Preaching According to Time, Place, and Circumstance without Adhikara is Trouble

The thing I want to point out is that having done this at this one part of this one book [Sri Krishna Samhita], Bhaktivinode Thakura never does it again. Shukavak admits that to me. It was a one-time thing. And later on in his many songs, Bhaktivinode Thakura has many bad things to say about mundane knowledge. We don’t see any more that he gives so much credit. He said it was a product of maya, as we are all taught. So I guess that’s the basic framework of what happens in there.

Now the interesting thing is, of course, Bhaktivinode Thakura is three spiritual masters back, four for some of us, in our line of disciplic succession, and we do not see that this particular line of thought that was there early in Bhaktivinode Thakura’s spiritual career is picked up and passed on by anyone, by Gaura Kishore Das Babaji, of course not him, but not by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, and certainly not by Srila Prabhupada. You don’t see it. It’s just like it never happened. And from Srila Prabhupada we got quite contrary instructions.

Ravindra Svarupa Das (ACBSP) “Hermeneutics – Part 5”

Some disciples of a well-regarded ISKCON guru have recently published an apologetic essay in defense of his populist approach to preaching. He is not, of course, the only devotee leaning toward populism. By now in ISKCON there are many. They themselves or their followers claim in one way or another that they are “actually following an authentic and honorable tradition of many of our acharyas, who have set examples of preaching sensitively according to desha-kalapatra, time-place-circumstances.” And the utility they ascribe to this is twofold: (1) “Precluding rejection due to the prevailing intellectual ethos of their times”, and (2) “Gaining acceptability and respectability for the essential core of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.”

Among the other examples of innovation used to make their point, they use Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s Sri Krishna Samhita. Their use of this work is interesting, because if Sri Krishna Samhita offers some justification for populism as an authentic mode of preaching, then why did Bhaktivinoda Thakura give up on the idea, and why did his spiritual successors up through Srila Prabhupada fail to adopt it? Despite living at a time when science and rationalism were at the heart of the regnant intellectual ethos, they rejected this idea in both precept and practice. A question to be asked is “what are we to make of this?”

One answer to this is that the time-place-and-circumstance adjustments made by previous acharyas do not necessarily justify ours, if at all. It is well within the experience of devotees in the stages of sadhana-bhakti to offer specious arguments favoring some idea or another that is supposed to be the latest, dynamic method of preaching that later turns out to have been mundane or sinful. Paraphernalia sales and charitable collections (“sticker sankirtana”) as ISKCON policy in some parts of the world in the 1980s was a time-place-and-circumstance adjustment had significant, adverse consequences. Leaders who initially promoted this policy did not foresee these consequences—a fact of history that underscores an important point about innovation in the name of preaching Krishna consciousness: even if you are an important devotee, you do not necessarily have the qualification, or adhikara, to adequately distinguish mundane vision from spiritual insight.

The Problem of Adhikara

The problem faced by devotees who are ever looking for more effective preaching methods is mostly one of adhikara, or authority, and it is a problem because for those in the lower stages of bhakti it is difficult to distinguish a circumstantial adjustment in siddhanta or in practice made by a highly elevated devotee from a mundane adjustment enacted in the name of preaching by a devotee who is not as highly elevated. Thus a problem with the aforementioned essay is that it imagines only “sunny-day” scenarios in which the guru is a topmost devotee who is at a level of consciousness that is permanently free from the four defects of a conditioned soul. For example, the essay calls Jiva Goswami a “siddhanta acharya.” But what if your guru is not a siddhanta acharya? Does he still have a carte blanche to make the same kind of adjustments?

Here is an example of a time, place, and circumstance adjustment gone horribly wrong and was made by ISKCON leaders who were (in those days, at least) regarded as infallible. As reported by E Burke Rochford, Jr, in his book Hare Krishna Transformed (2007):

Until the early 1980s, children born in ISKCON were commonly portrayed as being spiritually pure, as their souls were believed to have progressed spiritually to the point that they had the good fortune of being born into a devotee family. But by the mid-1980s this view had changed, with some leaders complaining that ISKCON’s children were turning out to be little more than “karmies” (non-religious outsiders) and therefore that the gurukula had failed in its mission to produce spiritually advanced children. . . .

