Hare Krsnas and Hinduism

[Guest guest]

VFA-family, "vrnparker" <vrnparker> wrote:

What was Srila Prabhupada's Position:

The Hare Krishna Movement and Hinduism

Jan Brzezinski

 

"...In Prabhupada's early days in New York, he solicited help from

his benefactor Sumati Morarji for the construction of 'the first

Hindu temple [in New York]': 'It will be recorded in the history of

the world that the first Hindu temple is started by a pious Hindu

lady Srimati Sumati Morarji who is not only a big business magnate in

India but a pious Hindu Lady, a great devotee of Lord Krsna.' The

object was 'to impress the people what actually the Hindu culture is'

(65-11-10. SUM)."

 

"In America, Prabhupada had to respond to the need to preserve his

work by threats from different areas. As we have seen earlier, he saw

the message that he was preaching to be beyond classification

of 'Hindu', though this would not necessarily be recognised by

governments around the world. When difficult legal situations arose

in America he thought it better to claim to be Hindu: 'America has

got freedom of religion, so if they accept my movement as Hindu

religion, they cannot do anything' (761229RC.BOM)."

 

Is ISKCON a Hindu religious movement? This very question has caused a

great deal of discussion both between members of the ISKCON and those

commenting on the Society from outside. Since ISKCON is a unique

product of the vision of one individual, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami,

its founder, we must examine his position on this issue. Central to

the difficulties that commentators have had in coming to any sort of

decision are the seemingly ambiguous comments and decisions that the

founder made with regards to Hinduism and his Society. There are

times when he clearly stated that ISKCON was not Hindu and that his

followers should endeavour to keep themselves apart from Hindu

influences, and there were other times when be clearly linked ISKCON

to Hinduism. Jan K. Br explores the references that Srila Prabhupada

made to Hinduism, and more importantly he discusses these comments

within the context in which they were made, thus enabling us to gain

a clearer understanding of Srila Prabhupada's position on Hinduism.

 

I.

 

One afternoon in October 1970, Srila Prabhupada visited the Golden

Temple in Amritsar. After touring the temple and seeing the way in

which food was distributed, he signed the temple's guestbook. Under

religion he wrote, 'Krsnaite' and under comments he wrote, 'Very

spiritual' (Lilamrta, vol. 4, 137).[1]

 

Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (henceforth Prabhupada)

also sometimes jokingly called himself and his movement Krsnian, a

play on Christian, but neither Krsnaite nor Krsnian became current,

even though the institution he founded was named the International

Society for Krsna Consciousness. Popularly, of course, his followers

were known as the Hare Krsnas, a name to which Prabhupada did not

make an objection. Acknowledging his membership in the Brahma-Madhva-

Gaudiya or Gaudiya Vaisnava disciplic succession, he happily

identified himself as Gaudiya Vaisnava. However, his relationship

with the larger entity known as Hinduism was rather less clear. In

fact, he often overtly denied any connection to Hinduism at all: 'The

Krsna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu

religion or any system of religion' (SSR: 3). Another time he

wrote: 'One should clearly understand that the Krsna consciousness

movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion.' He could be

even stronger in his judgement of Hinduism, calling it 'a dead

religion' with 'no philosophy' (72-02-04.VAI) or 'a cheating

religion' (731006BG.BOM).

 

Prabhupada conceded on more than one occasion that Krsna

consciousness had its roots in Hinduism, but since in one place he

compares it to Buddhism it may be thought that he felt it was a new

religion growing out of the Hindu tradition, though entirely distinct

from it: 'You can call it Hinduism, but actually it does not belong

to any 'ism'. It is a science of understanding God, but it appears to

be like the Hindu religion. In that sense Buddhism is also the Hindu

religion because Lord Buddha was a Hindu' (750519RC.MEL).

 

On the other hand, Prabhupada also expressed a deeper emotional

connection to Hinduism, such as in 1970 when he reacted to an article

in a Bombay newspaper. He felt he had been misrepresented as denying

Hinduism entirely by saying that 'Krsna is everything'

(701104RC.BOM). Accusing the reporter of making contradictory

statements, he asked how one who worships Radha-Krsna and follows

Hindu ceremonies like Rathayatra can say that 'Hinduism is nothing'?

(701212RC.IND). His identification of Rathayatra and Radha-Krsna

worship with Hinduism shows that he had not, in fact, made as sharp a

break with that tradition as the Buddha had done.

 

In view of this apparently ambivalent attitude, an analysis of

Prabhupada's statements on Hinduism is needed to find out the

relationship between the religious movement he founded and its

broader Hindu heritage. This preliminary study is an attempt to

summarise different themes surrounding the terms 'Hindu'

and 'Hinduism' as found in Prabhupada's writings, letters, speeches

and conversations.

 

II.

 

Prabhupada's fundamental discourse on Hinduism is standard and oft-

repeated. It customarily begins with a rejection of the term 'Hindu'

itself as a misnomer, describing it as an outsider's term. This is,

of course, accepted historical fact, though Prabhupada suggests that

it had a negative connotation for those outsiders: 'In India,

according to the Vedic language, the Europeans are called mlecchas or

yavanas. Similarly, "Hindu" is a name given by the Muslims' (SSR: 3).

[2]

 

Like every other scholar who has rehearsed the etymology of the

word 'Hindu' from Sindhu/Indus, Prabhupada does not deny the

existence of an entity which has come to be known by the name

Hinduism. Rather, he uses this discourse as an opportunity to

establish the true name of the religion which accepts the Vedic

authority, and from there to describe what he holds to be its

authentic form. Since Prabhupada's approach is prescriptive, his

concept of Hinduism is perhaps clearer than that of scholars who

attempt to describe it phenomenologically. In this respect he is

similar to many other Hindus who have accepted the term but have

struggled to define it in a satisfactory manner.

 

Alternative names for the religious system which submits to the Vedic

authority and which Prabhupada finds preferable to 'Hinduism' are

sanatana-dharma, varnasrama dharma, and vaidika dharma or Vedic

culture. However, Prabhupada contrasts or complements these terms

with the 'science of God', bhagavata-dharma or, less frequently,

vaisnava-dharma. It will be first of all necessary to disentangle

these terms in order to understand how Prabhupada saw his movement in

relation to the broader Hindu tradition.

 

To contextualise this discussion of Prabhupada's use of the

term 'Hindu', it is worthwhile examinining one or two definitions

given by others who have no qualms about calling themselves by that

name. I have selected the following two:

 

[A Hindu is one] who accepts the Vedas, the Smrtis, the Puranas and

the Tantras as the basis of religion and the rule of conduct, and

believes in one supreme being (Brahman ), in the law of retributive

justice (karma) and in Reincarnation (punar janma).[3]

 

The main tenets of Hindu dharma are: belief in one Supreme Principle-

Brahman, accepting the authority of the Vedas, the theory of karma

and rebirth, values designated as purusartha, the social organisation

of varna-asrama and jati, performance of rituals and practice of

samanya-dharma. It is essential to note that one can remain a Hindu

even when he rejects any one or all of these. It is really difficult

to point out any single essential attribute of a Hindu except the

ideal of universal fraternity.[4]

 

The first of these definitions is wide enough to be easily acceptable

to Prabhupada, though he would no doubt wish to nuance the word

Brahman, who for him is the Para-Brahman, the Supreme Personality of

Godhead Krsna. The second definition, which is somewhat narrower,

would likely require more nuances on his part, but the last two

sentences clearly show that a Hindu would have had no trouble in

accepting Prabhupada as one. A question which needs to be asked is

whether Prabhupada would have accepted the same tolerant attitude

attributed to Hinduism and much vaunted by its proponents like

Vivekananda.

 

III.

 

Prabhupada does not use the term 'Vedic dharma' frequently.[5]

However, the word 'Vedic' itself and the necessity for the acceptance

of the Vedic scriptural authority comes up repeatedly. The use of the

word 'Vedic' by Prabhupada contains certain problems,[6] but if we

recognise that like Srisa Basu (in the first definition above), he

means the entire field of Hindu literature by this term, then he is

in agreement with most Hindus.[7] Thus when Prabhupada

says, 'Hinduism is accepting the Vedic authority' (661226CC.NY), he

is identifying himself with Hinduism. As a result of such

identification, he accepts even Sankaracarya, the great teacher of

the monistic doctrine and avowed rival of the Vaisnavas because he

based his arguments on the Vedic literature and reestablished the

Vedic authority (SB 1.3.24, 4.21.27; CC Madhya 25.91).[8]

 

Ultimately, the Mayavadi philosophers say that God, the Supreme

Absolute Truth, is impersonal, whereas the Vaisnava philosophers say

that in the end, the Absolute Truth is a person and He, the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, is Krsna. Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. Each

group sticks to its position and they fight-'fight' means by

philosophical arguments. That has been going on for a very long time.

However, both of them belong to the sanatana Hindu dharma because

both of them will talk on the Vedanta philosophy. They can give

differing interpretations, but they cannot say that they don't accept

Vedanta. If they do, it is at once rejected. So one must give an

interpretation on the Vedanta philosophy to be accepted as acarya

(661226CC.NY).

