Part Three

Part One   Part Two

XIII.

The foregoing discussion shows that Prabhupada admitted the existence of an entity known as Hinduism, though he takes the orthodox position of eschewing the non-traditional term 'Hindu', insisting on sanatana-dharma as the correct nomenclature. Ironically, such traditionality makes him much more 'Hindu' (if we give the term the meaning of adhering to a set of classical Sanskrit texts) than his detractors.[26]

A word is a tool which we use or reject for various reasons. It is insufficient to say that Prabhupada was making a semantic point that Hindu is an incorrect term. Languages are living organisms which undergo change and any attempt to dictate usage and purify language of foreign terms is generally a losing battle. Sanskritisation of modern Indian vernaculars has only been partially successful-the elites continue to use English words even where Sanskritised equivalents exist or have been created. Many of these borrowed words have filtered into the everyday vocabulary of even illiterate labourers and cannot be found in the dictionaries, though their usage is entrenched. For example one only has to think of the ubiquitous saide (from English 'side') of the Nabadwip rikshaw-wallah. This is consistent with Sanskrit hermeneutics, where the accepted usage of word has predominance over its etymology (rudhi-yogarthayo rudhih).

There is certainly no confusion for the outsider. He takes the Krsna consciousness movement at face value, concluding that many of the practices of its members are similar to those that consider themselves Hindu. This might be called hamsa-nyaya: 'If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck'. This of course assumes that there is intuitively such an entity as Hinduism, beyond the ethnic or geographical sense of its original application. Reverence for the Veda should be sufficient to establish this, but there is so much more of the common Hindu heritage in Krsna consciousness that it seems almost foolhardy for Prabhupada to attempt to divorce himself from it. Whether it be kirtan, bhajan, deity worship, prasada, fire sacrifice, varnasrama, the Vedas, or the Bhagavad-gita, the concepts are all familiar to a Hindu of any tradition, who recognises them as having religious significance. Indeed, irrespective of Prabhupada's claim that Krsna is not a Hindu god but God Himself, to the outsider, Krsna will always be a Hindu god. Inasmuch as all the great religious traditions are essentially symbolic languages, this common heritage cannot be dismissed as insignificant. Nor should the ethnic aspects of Hinduism be entirely dismissed. Does not Prabhupada betray his Hinduness when he quotes Krsnadasa Kaviraja: bharata bhumite haila manunya janma jar, janma sarthak kari' karo para-upakar? 'Anyone who takes birth in India should make his life perfect and help others by distributing the fruits of love given by Caitanya Mahaprabhu'. Or when he says that India is the place of Krsna's birth and therefore special? After all, Savarkar says that a Hindu is anyone who 'feels attachment to the land that extends from Sindhu to Sindhu as the land of his forefathers-as his fatherland'.[27]

But a debate over terms is never what it seems at face value. It would seem that Prabhupada is ready to concede that any battle for the term 'Hindu' (if it were worth fighting) has been lost to the neo-Hindus, ethnic nationalists and religious chauvinists. For sanatana-dharma, on the other hand, the battle can still be won. Prabhupada recognises that the term 'Hindu' resonates with ethnicity and he cannot accept it as valid from his vantage point as a transcendentalist.

We are dealing then with a problem of ethnic and universal aspects of the word 'Hindu'. Prabhupada wanted to distance himself from the geographical or national limitations of the word to stress the universal essence of sanatana-dharma in order to attract everyone in the world to his movement. But Prabhupada has another, intermediate understanding of Hinduism as varnasrama-dharma, which though still 'on the bodily platform' is the most perfect socio-religious system and therefore an integral part of sanatana-dharma. Prabhupada's position is well-summarised by one of Prabhupada's leading disciples:

