Pizza or Pakoras: Two Sides of the Same Coin
BY: ROCANA DASA
Feb 01, CANADA (SUN) — In this article, I'd like to address some of the issues that have been discussed in the Sampradaya Sun in recent months on the subject of sannyasa. In particular, Hridayananda das Goswami was the focal point of the discussion. In previous articles I've offered commentary on the conflict within ISKCON between what is considered to be the conservative and liberal influence. Within the ranks of the leadership, these two camps have been in conflict with one another for quite some time now. The lines of disagreement are evident in the article by Braja Bihari dasa entitled "Pizza or Pakoras: Reconciling Conservative and Liberal Viewpoints in ISKCON (Nov 2005)". Given the fact that the ISKCON Communications Journal seems to have removed this article, and it has disappeared almost everywhere on the Net, we suggest our readers download and archive their own copy of the document.
Prior to the reported health problems that seem to have taken him out of the limelight, the GBC had given Braja Bihari das responsibility for the ISKCON Resolve program. People in authority had concluded that Braja Bihari had the necessary higher knowledge to help reconcile differences between devotees. Whether that's true or not is a matter of opinion, and it's a matter of knowledge. We get an interesting glimpse of the early days of ISKCON Resolve in an article by Arnold M. Zach, entitled: "Dispute Resolution in a Hindu Setting: Developing a Global Program for the Hare Krishnas" (2004):
"In early 2001, Braja Bihari (Brian Bloch), an American devotee living in India, requested the ISKCON ISKCON leadership to sponsor his investigation of a dispute settlement program. Later that year I was contacted by a devotee who related some of the internal concerns confronting ISKCON and its governing body, the GBC, and asked to assist in the effort. After some exploratory contacts with religious experts outside ISKCON to assure myself that I was not being lured into the web of some self serving cult, I agreed to meet with some American leaders in their community in Alachua, Florida, to discuss in greater depth some of the problems facing the institution and its membership."
Interestingly enough, like 'Pizza or Pakoras', this article also seems to have been removed from the ISKCON Communications Journal website, and is only available in cache. The fact that articles on the liberal/conservative split are by scrubbed from the archives doesn't help matters when the rank and file devotees, who are not included in this exclusive club, already have a difficult time understanding the nature of the conflict and how it impacts Srila Prabhupada's original movement.
We encourage interested readers to regularly monitor the ISKCON Communications Journal, which has been one of the only venues in which the GBC members and the scholars and authorities they support are publishing their viewpoints on various philosophical matters for public consumption. Unfortunately, relatively few devotees read it, and few still offer any critical analysis. As we see in the case of 'Pizza or Pakoras', at one point in time Braja Bihari was permitted to give us a peek into what was going on at the leadership level, and that information is now of some historical importance. Because it elicited a strong response, the material is now being removed from view, but at least we had access to it for a time.
In 'Pizza or Pakoras', Braja Bihari presented his message from a fairly neutral position – as a scholarly facilitator in conflicts. But in reading the article and understanding the nature of the polarization that's going on, we can easily see that, in fact, Braj Bihari is a liberal, and he's not neutral. In fact, the whole article is a study in liberalism.
First of all, he opens by addressing Srila Prabhupada as the "founder" – not the Founder-Acarya. He forgets the word "Acarya" of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. He quotes Srila Prabhupada, who has said that he does not want conflict in the society, and of course, everyone understands that this is a fact. What leader wants conflict? What leader wants his team to be distracted and affected by Kali Yuga, getting absorbed in areas of conflict that just distract them from achieving the goals?
Of course, those who have taken the opportunity to read anything I've written understand that it's my ultimate philosophical conclusion that all this conflict is centered around the fact that there is an underlying disagreement amongst devotees about who Srila Prabhupada is, and what the nature of his spiritual position is. Personally, I have concluded that in order to resolve a great deal of the conflict, ISKCON must arrive at a very clear definition of Srila Prabhupada's spiritual position. Of course, I'm of the opinion that Srila Prabhupada is an exalted Sampradaya Acarya, and I've given a definition of what I believe that to mean. Those who don't aren't familiar with this position are invited to read my "Sampradaya Acarya paper, and subsequent articles that make it very clear how Srila Prabhupada differs from the traditional gurus within our sampradaya, whether diksa, siksa or vartma-pradarsaka. There is another category, which I call Sampradaya Acarya, or the parampara-acarya, which has to be recognized. The business of the Sampradaya Acaryas is to clearly define who is God, making abundantly clear, according to time, place and circumstance, how to realize Who is God. And it is our business, as devotees who are on a lesser platform, to identify, describe, define and glorify who is a Sampradaya Acarya, and to repeat their message, without change.
