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.