BY: ROCANA DASA
Sep 25, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.
Today’s Obeisances is in response to the recent Dandavats article by Antaryami das entitled, “The Importance of Reading”.
In opening I’d like to applaud this paper in the sense that establishing the importance of reading Srila Prabhupada’s books is very important. This message should be broadcast to a far greater degree. In terms of the ISKCON perspective, which Antaryami das seems to be taking, this message ultimately has to come down from the various gurus serving today. In the case of Antaryami dasa, perhaps he is a Srila Prabhupada disciple, considering the many times he’s read the books, which we assume happened over quite a long period of time (unless he’s a speed reader).
Antaryami dasa’s paper is directed at enthusing people to read. At the same time, those who have been involved in Krsna Consciousness for any period of time realize that a cornucopia of choices are offered of different types of devotional service one can engage in. Chanting the Hare Krsna mantra is a number one, all encompassing pre-requisite, as is reading Srila Prabhupada’s books as much as possible. And there are many other types of service you can engage in that will still be pleasing to Srila Prabhupada and the disciplic succession.
We’ve all heard the story of the brahman who couldn’t read, and who Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu came upon. The brahman’s associates criticized him for just looking at the Bhagavad-Gita every day, and sometimes holding it upside down because he couldn’t tell top from bottom of the written form, and they made fun of him. When Lord Caitanya queried him as to why he was showing such ecstatic symptoms while seemingly reading the Gita, he explained that he couldn’t read, but he had a mental picture constantly of Krsna and Arjuna, and he had actually adopted the mood of Arjuna. That is the perfection of our Bhagavad-Gita. So there was no need for him to read. Of course, this is an exceptional case, but the point I’m trying to make is how many times you read Srila Prabhupada’s books isn’t so important a consideration -- it’s the realization you’ve gotten from reading that matters.
The author then brings up the comparison of reading from a computer versus the books, and in this section he demonstrates his own personal inclination towards reading the book. His reasons for choosing one over the other are a little weak, given that it took persons with four defects to create a computer, but the book was also created by someone suffering under these defects. In fact these days, due to post-samadhi editing, the same kinds of defects are now built into Srila Prabhupada’s books. So basically whether you’re reading Srila Prabhupada’s books on a computer or in a hardcopy form, I don’t think there’s an iota of difference in terms of spiritual potency.
When it comes to reading, especially by those who have thoroughly read through Srila Prabhupada’s books, one may want to explore a particular topic. Personally, I enjoy taking certain subjects and exploring them in detail, and the Vedabase makes it easy for me to do that. This would be very difficult to do that with hardcopy alone, so the computer greatly assists in reading the books.
I want to emphasize that I’m not finding fault with Antaryami das personally, or with his type of devotional service, which he exemplifies. I’m sure I’d personally enjoy his association, and all those who have a similar inclination as him will get good inspiration from this article.
Antaryami das and Kesava Krsna dasa, both contributors to Dandavats, I believe are both sincere devotees, and among the rare few who actually want to express their realizations in the written form. Both employ a methodology in their writing wherein they allow you to get a little peek at their internal thoughts regarding ISKCON and the leadership, but they don’t go over the fine line. You have to sort of read between the lines to get the complete message. This tendency marks a difference between them and me, as I can just come straight out and say what’s on my mind.
Antaryami prabhu does this when he makes the point that nowhere in his writings (and of course no one could dispute that he doesn’t know the books inside and out due to his reading program), nor anywhere in Srila Prabhupada’s books is it said that bhakti yoga practice is exclusive to ISKCON. There are other sampradayas and societies that provide paths to bhakti, too. Of course, this is really against ISKCON’s policy and a lot of the preaching that goes on in ISKCON, which Antaryami is subtly pointing out to be asiddhantic. In fact, the only people that are excluded from many of ISKCON’s temples are those that are as close to ISKCON as you can possibly get, like Rtviks or the followers of the Gaudiya Matha gurus. So actually, Antaryami is writing in support of the argument that these personalities should not be excluded because there’s no sastric evidence to verify their exclusion.
My perspective is that intelligent devotees should not 100% align themselves with any one of these camps, wherein the big authorities make all the sastric decisions. This includes ISKCON, the Rtviks and the Gaudiya Matha. Such an arrangement stifles your intellect and your ability to perceive the truth, because none of these people are absolutely right, even though they want everyone to think they are.
