The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate - Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand

The Hare Krishna Movement:
The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant

Columbia University Press

Edited by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand

"This book constitutes a unique contribution to scholarship on ISKCON. There is a thorough recounting of ISKCON's history and development, beliefs and practices, and internal struggles, with a focus on developments since the passing of the movement's founder. But what makes this collection so extraordinary is the blending of voices -- scholars, movement defenders and opponents, current members and former members -- in one volume. Together the contributors create a rich, nuanced understanding of a significant religious movement." –David Bromley, Virginia Commonwealth University

"This volume of splendid and uncensored reports and reflections from the front lines of the Krishna Consciousness movement contains a degree of intelligence and wisdom unexpected, and in my experience, unprecedented for a "movement" that still actively propagates its teachings. Almost all of the contributors are devotees, many of them still active, who have become scholars, and have both the temerity and a ruthless commitment to honesty to look upon not only the Krishna Consciousness movement with equal degrees of passion and dispassion, but at their own lives as well. This is as clear a window into the trajectory of a modern spiritual movement as we are likely to see." –Frederick M. Smith, University of Iowa

"This excellent study balances the views of scholars and participants in a long-needed assessment of the Hare Krishna movement's evolution since the death of its charismatic founder in 1977. As a fascinating portrait of a young religious community's internal and external struggles, the collection should appeal to both supporters and critics of the 'Hare Krishnas' while more general readers will enjoy the wealth of detailed real-life religious history." –Thomas J. Hopkins, Franklin & Marshall College

Dancing and chanting with their shaven heads and saffron robes, Hare Krishnas presented the most visible face of any of the eastern religions transplanted to the West during the sixties and seventies. Yet few people know much about them.

This comprehensive study includes more than twenty contributions from members, ex-members, and academics who have followed the Hare Krishna movement for years. Since the death of its founder, the movement, also known as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), has experienced debates over the roles of authority, heresy, and dissent, which have led to the development of several splinter movements. There is a growing women's rights movement and a highly publicized child abuse scandal. Providing a privileged look at the people and issues shaping ISKCON, this volume also offers insight into the complex factors surrounding the emergence of religious traditions, including early Christianity, as well as a glimpse of the original seeds and the germinating stages of a religious tradition putting down roots in foreign soil.

Contributors: Larry D. Shinn, Berea College · Guy Beck, Tulane University · Graham Schweig, Christopher Newport University · Kim Knott, University of Leeds · Ekkehard Lorenz, University of Stockholm · Burke Rochford, Middlebury College · Kenneth Valpey, University of Oxford · Thomas Herzog (late), Cambridge University.

Contents

• Foreword · Larry D. Shinn
• Introduction · Edwin F. Bryant and Maria L. Ekstrand

Part 1. Krishna Consciousness in the Context of Hindu Theology

• Krishna, the Intimate Deity · Graham M. Schweig
• The History of Indic Monotheism and Modern Chaitanya Vaishnavism: Some Reflections · Neal Delmonico
• Hare Krishna Mahamantra: Gaudiya Vaishnava Practice and the Hindu Tradition of Sacred Sound · Guy L. Beck
• Krishna in Mleccha desh: ISKCON Temple Worship in Historical Perspective · Kenneth Valpey (Krishna Kshetra Das)

Part 2. Bhaktivedanta Swami and His Predecessors

• Who Is Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu? · Steven J. Rosen (Satyaraja Das)
• Charismatic Renewal and Institutionalization in the History of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Gaudiya Math · Jan Brzezinski
• Bhaktivinoda and Scriptural Literalism · Shukavak N. Das
• The Guru, Mayavadins, and Women: Tracing the Origins of Selected Polemical Statements in the Work of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami · Ekkehard Lorenz
• Bhaktivedanta Swami's Preaching in the Context of Gaudiya Vaishnavism · Paul H. Sherbow

Part 3. Post-Bhaktivedanta Controversies of Lineage

• Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts: Reform and Renewal in ISKCON · William H. Deadwyler (Ravindra Svarupa Das)
• The Guardian of Devotion: Disappearance and Rejection of the Spiritual Master in ISKCON After 1977 · Swami Bhakti Bhavana Vishnu
• The No Change in ISKCON Paradigm · Krishnakant Desai, Sunil Awatramani (Adridharan Das), and Madhu Pandit Das
• The "Routinization of Charisma" and the Charismatic: The Confrontation Between ISKCON and Narayana Maharaja · Irvin H. Collins

Part 4. Heresies

• Doctrinal Controversy and the Group Dynamic · Conrad Joseph (Kundali Das)
• Heresy and the Jiva Debate · Howard Resnick (Hridayananda Das Goswami)

Part 5. Social Issues

• Airports, Conflict, and Change in the Hare Krishna Movement · E. Burke Rochford Jr.
• Healing the Heart of ISKCON: The Place of Women · Kim Knott
• Life as a Woman on Watseka Avenue: Personal Story I · Nori J. Muster
• Child Abuse and the Hare Krishnas: History and Response · David Wolf
• Fifteen Years Later: A Critique of Gurukula: Personal Story II · Gabriel Deadwyler (Yudhishthira Das)
• Race, Monarchy, and Gender: Bhaktivedanta Swami's Social Experiment · Ekkehard Lorenz

Part 6. Reevaluations

• On Leaving ISKCON: Personal Story III · Steven J. Gelberg
• On Staying in ISKCON: Personal Story IV · Michael Grant (Mukunda Goswami) and Anuttama Das Adhikari
• Re-Visioning ISKCON: Constructive Theologizing for Reform and Renewal · Thomas Herzig (Tamal Krishna Goswami) and Kenneth Valpey (Krishna Kshetra Das)
• Concluding Reflections · Edwin F. Bryant and Maria L. Ekstrand

About the Editors

Edwin F. Bryant is assistant professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University. His publications include The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture and Krishna: The Beautiful Legend of God, Srimad Bhagavata Purana Book Ten. Maria L. Ekstrand is a psychologist on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco who was involved in the development of ISKCON's child abuse investigation guidelines.

I just received my copy this morning. It is a handsome book. Will let everyone know what I find later.

RE: The Hare Krishna Movement: The Post-Charismatic Fate of a Religious
Transplant, Edited by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand. Columbia University Press 2004.

---

It's safe to say that a book review generally serves two purposes: to bring a book to the attention of the reading public (usually for recommended reading purposes), and to discuss the merit of a book's existence and the contribution it might make to a particular genre.

My purpose in writing this article is not to review the contents of the book, but to highlight the disqualification of two of the authors and both editors to write a book that is in any way advertised or promoted as an authoritative study on ISKCON, and to prove through statements of their own why they are disqualified. I wouldn't stop anyone from reading the book, but in doing so, one must be armed with all the facts. I will also add that this article is addressed to the loyal devotees of ISKCON and followers of Srila Prabhupada, who expect (and rightly so) that people who contribute negatively to the study of ISKCON, it's founder-acharya Srila Prabhupada, and its history, do not go unchallenged.

This book by Bryant (Adwaita Das)* and Ekstrand (Madhusudani Rädhä dasi)* was written for academia, a look at the progress of ISKCON in the years since Prabhupada's departure, and is a collection of chapters by various authors, both former and current members of ISKCON. What might have begun as a valid contribution to the growing number of academic studies on ISKCON has turned into a book rejected even by some contributors who, from their position as loyal members in good standing within ISKCON, are disassociating themselves from this book and its content, specifically two chapters written by ex-members of ISKCON.

It has further been revealed that one of the book's editors, Ekstrand, is responsible for some highly offensive comments directed at Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. Those comments were made after the compilation and completion of the book, and have only recently come to light.

One of the two chapters mentioned above is by a woman named Nori Muster-formerly Nandini dasi-who along with her husband was fired from her position on ISKCON World Review for her criticism of ISKCON and its members, and who obviously still bears an active grudge. Some years back Muster wrote a book called (quite dramatically) Betrayal of Spirit, sharing her negative experiences of ISKCON. The ISKCON Communications Journal requested a summary of the book from Muster, but never published it. Not surprising.

The other chapter is written by Ekkehard Lorenz, formerly known as Ekanath das, a disciple of Harikesa. A few years ago Lorenz revealed his views on Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON on a PAMHO conference, making rude and unsavoury comments about Srila Prabhupada being a "deluded guru" who came to the West to cheat everyone. He is singularly disqualified to speak in any official or unofficial capacity for ISKCON or its founder-acharya, but unfortunately that hasn't stopped the editors from including him.

I'll get to Ekstrand and Co. in a minute, but first I wanted to establish the point about the involvement of certain contributors: why Ekstrand/Bryant would invite Muster to contribute a chapter unless their intentions were actually dishonorable to ISKCON. Muster has nothing positive to say, and her own book is based on unsubstantiated rumor, gossip, and memories produced and nurtured in a self-admitted psychologically unbalanced mind. Rather than simply denounce Muster's book out of hand, I've selected a few quotes to give an overall idea of how unqualified she is to speak on ISKCON. I'll address her contribution to this other book in a moment. In Betrayal of the Spirit, she writes:


Apparently this is a trait Muster possesses independently of the influence of any organization. She is still trying to force her own beliefs and values on other people, and does so repeatedly in her own book, and in her chapter in the book Ekstrand and Bryant edited. The fact that some people have found favor with her forcefulness in its present incarnation does not validate her contribution to anything worthy in terms of literature, her own spiritual life, or an organization that offers spiritual solutions to material problems. It is simply an indication that people are more interested in scandal and gossip than the absolute truth.

She continues:


So, after trying to establish herself as genuine and as a person not prone (any longer) to fanatical trains of thought or unproved statements, here Muster falls face first into the pile of excrement that has landed on the doorstep of ISKCON, compliments of some other ex-ISKCON disenchanteds hell-bent on proving that Prabhupada was murdered, but who have failed to produce a single piece of evidence to support their fanciful claims. Muster appears still to be suffering from the same defect of character that caused her so much misery in ISKCON: she simply lacks the intelligence to disseminate information herself and shows symptoms of an excessive personality disorder (accept fanatically, reject fanatically). She still swallows whole the most fanatical statements available and spews them back out, undigested, as if they were the venerable, absolute truth.


Didn't we just read that Muster was aware one year before joining that the guru of the institution had been "murdered," and that there was a "power struggle," and presumably so many other things as well? "Innocently joined"? It's hard to keep track of Musters wild claims.

She admits co-dependency then, and still displays the symptoms of it, defining every success or failure in her life by the contact she had with this institution: that without this institution, her life would be fine; that her problems stemmed and continue to stem from this institution; and that it ruined her life and continues to hamper her spiritual and psychological development. They are mighty claims and are, again, unfounded.

We are meant to believe that Muster would never have required psychotherapy had she not clapped eyes on ISKCON, that her life would have been devoid of hardship, that no obstacles would exist in her familial and social circles and the existent relationships within, and that she would be a spiritually advanced and well-adjusted person.


There is more, of course, but it all falls into the same category. This book and others like it rarely fail to disappoint. They are a litany of complaints by disgruntled ex-members with little or no substance. Muster's inclusion in the book by Bryant/ Ekstrand is, therefore, highly suspect. Her contribution is more in the genre of tabloid gossip than something befitting academia--her writings are basically one person's account of how they couldn't cut it in a spiritual institution. Constructive criticism has its place, but this goes beyond good taste.

Recommended reading? Hardly. Evidence that the author is qualified to contribute to an academic study on ISKCON? Definitely not.

Lorenz is no different. His contribution is similarly questionable, since his obvious lack of understanding of the philosophy Srila Prabhupada imparted is evident in his writing, which also resembles a venting spleen more than an academic contribution. No one is demanding that he agree with everything Srila Prabhupada writes; however one would expect that he stop pretending that he knows better than Srila Prabhupada. I considered including a sample of his text from the book edited by Bryant and Ekstrand, but it refers to what he deems to be Srila Prabhupada's "obsession with sex." I find it seriously difficult to respond to something as blatantly foolish and low class as this, and can only conclude that it leaves no doubt as to the mindset of Lorenz and his dismissal as a qualified contributor to a serious and academic study of ISKCON.

Former members of ISKCON, like Lorenz and Muster, or those who (like Ekstrand) never really 'joined' in the first place, seem to think that they have some unique insight denied to others, as well as an authority to speak on behalf of the movement. Their association with the movement--however dubious--sends a message of it being "an insider's look." In Betrayal of Spirit, Muster writes about co-dependence, dysfunction, and addiction. When a person suffers from these individualized afflictions of character-which is not really surprising in this day and age-it hardly warrants rubbishing an entire organization. Perhaps when Muster is searching through her psychological thesaurus, she might consider "accountability," "denial," etc.

The same line of questioning can be directed at Ekstrand. One naturally questions the aims of a person who has expressed only negative, critical, and often grossly offensive statements towards the founder-äcärya of ISKCON, and has made every effort to reduce to the ordinary every extraordinary thing he has ever done. In fact, I'm stunned that a person like Ekstrand can even consider compiling a book that she thinks might 'benefit' anyone, when she has this to say of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad-gita As It Is:


Her singularly uninformed opinions form the basis of inaccurate comments so obviously devoid of any philosophical understanding that they are embarrassing. Her grasp of what role the parampara plays in the context of spiritual writings is revealed rather sadly in this statement made in response to someone calling Srila Prabhupada a "thief":


Interesting accusation, considering Ekstrand's/Bryant's use of the title "Post Charismatic Fate" for this book. The title has its origin in Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements (published 1991) by Steven J. Gelberg (Subhananda Dasa). More recently, it was applied to a paper by German professor Dr. Afe Adogame, presented at the "Minority Religions, Social Change, and Freedom of Conscience" conference in Utah, June 2002. The full name of the paper is "Legal Imbroglios and the Post-Charismatic Fate of the Celestial Church of Christ." Is this plagiarism? Not according to academia. In fact, as one academic recently confirmed, it is common practice amongst academics to borrow titles and quotes that enhance or capture what one is trying to express. In light of that, Ekstrand's view of Srila Prabhupada's actions is narrow minded to the extreme--hardly the 'inclusive' or 'liberal' credos she claims to live by. In truth, her comments about Srila Prabhupada's so-called plagiarism don't even require an explanation for anyone with the slightest understanding of the significance of the parampara in terms of sastric accuracy and the purity of the writings. With her ignorant comments, Ekstrand has proven herself unqualified in yet another area.

In summary, Ekstrand considers Srila Prabhupada's writing inaccurate, lacking humility, riddled with mistakes, stolen from others, and arrogant. In fact, when the rather considerable collection of Ekstrand's insults and criticisms of ISCKON and Srila Prabhupada are stacked up, one wonders why she is bothering with ISKCON at all. Her comments reach far back into the disciplic succession, beginning with an attack on Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur:


…and continuing to question the qualifications of personal associates of Lord Caitanya, whom she admits never even hearing of, and worse, comparing them to substance abusers and psychologically damaged mental patients (no, I'm serious!):


She displays her excruciating ignorance of the philosophy with a final little gem, this one aimed at the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu:


We're awaiting Ekstrand's paper on how God has abandonment issues, since she also accused Lord Rama of the same thing with Sita-obviously an errant behavioral pattern, "Dr." Ekstrand?

Entertainment value aside, it's achingly obvious that Ekstrand lacks even a basic understanding of the philosophy; has absolutely no respect for Srila Prabhupada; has to date displayed no desire to learn the philosophy (a fact that she's proven time and again in her reluctance to enter into anything vaguely resembling a philosophical discussion); and has no understanding of or capacity to appreciate the ancient tradition and culture surrounding the philosophical precepts or the majestic contribution to society, education, and religion that Srila Prabhupada made. In short, she is in every way unqualified to speak on ISKCON or Srila Prabhupada.

As if that weren't enough to convince us, are we expected to believe that Ekstrand possesses either a higher intellectual capacity, or a blindingly brilliant insight into matters philosophical that someone like Dr. Shaligram Shukla, an Assistant Professor of Linguistics at Georgetown University, somehow missed? He had this to say about Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad-gita As It Is:


A professor of linguistics who recommends the book to anyone interested in Sanskrit. Kind of nullifies Ekstrand's and Bryant's opinion of Srila Prabhupada:


Well, good for Mr. Bryant. Not good, however, that he holds this opinion of
Srila Prabhupada yet considers himself qualified to compile a book of this nature directed at the institution Srila Prabhupada founded.

Besides the pieces in this book by Muster, Lorenz, and one or two others, there are also well-written and obviously valuable contributions by members of ISKCON in good standing-holders of PhD's who were approached and agreed to contribute to what they believed would be a valid academic volume. One can see the relative merit in doing so; the considerations held by the academia toward such a publication are drastically different from those a devotee of ISKCON and loyal servant of Srila Prabhupada might apply in the same circumstances. It is a unique field in which there is some very relevant preaching by qualified devotees: HH Hridayananda Maharaja is one example (and he is included in this book); another is Krishna Kshetra Das, a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies; Ravindra Svarupa Das is also included, as is HH Tamal Krishna Goswami, Garuda Das, Satyaraja Das, and HH Mukunda Maharaja.

