The Guru’s primary role is that of a Śāstra teacher.  The Guru educates the disciple in Śāstra and its commentaries, and clears the doubts the disciple might have by illuminating the rationality within Śāstra.  Moreover, the Guru gives moral and spiritual guidance on the basis of Śāstric injunctions.

These are obvious and uncontroversial definitions of Guru, yet this type of Guru-disciple relationship is almost entirely absent from ISKCON, as I explained in a previous posting.  Here I will explain why I believe this is ISKCON’s primary problem.  Unless dealt with, it will forever prevent ISKCON from becoming the powerful Brahminical force that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted it to be.

(2)

When intelligent and educated people join ISKCON, they seek a Guru who can initiate them into a deeper understanding of Śāstra and the larger world of learned Hindu thought.  For example, in addition to canonical texts such as the Bhāgavatam and Bhagavad Gītā, they want to read ISKCON’s foundational theological texts such as the Ṛgveda, Upanishads and Vedānta-Sūtra, and also the six philosophical schools such as Sāṁkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Mīmāṁsā, etc.  In addition to Jīva Goswami and Viśvanātha Cakravartī, they want to read commentaries from other Vaishnava Ācāryas such as Rāmānuja, Vedānta Deśika or Madhva, as well as their opponents such as Śaṅkara.  All of this requires Sanskrit knowledge on the part of both student and teacher, as well as an understanding of modes of philosophical and theological presentation in learned Hindu Śāstras.  Moreover, it requires a lengthy period of time in which Guru and disciple study together.

(3)

Speaking for myself and a few friends in ISKCON, I can say the first times I experienced a Guru-disciple relationship based on the exchange of Śāstric knowledge was in Oxford University with academics and with Satyanārāyaṇa dāsa Bābājī, a learned Caitanya Vasihnava scholar.  Most ISKCON Gurus lack the training, time, desire or inclination to study Śāstra or teach Śāstra to their disciples.  There is little sense in which “taking initiation” is understood as “accepting Guru as Śāstra-teacher.”  It is not the culture of ISKCON to see Guru as a systematic educator.

Perhaps one of the few exceptions is Garuda Dasa, a disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda who is also a theologian and published author.  From him I have learned Śāstra and he has served as a Guru for many years now.  Of course this sort of Guru-disciple relationship would not be recognized by ISKCON, but that is their problem.

Since this Guru-disciple option is mainly absent in ISKCON, those seeking an education are required to enrich their minds outside of ISKCON, sometimes with learned Gurus in other Vaishnava traditions, sometimes with professors in universities.  A Guru-disciple relationship based on the exchange of knowledge is more meaningful and formative than one based on preaching, infrequent personal interactions or sporadic lectures on Śāstra (i.e. ISKCON primarily offers).  Thus, many people with scholarly inclinations will find themselves drifting away from ISKCON.

(4)

While a comprehensive history of ISKCON’s membership decline and the specific reasons for it is not possible here, one can observe that many people with scholarly inclinations have drifted away from ISKCON.  The reasons for this are of course complicated, but surely one of the primary reasons is that ISKCON Gurus are unable to provide a systematic education in Śāstra.

When Śrīla Prabhupāda said he wanted ISKCON to be the Brahminical “head” of society, surely he meant that devotees would guide society on the basis of their Śāstric knowledge that is enriched by the practice of bhakti-yoga.  That cannot happen unless Gurus take it upon themselves to study and then teach Śāstra to their disciples.

I’ve been a vegetarian for most of my adult life.  Although I’ve always felt strongly that the needless killing of animals is morally wrong, recently I’ve come to feel even stronger about it.  This of course goes against the thrust of Western civilizations, which have been avid eaters (unlike many Oriental cultures) since their inception.  Has Darwin, however, made a vegetarian diet more tenable within Western thought?  Has he thus created a space within Western thought that not only justifies vegetarianism, but abolishes justification for meat eating?