 

Prabhupada also stressed that the acaryas and disciplic successions

which preserved their interpretations of these revealed scriptures,

played an essential role in characterising and defining the Vedic-

Hindu system: 'India's culture depends on the acaryas like

Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Sankaracarya, Nimbarka, and Visnusvami.

So in the Bhagavad-gita it is said, acaryopasanam. Anyone in India

who claims to be a Hindu must have followed an acarya'

(740612RC.PAR).

 

Prabhupada repeats a countless number of times the statement made in

the Bhagavad-gita that Krsna is the object of Vedic knowledge-vedais

ca sarvair aham eva vedyah (BG 15.15). Furthermore, he clearly

indicates in the conclusion to this statement, 'All the acaryas

accept Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.' So anyone who

accepts the Vedic authority, in Prabhupada's understanding, must

accept the personal form of the Para-Brahman, Krsna.

 

IV.

 

Prabhupada frequently stresses that Krsna consciousness is the

science of self-realisation (indeed one of his books has this concept

as its title), by which he means that it teaches universal principles

of worshipping the Lord rather than sectarian dogmas conditioned by

time, place and culture. The first principle of this science is that

the self is distinct from the body. Thus Prabhupada on one occasion

said, 'Am I this body or something else? This is the first question I

was trying to answer, but some people in my audience thought it was a

kind of Hindu culture. It is not Hindu culture. It is a scientific

conception' (JSD: 1, 3). On the other hand, this is the specific

teaching of the Vedic literature: 'We are not this body. This is self-

realisation. That is Vedic culture' (740628LE.MEL).

 

For Prabhupada, knowledge has 'no colour' (740619RC.GER), by which he

means that knowledge is an objective truth and thus not the monopoly

of any religious denomination. One may follow any religious

scripture, he argues, but why should an individual who is serious

about God not accept the Krsna consciousness movement if he or she

can find further enlightenment there? He explained this during an

interview:

 

This religious principle means to understand God. Every religion is

trying to understand God according to their capacity . . . But the

only difference is that we give details so that modern minds advanced

in education and

scientific knowledge can understand, whereas others cannot give in

such detail (680201IV.LA).

 

V.

 

Prabhupada most frequently offers sanatana-dharma and varnasrama-

dharma as more correct names for the religious system which accepts

Vedic authority. His discourses which accompany these two terms

suggest that he did not believe that they meant the same thing;

though he does occasionally present them as being equivalent, his

arguments are usually a refutation of the view commonly held by many

Hindus which directly equates the two.

 

In his discourse on sanatana-dharma, Prabhupada tends to break the

term down into its component parts and discuss their etymological

meaning. Rather than simply translate the word dharma as religion, he

tends to analyse the etymology of dharma from the root dhr, defining

it as 'that which sustains the living being' (SB 1.2.6P) or 'that

which is constantly existing with a particular object' (BG

Introduction). Another meaning is given as 'occupational duty':

 

The word 'religion' is not a perfect translation of the Sanskrit word

dharma. Religion is a kind of faith which we can change. But dharma

means your occupational duty which you cannot change; you have to

execute it. What is our dharma? What is our compulsory duty? I have

several times analysed this fact: our compulsory duty is to serve

(690409SB.NY).

 

Thus sanatana-dharma can be construed as 'the eternal quality of the

living being' or his nitya-svarupa, which in accordance with the

Caitanya-caritamrta (Madhya 20.108) is to be the eternal servant of

Krsna. This eternal service may be directly expressed and thus be

liberating, or perverted into service for some other object out of

ignorance.

 

For a further understanding of the word sanatana ('eternal'),

Prabhupada refers to Bhagavad-gita where it has been used three times

as an adjective describing the individual soul or jiva (15.7), the

Supreme Lord (11.18) and the Lord's abode (8.20). 'When these three

sanatanas come together, that is called sanatana life, and any

process that takes us to that sanatana position, that is called

sanatana-dharma' (730228LE.JKT).

 

So sanatana-dharma means both the eternal constitutional position of

the jiva as a servant of God and the process by which one realises

that constitutional identity. Graham Schweig refers to this usage of

the word dharma by Prabhupada as having the 'universal' sense of

religion and as being an expression of the unity of religion.[9] For

religions in the plural sense, Prabhupada favours the term 'faith'.

Since service to the divine is the constitutional position of the

living entity, Prabhupada says on numerous occasions that to revive

this eternal attitude of service to the Supreme Personality of

Godhead is a science and as such applicable to all, regardless of

their colour, caste or creed. It thus transcends Hinduism which here

is equated with the other world religions as a 'faith': 'Most of our

Hindus call themselves sanatana-dharmi, but sanatana-dharma is not

limited to any particular type of society. It is meant for all human

beings, all living entities' (730228LE.JKT).[10]

 

VI.

 

Quoted more than a 100 times throughout Prabhupada's discourses and

written works is Shrimad Bhagavatam 1.2.6: 'The supreme occupation

[dharma] for all humanity is that by which men can attain to the

loving service of the transcendent Lord.'[11] This verse was the

guiding principle to Prabhupada's analysis of religion:

 

The definition is: that principle of religion is the best by which

you can develop your devotion or love for the Supreme Personality of

Godhead. How nice this definition is, just try to understand. You may

follow Christianism or Hinduism or Buddhism or Muhammadanism-it

doesn't matter. The test is how far you have developed love of

God . . . If you have developed the sense of love for God, then it is

to be understood that you have actually followed the religious

principle (710826SB.LON).

 

Prabhupada relegates religious systems which do not strive for this

ultimate goal to a lower level: '"Hinduism", "Muslimism" (sic)

and "Christianism" (sic) are all prakrta, mundane. But we have to

transcend this prakrta, or mundane conception of religion'

(750320AR.CAL). By mundane conceptions of religion, Prabhupada means

that the aims of such systems is restricted to the four goals of life

or purusarthas, which he sees as different levels of ego or sense

gratification (SB 1.1.2P). Prabhupada termed such religions which do

not aim at developing love for God as 'pseudo-religion' (BG 2.26P)

and even 'cheating religion' on the basis of dharmah projjhita-

kaitavo'tra (SB 1.1.20).

 

Another definition of religion (dharma ) is based on a teaching from

the Srimad Bhagavatam, dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam (6.3.19),

was much favoured by Prabhupada: 'Religion means the codes of the

Supreme Personality of Godhead.' He compares these laws to those of

the state:

 

Just like in the state, there is king's law. The king gives you some

laws, and if you are a good citizen, you obey those laws and live

peacefully. This is a crude example. Similarly, dharma or religion

means nothing other than to obey the laws of God, though they may

differ according to time, circumstances and people (681020LE.BOS).

 

So all bonafide religious systems are, according to Prabhupada, God-

given and can not be manufactured by human endeavours.

(731006BG.BOM). On the other hand, he states that 'Muhammadanism,

Hinduism, Christianism, all these "isms" are imperfect and man-made',

whereas 'this [Krsna-consciousness] is perfect because it is given by

God Himself'. The criterion is that 'if a religion teaches ultimately

surrender to God, then it is perfect religion. Otherwise it is not

religion' (BERGSON.SYA)[12]

 

Prabhupada repeatedly denies that Krsna is a Hindu god. He is God for

all. He does not descend in his incarnation to revive Hindu religion,

but to revive the eternal religion which is surrender to

himself. 'When Krsna says that he comes to reestablish religion (BG

4.8), it is not to reestablish Hinduism or Muslimism (sic) or

Christianism (sic). His purpose was to teach true religion, that is,

surrender unto Krsna. 'sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam

vraja' (731006BG.BOM). This absolute surrender then is the ultimate

law of God.

 

Though other religious systems are considered to be the products of

time, circumstance and the people amongst whom they were instituted,

devotional service to Krsna even when executed by an imperfect

practitioner is considered by Prabhupada, in keeping with the

Caitanya-caritamrta, to be transcendental:

 

When we are on the material platform, there are different types of

religions-Hinduism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, and so on.

These are instituted for a particular time, a particular country or a

particular person. Consequently there are differences. Christian

principles are different from Hindu principles, and Hindu principles

are different from Mohammedan and Buddhist principles. These may be

considered on the material platform, but when we come to the platform

of transcendental devotional service, there are no such

considerations. The transcendental service of the Lord (sadhana-

bhakti) is above these principles. The world is anxious for religious

unity, and that common platform can be achieved in transcendental

devotional service. This is the verdict of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

When one becomes a Vaisnava, he becomes transcendental to all these

limited considerations (CC Madhya 25.121P).

 

That which is conceptualised as sanatana-dharma is in practice given

the name Vaisnava-dharma or Bhagavata-dharma. Prabhupada does not use

the term Vaisnava-dharma with any frequency,[13] but following the

Srimad-Bhagavatam, gives preference to the latter term.

