|
John A. Saliba,
S.J.
Part One
NB. The footnotes for this article are linked to a separate
footnote page.
This paper by John Saliba presents a challenge to both the Catholic
Church and to ISKCON. Saliba explores the desire and the ability
of both traditions to engage in fruitful dialogue and examines the
various ways the Catholic Church and ISKCON could meet in dialogue.
While also looking at obstacles to dialogue he concludes that it
is appropriate and timely now for a formal dialogue to begin. He
holds that the current religious scene calls for an examination
of the relationship between the dominant churches and the minority
or new religions. His perspective is informed, well researched,
and comprehensive, and deserves to be met with a favourable response
from ISKCON.
For centuries the Christian West has enjoyed relative isolation
from the great Eastern religious traditions. Over the last few decades
it has become impossible to ignore them. Immigration, travel and
mass communication have made people aware of the irreconcilable
worldviews that different religions propose and of the need to develop
working relationships with people of different faith commitments.
There is a need to construct theologies which explain the presence
and persistence of diverse religions as well as pastoral programs
to deal with the misconceptions and difficulties that arise between
people who adhere to different religious tenets and follow conflicting
ethical norms and lifestyles.
The presence of new religious movements in the West has brought
sharply into focus the problems of religious pluralism and inter-religious
relationships. Buddhists and Hindus have embarked on their own programmes
to disseminate their respective faiths and can no longer be seen
as people who must be converted to Christianity. These traditional
Eastern faiths and many other smaller alternative religious groups
have employed conventional evangelisation techniques to attract
Christians who are not quite committed to their traditional religious
upbringing. Although the new religious movements comprise only a
small percentage of the world population, they should not be dismissed
as unimportant or negligible. David Barrett estimates that about
140 million people belong to all these religious groups combined,
and that most of their adherents live in Asia - with only about
3.5 million in the Western world.1
Since the proliferation of small religious groups has increased
over the last few decades, the establishment of good relations with
the new religions merits the attention of all those concerned with
religious conflicts.
This essay explores the issue of how the Christian West should
relate to the new religious movements with reference to one specific
instance, namely the relationship between the Catholic Church and
the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON).2 It will, first of all, focus on
ISKCON's Hindu background, and examine its openness and willingness
to engage in the kind of dialogue that is being carried out between
the world religions. Second, the Roman Catholic reactions to Hinduism
will be summarised, stressing particularly the developments that
have taken place since Vatican Council II. To what extent and degree
these reactions apply to ISKCON will be discussed. Third, one of
the major obstacles in the dialogue between the Catholic Church
and ISKCON-namely the evangelical and missionary goals of both religious
groups-will be examined. Finally, several possible ways in which
contact between the Catholic Church and ISKCON can be established
and maintained will be briefly outlined. It is the position of this
paper that, in spite of several difficulties, some form of dialogue
between these two religious traditions is both possible and desirable.
Hindu and ISKCON Attitudes to Other Religions and to Dialogue
The story of the advent of the Hare Krishna movement in the
West has been retold many times. Its evangelising techniques have
also been the subject of heated debates and accusations.3
What is often forgotten, particularly in the public forum, is its
thoroughly Hindu background as a continuation of the Hindu devotion
towards Krishna. ISKCON must be understood in the context of the
Hindu religious tradition. Its mission to the West has to be seen
not as a great novelty, but as an extension of the nineteenth-century
Hindu renaissance that brought Hindu missionaries to Western shores.4
Stillson Judah has observed that the Vaishnava movement begun
by Caitanya (1486-1534?) is "presently represented most faithfully
by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and by the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness."5
The main religious text, the Bhagavad-gita, on which the Hare Krishna
movement bases its theology, forms part of the traditional Hindu
scriptures.6
Although "many Indian Brahmans do not recognise its authenticity
because ISKCON devotees tend to be 'foreign'"7 one cannot understand ISKCON's
worldview without some knowledge of Hindu philosophy and theology.
Its attitudes to other religions and its readiness for participation
in the current encounter between world religions must be seen in
the framework of the Hindu theology of religions.
Hindu Theology of Religions
It has often been remarked that Hindu tolerance of other religions
is compatible with religious dialogue. This might well be the case,
but the Hindu theology of religions is rather complex and, like
any other theology of religions, is not immune to difficulties.8
In an interesting and provocative article, K. R. Sundararajan9
examined the Hindu approach to religious dialogue particularly from
the Brahmanical tradition. He maintains that Hinduism has tended
to deal with internal diversity by adopting an attitude of tolerance,
while it coped with non-Hindu religious groups by fostering isolation
and indifference. He distinguishes two models of dialogue. The first,
"the closed-border model", implies that each individual should be
interested solely in the religion of one's birth and make no effort
to convert others. At best, this model would restrict any attempts
to evangelise others and maintain a relationship of intellectual
curiosity with other religious groups. At its worst, the model would
downgrade, if not deny, the validity of other religions and relegate
them to imperfect and/or temporary expressions of genuine religiousness.
