Sumati Morarji is a devotee in the Vallabhacarya sampradaya, she expressed shock and pain to read the article. She felt Srila Prabhupada's comments were provocative and highly objectionable. "I had a firm belief in your mission of spreading the message of Shri Krishna all over the world, but reading the above extract of your lecture I was very much disappointed since therein you attempted to portray an incorrect image of Shri Vallabhacharya, based on hearsays. Time has been changing and when we present the image of our ancient Acharyas, to the public today, great responsibility rests in us in preserving their greatness and not in tarnishing them."

"Every Acharya is great in his own way and no Acharya is greater than another. Each had come to this world to perform one's duties and every Acharya has done so in the best possible way."

She was disturbed enough that she said she could give wide and adverse publicity against ISKCON, but she did not feel that that would serve anyone's interest. She ended with a request that things could be amicably resolved. "I sincerely trust that your goodself will take my observations in the proper perspective and spirit and publish your clarifications with a view to remove any misunderstanding which may have been created in the minds of the readers of Back to Godhead."

http://www.romapadaswami.com/?q=node/2317

Concerned that Sumati Morarji not carry any misunderstandings of his statements Srila Prabhupada sent her a lengthy reply. He began by saying he was sorry to hear that she was agitated by the BTG article. He explained that his editors did not know the principle of satyam bruyat priyam bruyat, that in the material world only palatable truths should be spoken, and unpalatable truths should be carefully avoided. Nevertheless, he confirmed the fact of the incident as related in Sri Caitanya-caritamrta. He explained that just as she was irritated by criticism of Vallabhacarya, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu was also agitated by Vallabhacarya's criticism of Sridhara Svami, who was accepted as the original commentator of the Srimad-Bhagavatam long before Lord Caitanya's day. "Perhaps you know that there is an edition of the Srimad-Bhagavatam by Krsna Sankar Sastri 'abhinavah sukah' Vedantacarya, Sahitya-tirtha, Sribhagavata-sudhanidhi, from Ahmedabad. In his book he has given almost all the important commentaries on the Bhagavatam as follows: 1. Sridhar Svami 2. Sri Vamsidhara 3. Sri Gangasahaya 4. Srimad Viraraghavacarya 5. Srimad Vijayadhvaja Tirtha 6. Srimad Jiva Gosvami 7. Srimad Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura 8. Srimad Sukadeva 9. Gosvami Sri-giridharalal (Vallabhacarya Sampradaya) 10. Sri Bhagavat- prasadacarya, etc ... Among all commentaries, Sridhar Svami's is given the first position. This parampara has existed for a very long time."

Srila Prabhupada gave evidence that although this system was accepted in Lord Caitanya's time, Sri Vallabhacarya violated it by not accepting Sridhara Swami's commentary as preeminent. "I am enclosing herewith some photocopies of the important verses from the original book Caitanya Caritamrta that specifically deal with the subject matter. These verses are from Antya lila, Chapter 7, entitled 'Lord Caitanya meets VallabhaBhatta'. I would like to draw your attention to verse 113 on page 55 where Vallabha Bhatta says: 'In my commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam,' he said, 'I have refuted the explanations of Sridhar Svami. I cannot accept his explanations.' "Moreover, verse 114 states: 'Whatever Sridhar Svami reads he explains according the circumstances. Therefore he is inconsistent in his explanations and cannot be accepted as an authority.'

"Vallabha Bhatta's declaration certainly agitated Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Consequently, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu remarked sarcastically that He considered that anyone who did not accept the svami (or Sridhar Svami) as an authority was a prostitute. Prabhu hasi kahe; but he smiled and said this jokingly, because they were friends. "Although this point is very controversial, it is not based on hearsay, as you have stated, but it is authoritatively documented by the Caitanya Caritamrta. As you have written in a friendly spirit, I do not wish to discuss this point further. If you will kindly take a little trouble to read this chapter 'Lord Caitanya meets Vallabha Bhatta' you will understand the whole situation. Actually Vallabha Bhatta should not have criticized Sridhar Svami, because even now Sridhar Svami is very respected. Even authorities like Sri Jiva Goswami and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura mention in their commentaries, svami caranat, as we have learned it from the lotus feet of Sridhar Svami. So when Vallabha Bhatta criticized Sridhar Svami, Caitanya Mahaprabhu criticized Vallabha Bhatta strongly. This is a fact, but this does not mean that Vallabha Bhatta and Caitanya Mahaprabhu were inimical. Vallabha Bhatta honored Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as a superior. Sometimes Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu would chastise Vallabha Bhatta and sometimes He would favor him, because this was their relationship. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu would never refuse the occasional invitations of Vallabha Bhatta. "Everything will become clear if you kindly read this chapter with attention. For example, we see that two lawyers in the courtroom may fight vigorously about a law point, but upon returning to the law library, they talk and embrace like friends. So you should always remember that we have no ill feelings towards Vallabha Bhattacarya. We have full respect for him, so there is no harm if these facts are discussed in the society of devotees. Devotees always humbly offer respect to everyone, but when there is a discussion on a point of sastra, they do not observe the usual etiquette, satyam bruyat priyam

bruyat. They speak only the satyam, although it may not necessarily be priyam.

