Answer to attack on me on the internet...

[Guest guest]

Home Base: Baroda, India

 

Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,

 

Namonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

 

A godbrother just wrote to me:

 

> > Dear Basu Ghosh prabhu,

> > PAMHO AGTSP

> > I've been happy to see your name splashed all over the internet

> > recently. It's about time you received some well-deserved attention

> > though I know you as a retiring wall-flower kind of guy, right? Anyway,

> > I'm sorry to see that philosophy has been supplanted by politics. The

> > Aboslute Truth is not subject to opinion. Srila Prabhupada's words are

> > hardly "malleable." Keep on plugging. I'll be in Mayapur for a few days

> > during the SP festival, and I hope to see you there.

 

For those of the rest of you who have seen or heard of the articles

appearing on the internet opposing the resolution that I've submitted for

the consideration of the GBC at this year's meeting, calling for the

suspension of the "Women in ISKCON resolution 2000", I'd like to request you

to read the following excellent analysis given in articles written by Sriman

Krishna Kirti Prabhu, who used to reside here at ISKCON Baroda and is now

residing at Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

 

It's only fair that "both sides" of the story be heard. :-)

 

Hope this meets you well.

 

das,

 

Basu Ghosh Das

---------

from <siddhanta.com> - Please read to the end... 2 articles of analysis

appear below...

----------

 

January 31, 2005

 

Truth or Politics?

 

It's funny how homosexual rights and women's rights always seem to closely

follow each other. The latest news on ISKCON's culture is that my godbrother

and devotee scholar Giridhari Prabhu has been busy circulating an online

petition to prevent the passing of a resolution, proposed by Basu Ghosh

Prabhu, that the Women In ISKCON resolutions from the year 2000 "be

suspended pending a review and revision to correct the shortcomings . . .

before submission to the GBC body for a vote to reinstate it in an amended

form."

 

A few points of difference between what the petition says and what Basu Gosh

Prabhu's resolution says:

 

[Giridhari:] The GBC resolutions of 2000 regarding women reestablish the

standards that Srila Prabhupada himself set for the women in his movement.

 

[basu Ghosh:] Whereas the Women In ISKCON resolution of 2000 (Section

500: Holy places and spiritual communities) contains language that is

ambiguous and misleading, suggesting that the GBC and the senior leaders of

ISKCON constitute the party responsible for the care and protection of women

in ISKCON, in contradiction to Srila Prabhupada's many statements explaining

that the male members within individual families, namely father, husband and

grown up sons, are specifically charged with that responsibility,

 

Those circulating the petition seem to think the resolutions were crystal

clear, that they unambiguously articulate the standards of care, protection

and service Srila Prabhupada wanted for women in ISKCON. But what do the

resolutions themselves say about those standards?

 

WHEREAS, the Women's Ministry presentation on March 1st, 2000 to the GBC

Body brought a clearer understanding of the mistakes of the past and the

need to provide equal and full opportunity for devotional service for all

devotees in ISKCON, regardless of gender, and

 

(GBC. "Women In ISKCON" March 2000., Mayapura, India)

 

Paradhyeya Prabhu to date has provided the most cogent analysis of these

resolutions. His comments are also reproduced here:

 

In the first paragraph it states "...to provide equal and full

opportunity..." There is only a fine line between "equal opportunity" as we

find it in the mundane world and what is written here. In subcommittee the

phrase, "equal opportunity," was objected to by several members and it was

removed from the other Women's Ministry resolution dealing with SB classes

and temple room space; but it reemerged in this resolution which never had a

chance to go to subcommittee and be examined, having been created as a

response to the women's presentation at the end of the meetings. So it has

no business being here. You could simply say "full opportunity"; it has the

same meaning without the ambiguity. You may reply that the GBCs are smart

enough to tell the difference between material and spiritual "equal

opportunity" and avoid any misinterpretation in the future, but I doubt it

very much if you look at all the other bloopers in this resolution.

 

(Paradhyeya Dasa (ACBSP) May 2000. Email)

 

Looks like these resolutions are not so crystal clear after all. Paradhyeya

Prabhu happened to sit in with the subcommittee that actually vetted these

resolutions for the GBC. His concern regarding ambiguous language seems

legitimate enough, and he is miffed that the ambiguity was preferred to the

more specific language the subcommittee recommended. Reinserting the

ambiguity couldn't have been a mistake, someone had to make the effort to do

it. But anyway, since were pondering the crystal clear meaning of the

language here, we can be certain of one thing: context is implied, not

explicit. Ambiguous words rely on context for meaning. What is the context?

