Sun Poll Editorial - Sannyasa

BY: SUN STAFF

Sep 18, CANADA (SUN) — Earlier this summer we ran a Sun Poll series on the issue of Sannyasa in ISKCON. The poll was run in response to publication of the 2006-2007 Sannyasa Report published by the ISKCON Sannyasa Ministry. Various other editorials appeared in the Sun, both preceding and following the Report.

In yesterday's edition of the Sun we read the GBC Executive Committee Statement and Report Regarding Balabhadra das, which again brings these issues in current focus. While a great deal needs to be said on the Balabhadra dasa situation, we will hold that for a later date. Today, we offer commentary on the results of the Sun Poll on Sannyasa in ISKCON.

In order for readers to have the necessary historical and factual perspective on the issue of sannyasa, they would need to have a grasp of the movement's history in this regard. Similarly, in order to accurately address some of the questions in this poll, it would take more than just reading the Sannyasa Report that inspired the series. Unfortunately, time doesn't permit us to offer even a reader's digest version of the history of sannyasis in ISKCON, going back to the point in time when Srila Prabhupada began the program of offering sannyasa to his disciples. We hope that this research project will be taken on one day in the future.

There is clearly a message to be heard in the responses to these five polls, although we can expect ISKCON leadership to ignore the results and this commentary. Their whole program on sannyasa is much like their program on diksa gurus, the book changes, and all the other controversial programs they have going on. Their position on these matters is very much entrenched in the ISKCON culture. The GBC is apparently not in a position to change any of the current dynamics, and presumably will not be able to unless somehow or other, there is a shift in power, ability, or spiritual realization. Of course, many of the GBC members are sannyasis themselves. By definition that means they're attached and biased, consequently there's really no way to expect much change. We can only add our comments on what we read here as the results or the survey.

POLL #1
How valuable and informative do you find
the information in the ISKCON Sannyasi reports to be?

Extremely - 13%
Very - 10%
Somewhat - 36%
Less than Needed - 41%

Poll #1 is a direct reference to the 2006-2007 Sannyasa Report, which is comprised of individual reports from the majority of ISKCON sannyasis. It's obvious from these numbers that a majority of the readership believe the information provided by our sannyasis in these reports is not what they needed or wanted to hear. Given that the reports were not standardized, we can assume that the Sannyasa Ministry's instructions for reporting were not formulated to extract the kind of information most would have hoped to receive.

There was no financial reporting published at all. In most cases the reports amounted to a travelogue or diary of where the sannyasis were at a certain point at time throughout the year. Many of the reports were written in such a way as to suggest that the sannyasis was making a mockery of the whole idea of reporting. Basically, we can read the mood between the lines: OK, you want a report, well here's what I consider worth sharing with you… that's all I have time or desire to do.

The message I get is that most sannyasis don't believe they should have to report and they feel imposed upon. Perhaps they feel everyone should just trust them, and no one's going to read the reports anyway, so it's a big imposition on their time and energy. In fact, it seems that even the Sannyasa Ministry didn't carefully read the report they were publishing. This is evidenced by the fact that a harsh report filed by Jayadvaita Swami was later deleted from the Report on the Ministry's website. Jayadvaita Swami himself expressed surprise that the Ministry had seen fit to include his report at all. You can read Jayadvaita Swami's report in the version originally published in the Sun (right below Hridayananda's report).

Many of the same dynamics that apply to gurus also apply to many of the sannyasis. In other words, many prefer to be independent and have no authority over them. On one hand they believe that the institution is a necessity, but on the other hand they see it as an imposition. Therefore they use it for whatever good it does them personally, but they don't feel any obligation to be accountable to their constituents.

POLL #2
ISKCON's policy for approving sannyasis is:

Inline with our Sampradaya - 6%
An institutional quagmire- 74%
A necessary modern process- 3%
None of the above - 17%

Poll #2 requires the reader to actually read the GBC Minutes as they pertain to removing sannyasis. Obviously 74% of respondents believe that the practice of approving sannyasis is an institutional quagmire. As history shows, it's only when the institution and the individual sannyasis can no longer cover-up the indiscretions of the sannyasi that any action is taken to remove them. In fact, in most circumstances the sannyasis effectively remove themselves.

Other than perhaps establishing a committee consisting of devotees stationed throughout the world, who have no budget or mandate, the ISKCON solution to policing sannyasis is basically a non-solution. It's just a way in which they can project an impression that they are prepared to take action. But if compliance with an institutional standard for sannyasa can't be upheld properly and in a timely fashion, then why even attempt to have an approval policy? (That is, even if one could be convinced that such a policy was inline with siddhanta, which it is not.)

