|
Part Two
Part
One Part
Three
VII.
We have seen how Prabhupada defined sanatana-dharma,
or eternal service to God, as the true religion as well as the
true goal of the Vedic authority. In this sense he has given it
the name Bhagavata-dharma and called it the most perfect
conception of religion, the pure love of God. It is the scientific
process whereby one develops love of God or prema. In this
particular discourse, the great religions of the world are seen
as bodily designations, or at best 'Vaisnava-dharma in a
crude form' (750314RC.TEH).[14]
He calls them 'faiths' to distinguish them from this pure religion
of love and service to God. However, Prabhupada's analysis of religion
does not end here.
A favoured theme in Prabhupada's discourse is that human
life means religion. Dharmena hinah paSubhih samanah (731006BG.BOM).
Every human society has some kind of religion in order to elevate
human beings from the animal status. Strictly speaking, this is
not the same thing as the 'true religion' as defined previously.
In order to clarify the difference between the meaning of dharma
as used in the terms varnasrama-dharma and bhagavata-dharma,
Prabhupada uses the word 'culture' as distinct from 'religion'.
Thus, Prabhupada says that Hinduism is a culture rather than a religious
denomination or 'faith' just as elsewhere he also approves the idea
that 'Hinduism is a way of life rather than a religion' (710622RC.MOS,
740217MW.BOM):
But the culture of the Indians is [based on the] Vedic
[scriptures] and begins with the four varnas and four asramas.
So these varnas and four asramas are meant for
a really civilised human race. The conclusion is that when a human
being is civilised in the true sense of the term, he follows the
system of varna and asrama and can be called a 'Hindu'.
Our Krsna Consciousness Movement is preaching these four varnas
and four asramas, so naturally it has got some relationship
with Hinduism. Hinduism should thus be understood from the cultural,
not the religious, point of view. Culture is never religion. Religion
is a faith whereas culture is education or advancement of knowledge
(70-07-09.JAN).
Even though there is a distinction to be made between
Hinduism as a cultural entity and the spiritual religion of bhagavata-dharma,
the former is not to be rejected out of hand. Indeed, Prabhupada
goes to much trouble to define and describe the varnasrama-dharma
in its genuine form and to disparage the form in which it currently
exists:
We don't find [the concept of] Hindu dharma in the
Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam or any authorised Vedic
literature. Unfortunately, something hodgepodge known as Hindu
dharma has become very prominent in India. Our real Vedic dharma
is varnasrama-dharma (720907SB.NV).
The institution of eight divisions is known as varnasrama-dharma.
Hindus are those who follow these eight divisions of human
society. That is called Hinduism. Now it has become a name only,
but actually this is Hindu religion. [What is going on in the
name of Hinduism] is not Hindu religion (680623SB.MON).
The two verses Prabhupada most often quotes when introducing
the varnasrama
concept are Bhavagad-gita 4.13, in which Krsna states
that he created the society of four varnas, and Visnu-purana
3.8.9, which states that Lord Visnu is being worshipped by anyone
who acts according to the varnasrama system. Since it is
thus a method of purifying innate tendencies in human society, it
is also called sanatana-dharma and has no historical beginning
(SSR: 3).
On more than one occasion, Prabhupada asked his disciples
to institute a reformed, Krsna-centred varnasrama system,
which he called the daiva-varnasrama (770122BG.BHU), and
specifically proposed the establishment of a Varnasrama College
where people would be trained in the prescribed duties of the different
varnas. [15]
Though strictly speaking Vaisnavas are beyond the concerns
of society and so have nothing to do with this system, they should
try to institute it for the general benefit of mankind (750625SB.LA).
VIII.
It will not be possible to give a detailed analysis
of how Prabhupada envisioned a varnasrama society; this is
another project and must be conducted elsewhere, though it may be
said that he was thinking along Gandhian lines-a preindustrial,
agrarian society with a monarchical government system (730619SB.MAY).[16] In essence, he conceived of a
society in which the edicts of the Hindu dharma-sastra would
be implemented.
