Attempts to discredit Bhakti Ananda Goswami - Answering challenges to his credibility

HARE KRISHNA! SRI SRI GURU AND GAURANGA KI JAYA !

Dear Devotees,

Please accept my humble obeisances.

Anyone who wants to impugn my character, challenge my credibility as a scholar, or otherwise criticize me should do it here instead of attacking me / my writings whenever they are posted, regarding any topic on devotee forums. It is rude to use other devotee's threads to mount a campaign against me, simply because some statement of mine has been posted there. In fact. I did not make the initial post of my letter here, and did not plan to be 'present' on this board to defend my post here. Despite this fact, immediately the following post was made in reply to my writings about Narasinghadeva's worship outside of India.


"...but I would recommend 'taking them with a grain of salt' because despite his wide reading and amazing retention, he tends to blur distinctions, he doesn't distinguish between well-established fact and mere guessing, ..."

This was a completely unwarranted and unjustified attack on my credibility.

It is not a small thing for a scholar to be dis-credited in such a way. A scholar's entire service is to learn and communicate the uncompromised TRUTH for the benefit of others. The author of this remark has raised a challenge to my credibility. What is the factual basis of his challenge? Is there any, or is he just arrogantly criticizing someone that he really doesn't know?

What about the negative comments that followed his? What is THE TRUTH ? Am I teaching nonsense, or are my critics unqualified and therefore unable to make any really accurate criticism of my teachings ? Why do these critics feel it necessary to challenge my authority to teach about subjects that I have studied in depth for over 30, and in some cases nearly 40 years? What is their motivation for impugning my authority? Sri Caitanya's Hare Krishna Movement is supposed to be a NON SECTARIAN MOVEMENT. I should be able to provide information on the worship of Krishna-Vishnu and Radha-Shakti in non-Indian traditions without having my credibility attacked. Sadly, however, anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic or anti-Christian Vaishnava 'scholars' (self-appointed-experts) can write all kinds of vicious prejudicial nonsense, which goes unchallenged in devotee forums, but as soon as my work is posted, it is often attacked. My attackers try to discredit me as a devotee or as a scholar. However, in spite of my attackers' efforts to destroy me or my reputation, and in spite of my sometimes severe disabilities and lack of publication etc., I have kept my vows and have served the Vaishnava community with integrity for over 30 years, and have along the way received graduate-level academic credit, and acclaim for my scholarship from well respected Indian and non-Indian scholars and institutions.

Here is a very brief bio sketch, which includes a little bit of information regarding my education and activities.


http://www.saragrahi.org/columns/one/one1/...ical_sketch.htm


If anyone has some real issue of fact to raise with me, do it. First state what your qualification is for the benefit of all of the readers who may visit this forum. I cannot waste Sri Krishna's time and energy answering spurious claims made by self-appointed-experts or bogus experts whose studies are in fraudulent "New Age" esoteric sources. If any actually qualified person has a PROVABLE criticism, regarding my work in history or theology, then make it, and I will respond if I am physically able. My response may be in all caps, if I cannot see well enough to type it normally when I respond. I will not respond to baseless claims made by unqualified persons.

wishing you all the TRUTH,

Bhakti Ananda Goswami

With all due respect, I do not think people have any problem in regards to your far-encompassing studies in the realm of comparative theology and so forth and the consequent expertise you have gained, whether officially credited or not. Rather, I think the main topic of controversy is your interreligious approach.

The topic I would like to bring up is the same to which Braja pointed (as quoted in your text above), on blurring distinctions between the various religious traditions, and the justification that the scriptures yield to such an approach. Here, scripture means the primary canon of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, such as the Bhagavata and the foundational works of the Six Gosvamis of Vrindavana.

Perhaps you would like to draw support from such primary sources to your approach? You have cited later day teachers of a certain branch of the Gaudiya tradition, and that is certainly all right, but if one expects to draw broader support to his approach from the Gaudiya-samaja, there is certainly need to examine the texts that are at the root of the tradition.

That being said, I should add that I do not think there is any ongoing campaign of character assassination or otherwise in these forums. My guess is that a good majority of our audience has never even heard of you before, simply on account of the fact that they never had much interest in extensive interreligious dialogues.

