Aspects of a Successful Parampara

 

When one thousand people in the United States were asked the question: “What factors brought you to your present religious belief and membership of your current religious community?” the overwhelming majority, 85%, responded that ‘my friend got me interested,’ or ‘my friend was already involved,’ or ‘I went along to the meetings with friends.’ The findings of this survey suggest that a prime influence in religious self-identification (other than deeply-held personal conviction) is our circle of friends; and what we believe then influences our subsequent choices of friends. The committed relationships we maintain with our circle of friends also seem to be a key ingredient in the expansion, socialisation and sustainability of a religious community.

There will always be highly motivated, self-starting, lone seekers of spiritual wisdom. After a mystical experience, or a deeply heart-warming reading of an ancient text, and armed with only their own initial inspiration, they’ll search out a spiritual practitioner who can share his or her wisdom. They may even join a small, very dedicated, band of austere followers. In India it was formerly quite common for a guru to impart rahasya-vidya, secret teachings, to a handful of such disciples, sometimes only one or two. Those disciples would then pass on the secret mantras and tantras to another two disciples. Over the generations this would form a small and exclusive parampara; perfectly valid and intact, but not one that would have any far-reaching social consequences.

The paramparas associated with the Vaishnava community are, in contrast, dedicated to widespread dissemination of knowledge and practice. They are based upon the compassionate uplifting of humanity with the message of the most merciful incarnations and messengers of God. As such, the mantra – at least the particular parampara’s ‘great mantra’ – is distributed to all comers, irrespective of any material or social consideration. It is this friendship to all – the creation of lines of friendship so important to the socialisation of a religious message – that guarantees the widespread popularity of Vaishnavism and its endurance across the centuries.

Although a parampara is simply the handing down of knowledge from teacher to student – guru to sisya – it also generates a parallel manifestation due to its reaching out in friendship to others: a self-perpetuating community of spiritual friends that forms a distinct social grouping, steadily growing down through many centuries.

The authentic teachings of Vaishnavism in written form have become essential in perpetuating a parampara. For this reason modern-day Vaishnavas of ISKCON have digitized the founder-acarya’s teachings, audio recordings and visual images, and provided bomb-proof, museum-level archives for the original materials. Without preservation of the original teachings there would inevitably be philosophical divergence at some point in the future, threatening the perpetuation of the parampara.

But the other elements that serve to sustain a parampara are those that were amply demonstrated by the acarya himself. Firstly, the personal appearances: individual teaching and lecturing – upadesha and upanyasa – with guidance, correction, encouragement, and enthusiasm given to disciples by a living preceptor. Second, the formation of branches of the community, physical places where, in a dedicated environment, followers may gather together for prayer, meditation, worship and discussions. Third, the utter dedication to reaching out to others in a spirit of friendship: free hot meals of sacred food, theatre and colourful festivals, singing processions and sales of philosophical books in accessible language. It is difficult to imagine the present success of ISKCON without these components so generously arranged by the founder.

The sustainability of the parampara would thus seem to be best guaranteed by the preservation of the teaching; the living presence of the exemplars of the teaching; the proliferation of physical spaces where the practices of spirituality can prosper, and the spirit of reaching out to others. And of course, if everyone can remain friends then success is assured.

Fake Guru makes True Movie

Here is an interesting tale of how art imitates life. Kumare is a story about what happened when Vikram Gandhi decided to be a ‘guru’ for a while – and managed to attract a following of sincere devotees. And his friend filmed the whole thing with three cameras.

Vikram is an American of Indian parentage who knew a little about religion, Hinduism and yoga. He wanted to see how readily he would be accepted by spiritual seekers if he adopted the appearance, speech and mannerisms of a ‘guru.’ So he went back to yoga classes, grew his hair and beard for the genuine guru look, created an online identity – then ‘came to America.’

The result is a sad indictment of our times – when the external appearances of a ‘guru’ coupled with the spiritual longings of under-informed and easily-pleased seekers can produce an ardent following of would-be disciples in just a short time.

‘Kumare’ made up his own Sanskrit slogans and chants – even translating the motto of the U.S. Marines: ‘Be all that you can be’ – so that it sounded like an ancient Upanishadic aphorism.