The Women In ISKCON presentations delivered by the Women's Ministry, of

course. (". . . the Women's Ministry presentation on March 1st, 2000 to the

GBC Body brought a clearer understanding. . .") Let's import some of that

context and see if we get some clearer understanding.

 

Here, Prabhupada first explains the traditional, home-centred role for

women in the varnasrama system, and then explains how a female leader can

best remain in power - through her development in bhakti-yoga. So, as

conservative as one may consider Prabhupada's stance regarding women in the

varnasrama system, one will find Prabhupada's stance equally liberal

regarding women in bhakti-yoga.

 

(Vishakha devi dasi. "Women in ISKCON: Prabhupada's Ladies and Soul

Concerns" March 2000)

 

It looks like the word equal (equally) is all about what most people inside

and outside of ISKCON thinks it means when you put it in the middle of

women's issues: empowerment, equal occupational opportunity, etc. In this

particular case, leadership and remaining in power is on the agenda. Just so

that we aren't missing anything let's check some more with the other ladies

on the Women's Ministry.

 

Our Vaisnava society suffers when women are excluded from its public

life, from decision-making, management and formation of policy.

 

(Rukmini devi dasi. "Women In ISKCON: Presentation." March 2000)

 

Does 'full encouragement' mean that women have a right to participate in

managerial decision-making or to preach according to their ability rather

than their gender role?

 

(Unknown. "Women In ISKCON: Presentation. Conclusion" March 2000)

 

Yep. Decision-making, management, and public life, and I guess board-room

meetings--the whole shebang--are all on the agenda. Standards Srila

Prabhupada set for ISKCON power-women, right?

 

After describing the material energy, bhumir apo analo vayuh, earth,

water, air, fire, this material.... This is also female, prakrti. Female

means.... In India we have got little experience. The female is always

controlled. Female is never given the position of controller. Nowadays it is

going on. Just like Indira Gandhi, she has given the position of controller.

This is artificial. In the history of India, greater India, Mahabharata, you

will never find that a woman has been given a position of controller. No. It

is not possible.

 

(Srila Prabhupada. Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 1.21-22 July 18,1973)

 

Uh oh. It's artificial. And he's also talking about Indira Gandhi. It

doesn't look like Srila Prabhupada established this as a standard after all.

A bit of ISKCON history is cogent at this point: There were no female temple

presidents up to the time Srila Prabhupada departed, nor were there any

women serving as members of the GBC.

 

Once Prabhupada admitted to me that Yamuna was so qualified that had she

been a man he would have appointed her to be G.B.C. Those who are concerned

that women should receive equal rights should not be alarmed in that regard.

The Vedic culture provides equal opportunities for all devotees to advance

in Krsna consciousness.

 

(Tamal Krishna Goswami. "Servant of a Servant" Chapter 9)

 

So much for standards. It could be an agenda, but to give the benefit of the

doubt to the GBC, let us just say they didn't look before they leaped.

That's why Basu Ghosh Prabhu's proposal of suspension and revision makes

good sense. There is reason to believe that the resolutions on the books are

supported by biased research, so temporarily suspending them until they are

corrected is a good policy.

 

Moving on:

 

WHEREAS, it is our belief that many of the social issues that confront

us are exacerbated because the voice of our women, who are the mothers and

daughters of our Krsna conscious family, have been hushed and stifled due to

misinterpretation of our Vaisnava philosophy, and thus the human and

interpersonal needs of our devotees have been minimized,

 

(GBC)

 

Paradhyeya Prabhu already mentioned "other bloopers", so what are the

bloopers here?

 

The third paragraph goes "...our women, who are the mothers and

daughters of our Krishna conscious family..." Here there is a glaring

absence of any mention of "wives" in this wording. You know, wives who

actually have husbands, those unknown devotees who provide for their women

and children by paying the rent and other bills, who put food on the table

and all other necessities of life, including spiritual leadership and

guidance, and, dare I say it, give "protection" to the women in ISKCON. You

may say I'm nit-picking here, but this is the beginning of a theme in this

resolution which will plant the seeds of adharma in ISKCON.

