Home

Forums

Topics

Members

Tattva-viveka

meditative tigers(something to learn from buddhist)

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 27, 2008 4:43 pm

I was going through this and I was struck by wonder at the ability of the atheist buddhist to show a great example of transformation. Maybe tigers can be embraced more than the "crude stock" of today(that is what Chaitanya mahaprabhu said).

But this actually forces me to reexamine the utility of aggression in transforming people. I have mostly seen that aggressive preaching leads to a lot of fanatic people and this is an experience for any objective person to see. So instead of using BSST and SP aggressive nature selectively to justify their so called compassion and represent GV,devotees would do well to remember examples of Sanatana Gosvami and Haridas Thakur as well. Otherwise as an unbiased observant this incident below melts my heart more than many devotees did. This is just my opinion.

This is extraordinary…

The tiger temple in thailand is a place where an extraordinary bond between man and the world's

biggest cats has been formed. The tigers here are so peaceful…its almost as if they have accepted

buddhism as their religion. In fact, they even sit for the meditating sessions with the monks and kneel

down in front of them as it they are the gurus. The tigers are so docile that the monks have to

sometimes train them to fight otherwise they would lose all their power of self protection.

The link started in 1999 when a sick baby tiger, orphaned after poachers shot its mother, was

brought to the monks. Within a few years several other tiger cubs similarly orphaned by poachers

had arrived. The most amazing thing is none of the cubs turned out ferocious on growing up. The

monks believe that these tigers are none other than the former buddhist disciples who have taken

rebirth in the same place.

Citta Hari Dasa - August 27, 2008 6:53 pm

But this actually forces me to reexamine the utility of aggression in transforming people.

I just read The One Minute Manager by Ken Blanchard and Spencer Johnson. It's all about managing (and training people) with clear goals (one minute goal setting), positive reinforcement (one minute praisings), and, when mistakes are made, clear and direct reprimands that speak only about the behavior--not about the worth of the person (one minute reprimands). Therein the authors assert that the most successful organizations in the world invariably use such methods, the motto being "People who feel good about themselves produce good results." The salient point here being that the reason the 3 techniques utilized by one minute managers work is because the employees know that the manager genuinely has their interest at heart--they feel the manager's compassionate, well-wishing spirit--even in a business setting where results are paramount. The authors make the point that training people using the common method of catching people doing something wrong ultimately results in people who do the minimum so as to avoid the pain of being caught again. Instead, three minute managers catch people doing something right, which it turns out is exactly the way to train animals. So I would say to Gaura Vijaya's statement above that using aggression to transform people has extremely limited scope--it can work in some instances, but is ineffective as an overall policy-- for the very basic and inescapable reason that every one of us avoids pain and pursues happiness.

Margaret Dale - August 27, 2008 8:26 pm

Citta Hari is exactly right about training animals. People are always impressed with how calm my animals are. Whenever I get a new animal I spend the first few weeks telling them how great they are every time they lay down, or when I catch them resting. I ignore most other behaviors, and pretty soon they are laying down to get my attention. Right now the only dog that is walking around is the senile one.

It works for people too - I always tell my nurses 'good job' and 'thanks' after anything I happen to be there for, even failed CPRs. I find they are a lot more willing to do extra things for me than for other doctors.

On the other hand, if unwanted behaviors are not punished, they can persist. I used to praise my pug when she did her business outside, but often didn't catch her when she went inside, so for her, it was neutral inside but much more convenient and good outside but wet and cold. I had to catch her in the act and make it clear that that behavior was just not acceptable.

I guess in terms of preaching it's all going to be about 1. to whom is the preaching directed and 2. how important is the issue being discussed? I rarely bother to try and modify the behavior of other people's dogs - I have no relationship with them and it's just not worth my time and energy. If I happen to find a stray that I foster, then I expend the effort because the dog has the potential to be a good pet and it appears to be my responsibility to provide training.

The list of ten offenses against the holy name say not to preach the glories of the holy name to the faithless. Can the glories of the holy name be expanded to mean all issues of Gaudiya theology? And who is considered faithless? The BG 3.26 and 29 speak of not disturbing the foolish. This seems to imply to me to preach according to the ability of the recipient to understand. My golden retriever is incredibly stupid, so I spend little time training him beyond the basics. My beagle is quite smart and so has learned more advanced tricks. I have tried for hours attempting to teach the golden some tricks, but the only result is that we both end up frustrated. How aggressive should we be in preaching to people, devotees or non-devotees, who either lack the capacity to understand or have no interest in learning?

With my dogs, I ignore what I think are non-issues like getting on the furniture or humping, and focus my attention on basics like doing your business outside, not eating others' food, and not picking fights. My boss at work is always telling me to pick my battles. This is where I think some ISKCON groups have gotten completely out of hand, arguing so hard over what appear to be non-issues that the whole basis of devotion seems to be lost. But there are some basic things like vaisnava aparadha that are so serious that they must be addressed, otherwise these devotees will never make good pets for Krishna.....

Sorry about this post - someone mentioned animal behavior and I got carried away.

Prema-bhakti - August 27, 2008 9:03 pm

But this actually forces me to reexamine the utility of aggression in transforming people. I have mostly seen that aggressive preaching leads to a lot of fanatic people and this is an experience for any objective person to see. So instead of using BSST and SP aggressive nature selectively to justify their so called compassion and represent GV,devotees would do well

Yes, aggressive preaching may very well attract people who have some psychological disfunction. Balanced people may see it as very offputting.

Citta Hari Dasa - August 27, 2008 11:18 pm

Can the glories of the holy name be expanded to mean all issues of Gaudiya theology?

Yes. Nama-dharma includes the philosophy that underlies the name and the theological ramifications of chanting.

I liked your point about picking one's fights. We all know the axiom about casting pearls before swine. Perhaps a better way to say it (in keeping with Mahaprabhu's analogy of bhakti being about becoming a gardener) would be to not waste seeds in barren soil.

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 28, 2008 3:02 pm

something else to think about...

P.S. I think the Buddhist tigers story says more about the effect of upbringing than it does about preaching styles.

Swami - August 28, 2008 3:18 pm

I was going through this and I was struck by wonder at the ability of the atheist buddhist to show a great example of transformation. Maybe tigers can be embraced more than the "crude stock" of today(that is what Chaitanya mahaprabhu said).

 

 

But this actually forces me to reexamine the utility of aggression in transforming people. I have mostly seen that aggressive preaching leads to a lot of fanatic people and this is an experience for any objective person to see. So instead of using BSST and SP aggressive nature selectively to justify their so called compassion and represent GV,devotees would do well to remember examples of Sanatana Gosvami and Haridas Thakur as well. Otherwise as an unbiased observant this incident below melts my heart more than many devotees did. This is just my opinion.

This is extraordinary…

 

The tiger temple in thailand is a place where an extraordinary bond between man and the world's

biggest cats has been formed. The tigers here are so peaceful…its almost as if they have accepted

buddhism as their religion. In fact, they even sit for the meditating sessions with the monks and kneel

down in front of them as it they are the gurus. The tigers are so docile that the monks have to

sometimes train them to fight otherwise they would lose all their power of self protection.

 

The link started in 1999 when a sick baby tiger, orphaned after poachers shot its mother, was

brought to the monks. Within a few years several other tiger cubs similarly orphaned by poachers

had arrived. The most amazing thing is none of the cubs turned out ferocious on growing up. The

monks believe that these tigers are none other than the former buddhist disciples who have taken

rebirth in the same place.

But I saw a documentary of an average American family that had decided to raise tigers as pets. They did so successfully and the tigers acted much like these tigers. One could argue in favor of the merits of good parenting. Even the monks there consider the particular tigers under discussion special, tigers that were Buddhists in their previous lives. An example of what you are talking about would be more one in which a monk went and sat with a wild tiger in the jungle and by his or her nature caused the tiger to act like a kitten. So this ashram perhaps speaks more to us of reincarnation than compassion and the virtues of "non aggressive" preaching.

Regarding the "aggressive preaching" of BSST and SP, I think it is important to underscore the fact that these acaryas were moved from within to approach the dissemination of Gauravani in the ways that they did. They were also very successful. One could imagine that if they simply sat in caves the world would be better off in terms of its understanding of GV, but I doubt anyone would agree. To me the problem lies not with their particular approach but the need for proper understanding of guru parampara and thus how to apply oneself in terms of outreach in consideration of time and circumstances.

The fact that today some devotees use the style of BSST selectively to justify their aggression, lack of compassion and realization, etc. does not diminish the inherent value of BSST's approach that arose out of genuine compassion and realized consideration of time and circumstances. We have ben appalled by these devotees for decades, but what they represent is more the abuse of a good thing than something inherently bad or even inferior.

It is difficult to place oneself outside of one's present sensibilities and even more so to place oneself within the sensibilities of others in times gone by. However, without doing so I think it is difficult to fully assess value of any particular previous approach to preaching. I have personal experience of being involved in the so-called aggressive preaching campaign of SP, and as much as I am very different in my approach to preaching today, my experience then was one I would not trade for anything. All I ever felt from SP was fathomless love, compassion, and charm.

It is also worth noting that, as Vrindaranya has pointed out earlier, the very Gaudiya ideas that one seeks to share with others are at odds with other's lifestyles. Thus however non aggressively one presents them, they themselves are in a sense aggressive, aggressive love.

By the way, what do they feed those tigers?

Vamsidhari Dasa - August 28, 2008 4:43 pm

something else to think about...

 

 

P.S. I think the Buddhist tigers story says more about the effect of upbringing than it does about preaching styles.

:Big Grin: :LMAO: :LMAO:

Well, now that S & R have made the appearance on our forum we can say that truly we are all inclusive. Thanks Vrinda you brighten my day with this for the force of laughter that took over me.

I also do not think that there is anything here at play then the upbringing. What it does argue for is that the environment is important for the expression of one's "nature" as much as the genetic material from within. Sometimes I think that the Buddhist cheapen the idea of reincarnation by seeing anyone they become attached to as representing their teachers form the past. As if the teachers don't have other things to do but sit in tiger bodies.

My cat, Smeagol, whom some of you know if an extraordinary feline. He also bows down when I pay dandavats and he often sits on my seat and stares at Tulsi plan for hours. Does that make him a teacher, no! He is just a cat who sees what I do and he does it too because he sees me as just another, albeit bigger, cat. Therefore, I would say that these monks are more like Smeagol then like us.

The fact that today some devotees use the style of BSST selectively to justify their aggression, lack of compassion and realization, etc. does not diminish the inherent value of BSST's approach that arose out of genuine compassion and realized consideration of time and circumstances. We have ben appalled by these devotees for decades, but what they represent is more the abuse of a good thing than something inherently bad or even inferior.

 

It is also worth noting that, as Vrindaranya has pointed out earlier, the very Gaudiya ideas that one seeks to share with others are at odds with other's lifestyles. Thus however non aggressively one presents them, they themselves are in a sense aggressive, aggressive love.

 

By the way, what do they feed those tigers?

It is important to understand that aggression only breads aggression and as Prema said, attracts people of certain psychological make up. The spiritual practice, or in this case KC, becomes just another covering for their underlined madness. I think that more then being aggressive Gaudiya ideas are subversive and they undermine the way we think about the world and us in it. In order to be accepted they require enormous psychological flexibility and emotional permeability, but most of all the grace of our affectionate guardians.

Prahlad Das - August 28, 2008 5:13 pm

There is a short documentary of a lion called

Christian

. It seems pretty miraculous yet it may also be a product of a saturation of time between 2 different species. Of course the bonding of 2 souls from 2 species, (especially of an alpha carnivore and a would be prey), is in some way a miracle. I don't think this video of the 2 persons who bonded with Christian the Lion serve as evidence that they are as spiritually inclined as the Buddhist Monks, and in using that contrast we may continue to see that the pictures of the "Reincarnated Tiger Monks" and their human monk counterparts aren't necessarily on par with the legend of Sriman Mahaprabhu. Swami pointed out, there is a vast difference between a (trained to be accustomed through constant interaction) relationship with other species and an impromptu visit resulting docility.