The problem is that most people do not know the symptoms of a guru, his external and internal characteristics. They consequently tend to project their spiritual aspirations onto someone who matches their prior notions of what such a spiritual person should be.

Some have said that even making this film would have destroyed the fledgling faith of those who fell for their ‘guru.’ That once caught out – and caught out on film before the eyes of the world – they would be much less likely to repose their trust in anyone else. I can understand that objection, and I have decades of personal experience of it. However, I feel that the merit of this successful duping of the American public will ultimately be that western culture itself becomes more circumspect about trusting someone because of exotic appearances only. Hopefully people who want to know about gurus will turn to the source literature on the subject and become able to discern genuine manifestations of spirituality from superficial appearances.

Below: Film teaser and interview

fMLA1L8T-kc

B4vCvOVYyWE

Understanding (not burning) Holy Books

This year is the 400th anniversary of the publishing of the King James version of the Holy Bible. Its a great work of the English language and remains loved after four long centuries. Together with the works of William Shakespeare, it has contributed many words and expressions to the English language that we still use today.

Someone sent me recently the newest edition of the New Testament. It is a new translation, written in contemporary English and avoiding any ambivalent or difficult expressions of previous versions. It reads well, but somehow missed out on the feeling of the King James.

I suppose we all have a favourite divine scripture, from whatever cultural and religious background we come. The words are reassuring and contain wisdom in a form that our great-great-grandparents would have listened to and appreciated. And their great grandparents too.

However, we live in changing times, times that do not seem to be treating religious scripture that well. Whether it is fundamentalists of any persuasion burning holy books, or the ‘New Atheists’ rubbishing them verbally or in print, nothing is sacred. Including, it appears, sacred literature.

It began a long time ago. In the 1860s there began a wave of textual criticism of the Bible, with scholars examining the Bible as a historical document and contesting the accounts found there. Beginning in Germany, it swept through Europe and continues to the present day. What was previously unthinkable – criticism of the beliefs and symbols held sacred to people – is now commonplace.

Textual scholars are scientists of the historicity of the accounts found in the holy books of mankind. Their number includes linguistic palaeontologists, experts on the archaeology of ancient language and how language changes over the years and across geographical regions. Then there are scholars of religious traditions and the shades of difference between one sect and another – and which kings and social movements helped to make them that way.

Our respect for scientists – both the physical and literary types – places them at the top of the intellectual tree. We can choose to believe what we believe in our holy books, but the scientists will tell us whether or not what we believe is valid or not.

A reader brought a current television series to my attention. A young archaeologist was bringing her science to bear on many of the hallowed stories and traditions in the Holy Bible. From the Vaishnava perspective it was interesting, since we also have opinions on the thinking processes of the ancient mind. But the Bible was held up only to the light of science, and only that which is provable historically could be accepted as truth. And for ‘provable’ that means bones, pottery shards, and the names of kings.

I wondered how those who have newly discovered Vaishnavism would cope with such textual and historical analysis applied to our own tradition. Strangely enough, I did not  have long to wait. Another reader sent me a link to a BBC Radio 4 discussion chaired by Lord Melvyn Bragg. Subject of the discussion was The Bhagavad-gita. Readers can listen to it until next Thursday on the BBC website.

The scholars discussing the Bhagavad-gita are known to the Vaishnava community and, as scholars, their views are based on verifiable historical or linguistic evidence researched by themselves or other respected scholars.

However, it should be said that access to the inner spirit of the Bhagavad-gita is exclusively open to the scholar-practitioner. Access that is not readily available to those who study it only as a poetic historical document. The teachings of the Gita factually result in spiritual experiences that foster wisdom in contrast to knowledge. Not that scholars do not speak truth as they have discovered it, but that there is a higher order of truth available to those who taste what is described therein. Like accurately describing honey and then tasting it, there is a difference between the experiences of the observers.

Comments please…

Hinduization of ISKCON? What do you mean exactly?

A humorous billboard advertising a play at the recent Janmasthami. Put on by brahmacari actors, the play was successful at encouraging the festival-goers to get involved in ISKCON activities.