We have seen Prabhupada's definition of religion as
'the laws of God' which he takes from the Srimad-Bhagavatam (
dharma.m saksat bhagavat-pranitam). Subsequent to this declaration,
the Srimad-Bhagavatam (SB 6.3.20-21) states that there are
twelve mahajanas, or great authorities, who truly know dharma.
Of these twelve, Manu is one.[17]
Even though this section is specifically concerned
with bhagavata-dharma and bhakti-yoga (Cf. 6.3.21-22),
Srila Prabhupada uses it to confirm the authority of the Manu-samhita,
'the lawbook for entire human society' (SB 2.1.36, 3.13.12,
8.1.16; CC 1.2.91-92, etc.) calling it 'revealed scripture' and
a 'standard book to be followed by human society' (BG 3.21P). It
is a law 'so perfect that it is applicable for all time' (710622RC.MOS)
and cannot be changed by any other process (SB 2.7.9P, 740218BG.BOM).
Manu's authority is further confirmed in Bhagavad-gita 4.2
and Prabhupada roughly equates Manu's laws with the Bhagavad-gita
(SB 7.8.48).
Manu is identified as the source of the 'directions
based on varna and asrama concerning how to live as
a human being' (SB 7.11.14P). Troubles in human society are traced
to the abandonment of 'the principles laid down by the Manu-samhita
and confirmed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna'
(SB 7.8.48P). Prabhupada thus recommends that the leaders of human
society, out of a sense of responsibility to their dependants, should
be conversant with standard books of moral and spiritual codes like
Manu (BG 3.21P).
If the king or dictator individually, or the members
of the government collectively, cannot maintain the state or kingdom
according to the rules of Manu-samhita, their government
will certainly not endure.
Space does not allow a detailed analysis of Prabhupada's
numerous references to Manu in this place, but it should be noted
that he principally stressed a conservative understanding of the
social and sexual morality found in these scriptures. Thus he accepted
manu's attitude to the status of women, divorce, widow remarriage,
dowry laws of inheritance and so on. This was the measuring stick
by which Prabhupada measured not only Hindu society, but all human
society in general. Nevertheless, he expected that since Manu was
known to Hindu society, Hindus in particular should take it all
seriously. He strongly denounced Nehru's revised 'Hindu code' for
allowing such things as divorce (SSR 6; 750514MW.PER). On one occasion,
for example, he indicated that lobbying to promote the dharma-sastras
was what the Vishwa Hindu Parishad should be doing rather than
political agitation: 'Hindu law means Manu-Samhita. So who is pressing
them that "We don't require any law except this?" And where is that
Hindu, strong Hindu? Hindu means Manu-Samhita' (760108MW.NEL).
Despite this forceful promotion of Manu, however, Prabhupada
was consistent in believing that the object of Manu was to regulate
society in order to direct its members to the higher purpose of
renunciation and devotion: pravrttir esa bhutanam nivrttis tu
mahaphala (SB 6.4.9P). In support of this argument, he mentions
Manu's prescriptions for meat eating, which he understands as being
directives to gradually reduce that tendency until one can give
it up completely (760122MW.MAY).
Prabhupada speaks approvingly of Manu's vision of a
personally directed creation (CC Adi 6.15P) and thus concludes that
Manu 'directs all activities to the transcendental service of the
Lord'. His directives can, therefore, be superseded if a higher
principle is at stake. For instance, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu disapproved
of his sannyasi (renunciate) associate, Brahmananda Bharati,
wearing a deerskin (leather is not normally worn by Vaisnavas),
even though this was carried out according to Manu's injunction
(CC Madhya 10.54). Prabhupada also praised his spiritual master
for disregarding the Hindu restriction on overseas travel and placing
the preaching of bhagavata-dharma above it (Phalguna-krsna-pancami,
14).
Furthermore, Prabhupada mentions that the atonements
(prayascitta) prescribed in the dharma-sastras like
Manu-samhita or Parasara-samhita may free one from
the immediate reactions of the most sinful activities, however,
they cannot go as far as promoting a sinful man to the stage of
loving service to the Lord. Whereas chanting the holy name of the
Lord even once, however, not only frees one immediately from the
reactions of the greatest sins, but also begins to raise that person
to the platform of rendering loving service to the Supreme Personality
of Godhead (Second Chance: 16; lectures on SB 6.2.11-23).