With regards to "aggressive" preaching, wouldn't a skilled preacher include aggression in a portfolio of so many other types of presentations? As Vrindaranya commented and through the confirmation of Swami, unsolicited information of any type is aggression. Wouldn't Nagar Sankirtan be considered aggression. There are so many persons who consider it a cacophony of sounds and yet it is a prescribed function of GV dharma. There is a need for aggression and there is a need for compassion.

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 28, 2008 5:29 pm

I was going through this and I was struck by wonder at the ability of the atheist buddhist to show a great example of transformation. Maybe tigers can be embraced more than the "crude stock" of today(that is what Chaitanya mahaprabhu said).

But this actually forces me to reexamine the utility of aggression in transforming people. I have mostly seen that aggressive preaching leads to a lot of fanatic people and this is an experience for any objective person to see. So instead of using BSST and SP aggressive nature selectively to justify their so called compassion and represent GV,devotees would do well to remember examples of Sanatana Gosvami and Haridas Thakur as well. Otherwise as an unbiased observant this incident below melts my heart more than many devotees did. This is just my opinion.

This is extraordinary…

 

The tiger temple in thailand is a place where an extraordinary bond between man and the world's

biggest cats has been formed. The tigers here are so peaceful…its almost as if they have accepted

buddhism as their religion. In fact, they even sit for the meditating sessions with the monks and kneel

down in front of them as it they are the gurus. The tigers are so docile that the monks have to

sometimes train them to fight otherwise they would lose all their power of self protection.

 

The link started in 1999 when a sick baby tiger, orphaned after poachers shot its mother, was

brought to the monks. Within a few years several other tiger cubs similarly orphaned by poachers

had arrived. The most amazing thing is none of the cubs turned out ferocious on growing up. The

monks believe that these tigers are none other than the former buddhist disciples who have taken

rebirth in the same place.

P.P.S. Although in this sanga you're preaching to the choir about the virtues of a gentle approach to preaching, I think you've gone too far in your denouncements of BSST and SP's preaching style. What to speak of Zen Buddhism's long association with military prowess and aggressive imperialism, is Gautama Buddha's preaching style itself, with its ridicule of Vedic rites, all that much more gentle than that of BSST and SP? You've also mentioned several times the example of Haridasa Thakura, who wasn't a preacher but a bhajananandi.  Yes, you may be more drawn to one example than another, but don't fall for a simplistic idealism that can lead to biting the hand that feeds you.

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 28, 2008 5:50 pm

It is important to understand that aggression only breads aggression and as Prema said, attracts people of certain psychological make up.

It's interesting that even with cows, the great symbols of gentleness, aggression has its place. The lead cow will aggressively establish her position, which once established will lead to much licking and veneration by the other cows. The submission to authority (as opposed to rugged individualism) of cows, i.e. herd mentality, which contributes to their gentle appearance, is thus ironically linked to aggression. So although it can still be said that aggressiveness only works with people of a certain psychological make-up (most people?), in such cases it appears to lead to a comforting sense of order, not more aggression (at least not from the original recipient of the aggression).

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 28, 2008 6:04 pm

Wouldn't Nagar Sankirtan be considered aggression. There are so many persons who consider it a cacophony of sounds and yet it is a prescribed function of GV dharma. There is a need for aggression and there is a need for compassion.

Especially when it's a protest against the Chand Kazi.

P.S. I loved the video about Christian the lion! Cried all the way through it...

Madan Gopal Das - August 28, 2008 6:23 pm

Does that make him a teacher, no! He is just a cat who sees what I do and he does it too

Vamsi, you have disturbed my komala faith in Sripad Smeagolji. Does this mean I have to take my picture of him off the altar, or should I just replace it with your picture?

Madan Gopal Das - August 28, 2008 6:36 pm

One could argue in favor of the merits of good parenting.

I think this is the essential cause in this case, nurture won over nature here. These tigers all came to the Buddhists at a young age and were raised in a peaceful environment much different than living in the wild, fighting for their place amongst other animals. Human kids I work with who grow up in traumatic circumstances develop aggressive tendencies to cope. When you (or a tiger) don't have to fight for food, love and shelter it is much easier to develop a peaceful affect which transcends the predisposition that nature has given.

Nitaisundara Das - August 28, 2008 7:03 pm

Deadly!, yet cuddly cats. Wonderful. Sometimes I wish the cows here would hug me like that lion did....... Alas....

Prahlad Das - August 28, 2008 7:28 pm

Especially when it's a protest against the Chand Kazi.

 

P.S. I loved the video about Christian the lion! Cried all the way through it...

At your service

Yes, especially in protest against the Chand Kazi. In defining aggression we can see that there are ways in which aggression plays positive roles in character development. However, there are many ways in which aggression can be detrimental. Naturally, to say that SP, and SBSST were negatively aggressive would be a disservice to GVism. They enthusiastically cultured Krsna Consciousness to an extent in which some were offended (this is already well documented and is still a matter of disapproval among some). Jagai and Madai were offended by Hari Nama Sankirtan. Have we ever understood that we should have worried about their "feelings" in this regard? Some Vaishnavas currently are adopting a more passive stance in serving to spread the teachings of Mahaprabhu, but at the risk of sounding like a pscho-analyst I propose that this would be passive aggression in the sense that passivity works for some. Hari Nama Sankirtan is a positive aggression, unless we are prepared to perform Hari Nama Sankirtan we should remain docile and soft spoken. Until then we should listen carefully to one who does perform Hari Nama Sankirtan and learn from them its arts.

Prahlad Das - August 28, 2008 7:29 pm

Deadly!, yet cuddly cats. Wonderful. Sometimes I wish the cows here would hug me like that lion did....... Alas....

Although Dharmaji is not a cow, he is pretty darn cuddly :Big Grin:

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 28, 2008 8:01 pm

As far as tigers with the buddhist monks are concerned they are well behaved even in presence of outsiders coming there and also in vicinity of meat shops. But yes arguments can be made about how some Americans can do the same but I doubt that they can do it to the same extent as this case. But it is subjective to one's opinion and we have so many people like Dawkins who will give a lot of scientific reasons for anything like seen in the video I posted.

I made a point that aggression has gone far overboard according to me and the only representation of GV is the aggressive preaching of BSST and SP. By considering that to be the complete gamut of GV will be a severe injustice to the tradition. BTW if I was only exposed to BSST and SP's preaching in my life,I would never have joined GV; I am sure about it. So people may hate me for that but here I am honest about it. I have met many people who are open-minded and intelligent who are uncomfortable with that style and one can say all these people are not good for GV. The vedic tradition in general(seeing the Bhagavatam spoken to different philosophers and sages) was one in which discussion modes were more cordial than one currently practised. I understand that to give mercy to people of kali yuga you want to aggressively bombard them or else they will not listen. But does it have to come at the cost of people who need some time and space to make a voluntary decision to come to GV and offer their services. Those people don't have any voice in GV according to me.

I also didn't know that haridas thakur was just a bhajanandi and he did no preaching. I thought he did better preaching than many current preachers of today.

I know that hardly anybody shares my views about these topics but I don't think by expressing these views I am going against the tattva of GV. In case I am, GM and others can correct me.

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 28, 2008 8:03 pm

but at the risk of sounding like a pscho-analyst I propose that this would be passive aggression in the sense that passivity works for some. Hari Nama Sankirtan is a positive aggression, unless we are prepared to perform Hari Nama Sankirtan we should remain docile and soft spoken. Until then we should listen carefully to one who does perform Hari Nama Sankirtan and learn from them its arts.

:Big Grin: Loved that one!

The intent is exactly the same between Srila Prabhupada (apparently aggressive approach) and Guru Maharaja (passive aggressive approach). Of course, transcendental aggression and passive-aggression is actually the height of compassion.

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 28, 2008 8:07 pm

aggression 1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master.

Of course, in pure preaching it is the truth or Krsna who one wants to establish as the master.

Prahlad Das - August 28, 2008 8:12 pm

aggression 1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

Well, that doesn't sound very nice (the definition of aggression) Would the use of the word (especially) indicate that it is not always used to dominate or master?

And yes in pure preaching we must come under the domination of Hari, Guru, and Vaishnava. I like your use of the qualifier "pure", Vrndaranya.

Prahlad Das - August 28, 2008 8:17 pm

Loved that one!

 

The intent is exactly the same between Srila Prabhupada (apparently aggressive approach) and Guru Maharaja (passive aggressive approach). Of course, transcendental aggression and passive-aggression is actually the height of compassion.

Hari Bolo!

Prema-bhakti - August 28, 2008 8:31 pm

I made a point that aggression has gone far overboard according to me and the only representation of GV is the aggressive preaching of BSST and SP. By considering that to be the complete gamut of GV will be a severe injustice to the tradition. BTW if I was only exposed to BSST and SP's preaching in my life,I would never have joined GV; I am sure about it. So people may hate me for that but here I am honest about it. I have met many people who are open-minded and intelligent who are uncomfortable with that style and one can say all these people are not good for GV. The vedic tradition in general(seeing the Bhagavatam spoken to different philosophers and sages) was one in which discussion modes were more cordial than one currently practised. I understand that to give mercy to people of kali yuga you want to aggressively bombard them or else they will not listen. But does it have to come at the cost of people who need some time and space to make a voluntary decision to come to GV and offer their services. Those people don't have any voice in GV according to me.

I really sympathize with you here Gaura Vijaya. As a cultured, intelligent and thoughtful person I can see that style of preaching would not appeal to you.

Fortunately, there is guru parampara and the message can become refined and relevant as it is is passed on over time. Guru Maharaja is a product of SP's presentation and so you are a product of it albeit indirectly. Krsna manifests as guru in a form tailored for each of us.

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 28, 2008 9:09 pm

I made a point that aggression has gone far overboard according to me and the only representation of GV is the aggressive preaching of BSST and SP. By considering that to be the complete gamut of GV will be a severe injustice to the tradition. BTW if I was only exposed to BSST and SP's preaching in my life,I would never have joined GV; I am sure about it. So people may hate me for that but here I am honest about it. I have met many people who are open-minded and intelligent who are uncomfortable with that style and one can say all these people are not good for GV. The vedic tradition in general(seeing the Bhagavatam spoken to different philosophers and sages) was one in which discussion modes were more cordial than one currently practised. I understand that to give mercy to people of kali yuga you want to aggressively bombard them or else they will not listen. But does it have to come at the cost of people who need some time and space to make a voluntary decision to come to GV and offer their services. Those people don't have any voice in GV according to me.

 

I also didn't know that haridas thakur was just a bhajanandi and he did no preaching. I thought he did better preaching than many current preachers of today.

I know that hardly anybody shares my views about these topics but I don't think by expressing these views I am going against the tattva of GV. In case I am, GM and others can correct me.

I think it's important to see how different approaches to preaching work together. It's interesting that you say that BSST and SP are the only representations of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. I think the fact that Bhaktivinode Thakur, Srila Sridhara Maharaja, and our own Guru Maharaja all have a less "aggressive" approach and have less disciples is no coincidence (and have therefore not registered on your radar of representing Gaudiya Vaisnavism). By and large, people do follow the herd mentality: they like to be told what to do (black and white presentation) and of course they feel secure in a big herd. It's only the brahmana sector that's stubbornly individualistic. Furthermore, the brahmana sector can relish a highly philosophical, abstract presentation that is highly boring to most people.

Nevertheless, I doubt that you wouldn't have blissfully surrendered to Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura or Srila Prabhupada if you had their personal darsana. As Srila Sridhara Maharaja said about BSST's disciples: "I was attracted by that association. There were so many members of gentlemanly and educated nature, and wholly given to the Service of Mahaprabhu. That attracted me most."

As for the cordial discussions of the Vedic tradition, it got pretty heated as well. Think of the Madhvites and Sankarites ... so many other heated debates come to mind.

Swami - August 28, 2008 9:16 pm

Gaura-Vijaya das' wrote on 'Aug 28 2008, 01:01 PM' post='17124'

BTW if I was only exposed to BSST and SP's preaching in my life,I would never have joined GV; I am sure about it.

So people may hate me for that but here I am honest about it. I have met many people who are open-minded and intelligent who are uncomfortable with that style . . .

Most people on this forum joined because of me, and many of them like you were uncomfortable with Iskcon's style, or Iskcon's attempt to emulate Prabhupada's style, or perhaps Prabhupada's style without Prabhupada. I think when you combine the two, Prabhupada's style and Prabhupada, you get something different from Prabhupada's "style." I say this as one person who has experience of both.

