Article: This Is Not A Book Review

[Guest guest]

This is Not A Book Review:

By Braja Sevaki Devi Dasi

 

RE: The Hare Krishna Movement: The Post-Charismatic Fate of a Religious

Transplant

Edited by Edwin Bryant and Maria Ekstrand

Columbia University Press 2004

_______

 

 

It's safe to say that a book review generally serves two purposes: to bring

a book to the attention of the reading public (usually for recommended

reading purposes), and to discuss the merit of a book's existence and the

contribution it might make to a particular genre.

 

My purpose in writing this article is not to review the contents of the

book, but to highlight the disqualification of two of the authors and both

editors to write a book that is in any way advertised or promoted as an

authoritative study on ISKCON, and to prove through statements of their own

why they are disqualified. I wouldn't stop anyone from reading the book, but

in doing so, one must be armed with all the facts. I will also add that this

article is addressed to the loyal devotees of ISKCON and followers of Çréla

Prabhupäda, who expect (and rightly so) that people who contribute

negatively to the study of ISKCON, it's founder-äcärya Çréla Prabhupäda, and

its history, do not go unchallenged.

 

This book by Bryant (Adwaita Das)* and Ekstrand (Madhusudani Rädhä dasi)*

was written for academia, a look at the progress of ISKCON in the years

since Prabhupada's departure, and is a collection of chapters by various

authors, both former and current members of ISKCON. What might have begun as

a valid contribution to the growing number of academic studies on ISKCON has

turned into a book rejected even by some contributors who, from their

position as loyal members in good standing within ISKCON, are disassociating

themselves from this book and its content, specifically two chapters written

by ex-members of ISKCON. It has further been revealed that one of the book's

editors, Ekstrand, is responsible for some highly offensive comments

directed at Çréla Prabhupäda and ISKCON. Those comments were made after the

compilation and completion of the book, and have only recently come to

light.

 

One of the two chapters mentioned above is by a woman named Nori

Muster-formerly Nandini dasi-who along with her husband was fired from her

position on ISKCON World Review for her criticism of ISKCON and its members,

and who obviously still bears an active grudge. Some years back Muster wrote

a book called (quite dramatically) Betrayal of Spirit, sharing her negative

experiences of ISKCON. The ISKCON Communications Journal requested a summary

of the book from Muster, but never published it. Not surprising. The other

chapter is written by Ekkehard Lorenz, formerly known as Ekanath das, a

disciple of Harikesa. A few years ago Lorenz revealed his views on Çréla

Prabhupäda and ISKCON on a PAMHO conference, making rude and unsavory

comments about Çréla Prabhupäda being a "deluded guru" who came to the West

to cheat everyone. He is singularly disqualified to speak in any official or

unofficial capacity for ISKCON or its founder-äcärya, but unfortunately that

hasn't stopped the editors from including him.

 

I'll get to Ekstrand and Co. in a minute, but first I wanted to establish

the point about the involvement of certain contributors: why Ekstrand/Bryant

would invite Muster to contribute a chapter unless their intentions were

actually dishonorable to ISKCON. Muster has nothing positive to say, and her

own book is based on unsubstantiated rumor, gossip, and memories produced

and nurtured in a self-admitted psychologically unbalanced mind. Rather than

simply denounce Muster's book out of hand, I've selected a few quotes to

give an overall idea of how unqualified she is to speak on ISKCON. I'll

address her contribution to this other book in a moment. In Betrayal of the

Spirit, she writes:

 

"Like many other members, I believed that the organization had The Answer

and everyone else was in the dark. I tried to force my group's beliefs and

values on other people."

 

Apparently this is a trait Muster possesses independently of the influence

of any organization. She is still trying to force her own beliefs and values

on other people, and does so repeatedly in her own book, and in her chapter

in the book Ekstrand and Bryant edited. The fact that some people have found

favor with her forcefulness in its present incarnation does not validate her

contribution to anything worthy in terms of literature, her own spiritual

life, or an organization that offers spiritual solutions to material

problems. It is simply an indication that people are more interested in

scandal and gossip than the absolute truth.

 

She continues:

 

"When I met devotees in 1977, the original guru Srila Prabhupada died (some

say he was murdered). This lead to a power struggle within ISKCON, as the

alleged guru killers quickly assumed the mantle of leadership and then

mounted a tremendous campaign to hold onto their power."