HARE KRISHNA! SRI SRI GURU AND GAURANGA KI JAYA !

MY ANSWERS WILL BE INSERTED IN CAPS (I AM NOT SHOUTING).

I have carefully reviewed your biographical sketch, particularly the section concerning your "Religious Studies and Academic Background".

I can see that you have traveled the lenght and breadth of the world, met many saintly men and studied many scriptures. However, I would be interested in seeing if there are any recognized institutes specialized in studying and teaching the topics you speak on who may have granted you formal recognition of your learning.

I noted the following:

- Honorary Secretary of the Universal Sanatana Dharma Foundation


- Co-founder of the Arcadian Institute

Could you fill us in with the details on the two abovementioned organizations, to help us evaluate the weight of their recognition? I failed to find information on either of them on the internet.


I WAS HONORED FOR BOTH MY DEVOTION AND MY SCHOLARSHIP AT A FORMAL SESSION OF UNIVERSAL SANATANA DHARMA FOUNDATION OFFICERS IN 1982. ACARYA PRABHAKAR MISHRA, SRILA PRABHUPADA'S FIRST DISCIPLE AND CO-FOUNDER OF THE JHANSI LEAGUE OF DEVOTEES, AND DR. RUP LAL BATRA, ACARYAJI'S CLOSE FRIEND AND A GREAT INDIAN STATESMAN AND INTERFAITH RELIGIOUS LEADER (HE WAS A CLOSE DISCIPLE OF MAHATMA GANDHI'S), WERE USDF OFFICERS, AND NAMED ME A USDF OFFICER. THE USDF WAS AN EARLY INTERFAITH ORGANIZATION ESTABLISHED BY RELIGIOUS LEADERS, WITH BRANCHES IN MANY NATIONS. IT HAD THE PATRONAGE OF MANY ILLUSTRIOUS PERSONS, INCLUDING DR. ACARYA PRABHAKAR MISHRA, WHO WAS HIGHLY RESPECTED AS BOTH A DEVOTEE AND A SCHOLAR. DR. ACARYA PRABHAKAR MISHRA AND DR. RUP LAL BATRA WERE ALSO OFFICERS IN THE USDF-RELATED WORLD FELLOWSHIP OF RELIGIONS, AND ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD HINDU ORGANZATION, UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF THE KING OF NEPAL. FOR THE WORLD FELLOWSHIP OF RELIGIONS, DR. LAL BATRA ORGANIZED THE LARGEST INTERFAITH MELA EVER HELD. MY 1982 APPOINTMENT BY THEM, TO THE USDF, WAS CARRIED IN NEWPAPERS THROUGHOUT INDIA AND NEPAL. THEY WERE ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT SUPPORTING MY SERVICE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY DUE TO MY HEALTH, I WAS NOT ABLE TO CARRY-OUT THE EXTENSIVE PLANS THAT THEY MADE FOR ME. HOWEVER, I WAS ABLE TO RENDER A LITTLE SERVICE WHEN I WAS IN THE EAST, AND LATER, AS A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD HINDU ORGANIZATION, I REPRESENTED THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD HINDU ORGANIZATION AND THE HINDU COMMUNITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, GREETING THE KING WHEN HE GAVE HIS TALK AT THE UNIVERSITY. IN NEPAL, INDIA AND SRI LANKA, I WAS AN HONORED GUEST OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS, HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EVEN HEADS OF STATE. THIS, BY GOD'S GRACE, WAS ON THE STRENGTH OF MY DEVOTIONAL CHARACTER AND KNOWLEDGE, AS I ARRIVED IN THE EAST PENNILESS, WITH NO REPUTATION OR BACKING FROM ANY ORGANIZATION OR POWERFUL INDIVIDUALS. I DID NOT SEEK OUT ANY OF THE ATTENTION I RECEIVED FROM ANY OF THESE LEADERS OR THEIR ORGANIZATIONS. THEY RESPONDED TO MY INFORMATION FROM MY ACADEMIC CONFERENCE AND OTHER AND OTHER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PRESENTATIONS OF MY RESEARCH AND REALIZATIONS. THEY SOUGHT ME OUT, TO RECRUIT ME INTO THEIR VARIOUS INTERFAITH MISSIONS, LIKE THE USDF ETC.