I was master of ceremonies last week for our Annual Supporters Dinner, and also yesterday for our weekend Janmasthami celebrations. We have a large, high-ceilinged marquee that can seat one thousand people comfortably, and the large stage  offers a very good view of the entire crowd. As I surveyed one thousand friendly faces at the annual dinner and the audience at the festival, I could not help but feel grateful for all the support that comes from  our friends who provide both funding and hours of volunteer service. Without them, such a large project as Bhaktivedanta Manor could not function. With their support and help, it is an indisputable fact that the Manor has gone from strength to strength, and has succeeded in implementing at least some of the orders that Srila Prabhupada gave. I am very happy with that. There is so much more to do, that’s true, but we can see improvements year on year.

But my sense of gradual growth is not shared by all. I know that some devotees  are concerned by the fact that the Manor has come to represent some of the changes within ISKCON that they perceive as unwelcome and a hindrance to spiritual progress. They are not in the majority, yet they are vocal. They say that ISKCON has changed significantly from its early years; from a  membership of mainly young, idealistic and frugal western converts, to a diverse movement of all ages, from all walks of life. They feel that through this change the movement has  somehow lost its initial spiritual potency, and perhaps, as a consequence, its appeal to young people. They argue that the original purpose and pioneering edge has been eroded, and we have gone from a rugged, highly committed campaigning group on the fringes of modern society, to a much more socially accommodated organization for the middle classes - an established ’religion’ even. This they find troubling.

In addition to this, somewhere along the way, during all the years of ups and downs, through all the meandering twists and turns that such a growing movement takes, we have attracted a huge amount of support from those of Indian background (or ‘east Indian’ if you’re  in the USA). And when Indians come to ISKCON they bring with them, just as the western converts did, their cultural conditionings and existing religious perspectives, namely those of Hinduism.

Now, I’ve written about Hinduism before, and how its a generic, catch-all term that in its broadness defines  nothing at all. Its a geographical designator, not a theological one, and was stuck on as a false label by both Muslim and British overlords in the days of invasion and subjugation. But now the label has stuck and most people of sub-continental origin, no matter what their particular religious affiliation, are quite happy to be regarded as Hindu, whatever the term means to them.

What devotees in ISKCON mean when they speak somewhat disparagingly about Hinduism and Hindus boils down to just three simple ideas. Ideas they find objectionable. The first is the notion that there are ‘many gods’ and that ‘all the gods are the same’. The second is that by religious ceremonies, morality and virtuous behaviour one can aspire to enjoy more sensual gratification in this life or the next. The third is that the ultimate state of existence is the soul’s merging with the divine, formless light known as Brahman.

Now these three ideas are also condemned as inferior beliefs by all Vaishnava schools of thought in India. Indeed, you will not find a great Vaishnava teacher, and certainly not the head of any of the traditional Vaishnava institutions, that will not have strong words about each of these notions. They are held as popular beliefs within other strands of Hinduism. But popularity does not mean they are true or in the best interest of the soul. All Vaishnava acaryas have consequently seen it as their duty to elevate mankind above those primary level religious ideas that are, in essence, selfishly motivated. The Vaishnavas want to help others towards selfless love of God, which includes the greatest and everlasting rewards for the true self . Accordingly, the founder of ISKCON also had strong words about such notions that were prevalent within the broad Hindu population. What is often seen, and what he spoke about, is that while on the surface many Hindus will vocally espouse the conceptions of selfless devotion of bhakti to Krishna, the three ideas mentioned above still lie just beneath the surface and therefore need to be addressed by robust teaching.

ISKCON devotees, as Vaishnavas, naturally feel they have a duty to carry out their duty to Srila Prabhupada by similarly condemning philosophies of life that he indicated as errors of  philosophical judgement. And they also feel duty bound to convey the positive conceptions of Krishna bhakti as taught by all Vaishnava acaryas throughout history.

But they should also understand if Hindus residing in the west, brought up from childhood to admire and respect Krishna, are drawn to ISKCON. And if they come in their thousands because of the beauty of our religious services, festivals and shrines, that is certainly not a threat. What is a threat is if ISKCON compromises its theology, liturgy or governance structure to accommodate any one of the non-Vaishnava ideas identified above. Has that happened? I don’t know for every branch of our Society. I can say that it has not happened here. Could it happpen? Yes, of course. There is always a chance of ISKCON’s growth being compromised by any one of a number of factors.

