Tattva-viveka
ISKCON and other faiths
Guru-nistha Das - June 12, 2013 8:15 pm
By Kesava Krsna Dasa
Scholars and professors like to observe Iskcon and compare us with various religions. Devotees too, can feel that they belong to one of the faiths called Iskcon. Should we accept that we are just one of many, or is there something unique being neglected?
There is no doubt that scholarship can pass on useful information to us – how trust between devotees is required, how strictness might increase membership, how references can help Iskcon preservation and so on. We can benefit from others on how Iskcon social development progresses.
All this help largely centres around our human needs. We are all human beings and although taking to the process of Krishna consciousness, our behaviour and preconditioning mirror those of humans practicing other faiths or not. There is nothing unique in this, except that we are trying to spiritualise our needs.
Krishna consciousness essentially means to be Krishna conscious by dint of pure devotion, or Bhakti. While considering our Iskcon social needs and development we can minimise the value of Bhakti. Bhakti can then be subjected to scholarly observations as though She is just another faith or religion – is She?
If Bhakti is simply another faith or tradition, our connection or identification as Iskcon members looses true distinction. Bhakti ends up being confused with human behavioural phenomena and subsequent needs and development. Bhakti will then come under scholarly scrutiny. This mistake can pass by us without realising it. This happens when we fail to distinguish Bhakti from our human needs in general. What does Srila Prabhupada say of Bhakti?
“Therefore this bhakti word is applicable only in relationship with God, or Kṛṣṇa. In the material world, there cannot be any use of the word bhakti. Because here the so-called devotional service is motivated. So this bhakti word is monopolized by Kṛṣṇa, and nobody else.” (Vṛndāvana, October 28, 1972)
If Krishna has a monopoly on Bhakti it means that He and She are utterly independent standalone personalities. Their independence is none-negotiable. Of course, Krishna can be Bhakta-vatsala, being amenable to His devotees, but Bhakti has to be there first.
Can independent Bhakti be compared with other faiths that brew sectarianism and be conforming to the social needs of human beings? In reality, the useful information we gather for our Iskcon social improvement has nothing to do with Bhakti. We can try to create a mode of goodness situation and general conduciveness towards Bhakti, but She still remains aloof. Then how can Bhakti compare with or be compared with anything else?
“If you begin your bhakti-yoga, vāsudeve bhagavati… Bhakti-yoga can be applied only to vāsudeve bhagavati. Bhakti-yoga is not applied anywhere. The śāstra does not say.” (Delhi, November 13, 1973)
One may wonder how far we can go in comparative religion on an interfaith basis. Interfaith discussions will usually focus on shared interests and values of various faiths. The human need for peace, justice, harmony, alleviation of suffering and much more are suitable platforms for dialogue. But if we begin to compare independent Bhakti with mostly motivated forms of ‘Bhakti’ passing as religion, then we shall do injustice to Her.
“So these things are very nice. I will request you to study what is bhakti, what is pure devotion, what is Vāsudeva. Everything is there. It is a science, great science. It is not sentiment, neither it is so- called religious faith.” (Delhi, November 13, 1973)
Although we may engage in interfaith dialogue with other religions, we have to keep in mind that we are not a religion as Srila Prabhupada stated. We can easily make Iskcon a religion if we compare Bhakti in normal or mundane terms.
We can accentuate our sense of religiosity by identifying with or forming human preferences such as conservatism and liberalism for example, especially if we support one side or another merely because we agree without offering substance and merit. Such support is then counted as sentiment, not Bhakti. These sentiments can fuel sectarianism.
It could be that wise ‘outside’ advice and ideas can help improve the general practice of Bhakti, but in reality, Bhakti is independent from these. And social studies, scholarly observations and learned thoughts by professors on Iskcon are all of passing, incidental human interest only – as seen from an independent Bhakti perspective.
Another relevant statement like this might seem all too obvious for us:
“The activities of the spirit soul, the activities of Brahman, is bhakti-yoga. Bhakti-yoga is not material activities. Bhakti-yoga is spiritual, pure spiritual activities.” (Delhi, November 13, 1973)
It can happen that information that is so familiar and so very obvious, is usually the type of knowledge we take for granted, and end up overlooking it entirely. This is where independent Bhakti can be obscured by mixing Her with human things of interest, however vital it may be for our needs.
This information may appear elitist or impractical for us. If we see how Bhakti, the holy names, sastra and sadhu sanga form the core of Iskcon existence, all of which help guide us to internal reality of service unto the Divine Couple, then we have to separate what is truly rare and unique from normal religiosity, as genuine mahatmas do:
“Mahātmā is not under the control of this material energy. He is under the shelter of spiritual energy, daivī-prakṛti. And the symptom is bhajanty ananya-manasaḥ: he has no other business than to serve the Supreme Personality. Bhajanti. Bhaja sevāyām.” (Delhi, November 13, 1973)
Even though this internal ideal appears light years away from us, it will remain so if we relegate Bhakti. If She is acknowledged with full unique distinction, no matter how much ‘outside’ help we get, or how many interfaith friends we have with all the wisdom that their traditions offer, we shall know that Bhakti belongs nowhere but through Her own independent desire to give Bhakti – let us pray for that.