All of these learned gentlemen contributed to this book in good faith that it had something viable to offer the academic community. However, in the space of time that has passed since the articles were gathered and edited by Ekstrand and Bryant, the highly offensive comments quoted above have come to light, as has the content of the two chapters by Muster and Lorenz. It is now obvious that the combined intentions of Ekstrand and Bryant toward ISKCON are dishonorable and that their biased and offensive approach to the institution basically renders their book invalid.

As for the inclusion of HH Tamal Krishna Goswami, I can categorically state that Goswami Maharaja would have objected to being used in such gross terms as those employed by Ekstrand and Bryant, which do nothing to contribute to a study of the institution's progress and growth over the last 25 years, but which serve only to further their own profiles in the academic community and label their work as 'authoritative.' Let me state quite clearly--It is not. While appreciating the benefits that a positive study of this nature might have, HH Tamal Krishna Goswami would have disassociated himself from the negative content of this book. Since he is not here to do so, I am, as his disciple, speaking for him. I do not do so independently or without sanction or authority. The godbrothers of Goswami Maharaja, who oversee his legacy of published and unpublished works (the fruit of his service to Srila Prabhupada), wrote to me that it was indeed my "duty to do so as his disciple." They have given direction and guidance, and most importantly, their blessings to defend and represent Goswami Maharaja in a fitting manner.

Other contributors to the book have stated their objections and their intention to disassociate themselves from this book. Satyaraja Das has this to say about his involvement in the book-the first paragraph referring to the valid contributions by his godbrothers who remain loyal to Srila Prabhupada, and even those former members of ISKCON who contributed to the book in a dignified manner:


HH Hridayananda Maharaja shares a similar view, but takes a different approach. He says that while he and his peers were aware that there would be some offensive pieces in the book, he believes that his own contribution, and that of the other loyal members of ISKCON, was crucial. He says:


As Hridayananda Maharaja, Satyaraja Das, and their peers will confirm, there
are dignified and valuable ways to approach a comparative study of this
nature, and to deliver it with integrity. Consider, for example, the following comment made by Dr Julius Lipner, PhD (King's College, London), former teacher in the Divinity Faculty at the University of Cambridge, where he is now Reader in Hinduism and the Comparative Study of Religion. He has published and lectured widely. Dr. Lipner was greatly responsible for HH Tamal Krishna Maharaja's entry into Cambridge for the pursuit of his doctorate. In his obituary to Goswami Maharaja in the ISKCON Communications Journal, Dr. Lipner writes:


In other words, a man who was capable of acknowledging ISKCON's problems with dignity, integrity, and humility, and addressing those issues in a mature and enlightened manner. Unlike Ekstrand and Bryant, who seem distracted by their habitual muckraking and self-aggrandizement.

Ekstrand, Bryant, Muster, and Lorenz have revealed a shared trait: they pass themselves off as "authorities" on a movement with whom they have no contact and of which they are no longer members (or in Ekstrand's case, never was).

Their view is, at the very best, tainted by an apparent lack of ability to access anything spiritual, since their writings constantly miss the philosophical understanding so crucial to developing one's inner spiritual life. Can that be the fault of an organization? What individual capacity to attain spiritual upliftment or understanding did any of them possess in the first place? It could well be that the answer is: very little. It adds to the heavy load of evidence that reduces to nothing the self-proclaimed "authority" status, and reduces the contents of any publication by them to little more than schoolgirl gossip and misdirected confusion at a philosophical level. Hardly the qualifications required for what is meant to pass as an offering to academe.

Ultimately, the faults of humans are many, of the divine, none. If one possesses little or no ability to seek the sincere amongst the rabble, then inevitably the result will be that he or she is cheated. It doesn't require a great degree of intelligence or aptitude to see the faults in anything these days: Kali yuga is an ocean of faults. Rather, it requires a healthy dose of sincerity and an intellect sharpened by transcendental knowledge to separate the good from the bad. Ekstrand, Bryant, Muster, and Lorenz seem to have a long way to go in acquiring the basic tools necessary for their spiritual journey.

Perhaps before embarking on any further tomes of literature they wish to inflict upon on us, they might consider this piece of advice, penned by none other than Ekstrand herself:



Amen, Ekstrand. Amen.

---

Note Regarding the use of non-devotee names. My use of non-devotional names can be misconstrued as an insult, used in an effort to separate someone and their 'non devotional sentiments' from the institution they're criticizing. That is not the case here. Both Ekstrand and Bryant have written the book in question under their non-devotional names, and that is how I will address them. Neither have, to my knowledge, renounced their devotional name, and it is not my place to do it for them. Ekkehard Lorenz, however, did revert to his non-devotional name when dealing with devotees, and made mention of it in a public conference on PAMHO. As for Nori Muster, she also writes under a non devotional name, and her pieces make it clear she considers herself unconnected with anything ISKCON that would include her name.

A brief comment: A book of this sort is meant to present varying points of view. It is quite natural that it not be one-sided, or all backpatting and tut-tutting. There are a great many people who went through the Iskcon experience and are now vociferously opposed to it, or to one or the other of its subgroups. This is a reality, and any honest appraisal of the movement should take account of these voices and give them representation also.

It would be far better to make an attempt to deal with the difficulties raised by Muster, Ekstrand and Lorenz rather than vilifying them on a rather personal level.

I have not yet read the book, but I am glad to see that my article was not condemned in this way. Perhaps it's because I don't really have an axe to grind, while it is clear that Nori and Ekkehard still feel somewhat cheated by their experiences in Iskcon. They are not the only ones.

But I have read Ekkehard's work and I find it devastating and interesting. I was hoping we could post a copy of it on here. It is, as far as I can recall, a simple analysis of the sources Prabhupada used in writing his books, sorting out what he borrowed and what were his original contributions. Ekkehard's conclusion is that nearly everything sex-related comes from Prabhupada, rather than from the Sanskrit or Bengali sources he used.

If anyone else would like to comment, I'd be interested to see what they have to say. Perhaps arkaydee has read these articles by now.

A few days after I got my copy, and reading only a few articles, the book was loaned out and has yet to be returned. I'm hoping to get my copy back this weekend. I have some thoughts but want to read things over again.

I reserve all judgement until I read it. I am quite interested to do so as I know practically everyone who has written for it. I agree with Jagat, if it was all sweetness and light it would be unbelievable. I want to read the good, the bad and the ugly and come to my own conclusion.


Keshava

Phew! The author has outdone herself in this article. I have not read the book she doesn't critique, but know enough about Nori Muster and Ek. Lorenz to say that what she writes about them is pure garbage. And the sad thing is that she is fully confident that any attack on them is justified because they present ISKCON and ACBS Prabhupada in a negative light.

I read "Betrayal of the Spirit" when I still had full faith in ISKCON, my ISKCON guru and the GBC. I didn't find it offensive or malicious at all. Nori says in the beginning of her book that it is written with love and is dedicated to the devotees of ISKCON, and I agree with that. To call the bad things described in the book simply "rumors" is unfair to the general mass of devotees whom Braja-sevaki seeks to protect.

Ekkehard Lorenz's work is of a very high quality and is as scholarly and thorough as it can possibly be. It is ridiculous to say that he doesn't know the KC philosophy. He has studied for many years Prabhupada's Srimad-Bhagavatam and the commentaries ACBSP used for writing it and is probably the biggest expert on it.

I went to www.dipika.org because I thought that the book non-review was posted there, but instead found another article by Braja-sevaki, Something about ISKCON (http://www.dipika.org/2004/06/30/29_something_about_iskcon/index.html)

I just can't help but quote the following excerpt:

Of course, some critics would disagree with me. They might say that after Srila Prabhupada's departure, it all went to hell. Well I'm sure some people may have gone to hell, but I don't believe this of the institution.

It's difficult to perceive the result of the changes with material vision. In fact, it's impossible. The institution of ISKCON doesn't bear inspection under a critical, material eye, despite the number of people who claim to see all its faults and continue to point them out ad infinitum. It's not a sentimental matter of saying, "If your eyes are tinged with the salve of love of God, you'll understand."

The fact is, there are some things we are just not privy to on a material level, and if one is incapable of understanding this, then one is blocked from any further transcendental vision or spiritual understanding. And that's just the way it is with ISKCON. Regardless of how much some critics might think that what I'm saying is just a convenient brush-off, this is simply the way it is.

So according to her no one but the purest of the pure can attempt to understand and ISKCON in any way. And the ones who critique ISKCON are devoid of any spiritual insights by default. And this is just the way it is. Well, if this is the mindset of the loyal ISKCON devotee in the 21st century, I can understand why Nori Muster and E. Lorenz do not want to have anything to do with the movement.

Braja Sevaki has an axe to grind against Madhusudani Radha - well, I ought rather to say that she hates her. I can't believe she has the nerve to post 3600+ words of vitriol.

So many of Braja Sevaki's comments irk me because they are not actually objective - and yet so many might believe her. She bases her remarks on personal feelings and vendetta instead of actual facts.

For example, she doesn't know Nori Muster (Nori's really nice to talk to!), but when Nori writes:


-Braja Sevaki retorts:


Braja sevaki must be very deluded. How many 'honest' devotees realise that they cannot do "sankirtana" nowadays because it's proselytising to people in the worst way?

When people ask me my faith, I have to immediately qualify, "yes, like on Oxford Street - singing and dancing - but I don't agree with their methods of book distribution". Let's face, the unfortunate, unsavoury truth of ISKCON's presentation of Gaudiya Vaisnavism is that all other religious traditions are, after a fashion, eventually, wrong - something, I hasten to add, Krsnadasa Kaviraja and the other Goswamins didn't agree with.

Then she misconstrues Ek, as I think Jagat already mentioned.

She also says:


Well, is Braja Sevaki so great and omniscient that she can decide that Madhu (Maria Ekstrand) was not initiated by HH Jayapataka Swami? How rude!

I am also positive that a lot of the quotes she attributes to Madhu have been unfairly taken from a Yahoogroup I ran, which Braja Sevaki seems to have infiltrated. Talk about taking someone's words and using them out of context. I mean, yes, maybe Madhu gaffed with the way she said:

- but not everyone's an expert on ontological hagiographies and the like. And don't all devotees have the right to ask questions to understand how things work, to understand the philosophy, and the nature of revelation.

These are just a few of my reactions to this diatribe. Filthy. Nasty.

Even if she were right, she could write the whole thing nicely. That's what really irks me about devotees these days: the lack of manners in debate.

Ys., Rama Kesava

The following review was sent me by someone who requested anonymity. He may come forward, but for the time being I am honoring his request.


I spent a good number of years in ISKCON, but since I left, I do not often read devotee literature. However, "The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant" got my attention. Glancing at the list of contributors, one must be in awe of the accomplishment of the editors, Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand (Madhusudani Radha), in getting all these personalities on board. Not that it should be difficult to get Satyaraja (Steven Rosen), Ravindra Svarupa (William Deadwyler), Mukunda Goswami (Michael Grant) or Hridayananda Goswami (Howard Resnick) to contribute to a prestigious Columbia University publication. But, to get these luminaries to appear in a forum where equal opportunity is given to the "black sheep" such as Kundali (Joseph Conrad), Adridharan (Sunil Awatramani), or Nitai (Neal Delmonico) -- Nitai, whom Srila Prabhupada himself graced with epithets like "stunted jackfruit," and others no less colorful! Just try to picture Hridayananda and Kundali sitting in one room and meekly listening to each other’s presentations, without interrupting, without even a chance to engage in debate! The editors' chosen format for this book constitutes a practical joke one just can't miss.

The volume's primary target audience appears to be academics. For them, the value of the book may lie in its all-in-one format. It covers pretty much everything: Krishna, Chaitanya, Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta, Prabhupada, and a range of ISKCON controversies and abuses. One gets to hear outside scholars, as well as active and former ISKCONites.

For a reader with personal experience of ISKCON or for one wishing to learn more about the movement, there is perhaps less new information in this book. Parts I and II (dealing with theology and sampradaya, respectively) cover largely familiar subjects. Admittedly they do so in much detail, with a wealth of background information and angles not likely to get covered in a Bhagavatam class. Also, one would think that someone with as interesting a personal history of spiritual search and study as Delmonico would have something more relevant to contribute to such a volume than his three erudite pages about the early stages of Indic monotheism.

Furthermore, when the focus shifts to ISKCON, some of the articles turn out to be rehashed earlier presentations, relatively well known to devotee readers (for example, Ravindra Svarupa's “Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts” and Steven Gelberg's [Subhananda's] “On Leaving ISKCON”). I was disappointed with Hridayananda Goswami's five page-long contribution -- basically the orthodoxy's position statement on the jiva controversy. The prize for “least readable chapter" is earned with distinction by "The No Change in ISKCON Paradigm" by Krishnakant Desai, Sunil Awatramani, and Madhu Pandit das. I tried hard, but somewhere halfway through its fourth page I had to admit defeat. Well, maybe one needs to be a lawyer.

Several individual contributions stand out, though, as informative, insightful and thought-provoking. The chapter by Kenneth Valpey (Krishna Kshetra) on ISKCON temple worship in the context of the Indian tradition appears carefully researched and sensitively written. One senses in the author an attitude of exploration and appreciation, rather than a wish to advocate any specific standpoint. Jan Brzezinski's (Jagadananda's) essay about two of the earlier charismatic reformers in the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism (Sri Chaitanya and Bhaktisiddhanta) contains both a wealth of historical detail and a depth of reflection on the sociological dynamics of their religious movements. The writer has a delightful way of setting theological teachings that ISKCON has taught to be absolute, timeless truths in a sociohistorical context. Yet I do not see his approach as materialistic reductionism, rather a smiling fascination with spirituality as something dynamic and, ultimately, very human. Similarly well researched and thought-provoking is Shukavak's chapter on Bhaktivinoda and scriptural literalism (although carrying less news value for those familiar with his book).

Ekkehard Lorenz's two chapters, however, stand in a class of their own. The author, a former ISKCON devotee pursuing Indology and Sanskrit studies, is the least known of the contributors and appears to be the only one presenting truly new research data. Lorenz's first chapter establishes Prabhupada -- not the previous acharyas -- as the primary source of the numerous statements in his purports about the position of guru, Mayavadis, and women. The other chapter systematizes Prabhupada's teachings on the topic of varnashram, with such corollaries as the progressive Aryan race, Negroes' dharma as slaves, dictatorship over democracy, women as equal to sudras, etc. Comprised of statistically analyzed quotes, quotes and yet more quotes from the Founder-Acharya, these two chapters will likely make his followers cringe -- with the possible exception of the General Headquarters. Rather than adopting the customary ISKCON debate strategy -- arbitrary quoting and counterquoting -- Lorenz strives to include the entirety of Prabhupada's statements and lets the numbers speak for themselves. We can look forward to seeing how the ISKCON leadership will deal with his research. How it will deal with the author is not hard to guess.

Particular deserving of interest and appreciation is the book's last chapter, "Re-visioning ISKCON" by Tamal Krishna Goswami (Thomas Herzig) and Krishna Kshetra. This is en essay so rich in ideas (and terminology!) that it requires slow, careful reading. Acknowledging the existing tension between the movement's mammoth literary canon and the changing reality its members live in, the authors turn to Vaishnava theology for solutions. They do this, however, not by simplistically reducing the problems to "Kaliyuga," "impurities in the heart," "offenses," or the like, but by exploring relevant theological concepts which are part of the Vaishnava heritage but have so far received little emphasis. For example, they ask whether there is a room for taking more help from pratyaksha and anumana to make conditional allowances for "relative" knowledge, without dethroning shabda in the process. Or they wonder if ISKCON's insider/outsider polarity and emphasis on hierarchy (the "vertical" axis of bhakti) can be balanced by the "lateral" one -- inherent in accounts of intimacy between the Lord and His bhakta, or in the verbal root of the word "bhakti" -- bhaj, to share.

So much for the individual contributions. For myself, the greatest value of the book lies in something I did not realize until, after reading it from cover to cover, I proceeded to a more casual re-reading. At the beginning of this review, I have likened the setup of the book to a panel where each participant can make his presentation, but none knows others' papers in advance and none gets to debate them. But here's a surprise: while re-reading the contributions, one is reminded of others touching on the same points -- or making opposite ones. The contributors' experiences and perspectives begin informing one another. A space opens for dialog and exploration, for new meanings. Thus, as a reader, one may gain more insights from this book than what the contributors have put in it.