So far as I see at Bhaktivedanta Manor, the reverse influence is taking place: our local Hindu community has been singularly affected by ISKCON and its message of practical devotion to Krishna; the very opposite of what is feared by some. New converts from ‘generic Hinduism’ to Vaishnavism are coming forward every year, and last year more than one hundred became initiated. During our last Summer Book Distribution Marathon – a core ISKCON missionary activity if ever there was one - over 70 participants were from Indian backgrounds. Our Janmasthami Festival, this year attracting some 70,000 visitors over two days; almost entirely staged by 600 volunteers who came every evening after their day’s work finished to give ISKCON an average of  four hours voluntary service each. Then there is the considerable financial support: 400 major supporters and many thousands of donors, all of whom help to realise what Srila Prabhupada wanted for Bhaktivedanta Manor: the new agricultural land and driveway (£1 million), the new roof (£1.5 million), the new cow and oxen protection centre (£2.5 million), the new school, pushed forward by a combination of community involvement and central government funding (total £13 million) and many other projects, all of which help to establish the core activities that ISKCON’s founder identified as being essential.

We can never become complacent, however. Many is the religious organisation that was inadvertently, and gradually – sometimes over many years – profoundly affected by the divergent ideas of its members. Core values and foundational principles can be set aside for more pragmatic ones; policy making based on the founder’s wishes can fall victim to popular notions and more liberal philosophies or the process of modernization. Can Bhaktivedanta Manor’s outreach activities and considerable resources be more directed to the young spiritual seeker from a Christian, Jewish or Atheist background? As Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura termed them, the ‘fair-skinned English?’ Of course, more could always be done.

But we do not accomplish more in one direction of outreach by disparaging attempts in another. And far less is achieved by criticizing those attempts when they are successful, as they are at Bhaktivedanta Manor. To all those who would challenge that ISKCON has become ‘Hinduized’, I would ask: “What do you mean – exactly?”

Namaste Brother!

This tickled me and I thought I’d share it with you. Its nice to see a Christian brother find something helpful in the wisdom of the East for a change and to want to share the inner meanings of a common Sanskrit greeting with his flock. I hope it helps everyone who listens.

We should not be surprised when this happens. It will certainly happen more in the future. The wisdom of the Vedas is actually not the ‘wisdom of the east’ or ‘India,’ or the ‘Hindu religion’ but merely wisdom itself. As such, it is meant for all people, in all places, at all times, and in all languages. Its certainly too important to be kept in India, or locked away in the Sanskrit language. Luckily for us, Srila Prabhupada thought the same way and spent his time sharing it.

There’s no reason at all why the spiritual teachings of Lord Jesus Christ have to be permanently affiliated with Greek philosophy and the commentaries of Thomas Aquinas and his successors. Although that combination has served Europeans quite well over a number of centuries, more depth is required if Christianity itself is to survive the philosophical onslaughts it is currently undergoing. A carefully delineated siddhanta – a definitive statement of the existential nature of the soul, matter, time, space, God, illusion, moral law, and the relationships that exist between them – is required if Christianity is to perform its difficult task in the years ahead.

Combine the moral and devotional teaching  of Lord Jesus Christ with the foundational philosophy of the Vedas and you have something quite remarkable. Namaste, dear readers.

Spiritual and Religious Community Leaders

The Dalai Lama and the Archbishop of Canterbury: Spiritual leaders, religious leaders, community leaders, political leaders – or all of the above?

We all think we know what we mean when we say ‘spiritual leader’ and we may have a corresponding image of someone who fits the bill.

But is a religious community leader the same as a spiritual leader? Can one person be a ‘spiritual person’ and a ‘community leader’ at the same time?

When a ‘spiritual community’ grows in size from 15 devout people who live together to 55 who don’t, do we need a different type of leadership? What about 5,500? Or 55,000?

Many idealistic people who join spiritual leaders don’t like institutions. But what happens when, due to spirituality, a community grows in complexity and diversity of membership? What then? What changes – and what stays exactly the same?

Who speaks for that community? And who speaks to the government about the community’s needs?

Here is a BBC radio programme that went out this morning. I thought it was interesting enough to share with you. If you like, have a listen (it’s only available for the next seven days) and let me know what you think. It’s only about Britain and our religious communities here, but you may find something here to stimulate your thought processes.