Among your academic credentials you mention a B.A. degree, but it is unclear to me what was the topic you worked on while pursuing the degree.

IT WAS AN INDEPENDENT STUDIES DESIGNED HUMANITIES DEGREE IN THE INTERDISCIPLINARY HISTORY OF RELIGION, COMPARATIVE RELIGION AND THEOLOGY. I DESIGNED MY CURRICULUM AND COURSE CONTRACTS, AND SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THEM, INCLUDING MY EXTENSIVE FIELD STUDIES, THROUGH THE CONTINUING EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF MARYLHURST COLLEGE IN LAKE OSWEGO OREGON, USA. THIS COLLEGE WAS A 120 YEAR OLD SCHOOL ASSOCIATED WITH THE CATHOLIC SISTERS OF THE HOLY NAME. IT HAD THE HIGHEST ACADEMIC REPUTATION AND WAS ONE OF THE FIRST ADULT EDUCATION COLLEGES (MOST OF ITS STUDENTS WERE MATURE PROFESSIONAL PERSONS WORKING ON A SECOND DEGREE) TO DEVELOPE INTERDISCIPLINARY AND DESIGNED MAJORS. I DID MY BACHELOR'S WORK THERE, BECAUSE I WANTED TO CREATE A CURRICULUM IN INTER-BHAKTI HISTORY AND THEOLOGY STUDIES. THE SCHOOL HAD A VERY GOOD REPUTATION. IN FACT IT STILL DOES, AND RECENTLY WON THE HONOR OF A TOP DESIGNATION IN ITS CATEGORY, IN THE RATINGS OF AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. THE FACULTY AND DEPARTMENT HEADS RECOGNISED TO BEGIN WITH THAT I WAS DOING GRADUATE LEVEL WORK WHEN I STARTED MY PROGRAM. I EVEN TESTED IN THE 99TH PERCENTILE OF HUMANITIES STUDENTS TAKING THE FEDERAL COLLEGE LEVEL EXAMINATION EXAMS. THE COURSES I 'CHALLENGED' IN MY DESIGNED MAJOR WERE COMPARABLE TO THOSE FROM THE WORLD'S MOST RESPECTED SCHOLARS AND INSTITUTIONS. I IN FACT USED THE COURSES AND CURRICULUMS, AS REQUIRED, OF THE BEST EXPERTS TO DESIGN MY OWN CHALLENGES. I COMPLETED MY 4 YEAR PROGRAM IN THREE YEARS WITH ONLY ONE 'B' GRADE. MY WORK IMPRESSED EVERYONE CALLED IN TO EVALUATE IT. I WILL TRY TO FIND AND POST THE HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT HEAD'S MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAM REFERRAL FOR ME.

Also, I would like to know the names and affiliations of the persons under whom you studied, to be able to better evaluate your qualifications in the realm of interreligious presentation.

AFTER MY MARYLHURST DEGREE, I ENTERED THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF THE OLD STATE MILITARY UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT. AGAIN I WANTED TO FURTHER ESTABLISH AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM IN INTER-BHAKTI STUDIES. DR. J. STILSON JUDAH, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF THE HISTORY OF RELIGION AT GRADUATE THEOLOGICAL UNION, CAME OUT OF RETIREMENT TO MENTOR ME FOR MY MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAM THROUGH THIS INDEPENDENT FIELD-STUDIES PROGRAM OF THE VERMONT GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NORWICH UNIVERSITY. WHY AM I BEING ASKED TO REPEAT THIS INFORMATION?

On another note, if someone challenges a view you present, as a scholar it should not be difficult for you to cite your sources and substantiate your claim. In general, if your writings were annotated with references to the sources, I think you would gain a good deal of additional credibility.