It is also important to note that there may be something other than the aggressiveness of Prabhpada's style that others find objectionable today. His style tends to be more of a kanistha orientation to GV, but such presentations have their place, and of course this is not to say that Prabhupada was a kanistha adhikari. Indeed some of his greatness may lie in his willingness to bring it down to a digestible level for his immediate audience.

SM once remarked that Bon Maharaja had a very different approach that was largely unsuccessful in the West. It was much more intellectual and non-aggressive or non-evangelical. And I do not think anyone on this forum is attracted to an evangelical approach, nor are thoughtful people in general, including the hippies that joined Prabhupada. I certainly was not, and yes, I was a hippie. So there is something more in the picture than style—krsna sakti vine nahi nama sankirtana—and at the same time style is also relative to time and place. I think even an evangelical presentation of GV will look very open minded, broad and accommodating to those previously only familiar with Christian evangelicalism, and I think that the evangelical/aggressive outreach of Prabhupada itself, his spirituality aside, made some sense given his immediate audience. It was authoritarian yet counter culture at the same time. And this turned out to be a good fit for thoughtful people who were rejecting material values and authority figures who represented them but nonetheless in need of authorities who would validate their revolution against material values.

The vedic tradition in general(seeing the Bhagavatam spoken to different philosophers and sages) was one in which discussion modes were more cordial than one currently practised. I understand that to give mercy to people of kali yuga you want to aggressively bombard them or else they will not listen. But does it have to come at the cost of people who need some time and space to make a voluntary decision to come to GV and offer their services. Those people don't have any voice in GV according to me.

I also didn't know that haridas thakur was just a bhajanandi and he did no preaching. I thought he did better preaching than many current preachers of today.

Yes, in his early life in Nadiya he was a preacher and he and Nitaicand went door to door and preached to Jagai and Madhai, sounds a bit evangelical . . . , but that was then and this is now, as they say. Later in Puri he became a bhajananandi.

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 28, 2008 9:31 pm

There's aggressive propagation as we're talking about it here (confrontational preaching) and then there's aggressive propagation as it's usually defined in history books (the sword).

Citta Hari Dasa - August 28, 2008 9:39 pm

In business terms I believe it could be stated something like this: hard sell or soft sell, either way it's about "selling" the philosophy--to people who in most cases are not interested in the product. Or, as SSM said, "Preaching means a fight." We can fight either hard-style (karate) or soft-style (t'ai chi) but either way it's fighting, trying to assert dominance over another (in this case, ideology). Either approach would, I think, be unattractive if employed unskillfully by a neophyte, which is of course why Guru Maharaja often says that preaching is for people with realization.

Prema-bhakti - August 28, 2008 11:03 pm

I really sympathize with you here Gaura Vijaya. As a cultured, intelligent and thoughtful person I can see that style of preaching would not appeal to you.

 

Fortunately, there is guru parampara and the message can become refined and relevant as it is is passed on over time. Guru Maharaja is a product of SP's presentation and so you are a product of it albeit indirectly. Krsna manifests as guru in a form tailored for each of us.

I think I need to clarify myself more. I am addressing the common experience of SP's mission after SP's departure. I agree as others have stated that there was a potency and purity in SP's mission that transcends a discussion simply on preaching style.

Guru Maharaja, I really appreciate your points about joining Prabhupada and the story of Bon Maharaja's preaching in the West. ISKCON's presentation is extremely disconnected from Srila Prabhupada's intent and purity and therefore largely left only with a fanatical shell. As you stated SP's presentation was dignified and urgent in it's own way and sucessful. You represent the guru parampara as SP and BSST have and therefore you also have the power and realization to inspire the intelligentsia as SP and BSST did.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 29, 2008 12:43 am

Gaura-Vijaya das' wrote on 'Aug 28 2008, 01:01 PM' post='17124'

 

However, if you were born in India in the early 1900's you might have. Many other gentle people joined, even leaving Gandhi to do so.

Most people on this forum joined because of me, and many of them like you were uncomfortable with Iskcon's style, or Iskcon's attempt to emulate Prabhupada's style, or perhaps Prabhupada's style without Prabhupada. I think when you combine the two, Prabhupada's style and Prabhupada, you get something different from Prabhupada's "style." I say this as one person who has experience of both.

 

It is also important to note that there may be something other than the aggressiveness of Prabhpada's style that others find objectionable today. His style tends to be more of a kanistha orientation to GV, but such presentations have their place, and of course this is not to say that Prabhupada was a kanistha adhikari. Indeed some of his greatness may lie in his willingness to bring it down to a digestible level for his immediate audience.

 

SM once remarked that Bon Maharaja had a very different approach that was largely unsuccessful in the West. It was much more intellectual and non-aggressive or non-evangelical. And I do not think anyone on this forum is attracted to an evangelical approach, nor are thoughtful people in general, including the hippies that joined Prabhupada. I certainly was not, and yes, I was a hippie. So there is something more in the picture than style—krsna sakti vine nahi nama sankirtana—and at the same time style is also relative to time and place. I think even an evangelical presentation of GV will look very open minded, broad and accommodating to those previously only familiar with Christian evangelicalism, and I think that the evangelical/aggressive outreach of Prabhupada itself, his spirituality aside, made some sense given his immediate audience. It was authoritarian yet counter culture at the same time. And this turned out to be a good fit for thoughtful people who were rejecting material values and authority figures who represented them but nonetheless in need of authorities who would validate their revolution against material values.

 

Not sure who you are arguing with here. Everyone here feels comfortable in an environment of discussion, the likes of which I have created here years before you joined. That some members may be more outspoken than others or more forceful in making their arguments is balanced by the fact that there are some real lightweights here as well, both intellectually and spiritually. Certainly you are not suggesting in the name of non aggressive preaching that no one should speak strongly out for fear of ruffling the feathers of the lightweights. You don't follow that policy yourself. Indeed, you are forcefully making your point, even if in your own words “others hate you for it!” Good for you!

Yes, in his early life in Nadiya he was a preacher and he and Nitaicand went door to door and preached to Jagai and Madhai, sounds a bit evangelical . . . , but that was then and this is now, as they say. Later in Puri he became a bhajananandi.

I am not arguing with anybody in the forum and neither do I say that nobody should express their views. I know that it is very sad that this is only forum(maybe that is why as Vrindaranya says it doesn't register with the mass opinion of GV) of this kind where there is room for discussion on these issues and I define what I mean by aggressive preaching below. I will certainly not hesitate to be aggressive with a person like Dawkins or a fundamentalist Christian if he attacks my belief arbitrarily and goes too far but I won't be aggressive with people who are gentle, balanced,open minded and reasonable and be insensitive to their opinions. I was arguing against the one sided presentation of GV which is prevalent in today's times. It has created more damage to SP than positive vibes. Also it has been shown like for O.B.L Kapoor,BSST used a different style and SP did use a different style of preaching for some people. So if they adjusted according to the person that certainly I could have taken up GV. I admire SP for all the suffering he endured, his devotional character, his compassion; I am just uncomfortable with the way his style is used by ISKCON to deprecate every other path and go in an inflated ego mood without any realization. For instance SP attacks every philosopher(for eg Aquinas) pointing out their logical flaws and deficiencies strongly without seeing that if the same standards of criticism would be applied to his own books and words, then it will create a difficult situations. I personally certainly would have wanted to talk to even SP or BSST about these issues if I was there. Many people enjoy the scathing attacks SP makes and hence employ them in their preaching happily and get disturbed when their own style is subjected to the same attack. This is hypocrisy.

According to me aggressive preaching means biting and severe criticism of everything else besides one's path and over glorification of one's own path; bombarding people with all philosophy one knows in a condescending way without understanding the individual psyche of the person and without examining the limitations in one's own logical presentation and the extent of one's own realization; and requiring that no clarification can be sought in matters of discussing uncomfortable things in the writings in one's own path but the others can be subject to all clarifications.

So Haridas thakur even when he is preaching is not using the technique of preaching spoken above. I think that most of the current representation of GV uses the style mentioned above. So if I highlight the life of Sanatana Gosvami or Haridas Thakur won't BSST and SP be happy with me?

As far as Vrindaraya's take on Sankarites and Madhvites, that was what I not referring to as a cordial debate. I am talking about time prior to that when yogis like Vishwamitra,jnanis etc could sit and listen to Bhagavatam in a cordial environment. When Krsna could actually be cordial to his guru who is Saivite, Sri Rama was cordial to his guru Vishwamitra who is a yogi and Krsna could receive all kinds of different sages at Dwarka.

At subtle philosophical levels the finer realizations can be debated but atleast there is some acknowledgment of different experiences in transcendence. Obviously everybody will consider their path to be the best.

I am very thankful to GM that he created a forum where I could even express these issues. In ISKCON there is no room for even a voice like me being heard.

My problems are already addressed but there are others out there whose problems are not addressed because of the excessive negative damage already done.

Vamsidhari Dasa - August 29, 2008 6:16 am

It's interesting that even with cows, the great symbols of gentleness, aggression has its place. The lead cow will aggressively establish her position, which once established will lead to much licking and veneration by the other cows. The submission to authority (as opposed to rugged individualism) of cows, i.e. herd mentality, which contributes to their gentle appearance, is thus ironically linked to aggression. So although it can still be said that aggressiveness only works with people of a certain psychological make-up (most people?), in such cases it appears to lead to a comforting sense of order, not more aggression (at least not from the original recipient of the aggression).

Aggression has its place everywhere especially in herds, something we humans are not (at least most of the time we aspire not to be). Aggression is often necessary, for various endeavors like competition, achievement, courtship, mating, etc. I was speaking of aggression in preaching, and child raring, not really about cows. Aggressive parents bring up aggressive children. Unmodulated aggression (either by one self or societal rules) brings destruction, hatred, etc.

When it comes to transformation (conversion) more can be accomplished by affection then aggression. Aggression will certainly bring submission, while affection, on the other hand, will usher surrender.

Rugged individualism? But what about cooperation, altruism, togetherness, ohh Vrinda where are your hippie roots?

Vamsidhari Dasa - August 29, 2008 6:32 am

but at the risk of sounding like a pscho-analyst I propose that this would be passive aggression

Dont worry no risk cuz passive-aggressive is not a psychoanalytic term

Syamasundara - August 29, 2008 6:42 am

I don't know, it seems to me that we are getting lost in semantics, without really resorting to semantics.

It seems that the spectrum has been parted between aggressive and passive. To me it's more like the face of a clock: you go from aggressive at noon, then assertive, then passive, then subversive, then aggressive again.

By this I don't mean they are necessarily in sequence, but that our analysis should be in light of all four.

GV is only but assertive and subversive.

Aggressive to me is Chand Kazi for breaking the mrdangas and beating Haridas Thakura, or Ravana, Kamsa, Jarasandha, etc. What do we have to do with that behavior?

Catch phrases like "totalitarian war on maya" "by hook or by crook" "beat the mind 100 times with a broom, etc" were just that, coined like that for the sake of expediency.

No one would say a doctor is aggressive for saving someone's life in some drastic or violent way.

If Krsna could be summarized in a motto, it would be: "Feel free to love me. Hundred percent."

Now, that's aggressive too in a way, because he didn't say "would you please" before; but listen to what he is saying!

So, so far, I don't quite identify myself in this discussion that sees aggressiveness as the only alternative to passiveness, while at the same time quoting behaviors and incidents that are better defined as assertive and/or subversive.

Having said this, I do recognize that SP's style embarrassed me in a couple of occasions, starting from that interview at some airport in Australia (it's in a famous video about SP's life) where he treats the journalist so rudely in front of all the cameras. And the devotees even put that in a video about him!

But I also agree with GM that it's not so easy to judge the activities of a Vaisnava; there may be a lot of concentric reasons that we don't necessarily know of. I also agree that the "kanistha orientation" was in light of time, place and circumstance (and people). All of you who have read, listened to, or watched SP memories will agree that SP had to work with such a crude and clueless group at first, and for years. Yet, look what's come out of it: buckets and buckets of coal where lots of diamonds can also be found.

So, let's be proactive, instead of aggressive, and start polishing.

