A sacred mission, with human imperfections
We may have some difficulties in reconciling the purity of the founder ācārya, our personal struggles, and the imperfections of the institution he founded. This post is tentative in this direction.
You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.
One point we often fail to realize is the value of Prabhupāda’s contribution to the world. Here I’m not speaking about superficial achievements, and not even about his books, but about the example of someone who embodies devotion to Kṛṣṇa in the highest degree and shows the practical application of this knowledge in his practical actions. Writing books that explain spiritual knowledge in a deep and practical way is already a monumental achievement, but living according to perfect teachings is another thing entirely. Even scholars who are not devotees become amazed by his qualities of honesty, compassion, leadership, etc.
However, we may have some difficulties in reconciling the purity of the founder ācārya, our personal struggles, and the imperfections of the institution he founded, so this post is tentative in this direction.
Being Śrila Prabhupāda Kṛṣṇa’s pure devotee, who has shown such exalted Vaiṣnava qualities, the institution he created must also be perfect, right? Well, unfortunately not. Our institution obviously has many problems and imperfections. Spiritually, a pure devotee is perfect, but this does not mean his material body will be perfect. The body of a pure devotee may become old and diseased or have physical defects. Similarly, although the soul of a spiritual movement (the teachings of the founder) may be perfect, the material body in the form of the material institution may show various material flaws. The institution can be seen thus in two ways: spiritually, as a vehicle created for Kṛṣṇa’s service, and materially, as an institution largely operated by conditioned souls. Understanding this distinction, we can learn to interact with it in ways that are useful and spiritually nourishing.
Our ācāryas, starting with Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Thākura, created institutions to facilitate spiritual association and to attract the general public to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The institution is not the final goal; it is a facility to hear about Kṛṣṇa, serve devotees, distribute books, chant, and gradually become purified. Unless one is a pure devotee, who can simply sit and chant in pure love for Kṛṣṇa wherever he is, association with like-minded devotees is a necessity. One may associate in this or that group, in this or that institution, but association is necessary.
To say “ISKCON is bad” is the same as saying “Americans are bad” or “Indians are bad.” There are many Americans who commit terrible crimes, but there are others who are extremely nice. Same for any other nationality. We can’t use the bad examples to condemn the whole group. One may have bad experiences with a certain leader or in a certain group, while others will have completely opposite experiences in other places.
Our society is not a corporation where leaders have absolute power. It may be so in a few places, but that’s not how it is supposed to be. Some tried to move things in this direction in the 1970s, but Prabhupāda vehemently disagreed. He wanted a decentralized society, in which each temple or group forms a separate legal entity and has separate finances, with the GBCs traveling around, keeping contact with devotees, and supervising spiritual standards and uplifting the members. In other words, our society is meant to be a collective of different groups who are legally, administratively, and financially independent but share common spiritual values.
This model envisioned by Śrīla Prabhupāda allows us to maintain the foundation but at the same time expand, accommodating differences in culture, spiritual standards, and even different philosophical views under the umbrella of the common teachings. All of this is according to the vision of Śrila Prabhupāda, of a multicultural movement that could adapt to different countries and cultures, a place where everyone chants the holy names and accepts the teachings of the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, but where it is up to the members of each group to chalk their own path. Such an apparent division appeared very early in the history of our movement, with devotees in New York and San Francisco, the two first centers of the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement, developing two different, distinct cultures early on, and Śrīla Prabhupāda encouraging both groups.
On the other hand, independence is not meant to create chaos. Each center may be independent, but we should strive to uphold the spiritual standards of purity that Prabhupāda established and encourage others to follow. Nothing is by force in Kṛṣṇa Consciousness, but if we accept a certain goal, we should take seriously the steps that help us progress in the direction of this goal.
The life of the movement depends on voluntary, enthusiastic service to Kṛṣṇa. This is the common foundation that allows us to cooperate despite all differences. Management can nourish this spirit, helping to create vibrant devotional communities in the spirit of inspiring voluntary service to Kṛṣṇa, or may crush devotees through fear, guilt, mechanical pressure, and institutional politics, in the spirit of extracting labor from people. We can see both approaches in play at different places, and we can study the results. When leaders are enthusiastic themselves and fixed in their spiritual practice, we tend to the first side, but when leaders do not have proper sādhana and become absorbed in politics, we tend to the other side.
What to do in cases when we find it too difficult to cooperate with local leaders? The same point about variety on a global level can be applied locally. There is no law stating that each city must have only one center. In fact, many big cities have multiple temples and communities; this is not only acceptable but also desirable. If two groups are different enough to prevent direct cooperation, nothing is preventing them from forming two independent groups. The main point here is to avoid conflict. We don’t need to declare war against each other and try to snatch people from each other's programs. It is always better to focus our energy on trying to reach new people and letting existing devotees stay where they feel inspired to stay. We all chant the same mantra.
Although our movement has so many imperfections, I’m still convinced that despite all our personal and collective faults, this is the movement that best represents the teachings of Prabhupāda. Other movements may be doing better in specific ways or in specific places, but I don’t see any other movement that collectively better represents the ideals given by Śrila Prabhupāda in his books. Therefore, despite the problems and imperfections, I still have high hopes for a great future.
Sometimes, a tree dies, and the trunk starts to rot away and is used as a host for a new tree, which starts to grow from inside the dead tree. Similarly, even if some parts of our movement may root away, fresh sprouts will appear from the corpse, and they will flourish again. As revolutionary as it may seem, a movement is made by its members.
Read also:
This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can also choose a paid subscription to support this work.
You can also receive the updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.