Hinduism is a tradition which seeks to transcend itself, and must do so, to remain faithful to the Vedas, broadly understood. This perfection is embodied in Srila Prabhupada. Hinduism includes 'mundane' karma-kanda and an external varnasrama system which have as a final goal the complete transcendence of such external and mundane procedures. Thus the perfection of Hinduism is to realise that one is not a Hindu or any other worldly designation. The Caitanya-caritamrta and Prabhupada's own teachings exemplify this simultaneous identification with and transcendence of Hinduism.[28]

Such an approach was not original to Prabhupada. Indeed, previous Hindu missionaries blazed the trail before him, presenting their understanding of the universal religious principle beyond bodily designations. They also saw Hinduism as a tradition which transcended itself. Even Savarkar states that 'a Hindu is most intensely so when he ceases to be Hindu'.[29] In other words, when he transcends his own Hinduism. Prabhupada's point of departure was the same as theirs: 'we are not this body'. Prabhupada's discourse on transcending religious or mundane designation echoes that of Vivekananda Swami, that it is unconstructive for an individual's spiritual progress to excessively identify with one's external labelling: 'I am a Hindu. I am sitting in my own little well and thinking that the whole world is my little well. The Christian sits in his little well and thinks the whole world is his well. The Muhammadan sits in his little well and thinks that this is the whole world.' [30]

Another element of Vivekananda's discourse, that all humans possess the same religious instinct, the same urge to spiritual perfection, to return to the same unique source, is also shared. 'As the different streams having their sources in different places all mingle their water in the sea, so O Lord, the different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to thee.'[31]

It is at this point, however, that Prabhupada diverges from his predecessors, for he defines the universal religious principle in terms of love of a personal God. With this message, Prabhupada is in harmony with a theological debate which goes back over a thousand years of Hindu history, though this message was barely being heard outside of India, as advaita-vada was accepted as normative for modern Hinduism. Prabhupada was unique in his success in bringing this message to those outside of the Indian sub-continent.

Vivekananda introduced Hinduism to the western world by saying that all paths lead to God. In the end, however, he was arguing for a hierarchy of religious understanding that placed his monistic or advaitin understanding at the pinnacle of spiritual advancement. Prabhupada followed the same route to argue that his anthropomorphic theism was the ultimate object of all religions, realised imperfectly in all but the 'postgraduate course' of Krsna consciousness. Prabhupada consistently rejected the understanding that the symbolic language of Krsnaism is temporally conditioned. It is not just another '-ism' (770402RC.BOM). He claimed that Krsna consciousness cannot be sectarian because it takes Krsna as a whole, without trying to deprive Him of attributes true to Him as the complete whole.

Though for Prabhupada this is the ultimate end of sanatana-dharma, neo-Hinduism itself does not recognise it. It wishes to place worship of Krsna on an equal footing with the worship of Devi or Siva or other gods as just another aspect of an ultimately formless Being or truth (Brahman). Thus Prabhupada is suspicious of the Hindus, taking an attitude not unlike that of the other religious minorities in India who resisted Radhakrsnan's report on university education for fear that their religions would be taught in a way 'determined by the doctrinal assumptions of neo-Hinduism'.[ 32]

This rejection of Hindu 'maya-vada' is so strong in Prabhupada and his tradition that he can even say that Christianity and Islam are Vaisnava in spirit because of their common theism. He is ready to acknowledge that Christians, as theists, 'have some idea' and even talks about creating a common front with theists everywhere against atheism which he believes, as we have seen, to begin with the impersonal conception of God.[33]

And Krsna consciousness is self-consciously everything that the neo-Hindus resist (or have 'transcended') in their own heritage: idol-worship, anthropomorphism, mythology run rampant. In short, with the exception of the dynamic caste system, it is everything that they would have seen as particular and not universal about Hinduism!

