|
Our last issue featured a panel discussion hosted by the American
Family Foundation, one of the major anti-cult groups in the US,
entitled 'Can Cultic Groups Change? The Case of ISKCON'. Dr Rahul
Peter Das questioned Anuttama Dasa's statements about authority
and leadership in ISKCON. Dr Das particularly refers to possible
contradictions with concepts of the divine guru that underly much
of Indian philosophical systems. Here Hrdayananda Dasa Goswami,
himself a guru in the Vaisnava line, attempts to resolve the apparent
contradiction between tradition and democracy, explaining the role
of the guru in a society with a collegial governing body.
On 15 May 1999, the American Family Foundation, which monitors
and informs the public about 'cults', held its annual conference
in St Paul, Minnesota, USA. Interestingly, ISKCON's North American
Minister of Communications, Anuttama Dasa, along with Radha Dasi,
a legal consultant to ISKCON in North America, appeared on a conference
panel entitled 'Can Cultic Groups Change: The Case of ISKCON'.
The ISKCON Communications Journal (ICJ) then published the
proceedings of the panel, and one of its academic readers, the distinguished
Indologist Dr Rahul Peter Das, wrote to the editors, expressing
his concern about some of Anuttama's statements. The editors subsequently
asked me to respond to this issue. I will thus present here Anuttama's
original statement, the response by Dr Das and my own observations.
Anuttama's statement:
ISKCON is new. Many of our organisational problems came from
the fact that in the early years especially, most ISKCON members
were young Western converts. Due to a lack of maturity and organisational
structure there was a vulnerability to excess and abuse of power.
Another issue, or tension, for us is the question of authority
and leadership. The traditional model in most Indian religious
traditions is a hierarchical organisation, with the concentration
of power in the hands of one individual, the guru, or acarya.
Shortly before passing away, my teacher, Prabhupada, established
a Governing Body Commission, a group of people to oversee the
ISKCON organisation. After his de ath in 1977, there was
a series of crises with some of the topmost, hand-selected leaders
who had been appointed as gurus. There was quite a struggle between
the organisation and some of those individuals who argued that
as gurus their position was above the authority of the GBC.
This struggle lasted for years. Many people argued that the tradition
supports the guru as the absolute principal of authority, divine
authority. This can be strongly documented in much of Hindu religious
thought. Our organisation has struggled to solidly establish that,
in our movement, no one is above our managing body and that there
must be checks and balances for all. In 1986, there was a series
of reforms limiting what is known in ISKCON jargon as the 'zonal-acarya
system.' This year, 1999, there was another series of resolutions
passed at the international meetings giving more specific interpretation
of appropriate powers and privileges for those in leadership positions.1
Dr Rahul Peter Das's response:
As an outsider to any religion, but one interested in ISKCON
as a manifestation of a stream of Indian religious thought (which
is a major part of what I study), I see a theological problem
in a statement by Anuttama Dasa on the question of authority and
leadership.
It is, of course, commonplace that in many Indian religious traditions,
including modern ones like the Ananda Marga, there is no difference
between the supreme/divine principle and the sad-guru,
the latter being but a corporeal manifestation of the former.
This is obvious in your own tradition, too (Caitanya).
To the outsider, it seems that the attraction of ISKCON to many
followers is the application of this principle to Prabhupada and
that one could justly speak of him being, within ISKCON, a manifestation
similar to Caitanya (this is, I emphasise once again, the outsider's
view, but one confirmed by much of what is said and published
within ISKCON itself and in its iconography).
Now, it is known that in religious movements with such a background
(Indian Sufism is a good example of this), authority often takes
the form of transference of this divine aspect to another corporeal
being, very often an offspring of the original guru (material
transference is clearly important here). This is a form of leadership
that has nothing to do with the secular Western democratic principles
mentioned in the pages quoted. I therefore see here not a question
of democracy or the like, but of fundamental theological doctrine,
and I would be very interested in finding out how the 'reformers'
within ISKCON have actually come to terms with this problem.
