Food for Thought, Thought for Food

I found the TIME Magazine article"Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin," by John Cloud, informative and useful in shattering some commonly-held myths, which also devotees might implicitly accepts as facts.

Among the essential messages distilled by the author--a committed (self-defined) "gym-rat"--is the notion that "fiery spurts of vigorous exercise could lead to weight gain." How could that be? Simple: After strenuous workouts people get hungry and eat more calories than what they loose; plus they tend to reward themselves with foods they would have avoided if they did not exercise; plus the fatigue accumulated tends to make them more reticent to perform more physical work during the rest of the day.

For me (who, confessedly, would highly benefit by shedding a few pounds) the article was an eye-opener. I found it well-researched (it quoted research spanning decades) and it reminded me of the practical wisdom of Srila Prabhupada's morning walks, as the research quoted by the author extols the virtue of lower intensity, regular physical exercise. It also reminded of one of the twenty-six qualities of a Vaisnava, mita-bhuk, defined in the word-by-word translation of SB 7.12.6 as "eating only exactly what he needs, neither more nor less."

If you are one of many ISKCONites who could improve both mental and physical health by acquiring a slimmer body, , might want to take a look at:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857-1,00.html

Happy Birthday ISKCON!

Today is the anniversary of the incorporation of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness by its Founder-acarya, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and I feel I should jot down some thoughts.

I see an ISKCON that is fragmented, in terms of camps of allegiance and standards of service (to the local community and to humanity at large). I see an ISKCON that is struggling with its identity and function in the world (are we neo-Hindus? Are we social revolutionaries? Are we agrarian or In some quarters there is a tendency to (almost) demonize the initiating spiritual masters, accusing that they are creating factions, but I beg to disagree: The gurus, by and large, are mostly doing their duty to inspire people in spiritual life, to offer shelter to those who wish to seriously practice, and to instruct their students; all actions well within the boundaries of their sacred office.

The problem is, in my opinion, largely “above” the gurus, in the lack of guidance, clarity, strength and instruction from the ultimate authority of ISKCON, the Governing Body Commission.

Some of you might think, “But the GBC is only the ultimate ‘managerial’ authority!” Well, that’s the expression found in Srila Prabhupada’s will (which, by the way, is worded with an eye to legal considerations, as revealed by the recorded conversations regarding the compilation of the will); but actually in Srila Prabhupada’s vision the GBC was to basically become his own successor, taking the helms in matter of ecclesiastic administration as well as doctrine and spiritual direction. This is documented in various ways, including the following excerpts; the first one is from a letter to Madhudvisa Das, dated 4 August 1975:

“Regarding Sydney, that the President has left, if one does not follow the regulative principles, then he will leave. That is a fact. Has somebody else been elected? 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.”

So, GBC as instructor gurus (siksa-gurus) for the Society (not just administrators).

Next is from an interview to a reporter in Los Angeles, on 4 June 1976:

Reporter: Is there anyone who is designated to succeed you as the primary teacher of the movement?

Prabhupada: I am training some, I mean to say, advanced students so that they may be very easily take up the charge. I have made them GBC. They are under my direct training, and I think they will be able to conduct this movement.

Less than a week later, on 10 June1976, another journalist brings up the same question:

Interviewer: What happens when that inevitable time comes when a successor is needed?

Ramesvara: He is asking about the future, who will guide the movement in the future.

Prabhupada: They will guide. I am training them.

Interviewer: Will there be one spiritual leader, though?

Prabhupada: No, I am training GBC, eighteen all over the world.

So, when asked about who would be the “primary teacher” in his absence, Srila Prabhupada indicates the GBC, to “conduct this movement” and provide spiritual leadership.

So, if I am allowed to express a birthday wish to ISKCON, I wish the International Society for Krishna Consiouscness a stronger conduction by its Governing Body Commission; an uncompromising but gentle guidance in full awareness of the developing trends, in a spirit of communication and dialogue but willing to take unpopular decisions if those would help the movement realign with the Founder-Acarya’s mood and priorities; and in a close and harmonious working relation with all the initiating spiritual masters.

