Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

they also edit articles...

I had several comments not posted on Dandavats over the last two years. Some were actually very mild. Lately he started emailing me whenever he decides not to post my comments. Most of the comments he did not post had an element of criticism in them.

In regard of latest poll I suggest that since they are paid by Ambharish they would at the end of discussion screen out all negative responses and ONLY publish supporting or selective posts to give a false impression that discussion concluded in favor of what GBC already approved.

I have posted the following reply to the question about the corner stone and where it was laid, I wonder what was so critical in it?

>Srila Prabhupada had laid corner stone for the new temple - twice! And in different locations. It may be the '91trancendental'92 reason for the uncertainty or delays. One corner stone was laid with Brahmananda in the fields towards the Taranpur village, close to the location or in the direction of 1990s design proposal. Second corner stone was laid in the proximity of the present day pushpa-samadhi. So I guess the argument that was based on a simple supposition that the plan had already been given to us by the Founder/Acharya Srila Prabhupada'94 need some disambiguation.
Of course first corner stone was laid in the location where we did not own the land and second time he laid the corner stone for the design that was already approved, in 1977, but that design would not fit on the land ISKCON owned. It was sadly coincidental with the period when terrible tensions resulted in a violent conflict and some deaths, and imprisonment of the GBC man in Mayapur as a result, so the original approved version of the design was reviewed and shelved.
We need to be honest and straightforward. If this is the design that Ambharisa Prabhu and his friends want, then we should say, let them build it, after all book distribution does not generate money for the design as it was supposed to do, or does it? BBT does not pay for it from the Indian fund or does it? So money talks. If that what it is lets improve this design and make it practical and as much as possible not just a mix of a few western or Mogul prototypes.
But is this what Ambharish just said: he does not consider the taste of the devotees who comment on the design important at all? He also does not seems to anticipate an opposition of Church-like building from both neo-Hindu fundamentalists and the communist government, who has every right to stop such an oversize project. But does anyone have a desire or a power to change the views of Ambharish Prabhu? I just can not see anyone who can. I would however insist that a local bank issued a performance bond to any work, as to ensure if work is not completed, someone will pay for completion. It would be a form of insurance to see that the disaster of shutting over the budget did not occur. One have to be honest and admit that the hight of the domes leave us at the benevolence of the West Bengal communist officials, and we will not have much support from central government as well, as the design of the domes is pseudo-christian or even resembling the mosque.

CCD, you should write a separate article and post it on Dandavats. If they refuse, post it on Sampradaya Sun. I never knew about two cornerstone laying ceremonies done by Srila Prabhupada.

Ive had several comments blocked there, and one that was edited so it looked like I was dumb or didnt know how to write. (Praghosa deleted the main paragraph, but kept a reference to something Id written in it elsewhere in the comment.) I had a little e-mail exchange with him over it, but he wouldnt tell me how it violated their editorial policy. Other than occasionally editing borderline comments, which I said I did not approve, he refused to indicate what was wrong with any comment he didnt like. Basically if its something he doesnt want to publish, he just deletes it without saying why.

It would be interesting to see all the comments that dont get published.

...its just a warm and fuzzy Iskcon PR site,take for instance the story about child-beater Guari das:
" Official Statement from Bhaktivedanta Manor "... 1,997 views and... " Comments are closed. Please check back later."

He used to publish articles from the Japa Group, which is based on quotes from Srila Prabhupadas books and doesnt deviate from any of his teachings....I emailed him a few times about this and his replies didnt make sense to me (too many quotes etc.)....cant figure out his standards but I respect his right not to include it.

Dandavats refused to publish almost all my comments. I never got any email from them, requesting me to change anything. Comment was just not published. Later I started writing under another name, and thus some comments passed through. But it is not worthed. I will not comment on Dandavats anymore, they support just one sided view.

http://www.dandavats.com/?p=6459#comment-9520

-----
Dear Kurma Prabhu,

Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I understand that no reasonable person would want to be confused with someone else, but Im surprised that anyone is mistaking the other Kurma prabhu, "not the chef," with you. Naturally we do not own these names, but rather we are named after the Lord and His greatest devotees. There is little anyone can do about the fact that someone else may share the same name. For some reason it is Krishnas arrangement.

I know, for example, that there is another Pandu Das somewhere, a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, but I dont know anything else about him, so its hard to distinguish myself from him. Perhaps he is irritated that I use my initiated name; or maybe he doesnt know I exist. I guess I could use my English name, except that I share my first and last name with over a hundred other men, and even if I include my middle initial there are probably about a dozen others. So what to do?

Personally I am very appreciative of your contribution to Lord Caitanyas mission, and I am just as appreciative of the other Kurma prabhus contribution. The irony perplexes me when one devotee critically points to another devotee and calls him a faultfinder. At this very moment a tape of Srila Prabhupada is playing in my ear, and he is saying, "Bhakti means we have to become free from these designations... On account of these designations, we are each others enemies." (SB 1-07-02, Durban 1975-10-04 http://www.prabhupadavani.org/main/Bhagavatam/107.html )

In the years I spent studying Srila Prabhupadas books before I ever got much devotee association, I read that Krishna consciousness is nonsectarian. With such education from Srila Prabhupadas books, I have never been able to understand the divisions between the various Vaishnava groups. I long for the day when we learn to cooperate and appreciate each others service.

"'93So the Vaisnava, therefore, will have no politics. Politics means planning for one'92s own happiness. That is politics. So in our society there should be no diplomacy, no politics. Everyone should be eager how to do good to others. That is Vaisnava. If he'92s planning something, that '93I shall be leader,'94 '93I shall be doing something,'94 that is not Vaisnavism. That politics is not good.'94 - A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami (March 15, 1974, Vrindavana)

Please forgive if my writing accidentally offends. Hare Krsna.
---------

Personally, I dont mind having a "warm and fuzzy" ISKCON site. But Dandavats should call it for what it is. There are plenty of sites where devotees can post whatever they want without the comments being censored. Some of them simply like they were simply created for in the name of having "a friendly debate". If I want to hear devotees rip other devotees to pieces, I can go there. Regardless, practically everyone is on the Internet these days, so if I an article doesnt make the cut on Dandavats, it is almost certain it can be read elsewhere.

Tamal (can I call you that) - I do not know if you know of all the comments that did not get posted for example mine one regarding Radhas wages for Krishnas sages:-)

So I wrote here http://www.dandavats.com/?p=6541
----------------------------

I found it particularly interesting to hear a definition where, as it seemed, such a clear line was drawn between those who are maintained and others e.g. congregational devotees. I welcomed some later comments where a lady (I think Malati) stressed that the definition was too much about dependent devotees in direct contrast to congregation. Quite a few comments, especially when devotees were trying to highlight what contribution non-maintained devotees can do, sounded as if they were limiting what type of services they can do. It almost suggested that if one does not reside in the temple, one can not be a preacher, can not be a pujari and can not be kirtaniya:-). A very notable I must say discovery, as I always thought that such segregation is highly counterproductive. Well at least we are not to be kirtaniyas for hire..

It will be highly unlikely to see this being fully resolved, but it appears that the movement in the right direction is being made. The danger is of course is if only semantics are changed and instead of the word salary a different word is being used - dependents allowance. Just by calling something differently, the essence will not change. To change the essence, one needs to encourage unmotivated, enthusiastic and ultimately unpaid service, but any step in that direction is a good thing, as you can not measure devotional service in dollars (not even if you follow the suggestion of Pragosha:-) to convert it all in gold as soon as possible). At the same time it has to be clearly an attractive feature - both materially and spiritually, to live in the temple.

I would suggest as a solution that salaries/maintenance allowances are not awarded by the temple or temple authority in the form of a contract, but rather donated by the congregational community board on a monthly basis. It will not only make community more involved, but will create (as suggested by Ravindra Swarup) an independent brahamana type of sevaks, not a sudra-like dependents.

It would be a nice thing to hear the question "Why Prabhupada was so specific and said, repeatedly, that no salaries should be paid?" in discussion. I guess if one answers it correctly, the solution is just around a corner.

From a more practical perspective, even it was touched by the discussion, the key should be not how to retain devotees in the temple (pensions / maintenance), but how to invite and engage devotees who are outside (96% that is). Good direction at 4%. What about the rest?
--------------
I guess I was a bit critical of the fact that they consider outside devotees a second class, but that is a given in the so called Varanasrama system of Krishnavalley. (see also: a bigger picture report from the Hungary congregation: http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/10-08/editorials3431.htm)

ccd:
It is published here as well:
http://notdandavats.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/wages-for-sages/
for the record...

It is kind of a dead site? It looks very lonely there... anyway thanks I guess.