My response:
Let us keep in mind that Anuttama Dasa was speaking at an 'anti-cult'
convention. Historically, one of the main concerns of such groups
has been what they perceive to be the tendency of 'cults' to invest
absolute authority in a human leader, who may then abuse and exploit
such power. Thus Anuttama attempts to assure the audience that ISKCON
has taken positive steps to subordinate the power of the guru to
a collegial, administrative board, the GBC. Anuttama does point
out, however, that 'many people argued that the tradition supports
the guru as the absolute principal of divine authority'. He even
admits that the absolute position of the guru 'can be strongly documented
in much of Hindu religious thought'. But despite that fact, 'our
organisation has struggled to solidly establish that in our movement
no one is above our managing body and that there must be checks
and balances for all.'
The obvious problem here can be outlined as follows:
- Hindu tradition seems to give absolute authority to the guru.
- ISKCON denies such authority to its own gurus. Y
- et ISKCON claims to be an authentic part of Hinduism.
Das immediately perceived this problem, and I shall now list and
reply to the three basic arguments of his letter.
Rahul Peter Das:
It is, of course, commonplace that in many Indian religious
traditions, including modern ones like the Ananda Marga, there is
no difference between the supreme/divine principle and the sad-guru,
the latter being but a corporeal manifestation of the former. This
is obvious in your own tradition, too (Caitanya).
Hrdayananda Dasa Goswami:
To claim that one's sad-guru (spiritual master) is identical
with 'the supreme/divine principle' is to make an ontological claim,
a claim involving the nature of being. Indeed, the great theological
debates in India among such leading Vedantists as Sankara, Ramanuja
and Madhva centred precisely on rival ontological claims about the
nature of being. Specifically, the great Vedantists disputed the
nature of the relationship between the Upanisadic absolute, brahman,
'the supreme/divine principle', and the material world with its
individual souls housed in physical and psychic bodies.
The claim that in the Caitanya tradition, 'there is no difference
between the supreme/divine principle and the sad-guru, or
authentic spiritual master', is only partially true. Sri Caitanya
taught the ontological doctrine of bhedabheda-tattva, the
simultaneous 'difference and nondifference' between God and the
innumerable individual souls who rest upon Him. Srila Prabhupada
explained that individual souls are qualitatively one with Krsna,
or God, but quantitatively different. In other words, our consciousness,
in its original, pure state, is equal in quality to that of the
consciousness of God, but God's consciousness is infinite, whereas
ours, in comparison, is infinitesimal.
At present, we who are 'conditioned souls', trapped within the
material nature, experience a covered, impure consciousness, but
in Krsna consciousness, pure love of God, we experience our original
divine awareness. To the members of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada is
a liberated soul, fixed in his original, pure consciousness, and
thus able, in pure devotion, to transparently represent Lord Krsna.
Thus a pure soul like Srila Prabhupada is 'one' with the Lord in
two senses:
- Just as any authentic representative stands for, and is, in
that sense, identical with that which he or she represents, so
the genuine representative of God is identical with God. For example,
if I purchase an airline ticket from an authorised agent of the
airline, the airline must honour that ticket, even if the agent
has made a mistake in my favour. Similarly, Srila Prabhupada's
assurance of spiritual liberation for his serious followers will
be honoured by Lord Krsna.
- As mentioned above, all living beings, pure or impure, are held
to be, in an ontological sense, qualitatively one with God. However,
a pure soul like Srila Prabhupada has realised his divine nature
and acts accordingly.
We note here that certain monistic doctrines do, in fact, claim
that the guru, and ultimately all souls, are one in all respects
with the 'supreme/divine principle'. But Vaisnava communities, such
as the Gaudiya Vaisnavas,2
although acknowledging that God sometimes incarnates in this
world, in general fervently oppose such monistic ideas.
There are, of course, other groups that admit to a type of monotheism,
but then claim that their guru is an incarnation of the one God.
ISKCON makes no such claim for Srila Prabhupada. Indeed, in 1970,
Srila Prabhupada expelled four of his senior disciples who dared
to claim that he was God. One may read of this in the standard biography
Srila Prabhupada-lilamrta by Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami.
In general, the members of ISKCON faithfully follow Srila Prabhupada
because they recognise him to be a pure representative of God, and
thus they are confident that by pleasing him, they are pleasing
the Supreme Lord. For those diligently engaged in the spiritual
practice of Krsna consciousness, this is not merely a theory or
belief, but a practical, daily experience.