Most importantly, Prabhupada disagrees on the ascription
of caste by birth, which is certainly a feature of Manu's law. 'People
misunderstand Hindu culture, Vedic culture, that there are forced
caste system. No. It is varnabhivyahjakam, [caste is determined]
by the symptoms, qualities and qualifications, not by birth' (690525IN.NV).
By accepting regulative principles, even Westerners (that is, mlecchas
and yavanas) become brahmanas (SB 6.5.39P). Moreover,
Prabhupada held that 'One should accept those who thus become Vaisnavas
as being greater than brahmanas, Hindus or Indians' (CC Adi
7.23P).[18] Thus, where Manu disapproves of Vedic instruction
for sudras or outcastes, Prabhupada says that this is not
applicable to those who convert to Vaisnavism, for they are no longer
on the level of a sudra or outcaste (740605R2.GEN).[19] In Prabhupada's understanding,
however, the status of Vaisnava rests on the foundation of de
facto ritual purity achieved through rigorous moral and ethical
training. This can be achieved gradually through the varnasrama
system or directly by following the regulative principles and
practices of devotional service. Ritual purity on its own, however,
is not equivalent to Vaisnavism.
Though Prabhupada frequently insisted on the establishment
of varnasrama-dharma, he occasionally hinted that there was
such a thing as an egalitarian Vaisnava society which transcended
it. 'So a systematic society means varnasrama-dharma. But
there is another way. That is called transcendental society or Vaisnava
society' (770122BG.BHU).
IX.
Whatever his reservations about the current state of
Hinduism, Prabhupada held that Indian people were both privileged
and entrusted with a great responsibility: 'Krsna is not meant for
the Hindus [alone], but Krsna appeared in Hindustan. Therefore it
is the duty of all Hindus to know Krsna first. And they [are indeed
Krsna-] conscious. Every Hindu knows Krsna. Every Hindu observes
the Janmastami, Krsna's birthday' (750309RC.LON).
The Caitanya-caritamrta verse, 'One who has taken his birth
as a human being in India should make his life successful and work
for the benefit of all other people' (Adi 9.41), is quoted many
times (over 200 times in the Folio) by Prabhupada. He thus considered
it a special duty of the Indian people to spread Krsna consciousness
all over the world in fulfilment of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's prediction.
As a result, he admits again that a direct relationship exists between
Hinduism and Krsna consciousness: 'Since it is mostly Hindus who
are accepting this Krsna consciousness, you can call it like Hinduism.
But it is not Hinduism' (711110IV.DEL).
Despite his oft-repeated feeling that everyone in India is 'naturally
Krsna conscious' and though he felt that the common people of India
were 'still alright' (770112R2.BHU) and strictly followed the rules
and regulations (680504SB.BOS), by which he generally meant the
four regulative principles of abstinence from meateating, illicit
sex, intoxication and gambling, he was worried about the generally
negative influence of western culture on India and the Hindu diaspora
(75-08-31.SRI).
Of the vestiges of Vedic culture, Prabhupada mentions vegetarianism:
'No Hindu family will allow meat-eating' (740107SB.LA). He approved
of Gandhi's move to introduce prohibition (740107SB.LA). He spoke
highly of the Indian marital tradition of lifelong fidelity (681225WE.LA),
the giving of Lord Narayana's (a form of Lord Vishnu) names to Hindu
children, despite atheistic propaganda (750917SB.VRN) and the continuing
worship of Laksmi-Narayana (Lord Visnu and his consort) by householders
gave Prabhupada the feeling that 'there is some glimpse of human
civilization in India', giving hope that it could be revived in
modern times (750925MW.AHM).
