Penance of Speech
BY: MARGARET CONNORS
Feb 16, USA (SUN) — Hello Bhakta Ronaldo and Rama dasa. Thank You for your comments. However, it appears to the very least myself that you both have sorely missed each and every point I have made. You both have elected to ignore the straightforward nature of this philosophical discussion and introduced nothing but rank speculation as to my so-called character flaws and ill motivations. In doing so, you have both essentially exposed the lack of substance to your comments in relation to the actual discussion.
Which statement of mine are you contesting? Please identify that.
Ronaldo, you say:
"The only thing that I can say regarding Margaret is this: she's obviously very naive, like most devotees in ISKCON. She also doesn't see that 99 percent of her Srila Prabhupada quotes/instructions ARE NOT being followed. Somewhere in her deep denial she has convinced herself that everything is ok. Classic symptom of denial."
It appears to at least myself that you offer nothing but provocative slur here; like a cheese sandwich - without the cheese. I have offered the readers here NOTHING but the straightforward teachings of HDG Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. This is anything but naive. This is, in fact, the method provided by Lord Krsna and Srila Prabhupada. At the risk of disturbing you with Srila Prabhupada's own words - kindly indulge me quoting him directly on this very point from Bhagavad Gita 17:15 –
anudvega-karam vakyam
satyam priya-hitam ca yat
svadhyayabhyasanam caiva
van-mayam tapa ucyate
"Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others, and also in regularly reciting Vedic literature.
PURPORT
One should not speak in such a way as to agitate the minds of others. Of course, when a teacher speaks, he can speak the truth for the instruction of his students, but such a teacher should not speak to those who are not his students if he will agitate their minds. This is penance as far as talking is concerned. Besides that, one should not talk nonsense. The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying. At the same time, such talk should be very pleasurable to the ear. By such discussions, one may derive the highest benefit and elevate human society. There is a limitless stock of Vedic literature, and one should study this. This is called penance of speech."
There is nothing in anything I have ever offered you or any of the readers here that even remotely implies or states that I think "everything is ok" anywhere - within or outside of any ISKCON center. I have never once broached this topic. This is your straw man argument, embraced first by yourself and then foisted on anyone who might hear you. I have only stated that everything in this creation of the Lord is perfectly "ok" and "complete" - including His arrangements for giving each of us exactly what we deserve in reciprocation to the consequential actions of both our love - or our indifference to Him - moment to moment.
If you disagree with this understanding of this wonderfully scientific conclusion, then you will have to do better than merely slandering me with such comments above. Bear in mind that I was confronted by my own Catholic family's efforts to dissuade me from any involvement with the Hare Krsna Movement. This being the age of the Internet, it was not too difficult for them to dig up plenty of reasons to simply not get involved at all with the mission of HDG Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada and his followers. I would have none of it. My simple answer to them was "None of that has a thing to do with me. I am only interested in the philosophy and its relevance to me. I could no more care how any Hare Krsna failed to act in accordance to the teachings of Krsna, than I care about the behaviour of some errant Catholic priest or any other lay member of the Church."
This does NOT condone incorrect actions -under the guise of Krsna Consciousness. It merely clarifies our personal responsibility.
If you disagree with a philosophical position, would it not seem reasonable - according to the above verse and purport - that you are obliged to refute the position with reason and argument and common sense - and fully supported by HDG Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada in his teachings? Would not such conduct on your part better demonstrate that you understand and accept the guidance of Srila Prabhupada in such matters?
Perhaps you were a little emotional when you composed your comments and did not reflect too completely upon what was actually being discussed, and simply wanted to poke the proverbial stick in my eye. That happens and I will forgive you this once. But let us communicate according to the above referenced guidance of Srila Prabhupada. At least to me - it appears that this is the very least we can and should do. After all - we are all his students. No?
Rama dasa.
Bevy of Lawyers? Sorry but your attempt to negatively position me alongside that questionable species is a tactic only. What I offered George Smith on the legal issues was golden information and worthy of much deeper discussion by all of you who constantly flail against the "abstract" ISKCON and some of the men responsible for its management. That you care not for this does not diminish its importance or relevance to the subject being discussed. So this part of your comment is not even remotely valuable. Sorry, but it is a fact.
However - you did make one very positive point. You end with, "Just hear from Srila Prabhupada eternally". Now you're talking. I agree with this and advise that we approach any and all philosophical discussion with this as our humble motto.
Sincerely
Margaret Connors