It's hard to determine what the "None of the Above" voters think, and they were a fairly high percentage of respondents. Personally I find it hard to understand why someone voted in this category. It's possible that some of these voters didn't take the time or make the effort to read ISKCON's policy as it pertains to removing sannyasis, and therefore didn't have a solid opinion on the matter.

POLL #3
Since guru and sastra direct us to take sannyasa, should the institution
be able to prevent Srila Prabhupada's followers from doing so?

Yes - 5%
No - 71%
Under certain circumstances - 24%

ISKCON's pre-requisites for taking sannyasa vary from year to year, but basically you have to queue up for many years before you can get their stamp of approval. Their approval is directly related to how loyal you are to the GBC and ISKCON, and how well connected you are to a certain constituency, geographical area or temple. All these things taken into consideration really have nothing to do with the order of the Spiritual Master or directions of sastra as it pertains to sannyasa. And that, presumably, is why we have 71% of voters say the institution should not be able to prevent someone from taking sannyasa.

The sastra simply says that you should approach someone that's already in the sannyasa order, as did Srila Prabhupada, as did Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Such a person evaluates whether or not the candidate is qualified, and also determines whether or not he himself is ready to take the responsibility of becoming a sannyasa guru. In the same way that one can refer to their previous guru or the disciplic succession, the sannyasi can verify their sannyasa by saying that they took sannyasa from a particular qualified sannyasi. Of course, Srila Prabhupada's policy was not to change the sannyasi's name, but to just add the term "Swami" or "Goswami" after the name that was originally given. This policy has now been changed by ISKCON, who instead follows Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers and their Gaudiya Matha policy.

25% of voters said "Under Certain Circumstances" the institution should be able to prevent someone from taking sannyasa. Some of these voters could be referring to another type of institution, such as we find in the Gaudiya Matha, where a small matha is headed up by one guru/sannyasi who cultivated and trained individuals and consequently can easily determine if someone is qualified to take sannyasa or not. But in a big worldwide institution like ISKCON, this is another matter. Just as we find diksa gurus unable to test their candidates for initiation, it is doubtful that the Sannyasa Ministry can supervise personal review of a sannyasa candidate in any effective way. But again, that is not the primary issue - siddhanta is.

POLL #4
Should ISKCON follow strictly the sannyasa policies described by LCM?

Yes - 77%
No - 4%
Under certain circumstances - 19%

These numbers send an obvious message. The majority of voters are obviously familiar with the teachings and pastimes of Lord Caitanya, in which there is a great deal of information and specific pastimes dealing with the whole concept of sannyasa. Any reader could easily come to the conclusion that ISKCON's sannyasis are nowhere near the standard that Lord Caitanya set for being a sannyasi. While Lord Caitanya's pastimes were over 500 years ago, other Acaryas in our disciplic succession have been strict themselves, and they have also set down policies and standards in this regard.

What I feel has confused the issue is the fact that Srila Prabhupada, himself a Sampradaya Acarya, cannot be imitated. Some could say his pastimes indicate that he wasn't quite as strict as his predecessors on account of his mission and his preaching in the West. Of course, if you just think that Srila Prabhupada was a "normal guru/sannyasi", then you might be foolish enough to make an issue of this. But the fact is that as a Sampradaya Acarya, Srila Prabhupada was completely antiseptic and beyond any contamination, therefore for the sake of preaching and pleasing his guru and Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, he could seemingly make changes or do things which others shouldn't imitate.

Srila Prabhupada did chose to approve very young westerners to take sannyasa, with the proviso and instruction that they had to be extremely careful and completely motivated to take this position for the sake of preaching, and that if they lost that preaching spirit and dedication to pleasing the guru, then they could find themselves in very serious trouble. And a lot of them discovered this was true.

19% of voters say that Lord Caitanya's strict standards should only be kept under certain circumstances. I believe that many of these voters have been misled by ISKCON's failure to define who Srila Prabhupada is and what his relationship is to all the other sadhana-bhakta followers, regardless of whether they're sannyasis or not. ISKCON's history in this regard speaks for itself. It can't be hidden or denied, and their explanations of why this has taken place are sadly lacking.

POLL #5
The cumulative effect of all ISKCON sannyasis' preaching and pastimes has been:

Positive - 26%
Detrimental - 47%
Neither - 27%

The majority of voters feel that the sannyasis preaching has actually been detrimental, but a surprising 25% feel that it's been positive. Of course, it's very hard to determine how the preaching efforts would have been if many of these devotees hadn't taken sannyasa, or if ISKCON hadn't supported or given so much respect and authority to those who've taken sannyasa.