Rahul Peter Das:
To the outsider, it seems that the attraction of ISKCON to many
followers is the application of this principle to Prabhupada and
that one could justly speak of him being, within ISKCON, a manifestation
similar to Caitanya (this is, I emphasise once again, the outsider's
view, but one confirmed by much of what is said and published within
ISKCON itself and in its iconography).
Hrdayananda Dasa Goswami:
Undoubtedly people join ISKCON for a variety of reasons. Indeed,
in the Bhagavad-gita (7.16),3
Lord Krsna states that people approach Him with four types
of motives: to alleviate suffering, to achieve prosperity, to satisfy
curiosity and to attain final wisdom.
But one would expect all those who seek God, regardless of their
motive, to be concerned with the quality of their contact or link
with God. In that sense, the conviction of ISKCON devotees of Srila
Prabhupada's unique ability to purely represent God is indeed a
compelling one. Again, however, this in no way implies a monistic
perception of Srila Prabhupada as God Himself. In fact, the Vaisnavas
claim just the opposite: that the more one humbly surrenders to
the Supreme Lord, the more one can serve and represent Him purely.
Thus ISKCON devotees glorify Srila Prabhupada as divine precisely
because of his full submission to God, a qualification which Srila
Prabhupada painstakingly taught them to insist upon in a guru.
'I emphasise', says Professor Das, 'this is the outsider's view.'
Thus we may say that from the 'insider's view', it is not merely
the 'application' of a theological principle to Srila Prabhupada
that attracts many to him but rather the direct experience of ISKCON
devotees of Srila Prabhupada's dramatic ability to bring his followers
into close proximity of Lord Krsna.
Rahul Peter Das:
Now, it is known that in religious movements with such a background
(Indian Sufism is a good example of this), authority often takes
the form of transference of this divine aspect to another corporeal
being, very often an offspring of the original guru (material transference
is clearly important here). This is a form of leadership that has
nothing to do with the secular Western democratic principles mentioned
in the pages quoted. I therefore see here not a question of democracy
or the like, but of fundamental theological doctrine, and I would
be very interested in finding out how the 'reformers'
within ISKCON have actually come to terms with this problem.
Hrdayananda Dasa Goswami:
Professor Das raises several points here, which I will address
in order.
He refers to the general issue of the transference of authority
from the guru to his or her successors.
Whenever the issue of the transmission of divine authority arises,
Vaisnavas generally quote Lord Krsna's description in the Bhagavad-gita
(4.1-3) of the parampara, the chain of disciplic succession
that begins with the Lord Himself. Lord Krsna states here that He
has chosen to speak this spiritual knowledge to Arjuna, since this
middle son of Pandu is the Lord's devotee (bhakta) and friend
(sakha). Similarly, Lord Krsna states elsewhere in the Gita
(13.19), 'My devotee [mad-bhakta] realises this [divine knowledge]
and thus attains to My nature.'4
It would not be difficult to argue from the vast array of
Vaisnava literature that possessing spiritual, and specifically
devotional, qualities, rather than a mystic family connection, qualifies
the disciple to become a guru. Indeed, in normal education, a good
student gets the chance to become a teacher, not merely a child
of the former teacher.
He also mentions that 'very often' the guru's authority is transferred
to the guru's child (or, presumably, another relative).
In writing my commentary on the Srimad-Bhagavatam. verses
11.1.5, I quoted Srila Prabhupada's spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati Thakura, who in his own commentary on these verses spoke
directly and thoroughly on the issue of awarding spiritual authority
to one's material offspring. The context is a discussion of the
famous incident towards the end of Lord Krsna's life on earth, in
which almost all of the members of the Lord's own Yadu dynasty killed
each other in a fratricidal battle. I give below my commentary on
those verses, which is based on that of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
Thakura:
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura has made a very important
comment on this verse. He states that since the intentions of
the Supreme Lord, Krsnacandra, are always perfect, it was certainly
in consideration of the greatest benefit for the entire world
that He destroyed His own family on the pretext of a curse by
brahmanas. In this connection, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
Thakura has shown a parallel in the pastimes of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu,
who is Krsna Himself appearing as His own devotee.
Lord Caitanya appeared along with His first plenary expansion,
known as Lord Nityananda Prabhu, and with Lord Advaita Prabhu.