"I hope you will understand the whole situation. If you still have any doubts, I shall be glad to hear from you and shall try to satisfy you to the best of my ability. I am presently not in very good health, nonetheless I hope this meets you well." Prabhupada was not happy that the editors of BTG had printed a controversial topic and said they should be more careful. He said they should be more discreet in what they publish and not disturb people who are friends of ISKCON. He explained that many of our life members in Bombay are followers also of Vallabhacarya."

HH Romapada Swami is author of Spiritual Economics (click will move to the next slide)

cbrahma · May 11, 2008

An excellent topic. But controversy is what people want it seems. Some of the posters just can't wait to be engaged in flame wars. That is a matter of proper administration. Nevertheless it is tolerated. It goes beyond Vaisnavism to just common courtesy. If people make spiritual claims for themselves but act worse than the materialists then they automatically discredit themselves. What is most amazing is that they don't realize it. What kind of spiritual direction are they getting? Ironically if one goes to a Buddhist forum, everybody is polite and well mannered, not prone to fits of anger and flaming. I've gone to Buddhist temples and been received with such friendly hospitality I thought that I should have walked into a Vaisnava temple. No such luck.

suchandra · May 12, 2008

An excellent topic. But controversy is what people want it seems. Some of the posters just can't wait to be engaged in flame wars. That is a matter of proper administration. Nevertheless it is tolerated. It goes beyond Vaisnavism to just common courtesy. If people make spiritual claims for themselves but act worse than the materialists then they automatically discredit themselves. What is most amazing is that they don't realize it. What kind of spiritual direction are they getting? Ironically if one goes to a Buddhist forum, everybody is polite and well mannered, not prone to fits of anger and flaming. I've gone to Buddhist temples and been received with such friendly hospitality I thought that I should have walked into a Vaisnava temple. No such luck.

http://www.shriradharaman.com/

Thanks Cbrahma, excellent points. Well, could be that people are somehow often unneccessarily in a fighting spirit, see debate below. Symptom of having accumulated too many sinful karmas?

Richard Dawkins vs Josef Al-Khattab

Posted On: Mon, 2008-05-12 02:07 by SITAPATI Prabhu

http://www.atmayogi.com/node/765

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></center> I give the point to Richard Dawkins in this excerpt from "The Root of Evil?".

Here he speaks with New York-born Joseph Cohen, child of a secular Jewish family who moved to Palestine as a Jewish settler, only to convert to Islam and move to Gaza with his family as Josef Al-Khattab.

The thing to bear in mind is that in public debate you are speaking primarily to the public, not to the person you are debating. The goal is to win public opinion to your viewpoint, and all rhetorical devices are utilized with this aim in mind.

Richard Dawkins is speaking to the Western public who are the intended viewers of his documentary. Al-Khattab, on the other hand, appears to be speaking with other fundamentalist Muslims in mind. His comments will win approval and favour from them for being "preaching it as it is", however, they are unlikely to influence the public that Dawkins is chasing.

If Al-Khattab had spoken with Dawkins' audience in mind he might not have provided Dawkins with such a clear cut example of the "demon of religious extremism" that Dawkins' metanarrative rests on. The editor of a documentary will always have the power to selectively edit and contextualize, so anyone with an opposing viewpoint is at a disadvantage. Still, there are things you can do to more or less play into their hands.

At the same time, Khattab is unconcerned with influencing Dawkins' audience. He is simply interested in restating his position forcefully. Unfortunately Dawkins' presentation rests on characterizing religion as forceful and unreasonable.

Full respect to Khattab for being hardcore and representing without any self-doubt. This is probably the mentality you need to survive when you live in a city under siege inside an occupied land, however I don't recommend this approach for preachers living inside Western societies.

Instead I would recommend using a more rational approach that acknowledges Dawkins' valid concerns, and extends them further. Choosing to speak on divisive social and cultural issues is not a good idea.

Dawkins' angle relies on the fear of Western populations of the clash of cultures - of foreign cultures which fanatically insist on retaining their values as they come into contact with other cultures.

The Vedic paradigm is one of cultural assimilation, rather than one of rigidly promoting a static culture. This ability to adopt and adapt to local culture has lead to the rich Vedic tradition with its plethora of forms of religious and cultural expression.

In his book Krishna Samhita Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura explains the Daksa Yajña as the recounting of the assimilation of the worship of Lord Siva into the Vedic civilization. At the time that it was happening Daksa represents an Aryan who is "racist" - he won't have any Deity of an aboriginal black race get a share of the sacrificial offering. However he is suitably punished and the moral of the story is - "Siva is in" (conveniently rendered as a white Deity now, with the ash on him).