Ys Kesava Krsna Dasa
Citta Hari Dasa - June 13, 2013 10:06 pm
It starts in the first sentence: Iskcon is not a religion, nor is it a faith. It's an institution for the practice and propagation of a faith, end of story.
Okay, someone else's turn. . .
Guru-nistha Das - June 14, 2013 1:37 am
Right, it just perfectly showed how they completely equate ISKCON with bhakti. He actually seemed to use the words interchangeably in the article. Unbelievably confused. It also cracked me up that at the same time he tried coming off scholarly, thoughtful and non-sectarian... impressive!
Braja-sundari Dasi - June 14, 2013 8:09 pm
It starts in the first sentence: Iskcon is not a religion, nor is it a faith. It's an institution for the practice and propagation of a faith, end of story.
Okay, someone else's turn. . .
Ha ha, you are wrong. 
For this guy Iskcon is a faith in Iskcon being a religion 
I`m surprised that something like this was published on their official site. It is not even funny after I`ve read it again. It is ambarassing.
Citta Hari Dasa - June 15, 2013 1:37 am
It also cracked me up that at the same time he tried coming off scholarly, thoughtful and non-sectarian... impressive!
Yes, and badly written too. Impressive indeed.
Prema-bhakti - June 15, 2013 8:23 am
Forgive me. But I don't see the point of just poking fun at an article which is obviously not well thought out. It isn't even a challenge in terms of exercising one's ability to debate siddhanta. Just sayin'. 
Vrindavandas - June 20, 2013 4:52 pm
Let me throw out another concept, which may turn this thread in a different direction. The author is correct in saying that ISKCON is a particular faith or religion, because it has a very clear and distinctive path, which is SEPARATE from its roots (Gaudiya Vaishnavism). I posed this argument recently to a friend who is a disciple of a very promiment ISKCON guru. The guru agreed, stating that it was a good thing.
I think a more provocative discussion can be held, without making fun of any particular group or individuals - At present day, how do various Gaudiya groups represent the lineage? Who has created their own theology?
I think we will see that different groups are representing at various degrees. I do think it is fair to point out that to a large extent, ISKCON is creating its own faith based system with origins in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. From a critical/ historical religious studies perspective I think it is very interesting that we get to see history in the making. Much like the evolution of the Catholic church, Sikhism, Mormonism, etc. we are seeing a centralized governing body picking and choosing from concepts of its roots in order to establish and strenghten its own position.
Citta Hari Dasa - June 20, 2013 11:41 pm
I see your point but still disagree. Iskcon is an institution that, while it may have a distinct siddhanta of its own, still represents the faith of Caitanya Vaisnavism. In reality is is just a heterodox Gaudiya institution, not a faith. The fact that the Iskcon guru agreed to your argument is disturbing to say the least.
Swami B. A. Ashram - June 23, 2013 11:40 pm
I was going to glibly suggest that the problem is even before the opening sentence. It's in the title, in the very conception that moved the author to write this. That it was published is not an encouraging sign, and, particularly in light of another prominent ISKCON guru's idea that Srila Prabhupada is the Fifth Founder-Acarya (which he synonymizes with Sampradaya Acarya) for the Iron Age (implying that ISKCON is a new sampradaya), the prominent guru's acceptance of Vrindavana's reading of the situation is indeed disturbing. ISKCON, as pointed out by others, is an expression of Srila Prabhupada's desire to serve the instruction of his spirital master, which was given in the spirit of Mahaprabhu's anxiety over widely distributing what Krishna das Kaviraja calls the fruit of love of Godhead. Any resemblance to the churches of faiths to which the author refers is incidental, superficial, and acceptable only to the extent that it serves the purposes for which the institution was formed.
Vrindavandas - June 25, 2013 5:10 am
I see your point but still disagree. Iskcon is an institution that, while it may have a distinct siddhanta of its own, still represents the faith of Caitanya Vaisnavism. In reality is is just a heterodox Gaudiya institution, not a faith. The fact that the Iskcon guru agreed to your argument is disturbing to say the least.
While I actually agree with you, it is nevertheless the direction of ISKCON that they are a separate religion all together. Prabhupada made numerous statements in favor of your point, even so far as saying:
1. Iskcon/Fiscon the name and institution is irrelevant (I am paraphrasing)
2. Anywhere people are chanting is Iskcon
The unfortunate fact remains that the current institutional setting/central government favors the concept that they are a unique religion all together. Editing the siddhanta to fit a political agenda and accomodating ritvikism among other things does not fit into what I would consider "Chaitanya Vaishnavism". The "faith" has gone far beyond guru, sadhu and sastra and has entered the realm of worshipping a fabricated ecclesiastical body.
Citta Hari Dasa - June 25, 2013 11:35 am
The unfortunate fact remains that the current institutional setting/central government favors the concept that they are a unique religion all together. Editing the siddhanta to fit a political agenda and accomodating ritvikism among other things does not fit into what I would consider "Chaitanya Vaishnavism". The "faith" has gone far beyond guru, sadhu and sastra and has entered the realm of worshipping a fabricated ecclesiastical body.
Institutionalism and sectarianism--the breakfast of kanisthas.
Braja-sundari Dasi - June 25, 2013 2:10 pm
Institutionalism and sectarianism--the breakfast of kanisthas.
Sincere kanisthas are also getting indigestion from it 