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 If we fail to do that, I fear that we will be forever locked into outdated and unhealthy paradigms.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.











