What is ISKCON? - Incompatibility with ISKCON

[Guest guest]

Dear Babhru Prabhu.

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

You say that you'd like to see me give some concrete examples of devotees

claiming, "We used to think, but now we know!" I didn't want to write this

things, I thought it is clear to everybody what kind of things those are. I

do not want to disturb this general discussion with some specific examples.

If it is alright, I would like to send these examples to you personally, and

after reading them, if you feel that it is proper, I can post them here.

 

Please allow me to add few thoughts to your points.

 

> Frankly, I think this "modern ISKCON," as you intend it, it an imaginary

> construct, whose purpose is to create contention where it's not necessary.

 

Yes, it is imaginary thing. But it is not created with purpose of creating

controversy. It is more a helpless attempt, with which I try to distance

myself from certain things in ISKCON. For example adjusting Srila

Prabhupada's books for masses, or several sorts of embarrassing bridge

preaching methods. I cannot indentify with certain things, and the only hope

for me is to create this imaginary construct, "modern ISKCON", and then

distance myself from it.

 

> Those with weaker faith seem to need some enemy to whip up enthusiasm.

> It's a shame that some of us have made other devotees that enemy. And I

 

I have one question regarding weak faith in ISKCON. I used to think, that

faith in Srila Prabhupada means faith in ISKCON. I refused to differentiate

between Srila Prabhupada's teachings and ISKCON's teachings. But... It

changed with time. It seems that it is already widely accepted, that faith

in Srila Prabhupada doesn't include faith in ISKCON, and this ISKCON is

differentiated from Srila Prabhupada. For example, some weeks ago, I

personally witnessed ISKCON Guru GBC saying to his disciple, that he

(disciple) has very weak faith in ISKCON, and it seems that he (disciple)

has faith only in Srila Prabhupada, which is at least commendable. It struck

me with wonder. So it is possible, to have strong faith in Srila Prabhupada,

and almost no faith in ISKCON. So one may conclude, that ISKCON is not

necesarily connected to Srila Prabhupada. And if ISKCON is entity,

differentiated from Srila Prabhupada, then question arises "What is ISKCON?"

Because obviously ISKCON is not a movement presenting exclusively Srila

Prabhupada's teachings. So why would anybody feel guilty for not having

faith in ISKCON? And if ISKCON is not automatically connecting his members

to Srila Prabhupada, then why should one have faith in it. Then ISKCON is

reduced to "just another" organization. Of course, in this case,

organization, where one is, amongst other things, also able to practice

Krsna Consciousness. But ISKCON in itself is not anymore Krsna

Consciousness, it just provides facility for KC. So, what is then faith in

ISKCON?

 

> think it's terribly naive to think that things will never change. ISKCON's

> history is one of constant change, particularly in Srila Prabhupada's

> presence. He made so many adjustments over the years he was with us, in

> response to changing conditions.

 

I know, that Srila Prabhupada adjusted things with time. But he also brought

his instructions to conclusion, and gave them to us "As they are". I don't

think, his intention was to start a movement, give some basics, and then let

it to the movement itself to evolve in whichever way needed. That may be

correct by some social research observations, but is not correct in terms of

parampara. Srila Prabhupada gave it for us to have it and hand it over to

others "As It Is", not to change it. And untill ISKCON realizes that,

devotees will keep loosing their faith in ISKCON. And it is good that it is

so. Because why would one have faith in something, that is not connecting

him to parampara and Krsna? Faith is a precious thing, and it has to be

invested carefully. Blind faith, without understanding, is sentiment, and

sometimes fanaticism. If ISKCON cannot provide understanding, bur commands

faith, then ISKCON will come down to the level of sentiment and fanaticism.

Thats not vaisnava-brahminical society, it is more of material society. And

on this level of material society, based on sentiment, varnasrama is the

best solution. But ISKCON doesn't care even about varnasrama rules, but is

instead inventing something new, with feminists, homosexuals, reformists and

all the similar. I don't know what is the solution proposed by our leaders,

but is sure doesn't fit together in my understanding.

 

> As far as I can understand, those are the principles. I understand that we

> need vigorous discussion as to what details may need adjusting and how to

> do so, but the discussion needs to be civil and open, neither of which is

> the case when we start demonizing, however subtly, those devotees whose

> perspective differs from our own by a few degrees.

 

I also feel a great need for open discussion on details. But as soon as this

discussion is open, there will be attacks and arguments. Just like yourself,

when you mention subtle demonizing of other perspectives. Already by

mentioning this, you demonize other party. It is impossible to communicate

without jumping to conclusions about others motives, we can see this in

practice. It is just natural, and needed for discussion, that one tries to

understand what is the other party sayinf and what are their motivations. So

I think it is utopic to think, that we can properly discuss only when

everybody will be above any "demonizing" or judging of others. This day will

not come. As I see it, better we discuss no matter what, and try to gain

understanding, while we are still here. We can show with our example, how to

communicate, but to expect from others, that they will behave perfectly in

communication, is utopic.

