Behind "The Love Guru" Controversy

is he really a staunch mayavadi, or just a wishy-washy "hindu"? before declaring him one of our worst enemies, shouldn't somebody try to speak to him? his insistence on "moksa" isn't necessarily limited to impersonal liberation...

to me (from my remote perspective here in mayapur) it looks as if he's doing what kripamoya pr. & co are doing in the UK: getting in with the establishment. ISKCON's position in the US, i'm afraid, isn't a particularly strong one, at least not yet. there's been too much bad publicity, kirtananda & gurukuli-case per example.

attacking a guy like this from a week position may not be the wisest idea. we'd need to have some allies, like the viswa hindu parishad, per example. how does zed relate to those?

ys phani.

I'd actually be more concerned about his political views than his theological convictions. Many vocal Hindus and Hindu organisations have a strong Hindu nationalist agenda. The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) is one such organisation. Unfortunately, many ISKCON devotees (including some leaders!) are either not aware of this, don't see their political agenda as important ("If they help us preach, what is the big deal?"), or share their political agenda.

Many devotees are unaware that when they enroll or accept the help of such individuals or organisations, they basically offer themselves to such organisations to be used for their political purposes. This happened in Moscow, when the VHP came to ISKCON's help, and has happened in several other places in India and the West.

We share a number of things with these indivuals and organisations: we both belong to the Hindu traditions (some with a longer history than others) and therefore have some similar theological views (karma, rebirth, samsara, avataras, etc.), and we both consider several places in the Indian subcontinent as holy places.

Their vision of India and Hinduism is deeply political, however. They want to establish a 'Hindu' India, often without the Muslims, and sometimes also without the Christians. Their fight against discrimination, defamation and blasphemy of Hindu symbols, beliefs, practices, individuals or organisations is used for political purposes.

But we do not share their political outlook and objectives. Or at least I don't :-) Srila Prabhupada didn't like their agenda much either, and he spoke out and lectured against them on quite a number of occasions ("They want the kingdom of Rama without Rama").

Do we really want India to be a Hindu political state (it is a secular one now)? Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati didn't care much about current politics and didn't mind the occupation by the British. Neither did Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who even worked for them! Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu also showed no interest in throwing the Qazi out of Bengal and establish a Vaisnava Hindu kingdom. Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis served the Muslim government before they renounced, and even when they lived in Vraja had contacts with Akbar and high-placed officials at the (Muslim) Mughal court.

I don't know whether Rajan Zed has such a political agenda, or is in any way affiliated with a Hindu nationalist organisation, but I think it is necessary to examine his political views and agenda before we sympathise or affiliate ourselves with him.

Oh, and I quite liked the ISKCON Communications' official statement on the movie.

Cheers Sita-pati,

Seeing that I can't find your direct email this will have to do. Please excuse the candour but that is how I operate:

Taking a strengths based approach of what little I know of the Hare Krishna movement the following seems apparent:

Hare Krishnas are known due to their distinctive dress, topknots and the practice of Harinam (?). In this sense their are instantly noticeable if they recieve press coverage. This distinctive appearance has both positive and negative aspects. The positive being the instant recognition or branding if you will, the negative being that Harinam would tend to bewilder the vast majority of the public or possibly annoy them (pop culture references i.e. flying high, GTA).

In many ways you are dealing with what might be defined as cultural gap – the distinctive and alien appearance may attract social fringe dwellers but it is unlikely to attract people in significant numbers, and may in fact scare them off. This is why Atma is such a positive step in offering the Gita to a greater number of people as ‘yoga’ and healthy eating (i.e. organic) are considered positive and worthwhile by a growing number of people (particularly when the food is so bloody delicious). Yoga has been mainstreamed and organic is well and truly on the way if not already there. Chanting the name of a culturally foreign God on the street is not. Even the Salvos stopped adhoc public street marches with accompanying brass bands some time ago. I imagine it was considered detrimental to their broader aims.