All three personalities - Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Nityananda Prabhu
and Advaita Prabhu - are accepted by Vaisnava acaryas to
be in the category of visnu-tattva, the full status of
the Supreme Personality of Godhead. These three Personalities
of Godhead perceived that in the future Their so-called seminal
descendants would get undue recognition and thus, being puffed
up, would commit grave offences against those who were actually
Vaisnava gurus or representatives of the Lord.
Every living being is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, as
stated in the Bhagavad-gita (mamaivamsah). Every
living entity is originally a son of God, yet to execute His pastimes
the Lord selects certain highly qualified living entities whom
He allows to take birth as His personal relatives. But those living
entities who appear as descendants of the Lord's personal family
may undoubtedly become proud of such a position and thus abuse
the great adulation they receive from ordinary people. In this
way such persons may artificially get undue attention and divert
people from the actual principle of spiritual advancement, which
is to surrender to the pure devotee who represents the Lord. The
last eight verses of the Twelfth Chapter of Bhagavad-gita give
a description of the pure devotees the Lord permits to act as
acaryas, or spiritual leaders of mankind. In other words,
simply to take birth in the personal family of Krsna is not the
qualification for being a spiritual master, since according to
Bhagavad-gita, pitaham asya jagatah: every
living entity is eternally a member of the Lord's family. Krsna
says in Bhagavad-gita, samo 'ham sarva-bhutesu na me
dvesyo 'sti na priyah: 'I am equal to everyone. No one is
My enemy, and no one is My special friend.' If the Supreme Personality
of Godhead appears to have a special family, such as the Yadu
dynasty, such a so-called family is a special arrangement of the
Lord's pastimes in order to attract the conditioned souls. When
Krsna descends, He acts as if He were an ordinary person in order
to attract the living entities to His pastimes. Therefore Krsna
acted as though the Yadu dynasty was His personal family, although
in fact every living entity is a member of His family.
Ordinary people, however, not understanding the higher principles
of spiritual knowledge, easily forget the actual qualifications
of a bona fide spiritual master and instead give undue importance
to people born in the Lord's so-called family. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu,
therefore, avoided this impediment on the path of spiritual enlightenment
by leaving behind no children. Although Caitanya Mahaprabhu married
twice, He was childless. Nityananda Prabhu, who is also the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, did not accept any of the natural sons
born of His own son, Sri Virabhadra. Similarly, Lord Advaita Acarya
divested of His association all of His sons except Acyutananda
and two others. Acyutananda, the chief faithful son of Advaita
Acarya, had no seminal progeny, and the remaining three of the
six sons of Lord Advaita fell from the path of devotion to the
Lord and are known as rejected sons. In other words, the appearance
of Caitanya Mahaprabhu allowed little facility for continuing
a so-called seminal family to create confusion. The respect shown
to the conception of seminal lineage in deference to the ideas
of the smartas is unfit to be accepted by one who actually
understands the supreme truth from Vedic authority.
Other acaryas, or spiritual masters, have also demonstrated
this point in their own families. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Svami Prabhupada, our own beloved spiritual master, who is the
mighty author of this Srimad-Bhagavatam series, was born
into a family of pure devotees, and he himself exhibited all the
symptoms of pure devotional service from childhood. Srila Prabhupada
eventually came to the Western countries and exhibited unprecedented
spiritual potency in establishing the Krsna consciousness movement
all over the world. In a few short years, he translated more than
fifty large volumes of Vedic philosophy. By his practical activities
he is certainly understood to be a most empowered representative
of the Lord. Nonetheless, his own family members, although devotees
of Krsna, did not come up to the proper standard of devotional
service and are therefore not given attention by the members of
ISKCON. The natural tendency for the members of the International
Society for Krsna Consciousness would be to offer all reverence
and worship to the members of Srila Prabhupada's immediate family.
But since by Krsna's arrangement these family members are not
on the platform of pure devotional service, the members of ISKCON
give them scant attention, and worship instead those who actually
exhibit the qualities of highly advanced Vaisnavas, regardless
of their birth. In other words, birth cannot constitute the qualification
for a respectable person, even when one is born into the Lord's
own family or into the acarya's family, what to speak of
an ordinary wealthy or learned family.