For example, having read Swami Bhakti Bhavana Vishnu's account of how ISKCON treated B.R. Sridhara Swami and Irvin Collins' (Srila's) parallel account of the Narayana Maharaja controversy, one notices how differently these two holy men dealt with the accusations and censure of the ISKCON leadership. Sridhara Swami was broken-hearted and begged for mercy, while Narayana Maharaja defied the GBC and continued his preaching. Does this strategy seem more successful? Is this independent, self-assured spirit the sign of a charismatic leader?

Lorenz's essays provide a striking postscript to several others. Discussing ISKCON's social ills, the contributors (even the outside scholars) invariably stop short of exploring the role played by the Founder-Acharya. If anything, they present the anomalies as deviations from his practice or precept. Kim Knott does it with regard to the abuse of women; Gabriel Deadwyler (Yudhisthira) with regard to the child abuse in the gurukula; and Kundali with regard to "independent thoughtfulness" as superior to blindly following the guru. While reading, one can almost hear in the back of one's head Lorenz asking them to look at all the quotes he assembled, and reconsider. Or, when Michael Grant (Mukunda Gosvami) and Anuttama motivate their personal decision to stay in ISKCON by saying: "We are convinced that this mission will prevail and that ultimately the movement will help to bring about social change globally," the reader’s reaction may well be to think back to Lorenz's findings on varnashram and ask these two gentlemen: "Exactly WHAT KIND of mission, WHAT KIND of social change is it you are hoping for?"

Tamal Krishna's and Krishna Kshetra's final chapter is also relevant to understanding the controversies discussed throughout the volume. I found it particularly fruitful to reexamine in its light Kundali's and Hridayananda's essays on the jiva issue. Seen side by side with Brzezinski’s and Shukavak’s accounts of the radical changes introduced to the Vaishnava theology by earlier charismatics, the shifts in emphasis proposed by Tamal Krishna and Krishna Kshetra appear truly inoffensive. Still, the authors feel a need to point out that their position is "at best exploratory, not advocacy" and that theirs is "indeed a delicate tightrope act". That such cautiousness might be necessary is sobering.

Another sobering fact is that out of the twenty-seven authors who contributed papers, only two are women: both write about -- you've guessed it -- the women issue! Could no woman be found, either in academe or in the ISKCON world, with something to say on any of the other topics? If so, not all of ISKCON's social problems appear endemic to it.

My copy of the book is already beginning to show marks of use and I will surely return to it many times. The volume is hardbound, sturdy and should be durable. Unfortunately, the typography and proofreading leave a lot to be desired. Some page numbers on the Contents pages are wrong, making it hard to find chapters; misspellings of common English words occur throughout; even on the title page something has gone grievously wrong, with two different fonts mixed-up in the word "Krishna" in the book title. I would have expected higher quality from an established publisher like the Columbia University Press.

Hello All,

I have just joined this forum. (There is a little about myself in my member profile.) It's I who have written the review of Bryant and Ekstrand's book that Jagat has posted with name withheld. I am sorry for posting it in this impersonal way. It didn't feel right after a while.

So if you have any comments, questions, arguments with what I have written -- or other questions about the book -- you are welcome.

Ys Dhyana

Dhyana,

I have only scanned the book and so cannot comment extensively. I agree with your point though regarding the contributions of some of the ISKCON authors being rehashed. Actually, one of the reasons I only scanned parts of the book was that those articles were already known and I didn't seen any juice or revelation in them. If I am not mistaken, Ed Bryant was somewhat disappointed with the lack of enthusiasm from the ISKCON contributors.

And I think Ekkehard's contribution highlights why some of the more learned ISKCON members did not participate more fully: how can an intelligent, rational ISKCON member, particularly a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, defend the indefensible? The moment they step over the line and seek to rationalize or explain the more extreme views of Prabhupada, they may find themselves being shot down by ISKCON members who either subscribe to those extreme views in some form or who are convinced that "absolute faith" is the only means of spiritual survival. I'm sure many are also just plain weary from years spent in defense of the mission.

I have to say though that I thought Ekkehard was unbalanced in sections. For instance, in one section I recall that he quotes Prabhupada as being in favor of dictatorship--"like Maharaja Yudhishthira" was Prabhupada's clarification--and then goes directly into a discussion on Hitler, who was a "hero"--"like Hiranyakasipu and Ravana" was the clarification there--and then onto comments about Jews. A casual reader, or a highly motivated one, might come out of that pointed sequence thinking that he was a Nazi. To my mind, there is an element of sensationalism in that kind of selective presentation. Much discussion and some good can arise from such sensationalism (witness Michael Moore's movies) but it will also be immediately offputting to those who knew Prabhupada in a different way. I don't see them being coaxed toward a more liberal view when they see such pointed arguments. I personally hope that database literalism, whether of followers, opponents or progressives, doesn't impede a move toward a more human and balanced approach all round.

You have to wonder whether ISKCON regrets ever putting the Vedabase together!

(If I have the paraphrasing above wrong, please correct me.)

Braja,

And when it came time for Christians to set the canon to writing, they could pick and choose what was acceptable theologically. So all those Gnostic gospels were buried and only four, belonging to two traditions, were accepted. (John's being the acceptable "mystical" version.)

But Chaitanya Vaishnavism also underwent a period from 1534-1612 (the writing of the Chaitanya Charitamrita marking its end) in which the theology of Chaitanya's person and his teachings were formalized.

Islam also took a couple of generations. It was really the gathering and establishing of the canonical Hadiths more than 200 years after Mohammad's death. This too was done in a selective manner, but the most important thing was not the content but the reliability of its genuineness--or at least that is what Muslims believe.

It's ironic really. Prabhupada wanted to establish in his books an immutable "Word of God," like the Quran, for "the next 10,000 years," but clearly time and tide stand still for no man.

The Vedabase has several important deficiencies: First of all, words on paper cannot reproduce the inflections of the voice, facial expressions, body language, nor the meaning of pregnant silences. When I went through the so-called "poison" tapes, I often remarked Prabhupada's tone of voice. Listen to him say, "Yes, I said like that" when asked by disciples if he was poisoned. It is not one of Prabhupada's stentorian proclamations, believe me.

These comments about Hitler, for instance, would likely never have had any significance had they not been recorded in black and white. But in those exceptional cases, maybe he was just having people on. There are indications in the Vedabase that this may be so, because he asks, "What do you think?" afterward. Irony, sarcasm, etc., have a hard time when the abovementioned non-verbal factors are excluded.

Nevertheless, I agree with Dhyana that the comments about women's brains are much more serious, principally because of the sheer crudeness of the argument. These are the things he emphasized and caused the most trouble. There may have been some admiration for Hitler (I think there was, as Bose tried to ally himself with Hitler and Prabhupada supported Bose; furthermore, Hitler's "Aryanism" and some other sentimental things made up Prabhupada's [undoubtedly] distorted picture of who Hitler was.), but his essential teaching about Hitler was "Big political leaders come and go, so don't take them or yourselves too seriously."

In answer to your request for prediction: I think that the decentralizing or centripetal forces implicit in the guru doctrine will lead to increasing splintering, especially in the West. People are too individualistic in the modern West, and the free market model of religion makes it almost impossible for any new society to establish the kind of overarching authority of a Catholic Church.

The Vedabase is indeed a permanent Achilles heel. Nevertheless, I think that what we see taking shape is the way things will continue to develop. Iskcon can control knowledge for its new adherents, and it will continue to play the leading role for some time to come, simply because it is the richest and most powerful group up to the present time. Also, it has, whatever failings are there, achieved a certain amount of collegiality in its leadership.

The compromise on Guru-tattva--the institutionalized or bureaucratic guru--will be good, as anyone who has attained guru status will always be torn between trusting his own initiatives and merely following the institution. This allows for a certain dynamism in the institution.

What you stated above in an earlier post is interesting--as a group the leadership is conservative, even though individually they may express more liberal views. This is natural, but means that over the long haul, certain liberal views are likely to sneak in, such as the improved position of women. There will always be conservative reaction, sometimes quite violent, such as we see in most religious institutions, because the "Golden Age" of the founder-acharya will continue to be the idealized goal that everyone will be trying to recreate.

The expulsion of the most conservative faction, the Prabhupadanugas, is good from that point of view. I am not sure how strong a future this group will have. It is already divided into four, five or six factions (HKS, PPS, WBYS, and IRM + Pada, Rocana? Hamsaduta?). On the whole, thinking about it, it seems to me that these groups also depend on charismatic leadership (the main reason for its splintering) and may achieve success on the basis of that leadership.

At present, I think that the most energy is being generated by Gaudiya Math leaders like Govinda Maharaj and Narayan Maharaj. These leaders have a deeper personal charisma than most leaders in either Iskcon or the Ritvik groups; they have a sense of mission, speak English, and have attracted Western, especially disaffected Iskcon people. They have the advantages of being truly Indian followers of the tradition (unlike someone like Gopala Krishna, for instance, who though Indian is Iskcon through and through). They bring elements to the Vaishnava culture that is enriching, but is accessible primarily to those who have already been conditioned by Iskcon culture. The more specifically Indian, the less universal it can be.

The same goes for the non-Gaudiya Math groups like Ananta Dasji, Haridas Shastri, etc. These people have similar advantages to those of the above-mentioned GM preachers, but their disadvantage is that they tend to be less structured or motivated. They are patiently awaiting for things to happen organically. In many ways, these groups are a question mark, because they don't really have any social organization or social philosophy. They tend to be conservative, but at the same time, tend to social indifference: ie., they are less concerned with what people do outside of their bhajan, though of course they will be opposed to sin (obstacles to bhajan) as they conceive of it.

I cannot predict what will happen here, except that since they exercise less social and institutional control, those who follow the traditional lines in the West will likely be more diffuse, more liberal and more innovative.

Just a bit of context on the question of ACBSP and Hitler, his expressed views are similar to those expressed by all conservative Bengalis [ie non-Marxists, but even then ...(!)] even right up to the present day, in fact.

For example I have a German godsister who lives now in West Bengal and is fed up with Bengalis saying to her, 'You are German - Hitler was a great man!'.

And yes, Bose and the 'great man theory' both figure heavily here too.

***

I want to say though, that alien to modern sensibilities as Bengalis seem in the above respect, in other areas, such as accepted modern literary convention, especially plagiarism, they are well aware, more so than the average westerner even.

When years ago, in I think an early draft of the same monograph, Lorenz pointed out the apparent plagiarism in ACBSP's Bhagavatam commentary, Gopiparanadhan Dasji wrote an article saying in effect, 'That's just their culture'. I think GPDasji is quite wrong in this, and that there is something peculiar about the way ACBSP wrote, even compared to say Narayan Maharaj, whose books very clearly identify each different commentary as seperate from the author's.

Did Lorenz take GPD's argument on board then, and decide to rewrite his piece as 'the wierd topics of ACBSP's commentaries' instead of its original focus? (I have no access to a copy so I just surmise this from comments here). In my opinion that would have been mistaken. Instead he should have surveyed ACBSP's literary context for himself instead of taking GPD's word on it.

I read the chapter by Nori Muster "Life as a Woman on Watseka Avenu: Personal Story" on her website (www.surrealist.org) and I find it disappointing. It starts well and makes a point about her experience of the "sick culture" of chauvinism in the early 80-ies in ISKCON. But after the first few introductory paragraphs she goes on and on with confusing and unnecessary details about the different ladies ashrams, about the PR quarters and the BBT facilities, about different devotees that she knew or lived with, and I wonder how an outside person, be he or she an academic, can make head or tails of what she is talking about because she mentions a lot of names and details without giving much background information.

She does mention that there were some bright moments in ISKCON, but she doesn't elaborate on them at all. She writes about the negative stuff, which is pretty heavy, but at times she seems to overdo it. E.g., she says that ISKCON has harbored criminal women and gives the example of one of the sankirtan women who ran away with a bus driver and became a drug dealer. I don't see how her crime is connected to or endorsed by ISKCON at all. Or she describes how a male sankirtan leader looked at her with disgust when she was just a visitor to the temple, seeing her as a potential sex victim. I don't think it is proper to speculate in such a way what another person might be thinking, unless the other person makes his thoughts known. She writes that compared to the regular women devotees, she had a sheltered life and good facilities. She also says that she learned about most of the abuses years later, while doing her research. One then wonders why the chapter is called "a personal story."

I don't know, I find her essay chaotic and at times sensationalist and not well thought-out. I definitely expected something better.

Here is a review by Haridhama dasa I just received from a friend.

---

ISKCON has always been a popular subject for comment, analysis and research among academia and socia/religious commentators.

For those liberally-minded who would like to keep abreast of the latest commentary on the ISKCON I strongly recommend, "The Hare Krishna Movement - the postcharasmatic fate of a religious transplant", edited by Edwin F. Bryant and Maria L. Ekstrand, and published by Columbia University Press.

The book contains contributions from current ISKCON leaders and devotees as well as opinions of different perspective from ex-ISKCON members. Independent scholars make a large contribution.

ISKCON devotees and ex-ISKCON devotees who write are:

Krsna Ksetra prabhu: "Krishna in Mleccha Desh: ISKCON temple worship in historical perspective"
Satyaraja dasa: "Who is Sri Caitanya mahaprabhu?
Shukavak N. das: "Bhaktivinoda and scriptural literalism"
Ravindra Svarupa dasa: "Cleaning House and cleaning hearts: reforms and renewal in ISKCON"
Swami Bhakti Bhavana Vishnu: "The guardian of devotion: disappearance and rejection of the spiritual master in ISKCON after 1977"
Krishna Kant desai, Adridharan dasa and Madhu Pandit dasa: "The no-change in ISKCON paradigm"
Kundali dasa: "Doctrinal controversy and the group dynamic"
Hridayananda das Goswami: "Heresy and the jiva debate"
Mukunda Goswami and Anuttama dasa: "On staying in ISKCON"
Tamal Krsna Goswami and Krsna Ksetra prabhu: "Revisioning ISKCON: constructive theologising for reform and renewal"

From the more well-known academia we have contributions from:

Kim Nott: "Healing the heart of ISKCON: the place of women"
David Wolf: "Child abuse and the Hare Krishnas: history and response"
E. Burke Rochford Jr.: "Airports, conflicts, and change in the Hare Krishna movement"

You will find interesting perspectives on whether a truly faithful Hindu devotional missionary movement can ever be more than a marginalised minority institution in the West. The "genius" of this publication is that it presents in a very eloquent and constructive manner the three most important voices in and on ISKCON: from the inside (current devotees), from the outside (Ex-ISKCON dvotees) and from independent scholars. Contributions from ex-ISKCON devotees make for uncomfortable but worthwhile reading, which should not to be scoffed at or dismissed purely because there is a matter of grievance persisting. Don't judge the book by its cover (author) but by its content.

What is refreshing from previous publications is the shift from ISKCON being "lumped in" with cults and other "new religious movements" to an organistion that has come of age in "mainstream religion". i.e. "Certainly not a "new" religious movement or cult, ISKCON is better described as a devotional Hindu missionary movement from India..." Note the word "Hindu". Maybe this is now an opportunity for us to speak with one Hindu (Vaisnava) voice, especially those who are still grapling with the notion of whether we are Hindus or not.

Dr Larry Shinn in his foreword pays tribute to the commitment of Srila Prabhupada's "Indian and Hindu assumptions" not being set aside when transplanting the faith to the West, but rather his devotion to Krishna being his primary emphasis, which in itself was (is) the "3rd source of tension with the traditions of his new home... with his insistence on the infallibility of the Krsna scriptures and his interpretation of them continuing to be a source of unrest within ISKCON, and certainly between ISKCON and its surrounding culture."

Hence, ISKCON continues to share with all missionary movements the challenges that arise in establishing an ongoing institutional form.

Issues of a more sociological nature attract the attention of many of the contributors, i.e. "preaching gave way to revenue production", "gender equality to celibate male hierarchy", "devotional camaradie to bureaucratic stratification", and inevitably, "scandals and corruption flourished along with the institutional growth of the Society (see Mukunda Goswami and Anuttama dasa), "isolationist mentality", "excesses of neophyte proselytising zeal", leading to "large scale disilliusionment and disaffection among rank-and-file", and eventually entering the "postcharismatic" period.

Maybe the most provocative and thought provoking contributions centre around the results of the crises of leadership within ISKCON which resulted in the movement splintering into a variety of independent expressions with further "schisms centred on issues of transmission of authority". Reference is made to the confrontation between ISKCON and Narayana Maharaja.

No stone is left unturned in the Society's experience of the stirrings of a "suffragette movement" reacting against the "historical disempowerment and denigration of women".

It is mentioned that the child abuse scandal within ISKCON will, "threaten the very survival of the institutional aspect of the tradition."