 

(Paradhyeya)

 

We're talking about family here, right? So who makes up a family? There is a

mother, a daughter, and a TP or guru or GBC. Where are the husbands? Let's

look for them in the Women's Ministry presentations:

 

In late 1974, not long after I had left my householder asrama, Srila

Prabhupada pronounced it 'good that you have left your husband', and

encouraged me to become a 'sannyasini'.

 

(Yamuna devi dasi. "Women In ISKCON" March 2000)

 

With no standing in the devotional community, women, especially those

abandoned by their husbands, become degraded and cannot protect their

children.

 

(Rukmini devi dasi. "Women In ISKCON" March 2000)

 

Women, especially women without husbands, children, second-generation

devotees, and soon-to-be elderly persons, are treated as second- and

third-class citizens in our society.

 

(Ibid.)

 

One vivid and unforgettable impression I have received while in the

service of Women's Minister came from a note scrawled at the end of a

confidential survey which read, 'in dedication to ... Dasi, a dear friend

who has been killed at the hands of her husband'.

 

(Sudharma devi dasi. "Women In ISKCON" March 2000)

 

OK, now we know what happened to the husbands. Those icky, icky men who you

could trust only as far as you could throw them just aren't fit for family

life. That's why they aren't mentioned in the resolutions at all. For that

matter, they aren't really mentioned in any positive sense in the Women's

Ministry presentations.

 

Now a little inside info from the male side of ISKCON. Many ISKCON men seek

marriages with Indian women, or women who are ethnically Indian from other

parts of the world. The unadvertised reason for it is they want a steady

family life. Marrying an Indian lady is not such a problem; there are lots

and lots of Indians on the planet. For Western ladies getting a husband,

however, this can cause a slight shortage of devotee men who are interested

in marrying them. And that can be a problem. Men, at least the ones worth

marrying, for the most part don't go for this women-good-men-bad rhetoric.

No one is going to argue this point with you. But as a result of this many

of the good men quietly go somewhere else. Ladies, unless you want to go

begging from the government (ISKCON or otherwise), you are only creating

problems for yourselves.

 

Moving on:

 

501 [statement] 1. the members of the Governing Body Commission of the

International Society for Krishna Consciousness offer their humble apologies

to the women of Srila Prabhupada's society who, because of our own

shortcomings and those of the Society, have suffered due to a lack of

protection, support, facility and appreciation for their service, devotion

and vast contributions to the Society, and

 

(GBC)

 

Ditto all of the above for the phrase "human and interpersonal needs of

our devotees have been minimised." Some women were abused in ISKCON in

certain temples in the USA, it is true, but what is the meaning of

fulfilling these human interpersonal needs of women in the absence of

husband, father, or son, or the grhasta-asrama (the natural domicile of

women), which never gets a single mention in this document? Nobody in the

meetings ever actually asked the question what were the root causes of all

this abuse, so nobody is trying to find the answer. Instead we are accepting

phony platitudes with deliberately ambiguous language as a remedy.

 

(Paradhyeya)

 

Good question, where does that protection come from sans husbands? Sure,

there may be exceptions, but I don't think the GBC document is referring to

exceptional cases. You don't need sweeping reforms to deal with exceptions.

It appears that the protection and care are supposed to come from ISKCON,

the institution itself. The Temple President and the GBC are to function as

surrogate husbands. Problem is this doesn't work. It's as Prabhupada said

about women having to go begging from the government.

 

But Paradhyeya Prabhu's own take on this part of the resolution misses the

forest for the trees. This is prima facie evidence that ISKCON bears

institutional responsibility for some abuse. There are plenty of disgruntled

women out there, and all that any one of them has to do now is print out

this resolution, hire a lawyer and say, "I'm glad you apologized for not

recognizing my vast contributions to your society, so how about giving me

back my vast contribution?" And vast literally means vast, as in vast

amounts of cash. It is a wonder that no woman has yet taken ISKCON to court

over this. If they did, you might see another case like the gurukuli abuse

suit.

 

Our GBC leaders are wonderful people, really. But why do they keep putting

the institution they are supposed to protect at such grave risk? They did

the same thing by publishing such apologies on ISKCON Communications

Journal, and the gurukulis said, "Thanks for the apology, see you in court."

 

Message to GBC: starting with this year, hire a team of lawyers to vet your

proposals before you vote on them.