Nitaisundara Das - August 29, 2008 4:36 pm

I think that the Vrindaranya's original post that spurred all this was clear and balanced and the issue that arose from it was interpreted into the original post. So while I don't feel there is really anything more to be said, I thought some quotes and thoughts from this morning's reading of Subjective Evolution were relevant:

"The fact is that one who has accepted Krishna exclusively has no taste for any other thing....he is not capable of acting in an abominable way...One who acts in that plane of reality may destroy thousands of universes but does not do anything...He is not to be seen in terms of what is good or bad in the calculation of this world."-SSM

I know that the quotes I cited can be taken to mean all sort of extreme things and people could justify so many improper activities from them. But that is irrelevant to SP and BSST themselves.

Before these qoutes SSM is talking about two verses from Gita, 9.30 and 9.31. He is explaining that in the 31st verse the person that krishna says will become dharmatma is the one who considers and proclaims Krishna's devotee to be saintly, even if such devotee commits an "abominable act". Here, we are all devotees of BSST and SP and while there is a place for examining their relative moods and presentations, the highest, internal view should be that all their actions were perfect, and the two views can co-exist harmoniously. GM says "love turns faults into ornaments." It is endearing to see the param Vaisnavas human side, if it is kept in perspective that it is all coming from desire to serve Krishna. That SP would lose his composure and "lash out", so to speak, at somebody is beautiful. He is transgressing (social) laws, risking people's positive perception of himself in order to help one jiva who could potentially bring so much joy to Krishna.

"[Krishna] especially likes those who are ready to break the law for him. They are his favorite who are ready to take risks for his service, who are ready to bear the consequence of breaking the law."-SSM

I think SP saw those people who were coming to him and wanting to get involved with KC and they drew out his affection. The balance of his effort was calculating how to help them, not those that had not even come forth. In most cases these people were not the intelligentsia. So, who are we to say the fact that SP disciples could not come to the level that GM and few others have come to (dynamic preahing, contemporary style, etc.) is a result of Sp's style? Perhaps the -(insert name of fanatical devotee)s- of today have actually made relatively a lot of advancement (of course offenses confuse the whole thing), who knows where they were before.

It is the motivation that is determines the value. So if SP's motives were pure but his execution could have been slightly "better", in one sense, who cares!? He really could do no wrong. Another point is that what would determine a preacher's success? How do you measure such a thing? Is it the number of pure devotees, number of temples, number of disciples, number of books.....numbers, numbers, numbers=maya, maya, maya. If a person is pure then no matter what they do, it is a success; preaching, sitting around, or abandoning their husbands in the nighttime .....

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 29, 2008 4:54 pm

I think that the Vrindaranya's original post that spurred all this was clear and balanced and the issue that arose from it was interpreted into the original post. So while I don't feel there is really anything more to be said, I thought some quotes and thoughts from this morning's reading of Subjective Evolution were relevant:

 

"The fact is that one who has accepted Krishna exclusively has no taste for any other thing....he is not capable of acting in an abominable way...One who acts in that plane of reality may destroy thousands of universes but does not do anything...He is not to be seen in terms of what is good or bad in the calculation of this world."-SSM

 

I know that the quotes I cited can be taken to mean all sort of extreme things and people could justify so many improper activities from them. But that is irrelevant to SP and BSST themselves.

 

Before these qoutes SSM is talking about two verses from Gita, 9.30 and 9.31. He is explaining that in the 31st verse the person that krishna says will become dharmatma is the one who considers and proclaims Krishna's devotee to be saintly, even if such devotee commits an "abominable act". Here, we are all devotees of BSST and SP and while there is a place for examining their relative moods and presentations, the highest, internal view should be that all their actions were perfect, and the two views can co-exist harmoniously. GM says "love turns faults into ornaments." It is endearing to see the param Vaisnavas human side, if it is kept in perspective that it is all coming from desire to serve Krishna. That SP would lose his composure and "lash out", so to speak, at somebody is beautiful. He is transgressing (social) laws, risking people's positive perception of himself in order to help one jiva who could potentially bring so much joy to Krishna.

 

"[Krishna] especially likes those who are ready to break the law for him. They are his favorite who are ready to take risks for his service, who are ready to bear the consequence of breaking the law."-SSM

 

I think SP saw those people who were coming to him and wanting to get involved with KC and they drew out his affection. The balance of his effort was calculating how to help them, not those that had not even come forth. In most cases these people were not the intelligentsia. So, who are we to say the fact that SP disciples could not come to the level that GM and few others have come to (dynamic preahing, contemporary style, etc.) is a result of Sp's style? Perhaps the -(insert name of fanatical devotee)s- of today have actually made relatively a lot of advancement (of course offenses confuse the whole thing), who knows where they were before.

 

It is the motivation that is determines the value. So if SP's motives were pure but his execution could have been slightly "better", in one sense, who cares!? He really could do no wrong. Another point is that what would determine a preacher's success? How do you measure such a thing? Is it the number of pure devotees, number of temples, number of disciples, number of books.....numbers, numbers, numbers=maya, maya, maya. If a person is pure then no matter what they do, it is a success; preaching, sitting around, or abandoning their husbands in the nighttime .....

I agree the motives are everything but then many people use this as a license to get away. I have spoken enough about this issue and the onus is on me individually to actually transform my heart as my issues have been taken care by GM. I don't have any excuse. I just wanted to highlight the downside of a particular preaching approach which hurts specific kind of individuals more but if people want to turn a blind eye to that, I am alright. I just expressed my opinion. I just feel that there are more gentle, open-minded and sincere people than me( I know people who can be more receptive to GV than me and they can't even be aggressive like me) but there is no room for them in GV.

Vamsidhari Dasa - August 29, 2008 7:22 pm

"The fact is that one who has accepted Krishna exclusively has no taste for any other thing....he is not capable of acting in an abominable way...One who acts in that plane of reality may destroy thousands of universes but does not do anything...He is not to be seen in terms of what is good or bad in the calculation of this world."-SSM

 

It is endearing to see the param Vaisnavas human side, if it is kept in perspective that it is all coming from desire to serve Krishna. That SP would lose his composure and "lash out", so to speak, at somebody is beautiful. He is transgressing (social) laws, risking people's positive perception of himself in order to help one jiva who could potentially bring so much joy to Krishna.

 

"[Krishna] especially likes those who are ready to break the law for him. They are his favorite who are ready to take risks for his service, who are ready to bear the consequence of breaking the law."-SSM

 

I think SP saw those people who were coming to him and wanting to get involved with KC and they drew out his affection.

These are great quotes and they are so true, but it is not enough to imitate a behavior of one who has surrendered COMPLETELY to Krishna, to be surrendered. To talk the talk or walk the walk. I think that is the major thing. just because SP did it this way or SSM did it that way it does not mean we can get the same result from imitating them. on the contrary, I think that all these people sitting on the acarya seats imitating SP, doing things exactly the way he did it have lost the perspective and most of all missed the opportunity to become something themselves.

Vamsidhari Dasa - August 29, 2008 7:28 pm

Vamsi, you have disturbed my komala faith in Sripad Smeagolji. Does this mean I have to take my picture of him off the altar, or should I just replace it with your picture?

dont worry here is Smeagolji reaching Nirvana (for your altar)! Look how concentrated on the tip of his nose he is!!!!! He must be a great bhuddist!

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 29, 2008 11:39 pm

Aggression has its place everywhere especially in herds, something we humans are not (at least most of the time we aspire not to be). Aggression is often necessary, for various endeavors like competition, achievement, courtship, mating, etc. I was speaking of aggression in preaching, and child raring, not really about cows. Aggressive parents bring up aggressive children. Unmodulated aggression (either by one self or societal rules) brings destruction, hatred, etc.

When it comes to transformation (conversion) more can be accomplished by affection then aggression. Aggression will certainly bring submission, while affection, on the other hand, will usher surrender.

Rugged individualism? But what about cooperation, altruism, togetherness, ohh Vrinda where are your hippie roots?

Obviously you weren't talking about aggression in cows. I was. And my point was not to suggest emulating cows as a preaching method (although I do think that different aspects of herd mentality such as establishing a hierarchy and feeling safe in a large group operates in human groups as well as cow herds), rather my point was that aggression and gentleness can have a paradoxical relationship, with aggression not necessarily leading to more aggression.

As for cooperation, altruism, togetherness...I believe we can agree that pursuit of these alone without their counterparts is for shallow thinkers. The Vedic conception finds a place for everything. This has been my point from the beginning of this topic: let's not polarize ourselves to one side of the spectrum, accepting passivity in the name of gentleness, and being so opposed to its opposite (aggression), distancing ourselves from other people thanks to a black-and-white vision, while failing to recognize the subtle forms of aggression that are within us (by giving those subtle forms a more PC synonym). Rather let's find a balance. And now that I'm on my soapbox anyway, I might as well mention that I think the same argument goes for anger as well. This said, I appreciate gentleness and love as much as anyone else. Nonetheless, I find the holism of the Vedic traditions so much deeper than the teddy bear saint conception so rampant today. Which is not to imply that you're a worshipper in that church...other than of Teddy Maharaja himself , that is. But then he is a rather holistic fellow.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 30, 2008 12:05 am

I don't know what kind of aggression Sri Chaitanya had to use to get aggressive beasts like tigers to chant the holy name. In the history of human civilization aggression has almost always produced aggression. Not to say that aggression doesn't have a place but not in transforming the heart of people. Like Arjuna used aggression as a kshatriya but not to transform but to kill the people. Even before the Mahabharata, Krsna did try to go for a peace proposal before the war.Similarly a person like Dawkins needs to be treated with some aggression(but that too should not blind aggression as he really likes to defeat the religious fanaticism by attacking their blind aggression).

But this aggression is to defend your faith and kill the viciously manipulative cunning people as they don't have any hope in this lifetime of reforming, not to transform people's heart. Mrgari the hunter, Valmiki the dacoit, Durvasa the sage through Ambarish, Cintamani through Haridas thakur, St Francis in Christian tradition changing hearts of people; all this happened not through aggression.

I have hardly seen any people in history whose heart has been changed by aggression. Aggression is for beyond repair cases where everything else fails.

All the while I am using word "aggression" in the sense defined in my previous post.

Syamasundara - August 30, 2008 12:16 am

I just wanted to highlight the downside of a particular preaching approach which hurts specific kind of individuals more but if people want to turn a blind eye to that, I am alright.

Why be so drastic now? Unnecessarily, too, because you know better than that. Or you really believe that most people in here turn a blind eye to the bad results of unrealized preaching?

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 30, 2008 12:21 am

Why be so drastic now? Unnecessarily, too, because you know better than that. Or you really believe that most people in here turn a blind eye to the bad results of unrealized preaching?

Yes I am sorry I was too drastic. Any aggression I have used to defend my point has hardly has any impact on others so it shows that aggression is just to defend and protect your faith not to transform anybody's heart.

Syamasundara - August 30, 2008 12:30 am

I don't want to to be the usual language freak here, but please note that aggression and aggressiveness are not the same thing.

If anything, some people here are advocating, or defending the scope of, "aggressiveness", but in a very specific way, in light of yukta vairagya, and so many other aspects of our siddhanta.

If you miss that subtlety, you are naturally not going to be able to appreciate the points made above.

Still I think that another term than "aggressive/aggressiveness" could be used in order to express reaction to passiveness and superficial gentleness.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 30, 2008 12:35 am

I don't want to to be the usual language freak here, but please note that aggression and aggressiveness are not the same thing.

If anything, some people here are advocating, or defending the scope of, "aggressiveness", but in a very specific way, in light of yukta vairagya, and so many other aspects of our siddhanta.

 

If you miss that subtlety, you are naturally not going to be able to appreciate the points made above.

 

Still I think that another term than "aggressive/aggressiveness" could be used in order to express reaction to passiveness and superficial gentleness.

I defined aggressive preaching here

According to me aggressive preaching means biting and severe criticism of everything else besides one's path and over glorification of one's own path; bombarding people with all philosophy one knows in a condescending way without understanding the individual psyche of the person and without examining the limitations in one's own logical presentation and the extent of one's own realization; and requiring that no clarification can be sought in matters of discussing uncomfortable things in the writings in one's own path but the others can be subject to all clarifications.