 

So, after trying to establish herself as genuine and as a person not prone

(any longer) to fanatical trains of thought or unproved statements, here

Muster falls face first into the pile of excrement that has landed on the

doorstep of ISKCON, compliments of some other ex-ISKCON disenchanteds

hell-bent on proving that Prabhupäda was murdered, but who have failed to

produce a single piece of evidence to support their fanciful claims. Muster

appears still to be suffering from the same defect of character that caused

her so much misery in ISKCON: she simply lacks the intelligence to

disseminate information herself and shows symptoms of an excessive

personality disorder (accept fanatically, reject fanatically). She still

swallows whole the most fanatical statements available and spews them back

out, undigested, as if they were the venerable, absolute truth.

 

"It has taken years of psychotherapy to overcome my guilt and forgive

myself. I'm still working out my victimization issues because I came to

ISKCON innocently seeking spiritual life ..."

 

Didn't we just read that Muster was aware one year before joining that the

guru of the institution had been "murdered," and that there was a "power

struggle," and presumably so many other things as well? "Innocently joined"?

It's hard to keep track of Musters wild claims.

 

She admits codependency then, and still displays the symptoms of it,

defining every success or failure in her life by the contact she had with

this institution: that without this institution, her life would be fine;

that her problems stemmed and continue to stem from this institution; and

that it ruined her life and continues to hamper her spiritual and

psychological development. They are mighty claims and are, again, unfounded.

 

We are meant to believe that Muster would never have required psychotherapy

had she not clapped eyes on ISKCON, that her life would have been devoid of

hardship, that no obstacles would exist in her familial and social circles

and the existent relationships within, and that she would be a spiritually

advanced and well-adjusted person.

 

"I had to leave completely to restore my own soul.

 

Herein lies the crux of the issue: Muster's fundamental inability to

understand the nature of the soul. After failing to find a solution to her

myriad problems, she takes leave of the institution and pronounces it unfit

to provide her with any answers on how to attain soul realization,

preferring instead to resort to her own method of restoration which has, if

her writing is any indication, failed miserably.

 

There is more, of course, but it all falls into the same category. This book

and others like it rarely fail to disappoint. They are a litany of

complaints by disgruntled ex-members with little or no substance. Muster's

inclusion in the book by Bryant/Ekstrand is, therefore, highly suspect. Her

contribution is more in the genre of tabloid gossip than something befitting

academia-her writings are basically one person's account of how they

couldn't cut it in a spiritual institution. Constructive criticism has its

place, but this goes beyond good taste.

 

Recommended reading? Hardly. Evidence that the author is qualified to

contribute to an academic study on ISKCON? Definitely not.

 

Lorenz is no different. His contribution is similarly questionable, since

his obvious lack of understanding of the philosophy Çréla Prabhupäda

imparted is evident in his writing, which also resembles a venting spleen

more than an academic contribution. No one is demanding that he agree with

everything Çréla Prabhupäda writes; however one would expect that he stop

pretending that he knows better than Çréla Prabhupäda. I considered

including a sample of his text from the book edited by Bryant and Ekstrand,

but it refers to what he deems to be Çréla Prabhupäda's "obsession with

sex." I find it seriously difficult to respond to something as blatantly

foolish and low class as this, and can only conclude that it leaves no doubt

as to the mindset of Lorenz and his dismissal as a qualified contributor to

a serious and academic study of ISKCON.

 

Former members of ISKCON, like Lorenz and Muster, or those who (like

Ekstrand) never really 'joined' in the first place, seem to think that they

have some unique insight denied to others, as well as an authority to speak

on behalf of the movement. Their association with the movement--however

dubious--sends a message of it being "an insider's look." In Betrayal of

Spirit, Muster writes about co-dependence, dysfunction, and addiction. When

a person suffers from these individualized afflictions of character-which is

not really surprising in this day and age-it hardly warrants rubbishing an

entire organization. Perhaps when Muster is searching through her

psychological thesaurus, she might consider "accountability,denial," etc.

 

The same line of questioning can be directed at Ekstrand. One naturally

questions the aims of a person who has expressed only negative, critical,

and often grossly offensive statements towards the founder-äcärya of ISKCON,

and has made every effort to reduce to the ordinary every extraordinary

thing he has ever done. In fact, I'm stunned that a person like Ekstrand can

even consider compiling a book that she thinks might 'benefit' anyone, when

she has this to say of Çréla Prabhupäda's Bhagavad-gétä As It Is:

 

"The title seems especially arrogant given the multiple mistakes."...as seen

by Gaudiya Vasnavas [sic]" or "...by followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu" would

have been more accurate and humble."