Other serious issues which will determine the movement's relevance in the "religious landscape of (the) modern world" are, "its scriptural literalism and subscription to varnashram" which will "bring it into conflict with the dominant intellectual and social currents of our times."

However, the voices of the fundamentalists, the literalists, the liberalists and those who consider themselves progressive within ISKCON today, are at the heart of the "schisms centred on issues of transmission of authority" and growth.

It is this splintering outside of the jurisdiction of the organisation, for which ISKCON must take some responsibility, that will lead to Gaudiya Vaisnavism "taking on some broader roots in the West."

From the reading of this excellent complitation of essays it remains evident that the most seminal, crisis faced by the movement is the perpetuation of the function of the guru after Srila Prabhupada's demise.

"The Hare Krishna Movement" is a book that captures some of the sense of hope, disillusionment, commitment, rejection, determination and bitterness we experience in our lives and within ISKCON.

It is a poignant collection of writings for the discerning reader.

Your servant.

Hari-dhama dasa.

---

Though this article is entirely Iskcon-oriented, and a bit outside the usual scope of discussion here, I thought I would cross post it in this thread, since Nori Muster's name has come up for criticism in it.


Hare Krishna. Do you remember back in the mid-1990s when everybody was repeating slogans about how much ISKCON had changed? I wrote a song about it called, "Things are so much better now!" It was a silly song, because I saw absolutely no evidence that anything had changed. The attitudes, leaders, policies, and practices were still the same as the day I left.

Will ISKCON ever get the lead out? Lead was a poisonous ingredient that petroleum companies used to put in gasoline. In ISKCON, the "lead" refers to the old boys' network that tolerated abuse.

I'm not even in ISKCON anymore, but everybody complains to me. They allege that the GBCs who oversee child protection now don't like children. They tell me Mayapur Chandrodoya Mandir still harbors a culture of homosexual pedophilia, and numerous abusers are still welcomed in ISKCON. Recently, the Boston temple advertised that an alleged child abuser would be on hand for a festival next month. They didn't name him as a child abuser in the ad, but just as a "senior devotee." After consulting with the Boston temple, Chakra editors took the alleged perp's name off the ad. However, the attitude remains: the organization loves its child abusers.

Thanks to the perpetrators and the alleged cover-up, ISKCON faces a $400 million lawsuit. Some of its temples are in Chapter 11 and the rest must contribute money toward the suit. You would think that these consequences would make the GBC want to get rid of the accused child abusers. Nope! They seem to cherish them more than ever!

As it stands, ISKCON reeks of insensitivity. It makes me wonder, does the leadership have any inkling of the suffering that child abuse caused for hundreds of victims and their families? Do they realize how they look to the rest of the world? How about the suffering of the sincere devotees who only wanted to worship Krishna? The leaders are letting the organization fall apart, all because they don't want to hurt the child abusers' feelings.

Child abusers are criminals who belong in jail. Keeping them around will inevitably lead to more abuse. ISKCON can go bankrupt now, but future victims will file new complaints against newly-reorganized temples. Does that prospect make the organization want to change? No, no, a thousand times no!

ISKCON's negligence in this matter makes it look like the leaders prefer the alleged child abusers to honest members. It's easier to blame the victims for all the problems and let the child abusers go free - even honor them as gurus. This is the same old leadership style that made thousands of honest devotees leave ISKCON in the 1980s. Support ISKCON if you must, but don't live in denial about the leaded old boys' club at the helm. If they have CPO findings on who abused the children, call on them to make that information public. Either that, or ask them to turn over the evidence and let the courts decide.

Sincerely,
Nori
http://surrealist.org

I received my copy of this book rather late and was unable to look at it right away. I still haven't gone through everything, but except for a few quibbles here and there, I am finding the overall quality rather high.

I am just reading Part III on leadership and lineage issues. The articles by Vishnu Maharaj about the Sridhara Maharaj and Srila Das' (Irvin Collins) article about Narayan Maharaj are both excellent summaries of these schisms. Collins article strikes me as particularly well done, written with balance and simultaneously subdued outrage.

He also has a great deal of perceptiveness about the mechanics of charisma and institutionalization.


When I read Collins and compare it to Krishnakanta's indigestible mind-grinding legalism, I am confirmed in what I wrote a few days ago on the hierarchy of Vaishnava sanghas.


On the whole, this book is very encouraging.

Concluding reflections from Collins' article:

ISKCON's conflict with Narayan Maharaj is not the idiosyncratic clash of personalities, but the inevitable consequence of a deep-rooted organizational strategy. Its exclusion of next-of-kin charismatics has not been limited to Narayan Maharaj. Rather, the 1995 GBC ban reiterates a long-standing Iskcon policy to censure any senior member of the Gaudiya tradition outside its own jurisdiction. And as Gelberg notes, this policy of isolationism has deprived the institution of potentially invigorating renewal and rejuvenation.

Individual immersion in Iskcon's parent tradition is also limited by Iskcon's self-imposed quarantine against other contemporary forms of Chaitanya Vaishnavism in India. Competition amongst Vaishnavite gurus in India for disciples has played a role, as has Prabhupada's perceived heresies on the part of other teachers and sects. Thus Prabhupada deliberately isolated his inexperienced Western disciples from Indian Vaishnavas in general to keep them from potential contamination. A certain kind of orthodoxy may have been preserved, but potentially nourishing contact with exemplary persons within the living tradition in India was enjoined (sic). Such insularity has caused psycholigal and cultural inbreeding within Iskcon that has weakened its spiritual fabric and engendered an unhealthy elitism with regard to other forms of Chaitanya Vaishnavism. Iskcon's virtual isolationism from the contemporary wellsprings of its Indian roots has deprived devotee of an important potential source of inspiration and invigoration.

From a Weberian perspective, such self-imposed quarantine is all but inevitable as charisma becomes stagnant and routinized, and an originally dynamic institution is threatened, in its turn, with external forms of charisma claiming greater and more exhilarating truths--which in this case are the esoteric teachings Narayan Maharaj feels it is his calling to impart.

.....

Taking a phobic position against raganuga bhakti, the undisputed culmination of Chaitanya devotional praxis, entails asserting that everyone is banned forever from reading the writings of the Goswami disciples of Chaitanya on the grounds that Bhaktivedanta Swami may have restricted his new disciples from doing so decades ago....

A very good, intelligent article.

Got started reading Kundali's article. This is also very, very good. He really chops Hridayananda and Tamal Krishna Maharaja's position on heresies to bits, and the rest too--Suhotra Swami, Drutakarma, Rabindra Swarup, et al.

I notice that "In Vaikuntha, not even the leaves fall" is not available at Loi Bazar. Seems like a valuable title.

A good quote from that article:

Iskcon's handling of the above controversy seems to hint at a more widespread condition in the organization, and the following excerpt from an email sent by Bhakti Tirtha Swami to his fellow GBC members confirms this impression:

If we just go back and reflect on our last Mayapur meeting, our major problems that we all had to deal with were all leadership oriented. For example: abuse of philosophy, abuse of financial resources, abuse of children, abuse of women, abuse of cows, spiritual weaknesses, lying, and yes, corruption. Some of you remember, at one point in the meeting, I brought up that just writing in one hour's time, I listed approximately 15 terms we were using in our discussions that were all battle tactic terminology--such terms as wiping out the opposition, attacking them first, destroying them once and for all, our second plan of attack, eliminating the competition, getting something on the person, etc. ... We were spending most of our energies in a combative mentality.

This leader paints a bleak picture of the inner workings of Iskcon. He reveals a mindset that, perforce, can only negatively influence attempts at problem solving from the leadership on down. Language such as "combative mentality" reveals that, in general, the leaders see issues in terms of power, not truth... (page 253)

Jiva Institute didn't have any copies. Krishnaculture apparently had the remaining stock but decided to stop selling it so they ended up with someone in New Jersey. I do plan to get some copies eventually but don't have the address yet.

Another good point in Kundali's article, worthy of discussion on its own:

We know that people corrupted by power cannot be authentically religioius, but what about those corrupted by weakness? Can people with crippled wills achieve true religious experience? Theologicall, of course, a believer will not claim to know how God's grace will be apportioned. Psychologically however, Fromm (1978) quoting Freud, notes: "Feelings of powerlessness are not authentic religious feelings." Following Freud, Fromm criticizes the kind of dynamic in which a crippling of the will is imposed by religious authorities, "thereby causing the impoverishment of the intellect." The Bhagavad Gita begins withArjuna in a state of powerlessness, of fear and trembling, but by the end, specifically through Krishna's influence, he became firm and free from doubt, ready to cope with life's challenges, which is the authentic religious experience. (page 257)

Let us know when you do, Braja.

Yes, Jagat, I appreciated the book in the same way you did. The only difference being I had to devour it in one sitting (annoying my friends and family. Duh!).

Got 250K to save the Philadelphia temple, Braja? Think you can flog 250K's worth of "Even the Leaves"?

While perhaps the book is interesting, without reading it, I don't think this book makes even a miniscule step in reconciling all the devotee differences and doctrinal disputes of those concerned with Prabhupada's legacy and Iskcon. I think to really make some headway and bust up the logjam, we gotta get these folks on The Jerry Springer Show with all the devotees sitting around a table piled high with prasadam. One would probably have to be in the back of the audience not to get smattered with prasadam.

Umm... or maybe Dr. Phil?

(sent by Satyarajji for posting here.)

Review by Lakshmi Nrisimha Das


The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant.
Eds. Edwin F. Bryant and Maria L. Ekstrand.
pp. xix + 448. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Hardcover $49.50.

Although I am not part of the academic community as such, my interest in commenting on Bryant and Ekstrand’s book arises from three related concerns: First, I have been part of the Hare Krishna Movement for thirty-two years and I am also a disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. (This is his more formal name. He is also referred to as Srila Prabhupada, especially by his disciples. To avoid confusion, I will here refer to him as Bhaktivedanta or sometimes Bhaktivedanta Swami, since this is how he is addressed in the current volume.) Secondly, I am always attentive when a distinguished group of intellectuals, practitioner or otherwise, offers insights into my own religious tradition, for they often carry perspectives that we who are close to the tradition might easily miss. Also—and this is the third point—since both scholars and adherents are represented in the volume under discussion, it seems evident that there should be both academic and insider responses to the book as well. I understand that the editor of this journal has commissioned an academic response. My contribution will be from the perspective of the practitioner.

Let me begin by saying that I find it laudable that the authors have attempted the daunting task of objectively chronicling the postcharismatic development of the Hare Krishna Movement. However, whether they were successful or not largely depends on the thoroughness of their scholarship, and on how intimately they—and their contributors—have penetrated the background and substance of the movement. I strongly feel that my response would be characteristic of most devotees—of people who are loyal to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) but open to any legitimate observations that may help the society and its adherents advance to a position of honest reflection and internal edification.

The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, edited by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand, is a unique book. It is not only history, in the sense that it retells and analyzes the past, but a book with the chance to be history—if its voices of reform are seriously heard. The volume opens with an endorsement by Larry Shinn, a longtime academic observer of ISKCON who knows the movement well. This in itself might encourage thoughtful readers to take the volume seriously. After Professor Shinn’s insightful words, the volume moves on. In addition to many articles that scrutinize the problems of the postcharismatic development of the Hare Krishna Movement, the book also includes well-researched articles on the movement’s theology and history.

These rich theological and historical articles are contained in the book’s first two sections, “Krishna consciousness in the Context of Hindu Theology” and “Bhaktivedanta and His Predecessors,” and comprise the volume’s strength. We find here an exceptional array of perspectives on the historical development of the Hare Krishna Movement’s practices, theology, and challenges.

In the inaugural article, “Krishna, the Intimate Deity,” Graham Schweig clearly describes the key theological tenet that Bhaktivedanta Swami introduced to the western world, specifically “theistic intimacy”—the idea that God has a personal life, and that this life is revealed with surprisingly elaborate details in the Vaishnava tradition. Next, Neal Delmonico poses a sound academic challenge for the present members of the Chaitanya community: to establish the supreme divinity of Krishna within the context of Indic monotheism. Guy Beck then comprehensively explains how the practice of chanting the Hare Krishna Maha-mantra conforms to the theory of sacred sound in traditional Hindu theism. Kenneth Valpey (Krishna Ksehetra Das) does something similar in an interesting piece on ISKCON’s practice of temple worship. These five articles comprise section one of The Hare Krishna Movement, where Krishna consciousness is contextualized within the religious phenomenon commonly known as Hinduism.

Steven J. Rosen (Satyaraja Das), editor of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies, opens the second section of the book, “Bhaktivedanta and His Predecessors,” with a short article on the identity of Sri Chaitanya, the spiritual ecstatic/avatara who is the initial inspiration of the Hare Krishna tradition. Rosen explores the existing literature on Chaitanya in English—which, to my knowledge, has never quite been documented in this way—as well as the idea of Chaitanya’s divinity. Jan Brzezinski follows with a brilliant analysis of the work of Sri Chaitanya and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta (Bhaktivedanta’s guru), showing how they established their now prestigious succession of teachers and, as a result, routinized their own charisma. Shukavak Das next offers invaluable advice from the teachings of Bhaktivinode Thakur, a renowned saint in the Chaitanya Vaishnava lineage, on balancing critical scholarship with religious faith. Finally, Ekkehard Lorenz and Paul Sherbow offer conflicting opinions on the accuracy of Bhaktivedanta Swami’s scholarship in representing the tradition. One of the pleasures of reading the book’s first two sections is that they give the reader easy access to the movement’s historical and theological tradition.

In the introduction, the editors describe that their initial intention was “to include contributions from insiders who had graduate-level academic training,” but due to a lack of alternatives they were forced to solicit essays on certain subjects from those who were key players in various important schismatic developments in the Hare Krishna Movement. They conclude that this interplay of “detached analysis and passionate advocacy” is what gives the volume its life and makes it “authentic in a way that a collection of exclusively academic discussions could not.” While it is true that contributions with passionate advocacy can add a certain authenticity to a historical study, it is true only if the editors are conversant enough with the subject to properly contextualize that advocacy in a way that history is not misrepresented. A careful study of the volume brings up serious doubts in this regard.

In fact, the book is almost exclusively—at least ninety percent—comprised of authors who are direct disciples, or disciples of direct disciples, of ISKCON founder Bhaktivedanta Swami, half still active and half long disenfranchised. Having chosen a preponderance of contributors with such personal ties to the subject, the editors must be vigilant that the overall discussion does not lose its objectivity—especially in articles that purport to be impartial scholarship. To the credit of many of the book’s authors, particularly those who are trained scholars, the discussions meant to be academic are scholarly despite personal allegiances. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

The most telling example comes in the form of two articles by Ekkehard Lorenz. Lorenz, although it is never stated, is known in ISKCON as Ekanatha Das, an ex-disciple of Harikesh Swami, a prominent ISKCON guru who eventually fell from grace. Although Lorenz now has considerable training as an academic, for him the subject of Bhaktivedanta Swami seems too close for detached analysis. This would be easy to overlook if his articles were not presented as objective research. Unfortunately, they are, but if one reads them carefully, one finds in them an impassioned but veiled critique built on somewhat privileged information that even trained scholars may not be able to immediately verify, unless they are thoroughly conversant with the life and teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami.

I will thus focus the bulk of my review on Lorenz’s contribution to the anthology in order to highlight a very important point: how marked bias, even when in only a few papers of such an edited volume, can affect the credibility of the compilation as a whole. I will also suggest other sections of the book that could have been more balanced in terms of scholarship and presentation, at least in my view.

Lorenz combed the Bhaktivedanta Veda database, a comprehensive electronic archive of all of Bhaktivedanta Swami’s lectures, books, and casual conversations, to write two articles in the volume. In his first article, “The Guru, Mayavadins and Women,” Lorenz constructs a case by using selected quotes and statistical analysis that certain of Bhaktivedanta Swami’s teachings have no precedent in the tradition, especially in regard to the guru, Mayavadins, and women. Lorenz reveals his biased and rather unscholarly approach in the opening sentence of this first contribution: “In 1965, Bhaktivedanta Swami, a retired pharmaceuticals manufacturer from Calcutta, moved to New York, where he founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.” Why does he mention Bhaktivedanta Swami’s prior profession, as if this had some bearing on his journey West? Clearly, Lorenz is trying to create an image, so common in now dated anti-cult literature, of an entrepreneur who came to America with ulterior motives. He neglects to inform his readers that Bhaktivedanta’s pharmaceutical business had ended many years before his calling to the West, and that he traveled here, after becoming a renunciant, for reasons that are quite different.

