Comments Posted By tamal
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
Hare Krsna Bhakta Corey,
I would like to comment on a couple of your comments if I may. In comment #40 you wrote:
âHow do we expect our movement to grow, if the people who are fully dedicated to expanding the movement no longer feel that they are being protected?â
My question is, are brahmacaris and sannyasis the only devotees who are âfully dedicated to expanding the movement?â I would certainly like to think not. Are householder devotees like Ravindra Svarup Prabhu and Virabahu Prabhu not âfully dedicatedâ? There are also many acaryas in our line who were householders, Bhaktivinoda Thakur being the most obvious example. Srivas Thakur being another. There are numerous other examples. Can we question their dedication? I would like think there are a least a couple of householders in our movement that are âfully dedicated.âYou point out that âan unbiased observer cannot help but notice a general trend in our movement (also observed in a few comments above) is that certain individuals have developed an anti-renunciate mentality.â But I canât understand how you could make that comment considering that since you are in the bramhacari ashram, it is only natural that YOU would have a biased opinion. As would I since I am a householder. Who is this unbiased observer that you reference?
In comment #60 you state:
âThey themselves never went through the training period of brahmacharya, so in general, they have no solid foundation for sadhana.â
Perhaps you can elaborate on this. Are you saying that one MUST be a brahmacari in order to have a steady sadhana? This is clearly refuted by Prabhupada in his purport to BG 3.7: âA householder can reach his desitination by regulated service in Krishna consciousness. For self-realization, one can live a controlled life, as prescribed in the sastras, and continue carrying out his business without attachment, and in that way make progress.â He discusses this point in numerous places in chapter 3.
You also wrote:
âThey also tend to fall under the category of âmodernistsâ, who believe that Srila Prabhupadaâs books are no longer relevant to the âmodern day ageâ and believe that certain points should be edited out of his books and purports.â
Personally I donât feel that Prabhupadaâs books should be edited and I donât know many householders that do. Some people will either respond positively to his books or they wonât. I do feel that from a preaching standpoint, some people donât âhave the earsâ to hear some of Prabhupadaâs more âcontroversialâ (for lack of a better word) statements right away. They will just commit offences or be turned off. But that doesnât mean they should be edited, hidden, or watered down. Prabhupada himself gave devotional service in small doses in the beginning. I am strongly opposed to changing Prabhupadaâs books.
You disagree with our society changing with âthe new times.â I suppose this means different things to different people. For some, it means removing things from Srila Prabhupadaâs books so people donât get offended. For me, (and many of our leaders like Devamrita Swami, Hridayanda Maharaja) it means understanding who we are preaching to and their mindset. It means being innovative in our preaching endeavors (without watering down the philosophy) to reach the maximum number of possible people. Everyone deserves a chance to become a devotee. And as Akruranatha Prabhu stated, many who come to Krishna consciousness will not be quitting school or job to move into a temple. Our movement is mostly grhasthas. Are you suggesting the vast majority of the householders are destined to fail? If so, whatâs the point in preaching? Most people arenât going to become brahmacaris, particularly a 40 year old couple with two kids. At least this is the case in North America.
In comment #69 you wrote:
âIt goes back to the point about how our movement has developed an anti renunciate mentality, and thus we no longer see the need to give protection to the renounced ashrams âbrahmacharis and sannyasisâ. Because of this, the preaching has died, and our movement (in America, at least) is very weak. If you want this movement to expand, you must once again start giving support to renunciates, not being envious of them and subconsciously wanting them to fall down.â
Is it an anti-renunciate mentality that caused the numerous fall-downs and scandals by those in the renounced order in the past? Did householders simply âmake a wishâ that sannyasis would fall? I only bring this up because I am not sure of what you are alluding to. Perhaps you can elaborate on the envy of which you speak since your point is a bit unclear to me. I think there are many reasons why âpreaching has diedâ other than âgiving protection to the bramhacaris and sannyasis.â And again, are you saying that ONLY those in the renounced order are able to spread Krishna consciousness? It seems as if you are pulling some of these statements out of thin air. This argument is weak at best.
I am not anti-renunciate nor pro-grhastha. I am pro-ISKCON and pro-sankirtan. We need BOTH ashrams working together to facilitate this. I have much respect for those in the renounced order and I actually regret not having formal training as a brahmacari. I know it is something that would be very difficult for me and I give credit to those that can remain steady in that ashram. It is unfortunate that you may have met householders that have given you negative impressions. I do not wish to engage in some heated argument but I do feel that your many of your statements are broad generalizations that are a bit distorted. Or they just may need more clarification for my eyes. I also wanted to express that I do not have such negative feelings toward the renounced order. Not all householders feel have this âanti-renunciateâ mentality and some of us actually do have a lot to contribute to this movement, family and all.
Tamal Krsna dasa
Comment Posted By tamal On 12.12.2006 @ 03:25