Now if we accept this, and we apply this principle of who is Srila Prabhupada, then it becomes very clear that we do not have to go in the direction that Braja Bihari suggests, namely taking shelter of and advice from mundane scholars, apply their principles to the problems in our society. Yet these are the persons Braja Bihari and his associates are obviously inclined to study and emulate through ISKCON Resolve and other programs. Braja Bihari dedicates the beginning of his article to giving us an insight into his beliefs and studies of these personalities. And of course, he tries to apply what they have to say to this overriding problem in ISKCON between the conservatives and the liberals.
Now I want to make my position clear, that I'm not identifying only and solely with those who consider themselves conservatives, and I'm even less inclined to identify with the liberals. The underlying principle of the liberals is that other than following the basics –believing that Krsna is God, chanting 16 rounds and following the four regulative principles – there are no hard and fast rules. He points out that we're all following the basic principles and suggests that doing so actually makes one a conservative, more than the average 'churchgoer' in most western religions.
So Braja Bihari's idea is that we're very conservative when compared to these other religions. Yet within our own community of Vaisnavas following Srila Prabhupada, following the Sampradaya, we have this dichotomy wherein the liberals feel that one should be allowed, and in fact should pursue, the position of adjusting, according to time, place and circumstance, for the sake of preaching, and the conservatives are those who disagree.
Of course, the basic principles are very easy to define, and Srila Prabhupada made it clear what following them means, but it's very hard to enforce. Who knows if someone is chanting their 16 rounds and following the four regulative principles, unless you're with them day and night? As most devotees know, unless they're in some kind of bhakta program and being constantly observed, they can claim they're following, but still be cheating. Then there are the 10 offenses to chanting, and we know there's different gradations of chanting, so who can say for sure that one is properly chanting their rounds? And it's a fact that most of the leadership have ample opportunity to cheat on that level.
The conservatives believe that you simply follow Srila Prabhupada's program, including the basic practices and beyond. According to what they personally understand Srila Prabhupada's program to be, they believe that you must stick as much as possible to that program, as it applies to the sadhana. Then there's the siddhanta part. On the conservative side there's room for disagreement, and amongst the conservatives there's another very large dichotomy that was pointed out in an earlier article by Prahladananda Swami, "Duties of GBC and Guru". This conflict is between the GBC-run institution and the gurus, including those who accept that the guru-disciple relationship is more significant, important and spiritually essential than is the alliance one feels towards an institution set-up by a Sampradaya Acarya. So that disagreement is also going on. It's not just that some gurus are in the liberal camp and others are more conservative.
As I stated earlier, both of these conflicts center around Srila Prabhupada being the Sampradaya Acarya, or not. In another recent Sun article, Hridayananda on Regulating the Sannyasa Asrama", we found Hridayananda revealing his mind in the spirit of guhyam akhyati prcchati. He claims that he's following the basic principles, and reveals his concept of what sannyasa is, and there's a great conflict around that. He opens his presentation by essentially saying that Srila Prabhupada's personal example is what he's following:
"Srila Prabhupada had large bank accounts, used what were at the time modern gadgets, flew wherever he wanted, often first class, and built personal quarters in India that, for India, were quite opulent. If we consider these prerogatives unique to Prabhupada because of his exalted position, then we need to establish sannyasa standards that make this clear."
It's quite clear that in Hridayananda's mind, he's not much different than a Srila Prabhupada, and feels quite justified also having a large bank account and living opulently. His lifestyle since Srila Prabhupada departed has made that very clear. Of course, the degree of separation between the two, time has revealed, is that there's far less potency on Hridayananda's side. The results that he's managed to achieve are far less than Srila Prabhupada. Hridayananda thinks, we're not going to follow what Srila Prabhupada said, but what he did. Of course, if one hears what Srila Prabhupada said and watches what he did in terms of sannyasa, then Hridayananda is following hardly any of it.
Srila Prabhupada has made many comments about sannyasa such as 'it means I shall live with the minimum of necessities… just live on the floor like Sukadeva… that is the perfection of sannaysa.' But the liberals, including Hridayananda and many of the sannyasis in ISKCON, are obviously not following the principle that Srila Prabhupada stated above, nor many of the other traditional principles of the sannyasa order. They mistakenly like to believe that they're instead following Srila Prabhupada, and Srila Prabhupada set a standard by his actions that is in conflict with what he said, and what is in sastra in this regard. They choose to try and imitate Srila Prabhupada, thinking themselves the same as him, and it's all loosely based on the principle that 'Srila Prabhupada said it's for the preaching'.