We have already seen that Prabhupada considered all
'faiths' to be prakrta or mundane, and that even the varnasrama
system based on the laws of God ultimately had to be transcended
in order to achieve the true purpose of religion, namely love of
God. Inasmuch as others did not see this as the purpose of the Vedic
religious system, he criticised them in various ways, both in general
and in particular.
There were two aspects to this criticism, one related
to behaviour (sad-acara), the other to ideas. He compared
Hindus to Christians 'who admit they are Christian but don't follow
the Christian principles.They accept Krsna but don't follow his
instruction. They have lost their own culture and they want to imitate
Western culture' (750309RC.LON). But worse, despite this departure
from their own traditions, 'they are under the impression that they
know everything and have nothing to learn from [the Krsna consciousness
movement]' (70-05-27.TAM). Prabhupada's early experiences with Indian
expatriates in America and England left him unenthusiastic about
spreading Krsna consciousness amongst them. Instead, he told his
disciples to concentrate their efforts on preaching to Europeans
and Americans (68-09-29.GUR).
He says on one occasion that the Hindu religion is dead
because it lacks philosophy and by sentiment alone was unable to
attract those who had been hardened by material sense gratification.[20]
Prabhupada would not allow Hindus to come and speak at ISKCON temples.
There was a question of doctrinal purity. In India Prabhupada himself
walked out of a Bhagavad-gita conference in Indore in 1970
when he heard Mayavadi[21] interpretations of Bhagavad-gita (Lilamrta,
Vol. 4, 147-150). Mayavadis are offenders to Krsna (CC Madhya 17.129)
and hearing from them causes 'everything to become spoiled' (CC
Madhya 6.169).
The cause of the deterioration of Hindu culture, according
to Prabhupada, is loss of belief in the Vedic literatures presented
by Vyasadeva (69-07-08.MRK). Prabhupada thus rejected the concept
behind organisations such as the Arya Samaj because they accept
only the original Veda and reject the other supplementary literatures
to the original Veda as a pretext for pushing their own agendas
which have little to do with the purpose of such important scriptures
(TLC 24, 661216BG.NY) and because they deny deity worship (751007MW.DUR).
He goes so far as to call them atheistic inasmuch as they accept
Krsna as merely a great personality, but not God (740704BG.HON)[22]
. He criticised the Ramakrsna Mission for posturing and suggested
that their failure to attract westerners to seriously taking up
'Hindu' spiritual practices was because they were preaching Hinduism,
rather than 'real spiritual culture'. However, most of all, he reproached
Vivekananda for allowing sannyasis to eat meat, which goes
against Hindu custom (7404214MW.HYD, 760108MW.NEL).
Prabhupada vehemently protested the polytheism of Hinduism by which
other gods are put on an equal level with Krsna. Even worse were
the pantheistic ideas by which one can 'make one's own God'. He
particularly held up to ridicule one follower of the Ramakrsna Mission
who took this to the extreme of saying that 'even stool is God'
(730711R2.LON, 770127R2.PUR).
Prabhupada blamed the Mayavadis and the politicians
for killing the spirit of India. His view was that Mayavada preaching
of pantheism and polytheism led people to diminish the importance
of religion. Vivekananda was singled out as the beginning of Hindu
downfall for his philanthropic idea of daridra-narayana. Prabhupada
paraphrased him, saying, 'Where you are searching for God? Don't
you see so many gods are loitering in the street, the poor? Better
you serve them. Why do you go to the temple?' For him this revealed
a complete misunderstanding of what God is. 'The whole world, they
are trying to banish God, the Kamsa's policy, "Kill God,"
whole world, the Communists, total. This is our position' (751007MW.DUR).
The politicians then used ideas such as daridra-narayana-seva
to draw people from religious to humanitarian and political
activity. 'The Mayavadis create the field of atheism and later on,
the politicians make them perfect atheists' (750909MW.VRN).
In private conversations, Prabhupada did not spare many
of the great modern saints of Hinduism. They were mostly criticised
for preaching the Bhagavad-gita while neglecting devotion
to Krsna. He expressed dismay that 'Gandhi, Radhakrsna and other
big acaryas of India do not believe in Krsna' (750305RC.NY).
