Challenges, Criticisms, Divisions and Cohesions
BY: KAPILA MONET
Jun 7, UK (SUN) — ...and even some Zulu wisdom.
Dear Rocana Prabhu, I was looking forward to the response you would have for my Defense of a Travelling Preacher.
First of all, I must state that I enjoy and appreciate the open, and un-censored space that you provide for discussion. I have also respected the intellect with which you apply yourself, and indeed, the message you are representing. I just happened to disagree with what your position and thoughts were in this instance.
What I fear most is the continued disintegration of the last remnants of this movement. You might ask what I mean by movement. I mean those following Srila Prabhupada's instructions as part of the mission he left them, and their children.
For the sake of further clarification, I believe that those who represent Srila Prabhupada's mission do so through their example, and that such a representation is not "institutional." In this sense I am neutral to all parties, and seek to learn from my many fathers and mothers (yourself included) while keeping my original Srila Prabhupada Bhagavad Gita and my Vedabase handy.
Let me summarise simply:
A) You believe that Indradyumna Swami is jointly responsible for the mess the movement is in.
B) You believe that his diary is a self-aggrandising propaganda piece that does not do a good job of preaching and in fact is misleading.
C) You have experienced the term Aparadh being used by leaders to hide horrific misdeeds as they destroyed Srila Prabhupada's movement.
D) I believe that any preaching of the Holy Name is a positive and deserves encouragement, even while the preacher can be corrected in other areas.
E) I believe that the Diary of a travelling preacher helps to spread the holy name and should be encouraged although it is not the Bhagavad Gita and Indradyumna Swami is not Srila Prabhupada.
F) I believe that exaggerated criticism of positive actions diminishes the power of legitimate criticism of negative actions.
Therefore in writing my post:
A) I wanted clarification as to why you believed Indradyumna Swami was jointly responsible for the mess the movement is in. (You have provided more clarification.)
B) I wanted to defend my experience of his diary since I perceive it to be a positive in terms of preaching. (I still think it is a positive but I can understand your criticisms more clearly.)
C) I wanted to draw a clear distinction between what I perceive to be strong arguments against the many real, horrible, and negative actions of the leaders of the movement, and what I perceive to be criticisms of a positive action.
I grew up in this movement. I am well aware of the way that many people have hidden behind the term Aparadh to disguise and hide their horrific misdeeds. That does not mean that it does not exist.
I understand that the unhealthy worship of Swami's who don't deserve such worship, and the different ways of hiding their behaviour, is exactly what you are fighting against.
It must be deeply challenging to you personally that while you hold Indradyumna Swami and Radhanath Swami responsible for what has happened in the movement, they are heralded throughout the remnants of the GBC's ISKCON as worthy of worship. The Diary is part of that process, and as such, a legitimate target of criticism.
What I fear most, however, is a continued process of disintegration and division.
Given that 9 Kuli's recently took initiation from Radhanath Swami and many are inspired by him and Indradyumna Swami, for instance, and on the other hand a number of other Kuli's won't come near a temple, while a Kuli was integral to taking Long Island out of GBC hands, and a number of other Kuli's are Narayan Maharaj followers, there is the potential for continued splits of a similar nature to the "divorces" our parental god brothers and sisters have undertaken.
So I can quite quickly see that the same old divisions caused by the same old mismanagement of the past may haunt the group that I consider myself a part of.
If we can begin a process of encouraging what should be encouraged, discouraging what should be discouraged, forgiving what we can, and being incredibly strong where we must, then we might begin to overcome the challenge of division, distrust, and abuse that has stalled the involvement of many in Lord Chaitanya's movement.
However, Lord Krsna will spread his message of God Consciousness and the Holy Name with or without us. It is our great fortune that we might have the opportunity to participate in this spiritual project and that is something we must all desire, encourage, and facilitate.
I believe this sincerely, and I am careful not to discriminate against the spreading of the Holy Name and I applaud the endeavours of all such, even if they are little glow bugs.
I do not believe that any Muslim, Christian, Vashnaiva, Iskconite, Srila Prabhupada disciple, or any splinter of the Gaudiya movement, has a monopoly on the truth. Nor do I believe that they cannot all at least approach the truth in some way.
I have been driven to tears by the words of wisdom of a Zulu Sanusi (he makes the connection between Sanyasi and Sanusi), Credo Mutwa, when he describes the true nature of God in his book Indaba My Children, because those words reflected in some beautiful way the truth as found in the Bhagavad Gita As It Is (please see below).
It can be argued that a lack of discrimination of those only pretending to spread the Holy Name is what led us to this sorry state in the first place. It is for this very reason that I believe any negative criticism should be held to a high standard, so that it can be applied vigorously. Therefore, I hope you can understand why I have challenged your criticism in this way.
Having explained myself, let me complete the process of dialogue and mention the areas where I felt swayed by your arguments.
In terms of preachers travelling alone, I can certainly see the benefit of such a practice. I actually did not dispute this and of course you have supported it with examples of Sri Chaitanya and Srila Prabhupada. I merely pointed out that such paired travel could also come under criticism for additional expense.