The second model, "the border-crossing" one, involves a process
of indigenisation, and represents the spirit of both compromise
and accommodation. It aims at appropriating elements from other
religious traditions. Such a model has the disadvantage of minimising
or removing the distinctiveness of other religions and of reinterpreting
them to fit into Hindu theology. Sundararajan argues that neither
of the two models can by themselves provide a basis for a meaningful
dialogue, but can, if integrated, lay the groundwork for a such
a relationship. The first model stresses rootedness in one's tradition;
the second, openness to others and willingness to expand the dimension
of one's faith. That many Hindus have succeeded in combining these
two models is evident from their participation in dialogue with
the Christian Church. 10
These two models are hardly unique to Hinduism. They may be found
in other religions as well as in ISKCON.
ISKCON Theology of Religions
The issue of whether ISKCON is ready for dialogue was discussed
explicitly in the early 1980s by J. Frank Kenny who concluded that
this new religious movement is not tolerant of other religions.11
Kenny argued that ISKCON's theology is exclusive, and fails to recognise
the validity and effectiveness of other beliefs and practices unless
they could be fitted into ISKCON's own theology. In other words,
ISKCON's intentions of relating to other faiths are motivated solely
by the desire to convert others to Krishna Consciousness, and its
members do not relate to members of other faith with the openness
that dialogue demands. Consequently, ISKCON cannot engage in meaningful
dialogue.
Almost a decade later Kenny took up the same point and asked whether
ISKCON is ready to abandon its exclusive views and recognise that
other religions can provide an encounter with the sacred.12
He reaffirms his previous conclusion that ISKCON is intolerant of
other religions, but notices the recent efforts by some ISKCON members
to adopt a much more positive approach to other religions. He mentions
four developments indicative of a change in ISKCON: (1) the fact
that ISKCON, which had previously rejected the "Hindu" label, is
now recognising itself as a Hindu religion; (2) the acknowledgment
that Christianity is a religion in its own right and not just an
imperfect form of Krishna consciousness; (3) the adoption of academic
studies to understand and interpret Krishna consciousness; and (4)
the recognition that the comparative method can be employed to delineate
similarities between Hinduism and Christianity. 13
In spite of these hopeful signs, however, Kenny rules out the possibility
of any official dialogue with ISKCON as an institution. He adds
that the prospects for dialogue are further hindered by the facts
that (1) it is not easy to determine who speaks for ISKCON, and
(2) it is doubtful whether ISKCON has any official beliefs.The same
issue has been discussed at some length by Steven Gelberg, a former
member of ISKCON, who agrees with Kenny that ISKCON has been too
exclusive. He writes:
ISKCON's theological exclusivism has also impeded a true planting
of Krishna Consciousness in the West. Viewing itself as an island
in a sea of illusion, ISKCON has rarely sought intellectual or
theological common ground with its host society. Religions and
philosophies not rooted in the "Vedic" tradition have tended to
be dismissed out of hand.14
But Gelberg disagrees with Kenny and thinks that the "insistent
and unthinking scriptural literalism with which many devotees preach
Krishna consciousness does little justice to the richness and subtlety
of Vaishnava texts and commentaries".15
Elsewhere he points out that its founder, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada,
consistently affirmed the legitimacy of Christianity as an authentic
religious path that leads devotees to God consciousness.16
Gelberg also states that Prabhupada held that Christianity was
ontologically inferior to Krishna Consciousness and criticised Christians
for compromising their religious ideals with mundane things and
for abandoning the path laid out in the Bible, especially by their
eating of animal flesh. Prabhupäda's insistence on the ethical principle
of abstaining from killing animals for food has been the major obstacle
to dialogue.17
Gelberg, however, expresses hope that the Western devotees of ISKCON
will eventually examine their scriptures "for those theological
principles that would allow those [Christian] forms of spirituality
to exist beyond the conceptual and linguistic boundaries of their
own chosen tradition."18
The most explicit effort to initiate a dialogue between the Hare
Krishna movement and the Catholic Church was initiated in the mid-1980s
by Gelberg [then known under his Hare Krishna name of Subhananda
das].19 Though
not an official statement by any means, his essay is an indication
that some ISKCON members have been reconsidering their relationship
with other religions for over a decade.