All the while I am opposing this aggression not the other involved subtleties. Prabhupada said how hanuman used aggression in the service of the lord by burning Lanka and I understand that. But here I am talking about transforming people's hearts and not about defending one's faith.

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 30, 2008 2:24 am

So, so far, I don't quite identify myself in this discussion that sees aggressiveness as the only alternative to passiveness, while at the same time quoting behaviors and incidents that are better defined as assertive and/or subversive.... So, let's be proactive, instead of aggressive, and start polishing.

It seems to be that we have a continuum from passive to aggressive with things like assertive and subversive being shades in-between. As evidence, please consider the following. Popular communication theory posits three kinds of expression: aggressive, assertive, and passive. Assertive, the preferred method is also called "nonviolent communication." This is noteworthy. By it, aggressive communication is linked with violence. Other than the primary definition of violence as a physical force to injure and abuse, violence also means "intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action." The primary definition of aggression is "a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master." The third definition of aggression is " hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration." If you'll bear with me through this somewhat tedious analysis, we already see that a continuum is developing with violence at the extreme end and aggression somewhere in from that. Passivity is obviously the other end of the spectrum.

Whether assertive communication is categorically different or takes its place on the continuum is the question at hand. Before we address it, however, one may ask why it matters? In brief, I think the main reason is that seeing a continuum between two extremes is more nuanced and true to reality. This creates more internal and external harmony.

To evaluate assertiveness, some examples would be helpful. From the Internet (disclaimer: excerpt from first two Google hits for "aggressive assertive"; highly likely to insult the intelligence of those who didn't enjoy Ten Steps to Higher Self-Esteem):

Passive Behavior: Values self less than others 
Aggressive Behavior: Values self more than others 
Assertive Behavior: Values self equal to others

Passive Behavior: Hurts self to avoid hurting others 
Aggressive Behavior: Hurts others to avoid being hurt 
Assertive Behavior: Tries to hurt no one (including self)

Passive Behavior: Is afraid to speak up
Aggressive Behavior: Interrupts and 'talks over' others 
Assertive Behavior: Speaks openly

Passive Behavior: Speaks softly
Aggressive Behavior: Speaks loudly
Assertive Behavior: Uses a conversational tone

Other explanation from Internet:

"Essentially, think of assertiveness as being firm, but polite. It's a mindset that says "I want to win, but I'm not going to walk over you to do it - I'm going to respect what you want and work to help you win also."

"Aggressiveness, on the other hand, is firm but impolite. The aggressive person says "I'm going to win, and I don't care if you get what you want." Milder forms are more ambivalent: "I don't care whether or not you get your needs met." Full-court press aggressiveness wants the other person to lose no matter what.

"By the way, non-assertiveness is polite (considerate of other people's perspectives), but not firm - that is, unwilling to stand up for one's own needs. Non-assertive people need to understand the differences between assertiveness and aggressiveness so that when they do step forward to get their needs met they don't go overboard and step on everyone else."

These examples clearly place assertiveness within the continuum model. To sum up, I'm recommending that we should generally try to find a balance between the two extremes of aggression and passivity. It also suggests that preaching styles are a blend of many different individual points on the continuum scale. It is important to note that theories of communication have developed quite a bit and that in general communication has become less aggressive (moved on the continuum). For example, consider Buddha's ridiculing the brahmanas, Socrates's mockery, and Jesus's overturning the tables of the money-lenders. They probably would have taken a gentler approach now.

Syamasundara - August 30, 2008 2:44 am

OK, so I see what you mean. There is nothing wrong in conceiving of a spectrum with aggressiveness and passiveness at its extremes and as its only parameters, because there is an area in between where what is found is still but aggressiveness and passiveness, but in a synthetized, harmonized way, and that takes the name of assertiveness.

All right! So we all know how to preach now!

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 30, 2008 4:30 am

It seems to be that we have a continuum from passive to aggressive with things like assertive and subversive being shades in-between. As evidence, please consider the following. Popular communication theory posits three kinds of expression: aggressive, assertive, and passive. Assertive, the preferred method is also called "nonviolent communication." This is noteworthy. By it, aggressive communication is linked with violence. Other than the primary definition of violence as a physical force to injure and abuse, violence also means "intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action." The primary definition of aggression is "a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master." The third definition of aggression is " hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration." If you'll bear with me through this somewhat tedious analysis, we already see that a continuum is developing with violence at the extreme end and aggression somewhere in from that. Passivity is obviously the other end of the spectrum.

 

Whether assertive communication is categorically different or takes its place on the continuum is the question at hand. Before we address it, however, one may ask why it matters? In brief, I think the main reason is that seeing a continuum between two extremes is more nuanced and true to reality. This creates more internal and external harmony.

 

To evaluate assertiveness, some examples would be helpful. From the Internet (disclaimer: excerpt from first two Google hits for "aggressive assertive"; highly likely to insult the intelligence of those who didn't enjoy Ten Steps to Higher Self-Esteem):

 

Passive Behavior: Values self less than others 
Aggressive Behavior: Values self more than others 
Assertive Behavior: Values self equal to others

 

Passive Behavior: Hurts self to avoid hurting others 
Aggressive Behavior: Hurts others to avoid being hurt 
Assertive Behavior: Tries to hurt no one (including self)

 

Passive Behavior: Is afraid to speak up
Aggressive Behavior: Interrupts and 'talks over' others 
Assertive Behavior: Speaks openly

 

Passive Behavior: Speaks softly
Aggressive Behavior: Speaks loudly
Assertive Behavior: Uses a conversational tone

 

Other explanation from Internet:

 

"Essentially, think of assertiveness as being firm, but polite. It's a mindset that says "I want to win, but I'm not going to walk over you to do it - I'm going to respect what you want and work to help you win also."

 

"Aggressiveness, on the other hand, is firm but impolite. The aggressive person says "I'm going to win, and I don't care if you get what you want." Milder forms are more ambivalent: "I don't care whether or not you get your needs met." Full-court press aggressiveness wants the other person to lose no matter what.

 

"By the way, non-assertiveness is polite (considerate of other people's perspectives), but not firm - that is, unwilling to stand up for one's own needs. Non-assertive people need to understand the differences between assertiveness and aggressiveness so that when they do step forward to get their needs met they don't go overboard and step on everyone else."

 

These examples clearly place assertiveness within the continuum model. To sum up, I'm recommending that we should generally try to find a balance between the two extremes of aggression and passivity. It also suggests that preaching styles are a blend of many different individual points on the continuum scale. It is important to note that theories of communication have developed quite a bit and that in general communication has become less aggressive (moved on the continuum). For example, consider Buddha's ridiculing the brahmanas, Socrates's mockery, and Jesus's overturning the tables of the money-lenders. They probably would have taken a gentler approach now.

Thanks for this wonderful analysis. I think this was what was missing from the discussion. You cleared up the semantics well. I am not against assertiveness at all but certainly against aggression(according to the definition you have given and what I was referring to throughout my opposition to aggression). But aggression according to the definition you presented is the major representation of GV right now and I hope that thing will change in the future.

Prahlad Das - August 30, 2008 5:13 am

Don't get me wrong. I am not a propounder of aggression. Nitaisundar's quotations of SSM are very appropriate for this discussion. He highlights the qualifications by which one can act in a seemingly aggressive way. As Gaura-Vijay pointed out, he may not have had a taste for practicing Krsna Consciousness had he seen the seemingly aggressive behaviors of our Srila Prabhupada and Srila BhaktiSiddhanta Saraswati. GM pointed out that he likely would have had a different perspective had he been personally associating with them. This all leads to the question, "Is aggressive behavior BAD?". The answer would be, "It depends on who is doing it". I think we must allow permission for it, although it is easier for us to accept kind behavior.

I have to wonder how unlucky I would be if I were not able to accept our Guru Parampara's seemingly aggressive behavior. I fear the time when a Vaishnava may raise their voice and I, not knowing their qualifications, would resent it and think he or she is unqualified.

Vamsidhari Dasa - August 30, 2008 3:46 pm

Obviously you weren't talking about aggression in cows. I was. And my point was not to suggest emulating cows as a preaching method (although I do think that different aspects of herd mentality such as establishing a hierarchy and feeling safe in a large group operates in human groups as well as cow herds), rather my point was that aggression and gentleness can have a paradoxical relationship, with aggression not necessarily leading to more aggression.

 

As for cooperation, altruism, togetherness...I believe we can agree that pursuit of these alone without their counterparts is for shallow thinkers. The Vedic conception finds a place for everything. This has been my point from the beginning of this topic: let's not polarize ourselves to one side of the spectrum, accepting passivity in the name of gentleness, and being so opposed to its opposite (aggression), distancing ourselves from other people thanks to a black-and-white vision, while failing to recognize the subtle forms of aggression that are within us (by giving those subtle forms a more PC synonym). Rather let's find a balance. And now that I'm on my soapbox anyway, I might as well mention that I think the same argument goes for anger as well. This said, I appreciate gentleness and love as much as anyone else. Nonetheless, I find the holism of the Vedic traditions so much deeper than the teddy bear saint conception so rampant today. Which is not to imply that you're a worshipper in that church...other than of Teddy Maharaja himself , that is. But then he is a rather holistic fellow.

I am all for assertiveness in communication (as an aspect of aggression). For me aggression means violence. I wanted to make a distinction between the two. I do not think that I was advocating for black and white thinking, although I could say that there is place for polarizing things too. I am very aware of aggression and assertiveness in me (as are the others around me) and I absolutely despise PCing of any kind. Sometimes we just have to hear it the way it is. If you are saying that the cooperation and togetherness is for shallow thinkers I really don't get that. All these aspects are within us and in that way the "vedic" conception is correct. because we are all of these things and they are always present in us. We do tend to sometimes privilege one part over the other, but it does not mean that all these parts are excluded. Anyway.... Sridama is bugging me to take him to the bus so I cannot continue even though I am enjoying my soap box too.....

Premanandini - August 30, 2008 9:13 pm

There is a short documentary of a lion called<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adYbFQFXG0U" target="_blank">

Christian quote

 

i out myself as emotional - i just loved this video (already sent it to a whole bunch of friends :Batting Eyelashes: )

 

about aggressive and gentle preachings style: i am personally 100% in favor of gentle dealings & preachings (this attracts me and can make me open my heart while aggressiveness turnes me off) BUT: as in everything there is a BUT

 

What is gentle or what is aggressive might not always be possible to view from the outside: i have a nice friend who has an alcohol problem - sometimes I have to yell at him - to stop this nonsense (because I feel affection and care for him and dont want him to go down) and some of his so called friends just give it a gentle smile - as they could not care less

- so what is gentle and what is agressive?????

 

i quess it cannot be judged from the outside - it depends on the intention that lies behind.

external gentleness might be cruel as there is just indifference in the background

external agressivness might be loving - as there is love and care in the background and vice versa

 

I remember many years ago - I thing 1997 in our Europeen Vaisnava Mela in France - there was a big program and srila Tripurari Swami gave a class - i was allowed to do the translation - in the end one person asked a question ( i felt little ashemed to translate to maharaja as I thought the question was stupid - i know now there are no stupid questions.....)

 

he asked: " some peole are sitting very close to the guru and some are sitting very much in the back - can we see from this who has the most devotion?"

 

Maharaj answered: " someone might sit very close because he has a lot of devotion - and someone might sit very far away because he has no devotion.

But: Someone might sit very close because he has no devotion and someone might sit very far because he has devotion..

 

Conclusion: Only someone who HAS DEVOTION can see!!!!!""""" :Just Kidding:

I quess thats the same with our discussion -or?

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 31, 2008 3:23 am

If you are saying that the cooperation and togetherness is for shallow thinkers I really don't get that. All these aspects are within us and in that way the "vedic" conception is correct. because we are all of these things and they are always present in us. We do tend to sometimes privilege one part over the other, but it does not mean that all these parts are excluded. Anyway.... Sridama is bugging me to take him to the bus so I cannot continue even though I am enjoying my soap box too.....

This is what I said: "As for cooperation, altruism, togetherness...I believe we can agree that pursuit of these alone without their counterparts is for shallow thinkers."

I meant that splitting off cooperation, goodness, gentleness, etc. as "good" qualities and anger, aggression, etc. as "bad" qualities that we don't want anything to do with and thereby trying to be all-good leads to an unrealistic, white-washed reality. Which, of course, doesn't mean that anything goes and that there are not better and worse ways to express, say, anger. In Goloka Vrindavana we see all emotions in their pure forms. Compare that to general conception of heaven in the West (lust and anger in heaven????).

