Saragrahi Specific Vision About Free Speech And Civility
Or
Let It Be Clear Who Is Most Welcomed To The Saragrahi Web Site, And Who Is Not.

In relation to free speech a wise man said:

“I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend with my life your right to say it.”

This attitude is profound. It attends to one of the most basic needs in thinking persons and demonstrates genuine respect for the individual in spite of whatever differences there may be.

The following is taken from an article posted on the "Old Saragrahi" in which this became an issue for some.  It expresses the sincere mood of a person resisting and protesting oppression; a person setting boundaries in order to avoid being violated:

“You want me to walk to your tune, and that is what I protest and resent, far more so than your point of view; for however you may justify it, the end result is that you and the civility brigade want me to function according to your lights, your realization, trying to make decisions for me that are my call to make.  Meanwhile, I want to function according to my realization. You are trying to dictate to me, and at the same time you imply that you desire free speech.  Well then, why do articles by you and others try to make me conform to your conception about how I ought to speak?  Is that free?”

The "New Saragrahi" facilitators wish to express this websites specific vision and position about free speech and civility. 

If we fail to honor this basic need of thinking men, aren’t we being uncivil?

Put another way, if on the plea of preventing feathers from being ruffled, we establish rules that deny a person the right to exercise his individuality, aren’t we ruffling his feathers?

And, ironically, in denying a person the right to speak as he chooses, aren’t we, while deliberating on the most personal philosophy, behaving impersonally?

This website thinks so.

“Free is that I say what I think, and you are free to read it or not.”  It keeps intact everyone’s freedom of expression, and if the faint-hearted find it threatening, let him or her observe and learn to deliberate more before speaking.

Saragrahi has a specific vision about free speech and civility. 

To call a point of view shallow sentiment, for example, is neither uncivil or a personal attack.  It is either true or untrue. That’s all.  And it simply calls for us to hold it up against the backdrop of our philosophy and reason.  It’s not that our ruffled feelings become the yardstick for whether the remark is exactly suitable and appropriate or not.  Actually, we should feel embarrassed at our foolishness and somewhat thankful that it was exposed, rather than focusing on “how” it was done.  How I felt and so on.  That is actual Vaishnava.

Bhaktivinoda made a distinction between those he considered madhyamas and komalas.  In a nutshell, the komala shraddhas (those with tender faith) tend to be very literal and simplistic in their spirituality, cleaving to tradition and so forth. And the madhyamas, well they tend to require a rational basis for their beliefs. They find great appeal in statements such as "worships Me with his intelligence." They get inspiration from things such as "speaks with logic and reason based on shastra and has faith that is not blind."  Therefore, Bhaktivinoda reckons that preaching that is inspiring to the komalas does not inspire the madhyamas, who find it somewhat infantile at least some of the time.  And preaching that is inspiring to the madhyamas, may ruin the faith of the komalas.  Moreover, Bhaktivinoda holds that most of the shastras and tikas (commentaries), etc. have been written for the komalas, or at least largely  with them in mind. 

Now, both of these types of seekers are eligible for Krishna bhakti.  Let us be clear on this point, and soon we will cite Srila Prabhupada on this very point.  However, having said that, let us point out that  these two types are not equally eligible for bhakti. Yes, the komala shraddha folk are not as eligible for bhakti as the madhyama.  Bhaktivinoda considers the madhyama on a better footing of eligibility than the komala shraddhas.  Hence his choice of "tender faith" to classify them. 

However, at any given moment in time, the komalas invariably outnumber the madhyamas. And there is a tendency for them to think that because of numerical majority that they have a better take on eligibility.  They filter philosophy so that they translate their simple faith into a virtue.  They think "We don't believe in all this rationality and so forth.  We already love Krishna so much.  We already accept so many things in the shastra.  We don't have all these doubts and questions.  We are fixed up."

They speak and quote the high-minded words of others without an iota of realization and would cut a comical figure if they were not so tragic in their skewered understanding. Comical because they remind the madhyama of a child putting on his father’s shoes, coat and hat, and bumbling along trying  to look, sound, and act as an adult, but ending up only as an amusement.  But they become tragic, because they are really stuck in that komala place.  Soft faith.  Whereas the madhyama attains firm faith because of understanding with clear logic and reason, based on the shastra.  He has unshakable faith. 

Komalas tend to make a mess of the scriptural reasoning in order to bolster their belief, their blind faith, which they also manage to convince themselves is not at all blind, but the real thing. Despite (or because of) this ability to twist their perceptions, Bhaktivinoda calls them persons of tender faith, komala shraddha.  