In India there is a class of men known as nityananda-vamsa,
who claim to be direct descendants of Lord Nityananda and therefore
worthy of the highest respect for their position in devotional
service. In this regard, Srila Prabhupada has written in The
Nectar of Devotion, 'In the Middle Ages, after the disappearance
of Lord Caitanya's great associate Lord Nityananda, a class of
priestly persons claimed to be the descendants of Nityananda,
calling themselves the gosvami caste. They further claimed
that the practice and spreading of devotional service belonged
only to their particular class, which was known as nityananda-vamsa.
In this way they exercised their artificial power for some time,
until Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, the powerful acarya
of the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya, completely smashed
their idea. There was a great struggle for some time, but it was
successful, and it is now correctly and practically established
that devotional service is not restricted to a particular class
of men. Besides that, anyone who is engaged in devotional service
is already a high-class brahmana. So Srila Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati Thakura's struggle for this movement has been successful.
It is on the basis of his position that anyone, from any part
of the universe, can become a Gaudiya Vaisnava.
In other words, the essence of spiritual knowledge is that every
living being, regardless of his present status in life, is originally
a servant of the Supreme Lord, and it is the mission of the Lord
to reclaim all of these fallen living entities. Despite his past
situation, any living being who is willing to surrender again
at the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord or His bona fide representative
can purify himself by strictly adhering to the rules and regulations
of bhakti-yoga and thus act as a high-class brahmana.
Nonetheless, the seminal descendants of the Lord think themselves
to have acquired their ancestor's character and position. Thus
the Supreme Lord, who is the well-wisher of the entire universe
and especially of His devotees, bewilders the discriminatory power
of His own descendants in such a contradictory way that these
seminal descendants become recognised as deviant and the actual
qualification to be a representative of the Lord, namely unalloyed
surrender to the will of Krsna, remains prominent.
Finally, I will address Das's claim that in normal Hindu tradition,
the transmission of divine authority 'has nothing to do with the
secular Western democratic principles mentioned in the pages quoted'.
We may first note that ISKCON does not follow the principles of
a popular 'Jacksonian' democracy, but rather invests ultimate managing
authority in a body of senior leaders. Traditionally, the members
of the governing board appoint new members, and thus one might more
reasonably accuse this system of being an 'oligarchy', a term that
seems to be somewhat infected with negative connotations in contemporary
culture. To be fair, there is a growing trend in ISKCON to insist
that even GBC members be elected by senior members of the spiritual
communities they are to govern. Indeed, the largest ISKCON community
in North America, in Alachua, Florida, has recently declared its
intention of electing its own GBC representative to whom the international
GBC may or may not award voting rights.
Yet the basic issue remains: can the 'Hindu' or 'Vedic' guru authentically
function under the authority of a governing body, however constituted?
I will argue that he or she can, to some extent. I base my argument
on a rather broad overview of Vedic civilisation, in the traditional,
not the academic, sense of the term 'Vedic'.
The most influential Vaisnava scriptures, such as the Srimad-Bhagavatam
and the Bhagavad-gita, and foundational texts, such as the
Mahabharata, state that the universe is what I call a 'cosmic
village'. Important people throughout the cosmos know, and know
about, each other, and have regular mutual dealings. Thus, the celestial
gods, the semi-divine Gandharvas and Apsaras, the celestial 'bad
guys' known as Asuras, Daityas or Danavas, the human beings on earth,
the great Naga serpents, etc., are all intimately acquainted with
one another and regularly interact. Within this 'cosmic village',
there is a universally recognised code of behaviour known as dharma.
Of course, the theistic Vaisnavas claim that dharma is the
'law of God', but even the decent nontheists, and at times even
the demonic, recognise the power of dharma and the dangers
of adharma. My point is that the guru, as he appears in ancient
scriptures, functions within and for this cosmic village ruled by
dharma.
It is necessary here to make a distinction between a 'mere' guru
and the acarya. The Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary defines
acarya as 'knowing or teaching the acara or rules;
a spiritual guide or teacher'. In Hindu tradition, one may call
one's spiritual preceptor 'acarya', but the term has another,
larger sense in which it denotes the great teachers who have guided
the destiny of Indian religious civilisation. It is in this sense
that the mighty Sankara is Sankaracarya; that the great Ramanuja
is Ramanujacarya; that Madhva is Madhvacarya; that Vallabha is Vallabhacarya,
etc.
We find a distinction between acarya and guru in Rupa Goswami's
Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, as rendered by Srila Prabhupada.