In view of this thoroughgoing rejection of 'normative' Hinduism, how can we justify Prabhupada's occasional profession of Hindu identity in a seemingly cynical, utilitarian fashion? One either is or is not a Hindu. One cannot both be, and not be, according to one's convenience. In fact, however, this may not be the case. Is it possible that Prabhupada could simultaneously, inconceivably possess both identities? R.C. Zaehner considers it to be a characteristic of Hinduism that it resists the 'either/or' approach, describing it as essentially a religion of 'both/and'[34] Arvind Sharma similarly states that it seems to be a characteristic of Hinduism that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts, 'In a Hindu version of the Christian view that Jesus was fully man and fully God, one could claim that one is both an Advaitin (or a Visistadvaitin or a Dvaitin) and a Hindu at the same time or a Hindu as well as a Vaisnava, a Sakta or a Saiva at the same time.'[35]

This seems to be what Prabhupada is saying in one lecture (681110SB.LA) in which he quotes Caitanya Mahaprabhu's verse:

naha vipro na ca nara-patir napi vaisyo na sudro
 nahaà varni na ca grha-patir no vanastho yatir va
kintu prodyan-nikhila-paramananda-purnamrtabdher
 gopi-bhartuù pada-kamalayor dasa-dasanudasaù

'I am not a brahmana, I am not a ksatriya, I am not a vaisya or a Sudra. Nor am I a brahmacari, a householder, a vanaprastha or a sannyasi. I identify Myself only as the servant of the servant of the servant of the lotus feet of Lord Sri Krsna, the maintainer of the gopis. He is like an ocean of nectar, and He is the cause of universal transcendental bliss. He is always existing with brilliance.' (CC Madhya 13.80)

Caitanya Mahaprabhu, situated at the very pinnacle of the Hindu varnaSrama-dharma as a brahmana and sannyasi, stated that his identity as a servant of Krsna transcended all these bodily identifications. And yet, despite His exemplary transcendence of Hinduism, Caitanya Mahaprabhu's 'civil disobedience movement' against the Kazi's repression of sankirtan was identified as a Hindu action. Thus referring to precedents from Mahaprabhu's own life, Hrdayananda dasa Goswami comments:

It is said that we invoke Hinduism in time of danger, but the Caitanya-caritamrta shows that this is precisely what 'Hindus' have always done. Thus the Saivas, Vaisnavas, etc, who clearly opposed each other theologically, were all labelled 'Hindus' by the sometimes hostile Muslim society, and for practical purposes, even in Lord Caitanya's movement, operated under this rubric.[36]

In fact, there is no real conflict, hypocrisy or double standard, for Prabhupada has never rejected sanatana-dharma. Those who for convenience share the rubric 'Hindu' have a common ideal of sanatana-dharma, even if they can not agree on what it means.

XIV.

So, where does this leave the Krsna consciousness movement? The situation has changed a great deal since the end of Prabhupada's personal leadership in 1977. In Western Europe and North America, the movement's influence has waned amongst those of European origin. At the same time, the Indian Diaspora in the West has gained numbers in ISKCON's membership. Furthermore, the Society has become more self-confident and less defensive about its Hinduness-in no small part due to the success of ISKCON and other transplanted Hindu movements in these regions. Though there is a continuing unease in ISKCON's relationship with the Hindu diaspora-orthodoxy and ethnicity are continually an issue, either spoken or unspoken in ISKCON communities-the Society remains more and more dependent on the Indian community's financial support. By vociferously denying its Hinduness, ISKCON risks alienating its principal constituency. In view of the above discussion, freedom from the designation Hindu seems a small gain for the costs of such an alienation. The Society will certainly find it easier to transmit its understanding from a point of common understanding with the Indian community by becoming more inclusive, rather than by taking an exclusive or conflicting approach.

In India, the situation is not so dissimilar to the one described above. The movement is becoming more and more dependent on its Indian membership. The problem here is that if Krsna consciousness is to operate under the rubric of 'Hindu', it must be under its own terms. In view of its international character, it cannot allow itself to become implicated in narrow ethnic understanding of Hinduism. There is always the possibility, however, in the Indian political atmosphere, that the Krsna consciousness movement will favour the possible advantages which would accrue to it if there were a government favourable to its missionary goals.