 

There are 375 references to the word bhagavata-dharma in the database

of Prabhupada's words. It is 'the process of religion enunciated by

the pure devotees, direct representatives of the Supreme Personality

of Godhead' (SB 6.16.41P) and is defined variously as 'the activities

of the devotees', 'the sankirtana movement', 'the religion of

glorifying the Lord and His devotees', bhakti, prema-dharma, pure

devotional service, 'the cult of the Srimad-Bhagavatam'. As such it

is the 'religious principles in devotional service that transcend

religious principles for liberation and the mitigation of material

misery' (SB 5.5 Summary), 'the religion of surrender to the Supreme

Lord and love for Him' (SB 6.3.20-12P). It is 'the transcendental

religion which is the eternal function of the living being' (CC Adi

1.91P) and consists of 'chanting, dancing and preaching the

principles of the Srimad-Bhagavatam' (CC Adi 7.41).

 

In keeping with the definition of all religion as the orders of the

Supreme Lord, bhagavata-dharma also encourages the social doctrine of

varnasrama-dharma (SB 6.16.43P).

 

 

What was Srila Prabhupada's Position:

The Hare Krishna Movement and Hinduism

Part Two

 

Part One Part Three

 

VII.

 

We have seen how Prabhupada defined sanatana-dharma, or eternal

service to God, as the true religion as well as the true goal of the

Vedic authority. In this sense he has given it the name Bhagavata-

dharma and called it the most perfect conception of religion, the

pure love of God. It is the scientific process whereby one develops

love of God or prema. In this particular discourse, the great

religions of the world are seen as bodily designations, or at

best 'Vaisnava-dharma in a crude form' (750314RC.TEH).[14] He calls

them 'faiths' to distinguish them from this pure religion of love and

service to God. However, Prabhupada's analysis of religion does not

end here.

 

A favoured theme in Prabhupada's discourse is that human life means

religion. Dharmena hinah paSubhih samanah (731006BG.BOM). Every human

society has some kind of religion in order to elevate human beings

from the animal status. Strictly speaking, this is not the same thing

as the 'true religion' as defined previously. In order to clarify the

difference between the meaning of dharma as used in the terms

varnasrama-dharma and bhagavata-dharma, Prabhupada uses the

word 'culture' as distinct from 'religion'. Thus, Prabhupada says

that Hinduism is a culture rather than a religious denomination

or 'faith' just as elsewhere he also approves the idea that 'Hinduism

is a way of life rather than a religion' (710622RC.MOS,

740217MW.BOM):

 

But the culture of the Indians is [based on the] Vedic [scriptures]

and begins with the four varnas and four asramas. So these varnas and

four asramas are meant for a really civilised human race. The

conclusion is that when a human being is civilised in the true sense

of the term, he follows the system of varna and asrama and can be

called a 'Hindu'. Our Krsna Consciousness Movement is preaching these

four varnas and four asramas, so naturally it has got some

relationship with Hinduism. Hinduism should thus be understood from

the cultural, not the religious, point of view. Culture is never

religion. Religion is a faith whereas culture is education or

advancement of knowledge (70-07-09.JAN).

 

Even though there is a distinction to be made between Hinduism as a

cultural entity and the spiritual religion of bhagavata-dharma, the

former is not to be rejected out of hand. Indeed, Prabhupada goes to

much trouble to define and describe the varnasrama-dharma in its

genuine form and to disparage the form in which it currently exists:

 

We don't find [the concept of] Hindu dharma in the Bhagavad-gita,

Srimad-Bhagavatam or any authorised Vedic literature. Unfortunately,

something hodgepodge known as Hindu dharma has become very prominent

in India. Our real Vedic dharma is varnasrama-dharma (720907SB.NV).

 

The institution of eight divisions is known as varnasrama-dharma.

Hindus are those who follow these eight divisions of human society.

That is called Hinduism. Now it has become a name only, but actually

this is Hindu religion. [What is going on in the name of Hinduism] is

not Hindu religion (680623SB.MON).

 

The two verses Prabhupada most often quotes when introducing the

varnasrama

concept are Bhavagad-gita 4.13, in which Krsna states that he created

the society of four varnas, and Visnu-purana 3.8.9, which states that

Lord Visnu is being worshipped by anyone who acts according to the

varnasrama system. Since it is thus a method of purifying innate

tendencies in human society, it is also called sanatana-dharma and

has no historical beginning (SSR: 3).

 

On more than one occasion, Prabhupada asked his disciples to

institute a reformed, Krsna-centred varnasrama system, which he

called the daiva-varnasrama (770122BG.BHU), and specifically proposed

the establishment of a Varnasrama College where people would be

trained in the prescribed duties of the different varnas. [15] Though

strictly speaking Vaisnavas are beyond the concerns of society and so

have nothing to do with this system, they should try to institute it

for the general benefit of mankind (750625SB.LA).

 

VIII.

 

It will not be possible to give a detailed analysis of how Prabhupada

envisioned a varnasrama society; this is another project and must be

conducted elsewhere, though it may be said that he was thinking along

Gandhian lines-a preindustrial, agrarian society with a monarchical

government system (730619SB.MAY).[16] In essence, he conceived of a

society in which the edicts of the Hindu dharma-sastra would be

implemented.

 

We have seen Prabhupada's definition of religion as 'the laws of God'

which he takes from the Srimad-Bhagavatam ( dharma.m saksat bhagavat-

pranitam). Subsequent to this declaration, the Srimad-Bhagavatam (SB

6.3.20-21) states that there are twelve mahajanas, or great

authorities, who truly know dharma. Of these twelve, Manu is one.[17]

Even though this section is specifically concerned with bhagavata-

dharma and bhakti-yoga (Cf. 6.3.21-22), Srila Prabhupada uses it to

confirm the authority of the Manu-samhita, 'the lawbook for entire

human society' (SB 2.1.36, 3.13.12, 8.1.16; CC 1.2.91-92, etc.)

calling it 'revealed scripture' and a 'standard book to be followed

by human society' (BG 3.21P). It is a law 'so perfect that it is

applicable for all time' (710622RC.MOS) and cannot be changed by any

other process (SB 2.7.9P, 740218BG.BOM). Manu's authority is further

confirmed in Bhagavad-gita 4.2 and Prabhupada roughly equates Manu's

laws with the Bhagavad-gita (SB 7.8.48).

 

Manu is identified as the source of the 'directions based on varna

and asrama concerning how to live as a human being' (SB 7.11.14P).

Troubles in human society are traced to the abandonment of 'the

principles laid down by the Manu-samhita and confirmed by the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, Krsna' (SB 7.8.48P). Prabhupada thus

recommends that the leaders of human society, out of a sense of

responsibility to their dependants, should be conversant with

standard books of moral and spiritual codes like Manu (BG 3.21P).

 

If the king or dictator individually, or the members of the

government collectively, cannot maintain the state or kingdom

according to the rules of Manu-samhita, their government will

certainly not endure.

 

Space does not allow a detailed analysis of Prabhupada's numerous

references to Manu in this place, but it should be noted that he

principally stressed a conservative understanding of the social and

sexual morality found in these scriptures. Thus he accepted manu's

attitude to the status of women, divorce, widow remarriage, dowry

laws of inheritance and so on. This was the measuring stick by which

Prabhupada measured not only Hindu society, but all human society in

general. Nevertheless, he expected that since Manu was known to Hindu

society, Hindus in particular should take it all seriously. He

strongly denounced Nehru's revised 'Hindu code' for allowing such

things as divorce (SSR 6; 750514MW.PER). On one occasion, for

example, he indicated that lobbying to promote the dharma-sastras was

what the Vishwa Hindu Parishad should be doing rather than political

agitation: 'Hindu law means Manu-Samhita. So who is pressing them

that "We don't require any law except this?" And where is that Hindu,

strong Hindu? Hindu means Manu-Samhita' (760108MW.NEL).

 

Despite this forceful promotion of Manu, however, Prabhupada was

consistent in believing that the object of Manu was to regulate

society in order to direct its members to the higher purpose of

renunciation and devotion: pravrttir esa bhutanam nivrttis tu

mahaphala (SB 6.4.9P). In support of this argument, he mentions

Manu's prescriptions for meat eating, which he understands as being

directives to gradually reduce that tendency until one can give it up

completely (760122MW.MAY).

 

Prabhupada speaks approvingly of Manu's vision of a personally

directed creation (CC Adi 6.15P) and thus concludes that

Manu 'directs all activities to the transcendental service of the

Lord'. His directives can, therefore, be superseded if a higher

principle is at stake. For instance, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu disapproved

of his sannyasi (renunciate) associate, Brahmananda Bharati, wearing

a deerskin (leather is not normally worn by Vaisnavas), even though

this was carried out according to Manu's injunction (CC Madhya

10.54). Prabhupada also praised his spiritual master for disregarding

the Hindu restriction on overseas travel and placing the preaching of

bhagavata-dharma above it (Phalguna-krsna-pancami, 14).

 

Furthermore, Prabhupada mentions that the atonements (prayascitta)

prescribed in the dharma-sastras like Manu-samhita or Parasara-

samhita may free one from the immediate reactions of the most sinful

activities, however, they cannot go as far as promoting a sinful man

to the stage of loving service to the Lord. Whereas chanting the holy

name of the Lord even once, however, not only frees one immediately

from the reactions of the greatest sins, but also begins to raise

that person to the platform of rendering loving service to the

Supreme Personality of Godhead (Second Chance: 16; lectures on SB

6.2.11-23).