 

Her singularly uninformed opinions form the basis of inaccurate comments so

obviously devoid of any philosophical understanding that they are

embarrassing. Her grasp of what role the parampara plays in the context of

spiritual writings is revealed rather sadly in this statement made in

response to someone calling Çréla Prabhupäda a "thief":

 

"....Although I'm afraid your tone offended some members, I think your

points are important ones. Perhaps it's not called "plagiarism" and

"stealing" in asramas in Indias, [sic] but those are indeed the terms used

to describe these behaviors in the West....I only learned last year that

Prabhupada did the same thing; used other people's translations and copied

chunks of purports verbatim."

 

Interesting accusation, considering Ekstrand's/Bryant's use of the title

"Post Charismatic Fate" for this book. The title has its origin in Prophets

Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements (published 1991) by

Steven J. Gelberg (Subhananda Dasa). More recently, it was applied to a

paper by German professor Dr. Afe Adogame, presented at the "Minority

Religions, Social Change, and Freedom of Conscience" conference in Utah,

June 2002. The full name of the paper is "Legal Imbroglios and the

Post-Charismatic Fate of the Celestial Church of Christ." Is this

plagiarism? Not according to academia. In fact, as one academic recently

confirmed, it is common practice amongst academics to borrow titles and

quotes that enhance or capture what one is trying to express. In light of

that, Ekstrand's view of Çréla Prabhupäda's actions is narrow minded to the

extreme-hardly the 'inclusive' or 'liberal' credos she claims to live by. In

truth, her comments about Çréla Prabhupäda's so-called plagiarism don't even

require an explanation for anyone with the slightest understanding of the

significance of the parampara in terms of sastric accuracy and the purity of

the writings. With her ignorant comments, Ekstrand has proven herself

unqualified in yet another area.

 

In summary, Ekstrand considers Çréla Prabhupäda's writing inaccurate,

lacking humility, riddled with mistakes, stolen from others, and arrogant.

In fact, when the rather considerable collection of Ekstrand's insults and

criticisms of ISCKON and Çréla Prabhupäda are stacked up, one wonders why

she is bothering with ISKCON at all. Her comments reach far back into the

disciplic succession, beginning with an attack on Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté

Öhäkura:

 

"I don't think Bhaktisiddantha [sic] was particularly in tune with the lives

of householders or people who lived and worked in the world. His opinion

reflected the experience of a lifelong renunciate, which is not the

experience of most of us."

 

…and continuing to question the qualifications of personal associates of

Lord Caitanya, whom she admits never even hearing of, and worse, comparing

them to substance abusers and psychologically damaged mental patients (no,

I'm serious!):

 

"I don't have a clue what "Gaura-ganodessa-dipika's" [sic] means, but it

sounds like you're putting your faith in something that somebody wrote

because someone else claims it's a part of our tradition and written by

spiritually elevated people who had a clue. Is that right? If so, I'm

questioning the credentials of the folk who wrote those books. What makes

you decide they can be trusted and that they knew who was who in Krsna lila?

And who are these sources that have the qualifications to make such claims?

How do you decide that they're qualified to do so and that you believe them?

I've worked with both substance users and psych patients who make similar

claims. I'm not saying that's the case here - but how do you know?"

 

She displays her excruciating ignorance of the philosophy with a final

little gem, this one aimed at the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself,

Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu:

 

"OK, but should we really use his sannyasa as an example? After all, he took

sannyasa at a very early age, abandoned his young wife and wasn't his

sannyasa guru an impersonalist?"

 

We're awaiting Ekstrand's paper on how God has abandonment issues, since she

also accused Lord Rama of the same thing with Sita-obviously an errant

behavioral pattern, "Dr." Ekstrand?

 

Entertainment value aside, it's achingly obvious that Ekstrand lacks even a

basic understanding of the philosophy; has absolutely no respect for Çréla

Prabhupäda; has to date displayed no desire to learn the philosophy (a fact

that she's proven time and again in her reluctance to enter into anything

vaguely resembling a philosophical discussion); and has no understanding of

or capacity to appreciate the ancient tradition and culture surrounding the

philosophical precepts or the majestic contribution to society, education,

and religion that Çréla Prabhupäda made. In short, she is in every way

unqualified to speak on ISKCON or Çréla Prabhupäda.

