Pravda
BY: BHAKTA ALEX
Sep 25, OTTAWA, CANADA (SUN) — I recently came across a philosophical distinction made by former Polish communist Joseph Berger, in his 1971 book Shipwreck of a Generation. Berger discusses two Russian words that were used in communist times as denoting truth. The word "istina" referred to objective reality. It was the truth that is. There was also the word "pravda". My understanding is that in Polish "pravda" simply means truth, but in communist parlance the term referred to something like "higher Communist truth". In other words, pravda referred
to how things should be, according to the communist view of the world, not to how things really were in objective reality.
There was a famous communist newspaper called "Pravda", ostensibly implying that the newspaper reported the truth. But the truth that it reported was only that which was in line with how things should be, according to communist ideas. If objective truth was not in line with what should be true according to the communist view, then that truth didn't get printed.
To my mind this ties in with a number of
controversial issues related to the ISKCON organization. For starters, in the
second edition of the book Srila
Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (PL) there's a mention of a change made to the
Sri
Caitanya Caritamrta (CC). The second paragraph of the summary of Adi-lila
chapter 1 lists some members of the parampara, and mentions their relationship
to each other. In the second edition of PL, in an article entitled "Caitanya-caritamrta-
Page 1", Dhira Govinda Prabhu writes the following about the original
version of this paragraph:
"Perhaps
even more noteworthy is that Srila Prabhupada uses the word 'initiated' to
describe parampara relationships where no official initiation occurred, in
reference to the relationships between Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji and Srila
Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and between Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Srila
Gaurakisora
dasa Babaji.
"In
the recently published edition of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta the editors deleted
the words 'initiated' in the two cases cited above."
There was no initiation ceremony formally
linking Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura to Jagannatha dasa Babaji, but Srila
Prabhupada nonetheless uses the word "initiated" when mentioning them
in succession. A BBT representative stated:
"Thank
you for your inquiry concerning the Caitanya-caritamrta changes. I agonized
over this one for some time, consulting several senior devotees before making
this change."
(...)
"On
the side of not changing the 'initiated' phrases we have the strong bias
against changing the books unless absolutely necessary and the fact that Srila
Prabhupada did indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode."
This
is where I think pravda and istina come in. The BBT representative
sates that "Srila Prabhupada did indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji
initiated Bhaktivinode." This would be the istina. This is what
actually is. If the the BBT representative is correct, then Srila Prabhupada did
actually state that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode.
Now on
to the pravda. Dhira Govinda Prabhu writes:
"Of
concern is that the explanation for deleting the word 'initiated' seems to be
largely based on the understanding of the word 'initiated', 'as we know it in
ISKCON'. Perhaps when Srila Prabhupada used the word 'initiated', he did so
deliberately, and the meaning of the term as it has come to be understood in
ISKCON is incomplete. That is, instead of making changes in this passage based
on what we think Srila Prabhupada may have meant, it may be fruitful to
consider that the current conception in the organization of the word
'initiated' is not perfectly consistent with Srila Prabhupada's understanding
of the concept."
So the pravda here is the understanding
of the word "initiated" "as we know it in ISKCON". The pravda
in this case is the assumptions that we make about the word
"initiated". The pravda is what the word "initiated" should
mean, according to how things are currently understood in ISKCON, as opposed to
what Srila Prabhupada actually states in this instance.
The BBT representative writes:
"Notice that while Srila Prabhupada
does say that Bhaktivinode Thakura was initiated by Jagannatha das Babaji, he
doesn't say that Gaura Kishora das Babaji was initiated by Bhaktivinode, which
was added in the 1975 edition of the CC. Historically, neither is accurate if
we accept the usual sense in which Srila Prabhupada used the word 'initiated.'
So just on the grounds of bringing the new edition closer to the original
words Srila Prabhupada wrote, no longer having Bhaktivinode initiating
Gaura-kisora is justified. But we are still left with Jagannatha das
initiating Bhaktivinode."
So the istina, the objective truth,
seems to be that Srila Prabhupada actually stated that Jagannathat dasa Babaji
initiated Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura. If what the BBT representative is saying
is correct, then the objective reality is that Srila Prabhupada actually said
it.
When discussing two instances of the word
"initiated" being used in the CC paragraph in question, the BBT
representative states that historically "neither is accurate". The
implication here seems to be that Srila Prabhupada is making an incorrect
statement, because his statement does not conform to our understanding.
As far as I can tell, this is an
interpretation. It's an interpretation based on how things should be.
It's pravda, rather than istina. First of all, we assume that we
correctly understand Srila Prabhupada's philosophy. Then we assert that our
current understanding of that philosophy is identical with what Srila Prabhupada
is teaching. If what Srila Prabhupada is teaching turns out to be different that
our current understanding of that philosophy, we change what Srila Prabhupada is
teaching, in order to bring it in line with our current understanding. Reality
be damned. Pravda trumps istana.
In Shipwreck of a Generation, Joseph
Berger writes:
"In the rooms of the NKVD and at
Party meetings, istina was nothing - it was relative and it could easily be
changed: only pravda was absolute. It seemed to me, as it must do to millions
of others who have not been through this school, hard to understand how a
philological distinction could have such an effect on the lives of so many.
But in fact this small difference - this tyranny of pravda over istina - was
the lever by which white was turned into black; no such dialectic had existed
since the Inquisition. The notion of pravda was the basis of power."
As Dhira Govinda Prabhu writes in a post to the
PL conference from August
30th, 2007:
"Earlier today I had a conversation
with a devotee in his early thirties who was raised in the Hare Krsna
movement. He related to me about an initiation ceremony that was recently
conducted by an ISKCON guru here in Alachua.