Animals such as cows, chickens, lambs, and pigs are certainly less intelligent, and certainly have less complex emotions than humans do.  However, one of the great contributions of Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man (1871) was to argue that man must have descended from lower vertebrates because they also have limited forms of reason, aesthetic appreciation, emotions, etc.  Of course, we all know this to be true.  Any dog owner knows that dogs are sad when they see their owner leaving, yet happy upon their return.  And dog owners know that dogs can think and reason in remedial ways.  We know how clever squirrels and raccoons can be in the matter of getting the food they want.  I’ve had the pleasure to spend a few weeks serving in a cow hospital in Vrindavana, India.  This hospital took in cows that have been hit by cars and trucks, or have been abandoned to die by their owner.  (Even in the land of Krishna, who is the lover of cows, the residents of Vrindavana do severely mistreat and abuse cows.)  Based on my experience in helping these cows, I can say without any doubt, that they have very developed emotions, and they are able to think and reason in a limited manner.  A “Thank  you” to Darwin for arguing for this in a sophisticated way.

I take it as a given that cows, and even lower animals like pigs, chickens and lambs have limited forms of reason and emotion.  Darwin even argued that our aesthetic sense evolved within birds and was thus passed on to us.  Certainly there is a huge gap between the rational, emotional and aesthetic capacities of the animals that humans typically slaughter and human beings themselves.  Some people say that it is because humans are so much smarter that they are justified in killing animals because they are so far less developed than humans.  However, conduct the following thought experiment:

In the future human beings make contact with an alien race who posses intelligence and emotional sensitivity that is much greater than ours.  These aliens are a species of humans who left earth years ago, only to return after the population had evolution pushed them far forward.  Let us say they are as smart to us as we are to a chicken.  In other words, the gap in intelligence between a human and a chicken is the same between a human and this alien race.

Suppose the aliens wanted to breed us as a food and energy source; would they be justified?

Those people that think humans are justified in killing animals because animals have less developed intellects and emotions run into trouble with this question.  People often say that we can kill animals because they don’t understand pain, fear or separation from their children the way a smart human does.  In the same way, these super intelligent aliens could say that because humans are so much less intelligent one is justified in using them for one’s own purposes.  But of course if it did come to be the case that aliens bred humans merely for food, those same humans that had been getting fat and happy off the bodies of animals would feel their rights had been violated.

The cow gives us so much:  the milk for our cereal, the cream for our tea and coffee, the cheese for our pizza, yogert, butter, and so many other delights.  It is cruel, heartless and completely ungrateful to then kill those very creatures who give us so many pleasures.  A civilization based on such ingratitude, which India is swiftly becoming, just as the West always has been, is surely not the sort of civilization that will create persons of good character who can lead and guide us to peace and prosperity.

Although Darwin is often criticized by Vaishnavas, one of the great contributions he did make is to show that so-called lower animals have the sorts of emotions and mental powers that humans have, and this fact suggests meat-eaters need to rethink the morality of meat-eating.

To say the least, I wasn’t impressed with Hari Sauri Prabhu’s reasoning, the quality of his historical information and analysis or the demeanor in which he conducted himself in conversations that ensued. This was deeply worrisome because he is in charge of the project!

The substance of my problem was this: he claims (ad nauseum) that Srila Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON, wanted a temple in West Bengal that looks something very much like the U.S. Capitol Building. Anyone who questioned this historical claim cares nothing for Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and is against the progress of ISKCON, is discouraging the main donor for the TVP (Alfred Ford or Ambarisha Dasa) and is in general an anti-American pest. But it isn’t clear from the history that Srila Prabhupada wanted a U.S. Capitol. And if he did, then why did it take Hari Sauri Prabhu and Ambarish Prabhu until 2005 to articulate their view? For, it was not until 2005 that Hari Sauri’s team changed the TVP design from a beautiful Indian style to a kitsch imitation of the U.S. Capitol. (My personal belief is that they changed the design from Indian to U.S. Capitol imitation in 2005 because the Akshardham, a true architectural masterpiece in New Delhi, was unveiled that same year.)

Myself and a number of friends decided to dig a bit deeper into the history of ISKCON, to see if Hari Sauri Prabhu’s claims had any weight. Of course they didn’t.