The second topic where I felt your argument was strengthened in rebuttal was in the area of funds for travel versus funds for temples. I accept your position that the GBC can be measured as a whole, and that each Swami should be held to account for the entire movement of which they are in a shared leadership position. I think this is fair and I suspect this will also be true karmically.
I don't know enough about the finances of the GBC's ISKCON to speak on whether travelling swami's raise more money through their travel than they spend on travel. I hope that they do, and maybe someone knows.
I do have two areas of disagreement, although I suspect we have merely misunderstood one another.
You have asked me to defend my commentary with Sastra, and have dismissed the Mahabharata as an appropriate source of guidance. I can certainly do better in the Sastra department and will attempt to do so in the future. But I will never accept that the Mahabharata, the 5 th Veda, and the crown in which the Bhagavad Gita is set, can be so easily dismissed.
I cannot accept a rebuttal of my argument on the basis that it was not supported by a scripture that we accept, when, with your greater spiritual knowledge, you would probably support my argument with such a scripture.
It is unfair to dismiss my statement when you are in agreement just because of my source of example. For instance, if I don't know anything about Space Ships, and I tell NASA that a leaky fuel gauge I have observed could cause an explosion, they have no right to turn around and say to me, "boy, you are not a rocket scientist and you don't have access to the manuals for this ship."
They can instead tell me, "actually, that's not leaky fuel, it is condensation and you can learn more in our manual" in which case I have learned something. Or they can agree and say, "our manual supports your observation." If they were particularly busy they might tell me I have no right to speak… but then where would that get them.
In other words, the truth is the truth, from whatever source.
Of course, I value the truth as expressed in the accepted Scriptures above all other expressions of the truth. The Bhagavad Gita is the topmost authority, and is the living embodiment of Lord Sri Krsna. How could the Mahabharata conflict with the Bhagavad-Gita and if it did, of course Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita is a comfortable source of the absolute truth.
For instance, I mentioned Credo Mutwa, who was explaining the 10,000 year old, secret knowledge of the Bantu passed down in strict oral tradition. He was so worried about misrepresentation that he did not alter any of the words in his translation:
My child, you know from the teaching of your parents that every child
is taught that there is a Great God (and that there are also lesser
Gods), but you do not know just what the Great God, whom we shall call
the most ultimate God, is, and this you are about to be told this day.
.....
The Most Ultimate God, who is the God of the Gods of the Gods, is
Everything in Everything. Each tree, each blade of grass each stone
that you see out there, and each one of the things that live, be they
men or beasts, are all parts of God.
....
The sun is part of God; the moon is part of God, and each one of the
stars is but an infinitesimal part of Him who is, and yes is not, Him
who Was and yet was not, and Him who will be and yet shall never be;
because there never was a time when God was not and there never is a
time when God can never be.
.....
My child, never must you doubt for one single moment that there is a
God, because to deny or doubt the existence of God is the greatest
form of madness there can ever be.
.....
My child, God is more in you, and is more part of you than you are in
and part of yourself. He exists in you more than you exist in
yourself. You were not created by God, but you exist as part of God.
Your soul is immortal because God is immortal, and your soul and mine
are as much a part of God as the grain of sandstone is part of the
boulder that is part of the mountain.
The reflection of the truth as found in the Bhagavad Gita made me cry with wonder at the discovery.
So if I can find a realm of True agreement with a Bantu Sanusi from South Africa quoting 10,000 year old scriptures, how could I not applaud a man flying around the world spreading God Consciousness connected to Krsna, however imperfect he is?
I am seeking realms of agreement, while being severe and firm on very specific actions of wrong that destroy the very foundation of the truth they are spreading. I agree that this has happened and we must guard against it.
One other clarification I would add is that you have stated that Cruise has made a laughing stock of Scientology and why would I want this for our movement. If you read my paragraph again you will see that I was talking about spreading the message of the Hare Krsna mantra… which in itself is powerful. And so even someone who is a complete clown, if they spoke the Mantra sincerely in such a venue, it would be valuable no? That was my point.
Tom Cruise did not make Scientology a laughing stock… Scientology is not the Holy Name, and so it was merely properly represented by its devout follower and understood by this presentation and mocked by many. Even improperly represented but accurately expressed, the Mantra is never a laughing stock.
I hope you are no longer surprised at my defence of Indradyumna Swami. It was because I sincerely felt that the way you read his diary and the way I read his diary were so astronomically different that either I was missing something crucial about him, or you were exaggerating and being simplistic.
Given that a number of my close Kuli friends find inspiration from Indradyumna Swami to chant, that I have always heard good things about the Poland Tour, and that I do genuinely enjoy his diary, I felt it was important for me to stand up for those impressions and experiences. This is particularly true because I value what you write. If I did not value your words, the dialogue that takes place on the Sun, and this movement, I would not have bothered.
Thank you for taking the time to respond further, and for humouring my arguments. I have more food for thought in the complicated endeavour to see our movement flourish without needless divisions.
Hare Krsna,
Your servant,
Kapila Kuli