It is hard to see how Prabhupada's idea of a 'Vedic secular state' on varnaSrama lines would be any more liberated from problems than those which would accrue from any other state interference in religion. He advised government involvement in the religious practice of all religious denominations, but on his terms, from his perspective. A Christian would surely not like to be told that because the Bible says, 'Thou shalt not kill', he is henceforth forbidden to eat meat. I believe, however, that Prabhupada was more practical than this-he recognised that neither religion nor good manners can be imposed from above: 'There is only one religion in the world to be followed by one and all and that is the Bhagavata-dharma, or the religion which teaches one to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead and no one else' (SB 1.2.27). Thus this ideal may be held by the devotees of Krsna, they must choose between the long tradition of liberty and tolerance of disparate belief in Hinduism, and the zealous missionary spirit which puts them in the midst of other competitive missionary religions.

Religion, like language, is arguably universal, comparable to Chomsky's concept of innate language. But the argument that language is innate cannot justify the claim that any one existing language, be it English or Sanskrit, is the original archetype of which all other languages are derivatives or reflections. It is similarly impossible to prove, though one may believe, that any one religious system more accurately reflects the innate religious faculty. In the modern era, whatever the deeply held beliefs of any religious community, it is necessary to adapt to the pluralistic character of world society. This is a contract of tolerance, the like of which has existed in India since ancient times. Indeed, religious tolerance is considered to be a preeminent characteristic of the Hindu family of religions, a certain 'live and let live' in terms of religious ideology. Christians and Muslims are thought by Hindus to break that engagement due to their exclusivism. Does Vaisnavism similarly want to break that contract with the rest of Hinduism in the name of its particular revelation? Christianity and Islam are struggling with the question of relativism and revelation which comes out of engagement with a pluralistic world. Perhaps, Vaisnavism's participation in the 'united front for theism' will depend greatly on how far it can develop the liberal spirit
that is compatible with such ecumenism.

Footnotes

[1] The research for this paper has been based almost entirely on the Folio database 'The Complete Works of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada' (n.d.) and the Folio database 'The pre-1965 works of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada', Version 1.0, March 1995. References to printed books are coded as follows: BG = Bhagavad-gita, CC = Caitanya-caritamrta, JSD = Journey of Self Discovery, KB = Krsna Book, NOD = Nectar of Devotion, SB = Srimad Bhagavatam, SSR = The Science of Self-realization. These are followed by either a page reference or a verse reference. The letter P following verse numbers indicates Prabhupada's purport to the verse in question. Personal letters are coded according to the date and a three-letter extension designating the recipient. Room conversations (RC, R2, R3, etc.), lectures (LE), interviews (IV), morning walks (MW), meetings (ME) are indicated with the date and a three-letter extension indicating the place. Thus, 770528ME.VRN indicates a meeting in Vrndavana on 28, May 1977; 660302BG.NY indicates a Bhagavad-gita class given in New York on 2, March 1966. Some quotations have been slightly edited for clarity. The study was based on a search through the more than two thousand occurrences of the word 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism'. Thus, these words can be found in nearly all the citations found in this document, even though the arguments given in them may have been presented in a more coherent fashion elsewhere in the Folio corpus. Lilamrta refers to the six-volume biography of Srila Prabhupada, Srila Prabhupada Lilamrta, Los Angeles, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1980-4.

[2] Prabhupada recognised that both 'India' and 'Hindu' have the same origins, though he seems to think that the words originated with the Muslims. In fact, the original version of the word (Hind'ush) is first found in two monuments inscriptions of Darius in Iran, which date from 486 B. C. See Fr. Spiegel. Die altpersische Keilinschriften, im Grundtext mit Ubersetzung, Grammatik und Glossar, 2te Auflage, Leipzig, 1, 1881, Lines 17-18. Half a century later Herodotus introduced it into Greek (History iii, 98). The separation of 'Indian' from 'Hindu' is still a fairly recent development in European languages. The earliest use of the word in Indian sources is in the Sarngadhara-paddhati, from the thirteenth century, where one verse says that the Hindus fled to the Vindhya Mountains to escape the Muslims. The words hindu and hinduyani are found in the Caitanya-caritamrta (Adi 17) when the Kazi takes notice of sankirtana as a Hindu religious activity. The Kazi is quoted by Kaviraja as saying to Mahaprabhu, 'You are the great god of the Hindus, Narayana' (Adi 17.215). See also, Joseph O'Connell, 'The Word "Hindu" in Gaudiya Vaisnava Texts', Journal of the American Oriental Society, 93.3, (1973), pp. 340-4.