In reality, a Sampradaya Acarya is on a different level, and cannot be so easily imitated. We recall the occasion when one of the devotees mentioned Lord Brahma's supposed falldown, and Srila Prabhupada chastised him instantly and very heavily. Prabhupada said that Brahma can do those things, but we cannot do those things. He did it to show by example. Just like Arjuna, who only showed that he was attached to his family members while on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, to lay the foundation for the speaking of Bhagavad-gita. These pastimes are put in place by great Acaryas. It is not that everyone can do these things.
We should also keep in mind that Srila Prabhupada, even prior to coming to America, lived an extremely simple existence as a sannyasa. He didn't have what Hridayananda is referring to –these big bank accounts. And he didn't live anywhere near the type of opulent lifestyle that Hridayananda enjoys. Neither did he enjoy or display such independence. Srila Prabhupada was constantly preaching, and constantly writing books, while Hridayananda is taking time for so many other mundane activities.
Hridayananda's lifestyle is an extension of this whole idea that goes along with the liberal concept, that in order to preach, one has to appear to be 'normal' in the Western culture. You have to appear to be a professor, and you have to dress like one. Or like Braja Bihari, you have to appear to be an ecumenical, ecclesiastical scholar and expert in human behaviour, or whatever his material qualification may be. And you have to not only apply all the principles from these disciples, but you have to befriend and associate with (and supposedly preach to) people who are in the particular categories that you imagine you're in. So in order to do that, you have to appear 'normal'.
In 'Pizza or Pakoras', Braja Bihari tries to depict how, when we entered ISKCON, we made this huge cultural leap. We abandoned our western conditioning and upbringing, and we adopted all aspects of the lifestyle as Srila Prabhupada has presented it: the dress, the foodstuffs, and ultimately the philosophy. But this is not entirely true. One has to consider the degree to which one actually adopts, or surrenders to the lifestyle that Srila Prabhupada wanted us to enjoy, which is a transcendental lifestyle, a spiritual lifestyle… at least a mode of goodness and brahminical lifestyle. As soon as the initial training and period of infatuation diminishes, then to what degree does one go back to their original behavior, karma and conditioning, present since birth? As we see in the case of Hridayananda and Braja Bihari, and many other devotees, they do go back to their original lifestyle to some degree. They keep some remnants. They might prefer pakoras over pizzas, the symbolic distinction Braja Bihari likes to make, but how deeply do the changes really run?
The way one dresses and what one eats are external circumstances, but the siddhanta is ultimately far more important than these external indications. To what degree do you surrender to the siddhanta? Of course, this presents a much deeper and more significant conflict. That's why people like Braja Bihari, and other academics like Ravindra Svarupa and Hridayananda are challenging the philosophy in their preaching circles. We haven't seen the results of all this preaching, but supposedly they are making great inroads in the academic and scholarly communities. Srila Prabhupada did express the desire for us to preach in these circles, but how to go about doing it? The way he did it – straightforwardly? 'This is the Vedic information, the Vedas are absolutely true, the Vedas state things which you may not like, and which you consider very controversial in light of what is considered truth among the academic community, but it is the Absolute Truth.' Such straightforward preaching means one has to be prepared to deal with the difficult issues, such as the relationship of men and women, astro-physics of how the universe is composed, the moon landing, and Darwinism.
Srila Prabhupada said many, many things which you either reject or spontaneously accept to be true, in the same way that Srila Prabhupada spontaneously accepted everything that the Vedas had to say on every subject as being absolutely true. Srila Prabhupada was not simply a person who was brought up in a very orthodox and conservative lifestyle since birth. He was taught in a western style school. He was involved in business, and in politics on a very contemporary level, and he was in tune with all the sophisticated and contemporary matters of the day. On the other hand, anything that conflicted with the Vedas, which are always considered the Absolute Truth, and any other philosophy was considered bogus, and he never hesitated to say it.
Throughout Srila Prabhupada's whole lila, he followed in the footsteps of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. When it came to accepting siddhanta, he was very, very heavy and uncompromising in his preaching. He did not adjust things in order to please certain types of people. He was, of course, very expert and very non-confrontational in an emotional way, but at the same time, he obviously did and said things which Hridayananda, Ravindra Svarupa and Braja Bihari, or so many devotees, consider outside the realm of Absolute. They think that some of his preaching was just his opinion, according to time and circumstance, according to his age, according to his conditioning, according to the culture that existed in India when he was growing up and getting educated, and so on. Therefore, such statements don't have to be absolutely followed. And in fact, it becomes a detriment to the kind of preaching that they claim they want to pursue, because it's an instant turn-off to certain kinds of people.