In no way I am insinuating that the GBC isn’t providing some degree of leadership to the Society – in fact, for instance, the GBC has shown great resolve, sense of responsibility and the capacity to take up heavy burdens in many cases, such as with the Youth Fund. Individually, some of the GBC zonal secretaries are also providing extraordinary local leadership and inspiration.

But I still wish ISKCON a GBC with a more defined face (to establish a deeper relation with all the devotees), with a clearer and stronger voice (to express, as successor of Srila Prabhupada, precise directions to the Society), with more open eyes (connected to a mature, sharp brain—to be vigilant of tendencies and circumstances), and some masculine attributes (for sticking to the promotion of spiritual principles despite the opposition from various sources).

Happy birthday ISKCON.

Recommendation Politics

This is fresh, heard one hour ago: at the Bhaktivedanta Manor, near London, one initiation ceremony was held today, 2 June 2009. One of the initiates, a lady, had a recommendation from a devotee authorized to issue recommendations. She showed up, submitted the recommendation, fulfilled other requirements, and took initiation. You may tend to comment: “Haribol!” but no celebratory Haribols were heard from a temple president in another city who claims some “jurisdiction” over this person and who objects to the procedure, to the point—I hear—of saying that the initiation should be cancelled, rendered null and void. Another temple president, from yet another English city, is branding this reaction as “politics”… It seems that a holy ceremony for spiritual emancipation risks being tinged by power-politics and fuel some unholy game.

It’s with sadness and concern that I am writing this entry. I have been witnessing the sacred function of recommending a candidate for initiation debasing, in some cases, to a less-sacred social and psychological function of control and territorial jurisdiction.

I have seen a growing tendency of local yatras—on the city, nation and even continental level—imposing more and more demands on the candidates for initiation, a plethora of heavier prerequisites, even in direct contradiction and infringement of existing ISKCON laws.

Perhaps even more disturbingly, such edicts have often no foundation in sastric injunction or traditional Gaudiya Vaisnava practice (in other words, are products of mental speculation).

A couple of examples? In Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, the local temple arbitrarily decided that:

1. Candidates for initiation must accept a counselor if they ever want to be initiated.

2. All the members of the counselors’ council (ten people), must agree that the person is ready for initiation; even one objector has the power to veto the initiation.

ISKCON UK took the radical (and apparently illegitimate) step of doubling the preparation time for initiation: From six months (ISKCON law) of practice (sixteen rounds and four regs) before being able to request the pranama mantra from the guru of one’s choice to one year. After that, from six months (ISKCON law) waiting period before the initiation, to one year. So, from a total of a minimum one year of chanting sixteen rounds and following the four regulative principles, to a minimum of two years.

Not only that; they also demand financial contributions from the candidates, in open disregard of ISKCON law that clearly says:

“15.4.1 - Initiation of Congregational Devotees . . . It shall be prohibited to require a minimum donation or financial commitment or other requirements not mentioned by Srila Prabhupada or ISKCON Law.”

I could go on with examples of such anomalies, these “requirements not mentioned by Srila Prabhupada or ISKCON Law,” but you get the idea.

This situation raises a few questions, which I consider important for the understanding and the future of the mission. For instance, who in ISKCON has the legitimate authority to establish standards for initiation and corresponding requisites for recommendation? My answer: The Governing Body Commission and no one else. Letting each smaller or larger ISKCON enclave establish its own norms is tantamount of declaring those branches and areas beyond GBC control in this most sacred and crucial field of initiating new devotees.

Unfortunately conditioned human (and animal) tendency is to attempt to dominate and control other living entities (tendency known in Sanskrit as “isvara bhava”); Temple Presidents and other officers who aren’t yet completely free from this tendency might rationalize “dovetailing” it in Krishna consciousness by establishing more stringent rules than the elaborate guidelines already existing in ISKCON law. I am not doubting that some of them might have genuine concern for the preparation of the candidates or sincere interest in seeing the process applied as purely and carefully as possible; at the same time the “isvara bhava” might creep in the form of:

1. Unauthorizedly forcing upon candidates new strictures and burdens.

2. Demanding some form of emotional, financial, social and/or service allegiance to one’s own project.

3. Enjoying the subtle (or gross) power of determining if the initiation will take place or not, while keeping the candidates on their toes and exerting some submission-inducing pressure.