Anyway, it sounds like we're talking about the same thing from different angles...

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 31, 2008 4:03 am

This all leads to the question, "Is aggressive behavior BAD?". The answer would be, "It depends on who is doing it". I think we must allow permission for it, although it is easier for us to accept kind behavior.

I have to wonder how unlucky I would be if I were not able to accept our Guru Parampara's seemingly aggressive behavior. I fear the time when a Vaishnava may raise their voice and I, not knowing their qualifications, would resent it and think he or she is unqualified.

Good point. What you said about a Vaisnavas raising their voices made me think about how some Indian sadhus I've met expressed their emotions, and particularly anger, with a refreshing absence of mental calculation and guilt. They felt angry, they expressed it, they let it go. It seemed so much more natural than the complicated mental tangle emotions can become.

Some more thoughts on whether aggression is "bad": As aggression and violence have a place in the lila, they have a pure form like every other emotion. As Premanandini pointed out, mundane love can be violence to the soul and vice versa. And from the point of view of Vedanta, either material aggression or material affection is just the modes interacting.

As much as we dislike aggressive communication, take a look again at some of the aggressive behaviors in that web excerpt I posted:

Values self more than others

Interrupts and 'talks over' others

Speaks loudly

Anyone notice themselves in this sometimes?!?

The underlying dynamic of passive/assertive/aggressive is how much you balance your awareness/consideration of yourself (your needs, desires, emotions) and that of other person. When someone is a pure devotee this dynamic is obviously going to be much different. Basically the false ego of "me" gets replaced with "Krsna" and the "you" includes an awareness of who "you" really are. So this begs the question whether a pure devotee could even fit into any of these definitions.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 31, 2008 2:41 pm

I deleted the previous message as it didn't serve any purpose. But I was thinking of the example of SSM. He did not retaliate to the super aggressive GBC members who were sitting on the throne and criticizing him and even felt bad when any gurus would fall down in ISKCON ( a normal person will feel so good to find that the people who were his aggressors fell down but he actually wept for them). Even remarks which SP made about SSM, he took them in a joking way when brought to his light. In spite of his realization he showed exceptional humility and patience in this instance bordering on passiveness. But that enhances the glory of SSM and if the crude stock today cannot appreciate all these qualities which he showed that time, it is just bad for them. To tolerate personal insults is actually highly recommended in Vaishnava literature all throughout. Only when defending one's faith or philosophy or correcting disciples, aggression is employed according to Nimbarkacharya. Even some quotes from BSST illustrate that point.

Let me not desire anything but the highest good for my worst enemies.

Look within.Amend yourself, rather than pry into the frailties of others.

In this world of Maya, averse to the Lord, full of trials and tribulations, only patience, humility and respect for others are our friends for Hari-bhajana.

When faults in others misguide and delude you - have patience, introspect, find faults in yourself. Know that others cannot harm you unless you harm yourself.

I wish that every selfless, tender-hearted person of Gaudiya Math will be prepared to shed two hundred gallons of blood for the nourishment of the spiritual corpus of every individual of this world.

SP also in his life before coming to US use to weep for hours together in front of the samadhi of rupa goswami and his heartfelt prayers on jaladutta can melt one's heart. So there is certainly room for being tender hearted and erring on the passive side especially for sadhakas like us who have the propensity to mistake our aggression as transcendental anger.

I think unless one is situated in higher stages of advancement(atleast cross brahma bhuta) it is better to avoid aggression and not mistake mundane need for transcendental anger . Only if a lord or his very advanced devotee recommends that aggression be used, then it should be used like Arjuna did. But Arjuna himself didn't want to use aggression and Yudhistira Maharaja also felt himself responsible for all destruction of the war. It is very natural for a devotee to feel reluctant to use force unless he is directed by the lord or he has realized his svarupa in transcendence when these emotions are in pure form.

Bhrigu - August 31, 2008 3:51 pm

I have a friend who was bitten rather badly in the thigh by a tiger in that place! :Batting Eyelashes:

But seriously, this is an interesting discussion. Some historical examples have been mentioned, and Srila Sridhar Maharaja could also be considered. He was criticised by Godbrothers such as Madhava Maharaj for being exactly too passive and not coming out to share the mercy, but as Guru Maharaj so often puts it, by pushing himself towards the back, he ended up in front! However, the persons that found him there were people who had already been picked up by the "aggressive preaching" of Srila Prabhupada.

To me it seems that both styles are needed. It has been said before but it is worth repeating that many if not most of us are the result of forceful preaching. I would probably not have joined the temple in my teens had it not been for the way the devotees pushed me, and I am thankful they did (though I don't think that I would like to relive that part of my life). We may for different reasons have gravitated away from this kind of preaching, but that does not mean that someone else might not need it.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 31, 2008 4:56 pm

I have a friend who was bitten rather badly in the thigh by a tiger in that place! :Batting Eyelashes:

 

But seriously, this is an interesting discussion. Some historical examples have been mentioned, and Srila Sridhar Maharaja could also be considered. He was criticised by Godbrothers such as Madhava Maharaj for being exactly too passive and not coming out to share the mercy, but as Guru Maharaj so often puts it, by pushing himself towards the back, he ended up in front! However, the persons that found him there were people who had already been picked up by the "aggressive preaching" of Srila Prabhupada.

 

To me it seems that both styles are needed. It has been said before but it is worth repeating that many if not most of us are the result of forceful preaching. I would probably not have joined the temple in my teens had it not been for the way the devotees pushed me, and I am thankful they did (though I don't think that I would like to relive that part of my life). We may for different reasons have gravitated away from this kind of preaching, but that does not mean that someone else might not need it.

Who denies that both styles are needed but when one style is in short supply(all people know which style is in short supply) badly is it bad to canvass for it? I could not join because of forceful preaching of devotees with very superficial realization. I just wanted to see where these great saints like Sanatana Goswami were in our lineage in 2000's and I could hardly find them in limelight until I could see SSM and GM. SSM in his books is forceful but in a way by which your heart melts and you can't resist the attractive force of GV. If I am wanting to do something for GV it is not because somebody forced me to do so but because my heart is touched by the selflessness and superhigh ideal exhibited in GV and the saints therein.

Nitaisundara Das - August 31, 2008 5:05 pm

I deleted the previous message as it didn't serve any purpose. But I was thinking of the example of SSM. He did not retaliate to the super aggressive GBC members who were sitting on the throne and criticizing him and even felt bad when any gurus would fall down in ISKCON ( a normal person will feel so good to find that the people who were his aggressors fell down but he actually wept for them).

He did not attack them like one would if they identified with their material existence, but that does not man he was not aggressive. Im sure you have read Sri Guru and His Grace. Those were aggressive concepts compared to the prevailing understanding in ISKCON. Or the recent quote GM posted of SSM talking to a Prabhupada disciple telling him essentially to shutup, because he knows SP better than the disciple and he is far more advanced.

In spite of his realization he showed exceptional humility and patience in this instance bordering on passiveness. But that enhances the glory of SSM and if the crude stock today cannot appreciate all these qualities which he showed that time, it is just bad for them. To tolerate personal insults is actually highly recommended in Vaishnava literature all throughout. Only when defending one's faith or philosophy or correcting disciples, aggression is employed according to Nimbarkacharya. Even some quotes from BSST illustrate that point.

Earlier in another post you had said that there is no place for thoughtful people in GV today. First of all, there is GM, small group, but we are here. Secondly, that statement is ignoring the philosophical truth of sukrti. Forgive me for again taking this, "everything is good" type stance, but, "The environment is friendly." All such thoughtful people (with sukrti) will come in contact with a suitable guide. In reality I think thoughtful people are few and far between, and just because one is materially thoughtful and intelligent dosen't mean anything in terms of their eligibility for bhakti. Most people need a black and white, aggressive presentation, because they live in a black and white, aggressive world. People are aggressively living their misconceived lives, they are aggressors to nature, to other humans, and to the soul. People are emotional, so to approach them in a strictly calm, well reasoned, thoughtful way may very well be a disconnect. We can endlessly speculate if we had said this that way, or acted in this way, someone might have stayed around, or got initiation, or not been offensive. The only regret we should feel is "if only I had been more sincere." That will motivate us practically and benefit everyone.

On many occasions SSM insights "fried" wires within my brain. They were revolutionary and indeed aggressive to me.

Let me not desire anything but the highest good for my worst enemies.

Look within.Amend yourself, rather than pry into the frailties of others.

 

In this world of Maya, averse to the Lord, full of trials and tribulations, only patience, humility and respect for others are our friends for Hari-bhajana.

 

When faults in others misguide and delude you - have patience, introspect, find faults in yourself. Know that others cannot harm you unless you harm yourself.

 

I wish that every selfless, tender-hearted person of Gaudiya Math will be prepared to shed two hundred gallons of blood for the nourishment of the spiritual corpus of every individual of this world.

All of these quotes only serve your point if taken in a static sense. From early on the point has been that humility, compassion, patience, etc. etc. are dynamic in a spiritual, and even material, context. Humility is the absence of the enjoying spirit, or, the presence of the serving ego. The guru, who is a servant, sometimes must be aggressive in order to fulfill his/her seva, even if they do not enjoy it. This aggression does not negate humility, with proper vision, it demonstrates the presence of humility. I know GM does not enjoy having to reprimand me, but from time to time, he does it, as a service to his gurus.

SP also in his life before coming to US use to weep for hours together in front of the samadhi of rupa goswami and his heartfelt prayers on jaladutta can melt one's heart.

So there is certainly room for being tender hearted and erring on the passive side especially for sadhakas like us who have the propensity to mistake our aggression as transcendental anger.

Nobody has once said anything contrary to this.

I think unless one is situated in higher stages of advancement(atleast cross brahma bhuta) it is better to avoid aggression and not mistake mundane need for transcendental anger . Only if a lord or his very advanced devotee recommends that aggression be used, then it should be used like Arjuna did. But Arjuna himself didn't want to use aggression and Yudhistira Maharaja also felt himself responsible for all destruction of the war. It is very natural for a devotee to feel reluctant to use force unless he is directed by the lord or he has realized his svarupa in transcendence when these emotions are in pure form.

To me this is advocating the opposite of what you are trying to make a place for within GV: thoughtlessness. We don't have to have crossed brahma bhuta to be able to discern misconception on our own, to varying degrees of course. And it is somewhat only an issue of material perceptivity to discern when aggression might be the more fruitful approach to such misconception. Krsna had to preach aggressively to Arjuna, mocking him at times. and the reasons he did so are logically understandable to us, thus it seems our logic could also discern these things in other situations, (not that Krsna sakti is not the more important part of preaching). It is natural for a devotee to feel reluctant, but what determines if they were or not? What I mean is how do you know that a devotee who at one moment is preaching aggressively, was not reluctant to do so? Is there some observable sign that would not itself compromise the aggressiveness of the act?

You have said that you are reffering to people who in the name of SP or BSST act in these ways. Nobody on here would disagree with that. But you have given direct examples of SP himself and taken issue with them, and overall you speak in absolute terms, but then seek to try to negate the absolutes with these caveats that it is "those certain people."

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 31, 2008 5:12 pm

He did not attack them like one would if they identified with their material existence, but that does not man he was not aggressive. Im sure you have read Sri Guru and His Grace. Those were aggressive concepts compared to the prevailing understanding in ISKCON. Or the recent quote GM posted of SSM talking to a Prabhupada disciple telling him essentially to shutup, because he knows SP better than the disciple and he is far more advanced.

To the extent one has real spiritual standing they, in a sense, are the philosophy. Had SSM defended himself, it would be on the basis of reality, of philosophy. Defending oneself becomes blurred when one is a wholesale servant of the lord, to use SSM terminology. Underneath the surface, one is defending Krsna. Objectively speaking he was Krsna Conscious, and the offenses hurled at him were a)incorrect on a practical level, and :Batting Eyelashes: detrimental to the progress of those saying them. It is not that there was one better way for him to have acted. Everyone will never be converted by a single approach.

