On the purpose of this board - Clarifying our ideals

On the purpose of this board

Some may have wondered what all that buzz was in the divya-jnana thread. I feel I need to clarify some things.

The forums were started in the January of 2002 with the aim of providing a place where rAgAnugIya Gaudiya Vaishnavas could gather for an exchange of hari-kathA and devotional experiences, and where people interested in the same could easily approach the tradition in a friendly and conducive environment. Up to this date, this remains the vital axis of the project.

In the course of the past one and half years, the community has grown and the themes of the forums have fluctuated a great deal, sometimes diverging a bit further from the core essence, and sometimes twirling in its close proximity. At any rate, the core has always been, and will always be there.

The forums have several members who are familiar with the writings of the Goswamis and have assimilated their contents in the company of traditional Gaudiya gurus and sAdhus. Such people are the life of this community. Without their contributions, the board is without its axis and will fade into the cyber-oblivion where so many other aimless sites have faded, becoming the characteristic background noise of the internet.

Again, I wish to emphasize that posts delving into traditional Gaudiya siddhAnta are the essence of these forums, whether written by Jagat, myself or anyone else, and are to be treated as such. They are meant to help others climb the ladder towards our cherished aspirations, and I will not tolerate people slighting them or treating them with disdain, propagating whatever renegade philosophies they may have come up in their fertile brains.

If it is intolerance and bigotry to not be a free-for-all forum where everyone can have their five minutes of fame, where the loudest survives and where nothing is sacred except tolerance, then I gladly take the stamp. I have worked hard to facilitate the forums' growth into what they have become, and I am not willing to let that slip away due to whatever ideal that contradicts the fundamental purpose of the community.

There are a number of categories here to facilitate discussions on academic, controversial, liberal and eclectic topics, on ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha, and on just about any other Vaishnava tradition you may imagine. I believe we have been more than generous in this regard. And I honestly mean it when I say that I value much of what is going on in them, too - precious discussions. However, I do not think it is too much to ask that there be a small sanctorum called Rupanuga Gaudiya Discussions, where we can have the desired atmosphere we wish to share with the people with the same aspirations, and where we can present it as we have learned of it without having someone cross our every other sentence.

This is not to discourage anyone from presenting their observations on what appear to be inconclusive or abstract conceptions, asking questions and making comments to clarify matters. However, it is to discourage people from coming in and declaring, either in direct writing or with attitude, how what has been said is irrelevant, misguided and foolish.

If someone does not agree with the thoughts and ideals presented here, I invite you to come forward boldly and present why. Also, if someone happens to agree with some and all of it, I would like to hear of that, too. Either in private or in this thread, whichever is more convenient to you.

Thank you for taking the time to read through this.

Sincerely,
Madhavandanda Das

I think most of what I write falls into the liberal/eclectic category. Please let me know if I('ve) overstep(ped) my bounds.

Dear Madhava,

I believe I have understood, as presented by you, what the purpose of these forums are and so, based on that understanding, I am appreciative of your endeavors. Naturally thus, I wish this board continuous success. I am unable to make contributions of significance and have actually offered my apologies for the irrelevant appearances I have made here sometimes. But I do read here a great deal and can in fact firmly state that I have deposited much hope in this sanga for the furthering of my personal spiritual growth.

There are a couple of points I like to raise, perhaps for your consideration or simply in the way of statement. You mention that, “the forums have several members who are familiar with the writings of the Goswamis and have assimilated their contents in the company of traditional Gaudiya gurus and sadhus.” As far as my perception in the matter goes, the number of those here who fill the profile you have presented amounts to a few but really not to “several”. In any case, I was wondering if it would not be the case perhaps to actually list these members by name and qualification. Might this not be a way of directing the focus of discussions to their very sources of strength, which ultimately are authority (the Gosvamis) and experience (individual’s personal commitments and practices)?

As I see it, for us aspirants or actual Gaudiyas, when The Gosvamis are quoted this must be accompanied with some degree of authority. I believe this is in fact what you imply when you state that some specific class of individuals are people who are “the life of this community” - they are not simply good entertainers or localized charisma cases, but are natural conduits of such authority. It appears, then, that this community is nothing but an extension of the very broad community formed by whoever is attracted to the essence of the teachings of The Gosvamis.