As stated previously if Vishnu/Krishna is a universal God is dressing like an Indian essential or is it posturing. It may prove appropriate for religious service (like a priest/pastor) but may be excessive otherwise. Toning this down to the Tulsi and Tilak may be effective. Both are viable and relatively unobtrusive symbols of your faith that are aesthetically appealing and not threatening to the man and women in the street. They are more likely to inspire curiosity than ridicule or confusion.

Even though I am philosophically a Polytheist (Yep! I am a Heathen) and Impersonalist and do not support the KC (Krishna Consciousness) position , I can see that as we discussed previously the most appropriate model for the KC is an appropriate remodelling of the Christian approach to outreach for the following reasons:

KC seems to have many similarities to certain Christian churches: monotheism, ecstatic dancing/singing, sexual abstinence or control, an emphasis on non-violence, a focus on the family unit, the divine coming to earth in human form, a focus on a single scripture, universalism and missionary drive.

The end of Part I

PS. I have exams coming up and won’t be able to assist sometime till the middle of the month. For contacts re the opening of The Love Guru check out Margaret Gee’s media guide. I am sure you can get a digital copy…it has all the significant media contacts listed and will be a great asset in this and future endeavours.

Regards
Fourcaste

http://www.crowncontent.com.au/mgeesmediaguide.html

“For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship's captain complaining about the sea”

Enoch Powell

Good points Ramakanta prabhu. Thanks for that.

Yes, I liked the statement too.

However, I don't understand our overall media strategy in the Hindu space. And also, whlie this might be applicable in the US, this angle doesn't generate any press for us in Australia.

Moksha is the goal of some of the traditions within Hinduism. Not all of them.

There is a goal beyond moksha, prema, that is the goal of the devotional traditions.

Rajan Zed might be one of the voices of one of the traditions of Hinduism, but he steps beyond his boundaries speaking as the "acclaimed Hindu-American leader" and telling everyone that the goal of Hinduism is moksha.

Either he is wrong, or we are not Hindus. Personally, I'm not a Hindu, and neither was Haridas Thakura.

For those who want to pitch ISKCON as Hindu, they need to clarify the situation, not just dance to his tune.

i meant to say that technically prema is also a form of moksa, the highest one. "svarupaya moksa," or something like that.
-------------
edit:

actually, it's "svarupya-mukti,' but mukti means the same as moksa. it's explained here: http://vedabase.net/sb/8/4/13/en1

after reading the AP article, it seems that venkata bhatta got invited to preview the movie, and zed didn't. is that correct? it also appears that his role as "hindu leader" isn't fully accepted, at least not by mainstream media like AP...

Exactly. There is even a pastime in Lord Caitanya's lila where a devotee scratches out the word "moksa" in the Bhagavatam and the Lord chastizes him for doing so (I forget the specific details...maybe someone here can supply them). I wouldn't disagree with the Hindu leader's claim that "moksha," mukti, or liberation is the goal of Hinduism. The only difference is that various Hindu sects define moksha differently. For Vaishnavas(which by the way is the largest branch of Hinduism) moksha means full and complete surrender to God, not impersonal liberation.

Yes, that was Sarva Bhauma Bhattacarya. He wanted to replace mukti with bhakti. The Lord was pleased by his sentiment, but told him "not to change the books". :-)

Our acaryas have expended a significant amount of energy and time to promote the fact that our goal is different from moksha, impersonal liberation. It is called the "fifth" goal of life - prema pumartho mahan, beyond moksha, the fourth goal.

Again, that's a great conversation to have - that's why Lord Caitanya and Sarvabhauma had it publicly in the Caitanya-caritamrita - and it's one that we should be having publicly through our press releases, on an ongoing basis. Every press release that we make with reference to Hinduism should repeat that point in a succinct way.

I think the point I am making is that if our media strategy is to identify ourselves with Hinduism then we need to take more of a leadership role using that strategy. Right now we are leaving the role of defining Hinduism pretty much up for grabs, and Zed is grabbing it. Good on him I say, but we should take inspiration from him and become more proactive.

Zed is making his waves by putting his position publicly in opposition to an existing position. It's the "conflict, tension, resolution" dynamic that Srila Prabhupada used to start our movement, and it's an effective one.

I believe that we should actively redefine Hinduism, rather than just go along for the ride.