But let us move on to the actual thesis of Lorenz’s paper: He concludes that Bhaktivedanta Swami’s teachings in regard to the guru, Mayavadins, and women may leave the reader with the impression that “the spiritual master is good, beyond sexuality, and superior to all; Mayavadins are dangerous and bad; and women and sex are dangerous and bad.” In his research, Lorenz discovers that Bhaktivedanta often criticizes Mayavada philosophy in his commentaries at times where other Vaishnava commentators choose not to. By statistical analysis he clearly shows that this occurrence is substantial. From this he concludes that Bhaktivedanta’s ideas are independent of the Vaishnava tradition:



In his footnote to the above statement, however, Lorenz refers to a very revealing fact:



Bhaktivedanta may have spoken strongly against Mayavadins, and such harsh criticism might indeed be questioned in some circles, but to build a case that his teachings have “no precedent in the works of the early Gaudiya commentators” is itself an inaccurate assessment, especially when Madhva, recognized by Bhaktivedanta as one of the most prominent spiritual ancestors in his line, says twenty times “those who hold Advaitin views will go to hell.”

Some may argue that Madhva is not in the Gaudiya line. Still, we need not look far for other Gaudiya condemnations of Mayavadins: Any person even vaguely conversant with the teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu knows his famous adage quoted in the Chaitanya-charitamrita (Madhya 17. 129), certainly one of the most prominent of Gaudiya texts: “The Mayavadins are the greatest offenders of Lord Krishna.” Did Bhaktivedanta make this up? We need only consult the Chaitanya-charitamrita to know for sure.

To attempt to statistically prove the difference in philosophical opinion between Bhaktivedanta Swami and former commentators by showing the large disparity between the number of times Bhaktivedanta mentions a point as compared to his predecessors is just not good scholarship. Considering Bhaktivedanta’s unique legacy in bringing Krishna consciousness to the West, is one not obligated to raise the obvious question: “Did the audience to whom Bhaktivedanta Swami presented his Bhagavatam commentaries have bearing on the points he chose to emphasize?”

It is well known that in twentieth-century America, “neo-Vedanta,” as presented by Swami Vivekananda and his followers, was often considered normative Hinduism, and it still is. It is also known that Bhaktivedanta Swami, as a strong proponent of “theistic Vedanta,” was quite concerned about this, especially as members of the counterculture, his main audience, were already dabbling in Eastern thought and prone to Advaitic or Mayavadin perspectives. Bhaktivedanta Swami thus spoke strongly against Advaitin views especially. In fact, his pranam mantra (the specific primary prayer for offering respect to a prominent spiritual master) reveals that doing this was among his primary missions: “Our respectful obeisances are unto you, O spiritual master, servant of Sarasvati Goswami. You are kindly conveying the message of Lord Chaitanya and delivering the Western countries, which are filled with impersonalism and voidism [forms of Mayavada].”

Lorenz also attacks Bhaktivedanta’s “unprecedented emphasis” on the guru:


Barring the fact that Lorenz’s phrase “superhuman qualities” in relation to the guru is meant to make the concept almost comical—and not something that Bhaktivedanta stressed—the point whether the “absolute position and overall importance of the guru” is quoted 12 times or 53 doesn’t change the fact that such tenets are the most rudimentary principles of traditional Hindu theism, not an idea that Bhaktivedanta Swami whimsically introduced, as suggested by the author. Indeed, even Shinn, in his Foreword to this book, cites the earlier tradition’s emphasis on guru: “For example, complete submission to the guru as the living representative of God, the channel of salvation, and the supreme authority is very understandable in Hindu tradition . . .” (p. xvii)

Lorenz’s dissatisfaction with Bhaktivedanta is really laid bare in his following objection, where he states that in 50 of his purports the Swami suggests that a guru must teach a disciple about women and sex: “Perhaps the most important mission of the guru—judging by the extent to which Bhaktivedanta Swami dwells on this topic—is to teach men and women about sex.” Besides the fact that celibacy is a standard practice in almost all forms of yoga, and that Lorenz’s choice of the word “dwells” clearly insinuates some kind of a Freudian obsession, one cannot help but be puzzled as to why the author never asked: “Would Bhaktivedanta Swami, unlike his predecessors, need to ‘dwell’ as much on teaching men and women about sex if he were writing 500 years ago in India, rather than in the late 60s in America, the time of so-called ‘free love’?” Again, it is a question of context.

Lorenz is similarly disparaging about Bhaktivedanta’s view of women. Personally, I think Lorenz has more of a case here. Selected statements by Bhaktivedanta about women have even caused dedicated followers a considerable amount of distress. Lorenz lists the most alarming of these statements and argues that Bhaktivedanta Swami’s traditional views in this regard appear excessive and sexist.

Lorenz fails to mention, however, that Bhaktivedanta, with the exception of few statements that are arguably poorly expressed, was very much representing the traditional view of women found in the Bhagavatam. That, coupled with his noticeable omission of Bhaktivedanta Swami’s progressiveness in adapting traditional roles of women while implementing his teachings in the West, leads the informed reader to suspect a one-sided presentation.

Kim Knott, one of the few authors in the anthology who, to my knowledge, has no particular connection to the movement, and by her own admission is “a feminist outsider,” shows the fairness and grace of real scholarship by including in her article, “Healing the Heart of ISKCON, The Place of Women,” both sides of this issue. Here’s a quote that shows the alternative side, one that Lorenz chooses not to represent:


It is interesting that Prabhupada can be quoted as saying negative things about women, and then, if you talk to any of the women devotees who were so fortunate as to have his association, they all vouch for his caring and compassionate nature, saying that he treated them with the utmost respect. Many have told me that he was obviously deeply concerned for their well being, showing them the same regard that he showed for his male disciples. Perhaps Knott interviewed some of these women. Keeping with the balanced perspective she shows above, she also reports on an important postcharismatic development on this issue, the movement’s effort to reform in regard to women, by quoting the most recent ISKCON resolution:


Lorenz ends his first contribution to the volume with an interesting point: “If the frequency of a particular type of statement exceeds a certain magnitude, then the context in which each particular statement appears loses relevance. What remains is the overall impression created by the sheer number of repetitions. In this particular case, the impression might very well be: the spiritual master is good, beyond sexuality, and superior to all; Mayavadins are dangerous and bad; women and sex are dangerous and bad.” While Lorenz’s perception here is true, and many ISKCON devotees unfortunately subscribe to these ideas in their most simplistic format, Bhaktivedanta Swami openly declared that he was looking for thoughtful disciples, the kind that would think deeply about his statements and not merely accept an overall impression. The Swami should not be held accountable for disciples who refuse to imbibe his teachings with some depth.

In Lorenz’s second article, “Race, Monarchy and Gender,” based on selected references from Bhaktivedanta Swami’s collected works, he not only questions the Swami’s scholarship but his character as well. More than anything else, however, Lorenz’s work reveals the weakness of such database scholarship, wherein phrases are separated from the context in which they were originally spoken. For example, by carefully weaving together selected quotes from Bhaktivedanta Swami about the caste system, Aryans, dictatorship and Hitler, Lorenz feels confident in making the following misleading statements about the teachings of Bhaktivedanta:


Lorenz’s archiving skills no doubt located some very embarrassing statements by Bhaktivedanta Swami. These statements certainly have to be addressed by ISKCON’s scholars, both for the movement to mature beyond its restrictive inadequacies and to become more favorably received in the outside world. But to weave such quotes together so as to make Bhaktivedanta Swami, a respected Hindu reformer, look like a modern-day Goebbels only reveals Lorenz’s own prejudice. It also raises the question as to whether Lorenz’s experience as a disciple of one of ISKCON’s fallen gurus had, unfortunately, affected him in a way that disqualified him from writing an objective analysis on the movement’s founder. One also wonders to what extent the editors considered this while soliciting his submission and while reviewing it.

A prominent part of Lorenz’s second article discusses Bhaktivedanta’s promotion of Varnashrama, the social system described in ancient Hindu texts. Again Lorenz makes the error of finding fault with Bhaktivedanta Swami’s emphasis on a particular subject without considering the context in which he was teaching. Bhaktivedanta Swami was explaining Varnashrama to an audience with no personal reference to understand it, unlike previous commentators speaking hundreds of years ago to a society very much familiar with it. No wonder he saw need to elaborate on subjects his predecessors did not.

A more serious omission is Lorenz’s failure to make clear that when Bhaktivedanta Swami spoke of Varnashrama, he was not promoting the caste system as seen in India today but what his predecessors called Daivi Varnashrama, a spiritually enriched social order not determined by one’s birth but by one’s inherent qualities. De-emphasizing caste is a basic tenet of Sri Chaitanya’s mission, and rests at the very foundation of Bhaktivedanta Swami’s calling to preach in the West. After all, he would have to initiate Americans as Brahmins, and Westerners are, in strict caste terms, no doubt, less than Shudras or fourth-class people.

Lorenz may be proven right that Bhaktivedanta Swami’s attempt to transplant an ancient system in a modern world would have certain limitations, but to make Bhaktivedanta Swami’s condemnation of Shudras appear to be an attack on a class of people in India, rather than a name to classify any people who are governed by the lower modes of life, marks a profound misconception about his teaching. I was surprised that the editors did not clarify this basic fact. As I mentioned, a few selected quotes about race and gender from the extensive Bhaktivedanta Vedabase do look unreasonable even in terms of Vaishnava values. I question, however, the scholarship of taking them out of context, without putting them in the perspective of Bhaktivedanta’s life and teachings. More serious, however, is Lorenz’s practice of deliberately avoiding facts and skewing the text.

For example, though he selectively quotes Bhaktivedanta on Varnashrama—and this is problem enough—his larger problem is that he completely overlooks alternate statements where the Swami himself disparages the same subject. To give but one instance of this, when speaking with Professor Kotofsky in Russia, Bhaktivedanta was asked if he intended to revitalize the ancient Varnashrama system. His reply: “No, we just want to take the best of the original idea.” Clearly, Bhaktivedanta did not hope to implement in the current day and age all the details of Varnashrama as laid out in his books. He merely wanted his devotees to be aware of the original system, which was appropriate for a previous age, and to incorporate those aspects that integrate well with modernity.

Here’s another example of Lorenz’s manipulation of the texts: Bhaktivedanta Swami, like most traditionalists, glorified the monarchical political system of ancient India based on the rule of saintly kings. That he favored such a system over democracy is not surprising for a proponent of the Bhagavatam’s teachings or that of the Ramayana. In discussing such topics he occasionally used the words “dictatorship” and “monarchy” interchangeably. In those instances, however, it is clear by the context that he was supporting benevolent autocracy, not tyranny. Still, by a careful selection of the database, Lorenz’s tries to show otherwise:


Without knowing that Maharaja Yudhishthira is “dharma-raja,” the personification of righteousness, the uninformed reader may very well be left with the impression that Bhaktivedanta Swami supports despotism. The Swami’s equating dictatorship to the reign of Yudhishthira is quite telling. But Lorenz makes no comment, provides no footnote, to ensure that the person who reads this is not misled. He gives no explanation of who Yudhishthira actually is. Is it possible that Lorenz himself did not know? As a scholar of Hindu traditions and a one-time member of the Hare Krishna movement, it is highly unlikely.

If, after reading the above part of Lorenz’s article, the reader does not fully object to Bhaktivedanta, he or she need only look to Lorenz’s next section to be taken the rest of the way. Here, the author unfairly correlates the Swami’s statements about dictatorship with his somewhat positive utterances about Hitler:


Lorenz follows with five quotes from the database where Bhaktivedanta Swami apparently supports Hitler. The quote in which Bhaktivedanta calls Hitler a hero is yet another example of Lorenz purposely using the words and statements of the Swami out of context, and that to unfairly defame him. The quote from Bhaktivedanta runs as follows:


If Bhaktivedanta Swami meant “hero” in the usual sense, he would compare Hitler to Rama or even Gandhi, as most Indians would. But he does not. Instead, his comparison involves Hiranyakashipu and Kamsa. These are two of the most diabolical tyrants in Puranic history. By naming Hitler and Napoleon along with them as “heroes,” Bhaktivedanta is obviously using the phrase “great hero” to indicate powerful conquerors that will one day be vanquished by God, not male protagonists to be admired. Thus, Bhaktivedanta calling Hitler “a hero” does not at all support the idea that he upholds tyranny, or supports Hitler in general, as Lorenz insinuates by carefully placing the Swami’s quotes about Hitler as a “hero” just after his quotes about dictatorship.

To be honest, I should admit that Bhaktivedanta did not usually condemn Hitler. But this needs to be understood in terms of who Bhaktivedanta was, and his background before taking up his worldwide mission. Even as his disciple, I have reservations about how “absolute” his historical perspective actually is. About spiritual matters, yes, I willingly and fully defer to him. But on material matters, a disciple has a right to question. In fact, Bhaktivedanta never taught us that his perfection as a guru was all-inclusive, that he was beyond relative “mistakes” about facts pertaining to the material world. Rather, he instructed his disciples otherwise:


So Bhaktivedanta taught that the guru’s perfection is in his love for Krishna, God, and in his ability to convey that love to others. It is not that he somehow magically knows all things material as well. An interesting study—perhaps for Lorenz—would be to analyze the extent to which the teachings of a spiritual leader like Bhaktivedanta are communicated through the historical and cultural perspective of his upbringing. For instance, Bhaktivedanta Swami grew up in early 20th-century Calcutta under the oppression of British rule. He later become a supporter of Gandhi but often told his disciples that it was Subhash Chandra Bose who liberated India, not Gandhi, as the British eventually left India out of fear of Bose’s nationalist army waiting in Burma. Furthermore, Bose’s army, we were told, was supplied by Hitler with Indian soldiers that were fighting for the British but then captured by the Germans. That Bhaktivedanta lived in Calcutta as a follower of Gandhi and was a contemporary of Bose, and that furthermore Hitler was seen as an ally against their common oppressor, could be a reason why, in casual recorded conversations, he was less than damning to Hitler, or at least did not see him as any worse than the British. Considering Bhaktivedanta’s life and message of Vaishnava spirituality, this is surely a more feasible explanation for his statements about Hitler than Lorenz’s view, i.e., that he supported despotism.

In the remaining four sections of the book, “Post-Bhaktivedanta Controversies of Lineage” (Part 3), “Heresies” (Part 4), "Social Issues" (Part 5) and “Reevaluations” (Part 6), the editors make a better attempt to contextualize the partisanship of the authors. At least we know who is speaking and where they stand. The editors also make more of an effort to balance the presentation. In three cases, members of ISKCON respond to particularly uncomplimentary articles. For instance, in Part Three, “Post-Bhaktivedanta Controversies of Lineage,” there are three articles by disaffected members of ISKCON and one by William Deadwyler (Ravindra-svarupa Das), a member still active in the organization and known for championing reform. He holds a doctorate in philosophy. The result is “Cleaning Hearts and Cleaning House,” a frank and penetrating analysis of the movement’s reform by a person who not only experienced the history firsthand, but also has the tools to analyze and intelligently express it. The other articles in Part Three deal with the controversies regarding the movement’s spiritual succession after the passing of Bhaktivedanta Swami. They serve history by giving the reader a flavor of the dissent and the tenor of the controversy, not by representing the issue from different sides.

For example, the last of these articles is by Adhridaran Das, “the most outspoken proponent” of ritvik succession—a philosophy arguing that the guru parampara, or the lineage of initiating spiritual masters, ends with Bhaktivedanta Swami. If the editors deemed this topic an important part of postcharismatic ISKCON, it is disappointing that the anthology only expresses the views of “the most outspoken proponent.” There are already many well written and well known articles on the subject available, especially by Jayadvaita Swami—the senior-most editor for the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust for nearly forty years and one of ISKCON’s most independent-minded and respected thinkers.

Even if only one side of the issue was sufficient to serve the purpose of the anthology, I still question the contribution of Adhridaran’s article, which, along with presenting his doctrinal concerns, is filled with sensationalism about his conflict with ISKCON, under bold subheadings, such as “Adhridharan’s First Hand Account of The Events,” accounts that were not reliably investigated. Partisanship is welcomed for its sense of authenticity, but key facts, especially when accusatory, must be substantiated by the editors. What is not revealed by Adhridaran, among other things, is that the courts of West Bengal upheld the ISKCON contention that he was trespassing on their property and that he was legally forced to leave.

Without denying the pains, struggles, and abuses of post-Bhaktivedanta ISKCON, a balanced and thoroughly honest view should also include something of the movement’s successes. Postcharismatic ISKCON is unique, for unlike the succession of other Hindu movements that established a lone successor with absolute power, Bhaktivedanta promoted individual initiative and democracy, leaving room for charismatic and moral leaders to grow with their own vision and values, despite the early attempt of most of Bhaktivedanta’s “so-called successors” to claim that right only for themselves, or to stifle initiative in others.

