In Defense of a Travelling Preacher
BY: KAPILA MONET
Jun 6, UK (SUN) — In last week's Obeisances, Rocana Prabhu writes a criticism of Indradyumna Swami that was exaggerated and also simplistic.
First of all, I will admit that I really enjoy the stories that Indradyumna Swami writes. I find them witty, accessible, and personal. Certainly they have some element of propaganda, much like any fable or moral story, but beyond that I find that they are mildly inspirational. They are not the Bhagavad Gita, but the Bhagavad Gita is there.
Indradyumna is then compared unfavourably to Srila Prabhupada. Of course there is a gulf of difference between Indradyumna Swami and Srila Prabhupada. I don't think anyone would deny this, but that is not a fair criticism. A lamp does not burn as brightly as the sun, but it is still a source of light. More importantly, this source of light is a connection point to Srila Prabhupada, who makes an appearance in most of the stories I have read, if as simply as "my guru's instructions."
There is a further example of misplaced comparison when Indradyumna Swami's travel is compared to both that of the "rich and famous" and a poor devotee struggling to travel to India. Anyone who has done extensive travel would know that travel itself is exhausting, and airports are dull. The extent to which a preacher travels should be judged on the basis of the value of his preaching and not on the miles and places flown. Indradyumna Swami is a popular and effective preacher, this is a positive.
Certainly it is also impossible to argue that Srila Prabhupada himself would not have been given the best of what the devotees had to offer. That they had less to offer in the past is not a valid criticism of the present.
Mention is made of the difficulties faced by many temples around the world, and also the travel budget of Jayapataka Swami. Neither of these relate directly to Indradyumna. One would have to assess the success or failure of the temples he is responsible for, and include the benefit of the Polish tour, and the benefit a temple receives in having a popular and effective preacher visit.
Of course, it's easy to show that the Swami collects his donations because of his travel, and that in the absence of such travel the money would benefit neither his preaching, nor the temples, which also benefit from his visit in both money and inspiration.
A further criticism leveled against him is that he appreciates the alone time he has at an airport. It is stated that "we know that whatever the swami wants, the swami gets. If he wants to be alone, he only has to give that instruction." This is simplistic.
At the temple he will have the pressure and responsibility of seeing those who wish to speak with him and even with a good reason, any dismissal will appear harsh. It is rather like a father returning home from work and going into the office and telling the children who are eager to see him, play with him, and have his company to leave him alone while he works. It is his right to say this, and the children should be quiet, but of course they will be disappointed. It is quite realistic to understand that quiet time alone is best found when there is no alternative, such as that found in an airport. It is a simple statement of fact.
When he is accosted by the ruffians the criticism is that he should have chanted Hare Krsna rather than "officer, officer." Again, this is both harsh and simplistic.
Certainly we are dependent on Krsna at all times, and chanting is an effective surrender when Krsna has utilised no other instrument. However, it was understood from the story that both the swami and the officer saw the officers' arrival as a timely intervention attached to God. Even when Draupadi was being disrobed her first appeal was to her husbands and to those assembled. And their inactivity is to their discredit. It was not wrong of her to approach them since that was their duty, and it was not wrong of a swami about to be accosted to ask an officer approaching to do his duty.
Similarly, if a devotee's car is damaged in an accident, that devotee should chant, but also ensure that the insurance company finds out and pays for the damage. He would not be advised to simply chant more. We are responsible to be Krsna's instrument and also to see Krsna's hand in the beneficial actions of others. We are not all blessed with Draupadi's personal piety where Krsna acts directly.
It is a fair argument to say that a swami should not travel alone. But of course, if he travelled with a companion, then the criticism might be that travelling swami's have doubled their travel budget just to have someone take care of all their needs on a flight and that they are over pampered. Surely in a situation where money is sparse, they should dispense with the air travel for servants since there are devotees available to drop them off and pick them up in the locations to which they travel.
There is another exaggerated criticism of Indradyumna's writing when he writes about the parable of a man and his grandson on a horse. Of course this story was relevant, since the parable addressed the issue of the opinions of others, and the variability and contradictory nature of such opinion. This ties directly into the story about him changing his own clothes, and Indradyumna is comparing himself to the foolish old man and the foolish grandson, since he has changed his clothes at the suggestion of the officer, and then again considered the suggestions of his fellow travellers. In other words, this story reminds him to do what he believes is right and that he is acting like a fool if he simply follows the opinion of others. The parable is therefore very pertinent.
In essence, I found the spiritual content of this article to be the discussion about how as devotees (or aspiring devotees) we are pressured by society at large to renounce our garbs, our names, and all with a desire to fit in and not cause conflict. And the story shows that this is not a simple dilemma. In fact, although he personally chooses to continue to wear his garb, he is quite clear that devotees can make the other choice, and can both be visible and invisible but must always do what is most effective for preaching.
This is an invaluable message to remind ourselves of, and it is nice to know that the dilemma is also felt by Swamis. It is also inspiring to know that he would choose to be exposed because it helps his preaching.
I have a friend who believes he was blacklisted from getting a job as a lawyer because his name was associated with his devotee name. I know many devotees who dressed in "normal clothes" to sell art work in malls. I myself have the dilemma of using my real name at work where association with being a Hare Krsna can damage my career path.
I have taken it upon myself to stay true to my name. My boss and my good friends at work know of my association with Hare Krsna's. I feel that whatever bias I might face is mitigated by being able to show that Hare Krsna's come in many guises. Not that I am a good devotee, but I do hope to be a good devotee, and this story was interesting for me personally, and connected to a spiritual theme.
Again, it is exaggerated to say that Indradyumna is to our society what Tom Cruise is to Scientology. In fact, Tom Cruise has spread the message of Scientology to the whole world, so one could only hope that Indradyumna could have this international presence where his message could be broadcast on Opera and through mass media. Of course, the message to chant Hare Krsna would be much more potent, and who would deny that Indradyumna Swami would fail to take that opportunity? The holy name is in all of his stories. Is that not enough?
I have a hard time understanding the purpose of the criticism of this Obeisances article. Certainly I am no fan of the excess of glorification of Swamis, I am in complete agreement that the temples should be protected, that Srila Prabhupada is exceptional as a guru and example, and that it is fair to apply criticism to the actions of ones godbrothers, and of course even for a Kuli like me to apply criticism where action goes against obvious scripture and human decency.
But exaggerated and simplistic criticisms only diminish the argument, and also reflect badly on both the subject and author.
In this example I believe Indradyumna Swami is unfairly criticised, and the important message that Rocana Prabhu is trying to spread about responsibility, accountability, and sincerity is therefore lost.
I appreciate the wonderful preaching done by any and all devotees who can inspire even one person to chant sincerely. I have not achieved even this small success in my own life, and so I am disappointed by the criticism of a Swami who is a lamp to many souls, when this criticism is unfair.
And for the sake of clarifications: I don't expect I will personally meet a guru who inspires me. I have no relationship to the body of the GBC and work instead on connecting the generation of Kulis, and I have never met Indradyumna Swami personally. I have only enjoyed his stories, and seen the inspiration he provides to friends of mine to chant. If the criticism levelled against him was of a tangible sort, I would be grateful for the opportunity to balance my positive impression with a reality that shines on a hypocrite. But I see no such thing in this instance, and so the criticism is of the most dangerous variety.
Obeisances to HH Indradyumna Swami and Rocana Prabhu.