The fact that such discussions can be a conduct for bhakti has to, in my view, eventually come around full circle and establish personality or personalities as its source. With all that this implies.

You have stated on the other thread that, “If you wish to teach here, then follow the method of the tradition and go find a guru, get yourself initiated, study the scriptures under his guidance and engage in bhajana. Having done that, then by all means, do come and present all your interpretations and realizations.” Please don’t take this as challenge but I do believe by these words you are shooting yourself on the foot, so to speak. Otherwise, perhaps I could suggest that your sentence there should have stopped at the phrase, “study the scriptures”, for how can the two items 1) under guidance, 2) engage in bhajana be scrutinized by anyone other than the practicioner himself and the object of his practice?


I suppose what I am trying to get to here is respond to the very nature of this issue and refer to persons. More specifically, I like to state that I really never understood why Advaitadas, who clearly is a member who fills the profile you have described as qualified to teach here, has not been given a second or even a third chance to remain active on the forums as he used to be. I don’t mean in a technical way, but in a Gaudiya Vaisnava fashion.

I’ll stop here.

Advaita has been repeatedly invited back here, but chooses not to because he feels that Madhava and I are not purely representing the orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnava viewpoint. He also thinks that I have offended Rupa Goswami and the scriptures and that Madhava is implicated in such offenses by permitting them to go on. He also thinks that we should more vigorously condemn other Vaishnava groups who do not share his orthodox position, i.e., Gaudiya Math and Iskcon.

Madhava and I have decided that we cannot comply with Advaita's requests. I suggest you look at the last post made by Advaita and the ensuing discussion. (Look up his profile and ask for "find all posts by").

But the case of Advaita illustrates rather clearly the problems we face in running a site like this one. We want people to be free to express their opinions, but we want respect to be extended to all.

Certain individuals express opinions on other websites that differ from those they express here. Generally speaking, we moderators are aware of this, though not always.

You are right that Madhava and I have to take a great deal of the load in maintaining the focus of this site, which becomes something of a burden. This goes some way to explaining Madhava's loss of patience recently.

Madhava,

I agree with you that studying under guidance can be scrutinized to a satisfactory degree. I hadn’t thought of it in the way you present.

On number 2, I insist that, “adopting the ideals of the bhajana –marga of one’s line of allegiance” goes hand in hand with qualifying one’s activities and making use of percentages. I believe you actually confirm such when you say that in scrutinizing we may ask of the person, “which means have you adopted for attaining your goal?”

And I insist that full, real scrutiny of someone’s bhajana can be accomplished only on such a very personal level that it cannot be made a principle by which general following of authority can be gauged. Gaudiyaism is a dynamic ideal that cannot be separated from individuals following and implementing such principle by their very relating with each other. Scrutiny based on a solid set mark alone would be bordering contradiction.

Which brings me to Advaitadas again.

Jagat,

What you say are the reasons for Advaitadas not to be present here anymore are only apparent reasons. The real reason is one and it is the fact that he felt that, to those who make decisions here, his presence as a person with his needs was less important than the life of the website. I cannot help but think that, for the boards as an institution, there is a dose of self-defeat in this incident. But I don’t make this observation as a criticism or complaint. Just voicing my feelings a bit about those who clearly have been hurt…
They are still out there. They should be here, improved perhaps, but here.

You say that some present themselves differently here from what they present of themselves in other forums. I have personal experience that, conversely, some present themselves personally differently than what they preach in these forums in the form of posts.

Some people have asked why I was irritated by DH, while I do not seem to be irritated by some other interesting posters, whether past or present. My two cents.

1. People rarely come in and bluntly proclaim that what I have just said, with all references etc. in place, as I have heard from my guru and sAdhus and which I perceive as reasonable, is basically a load of crap, at best a sincere misunderstanding, that needs light from a rogue beacon who can present his truly realized interpretation.

2. I do not take it well when people come in and start boldly declaring the true interpretations of texts while copy-pasting translations without knowing a word of the original language. I have stated this many times in the past, but it does not seem to sink in.