If less focus were put on the sannyasis, other kinds of program could have been instituted, such as giving proper glorification and respect to strict, long-time brahmacaries, or staunch householder couples who have dedicated themselves to preaching. If many of these devotees had won a similar type of institutional support, might they have gotten even greater results? There are many good examples, such as Caru das and Vibhavi devi, who bucked the trend and set a certain example in this regard. They created their own preaching field with good results, despite the fact that Caru is not a sannyasi. He didn't get distracted into the ISKCON bureaucracy, but just focused on preaching. Instead of spending a lot of time and energy traveling around unnecessarily, they just developed their prabhu-datta-desh.

There's no question that not being entangled in family life is a great bonus in terms of giving you the time and lack of distraction to do big preaching. This, of course, is what should be a sannyasi's real motivation -- they want to spend every moment serving Krsna directly. In our case, this means serving Srila Prabhupada, which requires us to preach non-stop.

Of the 47% of voters who feel the sannyasa preaching overall has been detrimental, we think it's safe to assume that this refers to the big, visible sannyasi falldowns, not the strict, humble, sweet sannyasis we seldom hear about. For the most part, the falldowns involved sannyasis who were up to their ears in ISKCON management, and were thus very public personalities. Their falldowns have taken a great toll on the society.

More than one-quarter of pollsters said the cumulative benefit of sannyasa preaching has been neither positive nor detrimental. Again, it's hard to determine whether or not these voters are referring to the fact that certain sannyasis are undoubtedly simple, sincere and hard working, committed to the guru and preaching and to maintaining the order of sannyasa, but not so visible in their efforts. One can only imagine how difficult it is for these sincere devotees when one of their sannyasi godbrothers tarnishes the image of the order of sannyasa, what to speak of ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada.

As I've stated before on the guru issue, there's a lack of emphasis on siksa gurus. Similarly I feel there's a lack of appreciation for the staunch, sincere, hard-working devotees who have seen fit to remain in whatever asrama they're in, not taking the sannyasa position. In the final analysis it's the individual's choice, as much as it's an individual's choice to get married, or who they marry. It's the devotee's choice to seek and accept the position of sannyasa, for whatever personal reasons they have. For those who don't know these individuals, it's best not to make generalist statements or opinions on them individually. As Srila Prabhupada has stated, somehow or other just think of Krsna. If it's best for you individually, for your Krsna consciousness, to accept the order of sannyasa in order to preach and please Srila Prabhupada, then you should do so. No one -- especially no one who has no personal knowledge of you or your circumstances -- should be put in a position of judging. Unfortunately, that's ISKCON's present policy on the matter.

ISKCON should not, as an institution, make judgment as to an individual sannyasa candidate's qualifications. Whether it be someone like Prahladananda dasa, the Minister of Sannyasa, or some other institutional leader, they should not be put in a position of making such a judgment call. This is true even if it's another sannyasi suggesting or recommending someone. So many sannyasis in ISKCON are embroiled in the political program that such an institutional authorization program can't help but take on political overtones. Sannyasis by definition should exempt themselves from accepting management positions, and should just engage in preaching. If they did, things would be so different in ISKCON today. But because the program has been for so many years in the way that it has, in order to get ahead in the ISKCON hierarchy it's understood to be very advantageous for one to take sannyasa and have that kind of status. Once you're awarded sannyasa in ISKCON, your career path is lubricated if you choose to start moving up in the society. And that's one of the main factors of both falldowns and people's discouragement in terms of the sannyasa order.

As a Sampradaya Acarya, nitya-siddha, and the most recent representative of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila Prabhupada's life and the way it unfolded with respect to sannyasa should be studied and amplified. His guru maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, was a naistiki brahmacari (unmarried and a lifetime celibate). And Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur was essentially a lifetime grihasta. Srila Prabhupada, however, followed the traditional Vedic path of taking sannyasa at a certain age of retirement from family life. For us in the West, particularly, we should look to Srila Prabhupada to set the example in this regard. We should consider his pastimes to be orchestrated from birth to samadhi, as Krsna demonstrating to us what is the best example to follow. As such, Srila Prabhupada's pastimes are so important to his followers, including those thinking about taking sannyasa at a certain period of time in their life. If their circumstances indicate that it's best for them and they feel they've been called by Srila Prabhupada to do so, they should be able to make this choice on their own initiative. The institution should never try to put artificial impediments in their way.

| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |

| About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |