Krishna West -- Is A Pest (Krishna Kirti das)

[PADA: Krishna Kirti rejected his "GBC guru" Hrdayananda many years ago, and he is a contributor to the ONEISKCON web site. ys pd]

KRISHNA "WEST" ........IS A PEST.

Great analysis by Krishna Kirti prabhu. Thank Krishna we have some thinkers.

Letter from Krishna Kirti das:

Dear Devotees, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Maharaja Hridayananda is concerned that ISKCON in the Western countries will fail because ISKCON is too steeped in Indian culture and is thus poised to fail for two reasons: a) our fixation on Indian culture means we have become enamored with things unessential to Krishna consciousness, and b) our fixation on Indian culture also practically prevents us from reaching out to most Westerners, who are not as receptive to Indian culture as we imagine.

Maharaja therefore believes that in order to make ISKCON successful in the West, it is necessary that we keep Western culture and "add Krishna" to it. By focusing on what is essential, we will be once again focused on principles, and we will not unnecessarily alienate the people we are trying to reach. Maharaja is correct in his assessment that the mainstream of Western society thinks ISKCON odd and (with more Indian participation), "Asian", not "American" or "European".

Yet ISKCON in Srila Prabhupada's own day was wildly successful despite the dress of his disciples, their food, and other cultural differences they maintained against the mainstream. More importantly, organized opposition against ISKCON in Srila Prabhupada's day did not put forward funny dress or Indian food as their primary reasons for opposing us. Instead, their reasons primarily identified and targeted our fundamental principles. That their opposition was to principles, not details, was made clear in Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita, vol 6, in the chapter "Chant Hare Krishna and Fight".

Prabhupada said that the more the opposition created turmoil, the more Krsna consciousness would become famous. He also reasoned that people were reacting to his very strong preaching. 'I condemn everyone,' he [Srila Prabhupada] said, 'that they are all dogs and hogs. And the United Nations I call a pack of barking dogs. It's a fact. And in Chicago I said, 'All women, you cannot have freedom.' So I became a subject of great criticism" (SPL 6.7, pg 218).

And also,

Ramesvara: "But this is their argument, that the standard in America is that you become learned in different fields--science, music, art, and literature. This standard of culture and education is coming from the idea of the Renaissance in Europe. But in our Hare Krsna movement we are isolating ourselves from these things and simply reading one set of literature--Krsna."
Prabhupada: "This other is not culture. As soon as you change, that means it is not culture. It is mano-dharma, mental concoction. yes, we want to stop your nonsense. That is our mission. Those who are intelligent, they have taken, and you also take."

Ramesvara raised the objection that Krsna conscious children are not prepared to go to the public chools and universities, and Srila Prabhupada replied that they were being saved. "But what if they want to change later in their life?" asked Ramesvara.

"They have become Krsna conscious from the very beginning," Prabhupada replied. "That is the perfection of life. They are perfect from the very beginning of their life. And you are going to school in the college, but you are becoming most uncivilized--like cats and dogs, become naked and having sex on the street. So what is the value of that education? Stop all these colleges and universities. As soon as they are stopped, it is better for human beings."

If Maharaja Hridayananda's thesis is correct, then Srila Prabhupada should have failed miserably. His movement should have died from the get go. But quite the opposite happened. The historical record shows that we are not opposed merely for our dress and cuisine but for our principles as well, and accordingly our success was (in those days) that we stood strictly by our principles.

Maharaja is very likely correct that ISKCON will not become mainstream if we seem weird or alien to people in the Western countries, but he is wrong to think that the source of their misgivings are due to unessential externalities. They take exception to our principles as well. Hence, Maharaja is also incorrect to assume that Western culture itself is morally neutral. Thus if we move forward on this mistaken premise to re-engineer ISKCON to be acceptable to the mainstream, we will necessarily have to bring our principles in line with the mainstream as well. What Maharaja is proposing is therefore a Faustian bargain. In the effort to become popular, and "loved" by everyone, we become irrelevant, spiritually bankrupt.