 

Just like internet. We can hear Gurus, GBCs, sannyasis blaming internet for

devotees loosing their faith in ISKCON. But what is internet? It is just a

medium for communication, like telephone or letters. It is just faster,

cheaper and more practical than any other means of communication. It has its

bad sides, sure, but in general it has most benefits, thats why we all use

it. Therefore, blaming internet for devotees loosing faith, actually comes

down to blaming communication between devotees. What they say is, that

devotees loose faith in ISKCON, because they are communicating with each

other. So, if you want to keep faith in ISKCON, you should not communicate

with others regarding your problems, but rather keep them in closed circle.

But this doesn't sound good. Communication is important, and if one looses

faith because of communicating with devotees, what kind of faith was that

anyway. It was some weak faith, not based on facts and understanding, but on

sentiment and fanatism. It was blind faith. But instead of being provided

with understanding, we are told to stay off internet. And when someone

looses his blind-faith in ISKCON, everybody says "Yes, he went on internet."

But lack of communication will not bring understanding, and demonizing

devotees communication is bad solution. ISKCON should provide devotees with

understanding of its actions, then faith will be strong. But giving

understanding means opening oneself and communicating - is ISKCON willing

and able to take this step? Or will ISKCON continue keeping vast majority of

its membership on blind faith, based on sentiment.

 

 

> the Bhagavatam's second verse, Srila Prabhupada writes, "the

> transcendental devotees of the Lord are not only free from material envy,

> but are well-wishers to everyone, and they strive to establish a

> competitionless society with God in the center." How much time have you

> spent in your life contemplating the revolutionary implications of such an

> assertion. When I read that in 1969, it changed the direction of my life.

> And it remains my Pole Star, guiding me, I hope, toward the summum bonum

> of Krishna prema.

 

I'm sorry, my realizations do not com even close to yours. I haven't

contemplated on the exact above statement by Srila Prabhupada. But I was

also brought in contact with Srila Prabhupada's mood to some degree, and I

believe that I had some realisations in this direction. Obviously I have

some doubts in ISKCON, but not in Srila Prabhupada. I think it is sad

enough, that in my eyes ISKCON is disconnected from Srila Prabhupada. That

was not what I wanted. Even when all my devotee contemporaries were already

inventing new approaches to Srila Prabhupada, I was still trying hard to

connect ISKCON with Srila Prabhupada in full, the fossil I am. But it is a

hopeless attempt, i see it now. I hope it will change, and I'm most

enthusiastic about that change, when ISKCON again becomes Srila Prabhupada's

body. But how it will happen and when, I don't know. I hope, that this

discussion will help at least a bit.

 

 

your servant Giri-nayaka das

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/2005 6:40:30 PM Central Standard Time,

Giri-nayaka.BVS (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

But

modern ISKCON is proposing, usually in connection to social issues, that if

Srila Prabhupada was here today, he would speak differently. And numerous

methods are invented on basis of this premise, in order to bring KC closer

to people. But at the same time those same methods drive away even ISKCONs

own devotees. How can those inventions be expected to inspire people, if

they drive away even devotees?

 

 

 

Can you be more specific?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/2005 9:10:53 PM Central Standard Time,

Babhru.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

Is it reasonable to expect that things won't have changed in the

ensuing 28 years,

 

 

Not only changing over time, but during Prabhupada's presence (and today as

well) practically every temple was different.

 

Temple's are different because the devotees who live in them are different -

and specifically because the managers are different. These differences are

greater between temples in different parts of the world. We are products of

our cultures and that seeps through into how we run Iskcon in different

countries.

 

Which one is the real Iskcon? Prabhupada said wherever there is chanting of

Hare Krishna, that is Iskcon.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:30 -0500, Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Alachua, FL - USA) <

Mahatma.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> Not only changing over time, but during Prabhupada's presence (and today

> as

> well) practically every temple was different.

>

> Temple's are different because the devotees who live in them are

> different -

> and specifically because the managers are different. These differences are

> greater between temples in different parts of the world. We are

> products of

> our cultures and that seeps through into how we run Iskcon in different

> countries.

 

 

Weel put. In fact, the culture of each temple back then was different from

that of other cultures. This was, as you say, due to the different people

living in the temples, and to the different locations and social conditions.

In Japan, Srila Prabhupada encouraged Sudama to offer food that Japanese

folks would be able to accept. That included shoyu, as I recall. In Honolulu

we did things differently from other temples partly because Goursundar was

president, and partly because we were in Hawaii, not New York or San

Francisco. Srila Prabhupada was aware, and he did not object. And things at

our farm on the Big Island in the early '70s were quite different from

Honolulu. I remember that things at the Mexico City Temple were different in

1973 from LA, San Diego, Honolulu, and O'okala. I found this a strength, not

a liability. Just read Srila Prabhupada's well-known letter to Karandhar,

and you might see why this was so.

 

Which one is the real Iskcon? Prabhupada said wherever there is chanting of

> Hare Krishna, that is Iskcon.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Yours in service,

Babhru das