How Srila Prabhupada Wanted His GBCs

"This is the function of the GBC, to see that one may not be taken away by maya. The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am in the initiator guru, and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and doing what I am doing. This is not a title, but you must actually come to this platform. This I want."


Letter to Madhudvisa, 4 August 1975

Wonderless Wonderfulness

With this post I officially inaugurate a campaign against the overusage of the word ‘wonderful’ in the Krishna consciousness movement.

The term is so ubiquitously presented, so monotously applied, that such prodigality defeats the very purpose and intention of the adjective, that is, to point out how special a person or behavior is.

Every devotee is wonderful. Every culinary preparation is wonderful. Every service in wonderful… If everything is wonderful in one sense nothing is really wonderful. Does everything really warrant an intense condition of wonderment?

On the rare occasion in which someone introduces me as “a wonderful devotee,” the initial rush of self-importance is mitigated by the sobering realization that anybody could and would be introduced with the same customary commendation.

The situation reminds me of the cynical saying: “You are unique; just like everyone else.”

“But devotees are indeed wonderful!” you might retort, and would have to agree with you; but, if they truly are so wonderful, don’t they deserve a little more linguistic fantasy, a little creativity in describing their wonderfulness and extraordinary accomplishments?

The dictionary defines ‘wonderful’ as “exciting a feeling of wonder; marvellous or strange [forget about the strange, which in this context is irrelevant]; extremely fine; excellent.” Marvellous devotees should inspire an expanded lexicon for glorifying their qualities and deed.

Why not saying that a devotees is extraordinary and his service is admirable? Why not declare that he is fantastic and his contributions are awe-inspiring? And what about amazing, astonishing, astounding, awesome, phenomenal, remarkable, staggering, startling, wondrous, brilliant, dazzling or flaming? Why not brilliant, excellent, fabulous, magnificent, marvellous, outstanding, sensational, stupendous, super, superb, terrific, tiptop, fulgent, lucent, tremendous? Do you have anything against charming, delightful, exquisite, gorgeous, graceful, handsome, noble, lovely, radiant, ravishing, stunning, refulgent, resplendent, shining or splendid?

And you can find many more expressions to communicate your wonder at the high caliber of character and the exemplary standard of dedication of the superlative servants of Lord Caitanya.

I sense that 'wonderful' is being forced to be so all-pervasive that lost all its wonder; a wonderful word has become hackneyed and predictable, a word that should evoke feelings of excitement and awe is quickly becoming inflationed, unimaginative and boring.

PS – if you don’t agree with me, you can tell me that this post was wonderful.

Grihamedhi: Better than Nothing

At times the standards of our "grihasthas" are so low and disfunctional (ethically, spiritually, economically, etc.) that I am thinking of starting a campaign to promote grihamedhi consciousness, in the spirit of “something is better than nothing."

In ISKCON's pshyche the word grihamedhi represents (and with reason) an unacceptable social stereotype. "The grhastha means he is making the best use of a bad bargain. And the grhamedhi means he is animal. " Srila Prabhupada said in a Gita lecture in London, on 20 August 1973. Such references have created an impression of the grihamedhi as an unspeakably corrupted being, a detestable individual functioning on a level of debasement to which devotees could never possibly plunge?

Many people seem to (wrongly) assume that a married person is either a grihastha or a grihamedhi. Actually there are many lower forms. One could, for instance, be an adulterous, irresponsible, uncivilized and restless barbarian—and this is a style of existence some of our devotees might be more closely identifiable with. “But you just quoted Srila Prabhupada as saying that grihamedhis are animals,” someone may retort. Yes, But animals are often much less sexually pruriginous and much less socially disruptive. And some animals are lifelong monogamists.

There are religious civically-integrated grihamedhis that would shun standards of existence that devotee sometimes enthusiastically embrace.

Let's take for instance another quote from Srila Prabhupada: "Grhamedhi means that he does not know anything else than to support the wife and children and live very comfortably" (Paris, 9 June 1974). Some devotees unfortunately have developed neither this sense of responsibility nor the capacity of living "very comfortably." These devotees struggle, internally and externally, in accepting the basic obligations that come with married life. This tendency was noted, with surprise and concern, by Srila Prabhupada: “Householder life means wife, children, home, these things are understood by everyone, why our devotees have taken it as something different? They simply have some sex desire, get themselves married, and when the matter does not fulfill their expectations, immediately there is separation—these things are just like material activities, prostitution” (letter to Madhukara, 4 January 1973).

Therefore I say that is better to be a bit grihamedhish, a bit overattached to one’s one and only wife and to one’s legitimately procreated children, while conserving a sense of religious duty and a commitment to charity, than to jump around like a monkey, destroying in the process one’s own and others’ chance for peaceful spiritual life.

“So grhamedhi means center is home, and he goes round. Throughout the whole life. They are called grhamedhis. . . . So actually round the wife. Grhamedhi. Round the wife.”

Mayapur, 5 March 1974). I wish to see more devotees sticking “round their wives,” their legally and religiously married wives (or husbands, as the case may be), and not jumping from one wife to another, or an affair to another. “Round the wife,” not round all sorts of illegal and/or interchangeable relations.