 

Most importantly, Prabhupada disagrees on the ascription of caste by

birth, which is certainly a feature of Manu's law. 'People

misunderstand Hindu culture, Vedic culture, that there are forced

caste system. No. It is varnabhivyahjakam, [caste is determined] by

the symptoms, qualities and qualifications, not by birth'

(690525IN.NV). By accepting regulative principles, even Westerners

(that is, mlecchas and yavanas) become brahmanas (SB 6.5.39P).

Moreover, Prabhupada held that 'One should accept those who thus

become Vaisnavas as being greater than brahmanas, Hindus or Indians'

(CC Adi 7.23P).[18] Thus, where Manu disapproves of Vedic instruction

for sudras or outcastes, Prabhupada says that this is not applicable

to those who convert to Vaisnavism, for they are no longer on the

level of a sudra or outcaste (740605R2.GEN).[19] In Prabhupada's

understanding, however, the status of Vaisnava rests on the

foundation of de facto ritual purity achieved through rigorous moral

and ethical training. This can be achieved gradually through the

varnasrama system or directly by following the regulative principles

and practices of devotional service. Ritual purity on its own,

however, is not equivalent to Vaisnavism.

 

Though Prabhupada frequently insisted on the establishment of

varnasrama-dharma, he occasionally hinted that there was such a thing

as an egalitarian Vaisnava society which transcended it. 'So a

systematic society means varnasrama-dharma. But there is another way.

That is called transcendental society or Vaisnava society'

(770122BG.BHU).

 

IX.

 

Whatever his reservations about the current state of Hinduism,

Prabhupada held that Indian people were both privileged and entrusted

with a great responsibility: 'Krsna is not meant for the Hindus

[alone], but Krsna appeared in Hindustan. Therefore it is the duty of

all Hindus to know Krsna first. And they [are indeed Krsna-]

conscious. Every Hindu knows Krsna. Every Hindu observes the

Janmastami, Krsna's birthday' (750309RC.LON).

 

The Caitanya-caritamrta verse, 'One who has taken his birth as a

human being in India should make his life successful and work for the

benefit of all other people' (Adi 9.41), is quoted many times (over

200 times in the Folio) by Prabhupada. He thus considered it a

special duty of the Indian people to spread Krsna consciousness all

over the world in fulfilment of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's prediction. As

a result, he admits again that a direct relationship exists between

Hinduism and Krsna consciousness: 'Since it is mostly Hindus who are

accepting this Krsna consciousness, you can call it like Hinduism.

But it is not Hinduism' (711110IV.DEL).

 

Despite his oft-repeated feeling that everyone in India is 'naturally

Krsna conscious' and though he felt that the common people of India

were 'still alright' (770112R2.BHU) and strictly followed the rules

and regulations (680504SB.BOS), by which he generally meant the four

regulative principles of abstinence from meateating, illicit sex,

intoxication and gambling, he was worried about the generally

negative influence of western culture on India and the Hindu diaspora

(75-08-31.SRI).

 

Of the vestiges of Vedic culture, Prabhupada mentions

vegetarianism: 'No Hindu family will allow meat-eating'

(740107SB.LA). He approved of Gandhi's move to introduce prohibition

(740107SB.LA). He spoke highly of the Indian marital tradition of

lifelong fidelity (681225WE.LA), the giving of Lord Narayana's (a

form of Lord Vishnu) names to Hindu children, despite atheistic

propaganda (750917SB.VRN) and the continuing worship of Laksmi-

Narayana (Lord Visnu and his consort) by householders gave Prabhupada

the feeling that 'there is some glimpse of human civilization in

India', giving hope that it could be revived in modern times

(750925MW.AHM).

 

We have already seen that Prabhupada considered all 'faiths' to be

prakrta or mundane, and that even the varnasrama system based on the

laws of God ultimately had to be transcended in order to achieve the

true purpose of religion, namely love of God. Inasmuch as others did

not see this as the purpose of the Vedic religious system, he

criticised them in various ways, both in general and in particular.

 

There were two aspects to this criticism, one related to behaviour

(sad-acara), the other to ideas. He compared Hindus to

Christians 'who admit they are Christian but don't follow the

Christian principles.They accept Krsna but don't follow his

instruction. They have lost their own culture and they want to

imitate Western culture' (750309RC.LON). But worse, despite this

departure from their own traditions, 'they are under the impression

that they know everything and have nothing to learn from [the Krsna

consciousness movement]' (70-05-27.TAM). Prabhupada's early

experiences with Indian expatriates in America and England left him

unenthusiastic about spreading Krsna consciousness amongst them.

Instead, he told his disciples to concentrate their efforts on

preaching to Europeans and Americans (68-09-29.GUR).

 

He says on one occasion that the Hindu religion is dead because it

lacks philosophy and by sentiment alone was unable to attract those

who had been hardened by material sense gratification.[20] Prabhupada

would not allow Hindus to come and speak at ISKCON temples. There was

a question of doctrinal purity. In India Prabhupada himself walked

out of a Bhagavad-gita conference in Indore in 1970 when he heard

Mayavadi[21] interpretations of Bhagavad-gita (Lilamrta, Vol. 4, 147-

150). Mayavadis are offenders to Krsna (CC Madhya 17.129) and hearing

from them causes 'everything to become spoiled' (CC Madhya 6.169).

 

The cause of the deterioration of Hindu culture, according to

Prabhupada, is loss of belief in the Vedic literatures presented by

Vyasadeva (69-07-08.MRK). Prabhupada thus rejected the concept behind

organisations such as the Arya Samaj because they accept only the

original Veda and reject the other supplementary literatures to the

original Veda as a pretext for pushing their own agendas which have

little to do with the purpose of such important scriptures (TLC 24,

661216BG.NY) and because they deny deity worship (751007MW.DUR). He

goes so far as to call them atheistic inasmuch as they accept Krsna

as merely a great personality, but not God (740704BG.HON)[22] . He

criticised the Ramakrsna Mission for posturing and suggested that

their failure to attract westerners to seriously taking up 'Hindu'

spiritual practices was because they were preaching Hinduism, rather

than 'real spiritual culture'. However, most of all, he reproached

Vivekananda for allowing sannyasis to eat meat, which goes against

Hindu custom (7404214MW.HYD, 760108MW.NEL).

 

Prabhupada vehemently protested the polytheism of Hinduism by which

other gods are put on an equal level with Krsna. Even worse were the

pantheistic ideas by which one can 'make one's own God'. He

particularly held up to ridicule one follower of the Ramakrsna

Mission who took this to the extreme of saying that 'even stool is

God' (730711R2.LON, 770127R2.PUR).

 

Prabhupada blamed the Mayavadis and the politicians for killing the

spirit of India. His view was that Mayavada preaching of pantheism

and polytheism led people to diminish the importance of religion.

Vivekananda was singled out as the beginning of Hindu downfall for

his philanthropic idea of daridra-narayana. Prabhupada paraphrased

him, saying, 'Where you are searching for God? Don't you see so many

gods are loitering in the street, the poor? Better you serve them.

Why do you go to the temple?' For him this revealed a complete

misunderstanding of what God is. 'The whole world, they are trying to

banish God, the Kamsa's policy, "Kill God," whole world, the

Communists, total. This is our position' (751007MW.DUR). The

politicians then used ideas such as daridra-narayana-seva to draw

people from religious to humanitarian and political activity. 'The

Mayavadis create the field of atheism and later on, the politicians

make them perfect atheists' (750909MW.VRN).

 

In private conversations, Prabhupada did not spare many of the great

modern saints of Hinduism. They were mostly criticised for preaching

the Bhagavad-gita while neglecting devotion to Krsna. He expressed

dismay that 'Gandhi, Radhakrsna and other big acaryas of India do not

believe in Krsna' (750305RC.NY). Indeed, nothing raised Prabhupada's

ire more than the misuse of the Bhagavad-gita as a tool for preaching

other doctrines. He rejected Gandhi for his allegorical

interpretation and would say that Gandhi's doctrine of non-violence

did not work because it was not a system authorised by scripture

(660530BG.NY). Prabhupada often emphasised that Krsna was a real

person and the stories of His pastimes were not allegorical, but

actually took place on earth. Upon visiting Kuruksetra in 1970, for

example, Prabhupada triumph-antly proclaimed that it was a real place

and not an allegory (Lilamrta, Vol. 4, 134, 770413RC.BOM).

 

Last but not least, Prabhupada was angered by conservative upper-

caste Hindu opinion which would not accept his disciples as genuine

Vaisnavas and brahmanas. He considered those that barred them from

entering Hindu temples to be malicious. This was consistent with his

rejection of the narrow, ethnic understanding of Hinduism.

 

X.