Let me know.

Here it is: Sunday – Roger Bolton discusses the week.

Mother Earth honoured at new Hindu state school

I went along to the Bhumi Puja for the new Krishna-Avanti school in Harrow the other day. The ceremony to mark the UK’s first ever government-funded Hindu faith school generated quite a bit of media interest and a short television news report can be viewed here:

Bhumi Puja for new school

Faith schools are regarded by the neo-secularists to be an unecessary reversion to Britains religious past, when spiritual life and educational life were held to be both equally important in building the character of a child. However, despite the clamour of the opposing parties, recent statistics still prove that faith schools in general deliver a better exam pass rate than average. And Hindu children seem to achieve high results. In a country where, as in most places, education is a key yardstick in measuring the competence of the government of the day, such figures are important. Put the figures together and the idea of a Hindu faith school seems to make good educational sense.

Hence this particular government of the day is keen to show support to a Hindu school, the first of its kind. At least one government minister, several members of parliament, the head of school inspectors, and the head of the local council, joined the governors and staff for the occasion.

Government-funded means that both the majority cost of building the school and the ongoing teachers salaries are provided by government. This leads to the stability of being able to plan for the future. It also means that the curriculum must be taught in accordance with national requirements yet the faith partnership means that Vedic wisdom, ethics and values will accompany the children through their years of education.

The design of the school is very forward-looking and has been conceptualised and executed by a team of architects who specialise in educational spaces. Solar panels and a ‘green roof’ along with outdoor teaching, lots of daylight in classrooms, and spaces for vegetable growing have already attracted favourable comments. And the idea of yoga for children also seems to have got people nodding their heads in approval in these days of childhood obesity.

The school is not expected to be fully operational until September 2009, and by that time will be heavily over-subscribed if current enquiries continue as they are. You can find out more at: http://www.krishna-avanti.org.uk

No Hindus in Vaikuntha

I’d like to thank Bhakta Eric – whose writings I enjoy – for his submission of Srila Prabhupada’s conversation with Harikesh. But before everybody sends me their favourite “We are not Hindus…” quote, and we begin what might easily become a downward spiral, may I just say a few things?

First is that there are no Hindus in Vaikuntha. Neither will you find any Christians there, and neither Jews nor Muslims. And certainly no Buddhists. Only those souls who have become free from all designations can go there.

Second, designations means any identity, name, or title given either by others or myself to describe my function or position in relation to others. That means my bodily, mental, social, political and socio-religious function and position in relation to others. OK so far?

Third, is that all these are temporary. That means they are continually subject to change. They may change abruptly or gradually during my life according to my changing perspective of reality, my changing convictions, circumstances, needs, and the social and political environment I’m working in. When I die, which in my case is in just a few years time if I’m lucky, every designation will no longer apply. I shall certainly stop being a white-skinned British male and everything that was previously designated by myself or others will become reduced to ash.

Fourth, because these designations are obstacles to my spiritual progress I have been requested to meditate on my spiritual identity as a infinitesimally small soul which is, by its very constitution, an eternal servant of the infinitely large Supreme personality of Godhead. Practising that identity, I pray to God that at the very least it will survive the death experience.

Fifth, although my designations are not, in fact, my very self; although they are temporary; although they tend to make me focus on an identity that is temporary and therefore, although real, part of an illusion, those designations refer to the instruments that I currently use in this somewhat painful reincarnation, to survive and serve.

Sixth, I have many such designations, some of which are subsets of other designations. Here are just a few: son, brother, father, husband, grihasta, tax-payer, licensed driver, white, male, Welsh, English, British, employee, resident, priest, Judo license-holder, teacher, UK passport-holder, brahmana, loyal subject of Queen Elizabeth II, and…Hindu.

Seventh, those designations are used by me, rather than me being a helpless victim of those designations. I certainly find that the UK passport-holder designation helps me, in this current body, to come and go through the borders of the country in which this body resides. I have not yet tried declaring myself to be an eternal resident of Vaikuntha at Immigration Control.