 

Earlier in another post you had said that there is no place for thoughtful people in GV today. First of all, there is GM, small group, but we are here. Secondly, that statement is ignoring the philosophical truth of sukrti. Forgive me for again taking this, "everything is good" type stance, but, "The environment is friendly." All such thoughtful people (with sukrti) will come in contact with a suitable guide. In reality I think thoughtful people are few and far between, and just because one is materially thoughtful and intelligent dosen't mean anything in terms of their eligibility for bhakti. Most people need a black and white, aggressive presentation, because they live in a black and white, aggressive world. People are aggressively living their misconceived lives, they are aggressors to nature, to other humans, and to the soul. People are emotional, so to approach them in a strictly calm, well reasoned, thoughtful way may very well be a disconnect. We can endlessly speculate if we had said this that way, or acted in this way, someone might have stayed around, or got initiation, or not been offensive. The only regret we should feel is "if only I had been more sincere." That will motivate us practically and benefit everyone.

 

On many occasions SSM insights "fried" wires within my brain. They were revolutionary and indeed aggressive to me.

All of these quotes only serve your point if taken in a static sense. From early on the point has been that humility, compassion, patience, etc. etc. are dynamic in a spiritual, and even material, context. Humility is the absence of the enjoying spirit, or, the presence of the serving ego. The guru, who is a servant, sometimes must be aggressive in order to fulfill his/her seva, even if they do not enjoy it. This aggression does not negate humility, with proper vision, it demonstrates the presence of humility. I know GM does not enjoy having to reprimand me, but from time to time, he does it, as a service to his gurus.

 

And how did this bhajan manifest? He came to us, "as an aggressor."

Nobody has once said anything contrary to this.

To me this is advocating the opposite of what you are trying to make a place for within GV: thoughtlessness. We don't have to have crossed brahma bhuta to be able to discern misconception on our own, to varying degrees of course. And it is somewhat only an issue of material perceptivity to discern when aggression might be the more fruitful approach to such misconception. Krsna had to preach aggressively to Arjuna, mocking him at times. and the reasons he did so are logically understandable to us, thus it seems our logic could also discern these things in other situations, (not that Krsna sakti is not the more important part of preaching). It is natural for a devotee to feel reluctant, but what determines if they were or not? What I mean is how do you know that a devotee who at one moment is preaching aggressively, was not reluctant to do so? Is there some observable sign that would not itself compromise the aggressiveness of the act?

 

You have said that you are reffering to people who in the name of SP or BSST act in these ways. Nobody on here would disagree with that. But you have given direct examples of SP himself and taken issue with them, and overall you speak in absolute terms, but then seek to try to negate the absolutes with these caveats that it is "those certain people."

Only when defending one's faith or philosophy or correcting disciples, aggression is employed according to Nimbarkacharya. I quoted this and also the fact that generally a practicing devotee doesn't willingly want to be aggressive unless Lord or his pure devotee instructs him for that behavior and in case one's guru or other vaisnavas is being dishonored inappropriately . Cultivating the ability to tolerate personal insults is required for the sadhaka.

What determines they were not reluctant is obvious from the way most SP's most disciples show their loyalty to him by insulting and putting down other vaisnavas

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 31, 2008 5:17 pm

Or the recent quote GM posted of SSM talking to a Prabhupada disciple telling him essentially to shutup, because he knows SP better than the disciple and he is far more advanced.

He did not invoke the bruteness this comment of yours invokes about the conversation. He said that they(SP's disciple) were not advanced and they were students but he also considered himself a student forever. He didn't claim to be a paramhamsa and say that he is far more advanced although it is fact that he was like that.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 31, 2008 5:23 pm

Also I hope Nitai and Vrindaranya you guys don't get me wrong as I know that you are advanced enough to surrender your complete life for direct service to GM which I have not done. So I don't really have much claim to say things about sadhana to you.

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 31, 2008 5:24 pm

But why is this insistence of just this aggressive style. If somebody follows the mood of Sanatana Goswami or Ambarish Maharaja or Haridas Thakur genuinely , does he have to condemned as a Teddy bear guru? When there are hardly people in that style representing GV in modern time will it hurt to have some people like them in addition to overpopulated aggressive people.

What I'm actually arguing for is seeing that there is a continuum from active to passive, aggressive to gentle, and that there is a place for both sides. In general I think that a balance, the so-called assertive style, is best. But I'm not ready to condemn aggressiveness wholesale. I think it is important to acknowledge that aggressiveness is a component of assertiveness. If people were arguing exclusively for an aggressive approach, I would be trying to balance things by bringing up the other side.

As for Sanatana Goswami, etc. being teddy bear saints, my point is that some people think that a saint has to be a teddy bear, that this is not only the highest ideal but the only valid ideal. This is primarily what I'm rejecting as shallow. In thinking a saint is a teddy bear, they will view a saint through a screen, filtering out that which doesn't fit into their idealized vision. You can't take a few lilas that are making a certain point without counterbalancing examples that temper that point. At least not if you want to be balanced. Of course, it is certainly the case that some saints in our lineage were more passive--particularly those who weren't preachers (and you don't have to be a preacher to be a saint)--and their example is glorious and preaches to us in its own way.

Another way to view the passive/aggressive continuum is the classic male/female continuum. As it applies to this discussion, the female qualities would be accepting, nurturing, relative, soft, and the male qualities would be correcting, strict, absolute, and stern. The motherly side would accept and love us as we are and the male side goad us to what we could be. A guru that exemplifies the female qualities would be Amachi (who is not a preacher, by the way). Any number of gurus exemplify the male ideal, which is the classic guru prototype. This has been changing, with both men and women becoming more of a balance of the male/female qualities.

You speak like the whole GV scene is passive and saturated with people like Sanatana Goswami and you have to inject some assertiveness or aggression in them.

I think it won't hurt to have a few people like the above mentioned personalities also. Do you feel it is easy to be passive like them compared to being aggressive; I don't think like that at all.

Are you referring to this statement I made: "Nonetheless, I find the holism of the Vedic traditions so much deeper than the teddy bear saint conception so rampant today"? I was actually referring to the New Age mentality of many spiritual seekers in the West. Otherwise, many current Gaudiya gurus do seem emasculated to me. I think it would be good if they could move closer on the continuum to assertiveness.

By the way, you again seem to be seeing in black and white terms: Sanatana Goswami isn't aggressive, so he must be passive. The GV scene is passive, so Vrindaranya must want them to be aggressive. And by the way, adding "assertive" to "aggressive" and "passive" is only one step beyond black and white. A continuum has infinite shades in-between.

Otherwise, perhaps the best way to address your question about whether it is easier to be passive or aggressive is to compare the difference between a bhajananandi and gosthyanandi (and, of course, a devotee is rarely purely only one or the other). I agree that it is more difficult to be a true bhajananandi. However, for one who is qualified to be a bhajananandi, it is more difficult and troublesome to preach. Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura could relish the bliss of bhajana, but he stood up to preach for our sake. A story about the Buddha also comes to mind: "Mara was waiting for him with one last temptation. How could the Buddha expect people to understand truth as profound as that which he had discovered? Why not wash his hands of the whole hot world, be done with the body, and slip at once into perpetual nirvana? The argument almost prevailed, but at length the Buddha answered, 'There will be some who will understand,' and Mara was vanquished forever."

Sorry for being too assertive/aggressive here but we are just having discussions here and not preaching so I guess it is ok. Overall though I agree that all kinds of emotions are there in the spiritual world so there are pure forms of supposedly negative emotions and many pure devotees will exhibit those kind of emotions with purity. But I disagree with your blanket condemnation of passivity as many of the saints in our lineage have behaved with passivity and that doesnt make them shallow.

You have misquoted me. What I said (for the third time now) was: "As for cooperation, altruism, togetherness...I believe we can agree that pursuit of these alone without their counterparts is for shallow thinkers." Goloka Vrindavana is "all things perfectly harmonized." So you can't be a saint in the Gaudiya lineage and have a shallow pursuit. If you are pursuing, let alone attaining, Goloka Vrindavana, you are pursuing a goal which includes the purified spectrum of all things.

Vrindaranya Dasi - August 31, 2008 5:36 pm

I have a friend who was bitten rather badly in the thigh by a tiger in that place! :Batting Eyelashes:

This underscores my point brilliantly: have too idealistic a vision and reality will come and bite you.

Syamasundara - August 31, 2008 8:02 pm

As for Sanatana Goswami, etc. being teddy bear saints, my point is that some people think that a saint has to be a teddy bear, that this is not only the highest ideal but the only valid ideal.

Speaking of holistic, Vedic apporach, check out the meaning of sadhu:

1 sAdhu mf(%{vI4})n. straight , right RV. AV. BhP. ; leading straight to a goal , hitting the mark , unerring (as an arrow or thunderbolt) RV. S3Br. ; straightened , not entangled (as threads) Kaus3. ; well-disposed , kind , willing , obedient RV. R. ; successful , effective , efficient (as a hymn or prayer) RV. Ka1m. ; ready , prepared (as Soma) RV. AitBr. ; peaceful , secure RV. ; powerful , excellent , good for (loc.) or towards (loc. gen. , dat. acc. , with %{prati} , %{anu} , %{abhi} , %{pari} , or comp.) S3Br. &c. &c. ; fit , proper , right VarBr2S. ; good , virtuous , honourable , righteous S3Br. Mn. MBh. &c. ; well-born , noble , of honourable or respectable descent W. ; correct , pure ; classical (as language) ib. ; m. a good or virtuous or honest man S3Br. Mn. MBh. &c. ; a holyman , saint , sage , seer Ka1lid. ; (with Jainas) a Jina or deified saint W. ......

Nitaisundara Das - August 31, 2008 9:44 pm

He did not invoke the bruteness this comment of yours invokes about the conversation. He said that they(SP's disciple) were not advanced and they were students but he also considered himself a student forever. He didn't claim to be a paramhamsa and say that he is far more advanced although it is fact that he was like that.

I agree, In my hastiness I misrepresented SSM here.

Nitaisundara Das - August 31, 2008 9:59 pm

What determines they were not reluctant is obvious from the way most SP's most disciples show their loyalty to him by insulting and putting down other vaisnavas

The disconnect is this:

Throughout this discussion you have intermixed 3 topics as I see it:

1. You have argued about the inordinate nature of some fanatical devotees who use the acharyas to justify their psychological problems spilling out in the realm of spreading KC.

2. You have spoken directly about SP's and BSST's aggressive nature, that does not so much attract you, not in relation to such fanatical devotees, but just as individuals.

3. You have spoken about aggression free from personal examples, just as a principle.

It is the second two issues that I have disagreed with. But your replies have often been to fall back on the first issue, which nobody is arguing against, and which I think is the only issue that has not been comprehensively addressed, for the very reason that everyone is in agreement. At times you say you are just reffering to SP's disciples and the like, but the points you make are in direct relation to him or SBSST.

Please know I think this is a good exercise and I have been making an effort to participate on TV more, thus my sudden increased presence.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 1, 2008 2:24 am

The disconnect is this:

Throughout this discussion you have intermixed 3 topics as I see it:

 

1. You have argued about the inordinate nature of some fanatical devotees who use the acharyas to justify their psychological problems spilling out in the realm of spreading KC.

 

2. You have spoken directly about SP's and BSST's aggressive nature, that does not so much attract you, not in relation to such fanatical devotees, but just as individuals.

 

3. You have spoken about aggression free from personal examples, just as a principle.

 

It is the second two issues that I have disagreed with. But your replies have often been to fall back on the first issue, which nobody is arguing against, and which I think is the only issue that has not been comprehensively addressed, for the very reason that everyone is in agreement. At times you say you are just reffering to SP's disciples and the like, but the points you make are in direct relation to him or SBSST.

 

Please know I think this is a good exercise and I have been making an effort to participate on TV more, thus my sudden increased presence.