In the first instance, the leaders saw no reason to invest resources in the gurukula because it could not fail, given the children’s elevated spiritual status. In the second framework, precisely because it emphasized failure rather than success, likewise rejected the need to maintain a viable system of education (80 – 81).

In both instances a time, place, and circumstance decision was made. But what went wrong? One important factor, of course, was the adhikara, or authority, of the leaders. They simply were not so spiritually advanced as to be incapable of making the kind of “big ticket” mistakes they made. And the adverse, long-term effects of their decisions were not known for many years. Short term, book sankirtana, paraphernalia sales and collections produced generous returns. Phalena pariciyate, short-term results were met, and for some time they could be used to validate the correctness of the initial decision. It is just that the leaders could not anticipate contradictory results that would become evident only far into the future.

The above example, of course, is an egregious instance of preaching according to time, place, and circumstance gone wrong. But the best thought-out adjustments can still go wrong in all kinds of unanticipated ways. This is the lesson of Srila Vyasadeva.

Srila Vyasadeva and compiled the Vedas, Puranas, and the Mahabharata. Yet he was still dissatisfied within himself. His guru Sri Narada Muni explained the cause of his dissatisfaction: insufficient glorification of the Lord.

“Whatever you desire to describe that is separate in vision from the Lord simply reacts, with different forms, names and results, to agitate the mind as the wind agitates a boat which has no resting place. The people in general are naturally inclined to enjoy, and you have encouraged them in that way in the name of religion. This is verily condemned and is quite unreasonable. Because they are guided under your instructions, they will accept such activities in the name of religion and will hardly care for prohibitions” (SB 1.5.14 – 15).

Because people are disinclined to spiritual life and inclined toward sense gratification, Srila Vyasadeva gave them indirect spiritual instruction mixed up with authentic spiritual teaching—something like a sugar-coated pill. But contrary to expectations, they were further encouraged in sense gratification—and in his name no less.

What is important to note here is that the defenders of populism never consider Vyasa’s example as a possible outcome. Thus somewhere in their chain of reasoning a decision has been made that this pastime is not applicable to themselves or to their preceptors. Of course, they may not have been thinking of this at all when evaluating their own adhikara, but making these kinds of mistakes is precisely what a person still materially conditioned in some measure is prone to. He has a propensity to commit mistakes, become illusioned, be misguided by imperfect senses, and to cheat. So the main problem is one of adhikara.

Culture and Counter-Culture

An ISKCON that chooses the path of populism is likely to end up going through what political philosopher Clifford Orwin has called the “unraveling of Christianity” in America:

Since the late nineteenth century and the emergence of the Social Gospel, the typical response of the mainline churches to the challenge of secularism has been to capitulate to it. Every one of these churches has been advancing (or retreating) from Christian orthodoxy down the road of secular progressivism. They have not done so without hesitation or confusion, which have sometimes brought them to the brink of schism. Nonetheless, within each of these churches, certainly at the national level, progressivism has eventually prevailed across the board.

 . . .within the pastoral realm, the discourse of psychotherapy and personal fulfillment appears to have established itself as thoroughly in the mainline churches as in the lay world. Those who are looking for something different in church than is on offer outside it are increasingly less likely to find it there. Each of these denominations has by now alienated its more traditionalist members, especially during these recent decades of increasing cultural polarization, and many have voted with their feet.[1]

Indeed, these churches for the same reasons chose the path of populism—namely to preclude rejection from the prevailing intellectual ethos and to gain acceptance for their core doctrines. They wanted to accommodate the prevailing culture and ideas in order to become popular. But it turned out to be a Faustian bargain for them: to become popular (and hence mainline) they replaced their core ideas with secular equivalents. In doing so they lost their original reason for being—their original purpose and mission. Instead of making society at large more religious, the socially progressive religious groups became more secular.