A madhyama, seeks other madhyamas for association to discuss the Absolute Truth on the basis of the mat citta mad gata pranah sloka of the Gita, and will canvass far and wide.  Madhyamas will give a  chance to people to find out if they are komalas or madhyamas by inclination.  In the end, however, the madhyamas focus on exchanges with other madhyamas rather than harm the faith of the komalas who may pitch up from time to time and even want to float arguments for blind faith, which some are more adept than others at hiding.  They usually try to present their anti-rational stance as a superior understanding of God, superior faith and so on.  Meanwhile, God Himself is saying, "The topmost devotee has faith that is not blind."  Why? Because such devotees have a rational approach to bhakti (logic and reason based on the shastra). 

In the Gita we find this verse (10:10):

“To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.” 

In the purport Prabhupada explains the madhyama eligibility in the course of explaining buddhi-yoga, which he says is a "very significant" word in the verse.  In fact he equates bhakti yoga with buddhi yoga: 

"In this verse the word buddhi-yogam is very significant. We may remember that in the Second Chapter the Lord, instructing Arjuna, said that He had spoken to him of many things and that He would instruct him in the way of buddhi-yoga. Now buddhi-yoga is explained. Buddhi-yoga itself is action in Krishna consciousness; that is the highest intelligence. Buddhi means intelligence, and yoga means mystic activities or mystic elevation. When one tries to go back home, back to Godhead, and takes fully to Krishna consciousness in devotional service, his action is called buddhi yoga. In other words, buddhi-yoga is the process by which one gets out of the entanglement of this material world. The ultimate goal of progress is Krishna. People do not know this; therefore the association of devotees and a bona fide spiritual master are important. One should know that the goal is Krishna, and when the goal is assigned, then the path is slowly but progressively traversed, and the ultimate goal is achieved." 

Then, two paragraphs later, Prabhupada explains the komala shraddha platform, stating that if the person is "not intelligent enough to make progress, then Krishna from within gives him instructions."  He mentions this point twice, to emphasize that the lack of intelligence can be a serious matter. And the implication is that while those persons may be successful in their bid for Krishna consciousness, they are not quite as eligible as the persons he described in the first paragraph of the same purport. 

"A person may have a bona fide spiritual master and may be attached to a spiritual organization, but still, if he is not intelligent enough to make progress, then Krishna from within gives him instructions so that he may ultimately come to Him without difficulty. The qualification is that a person always engage himself in Krishna consciousness and with love and devotion render all kinds of services. He should perform some sort of work for Krishna, and that work should be with love. If a devotee is not intelligent enough to make progress on the path of self-realization but is sincere and devoted to the activities of devotional service, the Lord gives him a chance to make progress and ultimately attain to Him." 

So, we have the komala party and the madhyama party and if we belong to one group, we are advised to leave the other group be, and vice versa.  In light of all this, understand that this site will give the opportunity for any one to determine their inclination in this regard.

By the very name, Saragrahi, this is a site for madhyamas not the komalas.  So if komalas did show up and were to find out that this is not for them and leave, what’s the difficulty?  We see no difficulty at all.  It is only a difficulty if we were invested in bleeding-heart notions about these matters.  But Bhaktivinoda didn’t confuse a bleeding heart with compassion.  He said his book was not for komalas. And so is this site.  

But if a bunch of komalas show up and try to make this into their facility, rationalizing their bid with sentiments about compassion, tolerance, the mission of Lord Chaitanya, not losing the newcomers, and so forth, then we see a lot of difficulty because the site becomes “Saragrahi” in name only.  Yet another Internet haven for devotees whose main merit is hovering in the same fetid space for the last 35 years and not in fact learning to be “the brain of the social body.”  Why can’t we have some facility for achieving this function?  

Komalas are mired in rutted thinking, convention, the social parampara, pseudo-substance, clichés, because they lack the brain capacity for independent thoughtfulness.  They invariably parrot philosophy.  They don’t hold the promise to be a true intelligent class.  This is our philosophy; it is not some brutal judgment.  They are not keen to become critical thinkers in other words.  So Bhaktivinoda held that discourse that is inspiring to them is simply trash to the madhyama, and preaching that inspires the madhyama may harm the faith of the komalas.

Saragrahi is a site for madhyamas to associate and exchange ideas in an atmosphere of critical thinking.  So if this does not work for “everyone” that shouldn’t be a surprise. Why lament about it?  

Isn’t this elitist?” Not at all.  It is no more elitist than the simple recognition of the fact that philosophy, I mean serious analytical dialogue about philosophy, the practice of hardheaded realism (which does not mean or imply absence of a soft heart) is for the few, and that is simply a fact of life.  For the masses, kirtan and prasadam.  But the mass doesn’t know this, you see.  So the mass will show up here from time to time and they will see that here critical thinking is practiced and social convention moves to the back row, and they will opt out and that’s good for those who are keen to be saragrahis.

When there is kirtan and prasadam, then “everyone” can be happy.  When there is philosophy, then “everyone” should not start chattering all at once.  Komalas can listen in, or go to another part of town.  Why is this problematic in any way whatsoever?  