[3] Rai Bahadur Srisa Candra Vidyarnava. A Catechism of Hindu dharma. Allahabad, The Panini Office, 1919 (first published 1899). Sacred Books of the Hindus, 3.

[4] Chidambara Kulkarni, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1971. p.4.

[5] I found one incidence JSD 2.2, where it is equated with sanatana-dharma.

[6] See, Das, Rahul Peter, ''Vedic' in the Terminology of Prabhupada and his followers,' Journal of Vaishnava Studies, 6.2, (1998), pp. 141-59. Earlier published in ISKCON Communications Journal, 4.2, (1996), pp. 23-38.

[7] In fact, Prabhupada gives precedence to three works. 'One must be able to explain these three books: Vedanta philosophy, Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. Then he can be accepted as acarya' (661226CC.NY).

[8] Prabhupada held that at the end of his life Sankara accepted Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, even though his followers do not necessarily recognise the fact (SB 4.24.18).

[9] Graham M. Schweig, 'Universal and confidential love of God: Two essential themes in Prabhupada's theology of bhakti.' Journal of Vaisnava Studies, 6.2, (1998), pp. 95.

[10] Compare: 'The indigenous names by which Hinduism is known are sanatana-dharma and vaidika-dharma. Sanatana-dharma means eternal religion and is expressive of the truth that religion as such knows no age. It is coeval with life. It is the food of the spirit in man.' Mahadevan, T. M. P., Outlines of Hinduism, Bombay: Chetana, 1971, p. 13.

[11] sa vai pumsam paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhoksaje.

[12] A conversation Prabhupada had with his disciple Syamasundara dasa about the philosopher Bergson.

[13] It appears in CC Antya 3.147, where he translates it as 'the cult of Vaisnavism' and in KB 89, 'Therefore the term dharma applies only to Vaisnava-dharma or bhagavata-dharma'. Elsewhere Prabhupada says that Islam and Christianity are lower forms of Vaisnava-dharma.

[14] Said of Islam and Christianity in a conversation with the Canadian ambassador to Iran. On another occasion, Prabhupada said both of Christianity and Islam that they were Vaisnavism (740217MW.BOM).

[15] 740312MW.VRN, 740314MW.VRN, 750420RC.VRN, 750424SB.VRN, 750620AR.LA, 750625SB.LA, 750424SB.VRN, etc.

[16] Prabhupada often spoke out against democracy, which he considered to be close to mob rule since the general populace could not be trusted to make decisions in their spiritual interest. He called it 'rogues and thieves electing rogues and thieves' (SB 6.2.3P). Also see SB 1.10.3P, 4.13.19-20P, 4.20.15P.

[17] The Bhagavata adopts many ancient authorities to speak for the Vaisnava doctrine, not only traditional Puranic authorities, Vyasa, Suta, Suka, etc., Maitreya, the characters of the Mahabharata, the gods Brahma, but also Kapila, Buddha, the Jain Rsabhadeva, etc.

[18] Prabhupada rejected outright Gandhi's solution for the untouchable problem, decrying it as merely rubber-stamping them as harijanas without any true character reform by which they would become true 'people of God' as the word harijana indicates (661223CC.NY; 770410R2.BOM).

[19] Interestingly, however, while discussing the education of sudras in his varnasrama system, Prabhupada approves of the idea of limiting the education of lower castes.