It turns out that in 1977, the year Srila Prabhupada passed away, the person in charge of designing the TVP was instructed to design it more like a traditional India style temple and very little like the U.S. Capitol. We discovered this by contacting the person who was in charge of designing the TVP in 1977 (and beyond). His name is Surabhi and he now lives in Hong Kong. Amazingly, Hari Sauri Prabhu never thought to contact him, even though he was aware that Srila Prabhupada had confidence in his ability and had spoken with him extensively about the TVP right up until his passing. You can read Tattvavit Prabhu’s excellent reply to Hari Sauri Prabhu here, which includes recent letters from Surabhi Prabhu:

why the TVP design should be changed

Tattvavit Prabhu has been the main force behind the protest to the current design of the TVP and has collected some very important historical information for ISKCON, a job which TVP group should have done years, if not decades, ago.

The adventures continue as we await the reply of Hari Sauri Prabhu and other members of the TVP design group.

Articles about the TVP:

article 1

article 2

I recently watched “The Golden Compass,” a movie based on Philip Pullman’s novel Northern Lights.  It confirmed two facts to me:

firstly, that there a burning desire in the heart of our society for mythological-like depictions of a great struggle between good and evil;

secondly, and the point of this entry, that the new guard of science consistently misunderstands themselves in relation to the rest of the educated world.

In “The Golden Compass,” a magical world is governed by an academic elite called the magisteria.  A young girl named Lyra has been placed under the care of this elite.  Lyra’s father, Asriel, who is a free thinking explorer and scholar, has discovered a type of supernatural dust that would challenge the magisteria’s authority.

Knowing something of Pullman’s biography and personal beliefs, as well as academic interpretations of Northern Lights, clearly the magisteria represents religious organizations such as the Catholic Church, and the free thinkers represent the scientific guard.  The scientific guard is an established group of academicians consisting of Dawkins, Dennett, Sam Harris and countless others.  These men are inheritors of a profession constructed by forbearers like Thomas H Huxley, George Gaylord Simpson, Monod, Mayr, and other 20^th century and late 19^th century thinkers.  These men are actually the minority in science, but they have a loud voice, which makes them seem like the majority.  Their aim is to purge religion from society, especially the intellectual world.

The point these men have fundamentally misunderstood about themselves is that they are the “free thinkers” or “skeptics,” that they alone are the challengers of repressive intellectual regimes.  In my observation the most repressive group of thought police is this scientific guard, who are intolerant of other points of view of reality other than their own hard materialism, who refuse to acknowledge facts and truths that contradict their own point of view, and who to seek to destroy all systems of thought that exist outside their own narrowly constructed box.

Having spent the past 10 years of my life in academia, both in England and America, I can assuredly say that the greatest threat to free thought right now is not religion or religious institutions, but an oppressive form of scientific materialism that is enforced by a small but fanatical group of scientific popularizers.  I believe that if academic scholars want to preserve what little free thought they now enjoy, they must call the bluff of science’s new guard of dogmatic materialists.  They are not skeptics.  They are not free thinkers.  People like Dawkins, Pullman, Dennet, Sam Harris, etc. are wolves in sheep’s clothing:  they claim to love and support rationalism, free inquiry and the tools of critical thinking, but in fact they seek to suppress rational thought, they seek to undermine all forms of freedom, they seek push down free thought so that all people will unquestioningly accept their authority.

Some devotees have argued we need to develop traditional Indian schools, like those that trained Brahmins (spiritual leaders, priests, scholars, etc.) and Ksatriyas (warriors and traditional monarchical leaders) in the past. I have always been a pluralist, believing that ISKCON needs many sorts of projects working at the same time, and which work on different levels of society, and with different groups of people. So I am not against traditional educational models, for instance what Gopiparanadhana prabhu is doing in Govardhana. I do not think that these forms of education will have a direct impact on the non-ISKCON world at this time, although they are certainly very valuable for ISKCON members. Thus, I think we also need to develop a political voice within the existing democratic systems that communicates Vaishnava ideas about the purpose and goal of human society in a contemporary political language. We need to think about the issues that political leaders deal with every day (e.g., taxes, education, health care, the so-called war on terrorism, making war with the Middle-East, ecological issues, etc.) from a Vaishnava point of view. Not only do we need to think about these issues, but politically engage them. Thus far ISKCON spiritual leaders and scholars haven’t done much of this.

