Discussing an important article of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura in which he criticizes organized religion, comparing it to Kamsa in his efforts to bring people away from Krsna.
Krishna is the only shelter of the devotee; no institution is necessary and no institution can perform that role. It’s not organisation and money that allows the propagation of bhakti, it’s bhakti. The idea there is some genuine “institution” is the very attitude Bhaktisiddanta warns against in his article.
It was Bhaktivedanta Praphupada who was responsible for the expansion of Krishna consciousness. When he left the Iskcon institution fell apart, engaging in the most degraded activities imaginable. The Gaudiya math suffered the same fate.
Iskcon still harbours this institutional mentality, there’s no way to avoid it, the survival of the institution depends on it.
Krishna consciousness resides in the heart of the devotee and it’s only the devotee in the form of Sri Guru that can distribute it or give it to others. Bhakti is a living thing, it comes from bhakti, no external arrangement in the material world can produce it. It descends by grace.
The ideal is when two things can be combined, pure devotees propagating real bhakti, supported by a working institution. Unfortunately, this is rare nowadays.
I don’t think that is the ideal, it’s the ideal corrupted by the institutional mode of thinking. It equates success with some external material criteria, things like numbers of members, books distributed etc.
This is something explained theologically, Sri Guru is an autocrat, not voted in by democracy or appointed by a committee. That is the antithesis of Sri Guru.
But for the institution, the only option available for their administration is to appoint people based on external criteria like the number of rounds chanted, adherence to the regulative principles etc. You can never reconcile these things. It’s unlikely you’d even be able to openly acknowledge it within the institution.
I’ve encountered so many Iskcon devotees who equate Sri Guru with Iskcon, as if Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada lives on in his institution. This is a dangerous misconception.
What they implemented is different from what is discussed in the article. Their idea was to have pure vaishnavas working in an organized way, not just another mundane religion.
I don’t think that is what they established. An institution is only an administrative arrangement to facilitate acting in the world. Constructing buildings, printing books, arranging festivals etc, all these things are part of the gurus preaching mission and they need some kind of organisation to achieve those things. But their goal was to create devotees, not buildings.
OK, How do you suggest one should organize one's preaching activity in today's ISKCON world? If one does the preaching service on the platform of ISKCON there will always be a risk of burning hands by pseudo-spiritualists. Fighting the established system is way beyond one's reach and not possible.
I think the focus on preaching is already an ideal corrupted by the institutional mentality. The goal has become how to give bhakti to someone else rather than how to engage in bhakti ourselves. And with that change in goal, success can be quantified, we can count how many books or plates of prasadam we distribute.
You can only give something you already have. Sri Guru is the “instrument” of grace, it flows through him. So, our focus should always be, how do I become an instrument of grace? How can I embody divine love? Which is to say, how can I please God?
And in proportion to how much you achieve that goal of pleasing God, you have bhakti, and that bhakti will flow outwards, it can’t be contained or hoarded to be the object of your enjoyment.
God isn’t pleased by efficient organisation and achieving monthly quotas. He only wants your love. Seeing it the other way, that first we engage in preaching and that will elevate us to the spiritual platform, has the order of things backwards. That mentality says, we are the masters of bhakti, we are in control and distributing it.
Krishna is the only shelter of the devotee; no institution is necessary and no institution can perform that role. It’s not organisation and money that allows the propagation of bhakti, it’s bhakti. The idea there is some genuine “institution” is the very attitude Bhaktisiddanta warns against in his article.
It was Bhaktivedanta Praphupada who was responsible for the expansion of Krishna consciousness. When he left the Iskcon institution fell apart, engaging in the most degraded activities imaginable. The Gaudiya math suffered the same fate.
Iskcon still harbours this institutional mentality, there’s no way to avoid it, the survival of the institution depends on it.
Krishna consciousness resides in the heart of the devotee and it’s only the devotee in the form of Sri Guru that can distribute it or give it to others. Bhakti is a living thing, it comes from bhakti, no external arrangement in the material world can produce it. It descends by grace.
The ideal is when two things can be combined, pure devotees propagating real bhakti, supported by a working institution. Unfortunately, this is rare nowadays.
I don’t think that is the ideal, it’s the ideal corrupted by the institutional mode of thinking. It equates success with some external material criteria, things like numbers of members, books distributed etc.
This is something explained theologically, Sri Guru is an autocrat, not voted in by democracy or appointed by a committee. That is the antithesis of Sri Guru.
But for the institution, the only option available for their administration is to appoint people based on external criteria like the number of rounds chanted, adherence to the regulative principles etc. You can never reconcile these things. It’s unlikely you’d even be able to openly acknowledge it within the institution.
I’ve encountered so many Iskcon devotees who equate Sri Guru with Iskcon, as if Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada lives on in his institution. This is a dangerous misconception.
My curiosity is - if organized religion is not the way to go, then why did BSST and SP took that route? Is there any explanation to that?
What they implemented is different from what is discussed in the article. Their idea was to have pure vaishnavas working in an organized way, not just another mundane religion.
I don’t think that is what they established. An institution is only an administrative arrangement to facilitate acting in the world. Constructing buildings, printing books, arranging festivals etc, all these things are part of the gurus preaching mission and they need some kind of organisation to achieve those things. But their goal was to create devotees, not buildings.
OK, How do you suggest one should organize one's preaching activity in today's ISKCON world? If one does the preaching service on the platform of ISKCON there will always be a risk of burning hands by pseudo-spiritualists. Fighting the established system is way beyond one's reach and not possible.
I think the focus on preaching is already an ideal corrupted by the institutional mentality. The goal has become how to give bhakti to someone else rather than how to engage in bhakti ourselves. And with that change in goal, success can be quantified, we can count how many books or plates of prasadam we distribute.
You can only give something you already have. Sri Guru is the “instrument” of grace, it flows through him. So, our focus should always be, how do I become an instrument of grace? How can I embody divine love? Which is to say, how can I please God?
And in proportion to how much you achieve that goal of pleasing God, you have bhakti, and that bhakti will flow outwards, it can’t be contained or hoarded to be the object of your enjoyment.
God isn’t pleased by efficient organisation and achieving monthly quotas. He only wants your love. Seeing it the other way, that first we engage in preaching and that will elevate us to the spiritual platform, has the order of things backwards. That mentality says, we are the masters of bhakti, we are in control and distributing it.