The success of this site is not that everyone participates, or even a lot of people. The success is in the quality of the thinking that goes into participating, the degree of penetrative rational capacity that participants and observers develop, even if only four people. It would please Prabhupada, who was willing to be pleased if he made only ONE pure devotee. And we don’t doubt him.  So if this group leans towards soft-headedness, seeking to be popular, we would consider it a hands-down failure.

Mind you, komalas are always a majority, madhyamas are always a minority. By sheer numerical superiority, they want to meddle and dictate and impose their mediocre standard on others.  This will not happened on this site.

Since Prabhupada wanted to facilitate the practice of independent thoughtfulness and we have failed to create such an atmosphere for this practice in any locality that we are aware of.  Our hope is that this site would be the facility for that, having called the site Saragrahi,

The focus of those on Saragrahi is to seek essences, not to dictate how it should be put before them. So our own stuff comes under such scrutiny.  We believe this is a core value of the Bhagavata philosophy.   When readers of this site read a posting, the aim should be to extract essence and not make an issue of the author’s style or manner of presentation.  It is entirely up to each reader to sift the data and find the substance.

Compassion is to feel for person’s plight of being mired in illusion, gross and subtle.  And to cut through that is real compassion.  An author should not accept responsibility for others’ feelings.  An author should accept responsibility for his own feelings.  And an author should expect that on this site others will do likewise, because that’s such a rudimentary lesson of the Gita, rather than the societal idea of making others responsible for your feelings, which is a way to gag people from being honest with each other.  And if an authors style is objectionable to anyone, or people find there isn’t enough content in what the author offers, then they are free to skip over these efforts.  Anyone is free to skip over others that they find hollow or their style gets up their nose. That’s not to say that they would never make a suggestion about someone’s style, but to talk incessantly about it on the forum and to float simplistic “philosophy” to justify it, well, that’s just not a good stance for anyone.  Mostly everyone believes in freedom of speech.  But on this site we want to see intelligent speech. Why not?  This is “Saragrahi” after all.

In regards to “the newcomers”, which is of a big concern for may Vaisnava organization and thus they put a lot of significances on them.  This site is not oriented for the newcomers.  This is not a recruitment site.  Although newcomers are welcomed to come and listen and participate if they can, this is not the purpose of this site or its concern.  This site is all about old-timers developing their capacity to think clearly and so forth, penetrating the philosophy together?  Remember, the Sanskrit word for philosophy is darshana, meaning “to see.”  So what about that concern?  Why must everything be about recruiting while old timers are stagnating?”  What about bodhayantah parasparam, “preaching among themselves”?  Saragrahi is the ideal site for that.

Free speech is that anyone can say what he or she think, and everyone else is free to read it or not. There may be posts by certain persons that someone else will simply not read at all. There may be post by certain persons that someone else will simply just scan.  And there may be post by certain persons that someone else will never fail to read.  So this site’s approach is that all are free to speak and everyone else is also free to decide whom they tune in to or pass over.  That’s free speech.  Not the idea that we have to speak like this and like that because of “them,” “feelings,” and newcomers, and because when Prabhupada spoke frankly it was because he was with high-ranking people who were “proud.”

A site called Saragrahi should be somewhat intimidating, just by the nature of the enterprise. Yes, a wide variety is welcome and very nice, if they have something intelligent to say.  Saragrahi is not a safe place for stupidity.  Those who which to contribute varieties of verbal vomit, should be made to feel unwelcome. The pseudo-intelligent should not be encouraged, although they are also free to post; and indeed they will. And the downright asinine are also free to post, and indeed there will be some of them too.  And hopefully, if they listen, they will get a grip and control the urge to speak.  But Saragrahi will not encourage them, in the name of variety, or in the name of civility?

If someone posts foolish ideas, then s/he should expect them to get hashed, trashed, and mashed.  And if s/he has a true aptitude for being a saragrahi, s/he will be appreciative and stick around and learn how to hold their ground with logic and reason.  So anyone may speak and then stand or fall in the public, and if s/he is a twit and persists, then they may get an invitation to go to another part of town, and that’s good for them and for this site as well.

In all cases we should expect that our efforts would be put under rational critical scrutiny, because this is what madhyamas or saragrahis do, facing life with an alert analytical eye.  Not taking a 6 for a 9.  Blue for yellow.  Up for down.  Or doo-doo for halava.  It is their default way of functioning, you see.  But they do so against the backdrop of reason and philosophy, not social convention, the herd’s point of view, and the various sentiments we have taken on board in the name of philosophy and human decency, and worrying about “feeling” more than about whether people make good sense.  

