pre-email days, there were a few devotees I regularly corresponded with and Vasu was one of my favorites. Among other things, he turned me on to the Smiths, equipped me with interfaith resources, and helped me to appreciate a less fanatical brand of Krishna consciousness. He stirred stuff up, and I thank Krishna that he did. Those exchanges were among the most meaningful factors in my own spiritual growth and development as a member of ISKCON. His writing was insightful, well researched, and deeply personal. After reading his blog post, I think that his writing today is as beautiful, thought-provoking, and honest as it was 12 years ago.Anyway, his post is here.
I couldn't resist the urge to comment on the post. Here is essentially what I wrote there:
I
t astounds me that purportedly thoughtful and informed devotees (initiated or otherwise) could challenge the merits of having (and actually caring for and ministering to) a laity. Since when did we turn away anyone who wants to serve Krishna or His devotees? As one senior devotee recently exclaimed to me, with tears in his eyes, "For God's sake, they are our people!"Preaching necessitates being able to separate principle from practice, form from substance. If we fail to do that, I fear that we will be forever locked into outdated and unhealthy paradigms. At the risk of sounding apocalyptic, it is likely that we will actually wipe ourselves out of existence.
We need to recognize (from the top down and from the bottom up) the value of a Krishna conscious community that includes gradations of commitment or participation. Why do we equate such a compassionate and welcoming approach to Vaisnava sanga with "watering down" the principles or practices of initiated devotees? And what does such a fear say about how (collectively) secure we are in our own devotional standing? As my guru once told me, "Devotees are both conservative and liberal. Conservative with oneself, but liberal with others." Is that really so hard to pull off?
It is tragic that we don't yet have the lexicon to even identify our own broader community. We continue to grapple with antiquated and loaded terminology like "life member" (which is used more often to exclude others as outsiders than to count them as part of the ISKCON family) or "congregation" (which somehow developed a curious racial undertone to it: congregational = Indian, guest = non-Indian newcomer, devotee = live in temple).
The fact is that -- like it or not -- devotees who see this need to build a healthy, accepting community are doing it. They are finding ways to communicate Krishna consciousness in a way that is chaste to the tradition and its principles, but recognizes and values people at whatever stage of spiritual life they may be in. It is up to ISKCON as an organization to validate, encourage, and lend institutional weight to these experiences. They will happen anyway, but ISKCON leadership* can choose to either be a part of the solution or an awkward reminder of the problem.
* - And yes, I am the N.A. Communications Director for ISKCON, so I am as much a part of the potential solution as anyone else.
5 comments:
Dear Vineet (Vyenkata Bhatta dasa),
Hare Krishna! It's a pleasure hearing from you after all these years. I, too, enjoyed our exchange of letters back in the mid-1990s.
Since we lost contact, around 1996, I got a certificate in computer business administration from a local business college. I worked as a personal banker for a couple of years, before landing my current position in social services, which I've held since 1999.
From April 1994 through December 1995, when we were corresponding, I was strictly following all four regs, and I followed all four regs again from August (Janmastami) 1997 to November 2000. I've been following between at least three and all four regs since 1991, and I chant four rounds per day.
I've gotten two books published: the first one in 2003 on religion and animal rights has been endorsed by Jewish and Christian clergy; the second in 2006 on abortion politics (Carol Crossed of Democrats For Life wrote the foreword). I'm looking for a Vaishnava publisher for A Source of Inspiration, which is meant for interfaith preaching.
Thank you for reading my blog article "Vedic Women Deserve Protection." I hope you will visit my blog (http://namahatta.org/blogs/index.php/vasu) and read all the other articles as well.
"A Broader Social Movement" deals directly with establishing a formal laity within ISKCON. Sometimes initiates misunderstand: we're talking about expanding the sankirtana movement--not breaking it in two!
The question that needs to be addressed is whether or not ISKCON is a strictly brahminical movement, or whether we should be establishing varnashrama-dharma.
A formal laity within ISKCON would mark the beginning of varnashrama-dharma...which is what Srila Prabhupada wanted to establish after having successfully established a class of brahmanas to guide humanity for the next 10,000 years.
When it came to one's personal sadhana, Srila Prabhupada said be strict with yourself; be lenient with others. "A Broader Social Movement" was also published online at www.chakra.org in July 2006.
Again, it's a pleasure hearing from you after all these years. Let's keep in touch!
Thank you for this post. I agree with every single word you've written.
Also, I can't stand the terms "congregation" member (Indians who don't live nearby or who didn't "join" the temple) and "community" member (people like me who live near by the temple and should probably be doing more service than we do).
We also sometimes grapple with an "us against them" mindset when it comes to the devotees living in the temple and those living "outside" (oooh, evil!). It took me years to get over the subtle feelings of guilt because I'm a householder and can't go on the altar everyday or cook the raj bhoga every week. I have three children and I don't want to screw them up in the name of doing more service. I finally felt that no matter what people think or say, I don't care. It's my life, my family, I have to do what I feel is best. As long as my guru is pleased with me then everything will be fine. Protecting my children and making sure they are safe and secure (both physically AND mentally) is my priority.
Whew, sorry for the tangent. Thank you so much for your wonderful, thought provoking writing.
ys,
Mandakini dd
Haribol Prabhu,
I really can't believe this is the first time I've read something like this, but it is! And you are so right, and this is so long overdue!
It's something I've experienced on several levels; first, my husband is not a devotee. Second, from the time I first visited the temple until almost 2 years after I was initiated we lived 160 miles from the nearest temple, with no other devotees within 100+ miles of us. Even now, we live about 40 miles from the temple, and while it allows me to get there and do some regular service every week, I still don't really know whether I'm considered a 'community' or 'congregational' or 'whatever' kind of member.
There really does need to be some way that people can be people and do the things they need to do in life like work, raise kids, have a house and possibly a non-devotee family and still be part of the devotional family. It's much easier to push people away than it is to welcome them in, and not everyone is pushy, obnoxious and/or determined as I am to make a space for myself if no one is going to make it for me.
Thanks so much for this post :)
Ys,
Satyavati devi dasi
Thanks for the comments. One of he big problems that I have with the word "congregation" is that it is often used as a euphemism for "Indian" thus allows devotees to talk along racial lines without acknowledging it. Even when there are not strong racial undercurrents (which there usually are), it is usually a way of setting distinctions between outsiders and insiders -- i.e. either you are a devotee (see also "full-timer" "16-rounder" etc.) or are congregation. I think this dichotomy encourages isolation and discourages gradual advancement in spiritual life.
We use the terms "congregation" and "member" very differently from the way that any English-speaking person would use it. Hence confusion and identity issues. (Real conversation I heard recently at a temple: "Is he a member or a devotee?" "Member." "Okay, then tell him he has to pay $30 and prasadam is not included.")
I think "community" is much better, although some devotees tend to equate that with living within a certain radius of the temple building.
Very interesting...maybe I'll write some more about this in a future post.
Late comment (as always) but something to add. The term Congregation is often loosely used. Back from where I got into KC, Congregation is the English term for a Yatra, a community where temple can't exist because of whatever reasons, a congregation is required. My opinion is that any group of devotees irrespective of whether there is a temple or not, whether they live in the temple or not, all are a part of a "congregation". Its good congregations that breed good communities. Congregations is just a collection of people, communities are were they are all a part of one big family. Personally, I feel that even Congregations aren't established in many temples with so many differences based on race, sadhana level etc etc. Once we get past hte congregation stage, will the Communities arise.
Post a Comment