In order for his presentation to gain authenticity, in the sense that he’s pushing the reading of Srila Prabhupada’s books, Antaryami dasa first and foremost promotes the chanting of the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, and as such he makes the statement that clarifies this truth: “In Prabhupada’s books it is emphasized again and again that the best process today for spiritual advancement is chanting the Hare Krsna mantra.”
I found it interesting that he also chose to include a letter that Tamal Krishna Goswami got from Srila Prabhupada and read aloud at the Dallas Temple. I can understand why Tamal Krishna would chose to emphasize this particular letter, especially given that this event happened during the Zonal Acarya period, when he was at the height of his power. In the letter, Srila Prabhupada likened ISKCON to a military training camp:
“My dear Tamal, the temple is likened to a military training camp where persons come and are trained as soldiers. After being trained they are sent out into the field to live an ideal devotee life preaching and living by example, or they remain in the temples to serve in one of many varieties of service. Those who are not strong enough to live outside the temple maintaining sadhana they can remain in the temple till such a time.”
During that period, all effort was made to keep people inside the temple, and the mood was promoted that one should be like soldiers in the military, obedient to one’s superior ranking officers. Of course, Tamal Krishna Goswami was a general.
Frankly, I don’t understand why Antaryami dasa included this particular passage in his article, as I don’t see how this applies to his theme of reading the books. Frankly, during that period there was a lot of stress on devotees to do other types of service instead of reading the books. In fact, very little time was given for reading. For the most part, you had to sneak off to read. The more that certain temples adopted this military mentality, the less the opportunity for reading, because someone above you was always barking orders at you, and seldom did they order you to read Srila Prabhupada’s books.
Srila Prabhupada used the term ‘military training’ to emphasize a particular point, as he did in many other passages of his instructions. If one followed Srila Prabhupada’s instructions to the extent he outlined them, you’d have very little time to do anything other than read, chant, hear, and worship the deities. I terms of going out on Sankirtana and making money, you’d have just a few hours left in the day to do that. Of course, that wasn’t the case, and most devotees were going out eight to ten hours per day.
Srila Prabhupada’s point, as I see it, is that we should be very regulated in our daily habits, and be obedient to the authorities so long as they are following his program. But if you’re reading and you’re understanding Srila Prabhupada’s program to be different from what those authorities are telling you it is, I think you have every right to question this and to be straightforward in making your points. One should not be intimidated into keeping their mouth shut, which was the case at the time Tamal Krishna read this letter, and to a large extent is still the case today in ISKCON.
In one paragraph, Antaryami dasa speculates as to Srila Prabhupada’s pastimes, writing:
“Long before coming to the west, Srila Prabhupada asked his Guru Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati if it would be okay for him to move into the temple ashram. His Guru told him not to move into the temple, as at that time there were a lot of problems, politics, etc., amongst his disciples. It was better to live outside and practice Krsna consciousness and in time all would be revealed.”
This passage demonstrates the mood that Antaryami dasa has adopted from reading the Lilamrta so many times. This exemplifies the reason I personally would never suggest that anyone read the Lilamrta, let alone as many times as Antaryami dasa has. As exhibited in this paragraph, Antaryami has accepted as gospel various speculations that he can’t back up by references from Srila Prabhupada’s books, or likely from anywhere other than the Lilamrta, which contains the many musings of its author, Satsvarupa dasa. Either that, or Antaryami is extrapolating this conclusion from tidbits of information.
While he speculates that ‘at that time, there was a lot of problems, politic, etc.’, he chooses not to draw a parallel to what’s been going on in ISKCON for so many years since Srila Prabhupada left. The reader is left wondering whether or not he is saying it’s “better to live outside and practice Krsna consciousness” than to live in an ISKCON temple where politics are rife. While in some places he suggests that we should be part of ISKCON and live in the temples if possible, in other places there’s an indication that he’s justifying living on the outside, as Srila Prabhupada did. Of course, that’s my personal position, too. I don’t know what Antaryami’s circumstances are because he doesn’t reveal them in his article.
When the author mentions that “some devotees are disturbed when asked to move out of the temples” he presumably knows of this circumstance because he witnessed it or it happened to him, and he found some solace in this advice, or gave it to those he knows who were hurt by having to leave. Quoting Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who said “
Every one of you become guru, and deliver; please let people understand what is Krsna”, he notes there is no mention that one needs to remain living in a temple ashram. So as not to get in any trouble with ISKCON, he follows that up by saying “While an ISKOCN temple is undoubtedly an ideal place to practice devotional service, it is not the only way.”
Recently and locally, I have come up against a similar problem, wherein I’ve been told by a number of ISKCON authorities that I should just go off and start my own temple, or in other words ‘become a guru’ outside of ISKCON rather than complain or criticize things I find wrong with the temple or the temple authorities. I’m only too willing to do that, as long as I can use the name ISKCON, because as a Srila Prabhupada disciple, I feel I’m entitled to do that. I understand that Srila Prabhupada established his movement for his disciples to take advantage of. Today, unfortunately, the understanding is that unless you have a GBC, you’re not in ISKCON. In other words, unless you can find someone who will act as a GBC, and the person who is the reigning GBC for your zone approves, then they threaten you with dis-affiliation and make sure everyone is aware of the fact that you’re not in ISKCON. For over 20 years I helped to establish the branding of the name ISKCON, but now I’m discouraged from using it. I’ve discovered that as soon as one goes out to preach, one of the first questions is, “are you with ISKCON?”. When you say no, then you have to go through a big explanation of why you’re not in ISKCON. It’s hard for me to imagine why the institution would want to encourage this dialogue with the public, but apparently they do. in my mind, if you’re forced to go out by ISKCON authorities, but you still are exclusively preaching Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, then you should be able to start a temple and call it “ISKCON Whatever”. We expect that this point will one day be challenged in the courts, and it will be interesting to see what the legal determination is as to whether or not the GBC have the right to restrict the flow in this way.
As previously mentioned, the Lilamrta influence is fairly distinct in Antaryami dasa’s article. As I’ve made clear in my Sampradaya Acarya paper, the Lilamrta mood does not establish Srila Prabhupada as a Sampradaya Acarya. Similarly, Antaryami is telling us to exclusively read Srila Prabhupada’s books, but what if you have a guru who writes many books? How should the disciple prioritize reading Srila Prabhupada books compared to the guru’s books? In fact, the author of the Lilamrta has written many other books, and I’ve heard complaints that his disciples only read his books and not Srila Prabhupada’s books. Of course, Srila Prabhupada’s books are light years ahead of what anyone else could write.
The conversational mood in his article indicates that Antaryami dasa knows just what Srila Prabhupada was thinking. Although he glorifies Srila Prabhupada, there’s nothing outside of the Lilamrta wherein his statements can be qualified. Besides, this is not the language that one uses to describe a Sampradaya Acarya. Characterizations like “traveling as a retired family man”, for example, or saying that Srila Prabhupada is “really good” -- what does that mean? It’s a nebulous statement. Instead of using ‘absolute’, he uses the word ‘really’.
The author goes on to express his perspective on who and what Maya is. Although he makes many good points in that regard, I found the presentation somewhat bewildering. His conclusions are rather vague. For example, saying “We desire something, and Maya presents it for our experience - it’s no accident.” doesn’t really sum it up. It’s confusing because Maya is a devotee of Krsna and she does test us -- is always testing us. Krsna through his agents and the bona fide spiritual master is trying to give us an option. In other words, Maya controls those who don’t have access to this absolute knowledge, and to the quality and the degree that they’re provided this knowledge, they have a choice. Making these kinds of choices between Krsna and the choices offered by the material energy is a constant struggle. It’s a battle that all devotees have to go through. But I don’t think the writer has made this clear enough in his presentation. We do have the power of the Holy Name, to the degree that we’re connected to the disciplic succession.
The author then proceeds to get into what I consider a little hot water, in the sense that he brings up the subject of people leaving Krsna Consciousness, and uses the example of Haridas Tahkur, the Nama Acarya. (By the way, Haridas Thakur didn’t read a lot of books, but just chanted Hare Krsna.) The writer uses the example of Haridas Thakur’s choice not to visit the Jagannatha Puri temple to make a philosophical point. It’s not that he wasn’t qualified to go to the temple, and if Lord Caitanya would have vouched for him I’m sure he could gain entrance if that was his desire. But that pastime was there to illustrate a certain philosophical point, and it’s not the philosophical point that Antaryami dasa is making, as far as I can discern. While this wasn’t a test for Haridas Thakur, we must consider the political implication of what Antaryami dasa is saying, i.e., that one should go to the temple despite all the obvious “problems”. However, many of these problems are asiddhantically rooted, and are obviously far from what Srila Prabhupada envisioned or desired. Yet the writer’s message is you shouldn’t say anything about this, you should just grin and bear it and if you do that, then you’ll pass the test. If you don’t do that, then you fail the test. We know this is his message because he goes on to say that like Haridas Thakur, “Srila Prabhupada did not start a reform movement”. In other words, don’t try to reform ISKCON, as that’s something that Srila Prabhupada, in his time and under his circumstances as a Sampradaya Acarya, was destined not to do. But to conclude that it follows that we’re not supposed to try to reform ISKCON doesn’t wash. In fact, if we had followed that line of thinking the Zonal Acarya system would still be in place today in full force, along with many other deviations that have required reform since the time Srila Prabhupada departed. While it may be Antaryami dasa’s particular choice not to get involved in these things, that doesn’t mean that devotees with other types of service and perspective should be discouraged from doing so.
As he proceeds in his writing, Antaryami dasa gives us a glimpse of his perspective on Krsna Consciousness in the sense that one’s faith is going to be tested as one attempts to engage in devotional service to Srila Prabhupada and Krsna via the media of ISKCON. Of course, his long list of great Bhagavatam and Caitanya-caritamrta personalities illustrates the principle of faith in Krsna and the Holy Name, but it doesn’t imply that ISKCON, as it is today, is on the same level. In other words, one should just have faith regardless of how bad it is in ISKCON. One should just tolerate it, suck it up, and if you don’t, then you’re unfaithful. Of course, this contradicts previous statements he makes, but the whole principle is inside or outside of what? A temple, or ISKCON? When you’re outside of the temple, to what degree are you in ISKCON? This is not made clear.
Ultimately this is the issue that all of Srila Prabhupada’s follower have to struggle with, and that is, is the present institution’s definition of ISKCON identical to what Srila Prabhupada’s definition of ISKCON is? What is the transcendental definition of ISKCON? Can one identify oneself as an ISKCON devotee and at the same time be at odds with local or international authorities?
I also have a hard time comprehending why the author made mention of the story of Daksha and Narada Muni. It just happens that I recently listened to Srila Prabhupada on a Morning Walk talk where he was referring to this very thing, i.e., the curse that the parents of young devotees have put on him. Of course, this was done in jest and there was a lot of humour in the presentation. I’m sure that the devotees’ parents could never curse Srila Prabhupada. And of course, Daksha could never curse Narada Muni, but I don’t think Srila Prabhupada’s traveling had anything to do with a curse. Nor do I feel that the way that devotees are in some cases forced to keep moving from one temple to another has anything to do with being cursed, but rather has to do with mismanagement on the part of ISKCON.
Just the other day I talked to a young, very sincere brahmacari who I consider to be an ideal example of what a brahmacari should be in the sense that he’s always meditating on and dedicated to distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books, and is very strict in sadhana. He understands the philosophy very clearly, which helped him get over his guru falling down. He explained that he has found he can’t stay in one temple for more than a month and a half before the authorities start getting possessive of him. Once the mood changes, he has to move on and go to another place. In fact, one of the ISKCON swamis told him that was a good idea. When the only way you can survive is to move around, this illustrates that the temples aren’t being managed or supervised properly from above.
I enjoyed reading Antaryami dasa’s comments on karma, and I agree that the material world is a very complicated place. Trying to understand what’s going on here is impossible by any means other than Krsna Consciousness, through the eyes of sastra and guru. That in itself is what Krsna Consciousness is all about -- being able to see Srila Prabhupada.
Antaryami prabhu ends by condensing Krsna Consciousness down to this statement: “Hearing, chanting, remembering or seeing Krsna’s form at the time of death - and that’s it.” This is irrefutable truth. Antaryami chooses to focus on hearing, and that’s a wonderful thing. I applaud him for doing that, and I hope his message moves a lot of readers to improve the amount of reading they do of Srila Prabhupada’s books. Although his emphasis is on Srila Prabhupada’s books, he still includes the Lilamrta in his article, but this is not to be included amongst “Srila Prabhupada’s books”.
Antaryami doesn’t qualify “other gurus writings”, and to what degree he reads such books isn’t clear. I would just qualify by saying that one should simply read Srila Prabhupada’s books, period. One should also understand where Srila Prabhupada left off translating the Srimad Bhagavatam and where Hridayananda Goswami took over. That clear distinction should be made in one’s mind who you’re listening to or reading those purports. The Sampradaya Acarya’s words are irrefutably absolute, whereas everyone else’s words are relatively in line with those truths.
Obeisances to Dandavats, and to Antaryami dasa.
