Re: Diary of chanting aspirant

Nityananda, Gauranga, Hare Krishna.

 

Hagiographies come in two kinds: practical and critical. The former ones tend to stretch the truth and was used to instruct the 'common people'. It has a pejorative reference to the works of contemporary biographers and historians whom critics perceive to be uncritical and even "reverential" in their writing. A practical hagiography is by no means a biography. On the other hand, a critical hagiography, using a scientific approach, focuses on dry facts only. Though these dry facts always seem to be put aside as 'too mundane'... Yet these facts are a part of the truth as well. Why should this part of the truth than be considered as blasphemy? Or criticism? Or an insult? And why neglect these facts anyway?  All this muddling doesn't do any good to the teaching/learning process itself.

 In the Christian tradition, scientists are continuously searching for new evidence/proof of what is written in the Bible. The fact that they once and a while make very impressive discoveries, give us new insights (cf Qumran scrolls). At least they try to tell the “facts-as-they-are”. Combine this with what one knows about the Holy Bible and faith can become even more solid. Also look at the hagiography by Pope Gregorius on St Benedictus. At least that's a nice mixture of both a practical and critical hagiography and lots can be learned from it.

 >>But what if it does not stick to the truth? <<
This seems to be the part where the shoe pinches. What do we accept as the truth and which part of the truth is not at all acceptable? This raises yet another question: which veil should be thrown over that part we don't like to hear? The answers are stereotypic. Either one is not pure enough to understand it, or if one is an erudite person, the typical answer is that even a most learned person cannot comprehend the actions of a pure devotee. That uneasy part of the truth can also be rejected as blasphemy, causing fall down, ... What a waste and what a pity!

>>A factual and highly respectful hagiographical biography of an Acharya will certainly tell us how a great soul become a saint for our inspiration.<<
You said it yourself: "tell us how a great soul become a saint". This person already is a great soul. It doesn't tell about their struggles and, more important, how they overcame these obstacles on their way to God. There's no teaching by example here and the disciple is left on his own again. He has yet again to find out for himself...

 Therefore, the reactions I've read on this topic are very disappointing, indeed. I at least was hoping for a very open minded approach to the truth.

Damodara Svarupa dasa

Comment on this Post