Indeed, nothing raised Prabhupada's ire more than the misuse of
the Bhagavad-gita as a tool for preaching other doctrines.
He rejected Gandhi for his allegorical interpretation and would
say that Gandhi's doctrine of non-violence did not work because
it was not a system authorised by scripture (660530BG.NY). Prabhupada
often emphasised that Krsna was a real person and the stories of
His pastimes were not allegorical, but actually took place on earth.
Upon visiting Kuruksetra in 1970, for example, Prabhupada triumph-antly
proclaimed that it was a real place and not an allegory (Lilamrta,
Vol. 4, 134, 770413RC.BOM).
Last but not least, Prabhupada was angered by conservative
upper-caste Hindu opinion which would not accept his disciples as
genuine Vaisnavas and brahmanas. He considered those that
barred them from entering Hindu temples to be malicious. This was
consistent with his rejection of the narrow, ethnic understanding
of Hinduism.
X.
We have seen that Prabhupada held that Hindu religion,
both in the sense of a social system based on Manu-samhita, and
a God-centred religious system based on the Gita and Bhagavata,
had deteriorated in recent times. We may ask the question, to
what extent does Prabhupada subscribe to the Hindu nationalist world
view which sees Hinduism as being fallen from a golden epoch in
the distant past and under siege in the present?
At a meeting in 1973, he told Arnold Toynbee that the
Greeks came from India. 'Vedic culture was once all over the world.
Gradually a new type of culture-just like this recent partition
of India and Pakistan-took place' (730722RC.LON). Many times he
said that five thousand years ago, the entire planet was known as
Bharatavarsa and was 'under Vedic culture.' Mahabharata is
thus the history of 'greater Bharatavarsa.' The culture was gradually
lost, the social disruption beginning from the degeneration of the
brahmanas and then the ksatriyas. Bharatavarsa became
smaller and smaller until the most recent partition in 1947. This
is considered just another chapter in a long loss of glory. Just
as the people of Pakistan are all originally Hindus, so too the
rest of the world was once Hindu (740501MW.BOM). Prabhupada also
predicted that this would continue; with the future deterioration
of Vedic culture, the creation of Sikhistan and then other '-stans'
was inevitable (JSD 6.1).
Unlike many Hindu nationalists, however, Prabhupada
did not claim an original homeland for the Aryans (whom he calls
Indo-Aryans or Indo-Europeans) in India, but says that they divided
in the Caucasus to go either to India or to Europe. This supposedly
happened when Parasurama threatened to kill the ksatriyas. These
ksatriyas fled to Europe while others settled in the Middle
East (760421RC.MEL). Identifying the Caspian Sea as the place of
Kasyapa Muni, he expressed the belief that it will be possible to
ascertain by historical references that the whole planet was once
known as Bharatavarsa (730507SB.LA).
Prabhupada held that the varnasrama cultural
system was operational through to the period of Candragupta Maurya,
roughly contemporaneous to Alexander the Great. Prabhupada held
Candragupta's prime minister Canakya up as an example of a disinterested
brahmana advising a pious monarch in the ideal situation (SB 2.7.9P).
Prabhupada sees the deterioration of Vedic culture in
India as being at least in part the result of foreign conquests,
of which there were many even prior to Muslims. He blames the conversion
of so many Hindus to Islam on a combination of factors. First of
all, upper caste Hindus did not treat them very well. 'There was
a custom, a very bad custom, in South India, that if a sudra
passed on the street he had to shout, "I am a sudra
passing on the street. Please close your door." The brahmanas
would then close their doors so that they would not see him,
for if they did, [they believed that] everything would be spoiled-their
food grains and everything' (740526SB.ROM).
Another important factor was that the lower-caste Hindus
were not given any facility for spiritual culture. The brahmanas
monopolised spiritual culture and mistreated the sudras
and the candalas and kept them downtrodden. When Aurangzeb
imposed the jizya tax for all non-Muslims, these downtrodden
lower classes naturally thought what is the use of remaining Hindu?