 

We have seen that Prabhupada held that Hindu religion, both in the

sense of a social system based on Manu-samhita, and a God-centred

religious system based on the Gita and Bhagavata, had deteriorated in

recent times. We may ask the question, to what extent does Prabhupada

to the Hindu nationalist world view which sees Hinduism as

being fallen from a golden epoch in the distant past and under siege

in the present?

 

At a meeting in 1973, he told Arnold Toynbee that the Greeks came

from India. 'Vedic culture was once all over the world. Gradually a

new type of culture-just like this recent partition of India and

Pakistan-took place' (730722RC.LON). Many times he said that five

thousand years ago, the entire planet was known as Bharatavarsa and

was 'under Vedic culture.' Mahabharata is thus the history

of 'greater Bharatavarsa.' The culture was gradually lost, the social

disruption beginning from the degeneration of the brahmanas and then

the ksatriyas. Bharatavarsa became smaller and smaller until the most

recent partition in 1947. This is considered just another chapter in

a long loss of glory. Just as the people of Pakistan are all

originally Hindus, so too the rest of the world was once Hindu

(740501MW.BOM). Prabhupada also predicted that this would continue;

with the future deterioration of Vedic culture, the creation of

Sikhistan and then other '-stans' was inevitable (JSD 6.1).

 

Unlike many Hindu nationalists, however, Prabhupada did not claim an

original homeland for the Aryans (whom he calls Indo-Aryans or Indo-

Europeans) in India, but says that they divided in the Caucasus to go

either to India or to Europe. This supposedly happened when

Parasurama threatened to kill the ksatriyas. These ksatriyas fled to

Europe while others settled in the Middle East (760421RC.MEL).

Identifying the Caspian Sea as the place of Kasyapa Muni, he

expressed the belief that it will be possible to ascertain by

historical references that the whole planet was once known as

Bharatavarsa (730507SB.LA).

 

Prabhupada held that the varnasrama cultural system was operational

through to the period of Candragupta Maurya, roughly contemporaneous

to Alexander the Great. Prabhupada held Candragupta's prime minister

Canakya up as an example of a disinterested brahmana advising a pious

monarch in the ideal situation (SB 2.7.9P).

 

Prabhupada sees the deterioration of Vedic culture in India as being

at least in part the result of foreign conquests, of which there were

many even prior to Muslims. He blames the conversion of so many

Hindus to Islam on a combination of factors. First of all, upper

caste Hindus did not treat them very well. 'There was a custom, a

very bad custom, in South India, that if a sudra passed on the street

he had to shout, "I am a sudra passing on the street. Please close

your door." The brahmanas would then close their doors so that they

would not see him, for if they did, [they believed that] everything

would be spoiled-their food grains and everything' (740526SB.ROM).

 

Another important factor was that the lower-caste Hindus were not

given any facility for spiritual culture. The brahmanas monopolised

spiritual culture and mistreated the sudras and the candalas and kept

them downtrodden. When Aurangzeb imposed the jizya tax for all non-

Muslims, these downtrodden lower classes naturally thought what is

the use of remaining Hindu? As a result they converted wholesale to

Islam (740526SB.ROM). He sees this not only as one of the main causes

for Hindus converting to Islam, but also for the rise of Communism

(which he also strongly opposed for its godlessness) in modern India.

It was also acknowledged that there were other elements which

contributed to the conversion to Islam.

 

But if brahmanical intolerance and Muslim policy had a deleterious

effect on Hindu culture, the British were worse. 'Lord Macauley's

private report was that "If you allow the Indians to remain Hindu,

you will never be able to rule over them." So it was the British

government's policy to condemn everything Indian. They did not put

their hands on their culture directly, but did so surreptitiously'

(750521RC.MEL). 'The Britishers peacefully killed the Hindu culture,

Vedic culture' (750313RC.TEH).[23] Prabhupada blamed the British for

formenting violence between the Hindus and Muslims who had been

generally friendly to one another (681129BG.LA).

 

XI.

 

In view of Prabhupada's historical understanding, framed around the

incipient deterioration of Vedic culture, as well as his conception

of the varnasrama system based on Manu, we might well have expected

him to have expressed some political opinions, but in fact he was not

enthusiastic about government systems that he encountered nor did he

support any political reform movements as a leader of an

international Society.

 

However, on the whole, Prabhupada kept himself allof from political

activity of any kind. He showed no enthusiasm for any government

systems that he encountered and gave no official support to any

political reform group, including those that affiliated themselves

with Hindu goals. The word Rama-rajya, when used as a Hindu

nationalist buzz-word, elicited Prabhupada's disdain rather than

support: he suggested that such people wanted the kingdom of God

without God (SB 9.10.50). The Hindu political movement did not

interest him. Even in Back to Godhead in September 1944 (1.1) before

taking the renounced order of life, he refered to 'imaginary ideas of

Hinduraj or Muslimraj' being doomed to failure.

 

Prabhupada told his disciples not to get involved with modern

political movements as there would be a conflict of values; devotees

and politicians would never be able to agree on common aims. He

himself had given up political activism in Gandhi's home-rule

movement in order to join his spiritual master, Bhaktisiddhanta

Saraswati (681230IV.LA). He liked to tell how his Guru answered the

criticism of political activists who accused him of depriving the

Indian nationalist movement of youthful energy by diverting so many

young men to the devotional life. Bhaktisiddhanta responded tongue-in-

cheek that his followers were too weak and only good for chanting

Hare Krsna (741021SB.MAY).

 

Prabhupada stated clearly that he favoured education to political

processes because people had to be changed not by fiat (decree) but

by conviction 740112MW.LA). Thus, in 1972 when his disciple Balavanta

dasa ran for mayor of Atlanta, he did not advise him to create any

complex political programme, but to use the occasion to preach the

concepts behind Krsna consciousness.

 

Prabhupada did, however, occasionally recommend government

intervention in religious matters, calling his proposal a 'Vedic idea

of the secular state'. According to this idea, the government should

take responsibility for all religious systems in the country whether

Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist, seeing to it, for example, that

a professing Hindu is executing the Hindu principles of religion

properly. He advises licensing religions (730226RC.JKT). His worry

was, 'If people become irreligious in the name of secularism, then

they are simply animals. So it is the government's duty to see that

the citizens are not becoming animals' (730905RC.STO).[24]

 

XII.

 

One last element in this examination of Prabhupada's use of the

word 'Hindu' relates to his pragmatism about how to present himself

and his movement while preaching the bhagavata-dharma. Though

uncompromising, Prabhupada was practical and sought the most

effective way to present Krsna consciousness, either dissimulating or

vaunting its connection with Hinduism according to circumstances. As

we have seen, Prabhupada was fighting against preconceived western

notions of Hinduism. Even prior to his coming to New York in 1965, he

was constantly in contact with what he saw as secular misconceptions

and prejudices with regard to Hinduism and Krsna consciousness in

Indian educated society. As a result, he constantly emphasised the

universal aspect of his religion. Thus when greeted by many upon his

return to India as a conquering hero who had converted westerners to

Hinduism, Prabhupada denied that this had ever been his purpose. On

one morning walk he said, 'Foreign devotees are not joining this

movement because it is a Hindu culture. They take it as a real

spiritual culture' (760108MW.NEL).

 

'Our point is not to convert them to Hinduism. Take prasadam, take

dress, chant Hare Krsna, dance. That's all. I never said to all these

European and American disciples that "You become a Hindu"... I asked

them, "Just become lover of God. That's all. If you can love God

through your religion, that's all right. You do that." I never

said, "You become Hindu." Then I would not have been able to

[convince them]' (740217MW.BOM).

 

With these last words, it is apparent that Prabhupada was aware, that

to present himself as a Hindu not only would have gone against his

deeply held beliefs, but that in the context of Western society, it

would have been counter-productive. For these reasons he therefore

strategically presented Krsna consciousness as 'the science of God':

 

They would have said, 'We have got Christianity. Why should I accept

your Hinduism?' Now, if you go anywhere, if you want to preach

Hinduism, why they should be interested in Hinduism? They can hear

some words. But we are not talking of Hinduism and Muhammadanism; we

are talking on the science of God (701107RC.BOM).

 

On the other hand, Prabhupada was trying to establish a spiritual

movement that grew up from within a Hindu culture. In this he had

natural allies amongst those who shared with him many of the common

ideals of his culture. In his determination to achieve this purpose

of bringing what he believed was a true spiritual message untainted

by materialistic purposes, he could and did try to find such allies

by appealing to such common interests. A good example of this is the

appeal he made to the Gandhi Memorial Fund in which he outlined how

he intended to achieve Gandhian ideals such as the uplift of the

Harijans, dissemination of the Bhagavad-gita's message 'on an

authentic basis' (49-02-28. SAR). Of course the authentic basis was

bhagavata-dharma. Similarly, at one point he hoped to get grants in

the context of Indian government cultural diplomacy by presenting his

preaching efforts under the non-sectarian designation of a 'cultural

movement'. This was stated in similar terms to Nirmal Babu in

1970: 'So this Krsna Consciousness cultural movement is not actually

Hindu movement, but originally it is India cultural movement' (70-06-

24.NIR).