4. Having the satisfaction of blockading or immobilizing the process of formal development of the relation between guru and disciple (perhaps unconsciously thinking: “I might not be on the level of giving initiation, but at least I can stop it from being given!”)

What could be the solution to this often painful social and spiritual stalemate?

While we should work to re-establish ISKCON law where it has been locally overturned and disregarded, I am proposing we take a good look at the possibility of deregulating the whole process by empowering other devotees to provide the recommendation.

What do you think about having three brahmanas signing the recommendation? Three devotees—in “good standing”—who have second initiation, who know the candidate well enough to be able to say: “To the best of my understanding I trust this person’s assurance that s/he is chanting sixteen rounds daily and following the four regulative principles.”

Why the temple should be bothered or burdened with the responsibility of being the only authorized outlet for recommending people? Any sastric evidence for such an idea, that the spiritual life of people should be somewhat negotiated only and exclusively through the administrative structures of the places of worship? In Vaisnavism we don’t have a demarcation between clergy and laity: second initiation and the privilege to directly serve the Deities are open to every member of the extended community. Why not empowering those who have come to the stage of being second initiated devotees with the opportunity to recommend candidates for initiation? Why a brahmana living outside the temple should be considered less reliable than every temple officer?

This simplification may well result in less headaches for the temples (who often don’t know the candidates very well); less opportunity for ego-centric controlling sprees; less psychological burdens and tensions for the candidates (who often feel forced to play the political game to be able to get recommended); less artificial strictures on the holy interaction between guru and disciple; less (apparently adharmic) domination by younger devotees who restrict more senior devotees (gurus) in their services to the movement.

I look forward to hear from you about the cases of local yatras inventing stricter rules than those already existing in ISKCON law and on your opinions on these delicate matters.

The Mongols, The British & ISKCON's Expansion

The Mongols of Gengis Khan were very good at conquering places. They reached from Mongolia all the way to Europe. Preaching is a form of conquest: conquering minds and hearts, shaping and transforming lifestyles.

The Mongols weren't very good at maintaining and ruling the territories they conquered; very soon their empire collapsed. In China they might have lasted longer, but because they connected with the Chinese style of administration.

In preaching we might have an early success in changing people's life and/or in establishing places of worship; but later we might experience that the people go away, internally and/or externally, migrating to other groups or becoming cold, inactive. Temples that were vital and vibrant become sometimes empty and poor.

Have we something in common with the Mongols?

Another feature of the Mongols' expansion was that they were very good at one type of terrain and warfare. They were most successful in the steppes, where they could appear with practically no notice, attack and pillage a city, and move on. When they've got to Europe they found hills and mountains. Their mount, the fast Asiatic horses, were not anymore a sufficient edge. New strategies and approached were needed. Their seemingly unstoppable advance stopped.

Srila Prabhupada's early followers focused on the hippies, but when the hippies disappeared teh movement faced a critical stasis. It then focuses on the Indians, and it gained some oxygen, but in a few places where there aren't any Indians the movement often struggle for a voice (and sometimes for survival). We need to adapt to a changing historical and social terrain, to the changing human landscape of the twentyfirst century to remain/become relevant and keep growing.

The British (I don't have a great spontaneous affection for the Brits and their attitudes, especially toward Vedic culture, but credit should be given were credit is due) were good examples of both conquering territory and managing it, and this in places as diverse as North America, the Caribbean, Africa, India, Oceania, Hong Kong or Northern Ireland.

They did lose their empire, but gradually, and their administrative capacity wasn't based on a single outstanding king or queen; it was a culture of organization. A few thousands of them ruled the whole India!

What can we learn from them?

We need adaptable strategies for diverse environment. We need systems that allow for growth, a culture of maintenance and not only of conquest.

Srila Prabhupada requested: "Don't make me Alexander the Great" (who conquered from Greece to India but who then rapidly lost all the lands he had gained).

Sattva-guna generates staying power (and happiness, satisfaction and illumination); passion brings excitement and short-lived success (which turns into pain and resentment); ignorance... well, ignorance it's just darkness and nightmares.

We can graduate to world religion status once we assimilate and apply the fundamental principles of community planting, community building, community keeping and community living.