As a result they converted wholesale to Islam (740526SB.ROM). He
sees this not only as one of the main causes for Hindus converting
to Islam, but also for the rise of Communism (which he also strongly
opposed for its godlessness) in modern India. It was also acknowledged
that there were other elements which contributed to the conversion
to Islam.
But if brahmanical intolerance and Muslim policy
had a deleterious effect on Hindu culture, the British were worse.
'Lord Macauley's private report was that "If you allow the
Indians to remain Hindu, you will never be able to rule over them."
So it was the British government's policy to condemn everything
Indian. They did not put their hands on their culture directly,
but did so surreptitiously' (750521RC.MEL). 'The Britishers peacefully
killed the Hindu culture, Vedic culture' (750313RC.TEH).[23]
Prabhupada blamed the British for formenting violence
between the Hindus and Muslims who had been generally friendly to
one another (681129BG.LA).
XI.
In view of Prabhupada's historical understanding, framed
around the incipient deterioration of Vedic culture, as well as
his conception of the varnasrama system based on Manu, we
might well have expected him to have expressed some political opinions,
but in fact he was not enthusiastic about government systems that
he encountered nor did he support any political reform movements
as a leader of an international Society.
However, on the whole, Prabhupada kept himself allof
from political activity of any kind. He showed no enthusiasm for
any government systems that he encountered and gave no official
support to any political reform group, including those that affiliated
themselves with Hindu goals. The word Rama-rajya, when used
as a Hindu nationalist buzz-word, elicited Prabhupada's disdain
rather than support: he suggested that such people wanted the kingdom
of God without God (SB 9.10.50). The Hindu political movement did
not interest him. Even in Back to Godhead in September 1944
(1.1) before taking the renounced order of life, he refered to 'imaginary
ideas of Hinduraj or Muslimraj' being doomed to failure.
Prabhupada told his disciples not to get involved with modern political
movements as there would be a conflict of values; devotees and politicians
would never be able to agree on common aims. He himself had given
up political activism in Gandhi's home-rule movement in order to
join his spiritual master, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati (681230IV.LA).
He liked to tell how his Guru answered the criticism of political
activists who accused him of depriving the Indian nationalist movement
of youthful energy by diverting so many young men to the devotional
life. Bhaktisiddhanta responded tongue-in-cheek that his followers
were too weak and only good for chanting Hare Krsna (741021SB.MAY).
Prabhupada stated clearly that he favoured education to political
processes because people had to be changed not by fiat (decree)
but by conviction 740112MW.LA). Thus, in 1972 when his disciple
Balavanta dasa ran for mayor of Atlanta, he did not advise him to
create any complex political programme, but to use the occasion
to preach the concepts behind Krsna consciousness.
Prabhupada did, however, occasionally recommend government
intervention in religious matters, calling his proposal a 'Vedic
idea of the secular state'. According to this idea, the government
should take responsibility for all religious systems in the country
whether Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist, seeing to it, for
example, that a professing Hindu is executing the Hindu principles
of religion properly. He advises licensing religions (730226RC.JKT).
His worry was, 'If people become irreligious in the name of secularism,
then they are simply animals. So it is the government's duty to
see that the citizens are not becoming animals' (730905RC.STO).[24]
XII.
One last element in this examination of Prabhupada's
use of the word 'Hindu' relates to his pragmatism about how to present
himself and his movement while preaching the bhagavata-dharma.
Though uncompromising, Prabhupada was practical and sought the
most effective way to present Krsna consciousness, either dissimulating
or vaunting its connection with Hinduism according to circumstances.
As we have seen, Prabhupada was fighting against preconceived western
notions of Hinduism. Even prior to his coming to New York in 1965,
he was constantly in contact with what he saw as secular misconceptions
and prejudices with regard to Hinduism and Krsna consciousness in
Indian educated society. As a result, he constantly emphasised the
universal aspect of his religion. Thus when greeted by many upon
his return to India as a conquering hero who had converted westerners
to Hinduism, Prabhupada denied that this had ever been his purpose.
On one morning walk he said, 'Foreign devotees are not joining this
movement because it is a Hindu culture. They take it as a real spiritual
culture' (760108MW.NEL).