Some time in the mid-1990s ISKCON leaders became aware that in order to have a voice among the educated world it was necessary to have ISKCON members with academic qualifications, with academic publications, with academic teaching positions, etc. But there is a further step we need to take: some members of ISKCON need to now develop a realistic awareness of Western politics, and learn to speak to politicians in a language they can understand and accept, yet which resonates with Vaishnava theology and social theory. This, of course, requires an education and practical experience in a political office (e.g., a congressmen, senator, governor, etc.). A significant part of this education must be gained from reputable academic institutions. This has already begun with projects like the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies and the Bhaktivedanta College in Radhadesh, Belgium.

ISKCON’s newly developed interest in education bodes well for a practical engagement with politics, but there is more work to be done. We also need to think about raising children in such a way that they can become political leaders. According to Vaishnava teachings, great political leaders are cultivated; that is why princes and members of the aristocracy were trained and educated by the very best teachers, and that is why their upbringing and marriage was carefully planned. To provide the sort of political leadership I am talking about in this article, householders in ISCKON need to begin to looking at the education, upbringing and marriage of their children in a similar way. Swamis would need to see themselves as providing the sort of spiritual leadership and guidance that would give householders and their children the insight and conviction to be great political leaders.

In conclusion, the need for some religious group to provide quality religious training and education for the world’s political leaders is frighteningly evident. Under the Neo-conservative agenda constructed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Clark and many others the political situation in America has become increasingly tyrannical, despicably violent, deceptive, dishonest and secretive (this has all been pointed out by some people from the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially Professor David Ray Griffin). I am hopeful that ISKCON leaders will become conscious of this and conscious of the need to make positive contributions with the resources of Vaishnava thought and practice, but as I said there is still so much work to be done before we are even close.

Francis Clooney, Professor of Comparative Theology at Harvard University, came to speak about doing academics and the service of God. Clooney has been a Jesuit priest since he was 18 years old, and built a fantastic reputation as a comparative theologian, Sanskritist and scholar of Hindu theology. His latest work is on the great Sri Vaishnava theologian Vedanta-deshika. Clooney’s talk was a great inspiration—it was thoughtful and devotional. He explored his own life as a member of the Church, as an academic and his own realizations about being an academic engaged in the service of God. What he said resonated with the attendees because we are all doing academics in some form or another, and we also see our selves as engaged in service for Krishna.

This was the first year HH Jayadvaita Swami attended, and thankfully he enjoyed the gathering and has agreed to come in the future (Krishna and his busy schedule willing). His talk was about the history of schisms in the Christian Church; he argued that ISKCON is not different in its sociological patterns than other institutions. His talk was sobering, but informative.

Ekachakra prabhu, who is getting a PhD in Music-ethnocology, spoke about Kirtana, or glorification of God through song. It was a superb and critical examination the New Age kirtana scene. Ekachakra is a trained musician, both in Caitanya Vaishnava forms and Western performance. He brought his extensive knowledge and experience to bear on the issues involved in bringing Caitanya Vaishnava kirtana practices to the West.

Lastly, Ryan talked about Virtue Ethics, a school of Western ethics coming from Aristotle. Ryan has a PhD in Ethics from New York University, and is now a research fellow at Harvard University. He is a budding bhakta and a gentle soul. After his talk, we discussed the connections between Vaishnava Ethics and Virtue Ethics, of which there are many. This inspired us to think creatively about communicating Vaishnava ethical ideas in the context of Western philosophy.

Most importantly, Bhakta Yulin cooked amazing prasadam; three meals a day of the most wonderful dishes.

Based on my experience with this gathering over the past five years, I feel very strongly that it is essential that like-minded devotees gather together as often as possible to talk about their services in a systematic manner, and to take each other’s fellowship. If you would like more information, please contact Janakirama dasa.