THE LETTER THAT I SENT TO HARI SARAN DAS HAD LINKS IN IT. I ALWAYS USE KEY SEARCH-WORDS WHEN I WRITE, SO THAT ANYONE CAN EASILY LOOK-UP MY EVIDENCE. IN MY WORK THERE ARE WHOLE FIELDS, AND MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF PRIMARY INTERDISCIPLINARY EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED, NOT JUST ISOLATED OBSCURE BITS OF REFERENCES TO SOME SECONDARY SOURCE, OR SOME OTHER SCHOLAR'S OPINION.

FURTHERMORE, HOW CAN I CITE ANOTHER SCHOLAR'S OPINION ABOUT THE VAISHNAVA ELEMENTS IN THE SEPTUAGINT, WHEN NO ONE ELSE HAS PUBLISHED ANY SUCH STUDY? INTERDISCIPLINARY SCHOLARSHIP IS A RECENT PHENOMENON AS WELL, AND SO AS A PIONEER IN THESE AREAS OF RESEARCH, I MUST OFTEN DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE / SOURCE WORKS, AND CANNOT CITE THE COMPARATIVE WORK OF OTHER SCHOLARS, BECAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY.

It is very sad to me if you have taken offence of the comments of some members of our audience.

I HAVE NOT TAKEN OFFENCE, BUT I AM SORRY THAT THE DEVOTEES WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER MY WORDS, WITH OUT ALSO HAVING TO CONSIDER THE ATTACKS ON MY CREDIBILITY BY PERSONS WHO DO NOT KNOW ME OR MY WORK.


Perhaps, if the subject matter is very sensitive to you, it would be wise to saw the seeds of your wisdom to a land which is fertile.

IT WAS NOT MY CHOICE TO POST ANYTHING HERE. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A FORUM WHERE NONSECTARIAN INTERFAITH PREACHING IS APPROPRIATE.

Personally, in the light of my scriptural studies, I do not believe that interreligious dialogues are necessary for the growth of our devotion, "our" meaning the present-day sAdhaka-samAja .

INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUES MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THE GROWTH OF YOUR DEVOTION, BUT THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE GROWTH OF SOME OTHER PEOPLES' DEVOTION, AND THOSE OF US WHO ARE INVOLVED IN SUCH INTERRELIGIOUS PREACHING WORK SHOULD NOT BE
DEPRECIATED OR EVEN ATTACKED FOR CARRYING ON OUR SERVICE. PREACHING FROM THE GITA IS NOT THE SAME AS PREACHING FROM THE BHAGAVATAM, OR THE C. C. EACH SHASTRA HAS ITS OWN SPECIAL FOCUS. I HAVE NOT CHALLENGED THAT THE FOCUS OF THIS SITE AND THE THE PREMA OF VRAJA LILA IS THE APEX OF SPIRITUALITY. I AM JUST TRYING TO DO MY SERVICE, WHICH INVOLVES PREACHING IN THE SPECIFIC AREAS OF MY OWN EXPERTISE. I DO NOT COME HERE AND CHALLENGE YOUR CREDIBILITY AND AUTHORITY TO WRITE ABOUT AND REFLECT ON VRINDAVAN LILA! BUT SOMEHOW IT IS OK FOR YOU TO IMMEDIATELY CHALLENGE MY CREDIBILITY AND AUTHORITY TO WRITE ON MY SUBJECTS OF STUDY !


That does not mean to say that they are devoid of merit; certainly they may be advantageous in dialogues with members of the public with similar inclinations.

I CANNOT SO EASILY DISMISS THE NEEDS OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE. IT IS ONE THING TO WANT TO HEAR ONLY THE HIGHEST TOPICS OF MANJARI BHAVA, BUT IT IS ANOTHER TO WANT TO SAVE THE MASSES OF HUMANITY, WHO ARE WALLOWING IN THE SINS OF KALI YUGA. I ENJOY THE NECTAR HERE TOO, BUT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY WANTING TO CONVINCE THE MASSES THAT GOD EXISTS, AND THAT HE IS THE BLUE BOY NAMED KRISHNA. PEOPLE DO NOT GET TO GRADUATE SCHOOL WITHOUT LEARNING THEIR ABCs. I FRANKLY ADMIT THAT I AM TEACHING ABCs. I DO NOT TRY TO COMPETE WITH THOSE EXPERT PREACHERS WRITING ABOUT THE DEVOTION OF SRIMATE RADHARANI. HOWEVER, I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TEACH THE ABC's THAT I AM VERY WELL QUALIFIED TO TEACH, WITHOUT BEING DISRESPECTED FOR DOING IT. IT IS A NECESSARY SERVICE, AND I AM ONLY ATTEMPTING TO DO IT, BECAUSE OF THE NEED, AND BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO, AND FORMALLY ANOINTED TO DO IT BY MY SIKSHA AND DIKSHA GURUS.