Scott Peck is a man many people respect.  He is a thoughtful man.  He is so concerned about civility, he wrote a whole book about it, yet he also says this, about the person of integrity:

 “One of the things a calling to be an individual of integrity means is a calling to speak out, to be outspoken.  We are called to overcome the psychology of helplessness, of reticence.  If we see a lie, we are called to name it a lie.  If we see insanity, we are called to name it as such. . .  Yes, there are some who may find it upsetting, but perhaps they need to be upset.  There are others who will respond to your outspokenness with gratitude for that leadership that gives them the courage to speak out about it.”

You may say Scott is not a follower of Lord Chaitanya, but this site is saying that a follower of Lord Chaitanya in fact accepts this view of integrity wholesale, as indicated by quotes posted on this site by Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddhanta. We all should accept it.  Naming silly sentiments as such, calling lies lies, not being seduced by pseudo-philosophy, the whole nine yards, with malice towards none.  Like when friends spar in martial arts school.  It is to help both people, and your opponent is your friend, but you still throw the bugger 20 feet if you can.  Do you hate him?  Not at all.  Later, he can have dinner at your table.  That’s all.

Actually, even if there is ill intent, a lie is a lie is a lie.  And if we would all learn to be open and straightforward people, what a relief that would be for all of us.  What a foundation for love and trust.  But we use philosophy to obfuscate rather than clarify, because our real agenda is fear to be ourselves, fear to live with integrity in social interactions.  Fear to say, “My gracious, but you do talk a lot of drivel, Prabhu.”  Of course we baffle ourselves first with the philosophy and then things proceed from there.  And our other agenda is to be popular, giving or getting a nice stroking.  And if we meet someone who doesn’t go along, we start “preaching.” And if that doesn’t work, we try to isolate them from the herd.  We who are serious about simple living and high thinking should be alert to all this foolishness

According to Prabhupada, writing is for the smart ones, those of brahminical nature.  Not for all and sundry.  Makes a shipload of sense.  So the Forum is open to anyone to have a go and not say something “tooo foolish,” but for those who can’t cut it, give us a break, move to the side.  Listen.  Or else we will give your drivel the treatment it deserves.  We won’t be reticent and helpless, while privately thinking, “Gee whiz, what a jerk.”

As a matter of fact, Saragrahi is a great place to sort this all out, but first you have to be willing to deal with people who call a spade a spade, people whose first concern is making sense and NOT making each other feel warm and fuzzy.  So, if anyone is going to wince too much and invoke “civility” then that soul is pretty much in the wrong part of town.  No big deal, really, just call a cab and move on out.

This site is not at all interested in encouraging “everyone.”  It is interested in encouraging the smart ones.  Let the non-smart go somewhere else.  Practically the whole rest of the devotee world is geared up for the non-smart segment.  So this site is one place where the smart can confer and churn this philosophy for a change.  This mood is in total agreement with our philosophy, which divides society into four classes according to nature, in which the guru teaches the smartest ones about Brahman, and they become the brain of the social body, and non-smart wallahs get the rudiments and other stuff, ranging from administration down to labor.

We may preach and canvas widely, but then we should boil the milk, as Prabhupada wanted.  For the mass, “kirtan and prasadam and a little philosophy,” but on this site, why make it all about the mass?  Why not has a site to encourage the bright people?  This site is totally about that.  What moral or philosophical grounds can anyone give to refute this idea?

ISKCON and other Vaishnava groups are an embarrassing mess.  A community that caters to the morons, that fosters morons; a community about simple thinking and high living instead of the other way around.  Devotees can quote this and cite that, but they can’t think clearly for beans, which is to say they are not even experiencing the equilibrium symptomatic of sattva guna, what to speak of going beyond that.  Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?  And when you point out their stupidity to them, rather than pause and update their thinking, invariably they compound their folly by going into mudha overdrive and accuse you of not having humility, of being offensive, and a host of other programmed reactions, and defenses against reality. What a farce. Some call it the twit factor.

Meanwhile, Prabhupada wanted us to boil the milk.  He wanted class, not mass. This is not just the interpretation of Saragrahi.  So Saragrahi is a site with this emphasis.  This site is not for the masses.  Even if this site is a facility for only four or five participants who mostly say something of substance, who stimulate each other and those who read them, who give each other and those who read them something to think about, or who give a new insight or a fresh take on an old one. Yes, this site is for them.

Here, philosophy and reason sit in the place of honor and the rest of us sit on the floor.  And we can speak our minds and then have it mulled over in light of the philosophy and reason.  And if someone doesn’t make sense it will show.  No big deal in that.  But if someone is absurd, not yielding to philosophy or reason, or is simply clueless about how to conduct rational discourse, yet can’t zip up, then that will be dealt with summarily at some point, and the sooner the better.  The upshot is that those who ride out the process learn to think for themselves, they learn independent thoughtfulness, and this is something Prabhupada wanted in his followers.  Those who like their thinking to come in a can are welcome to go elsewhere.