 

As if that weren't enough to convince us, are we expected to believe that

Ekstrand possesses either a higher intellectual capacity, or a blindingly

brilliant insight into matters philosophical that someone like Dr. Shaligram

Shukla, an Assistant Professor of Linguistics at Georgetown University,

somehow missed? He had this to say about Çréla Prabhupäda's Bhagavad-gétä As

It Is:

 

"It is a deeply felt, powerfully conceived and beautifully explained

work...I have never seen any other work on the Gita with such an important

voice and style. It is a work of undoubted integrity. I have strongly

recommended this book to all students interested in Sanskrit and Indian

culture. It will occupy a significant place in the intellectual and ethical

life of modern man for a long time to come."

 

A professor of linguistics who recommends the book to anyone interested in

Sanskrit. Kind of nullifies Ekstrand's and Bryant's opinion of Srila

Prabhupada:

 

"... devotees refuse to listen to the fact that a certain % of Prabhupada's

translations are missing or incorrect. By the way, my husband, who's a great

admirer of Prabhupada says the same thing."

 

Well, good for Mr. Bryant. Not good, however, that he holds this opinion of

Çréla Prabhupäda yet considers himself qualified to compile a book of this

nature directed at the institution Çréla Prabhupäda founded.

 

Besides the pieces in this book by Muster, Lorenz, and one or two others,

there are also well written and obviously valuable contributions by members

of ISKCON in good standing-holders of PhD's who were approached and agreed

to contribute to what they believed would be a valid academic volume. One

can see the relative merit in doing so; the considerations held by the

academia toward such a publication are drastically different from those a

devotee of ISKCON and loyal servant of Çréla Prabhupäda might apply in the

same circumstances. It is a unique field in which there is some very

relevant preaching by qualified devotees: HH Hridayananda Maharaja is one

example (and he is included in this book); another is Kåñëa Ksetra Das, a

Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies;

Ravindra Svarupa Das is also included, as is HH Tamal Krishna Goswämé,

Garuda Das, Satyaraja Das, and HH Mukunda Maharaja.

 

All of these learned gentlemen contributed to this book in good faith that

it had something viable to offer the academic community. However, in the

space of time that has passed since the articles were gathered and edited by

Ekstrand and Bryant, the highly offensive comments quoted above have come to

light, as has the content of the two chapters by Muster and Lorenz. It is

now obvious that the combined intentions of Ekstrand and Bryant toward

ISKCON are dishonorable and that their biased and offensive approach to the

institution basically renders their book invalid.

 

As for the inclusion of HH Tamal Krishna Goswämé, I can categorically state

that Goswami Maharaja would have objected to being used in such gross terms

as those employed by Ekstrand and Bryant, which do nothing to contribute to

a study of the institution's progress and growth over the last 25 years, but

which serve only to further their own profiles in the academic community and

label their work as 'authoritative.' Let me state quite clearly-It is not.

While appreciating the benefits that a positive study of this nature might

have, HH Tamal Krishna Goswämé would have disassociated himself from the

negative content of this book. Since he is not here to do so, I am, as his

disciple, speaking for him. I do not do so independently or without sanction

or authority. The godbrothers of Goswämé Maharaja, who oversee his legacy of

published and unpublished works (the fruit of his service to Çréla

Prabhupäda), wrote to me that it was indeed my "duty to do so as his

disciple." They have given direction and guidance, and most importantly,

their blessings to defend and represent Goswämé Maharaja in a fitting

manner.

 

Other contributors to the book have stated their objections and their

intention to disassociate themselves from this book. Satyaraja Das has this

to say about his involvement in the book-the first paragraph referring to

the valid contributions by his godbrothers who remain loyal to Çréla

Prabhupada, and even those former members of ISKCON who contributed to the

book in a dignified manner:

 

"I want to go on record as saying that the volume offers some good material

in terms of Vaishnava history and even in terms of understanding ISKCON, its

virtues and its weak points. And it can be used by thoughtful people in the

movement as an impetus for us to improve in areas where we need improvement.

 

"That being said, I am embarrassed by two essays in particular: Nori

Muster's and the second article by Ekanath. These articles are unnecessarily

blasphemous and are not even truly scholarly (from a material point of

view). They are one-sided and do not accurately portray ISKCON's teachings,

nor do they properly represent the personality of Srila Prabhupada.

Unfortunately, these two essays render the volume nearly useless and put me

in a position where I cannot recommend the book to scholars or devotees.