 

As the movement grew in India, Prabhupada was made aware of other

dangers which could grow out of an identification with Hinduism,

specifically government interference in temple management such as was

going on in Tirupati in south India. For this and other reasons, he

recommended his disciples to openly deny any connection with Hinduism

(760108MW.NEL).

 

On other occasions, he overtly played to Hindu sensibilities. In his

early days in New York, he solicited help from his benefactor Sumati

Morarji for the construction of 'the first Hindu temple [in New

York]': 'It will be recorded in the history of the world that the

first Hindu temple is started by a pious Hindu lady Srimati Sumati

Morarji who is not only a big business magnate in India but a pious

Hindu Lady, a great devotee of Lord Krsna.' The object was 'to

impress the people what actually the Hindu culture is' (65-11-10.

SUM).

 

Help from other Hindu organisations was solicited when in 1973 the

temple at Juhu, Mumbai, India was demolished in the midst of

difficulties. The pro-Hindu Jan Sangh party headed up a 'Save the

Temple' committee. Mr Gupta, a member of that party, published his

own leaflet declaring ISKCON to be a bona-fide Hindu organisation

(Lilamrta 5, 136-137).[25] Also in 1974, in the hope that ISKCON

devotees could be admitted into temples such as the one in Jagannatha

Puri, Prabhupada also sought certification that they were 'bona-fide

Hindus' from Swami Cinmayananda of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (74-05-

31. ACY).

 

In America, Prabhupada had to respond to the need to preserve his

work by threats from different areas. As we have seen earlier, he saw

the message that he was preaching to be beyond classification

of 'Hindu', though this would not necessarily be recognised by

governments around the world. When difficult legal situations arose

in America he thought it better to claim to be Hindu: 'America has

got freedom of religion, so if they accept my movement as Hindu

religion, they cannot do anything' (761229RC.BOM).

 

In this way Prabhupada made use of cultural ties with 'Hindu'

organisations for the purpose of preaching the message of the Vedas,

even though he did not consider the message of the Veda to be 'Hindu'

as such.

 

The foregoing discussion shows that Prabhupada admitted the

existence of an entity known as Hinduism, though he takes the

orthodox position of eschewing the non-traditional term 'Hindu',

insisting on sanatana-dharma as the correct nomenclature. Ironically,

such traditionality makes him much more 'Hindu' (if we give the term

the meaning of adhering to a set of classical Sanskrit texts) than

his detractors.[26]

 

A word is a tool which we use or reject for various reasons. It is

insufficient to say that Prabhupada was making a semantic point that

Hindu is an incorrect term. Languages are living organisms which

undergo change and any attempt to dictate usage and purify language

of foreign terms is generally a losing battle. Sanskritisation of

modern Indian vernaculars has only been partially successful-the

elites continue to use English words even where Sanskritised

equivalents exist or have been created. Many of these borrowed words

have filtered into the everyday vocabulary of even illiterate

labourers and cannot be found in the dictionaries, though their usage

is entrenched. For example one only has to think of the ubiquitous

saide (from English 'side') of the Nabadwip rikshaw-wallah. This is

consistent with Sanskrit hermeneutics, where the accepted usage of

word has predominance over its etymology (rudhi-yogarthayo rudhih).

 

There is certainly no confusion for the outsider. He takes the Krsna

consciousness movement at face value, concluding that many of the

practices of its members are similar to those that consider

themselves Hindu. This might be called hamsa-nyaya: 'If it walks like

a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck'. This of course assumes

that there is intuitively such an entity as Hinduism, beyond the

ethnic or geographical sense of its original application. Reverence

for the Veda should be sufficient to establish this, but there is so

much more of the common Hindu heritage in Krsna consciousness that it

seems almost foolhardy for Prabhupada to attempt to divorce himself

from it. Whether it be kirtan, bhajan, deity worship, prasada, fire

sacrifice, varnasrama, the Vedas, or the Bhagavad-gita, the concepts

are all familiar to a Hindu of any tradition, who recognises them as

having religious significance. Indeed, irrespective of Prabhupada's

claim that Krsna is not a Hindu god but God Himself, to the outsider,

Krsna will always be a Hindu god. Inasmuch as all the great religious

traditions are essentially symbolic languages, this common heritage

cannot be dismissed as insignificant. Nor should the ethnic aspects

of Hinduism be entirely dismissed. Does not Prabhupada betray his

Hinduness when he quotes Krsnadasa Kaviraja: bharata bhumite haila

manunya janma jar, janma sarthak kari' karo para-upakar? 'Anyone who

takes birth in India should make his life perfect and help others by

distributing the fruits of love given by Caitanya Mahaprabhu'. Or

when he says that India is the place of Krsna's birth and therefore

special? After all, Savarkar says that a Hindu is anyone who 'feels

attachment to the land that extends from Sindhu to Sindhu as the land

of his forefathers-as his fatherland'.[27]

 

But a debate over terms is never what it seems at face value. It

would seem that Prabhupada is ready to concede that any battle for

the term 'Hindu' (if it were worth fighting) has been lost to the neo-

Hindus, ethnic nationalists and religious chauvinists. For sanatana-

dharma, on the other hand, the battle can still be won. Prabhupada

recognises that the term 'Hindu' resonates with ethnicity and he

cannot accept it as valid from his vantage point as a

transcendentalist.

 

We are dealing then with a problem of ethnic and universal aspects of

the word 'Hindu'. Prabhupada wanted to distance himself from the

geographical or national limitations of the word to stress the

universal essence of sanatana-dharma in order to attract everyone in

the world to his movement. But Prabhupada has another, intermediate

understanding of Hinduism as varnasrama-dharma, which though

still 'on the bodily platform' is the most perfect socio-religious

system and therefore an integral part of sanatana-dharma.

Prabhupada's position is well-summarised by one of Prabhupada's

leading disciples:

 

Hinduism is a tradition which seeks to transcend itself, and must do

so, to remain faithful to the Vedas, broadly understood. This

perfection is embodied in Srila Prabhupada. Hinduism

includes 'mundane' karma-kanda and an external varnasrama system

which have as a final goal the complete transcendence of such

external and mundane procedures. Thus the perfection of Hinduism is

to realise that one is not a Hindu or any other worldly designation.

The Caitanya-caritamrta and Prabhupada's own teachings exemplify this

simultaneous identification with and transcendence of Hinduism.[28]

 

Such an approach was not original to Prabhupada. Indeed, previous

Hindu missionaries blazed the trail before him, presenting their

understanding of the universal religious principle beyond bodily

designations. They also saw Hinduism as a tradition which transcended

itself. Even Savarkar states that 'a Hindu is most intensely so when

he ceases to be Hindu'.[29] In other words, when he transcends his

own Hinduism. Prabhupada's point of departure was the same as

theirs: 'we are not this body'. Prabhupada's discourse on

transcending religious or mundane designation echoes that of

Vivekananda Swami, that it is unconstructive for an individual's

spiritual progress to excessively identify with one's external

labelling: 'I am a Hindu. I am sitting in my own little well and

thinking that the whole world is my little well. The Christian sits

in his little well and thinks the whole world is his well. The

Muhammadan sits in his little well and thinks that this is the whole

world.' [30]

 

Another element of Vivekananda's discourse, that all humans possess

the same religious instinct, the same urge to spiritual perfection,

to return to the same unique source, is also shared. 'As the

different streams having their sources in different places all mingle

their water in the sea, so O Lord, the different paths which men take

through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or

straight, all lead to thee.'[31]

 

It is at this point, however, that Prabhupada diverges from his

predecessors, for he defines the universal religious principle in

terms of love of a personal God. With this message, Prabhupada is in

harmony with a theological debate which goes back over a thousand

years of Hindu history, though this message was barely being heard

outside of India, as advaita-vada was accepted as normative for

modern Hinduism. Prabhupada was unique in his success in bringing

this message to those outside of the Indian sub-continent.

 

Vivekananda introduced Hinduism to the western world by saying that

all paths lead to God. In the end, however, he was arguing for a

hierarchy of religious understanding that placed his monistic or

advaitin understanding at the pinnacle of spiritual advancement.

Prabhupada followed the same route to argue that his anthropomorphic

theism was the ultimate object of all religions, realised imperfectly

in all but the 'postgraduate course' of Krsna consciousness.

Prabhupada consistently rejected the understanding that the symbolic

language of Krsnaism is temporally conditioned. It is not just

another '-ism' (770402RC.BOM). He claimed that Krsna consciousness

cannot be sectarian because it takes Krsna as a whole, without trying

to deprive Him of attributes true to Him as the complete whole.

