09/27/1998 - 2279

Response to Drutakarma

Editorial (VNN) - by Advaita Prabhu dasa

While most of us are familiar with the metaphors of the 'ocean of samsara' and of the 'boat of devotional service', Drutakarma is offering us a new version of these nautical images. He has constructed a scenario for our consideration of several distinct boats whose initial task is to establish clearly-defined identities in order to eventually chart mutually separate navigational courses. The somewhat intransigent tone underlying the piece culminates in an unabashed announcement that the author is completely unconcerned if ISKCON (which was a boat designed to sweep up and accommodate *all* the souls in the ocean of samsara) is downsized to a meager one hundred members (although perhaps we should consider ourselves fortunate that the author stopped short of downsizing it to 'The True Messianic One').

Although some token reference is given, in this discourse, to the possibility of eventually charting a common course for these boats, much concern seems to be placed on depicting voices of reform or dissent as "attacks" and "raids" which are to expect "retaliation" from the ISKCON boat. The antagonistic and martial undertones of Drutakarma's metaphors conjure up images of a naval conflagration. Not much foresight seems demonstrated as to what effect such divisive discourse might have on the souls drowning in the ocean upon which this potential naval battle might take place. Nor is much concern evidenced for the casualties on the ISKCON boat that might fall, or be thrown, overboard as this housecleaning (boatcleaning?) operation is underway. Any such considerations seem of little importance since, we are unambiguously informed, if the number of stalwart survivors is "ten thousand, one thousand, or one hundred" it matters not a whit to the author. If the boat is leaking (or, in the view of the more radical critics, sinking), the solution we are asked to consider is to encourage the creation of more boats or the jettison of still more people overboard.

Prabhupada, in contrast, opted for another metaphor -- that of a house. Prabhupada envisioned a house wherein everyone could live. A house with different rooms that could accommodate everyone in the world. In other words, a spiritual space wherein groups of devotees could have separate identities whilst still sharing a common residence. A romantic image? Some of us, I trust, think not. This is not to imply that ISKCON can avoid establishing boundaries on matters of policy or identity. But let these boundaries be established by devotees in a mood of rapprochement and reconciliation and not by those espousing radical views of divisiveness and further disintegration.

In my view, ISKCON is developing a somewhat intransigent, fundamentalist and confrontational wing on one extreme, and a more liberal, moderate, essentialist and contextualist wing on the other (with various shades of gray in between). Both brandish "Prabhupada said..." quotes in support of their respective agendas. From the perspective of the 'Study of Religion', all this may not be such a bad thing and may be a sign that ISKCON is actually taking some roots, since such tensions are typical of more established mainstream traditions. The question is: can ISKCON not only spawn differing points of view, but accommodate them as well? While everyone, in my opinion, should be allowed their voice, let us keep the more radical polemicists, who do not care if Prabhupada's mission is reduced to a paltry one hundred souls, well away from the helm of the boat lest they steer it into oblivion. YS Advaita Prabhu Das.