In India the caste system was very good. From the very beginning the children would learn the technology of the father. Just like the potter's children. The potter's children would also make a small bird, a small fruit, or small playing utensils-small glasses or plates-which would then be sold. They would be purchased by other children. In this way, the whole family used to earn something. Nowadays they're sent to school, wasting time, and then unemployment and idle brain. What is the use of sending a potter's son to school? (770714RC.VRN)

[20] (72-02-04.VAI) Letter to Vaikunthanatha. This comment was inspired by devotees taking over an empty Hindu temple in South Africa. Prabhupada was also prompted to say on at least one occasion that Christianity was dead (730515MW.LA).

[21] This is a rival school of thought to the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition that holds that the highest form of realisation is a formless God.

[22] Even though in his books, Prabhupada frequently translates the word nastika by the English 'atheist', he defines it as someone who does not believe in the Vedas. In his conversations, however, an atheist is often anyone who does not accept Krsna as God. Nastika is found in CC Madhya 5.87 to mean one not believing in isvara, and in CC Madhya 6.186. Pasandi Sankaracarya is said to have written an atheistic philosophy (CC Madhya 6.180).

[23] Also 76-09-18.GAU. 760802R3.PAR.

[24] In a conversation with the Indian ambassador to Sweden. Interestingly, Prabhupada's example indicates that he felt the government should impose vegetarianism on Christians in accordance with their commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill.'

[25] Prabhupada did not take absolute shelter of Hindu activists on this occasion. When further troubles arose in connection with obtaining permission to build on Hare Krsna Land, Prabhupada refused to take the political route through the Jan Sangh, but saw it as an opportunity for vigorous preaching (Lilamrta 5, 201).

[26] Advaita Prabhu dasa, VAST discussions. I have made liberal use of ideas and comments which were made on the VAST (Vaisnava Advanced Studies) conference, an Internet discussion group, in October 1998. I have not given the names of these devotees here, but have summarised their ideas.

[27] 'Essentials of Hindutva' in Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya, Hindu Rastra Darshan, vol. 6, p.64. Poona, Maharastra Prantik Hindusabha, 1964. Cited in Klaus K. Klostermaier, A Survey of Hinduism, Albany: SUNY Press, 1989, p. 33.

[28] Hrdayananda dasa Goswami. VAST discussions.

[29] Theodore de Bary, W., (ed.) Sources of Indian Tradition. New York and London: Columbia University Press, vol. 2, 1958, p. 335.

[30] The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. I, 17th edition, Calcutta: Adwaita Ashram, 1986, p. 5.

[31] Ibid, p. 4.

[32] Smith, Donald E., India as a Secular State, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963. 'There is a real danger that the "no-preference" doctrine may be used to justify state promotion of a syncretic "Universal Religion of Man" which is nevertheless based on Hindu assumptions. This tendency was clearly revealed in the Radhakrishnan report on university education.' Prabhupada's feelings about S. Radhakrishnan have already been revealed earlier in this work. By 'Hindu assumptions' we understand, evidently, 'advaitic Hindu assumptions'.

[33] 'The aim of ISKCON is not to found a new religious sect, but to invoke the living entity's dormant love of God, and thus provide the human society of all faiths with a common platform of clear theistic knowledge and practice. Members of ISKCON may retain their own respective religious faiths, as ISKCON is meant to establish a clear, practical common formulation of the common ideal of all theists, and to defeat the unnecessary dogmatic wranglings that now divide and invalidate the theistic camp. This common ideal of theism is to develop love of God' (68-08-24ROL). 'The conflict is not between East and West; the conflict is between the atheists and the theists. We are preaching Krsna consciousness, not that we are trying to replace something by Indian method to Christian method or Jewish method' (680924IVNEA).

[34] The Bhagavad-gita. London: Oxford University Press, 1969, p. 187.

[35] Hinduism for our Times, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 78.

[36] Hrdayananda dasa Goswami, posting on VAST, October, 1998.

Part One   Part Two

Back to Vol. 6, No. 2 Contents

Back to Top