AS IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS SITE IS NOT EVEN AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR ANY OF THIS DISCUSSION. I AM NOW LEAVING THIS SITE. IF PEOPLE WANT TO CONTINUE TO QUESTION MY CREDENTIALS, THEY CAN DO IT ELSEWHERE. I WILL POST MY MASTER'S PROGRAM RECOMENDATION AND OTHER PROOF OF MY ACADEMIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS AT "ONE FAITH" ON SARAGRAHI.ORG.

THE ARCADIAN INSTITUTE WAS FORMED BY AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF WELL RESPECTED SCHOLARS, AND THE INSTITUTE ACTED AS A SPONSOR AND PRESENTER AT THE CENTENNIAL WORLD PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS IN CHICAGO. I WILL POST MORE INFORMATION ON THIS
ON MY "ONE FAITH" SITE THROUGH SARAGRAHI.ORG .

I AM NOW TAKING YOUR SUGGESTION AND LEAVING THIS UNFERTILE GROUND. OBVIOUSLY MY INTERFAITH PREACHING IS NOT APPROPRIATE OR WELCOME HERE.


JAYA RADHE!


BEST WISHES,

BHAKTI ANANDA GOSWAMI

(A HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER OF THE ABCs TO LESS-ADVANCED SOULS)


----------------
~ rUpa-mañjarI-mukhAs tA dAsikAH saMzraye ~

Dear Bhakti Ananda Goswami,

Thank you very much for filling us in with the details on your credentials. Having dedicated decades to your studies, it is evident that you know what your are talking about, undoubtedly far better than anyone who has merely partially studied the subject matter out of curiosity.



Given that you are in a sense a pioneer on the field, it would be valuable if you would comprehensively note down your sources and make them available. Any thoughtful person will ask, "How does he know that?" Knowledge does not come about on its own, it is always learned from a source, whether academic or otherwise. You can always cite your own notes of field research, quoting the people you interviewed or the books you examined in coming to your conclusions. You must certainly know that there is much humbug going on in the name of ecumenic spirit which lead to a jagat-kichari which is of little use in a serious religious pursuit. It should not, therefore, be surprising that people approach the topic with caution.



Any thoughtful person will consider both your words and the objections, assessing the evidence each can present. There was no restriction on the part of the moderators of the bulletin board to come forth and inquire further into the legitimacy of your theory.



I am certain that most of the audience has no objection to non-sectarian interfaith preaching, but as you have noted, it is not the theme of this forum. Our intention is rather specified, as the ongoing discussions are in general directed to, based on and circumambulating the writings of the Six Gosvamis and their immediate followers. That being said, you are always cordially welcome to participate in discussions on such topics in this forum; perhaps you may even learn something new from the roots of your own tradition.



It is evident from your mood and your expressed words that you have faced great opposition in your work; otherwise the posts in the Narasingha-thread on this board could have never caused such a reaction. Anyhow, at least you have my sympathy for the work, though my participation in this regard is limited to that which I am myself best acquainted with, namely the classical Gaudiya tradition and its theology.



I do not recall reading anyone challenge your authority in the realm of your expertise. Evidently there were two posts that upset you, (1) one of them noted that your writings should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt on account of the blurred distinction between the religious traditions, and (2) another one disagreed in two sentences on the identities of Mahakala and Narahari. The first one is well justified, given the specific attention of the forums and the related instructions of the acaryas on ekanta-bhakti and sajatiya-sadhu-sanga, and the other was a simple factual disagreement. It is surprising to me that they should be so much irritating and create a mood of challenge.