 “Eye camps”, hospitals and other such charitable projects taken up by devotees in the name of preaching are at best expensive, time-consuming distractions. If the point is to preach bhakti, then why not just preach directly? As per Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura,

The thousands of karmis who have opened innumerable hospitals, old age homes, centers for the poor, and schools, and the thousands of jnanis who have undergone meditation and severe austerities, are insignificant compared to a single kanishta-adhikari Vaishnava once ringing the bell before the Lord’s deity. This is not sectarianism, but plain truth. Atheists are wholly incapable of realizing this; thus they become either direct or indirect blasphemers of devotional service, or adherents to the doctrine of harmonistic all-inclusiveness (Amrta Vani 102 – 3; Sri Srila Prabhupadera Upadesamrta 174).

The important point here is that all these activities that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura is speaking out against are part and parcel of the prevailing social sentiment and intellectual ethos of his time. In other words, by opposing this he was counter-cultural.

Being counter-cultural means one or one’s group has major differences with one or more of mainstream society’s core values. Outside of these differences the counter-cultural group may share other values with mainstream society. For example, there has been until recently general agreement between devotees and mainstream western societies on the sanctity of marriage. So being counter-cultural does not necessarily mean being totally at odds with established society.

Nevertheless, a major difference on a core value tends to be widely pervasive. As we have seen, an atheistic society, or one mostly so, will have many deeply felt objections to ISKCON devotees’ way of life and activities. And likewise, ISKCON’s devotees have many deeply felt objections to the modern, secular way of life. We would not be preaching if we did not.

Therefore, without being counter-cultural it is impossible to preach. ISKCON’s first purpose is to “systematically propagate spiritual knowledge to society at large and to educate all people in the techniques of spiritual life in order to check the imbalance of values in life and to achieve real unity and peace in the world.” But if you have little difference with mainstream society itself, then you also have little reason to preach.

Therefore he says that “I am a lame man.” Mama manda-gati: “I am very slow, so I take shelter of the lotus feet of Madana-mohana.” That is our business. The Krsna consciousness movement is teaching all over the world this philosophy, that your first and foremost business is to become Krsna conscious. There is no question of so-called economic development, sense gratification. No. These are not important things. There are many missionaries, they open hospitals or similar philanthropic activities, but we never do that. So many friends advised me to open some hospitals, dispensaries. Oh, I flatly said that “We are not interested in the hospitals.” There are so many hospitals. So people who are interested in hospitals, they can go there. Here is spiritual hospital. The disease is the other hospitals, they cannot stop death, but our hospital can stop death. (Srila Prabhupada, Lecture. CC Adi 1.15, Dallas, 4 March 1975)

Srila Prabhupada’s stand on hospitals and other populist welfare programs is counter-cultural. The problem is not that we don’t have enough hospitals. The problem is that no one is preaching Krishna consciousness. No one is trying to stop birth, death, old age and disease. And as Srila Prabhupada points out here, ISKCON’s mission is to be the spiritual hospital. “So people who are interested in hospitals, they can go there.” Unless you are counter-cultural, others do not have a reason to come to you instead 

of someone else. And by the same measure, you don’t have a reason to help others since the values of society are yours also. You cannot be a reformer if you are not counter-cultural. That is why trying to keep up with modern social and intellectual trends to be acceptable in the eyes of society undermine efforts at preaching.

The Cheating Propensity

So at this point, it may be asked, “why won’t this work?” Why can’t we open our own hospitals and be like Murari Gupta, who cured both material and spiritual diseases? We will then get not only the people interested in the spiritual hospitals but the ones interested in the material ones as well.

The answer is that the cheating propensity is still operative in everyone who has not yet attained the stage of bhava-bhakti, which according to the Madhurya-kadambini is the point at which the bodily conception of life is fully transcended. Thus we find that even a devotee as exalted as Bharata Maharaja, who is referred to in the Bhagavatam as a maha-bhagavata (bharatas tu maha-bhagavato) is susceptible to falling down on account of the influence of maya, what to speak of ISKCON’s members. The cheating propensity is operative here because even though ISKCON’s members, including its leaders, are in general below this advanced level of spiritual advancement, they nevertheless exhibit from time to time a strong inclination to act as if they are on this level.

This lack of adhikara is why closely following the established spiritual tradition is essential for our personal and collective spiritual well-being. The devotees who wrote the essay being reviewed here apparently believe that the fact that exalted acharyas do innovate according to time place and circumstances justifies their own innovations. But the vehement opposition of both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and Srila Prabhupada to one of their specific innovations (in this case, building hospitals), however, strongly suggests that this innovation is in fact in error.

