Stick around for Srila Gour Govinda Swami's purport which starts 4 minutes into Part 1. Although the experience may not be comfortable for us given our cultural conditionings, see how long you can put yourself into the shoes of the person being chastised. Do you feel like arguing back? Standing up and walking out of the room? Starting a website to criticize him? Or are you genuine enough in your estimation of yourself to appreciate the loving effort made to alleviate the suffering?

"Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work."

- Peter Drucker

Your body may be ugly as sin, but if you smile you look attractive.

Your body may be a perfect 10, but if you don't smile you look unattractive.

Perhaps this isn't so profound of a realization, but it's something I've been thinking of lately.

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

I'm not sure who wrote this but I like it.

"Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial."

 

Let's face it; sectarianism is dumb.

It provides many people these days a seemingly reasonable alibi to avoid acknowledging any concept of a Supreme Being in their lives. In recent years there have been a few bestseller books positing the idea that many of the ills of society can be attributed to not just religious sectarianism, but religion in and of itself. These authors explain theistic contemplation as an undesirable remnant of our evolutionary progress from primordial goo to an Anglo-saxon academic.

For those who accept that there is a God, sectarianism is a hindrance towards developing a relationship with Him. The mentality that "God only loves us" or "We are the only one's who know God" is difficult for any serious devotee of any tradition to maintain - simply because it's not true.

Nonetheless, it seems as if when we human beings turn towards divinity and ponder upon the absolute we can get pretty contentious with one another. Indeed, some of the most horrific acts in recorded history have been perpetrated by those who claim divine authority.

So I try to avoid a sectarian outlook, or any mentality that God favors me over anyone else. In my experience, members of ISKCON readily accomodate such liberal aspirations. In the communities I've participated in, anyone who carries such an exclusive perspective on themselves has a difficult time earning the respect of their peers. After all, who appreciates someone who looks down on everyone around them? Many times I've heard devotees say, "If we meditate on the good of others, we take on those good qualities. If we meditate on the bad in others we take on those bad qualities." Such is the power of association.

Still, the truth must be understood. If we observe something that is clearly insidious, making such discrimination is desirable. We may also need to communicate such observations to family and friends that we have a responsibility towards in order to edify or, at least, protect them.

So criticism isn't always wrong, neither is it always right. We must learn how to discriminate in such a way that helps us to avoid the undesirable and, at the same time, avoid making offense which is also undesirable.

How do we know when our 'discrimination' has turned into 'fault-finding'? I think this is a matter of personal introspection. We have to try to see our motivation.

Do we honestly wish the best for the person we are criticising? If not then we should be very cautious that we aren't guilty of even worse maliciousness than we are trying to condemn. 

Are we completely certain that our observations are correct? Wrongly accusing a person of something for which they are innocent is a grave error with huge karmic consequences.

Are we over-confident in our ability to read others' motivations?  This is a bad habit that we can smugly slip into. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately interpret the multi-dimensional realm of what motivates people to do either good or bad deeds.We mortals just don't have the ability to conclusively determine such areas of subtlety. Best to be humble.

These same questions can also be asked collectively. Does our religious group honestly wish the best for those we are condemning or are we content that they will just 'suffer in hell for all eternity'? I should point out that I've not encountered any ISKCON member who thinks this way. Growing up in the 'Bible-belt' of the USA, however, this was standard fare. Two different denominations would have church services across the street from each other and both would think that the others were doomed to hell for not accepting the particular tenets of their tradition.

Thus far I've discussed, as far as I'm able, the type of fault-finding that ordinary upright people contend with. I'm just sharing my personal thoughts based on my own experience and struggles, I don't claim any supernatural ability to understand this subject matter. I hope nobody takes anything I've written as conclusive truth.

Just recently I was shown an example of fault-finding that seems to take the art to a whole new level. Apparently if you are truly dedicated to criticising someone, once you've exhausted the areas where you honestly feel there are shortcomings, you can then just make up new faults and start criticising those. 

See for yourself: Watch video here.

“Rasa is not a part of sadhana. Therefore if somebody says: ‘Come, I will teach you rasa’, then it will be his wickedness or foolishness. Rasa is not the subject of knowledge but of taste.

"It is not helpful for a conditioned soul to meditate upon the asta kaliya lila (the eight daily pastimes) of Sri Sri Radha Krishna because one who is unqualified will commit aparadhas".

According to Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur there are two features of Lord Caitanya's personality. Audarya and Madhurya. Preaching is Audarya (magnanimity) and Raga Marga is Madhurya (conjugal feelings). No one can relish Madhurya without Audarya.

This point is very well described in Sri Navadvip Dham Mahatmya in Chapter 18. Lord Nityananda tells Srila Jiva Goswami: "One who is qualified in madhurya-rasa worships Gauranga in the form of Radha and Krishna. As Radha and Krishna have combined in one form as my Gauranga Raya, Their pastimes do not appear to be manifest in His form. When the worship of Gauranga in dasya-rasa reaches full maturity in the heart of the living entity, madhurya-rasa naturally develops in his heart. At that time one's worship of Gaurahari qualifies him to worship Radha and Krishna in Vrindavan".

Worship of Gauranga in dasya-rasa is preaching. We are not advised to imitate Gauranga's internal feelings but we are advised to serve Him in dasya. This will qualify us for Madhurya rasa.

Words from Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura:

Give up the shackles of matter slowly. Cultivate your spirit inwardly. Give up prejudices which you have acquired from the so-called rational thinkers who deny the existence of spirit.

Be humble in yourself and learn to respect those who work towards spiritual attainments. Do these with your heart, mind and strength in the company of spiritual people alone and you will see Krishna in no time.

Krishna is not an imaginary Being, nor have you a right to think that He is a material phenomenon, fancied to be the Supreme Being by the fools. Krishna is not understood by the process of distinguishing the subjective from the objective, nor He is to be accepted as an imposition on the people set up by designing men.

Krishna is eternal, spiritually true, reflected on the human soul when relieved of all pressure of gross matter, and is the subject of love which proceeds from the soul. Accept Him as such and you will see Him in your soul's eye. Words fail to describe that Transcendental Being.

The highest, best and most spiritual ideal of the Divinity is in Krishna. To bring arguments against Him is simply to deceive one's self and deprive himself of the blessings that God has kept in store for man. Hence, all descriptions of His Name, Person, Attributes and Lila should be accepted spiritually, giving up the material portion which words must necessarily convey.

From: Sri Caitanya--His Life and Precepts

Excerpt from The Bhagavata: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its Theology by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura

"The Bhagavata teaches us that God gives us truth as He gave it to Vyasa: when we earnestly seek for it. Truth is eternal and unexhausted. The soul receives a revelation when anxious for it. The souls of the great thinkers of the bygone ages, who now live spiritually, often approach our inquiring spirit and assist in its development. Thus Vyasa was assisted by Narada and Brahma. Our Shastras, or in other words, books of thought, do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father. No book is without its errors. God's revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th Skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be.

Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from within, "No, Vyasa! You cannot rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of bygone days. You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the fountainhead of truth, where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind." Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so.

Liberty then is the principle which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love."