by Kaunteya Das
Yes, ISKCON can be considered both a ‘cult’ and a ‘sect,’ that is, at least according to Prof. Rodney Stark’s definition of these words in his book “The Rise of Christianity,” which I am continuing to read and from which I keep extracting themes relevant to ISKCON (first part here). But let’s take a step back. English words have meaning only insofar we assign one (or more) to them. Words are conventions. As such they change their significance throughout time (and space), some morphing into different shades of the same idea, others atrophying into obsolescence or disappearing into oblivion. Some might even shift from a negative to a positive identity or viceversa.
The terms ‘sect’ and ‘cult’ are often loaded, but with different weight and connotations according to users and places. For instance in the United States ‘cult’ possesses a negative flavour, while ‘sect’ is often a neutral expression; but in Europe it’s usually the opposite: ‘cult’ is pretty neutral, while ‘sect’ can possess a sinister ring. I request the reader to forget for the time being the dark implications of ‘cult’ and ‘sect’ implied by sensationalistic journalists or by bigoted humanists. In saying that ISKCON fits both ‘cult’ and ‘sect’ profiling I am simply applying the definitions Stark offers in the second chapter, entitled “The Class Basis of Early Christianity.”
Starks writes: “Sect movements . . . occur by schism within a conventional religious body when persons desiring a more otherwordly version of the faith break away to ‘restore’ the religion to a higher level of tension with its environment.” This is the dynamic we often see in action when people from Indian backgrounds seriously join ISKCON’s congregation (say to the level of preparing for initiation): they shed their often lukewarm, compromised adherence to Hinduism for the more vibrant and demanding standards of lifestyle and worship propounded by ISKCON. For them it’s a homecoming, albeit with increased emphasis on purity and spiritual upward mobility. Cast away are the flirts with non-vegetarian dishes; rejected are the escapades into mayavadi theological nonsense; avoided are the peccadillos adopted in the company of the mlecchas. For Hindus the embracing of ISKCON represents the realignement with their own traditional orthodoxy, at a higher level of commitment.
For Westerners (and non-Hindus in general), however, ISKCON fits more with Stark’s definition of ‘cult’: “Cult movements . . . are not simply new organizations of an old faith: they are new faiths, at least new in the society being examined. Cult movements always start small–someone has new religious ideas and begins to recruit others to the faith, or an alien religion is imported into a society where it seeks recruits. In either case, as new faiths, cult movements violate prevailing religious norms and are often the target of considerable hostility” (as the current happenings in Kazakhstan highlight). In the West Hare Krishna is new, “alien,” its standards and views are revolutionary, potentially upsetting and baffling for those around the new recruits. New converts suddenly “find” themselves surrounded by cow-killers, soul-killers and all sorts of ungodly elements and temperaments. Through hightened awareness, familiar situations reveal their grim lineaments to the new member. Relations thus have to be renegotiated, rethought and reshaped, and this can certainly generate uneasiness in the people being “redefined.”
Becoming aware of this simultaneous coexistence of ‘sect’ and ‘cult’ features may offer insights on some sublte intracommunal tension observed between devotees from Indian and non-Indian background. It may not be simply a matter of racial and cultural sensitivities, but also a difference in expectations, a difference of orientation in the seekers. Hindus might look for reconnecting to the ancient religion of their ancestors, searching for the rock-solid stability of tradition. Westerners might instead aspire to explore the exotic, the unknown, the ground-breaking.
One acquaintance from Western Europe (initiated in ISKCON), was telling me that we, as a Society, often stress that we are a bonafide religion, “That is the problem,” he said, “that ISKCON is a religion” (with the negative trappings and dynamics of conventional religious organizations). His search for something more vital, genuine and stimulating brought him to Narayana Maharaja (which he later also discarded) and the Radha-kunda babajis (when I last heard about him he was also into irresponsible sense gratification and antisocial behavior). Of course, this is fortunately not the standard sequence of “development,” but, as a factual episode, it could help gaining some understanding of the restlessness associated with people arriving through the ‘cult’ trajectory.
So, we might be facing, on the same temple-room floor and during the same kirtan, two different approaches meeting and almost imperceptibly clash. Sidelong glances of suspicion and disconfort might almost pass unnoticed, but the Indian side might wonder if these whites are for real. Aren’t they going to spoil and mutilate the holy traditions of our grandfathers with their congenital agitation and roughness? Are they a safe company for our families and children? The Western front may ponder: Will these Indians grasp that this is not hodge-podge Hinduism and catch the idea of real surrender? Will their conservativism, social adaptation and economic prosperity cause spiritual stagnation and complacency?
The sect-members and the cult-members remain at odds (emotionally) till they come to share a higher level of awareness and community.