 

Moving on:

 

2.[ACTION] All GBC Body members and other leaders shall hold istagosthis

in each of their respective temples to establish the priority of providing

equal facilities, full encouragement and genuine care and protection for the

women members of ISKCON. Also, separate meetings should be held with the

leaders and women of each temple to address the women's needs and concerns,

and

 

(GBC)

 

------------

 

Resolution #2 Action Order. The equality referred to in paragraph one

merely as a "need" now becomes an Action Order: "...to establish the

priority of providing equal facilities..." The phrase "sufficient or ample

facility" would have been just as good, but instead everybody voted for

equality. Equality for women and everything that it implies is now

established as a core principle in ISKCON--actually not only a core

principle but a "priority," i.e. the topmost principle. "Equal" or

"equality," whichever you want, is a magical word with literally mystic

potency (and "equality" actually turns into "superiority," as every husband

knows) when put into the possession of a woman. This equality is the twin

sister of independence, and as we will see later on in this resolution the

independence of women to lead themselves and protect themselves becomes

established as an irrevocable fact by the GBC. However, Srila Prabhupada

warned that independence for a woman means prostitution. Therefore the

language of this resolution conveys meanings and inferences which are wholly

contrary to His Divine Grace's teachings. Who on the GBC is listening to

Srila Prabhupada when faced with "equal" (read "superior") and independent

women?

 

(Paradhyeya)

 

Now, why is Paradhyeya Prabhu so freaked out about this? Is he just being

paranoid at the prospect of losing his male, chauvinist head-of-family

status? No, he's genuinely concerned about two things. Establishing

something against Srila Prabhupada's instructions and institutionalizing

irreligious behavior.

 

We have already seen that the Women's Ministry in their presentations have

been highly selective in presenting references that supported their agenda.

Later on Paradhyeya Prabhu mentions how Zonal Acharyaism was widely accepted

within ISKCON mainly because the leadership supported it. Most devotees

weren't too concerned with what Srila Prabhupada said, and it seems this has

not changed much--yad yad acarati srestas. Otherwise, why would Giridhari

Prabhu and others be circulating a petition that prefers dealing with these

concerns politically rather than rationally? Democracy does have a dark,

oppressive side, after all.... In any case, it is not settled that the Women

In ISKCON resolutions faithfully and accurately represent Srila Prabhupada's

social vision.

 

Paradhyeya Prabhu's second concern is about independence. But when women are

already independent, why bemoan the situation? Just live with it and chant

Hare Krishna, right? That was the problem Srila Prabhupada faced up to his

last days here. Chanting Hare Krishna has to be done in tandem with a pious

and sinless life. Those in favor of accommodating Western society in ISKCON

point out that we need to preach according to time, place and circumstances.

They argue that times have changed, so to be relevant we have to change with

it. They are only half right, however. The society, the economy, the

language, the culture, etc., have all changed, but the strength of sexual

attraction between men and women has not.

 

Western society exults sense gratification. Vedic society tries to restrict

sense gratification. Of all the sense gratificatory activities, association

with women is the biggest stumbling block to spiritual life. Because

spiritual life and restricting sense gratification are so important to Vedic

civilization, all other social and occupational roles are formed around

these principles.

 

So these regulative principles are there. So what is, what is the big

plan behind these regulative principles? The big plan is: here is the

attraction, pumsah striya mithuni-bhavam-to cut down this attraction between

male and female. This is the big plan. Otherwise there is no need of the

varnasrama.

 

(Srila Prabhupada. Lecture, Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.5.8, Vrindavan Oct 30,

1976)

 

And this concern is formally expressed in Basu Ghosh Prabhu's proposal:

 

Whereas the resolution uses language affirming the principle of gender

equality or gender blindness which, from a study of Srila Prabhupada's

writings and statements can be construed to support the principle of women's

independence, and

 

(Basu Ghosh)

 

Paradhyeya Prabhu, Basu Ghosh Prabhu and others really don't want to see

ISKCON institutionalize social constructs that make it difficult for its

members to avoid sinful activity. These are some of the concerns expressed

in Basu Ghosh Prabhu's proposal, and I have also mentioned the legal risk

these resolutions have unnecessarily exposed ISKCON to. The bottom line is

that the March 2000 Women In ISKCON resolutions were hastily drafted and

done without a) critically reviewing the claims and points of view expressed

by the Women's Ministry, b) not considering the legal implications of the

resolutions, and c) not thinking through the social and spiritual

ramifications of these resolutions.