At the event the person conducting the ceremony stated that he is initiating
on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. This devotee with whom I was speaking did
not claim to have any special philosophical insight into the controversies
surrounding the guru issue, and his state of distress when talking with me did
not stem in a direct way from any philosophical stance. He expressed simply
that 'When I was growing up at these ceremonies they would say this, and ten
years ago they would say that, and now they're saying something different...'
Perceiving and experiencing this inconsistency, his faith in the system and
people leading it is almost completely destroyed."
The way I see it, it's like there's a
"discourse community" within the ISKCON organization that defines
reality. Certain ideas are ideologically correct (pravda), even if they
are not supported by reality (istina). The "discourse
community" has been forced by reality (istina) to modify their
virtual world (pravda) a number of times, because the gap between reality
and the virtual world that they were living in was too great. It was too
difficult to maintain the self-deception needed to live in the virtual world for
a long period of time.
I think the above-mentioned terminology may
also tie in to the issue of Srila Prabhupada's disappearance pastime. I recently
read a 1999 article by Dhanesvara Prabhu, entitled "Impact
Assessment Of The Poison Controversy". In the article, Dhanesvara
Prabhu states:
"As we have discussed in the previous
segment this whole poisoning affair has immense implications that almost
naturally create a knee-jerk reaction based upon both our experiences and the
outcome we desire. Therefore we have heard many devotees make statements to
the effect that this couldn't possibly be true "because . . .(fill in the
blank)." The arguments why this cannot be true run an entire gamut from
Prabhupada's self-realized, pure devotee status to someone's personal
relationship with those who would have been the so-called conspirators.
"Despite the fact that we may have so
many reasons why it could not have happened, we do have one very strong reason
to believe that it did-Srila Prabhupada said that he was being poisoned."
So here again we have pravda and istina.
The reality (istina) is that Srila Prabhupada actually said certain
things. These things may come into conflict with the official explanation (pravda)
of
Srila Prabhupada's disappearance. This can cause some cognitive
dissonance in us, and the possible implications of what Srila Prabhupada said
are certainly intense, profound and far-reaching. In the same article,
Dhanesvara Prabhu states the following about the possibility of Srila Prabhupada
being poisoned:
"The consequences of the second case,
that in fact Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, are immense and terrible to
contemplate. Beyond coming to know that such a thing had in fact happened,
everyone will have to deal with the many implications and consequences. Past,
present, and future consequences will all simultaneously clamor for attention.
Feelings of betrayal and mistrust would rise to extreme levels. The entire
history of the society as influenced by those involved in the conspiracy would
have to be reconsidered. It is immediately implied that any persons who had
any hand in this most despicable activity would have to be immediately
expelled from the society at the very least, and given the fact that all those
who were close enough to Srila Prabhupada at the time to have participated in
this are now gurus there would be immense implications for those who had
accepted initiation from them as well.
"It is the terrible implications of
this possible truth that make the situation difficult to contemplate."
There are a number of issues connected to the
ISKCON institution that can be difficult, uncomfortable and unpleasant to
contemplate. In his Sampradaya Sun article "Faith
Is Blind And Ignorance is Bliss", Hrishikesh Prabhu writes:
"...one mother told me her son at the
New Vrindaban Gurukula exclaimed to her once during a 1979 visit with his
mother: 'Guess what! While you were gone I was selected to be Kirtanananda
Swami's personal servant for a week! And do you know what? He fondled my
genitals!' The mother chastised her son: 'You're in maya! Bhaktipada's a pure
devotee! Don't you ever say any nonsense like that again or I'll chastise you
severely!'"
So in 1979 the pravda, the
socially-constructed and socially-reinforced "reality", was that
Kirtanananda was a "pure devotee". If you didn't play along with this
idea, you were a bad guy. If you pointed out something bad that Kirtanananda was
doing (istina), you were the bad guy for pointing it out. Kirtanananda,
the person who was engaging in the activity wasn't himself bad. You were
bad for perceiving, acknowledging and pointing out what Kirtanananda was doing.
If you played along, and pretended that
this person was a pure devotee, then you did inner violence to yourself. The
term "pure devotee" lost its meaning. Words are important. "Pure
devotee" means something, and it's possible to distort that meaning, and
then to spread that distorted definition (pravda) throughout the culture.
Every time we use the expression "pure devotee" in a way that isn't
true, then we cheat ourselves, and we cheat the
other person.
Every time we bow to a false idea, and act as
though it's true, it corrupts us from inside. It fogs up our perception. We lie
to ourselves. The longer we play the game (pravda), the more we start to
identify with the game, the more we forget what reality (istina) outside of the game
is like.
What if some of the things that we're told from
within the ISKCON organization, and that the we're the most sure of, were simply
not true? How might that affect our map of reality?
Joseph Berger writes:
"In 1936, I eventually succeeded in
persuading one of my most intelligent interrogators to answer my question:
'Are you not in the least interested in what actually happened? Do you really
only want the pre-selected truth which is the "Party" truth?' He
gave this trenchant reply:
"'Pravda is what appeared in today's
leading article in Pravda [the newspaper]. Anything that doesn't fit into this
framework is, for us, objectively, not true. What have we to do with your
petty istinas?’"
It's okay to have ideas in our head, but we
have to stay open to the feedback loop from reality (istina). In an
exchange with Professor J. F. Staal, Professor of Philosophy and of South Asian
Languages at the University of California Berkeley, in January of 1970, Srila
Prabhupada states: "We have to test everything by its practical
result."
We have to test everything by its practical
result (istina). As far as I can see, this is the sort of thing that
makes Krsna Consciousness a science, as opposed to a pseudo-science, or a cult.