Eighth, those designations – or the materially perceivable phenomena they designate – help me to serve Srila Prabhupada this time round. My service at the moment is to help to bring about a cultural, social, philosophical and spiritual revolution within contemporary English society. Part of that revolution is to provide educational opportunities. And part of that is to support and endorse schools.

Finally, this blog is read by many more than those who subscribe to, and practise, ISKCON’s teachings. Thank you for listening!

What’s in a name?

My last piece about the Hindu school has been attracting more hits than normal. And more than a few comments. The people at Hinduism Today – American converts living in Hawaii – wrote online to say that ISKCON is not Hindu at all.

I suppose I should have been prepared for that. Years ago, when they were just starting out as a newspaper, I wrote to them and offered that ISKCON reserves the right to define itself according to the demands of prevailing circumstances. They published my letter and the editor commented – perhaps a little too gratefully – that since ISKCON used the term only conditionally, it had forfeited its right to be known as Hindu.

I presume by this tactic that the swamis hoped to relegate a much bigger international organisation to a mere historical footnote in their ‘global Hindu renaissance.’

They actually do a very good job, the swamis at Hinduism Today. The magazine is a colourful and interesting read, and has helped thousands of Hindus feel a sense of pride and wonder at this most ancient of faiths. Many readers are Indians living abroad amid circumstances that challenge their comittment to the Hindu way of life. The magazine bolsters their identity and goes a long way to showing the logic behind the ancient ways of life. Most importantly, it shows that Hindus have no need to be embarrassed at their beliefs, which is always a good thing.

What many might not know is that the actual religion behind this noble publication is not merely a generic ‘Hindu’ but Shaivite, the worship of Lord Shiva. Indeed, their periodical started out as New Shaivite World but then they were advised by a friendly marketing expert that they should change the name to incorporate the more inclusive term Hindu in order to encourage more sales; and thus Hinduism Today was born.

So ISKCON, it seems, is not alone in employing the term Hindu according to choice or need. But that is quite legitimate. For what ISKCON has done around the world to restore and teach the Vedic heritage, we certainly deserve to be known as Hindus if anyone does.

I have stated in other pieces that the designation Hindu is Muslim in origin, and not mentioned anywhere in the Veda. That it is a catch-all term indicating thousands of communities in the sub-continent. What this means is that when a Hindu in India identifies themselves to another person they will not merely use the term Hindu but will explain to which particular community or sampradaya they belong. I suppose you could say that no-one is really a generic Hindu, they have to be a specific Hindu. They have to be identified with a particular spiritual teacher and community.

So just as myself, a Vaishnava by sampradaya, can legitimately lay claim to the cultural, social and political term Hindu if I wish, so can my Shaivite friends over at Hinduism Today.

And so can the Gujarati Krishna-bhakta work colleagues of my friend and fellow blogger Sita Pati Das. He wrote on his site to say that his workmates felt that the new Hindu school in London would be sectarian if it did not admit pupils who could not demonstrate that they were vegetarian and regular worshippers at a local temple. Perhaps his work colleagues have been working away from India for too long to come up with this curiously illogical remark.

Show me a ‘non-sectarian’ Hindu, or a ‘non-sectarian’ Christian, and I will show you someone who doesn’t actually believe in anything firmly enough, cannot make up his mind, or just doesn’t belong to a community yet.

In the West we lay great acclaim for something religious if it is non-sectarian. It is often used to explain the breadth and openness of a persons belief system, and to show that they are entirely free from prejudice. But you cannot be a non-sectarian Hindu because the entirety of what the world refers to as Hinduism is comprised of many sections, or sects.

A flower is no less beautiful if you describe it as being made up of numerous individual petals, no matter that the petals all look the same to the untrained eye.

But we’re really talking about a school aren’t we? A school that is the first of its kind in England and that will be open by this time next year. The school will be a Vegetarian school. A Vaishnava school. An English school. And a thoroughly Hindu one, too.

‘Vegetarianism is not OK’ say some Hindus

Some Hindus have a problem with vegetarian policy at new Hindu school

There’s been a kerfuffle in the media in the past few days over the entrance policy for the new Hindu school in Harrow. Various parties have submitted statements to newspapers and been interviewed on the radio.

The Krishna-Avanti Hindu School is to be built and run with money from central government and, like the name suggests, its a school for Hindu children. Unlike America and many other countries, the UK has a policy of supporting public schools where all the students profess one faith. The only criteria is that there is sufficient demand from local parents.