In my personal correspondence I am very accustomed to having my concepts challenged; what can I do but to patiently explain the subject matter with adequate evidence. One such attempt is available at http://www.raganuga.org where I attempt to concicely substantiate the theory and practice of raganuga-bhakti based on the textual evidence of the acaryas. If I would be upset every time someone challenged me, I would spend my days being upset, and on account of such mental agitation, would likely spend less time in remembrance of the Lord. The third verse of the Siksastakam, the garland around the necks of all practicing Vaishnavas, helps a long way in facing challenges.



You certainly do have every right to preach the basics, and indeed anyone who responsibly intends to present the message of Sri Caitanya to the mankind should do so. I wish all the success for your endeavors.



Certainly you know as an experienced preacher that one must present his message according to the eligibility of the audience. We all share the same ideals of devotion, as we draw from a common source; however, some people of this world are conditioned by the scientific view of the world, some are lost among the myriads of religious traditions, and others are bound with the ropes of a single tradition from which they draw the essence of their religious experience. To each one must preach accordingly.

As there is scarcity of experts in the realm of interreligious preaching, you will certainly admit that there is great scarcity in the realm of post-graduate studies of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. With your kind wishes, we may also succeed in our menial service.


Wishing you all the best,

Madhavananda das

Dear Bhakti Ananda,
Sorry I am unable to plow through the enormous volumes of stuff you write and I have only just read the above, so I will respond even though you have already left the forum.

I wrote that. I am also a scholar. I have the equivalent of a modern Masters from a recognised University in Interdisciplinary Asian Studies, including study of intercultural dynamics of Indian religion, eg Buddhism in China, with some reading of ancient texts. (Ni huishuo Zhongwen ma?)

You seem to have a problem with the scholar's process of peer review. When did you last submit your work to be judged by your peers? When did you last offer a paper or monograph to a scholar's journal? It's all very well to preach to a group of admirers or publish an article about 'India's Past' in a Delhi Newspaper (too easy!), but if you do not seek the criticism of your peers, then technically speaking, claims to scholarship become suspect. If you have undergone training you should be aware of this. Perhaps Religious Studies is a little less rigorous than other disciplines like History or Philosophy, if this review process isn't emphasised (sorry, a little inter-disciplinary rivalry. The obsession with French Theory has ruined the Academy anyway!)

Many devotees here are scholars, both professional and amateur. They accept criticism without complaint. I would say we are all subject to review by our peers here and that is a good thing.

As for me, as a scholar with skills in your field, I stand by what I said. And I can substantiate my assertion if necessary. I have thought of seeking you out on saragrahi.org to take you up on your challenge. Maybe I will, but what would be gained? Not only you, but many devotees with similar backgrounds have massive misconceptions about Vaishnavism and Gaudiyaism. I can't take them all on, or take responsibility for their spiritual lives. In fact if you just carefully read this Raganuga website, you will understand everything I have to say. It is all here.

I am praying that you will come back here sometime in an enquiring mood, and slowly read all the material here, which I feel would help you to refine your ideas and make them closer to the TRUTH, especially the truth about what is Gaudiyaism.

As it is, I find all your interdenominational ideas quite helpful, but your History is often pure speculation (either yours or your source's). Either get a better grounding in History or drop it. Western Devotion (and Sino-Tibetan Buddhism) and Raganuga are a good match. Stick with those.

And to honour your visit here, I have opened a thread on the topic of Interfaith Dialogue, where all the Vaishnava scholars can meet and discuss this important issue.

Respects,
Braj Mohan Das.

What is it that is being defended here anyways?

Mahaprahuji has said; all glory to Shri Krsna and I don't want any distinction adoration or the like.

my 2 cents

Sri Gauraanga: The tears that I shed are all false. They are simply meant to show others how great a devotee I am.