For example, in Bombay, Radhanath Swami, a renounced and humble sadhu, widely respected in spiritual circles in India and a senior member of ISKCON, has attracted thousands of the city’s elite to his congregation in Chowpatty, Bombay. The ashram is also constantly expanding with qualified and dedicated monks, although they refuse candidates unless they finish their university studies and work at least one year in their careers. So many medical graduates and established doctors have come forward that their congregation has opened the International Occupancy Standard (IOS) Bhaktivedanta Hospital with over three hundred resident staff, at least half of whom are initiated ISKCON members. There are arguably many other successes outside of India as well, based on inspired leadership. This is not to deny the editors’ claim that “major temples such as New York, Berkeley and Chicago, which had up to 200 resident members three decades ago, now find themselves with an in-house staff of less than a dozen.” It is only to question how deeply the editors have researched the movement worldwide and on what basis they can make such categorical statements about the absence of spiritual attainment in all ISKCON leaders, as made below:


My firm conviction is that there are ISKCON devotees in different parts of the world meeting the movement’s criteria for success, and several with exalted realization. From my personal experience of being uplifted in the association of such souls, statements that categorically deny their existence seem ludicrous. I certainly wish there were many such souls in ISKCON and I am embarrassed that many have faltered (and by my own meager attainments). Still, I would expect that my claim about the internal accomplishments of selected leaders is not something easily verifiable, and thus not of much value to a scholarly journal. I suspect the statements above by the editors are not either.

“Heresies” (Part 4) includes two articles, both concerning a fierce doctrinal debate in ISKCON concerning the origin of the soul. The real contention of the debate is on the parameters of interpretation concerning the founder’s words. Conrad Joseph (Kundali Das), the author of the first article, “Doctrinal Controversy and The Group Dynamic,” uses the controversy for a social commentary on ISKCON, as his title suggests. Hrdayananda Das Goswami (Dr. Howard Resnick), a senior member of ISKCON, offers a direct reply. In this case, hearing both sides of the controversy, the reader is left to make an educated opinion on their own.

“Social Issues” (Part 5) begins with two solid articles by outside scholars. The first article by E. Burke Rochford Jr., “Airports, Conflict and Change in the Hare Krishna Movement,” studies the dynamic between public opinion and the movement’s fund-raising strategies and the overall effect of that tension on the structure of the movement itself. I already described Kim Knott’s excellent article. After this is the first of four personal stories in the anthology, two contained within this section. “Life as a Woman on Watseka Avenue (Personal Story I),” by Nori Muster, is the autobiographical story of a lady embittered by her experience in ISKCON. Her life there was a horror story, and too many in the movement have similar tales to tell. It is important to note, however, that there are others who had inspiring, touching experiences, not only elsewhere in ISKCON, but at the same time as Muster, and at that same temple on Watseka Avenue.

This is followed by an embarrassing report on the history of child abuse in ISKCON, written by David Wolf, Director of ISKCON’s Office of Child Protection—he is thus exactly the right person to write this paper. Despite the negative details, he offers hope for the future. The next article, by Gabriel Deadwyler (Yudhisthira Das), is entitled “Fifteen Years later: A critique of Gurukula (Personal Story II),” and, since it focuses on the children of ISKCON, it follows naturally from Wolf’s documentation of child abuse. Deadwyler’s personal story is heartfelt and intelligently written—his scholarly, removed analysis, coupled with his firsthand memories of his years in a Hare Krishna parochial school, is an important addition to this volume. Unfortunately, the section ends with Lorenz’s “Race, Gender and Monarchy,” already discussed.

“Reevaluations” (Part 6), the last section, begins with the book’s final two personal stories. “On leaving ISKCON (personal story III)” is the third story in this volume of a devotee dissatisfied with his experience as a member of ISKCON. While well written and insightful, there is room for disagreement here, and the author’s conclusions do not always logically follow his underlying premises. Insiders who read the article will know what I mean, but in the interests of not making this review longer than it need be, I will leave the details unstated. “On Staying in ISKCON (Personal story IV),” the only response by devotees in the movement today, is by the two directors of ISKCON’s office of Communications on why one would choose to remain in ISKCON despite its problems. Here again one sees a lack of balance—of the four personal stories, only one offers a positive perspective. Could it have been that difficult to find one or two more?

Part six ends with two articles that offer innovative solutions to reform ISKCON. The late Thomas Herzig (Tamal Krishna Goswami) and Kenneth Valpey (Krishna Kshetra Das), both members of ISKCON and academe, argue for ways in which the tradition’s standard hermeneutical approach can accommodate modernity. This is one of my favorite papers in the volume, not only for its positive message but for its insight and style.

The editors, Ekstrand and Bryant, in their “Concluding Reflections,” argue that the problems and abuses in ISKCON, in relation to women and children, for example—as well as its problems in making its teachings relevant in today’s world—are due to its attempt “to establish the so-called Varnashrama Dharma as an objective in ISKCON, even for its own communities, rather than exclusively focusing on the cultivation of Bhagavata Dharma.” Here they are talking about the emphasis on Vaishnavism’s social system (Varnashrama) as opposed to its spiritual culture (Bhagavata Dharma). The editors suggest that a serious discussion on the merits of this strategy is a priority in keeping the movement vital. Their final recommendation here is insightful—that ISKCON should have focused on Bhagavata Dharma, its spiritual culture, rather than on its attendant Varnashrama Dharma, or its related social system.

Insightful though this perception is, it misses an essential part of the history, or just why Bhaktivedanta Swami attempted to implement Varnashrama. First of all, as he himself mentioned in his interaction with Professor Kotofsky, he was not keen on instituting the Varnashrama system in toto. His initial intention—which is clear from his early lectures—was not to import or emphasize an ancient social system, although he did describe this system in his books in full, as the message of the Bhagavatam, the movement’s main text, can only be understood in this context. Rather, in the early days of his movement, Bhaktivedanta stressed Bhagavata Dharma. But after observing the difficulties that many devotees in the West were having while attempting to practice Bhagavata Dharma divorced from its supporting culture or social system, he naturally began to introduce more and more of the Varnashrama ideology. He did this, too, when he observed that the economic system of our industrial or postmodern world was particularly oppressive for those trying to practice Vaishnava spirituality—the western system monopolized people’s time to the point where there was little time left to pursue spiritual life. Bhaktivedanta was thus eager to establish an alternative system based on a “back to the land” rural economy, which is the basis of Varnashrama. As his movement grew rapidly, he naturally preached this more and more as the devotees needed to be practically socialized. However, as Bryant and Ekstrand note, the experiment, thus far, has been less than successful. We will see if the movement learns from its mistakes, and what the future holds.

In conclusion, The Hare Krishna Movement is indeed an anthology that contains a special view of a postcharismatic religious movement both by scholars and by participants in its development. In that sense, it affords a wonderful study for religious scholars. I am not aware of many studies of this nature, especially concerning a religious transplant. I must repeat, however, that there is a great challenge in such an ambitious enterprise. The editors of such an anthology must be sufficiently knowledgeable in the subject to properly examine the potential entries, for only in this way will they be able to ensure objectivity and useful scholarship. If they include articles of the “passionate advocacy type,” they must also carefully contextualize the presentation so the reader has the framework to understand the perspectives, biases, and assumptions of the individual authors. If not done properly, partisan arguments and half-histories will be mistaken as objective fact, and those who suspect bias will not take the anthology seriously.

Although it cannot be denied that there is much important and useful information in the volume, and that Edwin Byrant and Maria Ekstrand are—in their particular fields—respected scholars, from reading the anthology I do question whether they were well read enough in the Hare Krishna movement and its tenets, or whether they had researched the subject sufficiently to ensure the highest standard of objectivity that a compilation of this stature deserves.

The volume would have benefited from a more balanced presentation of the controversies involved, and there is an omission of information and developments in the movement that trained scholars should have been made aware of. I have pointed out only a few of these. That the editors allowed Bhaktivedanta Swami, obviously one of the most important subjects in their study, and a respected sadhu, to be misrepresented by an obvious partisan is unfortunate, to say the least.

When I contacted Steven Rosen, the editor of JVS, about writing this review, he related some interesting if also cautious perceptions about the book and its ideas about Bhaktivedanta:


Finally, let me just say that ISKCON has been confronted with serious problems in its young life as a religious transplant, especially after the passing of its founder. Its members are embarrassed and regretful of those mistakes and increasingly willing to confront them. The frank admissions by ISKCON leaders in this book attest to that. Like others, I not only want to rectify those mistakes, but to see progressive reforms, so the traditions of the Hare Krishna Movement are not only instituted in a way to preserve its mores, but to ensure “true compassion to all souls,” the essence of the movement’s core teachings. Good historical, sociological, and theological perspectives could, no doubt, offer invaluable input on how to do this effectively, perhaps in ways that those so close to the movement cannot see. But, to ensure that this message is received and heard seriously, like all teachings, it must be seen as authoritative and objective. In The Hare Krishna Movement, because of what appears to be a lack of broad knowledge of ISKCON and its tradition, and a failure to sufficiently contextualize and balance advocacy, Byrant and Ekstrand may not convince an informed readership—both outsiders who have studied the tradition, and insiders who have lived the tradition—of the book’s objectivity. Ironically, the need to create sympathy for one’s teachings—for those teachings to be seriously heard—is one of the main messages to be learned from The Hare Krishna Movement.

As a follow-up to this controversy, I have heard that Ekkehard and his wife will be moving out of the Almvik Iskcon community where they had continued to live over the past few years despite the tension resulting from Ek's changing religious orientation.

The ISKCON Almvik president, Janeshvara, has decided that Ek's contribution to the "Hare Krishna Movement..." constitutes "an offense" and so has given him an official letter asking him to leave the community. As is customary, not one person, not Janeshvara nor any of the Almvik residents who voted on the decision, have actually read Ek's chapters. Their information is based on secondary sources, probably Braja Sevaki and Jahnu, that say the chapters are "bad."

I certainly wish Ekkehard and Dhyanakunda all the best. They are good people and have so much to offer the world, but especially this movement.

Iskcon comes through again--purging the hope and leaving the cynicism to fester behind painted scenes of paradise.

The new Journal of Vaishnava Studies has just come out. Besides the above review by Laksmi Nrsimha Das, there is another one by Fred Smith that I'll try to get for posting.

I not yet read Smith's review but I heard that it was very good. His comments on Lorenz were that his statistical analysis was "lite" and "decontextualized," and that he missed the larger picture of the Indian and Bengali political context and "Bhaktivedanta's flair for drama and overstatement."

It is not a new thing in that community. They love keeping themselves to themselves. I doubt that they even have Sunday Feasts anymore.

These same people helped kick out all the devotees from Central and Eastern Europe in 1997 by calling Swedish police forces to raid the community and take out everybody who was not from Sweden, even though these devotees had permits to stay. They like Auslanders, but only for collecting money, of course.

Janesvara was my brother's Gurukula teacher and a totally devoted bureaucratic follower of Harikesa. He is a man without a heart and devoid of any feelings for people. Perhaps it is the Swedish winters that makes him like that.

What I read here just brings out very bad memories about that community.

Speaking of Jahnu and his wife.....there is no possible comment about those personalities.

Nobody there likes to read, possibly two or three devotees. Except perhaps next week's prasadam menu.

Almviks was really always what you have stated above. Paradise Lost without Milton. Island of Utopia without Socialism. Maybe they were reading Benjamin Franklin's work where he states that he believed that men could extend their life spans indefinitely simply by the power of mind over matter. That is why that community still exists. All is one.

Concluding remark: IM WESTEN (ALMVIKS GARD) NICHTS NEUES. Alles klar, na ja?

It is just another intellectual lost for Iskcon. Do they really care? Nope.

If it was the winters, then Madhava and I would also be like that.

Canadian winter and winter in Finland......hmmmm

The Hare Krishna Movement:
The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant.
Eds. Edwin F. Bryant and Maria L. Ekstrand.
pp. xix + 448. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Hardcover $49.50.

Review by Frederick M. Smith

This wide-ranging report from the front lines of ISKCON after the death of its charismatic founder, Bhaktivedanta, contains twenty-four articles, not including an “Introduction” and “Closing Reflections” by the editors. Most of the authors are former or present ISKCON members who have become scholars and are not afraid to confront the ghosts of the past, or even the ghosts of the present. This is what makes this book so riveting. Rarely have committed members of a movement, especially one with declining numbers or dramatically shifting demographics such as ISKCON, been willing and able to examine both the movement and their lives in such an honest and open manner. As such, I believe this book will receive broad distribution among ISKCON devotees, lay readers with spiritual interests, and scholars. It will also be used in whole or in part in university classes on new religious movements, diaspora South Asian religion, and so on.

“This volume,” state the editors in their excellent introduction, “traces the theology, history, and social legacy of the Krishna consciousness movement, with attention to its postcharismatic phase in the West—the period since its founder passed away almost a quarter of a century ago [1977]—a time of particularly dramatic and consequential turmoil” (1). It is noteworthy that the words “dramatic,” “turmoil,” “crisis,” and the like occur in virtually every article in the book. Thus, state the editors, the volume, “attempts to capture some of the sense of hope, disillusionment, commitment, rejection, determination, and bitterness that motivated the participants in these events” (7). In this, it succeeds admirably.

The volume is divided into six parts, excluding the introduction and conclusion: (1) “Krishna Consciousness in the Context of Hindu Theology”; (2) “Bhaktivedanta Swami and His Predecessors”; (3) “Post-Bhaktivedanta Controversies of Lineage”; (4) “Heresies”; (5) “Social Issues”; and (6) “Reevaluations.” Part 1 contains four articles (by Graham Schweig, Neal Delmonico, Guy Beck, and Kenneth Volpey) that describe Krishna and his trajectory from the Bhagavata Purana to the West. Especially noteworthy are the articles by Schweig, “Krishna: the Intimate Deity,” (12-30) which succinctly describes Vaishnava theism and the theology of devotional relationships, and Volpey, “Krishna in Mleccha Desh: ISKCON Temple Worship in Historical Perspective,” which succinctly describes the dynamics of public and private practice in India, and the manner in which ISKCON, with its massive non-Indian following, has responded to it. This part of the book is really only there to provide a theological and philosophical foundation for the following parts.

Part 2 contains five articles (by Steven Rosen, Jan Brzezinski, Shukavak Das, Ekkehard Lorenz, and Paul Sherbow) on various aspects of Bhaktivedanta and his lineage. Rosen (63-72) gives a straight, bibliographically informed account of the life of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1533). I would like to have seen him provide a fuller critique of the secondary sources he mentions; but this was probably not particularly relevant here and can, in any case, become the subject of a future project. Brzezinski (73-96) describes the institutionalization of Sri Chaitanya’s teaching in the centuries between Sri Chaitanya’s passing and the advent of ISKCON. Shukavak Das begins his important article, “Bhaktivinoda and Scriptural Literalism” (97-111), with the apposite question, “Is it possible for a religious insider to study his own tradition in a critical way and still maintain faith in that tradition?” Shukavak found his answer in the writings of Kedarnath Datta Bhaktivinoda, the “grand-guru” of Bhaktivedanta, who looked critically at the textuality and history of his own tradition. In this article, Shukavak lucidly explicates Bhaktivinoda’s methodology. I shall deal with Lorenz’s inflammatory article below. Sherbow (129-46), one of Bhaktivedanta’s early Western intimates and scholarly associates, provides a solid, theologically informed account of Bhaktivedanta’s teachings in the context of his Gaudiya predecessors.

Part 3 contains four articles (by William Deadwyler; Swami Bhakti Bhavana Vishnu; Krishnakant Desai, Sunil Awatramani, and Madhu Pandit Das; and Irvin Collins) on the dissension, fragmentation, excommunications, and schisms within ISKCON following the passing of Bhaktivedanta. Most important is the article by Deadwyler (Ravindra Svarupa Das), a member of ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission since 1987 and one of ISKCON’s most thoughtful spokespersons. The article, “Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts: Reform and Renewal in ISKCON” (149-69), contains a number of intelligent reflections on the factors that led to the weakening of the Krishna Consciousness movement. Among the most potent causes of dissension was the difficulty of married life within Bhaktivedanta’s enjoined framework. Marriages, even for non-Indians, were generally arranged; celibacy, defined as complete sexual abstinence or sex performed with one’s spouse only for the purpose of procreation, was strictly mandated; and children had to be separated from their parents at age five and placed in ISKCON schools called gurukulas.

After Bhaktivedanta’s death a group of eleven “zonal acharyas” ruled the ISKCON world, some of whom were regarded by others as unqualified, some of whom were patently excessive in their wielding of authority, and some of whom were involved in outright abusive and scandalous behavior. The position of the guru, then, came under serious indictment. There were massive defections away from ISKCON: “In ISKCON jargon, they ‘blooped,’ fell back to illusion” (157). It was not long before schisms occurred and spinoff movements began to dot the Krishna Consciousness landscape.

