The devotees of KBM keep on publishing refutals on siddhantical disagreements which are technical in nature. This is exactly what is needed when arguing siddhanta. It has to be technical.
For most of us lay people this debate is difficult to enter. We don’t have enough background and effort to really get into it (because damn it, we have a life to attend to).
There are many layers to this debate which increases the complexity of these issues and by being aware of them, we can slowly unravel some of it:
- Who is rupanuga?
- Can our parampara only consist of manjaris?
- Did Gurudeva deceive us and how am I supposed to make sense of it?
- Senior devotees disagrees and it never seems to end
- There are strong emotions on both sides and I find it difficult to understand it
- Senior devotees I previously admired are loosing my esteem
- Who can we put our faith in as there seem to be backstabbing from anybody towards anybody with some following?
- The sanga is splitting into groups who seem to be unable to talk to each other
- Everybody is crying up about vaishnava aparadha everytime there is a problem
- Empathy, see an issue from multiple sides and learn the ability to differentiate
- Accepting flaws in others and may be admitting our own
No wonder this is uncomfortable for most of us to dive into, but if we do we will be richer for it. The siddhantical differences is especially important for us as this has broader implications for who we accepts as Gurus and take siksa from.
This debate will never end until one side has won, because this is about preserving the truth and Gurudevas legacy. I want to emphasize the last one, because its important: We need to preserve Gurudevas legacy from watering down until it becomes unrecognizable.
The Gaudiya Vedanta publications are run by those who believe that only those who have manjari moods are rupanugas and can be in the guru parampara. This becomes problematic if Gurudevas books becomes edited to suit their belief.
We are entering a situation where what editions a book is in matters. This is just like the “as it is” books of Srila Prabhupada. The editing of Srila PRabhupadas books was very controversial after His disappearance, and the consequence was that many of the books are now sold “as it is” – the original books without editing. Personally, I have several of those books as I find them more appealing.
Now I find myself wishing I knew Hindi so I could read Gurudevas words exactly as he intended them so the only lack there is, is in me. This is creating a dangerous precedence. Please, please – can we avoid a situation where we don’t trust the books published with Gurudevas name as author on them? Can we avoid an “as it is” situation on Gurudevas books?
I truly believe that GVP should issue a statement on this which specifically targets the changes and how GVP will treat siddhantical disagreements. Not Syamarani, but GVP so that we can feel secure that we can trust Gurudevas books.
Doing translations of Gurudevas lectures is difficult as there are varying degrees of sound quality, people speaking on top of each other, understanding the context, so many different people talking and one don’t always know who and not the least: so much can be said so quickly and humor and body language and gestures are lost. We appreciate the work being put into it.
I hope we avoid an “as it is” situation. Preserving Gurudevas legacy is too important.