My experience of SP is through majority of his disciples and not personally and that is how is said I would not have been attracted by his style. Even close servants like Hari Sauri and TKG were too aggressive for my taste and attacked SSM, so that means aggression of SP worked negatively for them. But who knows his personal association would have been different and I would have accepted GV. I accept that SP and BSST are beyond brahma bhuta so they can exhibit transcendental anger and aggression but I don't think a sadhaka can. Initial phases for sadhakas are more of submission and then yearning starts after death of material ego.I don't deny that if senior devotees and GV philosophy are being insulted you protect their dignity but personal insults have to be tolerated. Forgiveness is the quality of a saintly person

To address the third point I again reiterate that tolerating personal insults is a symptom of an advanced devotee and to practice tolerance and patience even statically is of value for a brahmana, a person practicing jnana marga, yoga marga(they are just basic yama and niyama) and hopefully for a person wanting to practice bhakti. Jaiva Dharma actually shows doesn't illustrate much aggressive behaviour of vaishnavas either. Acaryas explain how jnanis like Kumaras and Druvasa are prone to anger and bhaktas were not and what is the reason for that . Even BSST quotes I listed were called static by you. Before trying to apply these things too dynamically, mistaking false ego and one's anger for transcendental emotion, one should be above brahma bhuta or else one should be in a kshatriya role.

All these things I am saying after making mistakes in the past due to aggression. With aggression you lose your discriminatory power and I have experienced that.

So aggression should be used with extreme caution by a sadhaka or else all attempts to find friendly environment even in adverse circumstances like Prahlada Maharaja or Jada Bharata will be too distant for sadhakas like me. Better to err on the side of passivity than aggression if you are a sadhaka especially when you are being insulted.

Being passive to one's insults and feeling no grudge against people who insult you is a very good quality for a devotee and it is generally said that these should naturally manifest with one's practice. We shouldn't artificially imitate these things but the inability to do so should make us humble and not want us to rationalize our behaviour in the name of dynamism. That is how I feel the second verse of sikshastakam in my heart: the feeling of durdvaivam at the inability to be more tolerant than a tree more humble than a blade of grass and ability to tolerate dishonour and give honour to others.

I am telling you all these things through whatever little spiritual experience I have but everyone is different . You will find your own way to progress in spiritual life and understand these things in ways helpful to you. With all sincerity at disposal I pray to GM,SSM and the goswamis to correct the discrepancy in my vision with each passing day. Hopefully I will find out for myself if I am incorrect on these points.

Syamasundara - September 1, 2008 3:45 pm

Prabhuji,

you have this fascinating ability to slightly tweak an issue from what it used to be 5 minutes before in order to defend your case. I am not saying you are doing it with malice. When I first met you here, you didn't seem to make any sense: you had an idea that you presented as a question, and unless and until everybody agreed, you would shuffle your own words around and the others', constantly jumping from one point to a slightly related one.

Now I know you better, I've seen my respect for you grow (incidentally after your initiation, interesting), you are very learned, capable of fine thoughts... but you still shuffle words around.

Again, do you really think we'd disagree with anything you've said in the previous post? Why are you now speaking of being meek in the case of personal insult, if the stance and only point of people like Vrndaranya was that it's not healthy to demonize aggressiveness and overpraise gentleness?

Don't pray that one day you'll see your points as wrong, as they are not. Just try to see where the others are right.

Let's re-focus the whole issue here. What do you think of all those devotees in Iskcon, who are aware of the offensive and outrageous behavior towards SSM, who appreciate him or our GM, who don't agree with the present state of affairs in Iskcon, and yet don't do anything?

Vrindaranya Dasi - September 1, 2008 7:56 pm

My experience of SP is through majority of his disciples and not personally and that is how is said I would not have been attracted by his style. Even close servants like Hari Sauri and TKG were too aggressive for my taste and attacked SSM, so that means aggression of SP worked negatively for them. But who knows his personal association would have been different and I would have accepted GV.

Of course, you have more to go on than that: there is SP's books, lectures, videos, etc. Certain things that SP said don't sit well with me either, but so many positive things more than make up for it for me--and I understand that you can't judge a person from another time with today's standards. That's well established wisdom.

I accept that SP and BSST are beyond brahma bhuta so they can exhibit transcendental anger and aggression but I don't think a sadhaka can. Initial phases for sadhakas are more of submission and then yearning starts after death of material ego.I don't deny that if senior devotees and GV philosophy are being insulted you protect their dignity but personal insults have to be tolerated. Forgiveness is the quality of a saintly person.

The realm of the "aggression" is philosophical debates, so your comment about tolerating personal insults and forgiveness being the quality of a saintly person seems beside the point. It is not at issue. The fact that yearning starting after the death of the material ego also seems irrelevant. Again, since the "aggression" is preaching, you seem to be saying that one shouldn't preach until one is self-realized. I'm not sure how prthivite ache yata nagaradi grama sarvatra pracara haibe mora nama would be accomplished in that case. Of course, you could make a case in theory...but reality is never so simple. If Mahaprabhu himself was brought to the point of wanting to use his Sudarsana cakra in relation to Nityananda Prabhu's preaching, what hope do we have for avoiding anger sometimes arising in our preaching?

Then again, you said that aggression is okay if senior devotees and GV philosophy are being insulted. But alas isn't this the prime source of tension in the Gaudiya world today? One of the Ananta-vasudeva's criticisms in leaving the Gaudiya Math was that the preaching institution itself leads to so much corruption. He told his disciples to stop preaching and study Bhakti Sandarbha. And on the surface, the babaji sector does seem to get along much better. But follow the history of those who have left BSST's line for the babaji sector and you don't find the idyllic picture one might have imagined. You find, in fact, exactly what BSST was preaching against. And the method he recommended for arriving at real bhajana stressed active service and preaching.

Therefore, preaching is a powerful means to attain brahma-bhuta and beyond, not something that should only be done after liberation. Yes, spiritual culture in the material world is a messy thing. Preaching is both the source of the problem and the solution. The story of the breakup of the Gaudiya Math, begins, "It is the story of the brothers who fought because brothers always fight, in spite of the wishes of their father." This is reality. We can theorize about how to achieve tolerance and harmony in the material world, but reality will always come to bite us in the butt, and we will find that only dynamic humility comes to our aid.

So am I saying that fanatical, aggressive preaching is good? No. Inevitable? Yes. I'm saying that we shouldn't think that passivity is the answer, that it will solve the problem of fanatical preaching. The best we can do is make a strong preaching campaign that embodies the ideals of our acaryas; that is, to help our Guru Maharaja in his preaching campaign. That will purify our own hearts that we may one day sit down in bhajana--or get up and beat the mrhat mrdanga.

To address the third point I again reiterate that tolerating personal insults is a symptom of an advanced devotee and to practice tolerance and patience even statically is of value for a brahmana, a person practicing jnana marga, yoga marga(they are just basic yama and niyama) and hopefully for a person wanting to practice bhakti. Jaiva Dharma actually shows doesn't illustrate much aggressive behaviour of vaishnavas either. Acaryas explain how jnanis like Kumaras and Druvasa are prone to anger and bhaktas were not and what is the reason for that.

Even BSST quotes I listed were called static by you. Before trying to apply these things too dynamically, mistaking false ego and one's anger for transcendental emotion, one should be above brahma bhuta or else one should be in a kshatriya role.

All these things I am saying after making mistakes in the past due to aggression. With aggression you lose your discriminatory power and I have experienced that.

So aggression should be used with extreme caution by a sadhaka or else all attempts to find friendly environment even in adverse circumstances like Prahlada Maharaja or Jada Bharata will be too distant for sadhakas like me. Better to err on the side of passivity than aggression if you are a sadhaka especially when you are being insulted.

What Nitai actually said was, "All of these quotes only serve your point if taken in a static sense." What you point is, however, keeps shifting according to your whim, as others have already pointed out. Here and below you have shifted the point to something no one would argue with.

Being passive to one's insults and feeling no grudge against people who insult you is a very good quality for a devotee and it is generally said that these should naturally manifest with one's practice. We shouldn't artificially imitate these things but the inability to do so should make us humble and not want us to rationalize our behaviour in the name of dynamism. That is how I feel the second verse of sikshastakam in my heart: the feeling of durdvaivam at the inability to be more tolerant than a tree more humble than a blade of grass and ability to tolerate dishonour and give honour to others.

I am telling you all these things through whatever little spiritual experience I have but everyone is different . You will find your own way to progress in spiritual life and understand these things in ways helpful to you. With all sincerity at disposal I pray to GM,SSM and the goswamis to correct the discrepancy in my vision with each passing day. Hopefully I will find out for myself if I am incorrect on these points.

Overall, I think we can agree that we've come to the point of chewing the chewed, although it has been an interesting discussion. And in terms of the application of our theories, I sense that we're not very different. So perhaps we should let it go at that. Or feel free to have the last word.

Vrindaranya Dasi - September 1, 2008 8:50 pm

It just occurred to me that all your quotes about tolerating personal insult may have been in response to my comments that if you are too idealistic reality will bite you in the butt. What I meant was that something will inevitably arise that doesn't fit into the idealistic vision. For example, one may become disturbed when the guru gets angry or one faces a dilemma when something arises to which a gentle response isn't appropriate. These things challenge the idealistic vision.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 1, 2008 10:37 pm

It just occurred to me that all your quotes about tolerating personal insult may have been in response to my comments that if you are too idealistic reality will bite you in the butt. What I meant was that something will inevitably arise that doesn't fit into the idealistic vision. For example, one may become disturbed when the guru gets angry or one faces a dilemma when something arises to which a gentle response isn't appropriate. These things challenge the idealistic vision.

I just wrote because Nitai asked me to or else I had already stopped. Yes I was responding to your comments about not even attempting to be idealistic. Even if doesn't work which I know it doesn't, I would like to be an idealist as it keeps my ego in check. The ideal is everything only on an individual level but I won't try to impose on others. That is the mistake I have done here. If Guru gets angry or something it doesn't matter to me because we know that his motivation is sincere, I just have to attempt the ideal myself.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 1, 2008 10:45 pm

Prabhuji,

 

you have this fascinating ability to slightly tweak an issue from what it used to be 5 minutes before in order to defend your case. I am not saying you are doing it with malice. When I first met you here, you didn't seem to make any sense: you had an idea that you presented as a question, and unless and until everybody agreed, you would shuffle your own words around and the others', constantly jumping from one point to a slightly related one.

Now I know you better, I've seen my respect for you grow (incidentally after your initiation, interesting), you are very learned, capable of fine thoughts... but you still shuffle words around.

 

Again, do you really think we'd disagree with anything you've said in the previous post? Why are you now speaking of being meek in the case of personal insult, if the stance and only point of people like Vrndaranya was that it's not healthy to demonize aggressiveness and overpraise gentleness?

Don't pray that one day you'll see your points as wrong, as they are not. Just try to see where the others are right.

 

Let's re-focus the whole issue here. What do you think of all those devotees in Iskcon, who are aware of the offensive and outrageous behavior towards SSM, who appreciate him or our GM, who don't agree with the present state of affairs in Iskcon, and yet don't do anything?

Thank you. I will keep your points in my mind in future as a recipe for self improvement. But that ability to jump points is really developed as I have to continuously defend myself from fanatic people. But I don't change my style even in TV sometimes so I have guard myself against that. Actually GM had already spoken to me about it so I have to be cautious about it even more.

Devotees who are aware of offensive and outrageous behavior towards SSM have to use aggression sometimes to stop the fanatics. All along I am saying aggression has to be used only to silence the fanatics to stop their vaisnava aparadha but not to preach to open minded modern people of today. Maybe if some of them are very saintly and advanced most intelligent open minded people will gravitate towards them and fanatic people will have the crude stock.

But there is diversity in the preaching strategies for us, I accept it. Everybody here can make their sincere effort and it doesn't matter who is successful ultimately.

Prahlad Das - September 4, 2008 12:11 am

I was just reading a book given to me by my brother, Kishori Mohan. It is called "The Worship of Sri Guru" (it is a compilation of articles, some discussions with Srila Gour Govinda Swami Maharaj, and some commentaries by our purvacharyas).

In it, I rediscovered an excerpt from a talk given by Srila BhaktiSiddhanta Saraswati Thakur during a Vyas Puja Ceremony. I felt it shows his type of "aggressive" stance to be tenderly protective of the lotus feet of Sri Guru Gauranga and yet if you were one to disagree with the scenario you would be powerfully challenged.

It begins as follows:

We have taken upon ourselves the responsibility of welcoming this grave charge.......

I have placed the rest of this very short article in a new thread called Assuming the Responsibility of Being guru, in the subject, Inspiring Quotes. I originally posted here but I now think it may belong in its own thread.