Date: 7 February 2009
Dear Members of the GBC, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
By now, many of you are shocked to have seen the news headline “Hridayananda Das Goswami Blesses Gay Male Couple.” As I had confirmed with Maharaja himself, the report is accurate. Yet as shocking as the headlines may be, Hridayananda’s present statements and actions are in fact consistent with this public statement he made four years ago:
“I am not convinced that marriage is the best means in all cases, but some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy is, in my view, in the best interest of ISKCON and its members.” (http://chakra.org/discussions/GenDec19_04.html)
That so many of us are so surprised by this event points to a larger problem: amongst ISKCON’s leaders there is a serious disengagement from matters of philosophy.
Over the years, GBC members whom I have encountered often describe their own aloofness in terms of putting their prabhu-datta-desh first, before all other concerns. They are preaching in some particular area, and they don’t feel worthy of being a member of the GBC unless they are doing that first and foremost. That kind of dedication to preaching also leaves little time for being up-to-date on current news and events. Some GBCs and sannyasis consider it a virtue to not read the popular devotee news websites, and this policy does indeed have some merit.
As noble as that sentiment is, it also presumes that matters of philosophy and theology will “roll along on their own,” requiring little if any superintendence. If anything, the unrest Hridayananda and some of his followers have created proves that philosophy and theology, or what we teach others, requires careful monitoring and superintendence. Neglecting philosophical matters to this extent is to invite such disturbances.
Yet the problem we face now will not be solved by organizing an action committee to “do something” about it. By now, the problem is too deep to solve quickly. Hridayananda’s radical ideas about human sexuality have been out in the public and in several languages for the last four years. During that time, devotees have come to Krishna consciousness under his guidance. Some of these devotees are now old enough to have received the sacred thread and are worshiping the temple Deities. Older followers and disciples, such as Sarvatma Das, who officiated at the event, are naturally inclined to follow their gurus and naturally do so. We are no longer dealing with a one-off incident but with an appreciably large group of devotees who have developed a very different understanding about some key aspects of Krishna consciousness than the rest of ISKCON’s members have.
As I pointed out in my essay two years ago, as published on Dandavats [please see attached file], Hridayananda’s view of human sexuality in general, not just homosexuality, opposes the GBC’s officially stated position on the matter.
--- QUOTE ---
"[Hridayananda:] in a strict sense, all initiated devotees must vow to give up illicit sex, ie sex that is not for procreation. That is the ideal, however it is not the real. The real situation in ISKCON is that many, many householders follow the easier, less ideal version of the rule: no sex outside of marriage. *Prabhupada himself at times taught both the ideal and, for many, the “real” version of this rule, the version they can actually follow.*5"
Compare the last sentence in the above statement with an official statement made by the GBC in 2001 (bolding emphasis added):
"it is resolved THAT: the GBC Body wishes to clarify that *according to Srila Prabhupada's teachings, sex life according to religious principles followed by Gaudiya Vaisnavas is for the propagation of children, not for any other purpose. . .*6"
Indeed, the GBC addressed the very same problem of some devotees’ inability to follow their vows:
"[GBC] While Srila Prabhupada’s definition of illicit sex is clear, it is also clear that some devotees have difficulty maintaining this initiation vow. The GBC recognizes this, and suggests that rather than trying to adjust Srila Prabhupada’s definition we should go on with devotional service and humbly and sincerely keep endeavoring to reach the proper standard.7"
Srila Prabhupada either taught his disciples two versions of this rule, as [Hridayananda] Goswami claims, or, as the GBC claims, Srila Prabhupada taught only one version. Because there cannot be both a dual version and a single-only version of the no illicit sex rule, Goswami’s statement and the official GBC statement are incompatible. Both statements cannot be true at the same time.8
-- END QUOTE --
The net effect is that we have a significant section of ISKCON’s devotees growing up with a very different idea of what illicit sex means. Not opposing Hridayananda’s radical teachings about human sexuality when they were first aired has allowed this unnecessary disturbance to take place. It could have been prevented had the GBC not been as disengaged as it presently is from matters of philosophy.
As our society is currently structured, only the GBC can effectively attend to such matters. When Hridayananda aired his radical views, devotees did speak out against them. Some of these devotees were gurus, sannyasis, godbrothers of his, and even disciples such as myself. Although a number of us have tried to humbly approach Hridayananda and speak with him about his views, he has persistently ignored all such attempts. [Proof of this can be submitted upon request.] This means that important philosophical disputes sometimes require political or executive intervention, much as how police intervention is sometimes required to quiet down a rowdy party or evict a disagreeable tenant. Only the GBC is in a position to deal with someone of Hridayananda’s stature and character.
The problem, however, has been getting the GBC to recognize it has an interest in such matters before they get out of hand. This means that more members of the GBC have to take a personal and active interest in dealing with philosophical issues on a society-wide basis. It cannot be delegated to a subcommittee and forgotten about by the rest. However, it may be that the very natures of management and GBC duties work against this interest.
Some GBC members I have spoken with have frankly agreed that within our society philosophical matters do need to be looked after more. However, they also admit that personally making time for this has been difficult. Some of you might want to consider whether at this point you could be of better service to ISKCON by not acting in the capacity of a GBC member (or at least reducing your own GBC duties) in order to devote more time to theological and philosophical study. As many GBC members are sannyasis, this is a full-time occupation that is well suited to that ashram.
Serving Srila Prabhupada’s mission as a representative of the GBC is glorious. Fundamental grass-roots preaching such as harinam and book distribution is also glorious. Yet protecting Srila Prabhupada’s mission from philosophical deviation is also as necessary as it is important. Srila Prabhupada said that if our own men become sahajiyas, they will become very dangerous. Doing as much as we can to keep this from happening is in ours best interests.
When a government neglects the safety of its citizens, its citizens eventually take the law into their own hands. If through inaction issues of theological and philosophical importance continue to be neglected, as they have been now for a long time, then someone or some group will act, and the consequences will be unpleasant but perhaps necessary.
Your servant,
Krishna Kirti Das (Albuquerque, New Mexico USA)
p.s. One last request I have of you is to take some time out of your busy schedules and read the essay I have attached with this message, and judge for yourselves as to whether my analysis is accurate and that the some of the things I have predicted are in fact taking place.














































By Deena Bandhu dasa









Last updated:
Facebook Group
Get updates via
twitter
Subscribe via
rss