The dramatic article by Desai, et al. (194-213), gives a blow by blow account of a confrontation in Calcutta between two factions, one of them controlled by one of the authors of the article, Sunil Awatramani, a.k.a. Adridharan Das. Collins’s article, “The ‘Routinization of Charisma’ and the Charismatic: The Confrontation between ISKCON and Narayana Maharaja” (214-37), utilizes Weberian insights to explore “the vulnerability of an organization confronted with the appeal of a charismatic preacher outside the parameters of its authority” (215). Collins, an ISKCON member for two decades, left to join forces with the followers of Narayana Maharaja, an old friend and associate of Bhaktivedanta’s and “a senior sannyasi from a branch of the Chaitanya Gaudiya tradition outside of ISKCON” (215).

After Bhaktivedanta’s death Narayana Maharaja began preaching widely in the West, targeting ISKCON followers, an action which ISKCON subsequently regarded as “blatant poaching” (225). Finally, ISKCON condemned Narayana Maharaja on a number of doctrinal and pedagogical points, and heaped personal criticisms on him as well, including accusations of sexual malfeasance. Narayana Maharaja defended himself and struck back, criticizing ISKCON’s institutional dogmatism and irregularities. Collins concludes that ISKCON’s rigid exclusivism “routinized” Bhaktivedanta’s charisma, and this ultimately proved counterproductive.

Part 4 contains two papers by men with deep ISKCON histories, Conrad Joseph (Kundali Das) and Howard Resnick (Hridayananda Das Goswami), who were major players in a theological controversy within ISKCON in the mid-1990s. It would be too great a task to recapitulate the subtleties of this controversy here. Suffice it to say that the debate centered on Bhaktivedanta’s teachings on the origin of souls and the possibility of fall from grace. Joseph felt that there was a contradiction in Bhaktivedanta’s teachings that did not square with scriptures, while Resnick, speaking for the institutional power base, felt that it was a paradox, a deliberate contradiction that forces the reader “to go beneath the surface, to plumb the depths of the teachings” (267). This is a weak response, to say the least. In the end Joseph’s book explicating his position was banned by ISKCON and he was forced out of the organization. These two chapters (241-69) make very interesting reading, not least because Joseph suggests that this misunderstanding helped condition ISKCON’s rigidity and consequent fall into abusive practices, and because of Resnick’s curious reluctance. He subtly, though clearly, conveys the sense of defensiveness, and kept his article brief (5 pp.). It is clear that he did not want to appear on the same stage as Conrad, and submitted his paper only out of respect for one of the editors (Bryant). It is this same Hridayananda who is reported later in the book to have vigorously promoted and defended the ISKCON practice of arranging marriages for girls who were eleven or twelve years old (318). Joseph’s use of Maslow’s and Fromm’s theories of social psychology is one of the more innovative and noteworthy features of the volume, and in this forum he looks very much the winner.

Part 5 contains six papers (by E. Burke Rochford Jr., Kim Knott, Nori Muster, David Wolf, Gabriel Deadwyler, and Ekkehard Lorenz) on social issues and conflicts within ISKCON. Rochford has written prolifically on ISKCON since the 1970s, and his article here, “Airports, Conflict, and Change in the Hare Krishna Movement” (273-90) is very much in the phenomenological spirit of his other writings. He discusses ISKCON’s use of public spaces, particularly airports, for proselytizing in the 1970s and how the public backlash against it forced ISCKON to reevaluate its strategies as a social movement.

Knott has been one of the more sensitive observers of ISKCON over the years, and this article, “Healing the Heart of ISKCON: The Place of Women” (291-311) is no less so. She notes that ISKCON did not begin to seriously degrade the position of women until 1974. Bhaktivedanta’s statements about women were much more equivocating before that date. But in that year his ideas about women’s inferiority, which until then seemed less definite, began to be enforced throughout ISKCON. The resulting strictures on women’s participation continued after Bhaktivedanta’s death, and began to lift only in the mid-90s in Germany. Then, in 1996 and 1998, women gained their first positions on the Governing Body Commission, in spite of widespread opposition within the movement. ISKCON is clearly a very conservative, fundamentalist movement, with little wiggle room for liberal thinking (at least until very recently), so it is no surprise that opponents of this opening up of women’s participation called for “a counteroffensive against the feminists who are a plague in our movement” (304). Bhaktivedanta’s position appears to have been that though women are welcome in the movement and were eligible for the highest realms of bhakti, their bodies inherently dragged them down and endangered men as well. In the year 2000 the Governing Body Commission decided to introduce a new regime in which women are eligible for full participation, which presumably means leading samkirtana (open devotional chanting), the most important male bastion, which had been completely closed off before. Knott ends her article by citing a senior devotee, who said that, “given that the theology of Gaudiya Vaishnavism presents a woman’s body as the more difficult body for spiritual advancement, Why make it more difficult?” (305).

Muster’s “Life as a Woman on Watseka Avenue” (312-20) is the first of four personal stories. Her story very much reinforces Knott’s analysis and much of what Lorenz writes. She states that though “[I] dedicated my heart to the beautiful Lord Krishna—we women lived under a cloud of chauvinism and outright hatred of our gender” (312). Her story is grisly. The sexual and psychological abuse and humiliation meted out to women is shocking. She does not, however, blame Bhaktivedanta, whom, she says, always respected women, and even allowed them to ride in his car! The person she holds most responsible is the late Tamal Krishna Goswami (represented later in this book), whom, she believes, led a group of elitist males in powerful ISKCON positions on a mission to enforce this suppression. The situation, Muster says, echoing Knott, improved markedly in the 1990s, and she ends her article on a hopeful note.

David Wolf continues the theme in his article, “Child Abuse and the Hare Krishnas: History and Response” (321-44). It appears that corporal punishment was the rule rather than the exception in ISKCON gurukuka schools. Beatings and other kinds of abuses and humiliations, many of them sexual, were meted out to students, many of them quite young. Wolf reports that as of January 2002, his organization, Association for the Protection of Vaishnava Children, had “received allegations of child mistreatment against more than 300 people” (323). Wolf states that “Prabhupada meant the gurukula experience of the children of ISKCON to be austere and disciplined, relative to the comforts and intemperateness of western life, but also replete with caring and affection and filled with exhilaration and adventure that comes from learning and growing in a loving communal atmosphere” (329). Thus, Wolf presents a fair and balanced picture, citing people who testified to the wonders of their education, especially those who were educated at the gurukula in Vrindaban and exposed to the excitement of the local culture. Wolf discusses the long-term effects of child abuse, and ISKCON’s response since the 1990s. There has been a great improvement, he reports, though far fewer congregants are now sending their children to these schools. Monitoring and screening procedures are now in place, and the situation, Wolf believes, can only improve.

Just as Muster’s article is coupled with Knott’s, an article by a former student in ISKCON schools, Gabriel Deadwyler, is coupled with Wolf’s report. Deadwyler, the son of William Deadwyler, attended gurukulas in Dallas, Pennsylvania, and Vrindaban. He begins his article, titled “Fifteen Years Later: A Critique of Gurukula” (345-56), by noting that he essentially ended his involvement with ISKCON in 1986, at age fifteen, after his last year in the gurukula. Deadwyler is clearly intelligent and well balanced, and definitely not severely victimized by his years in the gurukula. This is one of the most interesting and refreshing articles in the book. He does not comment very much on the abuse, leaving the impression that it was not endemic or pervasive. On the contrary, he contends that the deprivation and excessive discipline to which he was subjected in the gurukula contributed to his ability to handle such ordeals as military training with relative calmness. He writes of his experience as a teenager trying to adjust to life outside the gurukula, and the challenges of such a strange upbringing. Fortunately, he has maintained an excellent relationship with his parents and does not begrudge them his unusual youth. He understands, though, that a basic ISKCON education can only prepare one to be a devotee; there is virtually no math, science, or Western literature in the curriculum. Thus, he was forced to recommence his basic education after he left the gurukula. He regards his youth not as misspent, but as multicultural, a most sanguine view of it, and speaks of how his education gave him a head start in his appreciation of art and music. In the end he calls for ISKCON to institute a more balanced education for its children.

Now, onto the two articles by Ekkehard Lorenz. These articles are contentious and controversial, and for better or worse will probably receive the greatest attention by reviewers and the public at large. The first, “The Guru, Mayavadins, and Women: Tracing the Origins of Selected Polemical Statements in the Work of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami” (112-28), attempts, through rather “lite” statistical analysis, to illustrate Bhaktivedanta’s misogyny and generally shallow and opinionated nature on the topics of women, philosophy, and spiritual teachers. Lorenz sums up Bhaktivedanta’s views as follows: “the spiritual master is good, beyond sexuality, and superior to all; Mayavadins are dangerous and bad; women and sex are dangerous and bad” (124). Among the numerous statements of Bhaktivedanta’s about women, we find, for example: “Women are not generally very intelligent,” and “Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape” (123). There can be little doubt that Bhaktivedanta held these views, though on the subject of women, our knowledge of his views should be somewhat modified by Knott’s and Muster’s articles. The history of abuse in ISKCON, to which much of this volume is devoted, testifies to the influence of these extreme views on at least some of his disciples. What is missing, however, is an acknowledgement, not to speak of a measured analysis, of the prurient brahmanical and patriarchal contexts which background these statements. Nor is there an analysis of what must have been Bhaktivedanta’s flair for drama and overstatement. Not that such analyses would have exonerated Bhaktivedanta in any case. Part of the mystique he held for many lay in his uncompromising belief in the cultural mythology of the ecstatic Vaishnava male saint, though others would restate this as a destructive bigotry, or, a bit less heavy-handed, as an uncompromising cultural insensitivity.

Lorenz’s second article is even more inflammatory. This one, titled “Race, Monarchy and Gender: Bhaktivedanta Swami’s Social Experiment” (357-90), is, like the first one, filled with quotations from Bhaktivedanta, many of them, like those in the first article, decontextualized. And like those stated in the first article, he really did hold these views. Among them are that “99.9% populations are Naradharma [morally despicable]” (359). To counter this, he stated: “The Krishna consciousness movement is being propagated all over the world to reestablish the Varnashram-dharma system and thus save human society from gliding down to hellish life” (360). Views such as these helped confer on many of his young, gullible, and culturally alienated non-Indian disciples a sense of exclusivity and missionary zeal. Also evident is Bhaktivedanta’s racism. Lorenz brings a wealth of quotations to show that Bhaktivedanta was opposed to varna-samkara, mixing of
castes (cf. Bhagavad-gita 1.41) and spoke disparagingly of black people and Shudras, referring to Varnashram-dharma as a “scientific system” (364). This view meshes with the most tired and extreme views of Hindutva being espoused today. His advocacy of monarchy or dictatorship is tied in with his notion of Varnasham-dharma. This is evident when he calls Indira Gandhi a prostitute because she did not have an arranged marriage. Lorenz also supplies a number of statements that apparently testify to Bhaktivedanta’s affection for Hitler (369-70). In short, Lorenz, a former ISKCON member himself, vengefully presents a thoroughly damning view of Bhaktivedanta, concluding that his more extreme views contributed to child and other abuses within ISKCON.

He might be right about that, but, again, something is missing from this picture. And this something is an endemic problem throughout the book, namely an absence of discussion anywhere of the intellectual and, especially, political contexts of Bengal in the mid-twentieth century. It is no longer viable to isolate Bhaktivedanta from these contexts and view him only within the context of his Gaudiya Vaishnava predecessors. It is this very problem of context that has led a growing number of scholars, beginning with Sheldon Pollock, to criticize the entire field of religious studies. The field, Pollock and others assert, has remained bumblingly but studiously detached from these contexts.

Scholars of religion are, obviously, interested in religion, not politics, and most of them are concerned exclusively with the ritual, doctrinal, and institutional aspects of religion. They continue to separate religion and religious subcultures from political movements. The latter are simply not interesting to many religious studies scholars, and more so to non-scholars, especially perhaps to those who have been absorbed in the expansiveness and problems of new religious movements. One cannot harshly criticize non-scholars for neglecting this context, harmful though it may be. But most of the contributors to this volume are scholars, even if they began their careers in religious studies as ISKCON members.

The political context to which I refer is the Indian nationalist movement of the early and mid-twentieth century in its many faces, from Gandhi to Netaji. Within this was a subculture of Bengali nationalism, with its peculiar brew of socialism and fascism. There can be no doubt that certain Bengali nationalist agendas of the mid-twentieth century influenced some of Bhaktivedanta’s extreme views, including his admiration of Hitler. This needs to be examined in much greater detail than I can supply here. Briefly, though, before and during World War II legations of Bengali nationalists traveled to Germany (and Japan, most famously Netaji Subhash Bose), not just because they were the enemies of the British, India’s colonial masters, but also because their vision of Indian power, markedly opposite of Gandhi’s, dovetailed with their own, which was essentially antidemocratic. Indeed, Bhaktivedanta laced some of his discourses with statements such as the following: “That day I was remarking that ‘This democracy is the government of asses,’ because the population are asses and they vote another ass to be head of the government” (367). This and many other statements of Bhaktivedanta’s must be understood in the context of the intellectual and political culture in which he matured. The present book thoroughly ignores this culture, treating him as if he were an alien who landed in Tompkins Square Park in 1965 with no history other than that of his spiritual predecessors. In spite of the fact that this book is about the “postcharismatic fate” of ISKCON, several other articles of a historical nature found their way into this volume, and this too should have been addressed, perhaps as a separate chapter.

Part 6 has three articles (Steven Gelberg, Michael Grant and Anuttama Das Adhikari, and Thomas Herzig and Kenneth Valpey): on leaving, staying, and revisioning ISKCON. Gelberg, now in his 50s, sympathetically describes (393-403) his seventeen years spent in ISKCON, from ages 18 to 35, the denial that kept him there for his entire youth, his growing disillusionment with ISKCON, the hypocrisy, misogyny, and spiritual depersonalization that finally forced him to leave, and the life he experienced after leaving. With respect to remaining in ISKCON, Grant and Adhikari (404-15) cite their satisfaction with their personal relationships, love for the guru and his organization, fondness for ISKCON’s culture, their deep intellectual engagement with Bhaktivedanta’s teachings, and a sense that ISKCON is the right place for them to develop their spiritual inclinations. They recognize the problems in ISKCON’s past and are committed to taking responsibility for them and resolving them in a positive manner. In the end, they say, “staying in ISKCON is ultimately an act of faith. No matter how hard we may try to reason it all out, we are here because we want to be here. We tolerate the opposition of the world and the agonizing internal problems because we believe that Shrila Prabhupada’s teachings represent the consummate philosophy of life” (413). Finally Herzig (Tamal Krishna Goswami) and Valpey (Krishna Kshetra Das) (418-28) try to examine the problems within ISKCON, employing a methodology borrowed from Indian philosophy. This structure is meant to allow them to retain their faith in the absolute truth of everything Bhaktivedanta said, while still trying to solve the well-known problems. Whatever the methodology, they do arrive at proper conclusions. For example, they acknowledge that, “[i]f ISKCON is to be rid of residual sexism, a theology is needed that interprets [Bhaktivedanta’s] comments in the spirit of Bhagavat dharma, taking in to account the hard realities of present life, even if in doing so the principles of Varnashram dharma are set aside” (420). Among other reevaluations they undertake based on indigenous Sanskritic methodologies are the relationship between guru and disciple, Bhaktivedanta’s shrill criticism of Mayavadins (Advaitins other than those of his own school, whose defeat he saw as part of his mission), and the balance between aggressive missionizing and personal practice. They see, in short, a kinder, gentler ISKCON already taking shape, in part due to this shift in methodological thinking.

What was it about Bhaktivedanta and ISKCON that attracted the most extreme following among Indian spiritual and religious teachers and organizations from the 1960s onwards? I have occasionally paused over the last few decades to consider this question, comparing Bhaktivedanta and ISKCON with, for example, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the TM organization, Swami Muktananda and his successors and the Siddha Yoga organization, Chogyam Trungpa and the Naropa Institute, Amrit Desai and Kripalu yoga, and on and on. Abuses of power have occurred in all these organizations, accompanied by denials and lawsuits, yet with all of them the power of the satsang or the sangha has overridden the catastrophes of the abuses, enabling their survival. A cursory examination of the history of the Indian spiritual marketplace over the last forty years suggests that in the 21st century nothing can be presented and legitimated unless it is cleverly commodified and mainstreamed, in which the teachings of the gurus of the last century are reticulated within a spongy and amorphous New Age middle ground. This invites questions of the historical, intellectual, psychological, and social processes that gave rise to these movements and propelled them to their current status. It is a topic of research for someone, soon. Irrespective of the attractions of “the beautiful Lord Krishna,” what was it about ISKCON’s extreme sectarianism, in which followers were asked to abandon their birth families for that of the ashram? Was it that ISKCON attracted those who were most thorough in their rejection of Western society and most willing to accept a wholesale transplant of an exotic religious sect? If so, can we ask whether this kind of person was more inclined towards transgressive practices than followers of other teachers and groups that presented a more enculturated version of their teachings? Not that the latter was a buffer against abuse, but whatever was the case, it appears that those who have remained with ISKCON over the decades have now decided that they too must edge closer to the middle, for their own preservation. Maturation here, as elsewhere, invites moderation.