In June 2007 we experienced that the dreams of many come true: the Mahabharata, the most famous Indian epic, is being performed on a theatre stage. I went to the performance with my husband, guru and a few devotees from Oxford. A member of Iskcon, Gaura Lila Prabhu from Switzerland, was the co-producer of this professional project. Amongst the celebrities that prepared the play was a famous composer Nitin Sawhney, the writer Stephen Clark who won the Oliver Prize, and 27 dancers, singers, musicians and actors under direction of Stuart Wood, as well as the Karthak and Akram Khan choreographer Gauri Sharma Tripathi.

The result? A fantastic blend of singing, ecstatic dance, music and theatre. There was traditional Indian and modern music, which gave the Mahabharata a very vivid character, bringing up ancient the message of drama, together with its culture and philosophy, to a contemporary spectator. Due to the extensive range of topics that the Mahabharata deals with, only one theme has been portrayed and this was a story of Draupadi as the passionate catalyst of the worst war amongst wars – a war of Kurukshetra. Very often they recited Sanskrit verses from Mahabharata, especially from its heart, the Bhagavad-Gita. Krishna himself was portrayed in this play as a friend of Draupadi and also as an observer of the events, often engaging himself in them and helping his devotees. This production was therefore very inspiring for a devotee of Krishna, reminding us about the fact that God really has been present on the Earth and that he is a participant in our lives.

It is very encouraging that devotees are using Western professional theatre as a medium of communicating the theology and culture of Vaishnavism. I think this approach is more advantageous than inserting Vaishava culture into Western mediums through rock music because by going through the higher aspects of Western culture we will contact the higher classes.

The question has bothered me for a few weeks now. On the one hand we have major problems within the social, religious, intellectual and political order of today’s world. On the other hand ISKCON is not thriving the ways many believe it can and should. If ISKCON is supposed to play an important role in the moral, intellectual and spiritual leadership of the world, then we seem to have a big problem on our hands. I find it terribly disheartening that the only school in ISKCON engaged in traditional Caitanya Vaishnava learning has such a polemical attitude towards devotees doing academics seva—this does not bode well for ISKCON scholars learning to serve Krishna side-by-side. How can ISKCON scholars fulfill their very lofty hopes and dreams of providing genuine spiritual leadership in an age of quarrel and hypocracy if they can’t even work together, and if they can’t even make an effort to understand one another?

I think the Bhagavata-Vidyapitham school has great potential. I do believe very strongly that ISKCON needs to train and educate ISKCON students in a traditional manner, but I also believe that ISKCON needs a presence in the academic world. And if ISKCON is going to succeed in leading the world, then scholars serving in different areas (whether teaching in an ashrama in India as sadhus have done for thousands of years, or teaching in an academic university in the heart of New York City), then they need to the support, encouragement and friendship of one another. The recent message on Dandavats.com was so disheartening because the authors do not manifest awareness of the necessity and utility of devotee scholars working together.

9/11 is only the latest and most obvious indictor of deep corruption and, for lack of a better word, “evil,” in the way our leaders think about reality and act in the world. The recent destruction inflicted on Iraqis (estimates are hard to establish, but many fear Americans have killed at least 100,000 civilians) is a living reminder of what Americans are willing and able to do in order to achieve their goals. The history of American imperialism (and I take that word in its most negative sense) began when Americans exploited the African slaves to build their new world, sometimes in the most cruel and unusual manner. The American nation was established by annihilating wonderful civilizations of Natives Americans. The historians David Stannard in the American Holocaust and Francis Jennings in The Founders of America argue Americans killed about 10 million natives; entire civilizations simply do not exist anymore because we were unwilling to share the bountiful American lands with them. Bush’s absurd non-compliance with Kyoto and G8 regulations on pollution makes prefect sense when one sees the historical trend of American’s disgusting lack of respect for life.

I grew up with the idea that America intervened in foreign lands to spread and sustain peace, but that is lie. We haven’t even made peace in our own land. Right after 9/11/2001 I asked myself “Why does the Arab world hate us?” Perhaps because we have shown them the hatred and violence we have exhibited in our inglorious history.