 

>From the proposed resolutions:

 

The GBC will now have the opportunity to take more time to consider the

huge implications of writing laws that affect the personal lives of all

ISKCON devotees.

 

It must be remembered that following the Women's Presentation at the

2000 GBC meeting there was absolutely no discussion whatsoever about the

causes and origins of women's abuse in ISKCON and the proper means to

prevent it from reoccurring. The resolution in question was the only

tangible outcome and was accepted blindly in a matter of minutes without

proper examination.

 

(Basu Ghosh)

 

Oh, and at the beginning I mentioned how the push for women's rights and the

push for homosexual rights seem to go hand-in-hand, didn't I? I did. That's

also a reason for the proposed resolution.

 

2) b) All legal liability and obligations to women and to any group will

be controlled. This is particularly relevant to the growing question of

ISKCON's treatment of gays and lesbians who may seek to take advantage of

any apparent 'equal rights' laws in ISKCON's constitution.

 

(Basu Ghosh)

 

 

--------

February 06, 2005

 

Politics, Uncertainty and the Gay-Feminist Connection in ISKCON

 

When faced with a choice between truth or ideology, Chakra's editors choose

ideology. Their latest piece "GHQ member tries to turn back the clock on

women's rights," is so loaded with activist rhetoric that we dare not

question its presentation lest we ruin for ourselves a colorful piece of

writing. There are some facts here, but like most radicals who try to sound

moderate, Chakra's editors give us everything--including the facts--in

moderation.

 

Their very sexy headline starts right off with "GHQ member". Membership is

an exclusive thing, you know. Members have club houses, with parlors and

drawing rooms with musty books where the members sit in posh, velvety chairs

and share their stories about the subcontinent. Members, of course, belong

to an elite social crust. They don't mix with non-members, what to speak of

knowing how the non-members live. Members care about themselves and their

status quo, they do not care about non-members. (Well, it would spoil

someone's universe if enough people thought they cared.) Chakra's editors

are trying to tell us that the members of the GHQ really don't care about

you, they care about keeping their status and keeping their clubhouse

(wherever it is).

 

Chakra's editors get some of their facts wrong. They said, "Basu Ghosh das's

proposed resolution calls for replacing the current regime of statutory

protection for women's rights with the most conservative possible

interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's statements on women. . ." But Basu

Ghosh Prabhu's proposal merely called for a suspension "pending a review and

revision to correct the shortcomings" of the resolutions.

 

Other facts presented by Chakra's editors are dubious. They write, "Braja

Bihari das has offered to mediate a discussion between Basu Ghosh and

members of the ISKCON Women's Ministry to seek a possible negotiated

compromise." But this is unlikely as Praghosh Prabhu, current GBC EC

chairman, had already invited Basu Ghosh Prabhu and some other ICC members

to a joint, moderated discussion with representatives of the Women's

Ministry. As Basu Ghosh Prabhu is also an invitee to this meeting, it is

unlikely there is another meeting outside of this and exclusively with Basu

Ghosh Prabhu. The coming meeting between the ICC and the Women's Ministry

has been in pursuance of GBC action order number 502, February 2002, wherein

it is stated that the ICC and Women's Ministry are charged with conjointly

achieving four objectives:

 

1. Explain resolution 618/2000 and the intention of the GBC Body as to

how it should be implemented in India.

2. Carefully hear the various objections being raised by different

members of the ICC.

3. Attempt to isolate whatever genuinely contentious issues exist and

prepare a joint statement explaining all viewpoints on these issues.

4. Seek out possible resolutions for these contentious issues and report

back to the GBC Body and ICC, possibly with recommendations for further

action by either body.

 

A surprise fact from Chakra's article, and which appears accurate, is that

the signatory campaign to influence the GBC vote was started by the Women's

Ministry. This move is cause for worry because it reveals a preference to

settle matters that have significant philosophical dimensions by politics

instead of reasoned debate. If the proposal indeed has little merit, then

why start off trying to defeat it with a signatory campaign? ISKCON is a

society that stakes its authenticity on its views being firmly grounded in

time-honored scriptures and explanations delivered to the present day via an

unbroken disciplic succession. But if ISKCON's members resort first to

politics, vox populi, instead of shastra to understand things, then ISKCON

will have lost its claim to authenticity. If ISKCON ceases to be authentic,

what good can it do for its members, what to speak of the rest of the world?