Of course in some cases these largely unspoken perplexities might be unwillingly or unconsciously fostered by the local temple administration ***if*** not strong enough in their steering the whole congregation toward higher peaks of comprehension and practice. If the temple, for instance, is simply happy to milk money from the pious (generous) Hindus without focusing on raising them to serious sadhana-bhakti, the tensions and incomprehensions will continue, because the material coatings will cling on.
Until Krishna consciousness becomes an ongoing adventure of self-discovery and personal upliftment, the conditioned attitudes will continue to heavily exert their influence. When people (from whatever backgrounds) seriously engage with energy and determination in the same purificatory processes (daily japa, regular reading of Srila Prabhupada’s books, participation in outreach, missionary activities, rigorously following the vows of purity, etc.) they quickly go beyond the ethnical impasse and develop a common culture, a shared mindset and vision. In dealing with newcomers, though, we observe that local preachers at times find convenient to cultivate the two groups (Indian and Western) in separate environments, e.g.: the Indians in the temple (with its classical rituals); the Westerners in The Loft (with its focus on gradual acclimatization).
In closing, I just note that success can be a threat to the spiritual health of cults or sects. Increased membership and greater social acceptance by the host culture might harbinger decreased intensity and commitment. After becoming the dominant religious group in the Roman Empire, Christianinity lost its original drive, purity, ethics, morals, brotherliness and vision. Just consider the difference between early and contemporary Christian attitudes on death: the first were often embracing or even seeking the end of the physical body with enthusiasm and conviction in an eternal reward, a permanent better future; modern Christians’ dealings with death are often full of gripping fear, tamasic lamentations, eschatological mistrust, and superflous, extravagant, commercial burial conventions.
ISKCON hasn’t slipped that low (but we haven’t yet experienced the conquest of a civilization and two-thousand years of history), at the same time there are, even in our short forty years of existence, disturbing signs of supine adaptation to the host-culture, disquieting indicators of psychological subservience, and an upsurge of compromised attitudes on integration and blending with the dominant culture.
ISKCON is neither cult or sect. As long as this society is named as ISKCON , the whole purpose is Krsna Consciousness, coming back to Godhead .
From outside if one sees another person, one may think his name is X, Y, Z etc. But once one come to the personal contact of this new person, one may know his actual name. Though ISKCON from outside looks like cult/sec etc but ISKCON is International Society Of Krsna Consciousness. That is the only name given by Prabhupada.
So in summary, to the outsider ISKCON may look anything but to the insider it must be ISKCON . So keeping ISKCON as ISKCON must be only purpose of ISKCON.
Nice points to ponder!! This article could describe more in detail how it has both characterstics of a sect and a cult. I felt that this is an over edited article, aimed towards perfection of words more than on the subject. If It can be more free flowing with simple points(realisations) also , it will be more relishable.
I agree, but in these days any society, group, etc. (and religious especially) has to have a good look and relation to outsiders as well. Otherwise, there will be too much misunderstanding and wrong quoting.
Kaunteya,
Good analysis and excellent conclusions. I like your sentence, “disturbing signs of supine adaptation to the host-culture…” I live in New York, and this statement is “cent per cent” on the mark.
The tension between conservative maintenance and liberal expansion is a difficult line to walk. For example, the Salvation Army is composed of two independent groups–one preaching and one social outreach–each with separate agendas and a host of differences. Another example in the U.S. are the Amish, which are akin to ISKCON’s farm communities, and Mennonites, akin to ISKCON preachers. Those two were one religious sect that split into two sects due to differences between practice and preaching. My point is that the big tensions cannot be rationalized away, or simply mediated by an ombudsman; they must be well managed.
Regarding tensions or polarities, I have a mantra that I base on Prabhupada’s example–conservative in management; liberal in preaching. Also, we should prioritize, prioritize, prioritize. Thus, as long as we professionally maintain our legacy and keep our basics at the forefront, like sankirtana, self-sustained farm communities, temples, infiltration of science, and guest houses, some devotees can preach in the most liberal, infiltrative, and innovative ways imaginable. However, when our basic institutions are watered down or replaced by innovative, liberal ones, or vice versa, when preaching is too conservative, then ISKCON is victim to bad priorities. By the same token, for effective teamwork, the majority of devotees who maintain ISKCON’s legacy should not be envious of those who are more innovative, and those who are talented enough to infiltrate society must not proudly think that they alone are in contact with Supersoul.
On one hand, ISKCON does indeed have pure devotees and a wonderful, wonderful Vaishnava culture. These, and the fact that most devotees are quite intelligent, are incalculable natural advantages. On the other hand, critical analyses like yours, Kaunteya, are also essential, because such administrative concerns, like all other aspects of ISKCON, help to hold back the influences of inertia (tamo-guna), Kali, and maya. Indeed one could say that all of ISKCON’s attempts are like those of the cowherd men who, with their sticks, helped Krishna lift Govardhana Hill. Like them, in every way we must help Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu spread this movement. He has ordered us to do so.