 

Though for Prabhupada this is the ultimate end of sanatana-dharma,

neo-Hinduism itself does not recognise it. It wishes to place worship

of Krsna on an equal footing with the worship of Devi or Siva or

other gods as just another aspect of an ultimately formless Being or

truth (Brahman). Thus Prabhupada is suspicious of the Hindus, taking

an attitude not unlike that of the other religious minorities in

India who resisted Radhakrsnan's report on university education for

fear that their religions would be taught in a way 'determined by the

doctrinal assumptions of neo-Hinduism'.[ 32]

 

This rejection of Hindu 'maya-vada' is so strong in Prabhupada and

his tradition that he can even say that Christianity and Islam are

Vaisnava in spirit because of their common theism. He is ready to

acknowledge that Christians, as theists, 'have some idea' and even

talks about creating a common front with theists everywhere against

atheism which he believes, as we have seen, to begin with the

impersonal conception of God.[33]

 

And Krsna consciousness is self-consciously everything that the neo-

Hindus resist (or have 'transcended') in their own heritage: idol-

worship, anthropomorphism, mythology run rampant. In short, with the

exception of the dynamic caste system, it is everything that they

would have seen as particular and not universal about Hinduism!

 

In view of this thoroughgoing rejection of 'normative' Hinduism, how

can we justify Prabhupada's occasional profession of Hindu identity

in a seemingly cynical, utilitarian fashion? One either is or is not

a Hindu. One cannot both be, and not be, according to one's

convenience. In fact, however, this may not be the case. Is it

possible that Prabhupada could simultaneously, inconceivably possess

both identities? R.C. Zaehner considers it to be a characteristic of

Hinduism that it resists the 'either/or' approach, describing it as

essentially a religion of 'both/and'[34] Arvind Sharma similarly

states that it seems to be a characteristic of Hinduism that the

whole is equal to the sum of the parts, 'In a Hindu version of the

Christian view that Jesus was fully man and fully God, one could

claim that one is both an Advaitin (or a Visistadvaitin or a Dvaitin)

and a Hindu at the same time or a Hindu as well as a Vaisnava, a

Sakta or a Saiva at the same time.'[35]

 

This seems to be what Prabhupada is saying in one lecture

(681110SB.LA) in which he quotes Caitanya Mahaprabhu's verse:

 

naha vipro na ca nara-patir napi vaisyo na sudro

naha?varni na ca grha-patir no vanastho yatir va

kintu prodyan-nikhila-paramananda-purnamrtabdher

gopi-bhartu?pada-kamalayor dasa-dasanudasa?

 

'I am not a brahmana, I am not a ksatriya, I am not a vaisya or a

Sudra. Nor am I a brahmacari, a householder, a vanaprastha or a

sannyasi. I identify Myself only as the servant of the servant of the

servant of the lotus feet of Lord Sri Krsna, the maintainer of the

gopis. He is like an ocean of nectar, and He is the cause of

universal transcendental bliss. He is always existing with

brilliance.' (CC Madhya 13.80)

 

Caitanya Mahaprabhu, situated at the very pinnacle of the Hindu

varnaSrama-dharma as a brahmana and sannyasi, stated that his

identity as a servant of Krsna transcended all these bodily

identifications. And yet, despite His exemplary transcendence of

Hinduism, Caitanya Mahaprabhu's 'civil disobedience movement' against

the Kazi's repression of sankirtan was identified as a Hindu action.

Thus referring to precedents from Mahaprabhu's own life, Hrdayananda

dasa Goswami comments:

 

It is said that we invoke Hinduism in time of danger, but the

Caitanya-caritamrta shows that this is precisely what 'Hindus' have

always done. Thus the Saivas, Vaisnavas, etc, who clearly opposed

each other theologically, were all labelled 'Hindus' by the sometimes

hostile Muslim society, and for practical purposes, even in Lord

Caitanya's movement, operated under this rubric.[36]

 

In fact, there is no real conflict, hypocrisy or double standard, for

Prabhupada has never rejected sanatana-dharma. Those who for

convenience share the rubric 'Hindu' have a common ideal of sanatana-

dharma, even if they can not agree on what it means.

 

XIV.

 

So, where does this leave the Krsna consciousness movement? The

situation has changed a great deal since the end of Prabhupada's

personal leadership in 1977. In Western Europe and North America, the

movement's influence has waned amongst those of European origin. At

the same time, the Indian Diaspora in the West has gained numbers in

ISKCON's membership. Furthermore, the Society has become more self-

confident and less defensive about its Hinduness-in no small part due

to the success of ISKCON and other transplanted Hindu movements in

these regions. Though there is a continuing unease in ISKCON's

relationship with the Hindu diaspora-orthodoxy and ethnicity are

continually an issue, either spoken or unspoken in ISKCON communities-

the Society remains more and more dependent on the Indian community's

financial support. By vociferously denying its Hinduness, ISKCON

risks alienating its principal constituency. In view of the above

discussion, freedom from the designation Hindu seems a small gain for

the costs of such an alienation. The Society will certainly find it

easier to transmit its understanding from a point of common

understanding with the Indian community by becoming more inclusive,

rather than by taking an exclusive or conflicting approach.

 

In India, the situation is not so dissimilar to the one described

above. The movement is becoming more and more dependent on its Indian

membership. The problem here is that if Krsna consciousness is to

operate under the rubric of 'Hindu', it must be under its own terms.

In view of its international character, it cannot allow itself to

become implicated in narrow ethnic understanding of Hinduism. There

is always the possibility, however, in the Indian political

atmosphere, that the Krsna consciousness movement will favour the

possible advantages which would accrue to it if there were a

government favourable to its missionary goals.

 

It is hard to see how Prabhupada's idea of a 'Vedic secular state' on

varnaSrama lines would be any more liberated from problems than those

which would accrue from any other state interference in religion. He

advised government involvement in the religious practice of all

religious denominations, but on his terms, from his perspective. A

Christian would surely not like to be told that because the Bible

says, 'Thou shalt not kill', he is henceforth forbidden to eat meat.

I believe, however, that Prabhupada was more practical than this-he

recognised that neither religion nor good manners can be imposed from

above: 'There is only one religion in the world to be followed by one

and all and that is the Bhagavata-dharma, or the religion which

teaches one to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead and no one

else' (SB 1.2.27). Thus this ideal may be held by the devotees of

Krsna, they must choose between the long tradition of liberty and

tolerance of disparate belief in Hinduism, and the zealous missionary

spirit which puts them in the midst of other competitive missionary

religions.

 

Religion, like language, is arguably universal, comparable to

Chomsky's concept of innate language. But the argument that language

is innate cannot justify the claim that any one existing language, be

it English or Sanskrit, is the original archetype of which all other

languages are derivatives or reflections. It is similarly impossible

to prove, though one may believe, that any one religious system more

accurately reflects the innate religious faculty. In the modern era,

whatever the deeply held beliefs of any religious community, it is

necessary to adapt to the pluralistic character of world society.

This is a contract of tolerance, the like of which has existed in

India since ancient times. Indeed, religious tolerance is considered

to be a preeminent characteristic of the Hindu family of religions, a

certain 'live and let live' in terms of religious ideology.

Christians and Muslims are thought by Hindus to break that engagement

due to their exclusivism. Does Vaisnavism similarly want to break

that contract with the rest of Hinduism in the name of its particular

revelation? Christianity and Islam are struggling with the question

of relativism and revelation which comes out of engagement with a

pluralistic world. Perhaps, Vaisnavism's participation in the 'united

front for theism' will depend greatly on how far it can develop the

liberal spirit

that is compatible with such ecumenism.

 

Jan K. Brzezinski completed his Ph.D at the London School of Oriental

and African Studies in 1992, where he researched Jiva Goswami's

Gopala-campu. He has since gone on to publish numerous articles on

subjects related to Gaudiya Vaisnava history and literature. A

definitive annotated translation of Rupa Goswami's messenger poems,

Uddhava-sandesa and Hamsaduta, will be published by Mandala

Publishing Group in January 1999, San Francisco, entiled The Mystic

Poetry of Rupa Goswami.

 

Footnotes

 

[1] The research for this paper has been based almost entirely on the

Folio database 'The Complete Works of His Divine Grace A.C.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada' (n.d.) and the Folio database 'The

pre-1965 works of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Prabhupada', Version 1.0, March 1995. References to printed books are

coded as follows: BG = Bhagavad-gita, CC = Caitanya-caritamrta, JSD =

Journey of Self Discovery, KB = Krsna Book, NOD = Nectar of Devotion,

SB = Srimad Bhagavatam, SSR = The Science of Self-realization. These

are followed by either a page reference or a verse reference. The

letter P following verse numbers indicates Prabhupada's purport to

the verse in question. Personal letters are coded according to the

date and a three-letter extension designating the recipient. Room

conversations (RC, R2, R3, etc.), lectures (LE), interviews (IV),

morning walks (MW), meetings (ME) are indicated with the date and a

three-letter extension indicating the place. Thus, 770528ME.VRN

indicates a meeting in Vrndavana on 28, May 1977; 660302BG.NY

indicates a Bhagavad-gita class given in New York on 2, March 1966.

Some quotations have been slightly edited for clarity. The study was

based on a search through the more than two thousand occurrences of

the word 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism'. Thus, these words can be found in

nearly all the citations found in this document, even though the

arguments given in them may have been presented in a more coherent

fashion elsewhere in the Folio corpus. Lilamrta refers to the six-

volume biography of Srila Prabhupada, Srila Prabhupada Lilamrta, Los

Angeles, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1980-4.