Sometimes a neophyte Vaishnava may consider that any discussion of management is a mundane affair, any discussion of position or individual qualification is boasting of the ego, and any discussion of money is materialism. How unfortunately limited such a vision is. It is rooted in the separatist perception of an individual who has not come to terms in perceiving this world as the Lord's energy, but is rather living in a phobia over it, trying to negate it altogether. And should that not suffice, he also feels inclined to taunt those whose perception is beyond his, but which he is incapable of perceiving.

That should put chatterboxes like us in place. I should have been more careful. However, in all discussions, there is this etiquette of presentation. Few words of humility, in addition to the facts (and personal qualifications) -- presented in temperate words, never hurt. In any case, this is personal opinion.

Kishalaya

I eternally bow my head before a person with such a vision, however for neophites like me, thoughtless involvement with the (Lord's) material energy in the name of devotional service, without any sense of apprehension of getting more entangled, is somewhat precarious. These days, vairagya part of "yukta vairagya" seems to be conveniently forgotten.

Kishalaya

I personally find it tiresome if someone in each and every message keeps saying, "although I am lowly and fallen and full of material desires, some words appear to be coming out of my mouth..." Especially so here, since Bhakti Ananda called for a presentation of academic qualification, which Braj Mohan certainly has, Braj cordially opened a scholar to scholar dialogue. If one scholar intends to challenge the views of another (who is proud of his position), it is unlikely that much will be achieved if the dialogue starts, "Though I am an unworthy speaker and lower than the worms in stool..."

I did not really refer to your posting as much as I did for the posting of our Guest, who apparently identified an antithesis of "na dhanaM na janam..." in the post of Braj Mohan. If anyone desires to comment on the motives, qualifications etc. of another posted, he should register and sign it with his own name to stand behind his words. Words of critique are easy to say under anonymity.

Braj was very polite in his opening of a dialogue, in my opinion to the point of being exemplary. It would behoove Bhakti Ananda to participate, should he actually be willing to stand behind his strong words.

Sometimes (especially on the internet) it indeed appears to be yukta-visaya instead more often than not. Would someone like to take up the topic in a separate thread?

Certainly, indeed, I had no idea that Mr. "Quest" was targetting Braj Mohan Daasa, nor was my remark directed towards him. That aside, I still feel, English, even though it may not have the qualification of being a divine descension like Sanskrit, has enough punch in it to convey the condition of the heart without serious degradation. (I am not an English teacher. I got pass marks in my 12th standard after which I was relieved to have gotten rid of it).

"although I am lowly and fallen and full of material desires, some words appear to be coming out of my mouth..."
"Though I am an unworthy speaker and lower than the worms in stool..."


"Though I do not say that I am above material desires and I must confess that my condition is such that I am not able to see how low I am (but it must true since the teachers of yore have repeatedly said so), I still have this desire in my heart to disribute some information I have collected through research which I feel would be beneficial to others. Wherever appropriate, kindly feel free to ask questions and provide corrections."

Kishalaya

I am reading this thread for the first time and having a bit of difficulty understanding the context. Where are the original article and the critique to be found?

My assessment of Bhakti Ananda Goswami's articles is pretty much the same as that expressed by his critics, though I am not averse to his general mission of reconciliation, etc. Vaishnavas can defintely stand to learn and borrow from other traditions and this should be encouraged. However, as I said on the other thread, over comparison ultimately fails to appeal to those committed to a certain path. Comparative religion becomes a path of its own that ultimately militates against raganuga, which is religious particularity at its apex.

Braja Mohan is right to feel, however, that Bhakti Ananda Goswami's reaction belies his claims to be a scholar. A scholar submits his work for peer review and after going through the hoops develops a rather hard skin about criticism. Nor would a scholar with integrity fall back on his "credentials" when called on to defend a particular position. After all, academia is full of people of various persuasions holding mutually contradictory positions. No one in his right mind argues that because the Sultan of Brunei let me use the bathroom in his palace I am qualified to speak on algebraic number theory. This is the opposite of "argumentum ad hominem." (apologia ab homine, I guess). And, I may add, a BA does not a scholar make.

I have more to say, but I am afraid I have to go.

They appear in another thread in this forum, dedicated to Narasingha Caturdasi.