There, in the sixth chapter, Rupa Goswami lists as one of the 'basic
principles' of bhakti-yoga, 'following in the footsteps of
great acaryas (teachers) under the direction of the spiritual
master'. Thus the 'great acarya' is distinguished from the
'spiritual master' (guru) in the sense that the guru guides the
disciple in the programme or discipline of teaching established
by the great acarya. Hinduism has actually functioned this
way for many centuries.
Indeed, in the Mahabharata, great acaryas occasionally
declare a new dharma, an example being the injunction of
Sukracarya that brahmanas were no longer allowed to drink
liquor (Mahabharata, 1.71.52-5), or that of Svetaketu that
women must be monogamous (Mahabharata, 1.113.15-20).
Even in these two examples, however, adjustments are made to ethical
codes, for even the acarya cannot change the sanatana-dharma
(eternal dharma). Thus the same Sukracarya who declared
the new drinking law lost his status as acarya when, as described
in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Canto 8, Chapter 19, he instructed
his disciple Bali Maharaja not to obey the Supreme Lord, who had
appeared before them as Vamana.
Returning to our cosmic village, we find that even the great acaryas,
what to speak of the 'ordinary' gurus, must obey the law of God.
Even a disciple, as in the case of Bali, may detect a discrepancy
in the guru. A striking confirmation of this principle is found
in a statement by Bhisma to Yudhisthira in the Mahabharata
(12.57.7):
guror apy avaliptasya karyakaryam ajanatah
utpatha-pratipannasya parityago vidhiyate
'One is enjoined to renounce even a guru who is contaminated,
not knowing what is to be done and what is not to be done, and who
has taken to a deviant path.'
The phrase guror api, 'even a guru', surely refers to the
high status traditionally awarded to a spiritual preceptor.
There is a further consideration. Srila Prabhupada taught the traditional
view that one should confirm spiritual teaching through three authorities:
guru, sadhu and sastra - one's own guru, other saintly
persons, and sacred scriptures. Thus the guru functions within a
cultural economy of checks and balances.
Srila Prabhupada institutionalised these checks and balances by
establishing the GBC, and indeed the body of senior Vaisnavas, as
a sadhu-force within ISKCON. It is our practical experience
that individual gurus may, and sometimes do, deviate from ISKCON's
spiritual standards, but the greater body of senior devotees has
been able to keep ISKCON basically on track. Of course, a similar
function is given to the community of the faithful in Sunni Islam
and in various other historical religious traditions.
Finally, I will state what should be obvious, but often is not:
that one may go off on either side of the road. Thus, there is a
real danger for ISKCON, in its zeal to avoid the high-profile fall-downs
of the recent past, to sanitise and restrain the position of guru
to a point where it is no longer recognisable and, indeed, no longer
functions as a real spiritual force for good in the Society.
Last year a desperate father wrote to me explaining that his unmarried
daughter had 'moved in' with a young male devotee who was my initiated
disciple. He asked that I order my disciple to separate from his
daughter. I sadly replied that in today's ISKCON, the guru can do
less harm, but less good as well, and that I did not have the authority
to so order my disciple.
I conclude that the guru in Gaudiya Vaisnava culture is ideally
a soul surrendered to Krsna and is thereby qualified to lead the
community by purely representing the Lord. The guru is also one
with Krsna in an ontological sense, as are all other souls, but
always as the subordinate servant of the Lord. Within the cosmic
village of Bhagavatam culture, the guru, and even the great
acarya, functions within a system of constraints established
by dharma, sastra (scripture) and the examples and
teachings of recognised saints (sadhus). Thus, ISKCON's system
of requiring the guru to abide by, and within, a social reality
governed by the GBC does not intrinsically violate the tradition
in which the Society finds its legitimacy.
Notes
1 ISKCON Communications
Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, December 1999, pp. 43-4.
2 ISKCON is a Gaudiya
Vaisnava society.
3 catur-vidha bhajante
mam janah sukrtino 'rjuna
arto jijnasur artharthi jnani ca bharatarsabha
'O best of the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin
to render devotional service unto Me - the distressed, the desirer
of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge
of the Absolute.'
4 The term mad-bhakta,
'My devotee', occurs in six other places in the Gita: 7.23,
9.34, 11.55, 12.14, 12.16, 18.65.
|
|