'Our point is not to convert them to Hinduism. Take
prasadam, take dress, chant Hare Krsna, dance. That's all.
I never said to all these European and American disciples that
"You become a Hindu"... I asked them, "Just become lover
of God. That's all. If you can love God through your religion,
that's all right. You do that." I never said, "You become
Hindu." Then I would not have been able to [convince them]'
(740217MW.BOM).
With these last words, it is apparent that Prabhupada
was aware, that to present himself as a Hindu not only would have
gone against his deeply held beliefs, but that in the context of
Western society, it would have been counter-productive. For these
reasons he therefore strategically presented Krsna consciousness
as 'the science of God':
They would have said, 'We have got Christianity. Why
should I accept your Hinduism?' Now, if you go anywhere, if you
want to preach Hinduism, why they should be interested in Hinduism?
They can hear some words. But we are not talking of Hinduism and
Muhammadanism; we are talking on the science of God (701107RC.BOM).
On the other hand, Prabhupada was trying to establish
a spiritual movement that grew up from within a Hindu culture. In
this he had natural allies amongst those who shared with him many
of the common ideals of his culture. In his determination to achieve
this purpose of bringing what he believed was a true spiritual message
untainted by materialistic purposes, he could and did try to find
such allies by appealing to such common interests. A good example
of this is the appeal he made to the Gandhi Memorial Fund in which
he outlined how he intended to achieve Gandhian ideals such as the
uplift of the Harijans, dissemination of the Bhagavad-gita's
message 'on an authentic basis' (49-02-28. SAR). Of course the
authentic basis was bhagavata-dharma. Similarly, at one point
he hoped to get grants in the context of Indian government cultural
diplomacy by presenting his preaching efforts under the non-sectarian
designation of a 'cultural movement'. This was stated in similar
terms to Nirmal Babu in 1970: 'So this Krsna Consciousness cultural
movement is not actually Hindu movement, but originally it is India
cultural movement' (70-06-24.NIR).
As the movement grew in India, Prabhupada was made aware
of other dangers which could grow out of an identification with
Hinduism, specifically government interference in temple management
such as was going on in Tirupati in south India. For this and other
reasons, he recommended his disciples to openly deny any connection
with Hinduism (760108MW.NEL).
On other occasions, he overtly played to Hindu sensibilities. In
his early days in New York, he solicited help from his benefactor
Sumati Morarji for the construction of 'the first Hindu temple [in
New York]': 'It will be recorded in the history of the world that
the first Hindu temple is started by a pious Hindu lady Srimati
Sumati Morarji who is not only a big business magnate in India but
a pious Hindu Lady, a great devotee of Lord Krsna.' The object was
'to impress the people what actually the Hindu culture is' (65-11-10.
SUM).
Help from other Hindu organisations was solicited when
in 1973 the temple at Juhu, Mumbai, India was demolished in the
midst of difficulties. The pro-Hindu Jan Sangh party headed up a
'Save the Temple' committee. Mr Gupta, a member of that party, published
his own leaflet declaring ISKCON to be a bona-fide Hindu organisation
(Lilamrta 5, 136-137).[25]
Also in 1974, in the hope that ISKCON devotees could be admitted
into temples such as the one in Jagannatha Puri, Prabhupada also
sought certification that they were 'bona-fide Hindus' from Swami
Cinmayananda of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (74-05-31. ACY).
In America, Prabhupada had to respond to the need to preserve his
work by threats from different areas. As we have seen earlier, he
saw the message that he was preaching to be beyond classification
of 'Hindu', though this would not necessarily be recognised by governments
around the world. When difficult legal situations arose in America
he thought it better to claim to be Hindu: 'America has got freedom
of religion, so if they accept my movement as Hindu religion, they
cannot do anything' (761229RC.BOM).
In this way Prabhupada made use of cultural ties with 'Hindu' organisations
for the purpose of preaching the message of the Vedas, even though
he did not consider the message of the Veda to be 'Hindu' as such.
Part
One
Part
Three
|