Gelberg begins by contradicting Kenny and stating that the Hare
Kåñëa movement is quite open to dialogue. He is convinced of this
because the movement is "a significant representative of mainline
Hindu tradition"20
and, therefore, could participate in the Catholic Church's dialogue
with the world's religions. He then examines the Catholic theology
of non-Christian religions, of Hinduism in general, and of the Hindu
devotional traditions. Next he turns to the anti-cult criticisms
of ISKCON and maintains that they could easily be levelled against
Christian monasticism. He writes:
In our dominantly secular and materialistic society, it is easy
to forget that Christianity has had a long and rich tradition
of monasticism which has demanded from its practitioners high
levels of commitment, necessitating radical rejection of the world;
the weakening of ties with one's biological family; entrance into
a highly insular, cloistered community; renunciation of personal
possessions; obedience to a religious superior and to a Rule;
strict asceticism and self-mortification; the adoption of unusual
monastic dress; shaving of the head; celibacy; a change of diet;
a rigorous regimen of prayer and meditation; and physical labour.21
In Gelberg's thought, then, monasticism is a form of religious
commitment common to the traditions of both the Catholic Church
and ISKCON, and could provide the foundation for mutual understanding
and cooperation.22
He develops both a Roman Catholic and an ISKCON rationale for dialogue.
For Catholics, dialogue with ISKCON, has several advantages: (1)
it would make significant contribution to the ongoing Catholic-Hindu
dialogue; (2) it would be a good starting point for the Catholic-Hindu
dialogue because ISKCON is theologically closer to the Church than
any other form of Hinduism; and (3) it would contribute to the spiritual
and ecclesial renewal of the Catholic Church itself.23 For members of ISKCON, dialogue
with the Catholic Church would be beneficial for (1) it would challenge
Hare Krishna devotees to re-examine their attitude towards religious
pluralism; (2) it would be a learning process for ISKCON members
who must deal with similar problems which the church faced throughout
its history; (3) it would contribute to a constructive criticism
of ISKCON; and (4) it would help ISKCON to give importance to the
interior and contemplative aspects of the spiritual life. 24
One of the practical benefits ISKCON might attain through dialogue,
but somewhat downplayed by Gelberg, is that through official dialogue
ISKCON might gain respectability. One might also add that dialogue
could also enable both ex-Catholic members of ISKCON and their distraught
parents to deal more successfully with interfamilial frictions brought
about by membership in this religious movement.
It would seem that Gelberg's position has ceased to be the viewpoint
of a handful of devotees and has become a movement within ISKCON
itself. Recent statements by some ISKCON members suggest that Prabhupada's
theology of religions was more ecumenical. In a recent essay examining
ISKCON's theology of religion, Ravindra Svarupa das argues that
Prabhupada's evaluation of religions was neither condemnatory nor
sectarian. Rather, ISKCON's founder maintained that bhakti, or devotion,
is the highest form of religious expression, and that it may be
practised within other religious traditions.25
A similar position has been advanced by Ranchor das who adds that
Prabhupada said that "he had not come to convert Christians into
Hindus, but to encourage them to follow their own religion properly."26
Ranchor däsa concedes that "ISKCON has in many circles gained a
reputation for being a type of fundamentalist Hinduism, always on
the lookout for converts and self-advancement, whose members are
too busy putting their own point of view to hear what others have
to say."27 This,
he insists, is not the theology of religions espoused by ISKCON's
founder. Such a position, endorsed by other ISKCON members,28
eschews the forceful evangelisation tactics and proselytisation
efforts that are so frequently linked with new religious movements
and rightly held to be incompatible with the nature of religious
dialogue.
More recently, some members of ISKCON have shown interest in initiating
a formal dialogue with the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Inter-religious
Dialogue. While not all ISKCON members might be happy with this
turn of events, unanimity of members is hardly a requisite for a
productive dialogue. Many conservative Catholics object strongly
to, or are highly suspicious of, ecumenical exchanges between the
Catholic Church and other religious groups, be they Christian or
not. Nor are the schisms within ISKCON itself an insuperable barrier
to inter-religious dialogue.
Other signs of ISKCON's readiness for dialogue are noticeable if
one looks at internal developments within the movement itself. While
in the late 1970s and 1980s the movement was beset with controversy
brought about by attacks from outside, and schisms and scandals
from within, the 1990s have seen it acquire some stability. There
has been a maturation within ISKCON, a maturation seen especially
in its members' ability to enact substantial reforms in their organisation,29
to reflect critically and constructively on their own theology,
commitment, and behaviour,30
and to listen to assessments of their practices by outsiders.31
Besides, there are indications that an ecumenical movement is emerging
within its ranks and that efforts to heal the differences between
the various internal factions are well under way. Moreover, the
Governing Body Commission, which appears to have assumed the role
of ISKCON's official organ of religious authority, is considering
a draft on ISKCON's relations with people of other faiths, a draft
which contains all the ingredients for a fruitful dialogue.32 One might also add that ISKCON
has never engaged in targeting the Catholic Church as the archenemy
of religion, as some Christian writers and organisations have done.33
Part Two
|