At the beginning of Krishna Samhita and throughout its narrative, Bhaktivinode Thakura writes that he is speaking especially to fit within the framework of Western academics, and he apologises to the followers of Siva, who, he points out, is glorified in the Bhagavatam as the greatest devotee of Visnu.

We should remember that while it is an offense to consider the demigods to be equal to or independent of Visnu, it is also wrong to be offensive to the demigods, who are all devotees of the Lord.

The point here is that we do not have to proselytize on unpopular or incompatible cultural issues, but neither do we have to cede that "anything goes". Hindus and Muslims lived alongside for generations by respecting each others right to live within their own boundaries according to their cultural tradition.

At the same time a lot of our presentation does rely on challenging culture - a prime example is meat-eating. However, we are able to do this on the basis of rational explanation, in addition to scriptural injunction. Scriptural injunction is interpreted as cultural tradition by those who do not accept the same, or any scriptures. When speaking to an audience we should take into account their valid pramana, or source of authority. For modern Western audiences this means anumana, or reason. Demonstrating the value of scripture using reason is effective to such an audience. Flatly demanding that they accept another pramana will look like fanaticism to them.

As Srila Prabhupada put it, succinctly: "Religion without philosophy is fanaticism".

For example, Srila Prabhupada while discussing devotees' clothing with the public would give rational explanations, and would make it clear that devotees adopted this mode of clothing because they rationally understood and accepted it and wanted to do so - not because they were under duress to do so. Nor is anyone under any duress to accept it if they do not want to.

While we can agree with Dawkins that cultural inflexibility is the cause of severe problems in the flattening world of the 21st century, there are still some things that are more favorable than others, according to the Vedic science of consciousness - especially an analysis according the Vedic understanding of the three modes of material nature. Scripture is not unreasonable. It is reasonable as far as reason goes, and it goes further. It does not do away with reason, it leaves reason behind.

So we are willing to sit down and rationally discuss it, without resorting to rabid slogan-reciting and childishly blocking our ears. At the same time, we would like the freedom to live the way that we want to live, and to offer the opportunity to others to adopt our modes of lifestyle, if they wish.

What could be objectionable about that?

Key Points:

Participate in the meta-narrative ("Yes, how different cultures and faith traditions interact is a concern in a globalized world")
Be prepared to establish and defend your positions using the pramana of your audience (Use rational explanations and quote statistics for Westernized audiences)These two points demonstrate to the audience that your faith is not irrational in its nature, and that you are not using it as a psychological crutch because you can't interact with other people as a normal human being.
Avoid being boxed in on cultural issues (Remember that culture is a supporting element for spiritual practice - if your audience has no spiritual practice, there is little point trying to establish supportive elements)
Public presentation means giving people enough that they can digest it and move forward with interest and enthusiasm (Don't try to give people the entire philosophy and value system in five minutes)

Kulapavana · May 12, 2008

Yes, the topic is excellent, but the conclusions of Romapada Maharaja leave something to be desired. W have also not been given some important information, such as:

- was the original BTG article correct in it's presentation of the Vallabha sampradaya based on the historical and factual sources? there is a history of serious feud between the Vallabhas and the Caitanyas, with accusations flying both ways.

- was Prabhupada able to pacify Sumati Morarji with his letter? I was under the impression that she distanced herself from him after that incident.

suchandra · May 12, 2008

Yes, the topic is excellent, but the conclusions of Romapada Maharaja leave something to be desired. W have also not been given some important information, such as:

- was the original BTG article correct in it's presentation of the Vallabha sampradaya based on the historical and factual sources? there is a history of serious feud between the Vallabhas and the Caitanyas, with accusations flying both ways.

- was Prabhupada able to pacify Sumati Morarji with his letter? I was under the impression that she distanced herself from him after that incident.

Right, since it says that Lord Caitanya always considered Vallabha acarya as His friend, this was something totally different, rather category of internal spiritual disput and never to be mentioned as a mundane controversy what has to be rectified like a material good and bad affair. Similar with the differences among the gopis. Differences, however, exist not only between different rasas, but within the same rasa as well. There are left-wing gopis and right-wing gopis. The gopis headed by Chandravali always take the side of Krishna, while those who are in Srimati Radharani's group always take Her side to the extreme. Some devotees hold that the Yamuna is the topmost place of worship, while the group headed by Sri Rupa places greater emphasis on Radha-kunda. But this cannot be presented as controversial subject matter. In fact it is like the 10th canto which is forbidden to present to newcomers or readers of BTG who first of all have to become situated above sinful living.

Was Prabhupada able to pacify Sumati Morarji? Guess Prabhupada always disavowed that his leaders became more and more "expert" to constantly back him up against the wall by clever means. Why was it neccessary to write such a loaded article, except to instigate trouble?

raghu · May 13, 2008

Ironically if one goes to a Buddhist forum, everybody is polite and well mannered, not prone to fits of anger and flaming. I've gone to Buddhist temples and been received with such friendly hospitality I thought that I should have walked into a Vaisnava temple. No such luck.

That's because there are no iskcon followers in Buddhist temples, obviously.