In sum, Bryant and Ekstrand are to be congratulated for creating a forum for presenting a fair, balanced, and compassionate account of the travails and growing pains within ISKCON. The non-ISKCON reader, such as me, can detect fissures within ISKCON that would not have been visible in any other forum, enabling me to view (rightly or wrongly) Joseph (Kundali Das) as liberal (in spite of, or perhaps because of, the fact that he was probably purged), Herzig (Tamal Krishna Goswami) and Valpey (Krishna Kshetra Das), who seek solutions from within their own tradition, as moderates, and Resnick (Hridayananda Das Goswami), who does not come off well in this book, as conservative. Similarly, ex-ISKCON members are not monolithic in their reflections. Lorenz is clearly vengeful, perhaps to the point of misusing his source material, Collins has pulled up stakes and left for other, more fertile, but closely related fields, while Muster, Gabriel Deadwyler, and Gelberg are neutral or guardedly positive. This openness is rare among active spiritual movements, as I have said in my blurb on the back cover of the book. Indeed, this very act of coming out from behind a thin veil of secrecy opens up debates and issues that had been knocked around exclusively within the walls of ISKCON in a way that can only help it grow and flourish.

Thanks to Steve Rosen for both those reviews, which were published in this last edition of Journal of Vaishnava Studies.

No doubt, this is true. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that Prabhupada himself had no self-awareness of the historical relativity of many of his ideas, but took them unselfconsciously to be absolute truths. And similarly, his disciples took things in that way--and many of them still do.

If Smith is right about one thing, it is that this kind of analysis needs to be done. In that respect, Ekkehard's paper is a very deep first cut.

There is no defense of Bhaktivedanta Swami available here except to relativize him--and that is exactly what Iskcon will not do or allow. If Satsvarupa's biography of Prabhupada is already considered insufficiently hagiographical, how much worse a reaction would such a mundane analysis provoke?

So really, Smith's criticism of Lorenz's papers is only that it does not go far enough--which in a sense is asking a little much. Lorenz is justifiably shocked by this motley collection of fascistic and misogynistic quotations and he throws it back in the face of Bhaktivedanta's unconditional followers and challenges them: What are you going to do about them? Will you repudiate this part of your infallible guru's words, thereby admitting his relative place in history? Or will you go on blindly accepting it, and thus marginalize yourselves and your religion to the very furthest edges of modern civilization?

It is clear that the brouhaha around Lorenz's papers has already incited much reaction. Hopefully, Smith's comments will orient that reaction in the right direction, namely to a sane analysis of what in Bhaktivedanta Swami's contribution can be taken as timeless and religiously resilient, and what must be marginalized as of no great importance. And with this, a revision of guru-tattva and all the nonsensical confusion about all-pervading infallibility that surrounds it.

Sounds like something Locana would do.

What was it they called devotees from Eastern and Central Europe? "Yugo-slaves."

How did you know that Elpis?
Locana was also involved previously in affairs such as above mentioned. This particular one happened in 1997, during the time Janesvara was starting to take more such responsibilities in that community.

Yes, in Germany and in Sweden's ISKCON, those who came from Central ( Ex- Yugoslavia:Croatia, Slovenia) and particularly Eastern European (Ex- Yugoslavia: Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Vojvodina, Kosovo and other parts of Balkan) countries were called Yugo-slaves. They were good just for collecting money for temple. Whenever they will get sick, nobody will take care of them, and some will be even sent home to their countries, enforced by police or immigration, although many had legal documents. In Almviks they didn't give anybody from those countries religious visa. People from those countries were just used, while some devotees from Sweden didn't work, they will just claim money from Swedish government, and have a good laugh at the devotees from those other countries. Once i tricked Jahnu's wife over the phone saying that i am an US devotee, by putting an American accent as i did ask about fate of devotees from those countries. Her answer was nothing short of contempt and belittling of devotees from above mentioned countries. Then after a 10 minutes, she did understand that she is actually talking with somebody who is originally from those countries, and she put the phone down on me.
What to speak then of that typically German / Swedish devotee saying, such as: I am initiated Sri Visnupadas Brahmin, and you are just a bhakta....

I am not going to dwell anymore in this topic. That is all.

Anyway, what comes around, goes around...

I got this email from Dhyanakunda, which I don't think she'll mind if I post here. Hopefully she will be able to embellish it with a more detailed analysis when she gets the time.

===============

Hello Jagat!

I just wanted to tell you I have read the review and all the other texts by you and others on GD, the CUP volume review thread. Thank you for posting the review! Ek says that your interpretation of what he wanted to accomplish with his chapters says exactly how it was. I thought it betrayed Smith's lack of insight into ISKCON's inner dynamics to think Ek is simply attacking SP.

I may comment on the review, but right now I am so snowed under I just can't. I would like to give it the time and attention it requires. It will take a few days.

It is an interesting review and I enjoyed some parts in it a lot. But in some ways it is puzzling (Smith appears to have some insider contacts with people in the book, his treatment of them appears unwarranted by what they write -- personal likes/dislikes?) and in others disappointing. I think his hobby-horse is social/political issues and that he is weaker on theology and religious tradition. I was quite surprised that he did not find more to say about your chapter. I think he was just not well-read enough to see its relevance to the topics that are his own main concerns.

Some bits were rather naive: like when he is so lyrical about Ravindra's ancient contribution, or his son's. I think he was also too optimistic in his reading of Wolf's findings; he ignores some rather serious concerns Wolf has raised.

Anyway, just wanted to thank you for these posts and your own writings.

Greetings from very snowy Sweden :-)

I am from that part of the world and I know both Locana and Jahnu personally.

I will definitely agree with Dhyanakuda with this observation.
I think he expects some sort of socio political issues within a book which deals with the fate of one movement.
Possibly he hoped to encounter some Yukio Mishima, or Savitri Devi like controversial or charismatic political figures within the movement? Somebody politically involved as well as religiously or culturally, with the roots in Subashcandra Boses nationalism or perhaps socialism, and all that with some background in Bengal history of late 20th century?

Ravindra Svarupas article was relevant and possibly groundbreaking in mid 90es, when it did appear first time, but except historical relevance, question is was that article really necessary for such a book, because author of the article in his way of being a reformer and person which helped out, put down some of so called Zonal Acharyas, himself later became entangled in a hierarhical structure of Iskcon, and ultimately and finally established himself as a figure which was enforcing the totalitarian Iskcon view: Either you are with Iskcon and GBC laws or you are out of Iskcon for good. So there is no room left for any options.

I guess that we met in Sweden. Then you know Prisni from this Forum also.
I am not going to ask you for your identity.It doesn't matter. Nice to know you anyway.

No, we have never met, and I do not think that I know Prisni. I am from Denmark, not Sweden, but I know the ways of the ISKCON Sweden well enough. ISKCON Denmark was the same. A lot of racism and exploitation of foreign devotees.

Yeah, he did seem to show quite a liking for Kundali's use of Maslow and Fromm. Did that color his comments about HDG? HDG was singled out for the most criticism: the brevity, "curious reluctance," "sense of defensiveness," etc. And then--ouch--a reference to him defending child marriages.

Smith's bio states that he "is Assistant Professor of Sanskrit and Classical Indian Literature at the University of Iowa and he is also in charge of their South Asian Studies program. Expert in the fields of yoga and Vallabha tradition..." Even if he was looking for more intellectual, political or social grounding, I thought his comments in general were good. Ek's chapters were just meant for another audience...and in that sense, ironically, were the most political in context. In light of ISKCON history, how could change come in any other form than something radical and even painful?

CV of Fred Smith.

Well, he is right about Kundali and HDG; almost everyone agrees with Smith's observations there. Kundali knocks Hridayananda out of the park. HDG looks like he has nothing of real importance to say. His article looks like an email.

As far as the review given by Frederick M. Smith, I think it was good. But here comes my not-so-happy-about-ISKCON side...

The glaring mistake in my mind is that Smith took the bait that TKG was 'middle ground' and one of the leaders moving towards change for the better. While I personally don't know TKG, I do know him well enough to know that he was much much more conservative than HDG could ever dream of becoming. The problem is (and I can't blame Smith here) that TKG was somewhat in process of masking his authoritarianism, whether intentional or not. I remember over the summer hashing through just a part of one of TKG's editorials in one of his books and how the picture presented by TKG was completely a twisted rendition of what really happened (with the Jiva issue I believe). Of course the outcome made TKG shine, but anyway... enough said. Point being that TKG was not middle ground or anywhere close. Krsna Ksetra yes, TKG no.

On the positive side (and I'm not in the practice of doing this), TKG did chant Hare Krishna. He did do some service. He must be on the road to Krishna in some degree or other. So the point is that it is TKG's actions I'm critiquing and not him as a Vaishnava. That is the point.

I wonder why it is so hard to separate people from their actions? It seems that at least I am so accustomed to thinking that if someone does something bad it makes them bad as a person or soul. On the converse side, I think people too also take it when they read a critique of someone that they automatically think that 'the person' is being attacked and not their ideas. That is such a major point to me - the difference between the person and their ideas/actions. I would really like to hear more on this (especially from people I see as balanced like Jagat & Braja). Om tat sat.

Ys,

I agree on KK. As far as TKG goes, I don't know. He was certainly very intelligent and strategic. I had an impression that what he thought privately and what he showed in public could be two very different things.

He corresponded with Ek around the time when Ek was working on his chapters for the Hare Krishna book. He provided Ek with some references on ACBS, and was very interested in his findings regarding ACBS's sources. (TKG was working on his doctoral thesis then.) He did not show any discomfort and did not sound any alarm, even though Ek provided him with explosive stuff. My impression was that he understood the implications of these findings and wanted to know as much as possible in order to form an opinion and a strategy... before anyone else does.



Maybe because daily experience shows there is, statistically, a connection between what others do and what kind of people they are. To always separate people from their actions is costly, cognitively speaking. Too many variables.

We do it spontaneously when it comes to people we know very well; we judge them based not on a single action but rather on the entirety of our experience with them.

To keep in mind that a stranger may not be the kind of person his action indicates, would perhaps require a realization that this stranger is a whole universe, a person as complex as our parents, mates or children.

Take these musings for whatever they are worth...

Some more thoughts about Professor Smith's review:



Good point about critique of secondary sources. He is quite generous towards Rosen.



I don't know what to think. This passage does not appear fair and balanced to me. It's somehow hard to think that it was ESPECIALLY the Vrndavana gurukula that offered those wonders of education and the excitement of the local culture, when one knows about the abuse there and how helpless the children were, half the world away from their parents.



I think Smith's reading of Wolf here is overly optimistic. But I may be biased by having read an extended version of the paper (published on Chakra half a year ago), where Wolf expressed serious concern about the role of the EC GBC, who take advantage of the loopholes in the adjudication system to intervene and protect perpetrators if these are people close to the GBC. This concern is stated in the Wolf's chapter in the book as well.



And this would have ideally required a bit of problematizing. One reason Ravindra Svarupa's son did not get as severely abused as the others was just that he was Ravindra Svarupa's son.



Ahem. If he knew how much counting and translating went into it. Every item out of hundreds on the list of ACBS's statements had to be checked against a dozen Sanskrit commentaries by the acaryas.



I like his insights here, and I absolutely agree ACBS's background needs exploring.

I, too, some years ago tried to say in public that ACBS was a person with his own social and historical background that needed acknowledging. I, too, supported that with a list of quotes. But my quotes weren't anywhere nearly as extreme as those presented by Ek in the book. Result: the discussion of my QUOTES was limited to a few persons and died out pretty fast (people tried to exonerate ACBS's slips of the tongue etc. in most fanciful ways), while my POINT about a need to relativize ACBS' statements was hardly even touched. The real discussion after that was about how it could happen that a person like me could ever get initiated, and how it could happen that such views could be expressed in an ISKCON forum.

Sorry, but to get ISKCON to acknowledge the need to look at ACBS, hundreds of outrageous quotes are needed. Not even because I think ACBS's views were *that* outrageous when seen in historical perspective. He was a child of his time. But I don't think ISKCON will admit he was a child of his time unless the only other alternative appears to be to say that he was something much worse.



Naradhama. Wonder how a Professor of Sanskrit can make this kind of a typo. Unless it was his proofreader. He misspells Varnashram at least once. Then somewhere he refers to Mayavadins as "Advaitins other than those of [ACBS'] own school". Does he classify Vaisnavism as Advaita?

The two passages below were the best in the review, in my opinion:



Well said. I do hope there will be books coming about this.

But this is unacceptable, coming from a scholar:



"Perhaps" won't do. If Smith believes Ek has misused his source material, he must point to where and how. He owes it to the book's readers! He accuses a writer of intellectual dishonesty without providing evidence. I am surprised. If I wrote something like this about someone else's research in my BA paper, the passage would never make it through the first reading with my supervisor.

I wonder what Satyaraja wants to accomplish by publishing this review. I have heard from Maria Ekstrand he wanted to find a reviewer who would be critical of Ek's chapters. And he got one, but the price is high: Smith is quite clearly critical of ACBS as well. I have never seen a scholar show less deference to the ISKCON founder. He uses and paraphrases the quotes Ek has found, throughout the review to support his own points. This is definitely not the kind of review Satyaraja would want to show to the ISKCON audience in order to convince them not to take Ek's research serious!

Unless the idea is that an outside scholar like Smith is competent to criticize Ek's scholarship, but absolutely not competent to say anything of value about the guru and acharya...

Topical Discussions? *Sigh* So many fond memories of that forum. It was quite revolutionary--revolving many of us right out the door.

I think TKG and others were very aware of the problems and others have bottled them up...resulting in a range of side effects like silence (there really wasn't much new material in the book from current members, was there?) and even sickness, physical and sadhanic.

Yep, Topical Discussions. A very special COM conference. Mukhya (SysOp) started it after someone used Free Forum to discuss whether the Sun is really closer than the Moon. :-)

What was your name there, if you do't mind sharing?

And yes, it is striking how few the up-to-date contributions from the ISKCON devotees are in the book.

No, not at all: Brajajana. I'll have to look at some of my old posts and see if I said anything that I still agree with. That's where I cut my teeth though. And it was the only thing really keeping me interested in the non-svarupa-siddha-bhakti realm of ISKCON.

I wonder how many TD veterans there are here.

I completely agree, one cannot separate Srila Prabhupada from his culture and family of origin. I love him dearly, and I can still see him as a human being, a product of his culture and upbringing, a very proper and traditional Indian gentleman. In fact, with that in mind, in some ways he really pushed beyond that upbringing to be as inclusive as he was, with women disciples living in the temples and, in early days, giving class and leading kirtan.

Some people need him to be an icon, not a person. Which, if you think about it, is really an impersonalist way of thinking. Using the "pure devotee" label they make him into a thing, not a living, breathing human being who came with his own culture and viewpoint. They pictured him as omniscient, so therefore everything he said went without question. In my opinion this was a misunderstanding of what pure devotion is all about, and simply reflected their need for hero worship and the security that their hero knew the truth, absolutely.

Can I ask if Edwin F. Bryant was ever initiated in ISKCON, and if so, what was his spiritual name? I am curious because today I stumbled across the world-famous Foyle's bookshop in London and I found a copy of Bryan'ts translation of the Tenth Canto.

As I had already spent most of my money on political books, I decided that this copy was so nice that I would go back and buy it at the next opportunity. I just wondered if I was mixing him up with Ekanatha/Ekkehard Lorenz?

Edwin was initiated in ISKCON. Not sure he would want his name out. I can assure you he is not identical with me, Ekkehard Lorenz (former Ekanatha).
-ek

Oh I see, many thanks for the clarification.

I went back to Foyle's today and purchased Bryant's translation of the Tenth Canto. Impressive.

Rochan Dasji's wife Jahnava has written a review of a review that appeared in the quarterly Nova Religio. The original review was by Tulasi Srinivas.

I get the suspicion that Jahnava did not read the book itself or any of the articles in it. She does not claim to have done anything more than read Braja Sevaki's review. Yet she writes the following:



Oh well.

Hare Krishna all,

I was just checking on the price of this book and see it is quite expensive, does anyone want to sell their used edition? Or know of a cheap way of getting it? Thanks, SKd