At times we even see the tendency to take Krishna consciousness as the excuse for our exuberant promiscuity; we think that the service of Krishna is the important thing, and civilized life is a discardable optional. But Srila Prabhupada clarifies in the letter quoted above (to Madhukara, 4 January 1973). “Once it is adopted, the grhastha life, even it may be troublesome at times, it must be fulfilled as my occupational duty. . . . devotional service is what is important, not my occupational duty. But it does not mean that because occupation duty is not the real consideration, that I should give it up and do something else, thinking that devotional service may be carried on under whatever circumstances which I may whimsically decide.” A culture of family attachment would do good to this movement.

I wish to see many over-attached couples act religiously and charitably, at least for assuring an improved mundane future and for giving their children (to which they are hopefully over-attached) a good example of stability, balance and responsibility.

Narayana Who?

This morning I was giving the Bhagavatam lecture; we are discussing the story of Ajamila and the verse mentioned that he chanted the name of Narayana.

One initiated devotee in the audience asked: What does it mean Narayana?

I attempted--probably successfully--to hide my surprise and I explained that Narayana is a name of Krishna, meaning the shelter of all living entities.

What to make of it? Is it a freak event, a twist of fate that this person never heard the name Narayana before (or after) initiation?

Should we take it as a positive sign that in ISKCON we are so focus on the krsnas tu bhagavan svayam consciousness that other forms and names of God are hardly known or recognized?

Or should we take it as a serious alarm bell about the lack of formation (some of) our devotees have?

Later I asked the person if she had read the Bhagavad-gita, and she confirmed that she did, in full. I checked the Folio and found that the name Narayana appears about 20 times in the book, and so I keep wondering...

Today's Quote

"When we are tired of the ordinary world and take nature for granted, we need to be shaken up so that everything is a miracle again. This is the mission of the artist."

Brigid Marlin

(I would add that this is also the mission of the devotee. The painting is also by Brigid Marlin)

Toilet Blues

Sri Radha Govinda Dasi (my wife), Isvara Puri Maharaja Prabhu (my loyal Godbrother), and yours truly happened to visit a devotee family somewhere in North Mexico (this entry purports to address the universal issue of excretory apparatuses and not to point fingers at particular individuals; therefore I avoid mentioning any other name, of locality or person).

The building has some unofficial affectation at officially representing ISKCON in town, and we were shocked to observe some of the incongruities in appearance and accommodation, towering among them the inappropriateness of the bathroom facilities.

The toilet ("Western style") includes neither a seat-cover nor a cover for the water container; thus offering a painful experience laced with a sense of dirtiness and discomfort and general. I won't focus on other aspects of the toilet, such as randomly stored odds and ends, the licking sink (washing your mouth is automatically linked to having the dirty water sprinkled on your feet), the poorly working shower spout, the broken window, and the tension-provoking lack of possibility to lock the door from the inside.

The condition of the toilet, paired with a number of other anomalies and inconsistencies throughout the building, inspired me to offer my wife that we shift to a hotel for the remaining days of our stay in the town. She declined saying that our hosts would feel bad had we left her place.

I attempted to tactfully bring up the various unfitting arrangement during a Bhagavatam class, towards the end of our stay. I hinted at the fact that we were there since a few days, but that our hosts never asked us what they could improve. The lady obliged and asked, "please tell me what could we improve."

I slowly made my way (figuratively) towards the toilet, mentioning the absence of the toilet seat. The lady of the house promptly pointed out: "Oh, for Mexico is OK!" I felt surprised. I was already in Mexico since a couple of months and my visits to different public and private sanitary facilities convinced me that the standard of this particular toilet is *not* OK for Mexico.

I restarted pleading on a different note: "You see, Mataji, if a woman from a good family--or from any family--visits this temple and uses the toilet, she would feel very uncomfortable in having to use that seat-less seat. It might be a lightly traumatic experience and might prevent her from coming back again."

Pensively, the lady of the house conceded, admitting that I had a point; but promptly retorted, with a mixture of finality and victory in her voice: "Yes, but we don't have money now!"

I had a long list of items to diplomatically and sensitively bring to their attention, but this reaction persuaded me to forget about the list. I changed the subject and quickly ended the talk.

The situation was all the more puzzling for me considering that this couple has aspirations to preach to the high-class people of their city. In my mind I could not reconcile their high talks of a new style of approach to the upper levels of the social scene with the distressingly inadequate toilet and other facilities.

A few days later I happened to visit a nearby Wal-mart. We found toilet seats available for about 4 US dollars. Considering that the couple had offered us more than 100 dollars for helping with the travel costs, the objection of not having money to buy a toilet-seat revealed itself completely baseless; it was simply a striking reminder that they were unwilling or incapable to connect with what the guests had to endure in the lavatory.

A prayer to all readers: When arranging the toilet you invite guests into, please do not confine yourself to the basic dictionary definition: "a sanitary installation for receiving and disposing of urine and faeces, consisting of a bowl fitted with a water-flushing device and connected to a drain." Kindly consider the whole experience your guests would undergo.

While leaving the place of the horrific bathroom we left a donation to reciprocate with their generous supply of prasadam. But I felt compelled to mention to the lady of house: "With this, please buy also a toilet seat."