Period. I am in the process of commissioning someone to write a scholarly

review of the book, to be published in my Journal of Vaishnava Studies. This

review will mention the book's few good points but will highlight the

potentially damaging though inaccurate and superficial contributions

mentioned above."

 

HH Hridayananda Maharaja shares a similar view, but takes a different

approach. He says that while he and his peers were aware that there would be

some offensive pieces in the book, he believes that his own contribution,

and that of the other loyal members of ISKCON, was crucial. He says:

 

"Indeed in the Mahabharata, when Draupadi was being offended, wise Vidura

stood up and declared that when an offense is being committed, one who sees

the offense and does not speak out shares in the guilt. So it would be more

offensive, in our view, to let negative contributions to such a book be

published without answering them."

 

As Hridayananda Maharaja, Satyaraja Das, and their peers will confirm, there

are dignified and valuable ways to approach a comparative study of this

nature, and to deliver it with integrity. Consider, for example, the

following comment made by Dr Julius Lipner, PhD (King's College, London),

former teacher in the Divinity Faculty at the University of Cambridge, where

he is now Reader in Hinduism and the Comparative Study of Religion. He has

published and lectured widely. Dr. Lipner was greatly responsible for HH

Tamal Krishna Maharaja's entry into Cambridge for the pursuit of his

doctorate. In his obituary to Goswämé Maharaja in the ISKCON Communications

Journal, Dr. Lipner writes:

 

"Though, as some know, evidence of internecine disagreements in ISKCON has

surfaced, there is also refreshing evidence of a number of other members

working seriously in academia to meet the objectives outlined by Goswami.

Much seems to be at stake. In stating his aims for accomplishing a doctoral

degree, Goswami was a courageous pioneer and a man of vision, and an

inspiration, not only for his Society but also for the goals of scholarship

more generally."

(ICJ 9.1 2002)

 

In other words, a man who was capable of acknowledging ISKCON's problems

with dignity, integrity, and humility, and addressing those issues in a

mature and enlightened manner. Unlike Ekstrand and Bryant, who seem

distracted by their habitual muckraking and self-aggrandizement.

 

Ekstrand, Bryant, Muster, and Lorenz have revealed a shared trait: they pass

themselves off as "authorities" on a movement with whom they have no contact

and of which they are no longer members (or in Ekstrand's case, never was).

Their view is, at the very best, tainted by an apparent lack of ability to

access anything spiritual, since their writings constantly miss the

philosophical understanding so crucial to developing one's inner spiritual

life. Can that be the fault of an organization? What individual capacity to

attain spiritual upliftment or understanding did any of them possess in the

first place? It could well be that the answer is: very little. It adds to

the heavy load of evidence that reduces to nothing the self-proclaimed

"authority" status, and reduces the contents of any publication by them to

little more than schoolgirl gossip and misdirected confusion at a

philosophical level. Hardly the qualifications required for what is meant to

pass as an offering to academe.

 

Ultimately, the faults of humans are many, of the divine, none. If one

possesses little or no ability to seek the sincere amongst the rabble, then

inevitably the result will be that he or she is cheated. It doesn't require

a great degree of intelligence or aptitude to see the faults in anything

these days: Kali yuga is an ocean of faults. Rather, it requires a healthy

dose of sincerity and an intellect sharpened by transcendental knowledge to

separate the good from the bad. Ekstrand, Bryant, Muster, and Lorenz seem to

have a long way to go in acquiring the basic tools necessary for their

spiritual journey.

 

Perhaps before embarking on any further tomes of literature they wish to

inflict upon on us, they might consider this piece of advice, penned by none

other than Ekstrand herself:

 

"Of course you can judge whether you think another group is worth joining

(or staying with), but why does a person have to badmouth those with whose

spiritual tradition s/he disagrees? Live and let live. And stay away if it

bothers you."

 

Amen, Ekstrand. Amen.

 

 

_____________

 

 

Note Regarding the use of non-devotee names-My use of non-devotional names

can be misconstrued as an insult, used in an effort to separate someone and

their 'non devotional sentiments' from the institution they're criticizing.

That is not the case here. Both Ekstrand and Bryant have written the book in

question under their non-devotional names, and that is how I will address

them. Neither have, to my knowledge, renounced their devotional name, and it

is not my place to do it for them. Ekkehard Lorenz, however, did revert to

his non-devotional name when dealing with devotees, and made mention of it

in a public conference on PAMHO. As for Nori Muster, she also writes under a

non devotional name, and her pieces make it clear she considers herself

unconnected with anything ISKCON-that would include her name..