So in this regard, here is recent letter from a lady named named Maggie Gallagher, who is a well-known anti-gay marriage activist and thinker. Moreover, she is held in high regard by leaders in the pro-gay marriage movement. Commenting on what she sees as the inevitable, and total, success of the pro-gay marriage movement in changing public opinion, she notes that people who believe in the traditional meaning of marriage will not be left alone. They will be challenged.

'What I see, as I suspect you do: powerful corporations, elite institutions are all lining up to protect and proclaim the dignity of gay people. Small numbers of unusually devoted Christians are just trying to feed their kids. I do not see who is benefited really by putting them out of business. Melissa has five kids, her husband (I was told) now hauls garbage. I understand it would be a rude shock to realize the woman happy to bake you cupcakes doesn't want to bake your happy wedding cake, but I really don't get deciding to put her out of business. It is abstract justice versus real concrete and unreasonable harm."

Even large religious institutions are being challenged on their fidelity to gay marriage, or lack thereof. In 2006, Catholic Charities in Boston closed a 100+ year-old adoption service because the state of Massachusetts would not grant a religious exception to their new gay marriage laws. Rather than comply with the law, they decided to stick by their principles and close their adoption service.

ISKCON and its members are not going to be left alone, either. People are going to ask us about our view of gay marriage, and they will judge us, regardless of what kind of clothes we wear or cuisine we eat. For this alone, and on account of related principles, ISKCON will not be mainstream for the foreseeable future, unless we also bring our principles in line with the mainstream as well.

This actually offers a better explanation for why Hridayananda Maharaja recommended that ISKCON advocate gay monogamy in the first place. He works with many people for whom gay marriage is a litmus test for morality. If you want to advance a career in academia, you cannot be opposed to gay marriage. 

That is how they are. Maharaja wouldn't have had hardly any standing with them unless he also brought some of his principles in line with theirs, which he apparently has. Maharaja's need to be accepted by the academic community is likely the main motivation behind his philosophical paper on consequentialism and homosexuality. 

Maharaja wrote his paper on consequentialism because he felt he needed to be accepted by this community, and he wanted to prove his moral bona fides to them on the gay marriage issue. That is also why he opposes certain descriptions of Draupadi and Yudhisthira that his secular colleagues are likely to object to. If Maharaja could not resist bringing his principles in line with the mainstream, certainly many other devotees are also susceptible to the same pressures. 

In this regard, Ms. Gallagher writes, "A lot of people are going to want to escape from the moral disapproval and really sometimes the open hatred directed at you for maintaining the classic view of marriage -- the view that I would say goes something like this, at least in my head and heart: We are born male and female, our bodies contain a call to come together in love to make and raise the next generation as their mothers and fathers. Yes, many people, for a variety of reasons some, under their control and many not, are not going to end up being married; we should be as kind to one another as we can manage."

This is the view being discarded and many people will try in a variety of ways to reconcile the new culturally dominant marriage narrative with their religious views and their views about human nature.

This is a real challenge all of ISKCON's preachers will have to face in the here and now and for the foreseeable future. Hridayananda Maharaja's response was capitulation. He doesn't see it that way, of course, but that is what it is. And this is what ISKCON's members, especially its leaders, will have to face: should ISKCON be "successful" by bringing its principles in line with the mainstream, or should it be content to be a minority that sticks by its principles. The choice is easy to state but very difficult to make--especially when faced by the potential of life-long ridicule and ostracization. No preacher or individual in ISKCON can indefinitely put of this choice, and it will come soon.

In response, ISKCON take the harder path, Those of us who are ISKCON's members should resist capitulation to the mainstream and be prepared to live by our own principles, much as how the Pandavas lived by their religious principles regardless of what hardship it brought them. The very pious story of the Pandavas and their tribulations shows that if we take care of dharma, dharma will take care of us. But if we sacrifice our principles, then we have sacrificed everything.

It is for this reason that Krishna West should be opposed, if it is a success, it will be a success because it aligned its principles with the mainstream, not merely its clothing and cuisine. It will not become popular otherwise.

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das