Your servant, Dayananda
Thank you for this thought-provoking analysis. I’d like to share two points:
1) The two approaches — one emphasizing authenticity and the restoration of orthadox religion (“sect”), and the other stressing spirituality unencumbered by institutional convention or prevailing religious norms — are important to acknowledge, but may not fall as neatly along ethnic lines as we often tend to assume.
While it is true that some devotees from Hindu backgrounds see ISKCON as a vital restoration of their roots, this is not the case for all. Some become involved with the movement for the very same reasons that many of their Western counterparts do: a dynamic revolutionary philosophy that made sense to them like nothing else did, joyful kirtans that rocked their world, tasty prasadam that melted their hearts. Likewise, there are more than a few non-Indian converts who join ISKCON because they are looking for an authentic, religion that calls for commitment. Such souls were attracted to this undeniablyly Eastern (“Vedic”) religion — dhotis, aratis, chappatis, and all — precisely because it was a religion, an orthodox modern day continuation of an ancient faith, and not something “new” at all.
Certainly, the split is not merely between Indian and Westerner. (By the way, to make matters even more complex, how do we factor insecond generation American-born Indian Americans — an increasingly significant demographic for ISKCON to connect with in North America?)
We have to be careful, then, not to make assumptions either way. I have seen, for instance, some temples rush to set up a “program for the Indians” and “program for Westerners” without giving any real thought as to why. On the other hand, I have also experienced communities where preachers and leaders analyzed their yatras, and then offered different styles of presentation, not along ethnic lines, but geared towards different approaches to Krishna consiousness relevant to their audiences. In the first case, both programs disintegrated into divisive politics, envy, and fuzzy thinking; in the second, the community as a whole becoming stronger and drew closer to one another as aspiring Vaisnavas.
2) If ISKCON is going to grow and expand the mission of Lord Caitanya, we need to find ways to accomodate both approaches (and some flavors in between) within the framework of the movement.
For those who appreciate the emphasis on authenticity, cultural ties with India, and traditional intricate ritual and orthadox worship, ISKCON temples should be exemplary beacons of first-class religion in practice. On the other hand, there may be those who seek, in Krishna consciousness, spirituality that is free of ethnic or “religious” trappings, and are loooking for more gradual and flexible ways to apply Vaisnava belief into their lives. We must enthusiastically provide avenues — whether within the physical temple structure, or through outreach events, loft-style centers, gatherings in homes, etc. — to lovingly engage and care for these seekers, as well.
Why limit ourselves with a rigid either/or approach to what ISKCON is or can be? Krishna is so wonderful that He inspires different souls to seek Him in different ways; isn’t it the least we can do to reciprocate with Him, by being similarly innovative, broadminded, and creative in how we receive them?
your servant,
Vyenkata Bhatta dasa
I am bowled over by the thoughtful analysis evident in this discussion. Congratulations to Kaunteya, Dayananda and Vyenkata Bhatta.
Hare Krishna Prabhus
The growth of our faith, and consequent realizations form a major part of our foundation in Krishna Consciousness. This quality of this foundation is is strongly influenced by the way in which we learn krishna Consciousness. Bhaktivinoda Thakur describes in his Sri Hari Nama Cintamani that it is the guru’s prime responsibility to exactingly explain sambhanda tattva to the disciple; the latter should properly accept it. The quintessence of this tattva is that , despite what is apparent to our sensory apparatus we are really eternal servants of Sri Krishna and His associates. This ontological truth is independent of culture, ethnicity, progenital lineage, and the like; this truth is also INCONTROVERTIBLE, and INALIENABLE. To the extent we can lock this tattva in our heart, and execute its simple mandate to that extent we will unfailingly perform devotional service. In such conditions anarthas will fall away, and we will develop a modicum of steadiness. It is by this means only can we sow the seeds of indomitable faith in the process of bhakti. Obvious experiences for the new aspirant would include a deepening satisfaction of the heart, and a contemporaneous quietining of the senses. The mind then develops a proclivity towards the Holy name, and other sinificant realizations may come.Realizing that the descriptions of the Lord and His pastimes are not ethinc, but transcendental we will happliy embrace all, and petty schisms among aspiring vaisnavas will go away. Let us all make a committment to learning and practicing Krishna Consciousness as the verifiable science it is. Let us share this para upakara with others who still have not understood that self cannot become something, IT IS ALREADY SOMETHING. Let them join us in an unencumbered brotherhood as we apply the epistemology of love gain knowledge of our real selves, and its source ( Sri Krishna). Acceptance of ethnicity as self is nothing but an inflection of the false ego , creating a referrent to gather relative knowledge on the plane of the intellect. The svarupa of the jiva is beyond such an insignificant refferent, and ethnic divisiveness can do no good on this great journey.