The Chorus Of One-siders

By Kesava Krsna Dasa

It is known that Srila Prabhupada was not fond of ambiguities like “maybe, perhaps, could be…” and so on, and we often follow suit to express ourselves in absolutist terms, convinced of our infallible statements. The problem with this is that in the face of Srila Prabhupada’s varied and nuanced teachings our utmost one-sided certainties can expose us as certain and total fools who actually expose our political and biased natures. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta says this:

“Those, whose judgment is made of mundane stuff, being unable to enter into the spirit of the all-loving controversies among pure devotees, due to their own want of unalloyed devotion, are apt to impute to the devotees their own defects of partisanship and opposing views.” (Brahma-samhita 5.37 purport, p.72, BBT edition)

We generally do not like it when devotees disagree with us, especially if we think that we have the backing of guru, sadhu and Sastra – our air of infallibility can be rudely tested in front of a Vaisnava audience. This leads us to either robustly defend our stance or for others to take sides in ensuing debates. Intransigence sets in to the point of stubbornness. Again, faced with variations in Srila Prabhupada’s output, our one-sided defence can mean defending the indefensible or literally Bow-wowing as a dog might, automatically – as in being dogmatic.

Taking sides in intractable ‘disputes’ is a “defect” if they originate with pure devotees and acaryas. We are allowed to discuss the merits of each side but not to impose our “mundane stuff” with “partisanship”, even if we are all-knowing. Even if we favour one side because it might be a practical solution or help resolve some misunderstanding, we should do it in such a way that the other side remains valid and is not minimised.

It is good to be sure of ourselves, but when two opposing assured viewpoints fortified with certainty clash for all to read or hear, it can give the impression of us belonging to a society of one-siders. The thinking seems to be that we have a little grasp of Krishna conscious philosophy and therefore we ‘know’ everything. How impudent!

Such is the way we judge individuals and link them with levels of spiritual advancement that it is hard for devotees to express themselves if a weakness persists, or that there is actually something else that Srila Prabhupada said that contradicts what they say. We do not often see devotees say, “I do not know” if confronted with a genuine conundrum question, or to admit, “you are right”, or even to say, “aren’t we both right?” And when we see ‘differences’ between acaryas we have to say both or all are right. Who are we to say, “Both sides or all sides cannot be right?”

It is not blind obedience to agree to apparently opposing enlightened views, it is revealing our equitable respect. For example, on a mundane level we all have experience of when we say something to a group of people; some will agree with us and some not. Our human side will tell us that those who agree with us are more likely to be our friends and favour us. Those who disagree might bear our grudges.

If we are still un-conditioning in spiritual progress it will be risky for us to attribute the same human behaviour towards those who transcend human conditioning. Would this mean that we shall remain inconclusive by not favouring one side (opinion) or another? In answer to this, we need to wonder if we are capable of prising reasons for such ‘differences’ if we are sadhakas.

Although Srila Prabhupada was more than a sadhaka he nonetheless placed himself in a position of informed obedience to our previous acaryas by amicably avoiding “partisanship” in some of his purports. We should note how, in the next quotation, he still acknowledges Srila Sridhara Swani as the original commentator on Srimad Bhagavatam, yet at the same time according merit to other subsequent commentaries on a particular issue. He resolves it in a mature Vaisnava way:

“According to Sripada Sridhara Svami, the original commentator on the Bhagavatam, there is not always a devastation after the change of every Manu. And yet this inundation after the period of Caksusa Manu took place in order to show some wonders to Satyavrata. But Sri Jiva Gosvami has given definite proofs from authoritative scriptures (like Visnu-dharmottara, Markandeya Purana, Harivamsa, etc.) that there is always a devastation after the end of each and every Manu. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti has also supported Srila Jiva Gosvami, and he (Sri Cakravarti) has also quoted from Bhagavatamrta about this inundation after each Manu. Apart from this, the Lord, in order to show special favour to Satyavrata, a devotee of the Lord, in this particular period, incarnated Himself.” (SB 1.3.15 purport)

We do not see Srila Prabhupada saying that Srila Sridhara Swami is incorrect. Rather he acknowledges all sides. With additional Sastric evidence cited by subsequent commentators he seems to favour these but without minimising Srila Sridhara Swami – all points are valid. We, on the other hand are apt to take sides more brazenly.

For instance, here is a true case of a relatively senior devotee who has a disagreement with senior management. The devotee writes the grievances on a Facebook page which inevitably invites comments. New and uninformed readers of that post click ‘Like’ and agree with a one-sided version of events via comments. Aren’t they unwittingly committing offence, when Vaisnava etiquette dictates that juniors should not take sides when seniors have differences?