 

[2] Prabhupada recognised that both 'India' and 'Hindu' have the same

origins, though he seems to think that the words originated with the

Muslims. In fact, the original version of the word (Hind'ush) is

first found in two monuments inscriptions of Darius in Iran, which

date from 486 B. C. See Fr. Spiegel. Die altpersische

Keilinschriften, im Grundtext mit Ubersetzung, Grammatik und Glossar,

2te Auflage, Leipzig, 1, 1881, Lines 17-18. Half a century later

Herodotus introduced it into Greek (History iii, 98). The separation

of 'Indian' from 'Hindu' is still a fairly recent development in

European languages. The earliest use of the word in Indian sources is

in the Sarngadhara-paddhati, from the thirteenth century, where one

verse says that the Hindus fled to the Vindhya Mountains to escape

the Muslims. The words hindu and hinduyani are found in the Caitanya-

caritamrta (Adi 17) when the Kazi takes notice of sankirtana as a

Hindu religious activity. The Kazi is quoted by Kaviraja as saying to

Mahaprabhu, 'You are the great god of the Hindus, Narayana' (Adi

17.215). See also, Joseph O'Connell, 'The Word "Hindu" in Gaudiya

Vaisnava Texts', Journal of the American Oriental Society, 93.3,

(1973), pp. 340-4.

 

[3] Rai Bahadur Srisa Candra Vidyarnava. A Catechism of Hindu dharma.

Allahabad, The Panini Office, 1919 (first published 1899). Sacred

Books of the Hindus, 3.

 

[4] Chidambara Kulkarni, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1971. p.4.

 

[5] I found one incidence JSD 2.2, where it is equated with sanatana-

dharma.

 

[6] See, Das, Rahul Peter, ''Vedic' in the Terminology of Prabhupada

and his followers,' Journal of Vaishnava Studies, 6.2, (1998), pp.

141-59. Earlier published in ISKCON Communications Journal, 4.2,

(1996), pp. 23-38.

 

[7] In fact, Prabhupada gives precedence to three works. 'One must be

able to explain these three books: Vedanta philosophy, Bhagavad-gita

and Srimad-Bhagavatam. Then he can be accepted as acarya'

(661226CC.NY).

 

[8] Prabhupada held that at the end of his life Sankara accepted

Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, even though his

followers do not necessarily recognise the fact (SB 4.24.18).

 

[9] Graham M. Schweig, 'Universal and confidential love of God: Two

essential themes in Prabhupada's theology of bhakti.' Journal of

Vaisnava Studies, 6.2, (1998), pp. 95.

 

[10] Compare: 'The indigenous names by which Hinduism is known are

sanatana-dharma and vaidika-dharma. Sanatana-dharma means eternal

religion and is expressive of the truth that religion as such knows

no age. It is coeval with life. It is the food of the spirit in man.'

Mahadevan, T. M. P., Outlines of Hinduism, Bombay: Chetana, 1971, p.

13.

 

[11] sa vai pumsam paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhoksaje.

 

[12] A conversation Prabhupada had with his disciple Syamasundara

dasa about the philosopher Bergson.

 

[13] It appears in CC Antya 3.147, where he translates it as 'the

cult of Vaisnavism' and in KB 89, 'Therefore the term dharma applies

only to Vaisnava-dharma or bhagavata-dharma'. Elsewhere Prabhupada

says that Islam and Christianity are lower forms of Vaisnava-dharma.

 

[14] Said of Islam and Christianity in a conversation with the

Canadian ambassador to Iran. On another occasion, Prabhupada said

both of Christianity and Islam that they were Vaisnavism

(740217MW.BOM).

 

[15] 740312MW.VRN, 740314MW.VRN, 750420RC.VRN, 750424SB.VRN,

750620AR.LA, 750625SB.LA, 750424SB.VRN, etc.

 

[16] Prabhupada often spoke out against democracy, which he

considered to be close to mob rule since the general populace could

not be trusted to make decisions in their spiritual interest. He

called it 'rogues and thieves electing rogues and thieves' (SB

6.2.3P). Also see SB 1.10.3P, 4.13.19-20P, 4.20.15P.

 

[17] The Bhagavata adopts many ancient authorities to speak for the

Vaisnava doctrine, not only traditional Puranic authorities, Vyasa,

Suta, Suka, etc., Maitreya, the characters of the Mahabharata, the

gods Brahma, but also Kapila, Buddha, the Jain Rsabhadeva, etc.

 

[18] Prabhupada rejected outright Gandhi's solution for the

untouchable problem, decrying it as merely rubber-stamping them as

harijanas without any true character reform by which they would

become true 'people of God' as the word harijana indicates

(661223CC.NY; 770410R2.BOM).

 

[19] Interestingly, however, while discussing the education of sudras

in his varnasrama system, Prabhupada approves of the idea of limiting

the education of lower castes.

 

In India the caste system was very good. From the very beginning the

children would learn the technology of the father. Just like the

potter's children. The potter's children would also make a small

bird, a small fruit, or small playing utensils-small glasses or

plates-which would then be sold. They would be purchased by other

children. In this way, the whole family used to earn something.

Nowadays they're sent to school, wasting time, and then unemployment

and idle brain. What is the use of sending a potter's son to school?

(770714RC.VRN)

 

[20] (72-02-04.VAI) Letter to Vaikunthanatha. This comment was

inspired by devotees taking over an empty Hindu temple in South

Africa. Prabhupada was also prompted to say on at least one occasion

that Christianity was dead (730515MW.LA).

 

[21] This is a rival school of thought to the Gaudiya Vaisnava

tradition that holds that the highest form of realisation is a

formless God.

 

[22] Even though in his books, Prabhupada frequently translates the

word nastika by the English 'atheist', he defines it as someone who

does not believe in the Vedas. In his conversations, however, an

atheist is often anyone who does not accept Krsna as God. Nastika is

found in CC Madhya 5.87 to mean one not believing in isvara, and in

CC Madhya 6.186. Pasandi Sankaracarya is said to have written an

atheistic philosophy (CC Madhya 6.180).

 

[23] Also 76-09-18.GAU. 760802R3.PAR.

 

[24] In a conversation with the Indian ambassador to Sweden.

Interestingly, Prabhupada's example indicates that he felt the

government should impose vegetarianism on Christians in accordance

with their commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill.'

 

[25] Prabhupada did not take absolute shelter of Hindu activists on

this occasion. When further troubles arose in connection with

obtaining permission to build on Hare Krsna Land, Prabhupada refused

to take the political route through the Jan Sangh, but saw it as an

opportunity for vigorous preaching (Lilamrta 5, 201).

 

[26] Advaita Prabhu dasa, VAST discussions. I have made liberal use

of ideas and comments which were made on the VAST (Vaisnava Advanced

Studies) conference, an Internet discussion group, in October 1998. I

have not given the names of these devotees here, but have summarised

their ideas.

 

[27] 'Essentials of Hindutva' in Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya, Hindu

Rastra Darshan, vol. 6, p.64. Poona, Maharastra Prantik Hindusabha,

1964. Cited in Klaus K. Klostermaier, A Survey of Hinduism, Albany:

SUNY Press, 1989, p. 33.

 

[28] Hrdayananda dasa Goswami. VAST discussions.

 

[29] Theodore de Bary, W., (ed.) Sources of Indian Tradition. New

York and London: Columbia University Press, vol. 2, 1958, p. 335.

 

[30] The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. I, 17th edition,

Calcutta: Adwaita Ashram, 1986, p. 5.

 

[31] Ibid, p. 4.

 

[32] Smith, Donald E., India as a Secular State, Princeton, New

Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963. 'There is a real danger

that the "no-preference" doctrine may be used to justify state

promotion of a syncretic "Universal Religion of Man" which is

nevertheless based on Hindu assumptions. This tendency was clearly

revealed in the Radhakrishnan report on university education.'

Prabhupada's feelings about S. Radhakrishnan have already been

revealed earlier in this work. By 'Hindu assumptions' we understand,

evidently, 'advaitic Hindu assumptions'.

 

[33] 'The aim of ISKCON is not to found a new religious sect, but to

invoke the living entity's dormant love of God, and thus provide the

human society of all faiths with a common platform of clear theistic

knowledge and practice. Members of ISKCON may retain their own

respective religious faiths, as ISKCON is meant to establish a clear,

practical common formulation of the common ideal of all theists, and

to defeat the unnecessary dogmatic wranglings that now divide and

invalidate the theistic camp. This common ideal of theism is to

develop love of God' (68-08-24ROL). 'The conflict is not between East

and West; the conflict is between the atheists and the theists. We

are preaching Krsna consciousness, not that we are trying to replace

something by Indian method to Christian method or Jewish method'

(680924IVNEA).

 

[34] The Bhagavad-gita. London: Oxford University Press, 1969, p.

187.

 

[35] Hinduism for our Times, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997, p.

78.

 

[36] Hrdayananda dasa Goswami, posting on VAST, October, 1998.

--- End forwarded message ---