Why Not Krishna?

After repeated visits to New Vrindaban (and despite learning some disturbing tales about the community) I was compelled to find out more about Hinduism. There are a lot of ideas in Vedic philosophy that either appeal to me personally, or make a lot of sense regardless of the way I feel about them. Even though I am an avowed meat eater, I can see the wisdom in eschewing the flesh of animals and focusing a diet on the nutrients of vegetables. After a long discussion with N.V. chief agriculturalist Tapahpunja, I came away resolved to limit my intake of beef. While the eating habits of Krishnas may initially seem unappetizing (no meat, caffeine, alcohol, onions, garlic, mushrooms, etc.), there is no doubt that following their restrictions would lead to an extremely healthy lifestyle.

The Hindu concept of offering every action up to God is intriguing, if very demanding. In contrast, many Western religions seem to ask little of adherents. Hinduism requires a constant awareness of the quality of one's actions, no matter how routine. It is a highly structured religion with rigid strictures for everyday living. The belief that Krishna is physically present on our lips when we chant His name sounds foreign until one considers the Eucharist in Christianity. It's easy to critique other religions from a perspective confined by the blinders of one's faith. Only by stepping back from one's own position can a measure of objectivity be attained. If the practices of devotees at New Vrindaban seem "weird", it is mostly because of the spiritual homogeneity throughout the United States . Additionally, most citizens are conditioned to subjugate their religious identity in order to fully enter consumerist society.

In this nation, materialism is elevated to a holy pursuit. It's not difficult to understand why so many within the counterculture turned to Eastern philosophies and religions in the 60's and early 70's. Those years constituted a short concentrated era in which people questioned the assumptions that they had been conditioned to accept without reflection. I don't think the Krishna Consciousness Movement could have arrived in the West during a more auspicious time. It capitalized on the general disillusion that people had with modern capitalism and traditional authority. No doubt many of those who found themselves at New Vrindaban were bringing personal instabilities along with them. But at the same time, I'm certain that there were plenty of folks who were genuine in their search to embrace something deeper and more meaningful than conventional society had offered them.

According to Hinduism, the stakes are high. We are trapped in a cycle of material existence, whereby we accumulate "karma"for all the suffering we cause in our lives. This baggage is carried over when we are reincarnated into subsequent lives. If we don't surrender to Krishna and devote our efforts to Him, we will never transcend to the Godhead. For many rationalists, this is a major stumbling block. Personally I think this formulation is poetic and resonant. In some strange way, it mirrors my understanding of evolution itself. According to this world view, spiritual progression leads to salvation. This is what Krishnas mean when they suggest that you can "Stay High All the Time". If nothing else, this admonition demonstrated an adept approach to marketing during the Hippie Era.

There are a few principles in Krishna Consciousness that simply prohibit me from embracing it wholesale. The main precept that I have difficulty with is the characterization of the divine as "essentialist". The attribution of definite and absolute qualities to the Godhead seems extraordinarily limited to me. I've never been able to accept the personification of God. The consequences of this belief lead to (at least) two troubling aspects in Hinduism. One I've mentioned in a recent post- it creates a master-disciple relationship that is ripe for exploitation. In this setup, the guru is to be followed as an infallible representative of God. I simply don't believe that is possible. Secondly, Krishna is irrefutably male and thus Hindus accept a hierarchy in which women are absolutely subjugated to men. This is irreconcilable with my perspective, and prohibits me from considering Krishna Consciousness (or Hinduism) a viable option.

Hubner and Gruson, "Monkey on a Stick" (1988)

I've written on a few occasions about the Hare Krishna farm community in the northern panhandle of West Virginia. I have visited New Vrindaban four times. It is an impressive retreat located in the wild hills near Moundsville. Its central focus is Prabhupada's Palace of Gold, a grand edifice built to honor the founder and spiritual master of the Krishna Consciousness Movement. The place has a storied history, and has weathered a lot of controversy over the years. I learned a lot about its development by watching a documentary called Holy Cow Swami- a documentary film made by West Virginian filmmaker Jacob Young. I thought that Young's examination and portrayal of New Vrindaban was fairly balanced, and that his appreciation for his subject was sincere.

Still there are plenty of crazy and dark tales to tell about both New Vrindaban and the Krishna movement throughout the West. During further research on these topics I became aware of a book by John Hubner and Lindsry Gruson entitled Monkey on a Stick. It was written in the midst of the media frenzy that followed the trials of Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada (Keith Ham), and the shocking tales being told by disgruntled devotees and fringies* across America and beyond. People had viewed the Movement with suspicion ever since the New York Times covered the activities of the very first temple in Manhattan in the mid-60's. Despite this nation's professed respect for freedom of religion- if you are not a conventional Christian, a lot of folks will view you with distrust and confusion. Certainly some of the harsh criticism leveled against the Krishnas in the 80's was a result of such attitudes.

But if you dig a little deeper, you can find plenty of salacious details originating from within the Movement itself. Hubner and Gruson did a thorough job of cataloging the negative perspectives of both current and ex-devotees, along with those of independent observers, law enforcement figures, and peripheral adherents. Before reading Monkey on a Stick, I could have outlined a basic overview of some of the difficulties that New Vrindaban has faced over the years, but I was missing a lot of the background details that would explain some of the complexities involved in the community. This book filled in the gaps. Even more helpfully, the authors put the local problems in a wider frame by examining the conflict between the Governing Body Council of ISKCON (that was supposed to manage the Movement) and the initiating gurus who viewed themselves as individual succesers to Prabhupada himself.

Kirtanananda wasn't the only swami who ran afoul of the law after Prabhupada's death. A California-based guru named Hansadutta (Hans Kary) collected an arsenal of weapons near San Francisco to confront what he thought would be a massive invasion of Karmis**. He fortified himself with illicit drugs and sex with his female devotees. Jayatirtha (James Immel, the London guru ) used LSD to connect with Krishna, and decided to likewise avail himself of the flesh of his disciples. He was later killed and beheaded by his most ardent follower, who had decided he was a modern-day Rasputin. Bhagavan (William Ehrlichman) ruled over multiple European temples with an imperious approach. He had an overwhelming weakness for luxury that earned him the nickname "The Sun King". He lived a lavish life in a mansion and drank out of a $10,000 goblet made from pure gold.

Ultimately Monkey on a Stick makes a pretty convincing case that the downfall of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness followed quickly upon Prabhupada's passing in 1977. He gave instructions from his deathbed for succession. He designated 11 of his disciples rittvik representatives, and gave them the power to act as his deputies in initiating future devotees. Unfortunately the chosen ones viewed themselves as divine acharyas- or as the infallible representatives of God on Earth. They became trapped in Maya (the sensory world of the ego) and misused their perceived authority to further their insatiable desires for power. The danger of a religion based upon a master-devotee relationship is that it is particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Luckily for Krishna Consciousness there have been 'reformers' in the Movement like Ravindra Svurupa (William Deadwyler, Philadelphia) and Bahudaka (Peter Chatterton, Vancouver) who have arisen to keep ISKCON 'Honest'.

*"Fringies" are those that generally follow the teachings, philosophy and faith-based beliefs of Prabhupada and Krishna Consciousness, but do not adhere rigidly to the strictures of devotees.

** "Karmies" are the meat-eating heathens who have yet to embrace Krishna Consciousness. They are doomed to a cycle of reincarnation on the "material platform" until they surrender fully to God and work off their accumulated karma.