Being devoid of academic background myself, let me ask what makes a scholar, and how is the credibility of the different varieties of scholars (a long-time student of a tradiiton with an academic background, a person well versed in the texts and/or history of a certain tradition, etc.) valued among the academica?

Scholar : a person who has made a thorough study of a subject and acquired a wealth of knowledge of that subject; one who is skilled in academic work. (Webster)

A B.A. honors degree usually initiates one into scholarship, but hardly qualifies one as a scholar. The Western academic standard is the publication of peer-reviewed articles, i.e. articles that recognize, show a knowledge of, and take into account the historical development of a particular discourse or discipline.

In other words, it is not really enough to know something in itself, but one must also be familiar with the discourse surrounding that thing. It is not enough to know Kant, one must also know what Hegel said about Kant.

Of course, a person with no degree whatsoever can be a genuine scholar just through the possession of an overwhelming curiosity.

As always, I Humbly take your judgements on my head, Jagatji, but I was simply responding to Bhakti Ananda. And you might note note that there are many people nowadays with MA after their name who did not do as much work as I did to get my BAHons. Such degrees are becoming cheaper, while BAHons remains quite difficult to get, so we BAHonists get a bit shirty about this double standard!

Really I was just echoing BA's rather vague claims back in a more concise way. I think my point about Peer Review is more central to the whole issue.

I see no better way to take BA on, and I feel strongly that someone must at least caution about the reliabliity of his 'work', don't you? Otherwise I see him leading the innocent astray.

Doesn't it worry you that so many PN Oaks are now emerging, especially in the West?

I was not so much responding to you, Adiyen, as to Bhakti Ananda Goswami, who seemed to want us to accept what he said on the basis of his credentials alone. I felt that he overreacted.

All in all, I find it odd that anyone's statements should be accepted just on the merit of his credentials, if the person is not inclined to back up his statements when prompted to do so.

I am actually a little sorry that I am sounding so critical of Bhakti Ananda Goswami. I have heard that his physical condition is very poor and furthermore that he has received bad treatment at the hands of certain fanatical factions of the KCM. This has made him sensitive to criticism of any sort. I don't wish anyone to think that I have anything against him. Indeed, I welcome the kind of work he is attempting to do and think his participation on a forum such as this would be welcome and could be quite interesting and helpful.

Yes, well this is difficult, and I initially tried to show my respect for his efforts, which are after all quite interesting. But having studied some of the same material as him I have for some time been annoyed by the way he presents it. (There I confess a personal grudge. I am also perhaps jealous of the attention he is getting).

Why is it so difficult to have discussions with some devotees?

I made the 'discovery' that Chinese Buddhists were Vaishnavas according to my Iskcon-cultured definitions in 1993-94. In those days going public with scholarship could get you banned from visiting Temples and 'shunned'. So this and other insights I kept to myself. The internet has changed everything. But when I found Bhakti Anandji declaring 'my' discovery as his own I was, I admit, feeling jealous and frustrated.

While I feel uncomfortable with the self-assertive tone Bhakti Ananda adopts, given my awareness of the dangers of going public with such insights, I can understand that such a stance is necessary in the circles he is in. And I can understand that he might think I am one of his mindless opponents.

So I apologise if I sound too harsh above.

My dandabat to all Vaishnavas.

Personally I find it difficult to relate to a person who appears to be holding a monologue. I tend to avoid discussions where a participant approaches the dialogue from the position of pre-assigned guru-hood. We might coin it rhetorical feedback inhibition.

Yes, well in my early Iskcon days we practised preaching to the Sunday Feast guests, and senior devotees would oversee our attempts. One felt that allowing the 'Karmis' to get a point in was like allowing oneself to be attacked by Maya. Why, the Karmis might even win the debate and we would feel 'Maya has won'.

So the result was indeed a monologue. I remember one devotee did his whole schpiel to a smiling guest. At the end the guy just said sarcastically 'You sure like the sound of your own voice!'

I can't help being amused by that story, Adiyen! It brings back many memories of so many instances of overzealous preachers trying to save the world and in the end just embarrasing themselves. Hopefully they have learned something from such experiences.