 

Chakra's historical and continued support for the Women In ISKCON

resolutions raises doubts about the resolutions's soundness and intent. Are

these resolutions a back door for the establishment in ISKCON of

homosexuality as a social norm? Chakra's editors note, quoting the Women In

ISKCON resolutions, that for the last five years it has been law that "all

qualified devotees, regardless of gender, to speak on Srimad-Bhagavatam,

Bhagavad-gita, etc. during the regular temple class". Chakra has been a

long-time advocate of women's rights in ISKCON; they have also been a

long-time advocate of gay rights in ISKCON. On their site they have a

section dedicated to the "Third Gender," wherein its articles try to show

that homosexuality is just another gender like (heterosexual) male or

female. Add to this the growing support for increased status and rights for

gays by some notable ISKCON leaders, and it is no longer unthinkable that

the meaning of gender, as found in these resolutions, will eventually be

expanded to include homosexuals.

 

Such a thing happening is not unprecedented. The Anglican Church is

presently undergoing an historic schism because a majority of their clergy

in the USA elected an actively homosexual man to the post of bishop. Thirty

years ago the clergy of this same church voted gender neutrality as a core

tenet of their faith. Their rationale, similar to that held by supporters of

the Women In ISKCON resolutions, was that to be relevant in a world where

women are competitive in occupational and intellectual pursuits, their

Church must offer women the same vocational opportunities that they offer to

men within their priesthood. Of course some of their clergy dissented, but

those who dissented were by that time a minority. Consequently, women were

inducted into the priesthood and into progressively higher offices within

their church. Yet this could not have come about without discrediting the

historic Biblical precept that gender itself can be a qualifying factor for

occupational roles and duties. That in turn meant discrediting traditional

sources of authority--up to and including their scripture, the Bible.

 

Within Christianity in general (and within the Anglican Church in

particular), the authority of their scripture has been to lesser or greater

degrees eroded primarily by revisionism, formalist criticism, and science.

These intellectual forces are similarly working to discredit ISKCON's

scriptural authority.

 

Revisionism begins innocently enough with overemphasizing parts of scripture

that support a particular view. Feminism in the West actually began in the

churches, and it began with this kind of revisionism.

 

Like other woman's rights activists, Blackwell reinterpreted scripture

through a feminist lens, picking out egalitarian passages that she could use

as ammunition against her opponents. The feminist arsenal included Genesis

1:26-27 ("God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he

him; male and female created he them"), which was interpreted as evidence of

the simultaneous creation of the sexes; Joel 2:28 ("your sons and your

daughters shall prophesy"), which was used to defend women's religious

leadership; and the scattered accounts of biblical "prophetesses" and

heroines such as Deborah and Anna. "Real" religion, these women claimed,

recognized the mutual dependence and equality of the sexes. "We had all got

our notions too much from the clergy, instead of the Bible," Lucretia Mott

complained. "The Bible . . . had none of the prohibitions in regard to

women." 20

 

In the battle over which biblical texts represented authentic

Christianity, no text caused feminists more trouble than the Pauline

injunction, "Let your women keep silence in the churches." Sarah Grimké, an

abolitionist as well as feminist, questioned whether the King James Version

was an accurate translation of the Bible. If the Bible appeared to sanction

either slavery or women's subordination, perhaps its true meaning had been

obscured. In her Letters on the Equality of the Sexes , she declared, " King

James's translators certainly were not inspired. I therefore claim the

original as my standard, believing that to have been inspired . . . ." 21

Other women, such as Lucretia Mott, claimed that Paul's command had

pertained only to the women of Corinth, not women in general. More

radically, a few women augured Germany's Higher Critics by reading the Bible

as poetry or metaphor instead of literal truth. According to Hannah Tracy

Cutler, the spirit of the Bible was more important than the letter. In a

speech delivered in 1854, she expressed her frustration that the Bible was

used to defend "tyranny and oppression"--namely, slavery and women's

"subjection." Her solution was to "proclaim the beautiful spirit breathed

through all its commands and precepts, instead of dwelling so much on

isolated texts that have no application to our day and generation." 22

Stephen S. Foster, a Garrisonian abolitionist as well as a feminist, was

more blunt. "I love the Bible because it contains so many truths," he

proclaimed, "but I was never educated to love the errors of the Bible." 23

[1]

 

ISKCON's women's rights activists, including many ISKCON leaders, have for

years done much the same thing. Examples of their revisionism are numerous

and well-known to ISKCON's members, so they will not be reproduced here.