Of course, our philosophy tells us that the conditioned soul is always trying to avoid surrendering to God. That the essence of every conditioned soul's problem. We're looking for an excuse not to surrender. And it is true that Srila Prabhupada and the Vedas, the Srimad-Bhagavatam and all our teachings give the materialist ample opportunity to reject this philosophy, because ultimately they don't want to surrender. Not that they strongly disagree with a statement because of some deep philosophical understanding. And preaching means to convince them. For those sincere persons who have questions or concerns or doubts about our philosophy, the preachers go in there and try to get them to see where they're wrong -- that their philosophy and lifestyle has caused them a great deal of confusion and suffering. Obviously, preachers like Braj Bihari and Hridayananda are not able to do that, because they don't have the same conviction as Srila Prabhupada. And if you don't have that conviction, then it comes across to those you're trying to preach to.
Now, Braja Bihari wants to make a big point of ISKCON's role in regards to women, and of course, he's taking the same position that Hridayananda has adopted -- that Srila Prabhupada's view, the sastric view, is out of touch with reality and it's not a wise thing for us to preach and emphasize on that level. Instead, give everyone the impression that this is old fashioned, this is from a previous culture -- the Indian or even the Victorian culture, compared to contemporary, modern day society. But, that is not something Srila Prabhupada advocated or condoned. He was as liberal as can be, allowing women to participate in the temples and in the preaching, and giving them the greatest opportunity to be part of the preaching -- as long as they were preaching, as long as their activities were for the preaching. But this is not what is being preached today, or what is accepted by these ISKCON personalities, especially in the liberal camp.
While these preaching issues are important, ultimately if you look at the reality we have to face as devotees in being part of Srila Prabhupada's movement, whether part of the institution or ISKCON in general, that's not really where the main conflict lies. The main conflict lies in this whole issue of guru, and those who embrace and identify with the diksa guru versus the institutional hierarchy. And of course, the diksa gurus themselves have different individual perceptions of what our siddhanta has to say on this subject. Everything depends on one's level of spiritual advancement –the guru's, and to a degree, the disciple's also. And, of course, the leadership's. A diksa guru who is unenlightened or a leader in ISKCON who is unenlightened, or a sannyasi who is neophyte and in illusion, will pass that illusion on to others. And they'll create a following who will preach the same concepts they do.
The disciples of all these gurus are preaching that their guru is on a very exalted level because that's what they want to believe. All their perceptions of the philosophy are passed on by the guru to the people they preach to. Therefore, you have a sort of Typhoid Mary syndrome. At this point in time, just how prolific or systemic the contamination is, is difficult to calculate. We know by studying Vaisnava history that the influence of the great Acaryas waned after some time. Look at the condition of Vaisnavism when Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur advented himself, and started preaching pure Vaisnavism and re-instating Lord Caitanya's standard. Now that Srila Prabhupada has departed we've seen the time factor work in the same way. We've seen the influences of Kali.
It's incumbent upon the individuals, whether they're newcomers who did not participate in Srila Prabhupada's lila, or the original disciples, to try to embrace and discover, explore and research, what is the original? What did Srila Prabhupada really want? And it all comes back down to who is Srila Prabhupada? To what degree do you accept him as being as good as God -- that everything he said is right, as good as sastra, and on the same level? And does that also apply to the way he preached, to his standards in terms of sadhana? Should we embrace them and employ them, and preach on that level? Or do we have an opportunity to use our own realizations and apply our own circumstances, changing the program and considering that it's fine and that it's not maya?
There's a big difference between saying 'I'm so neophyte, weak or unqualified that I can't come up to the standard that Srila Prabhupada advocated and set', compared to saying 'Well, this standard is not absolute. This methodology is not absolute. I'm going to change it for the preaching.' Then after sometime, you'll begin say, 'Well this is part of the philosophy', and start interpreting sastra and Srila Prabhupada in such a way as to rationalize and condone the things you want to believe and you want others to believe are absolute, when they're not. They're contaminated, because you're contaminated. Therefore you've watered down the philosophy, so there's no potency. There's no taste.
So in one's search for truth -- because ultimate you have to take responsibility for your own spiritual advancement -- there's no easy way. When Srila Prabhupada was personally here and we took initiation, it was a very lucky and ideal opportunity. Of course, if we don't recognize who Srila Prabhupada is as a Sampradaya Acarya, it's a double-edge sword. You can commit offenses to Srila Prabhupada by not recognizing his exalted spiritual position, by not recognizing and following Srila Prabhupada accordingly as a disciple or follower. If you don't appreciate and recognize, then like so many others who have fallen away, fallen down, and rejected Srila Prabhupada, you can expect to get a reaction.
It may be easier for a newcomer to accept some of the ISKCON gurus today, because they're not as heavy, not as strict, not as demanding as Srila Prabhupada was. But if you want to make genuine spiritual advancement and take advantage of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's sankirtana movement, then I would suggest you surrender to the Sampradaya Acarya.
