Tweet
Re: Case v. Gabbard
Interesting essay on the-hamster.com regarding the Hawaii US Congressional Race
Interesting essay on the-hamster.com regarding the Hawaii US Congressional Race
Ed Case made a mistake.
His mistake was not his questioning Gabbard's religious affiliations. Rather, his mistake was to question Gabbard's affiliations to a non-profit organization (seemingly religious focused).
Two words; plausible deniability.
His direct question should have been; "Are you a disciple of Chris Butler, AKA Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, AKA Prabhupad?" or "did you take initiation in the Holy Names of Krishna (AKA "Harinama diksa" in sanskrit) from Chris Butler AKA (etc.)?" Of course, it's now too late to change it.
Hypothetically, you can deny affiliation to an organization/institution easily. And you can tell the truth in the process! Just say "I quit" to the receptionist. Heck, let's say you quit a religious corporation. You could do that, and still attend services. That's not a problem. As the Jehovah's Witnesses would say, it's "Jesus' law, versus Cesar's law". You couldn't even call it a lie.
On the other hand, it is taboo for a disciple of a guru in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition (the tradition which Jagad Guru claims affiliation) to deny one's guru. In some circles, it's even likened to when Peter denied affiliation with Jesus on Holy Thursday.
It's sort of laughable how Gabbard made light of Ed Case's question list, while simultaneously creating www.mikegabbardreligion.com to deny affiliation to SIF, while finding time and space to pay respects to Butler. Gabbard simultaneously calls Case's questioning ridiculous, while unwittingly giving credit to Case by purchasing a new domain and website to deny an organization which Gabbard makes claims the founder "helped inspire (him) to return to (his) Catholic roots and the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ."
It's also been brought to this writer's attention, that the creator(s) of www.mikegabbard.info have been threatened with a lawsuit by SIF or Gabbard, for insinuating a connection between the two, and for copywrite infringement (presumably, for showing a clip of Butler's TV show "Jagad Guru Speaks" during which the Gabbards laugh at Butler's cynical remarks toward Christianity).
Anyone who knows Chris Butler even on a rudimentary level is aware that he has not appeared in public since the late 1970's, early 1980's. His sole link to the public is a television show. However, he will not appear "in the flesh".
Apparently, since his breakaway from the cultish Krishna organization ISKCON in 1977, Butler contends that members of ISKCON's managerial arm, "The GBC", have been conspiring assassinate him. Several seemingly impartial devotees from neither ISKCON nor SIF seemed to confirm that an attempt was made in the late 1970's. Since then, Butler has been laying low in Lanikai and Malibu. Even to this day, anyone who so much as wants a glimpse of Chris Butler in the flesh (they call it "Darshan"), must be screened carefully by Butler's disciples.
To avoid preceived violence against his person, and to avoid outside questionings of his doctrines, there are no outsiders at darshans and lectures. He detests ISKCON, and more recently, Hare Krishna cult Kingpin Narayana Maharaja's organization for canvassing the manager of Butler's Philippines temple in January 2000, Mahabhav das, who now resides in NM's main temple in India.
Therefore, I would believe that by Gabbard's appearance on Butler's television show, he is a full-fledged initiated disciple of Chris Butler. In the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, your guru comes first, family 2nd, friends 3rd, and constituents last. On mikegabbardreligion.com, all he did was deny affiliation to SIF, which, as stated at the beginning of this essay, is something very easy to do. Case's questions, as insightful as they were, unwittingly gave Gabbard a considerable amount of "wiggle room" in vaguely, yet truthfully, answering legitimate questions which constituents have a right to know in detail.
His mistake was not his questioning Gabbard's religious affiliations. Rather, his mistake was to question Gabbard's affiliations to a non-profit organization (seemingly religious focused).
Two words; plausible deniability.
His direct question should have been; "Are you a disciple of Chris Butler, AKA Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, AKA Prabhupad?" or "did you take initiation in the Holy Names of Krishna (AKA "Harinama diksa" in sanskrit) from Chris Butler AKA (etc.)?" Of course, it's now too late to change it.
Hypothetically, you can deny affiliation to an organization/institution easily. And you can tell the truth in the process! Just say "I quit" to the receptionist. Heck, let's say you quit a religious corporation. You could do that, and still attend services. That's not a problem. As the Jehovah's Witnesses would say, it's "Jesus' law, versus Cesar's law". You couldn't even call it a lie.
On the other hand, it is taboo for a disciple of a guru in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition (the tradition which Jagad Guru claims affiliation) to deny one's guru. In some circles, it's even likened to when Peter denied affiliation with Jesus on Holy Thursday.
It's sort of laughable how Gabbard made light of Ed Case's question list, while simultaneously creating www.mikegabbardreligion.com to deny affiliation to SIF, while finding time and space to pay respects to Butler. Gabbard simultaneously calls Case's questioning ridiculous, while unwittingly giving credit to Case by purchasing a new domain and website to deny an organization which Gabbard makes claims the founder "helped inspire (him) to return to (his) Catholic roots and the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ."
It's also been brought to this writer's attention, that the creator(s) of www.mikegabbard.info have been threatened with a lawsuit by SIF or Gabbard, for insinuating a connection between the two, and for copywrite infringement (presumably, for showing a clip of Butler's TV show "Jagad Guru Speaks" during which the Gabbards laugh at Butler's cynical remarks toward Christianity).
Anyone who knows Chris Butler even on a rudimentary level is aware that he has not appeared in public since the late 1970's, early 1980's. His sole link to the public is a television show. However, he will not appear "in the flesh".
Apparently, since his breakaway from the cultish Krishna organization ISKCON in 1977, Butler contends that members of ISKCON's managerial arm, "The GBC", have been conspiring assassinate him. Several seemingly impartial devotees from neither ISKCON nor SIF seemed to confirm that an attempt was made in the late 1970's. Since then, Butler has been laying low in Lanikai and Malibu. Even to this day, anyone who so much as wants a glimpse of Chris Butler in the flesh (they call it "Darshan"), must be screened carefully by Butler's disciples.
To avoid preceived violence against his person, and to avoid outside questionings of his doctrines, there are no outsiders at darshans and lectures. He detests ISKCON, and more recently, Hare Krishna cult Kingpin Narayana Maharaja's organization for canvassing the manager of Butler's Philippines temple in January 2000, Mahabhav das, who now resides in NM's main temple in India.
Therefore, I would believe that by Gabbard's appearance on Butler's television show, he is a full-fledged initiated disciple of Chris Butler. In the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, your guru comes first, family 2nd, friends 3rd, and constituents last. On mikegabbardreligion.com, all he did was deny affiliation to SIF, which, as stated at the beginning of this essay, is something very easy to do. Case's questions, as insightful as they were, unwittingly gave Gabbard a considerable amount of "wiggle room" in vaguely, yet truthfully, answering legitimate questions which constituents have a right to know in detail.
Comment