 

The last sentence in the above reference, "but I was never educated to love

the errors of the Bible," has its ISKCON equivalent. In ISKCON we find many

who agree with this statement, "I love Srila Prabhupada because he has

spoken so many truths, but I was never educated to love his erroneous

statements." That the revisionism is directed more at Srila Prabhupada is

not surprising for several reasons. He is ISKCON's Founder-Acharya. Most

everyone in ISKCON understands the Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, and

other sacred literature through Srila Prabhupada's translations and

purports. Srila Prabhupada also instructed his editors to give special care

to correcting and editing his commentary; Srila Prabhupada said that

translation was common, what was missing was Vaishnava purports. Srila

Prabhupada is the most important authority for ISKCON's members, so it is no

surprise that Chakra occasionally publishes articles that directly attack

Srila Prabhupada and his authority, what to speak of the more numerous

indirect slights that appear there. Significantly, some of Chakra's editors

(including its owner) officially remain ISKCON members, yet ISKCON's highest

authority will not move to censor them.

 

Next is formalist criticism, which is the literary practice of understanding

any literature from the reader's contextual point of view rather than trying

to understand the author's intent. This is also revisionism but with an

important twist: the current social, cultural and intellectual context is

what gives any literature its genuine meaning. What the original author said

in another time, place and circumstance is not germane because the author's

context no longer exists. This mode of thinking is widespread in ISKCON. One

ISKCON leader and sannyasi, in support of women's rights, once said, "Do not

think what Srila Prabhupada said back then, think what he would say today."

For similar reasons another group of devotee leaders is actively lobbying

for the editing and footnoting of Srila Prabhupada's books for the sake of

making them more relevant to a modern audience.

 

Finally, science has weakened people's faith in religion. The distinguished

sociologist Peter Berger has identified three main forms of certainty to be

found within Christianity, a certainty found in the religious institution,

the certainty found in the authority of scripture, and the certainty found

in personal experience of that religion. Berger writes,

 

All three forms of alleged certainty have been considerably weakened by

the modern human sciences--the certainty of the institution by historical

scholarship and the social sciences, the certainty of the text by the

findings of biblical criticism, and the certainty of inner experience by

psychology and the sociology of knowledge.[2]

 

ISKCON appears to be well on its way toward a future of perpetual

uncertainty. Like some of its notable Christian denominational counterparts,

ISKCON has a women's rights movement which promoted their cause first

through revisionism and later through politics. ISKCON also has a growing

liberal, intellectual class which has deemed Srila Prabhupada's books in

need of revision, ostensibly to make them relevant for a wider audience. We

should note that the most important audience for Srila Prabhupada's books

are his own disciples and spiritual descendants--the ones who will teach the

rest of society about these books. Since ISKCON's liberal intellectuals and

women's rights activists openly object to some recurring precepts in Srila

Prabhupada's books, it is likely they believe revision is necessary not only

for the sake of winning potential converts but also for retaining devotees

who are currently members. The rise of psychology within ISKCON directly

competes with bhakti yoga, thus adding significantly to ISKCON's growing

atmosphere of uncertainty.

 

Politics thrives in uncertainty. When all the other authorities are

weakened, subordinated, or done away with, it is the imperial self who

presides over all. That politics has now become such an important means for

settling philosophical and theological issues in ISKCON demonstrates that

the authority of Vedic literature and the authority of our acharyas,

especially Srila Prabhupada, has been significantly eroded. The political

maneuvers of the Women's ministry are, perhaps, a harbinger of things to

come: truth by decree instead of by philosophy, gay rights and possibly

ISKCON's permanent irrelevance. That this will happen to ISKCON is, of

course, uncertain. But because of the determined assault from the inside on

ISKCON's claims to authenticity, we can also no longer be certain that this

is not in ISKCON's future.

 

End Notes

 

[1] Editors: Don S. Browning, Anne Carr, Mary Stewart Leeuwen. "Religion,

Feminism and the Family." [Chapter 11, " Restoring the Divine Order to the

World: Religion and the Family in the Antebellum Woman's Rights Movement"

Contributor: Catherine A. Brekus.] Westminster John Knox Press. Louisville,

KY. 1996. Page Number: 168 - 171

[2] Peter L. Berger "Protestantism and the Quest for Certainty." The

Christian Century. Volume: 115. Issue: 23. August 26, 1998. Page 782+