But what would it mean to presume that someone has the adhikara to make an innovation that also broke with closely held tradition? Let us say that we are not allowed to use Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s and Srila Prabhupada’s opposition to hospital building. Their opposition, of course, becomes irrelevant. It would mean that the tradition itself no longer acts as a restraint on thought and behavior.

If what previous acharyas have done and said is irrelevant to judging a supposedly cutting-edge innovation like opening hospitals in the name of preaching Krishna consciousness, then the fact that acharyas have innovated should also be irrelevant. But to the essay it is not. Some facts count and others don’t. The essay written in defense of hospitals and other similar innovations is highly selective with its supporting evidence.

But let us suppose further that one’s preceptor is so exalted that his decisions in fact could not be evaluated by appealing to tradition. Even if previous acharyas are demonstrably against such an innovation, this particular devotee is so exalted that we may not question him.

However, if this devotee is so exalted, he is just as exalted for devotees who are not his disciples as he is for his disciples. His being an uttama-adhikari does not depend on what other think of him. Of course, there may be differences in etiquette for interpersonal dealings, but a person’s spiritual advancement is an objective characteristic. It is not that to his disciples he is on the level of prema and to others he is not. However difficult it may be to ascertain a person’s level of spiritual advancement, its reality does not depend on how others perceive it.

But having the appearance of success, even in preaching, is not necessarily the same as being authentically Krishna conscious. Kirtanananda Swami is an excellent example of this. He made so many innovations, and devotees who were his followers felt that he could not possibly be wrong. He did much big preaching. However, his deficiencies were revealed only in hindsight and only after many years. Harikesha Swami is another example.

This is not to say that no devotee can be so exalted. Even Srila Prabhupada admitted that such a devotee could exist.

If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acharya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away, he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acharya. His idea was acharya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acharya would be automatically selected (Letter to Rupanuga, April 28, 1974).

But given that ISKCON by now has seen a long list of devotee leaders who have had many followers and have many accomplishments to their names, along with the infamy of falling down from their exalted status, it nowadays takes a lot more to be recognized as a self-effulgent acharya than it used to be. There is no claim made in the essay under review that would distinguish the accomplishments of the preceptor it puts forward from those of a Kirtanananda or a Harikesh at the height of their respective careers.

What this discussion on adhikara, culture and counter-culture, and the influence of the cheating propensity suggests is that society-wide, a presumption against populist innovation is warranted. If you think that you yourself or your own guru are so exalted as to be able to innovate without regard for precedent in the tradition, you are probably in maya. But if you or your guru are the true exceptions, you have to overcome this presumption against you and prove that you are indeed the exceptional, self-effulgent acharya. There are so many false spiritual leaders and false spiritual organizations that are materially very successful. They too have opened many hospitals and have done food relief and poverty relief work. We should not become yet another one of these.

But Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura set a different standard, and this was the standard that Srila Prabhupada himself followed. As described in an entry adapted from the Sarasvati Jayasri, the counter-cultural, anti-populist character of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s mood and mission is self-evident:

To Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s disciples several individuals proffered what they considered well-intentioned suggestions for improving his performance: “If he would just be a little more sensitive to public opinion and more positive in his outlook, if he would look for the good in others and not grouse so much, and not be so insistent on always speaking the straight facts, then surely today no other religious leader would have as many supporters as he”; “If he did not forbid all kinds of intoxicants, then right now thousands would surrender to him”; “He could have been tremendously successful by adjusting to smarta practices and not introducing new ideas about brahminism”; “If he had at least orally endorsed groups that he instead chose to berate, the gurus thereof and their unlimited followers would have submitted to him as their universal head.” (Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Vaibhava, vol 1. Part 2, Ch. 2)

This model is not outdated. Today in ISKCON there are many successful preachers who directly present Krishna to the public. We need many more of these. The real spiritual innovation would be to abandon our infatuation with populism society-wide and embrace direct preaching.

by Krishna Kirti Das
16 September 2012

---

[1] Clifford Orwin. “The Unraveling of Christianity in America.” Spring 2004. The Public Interest, Number 155. page 22 – 23