We may cite democracy or freedom of expression, but a climate exists that makes such dealings normal and acceptable. In his diary on Srila Prabhupada, Tamal Krishna Maharaja mentioned how he engaged in energetic discussions with his spiritual master on ‘implausible’ cosmological information concerning the position of the earthly realm. Afterwards, Tamal Krishna Maharaja went to Srila Prabhupada and begged forgiveness for his robustness. Tamal Krishna Maharaja noted that Srila Prabhupada was disturbed by this asking for forgiveness, saying that it was a discussion, however heated. In light of this, are we being oversensitive when calling for discussion standards?

It is not the energy we are concerned about, within reason, but being reasonable. Reasonable also means to be sensible, realistic, rational, even-minded and equitable when positing a viewpoint or acknowledging obvious disagreements, especially when we are still learning, as all of us are. It is fairly unusual for devotees to accommodate possible alternative viewpoints other than their own. This can be unreasonable and imbalanced.

Many of our discussions pertain to immediate and practical matters. Others obviate that both sides are right in the bigger scheme of things. Another problem we find is where Srila Prabhupada might have said things in private or to a small number of followers not meant for public consumption, i.e.; Sunday class.

It might be difficult to gauge what is ‘off-the-record’ when most things he said were recorded. Without consideration of possible cultural ramifications, some devotees brandish such ‘in-house’ sayings as headline news or frontline internet presentations. This is where responsibility in preaching and outreach arises – we should resist being indiscriminate.

Devotees will ask to what extent can support for either side of a personal difference or ongoing debate go? Are we allowed to show faithful allegiance? Are we unknowingly revealing some hidden motives by taking sides? How about this occurrence where sometimes a senior devotee by dint of being ‘senior’ can participate in a discussion or debate and belittle and tosh all fair contributions made by those younger? And this does happen…It can amount to abuse of seniority. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta warns:

“While inquiring into the Absolute Truth, we cannot remain steady in one conclusion after hearing various apparently opposing statements of many acaryas. Considering the weakness of the audiences, the instructing acarya often does not have the opportunity to disclose many subjects”. (Sri Gaudiya Bhasya of Sri Caitanya Bhagavata)

In our efforts to defend ISKCON there has been problems. Such defence will hurt Vaisnava sensibilities and sometimes it is unavoidable. Defending ISKCON also means to take sides. Despite this, Srila Prabhupada would warn of such dangers to spiritual progress and to lend a broader perspective, like here:

“So far as your question about controversy amongst the disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Maharaja, that is a fact. But this controversy is not material. Just like in a national program, different political parties are sometimes in conflict and make propaganda against each other, but their central point is always service to the country. Similarly, amongst the disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati there may be some controversy, but the central point is how to preach the mission of His Divine Grace. If the central point is fixed up then there is no harm in such controversy. Every individual being must have his opinion; that is the significance of individuality, but all such differences of opinions must coincide in Krishna.” (Letter to Mandali Bhadra / 28 July 1969)

As we know, Srila Prabhupada would caution and warn at the same time on the same issue. Now that his disciples have matured more, there is an expectation that ‘cross-border’ Vaisnava institutional interactions should be a trouble-free affair, but recent history has shown otherwise.

As the founder of ISKCON Srila Prabhupada was honest in that if he was not sure about something, he would say so. He certainly did not impose himself as all-knowing in an arrogant seniority sense. He readily instructed that we try not to be inflexible and rigid:

“As for your question about Santa Rasa and the opinions of Rupa Goswami and Sridhara Swami, I don’t remember. You can send me the appropriate passages. There is no reason why Acaryas cannot differ on certain points.” (Letter to Upendra / 19 February 1972)

Devotees might think it is a sort of crime if we explore many angles of vision on any given subject. Such exploratory methods may appear inconclusive. But really, by doing this we absorb more and learn. Chances will increase that we see harmony in contradictions and unity in opposites and be able to “enter into the spirit of the all-loving controversies among pure devotees…”

Devotees are naturally biased towards Krishna, though we temper that sometimes with sama-darsinah outreach appealing to all people of cultures, religion and traditions. While this appears to be soft-peddling, we can be pretty hard on each other as devotees. There is no wrong in offering valid opinions and acknowledging that there are other equally valid opinions besides our own. The sooner we reasonably acquiesce to this the sooner we shall open up to learn and grow towards that transcendent realm where all contradictions and opposites harmonise effortlessly. If we cannot do that here, how will we do that there?

Ys Kesava Krsna Dasa.