The ‘faith schools’ argument- some people like the idea because the schools seem to have better discipline and produce good exam results; some don’t like the idea because they are potentially socially divisive – has been going on for a year or two, fuelled by anxieties over growing fundamentalism in British society.

However, the recent media flurry – before a single brick has been laid – is about who gets to decide what Hinduism is and therefore which children get to become pupils. The school is already heavily over-subscribed because it is the first of its kind in this country and many of the 40,000 Hindus in the London borough of Harrow would like their children to go there next year.

As I have written elsewhere, the word ‘Hindu’ means many things to many people; and to some people it means subscribing to a vague, non-denominational, pick-and-mix type of faith largely based on the country of birth or ethnicity. But that’s the problem when you employ one term to fit the thousands of historical faith communities originating in India.

Many Hindu groups applied to the government to run the first ever Hindu school, but only one could be given the go-ahead. A group known as the I-Foundation won the bid, satisfying the government as to their suitability and competence for the job. Whilst in general most of the other Hindu groups did not take the success of this group to be the source of dismay – it was, after all, to be a school of their own faith – there were a few persons who did. And this week, when the school admissions policy was announced, and it was seen that the criteria included practising the Hindu faith at home and local temple, and being a vegetarian, it was enough to send those few persons to the media in protest.

Leaving aside the fact that the admissions policy to any similar faith school requires the fulfillment of similar criteria, (Catholic schools, for instance, ask that the child is actually a practising Catholic, and have certain conditions that need to be satisfied beforehand to prove it) the protesters seemed particularly annoyed that vegetarianism was included as a requirement.

ISKCON is the official ‘faith partner’ for this new school and, strange to say, the Hindus who complained felt that a certain sectarian bias was in evidence by this dietary requirement. Of course, as anyone who has read anything of Hinduism will know, ahimsa or non-violence, is a cardinal creed of the faith and it is only in more recent years that anyone has attempted to challenge this.

But let me stop here and share with you a letter sent to the main Asian newspaper here. Its from Nitin Mehta, a Hindu, the secretary of the Young Indian Vegetarians, who was recently awarded the OBE for services to his community. He was quite forthright in his rebuttal:

Dear Sir
Anuja Prashar’s article, ‘ Does Practise Make Perfect’? shows how confused
Hindus like her have become regarding this faith. Part of the problem is the
word ‘Hindu’ itself. While at one time it meant a people or a nationality, it
now means a faith. A faith has certain principles by which its adherents live,
it cannot mean that anything goes. The problem is that many Hindus and quite a
few Hindu leaders want their Hinduism without any annoying restrictions.
Dr.Gautem Sen of the London School of Economics whom Anuja quotes: ‘ I am sympathetic to giving vegetarianism a higher status within Hinduism, though not a vegetarian myself, but to use it to exclude virtually everyone is absurd’ is a good example of this thought process.

Dr. Sen is obviously a proud Hindu but it would be nice
to know what salient values of Hinduism he practises in everyday life. The
Krishna Avanti primary school is based on Hindu ethos and vegetarianism is a
very crucial part of this ethos–what problem do Anuja and other Hindu leaders have with it? Why do they want meat to be served in a school which is based on Hindu principles? Why did they feel the need to do go to the national press about this? Do they serve meat in Arya Samaj schools and colleges in India? The government wants every one to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day and what on earth could be the objection for the students to be served a healthy, sattvic lunch at this school? Anuja goes on to question the very notion that Hinduism can be practised! She lays the blame on ‘ the
Christian origins of most of the ISKCON followers’. This is an unfortunate slur on
millions all over the world who have come to Krishna.

ISKCON, whose founder was Srila Prabhupada, and whose teachings this movement follows, has nothing to do with the Christian origins of its adherents. Srila Prabhupada taught that it is not enough to be proud of your faith, you have to practise it. It is
therefore essential to differentiate between born Hindus and praticing Hindus. As a guide to who is a practising Hindu one has to look at the life of a Hindu monk. Certainly there is no Hindu monk I know of that eats meat, fish or eggs.

Anuja does not want a separation between a ‘ universal, all encompassing Hinduism and those that pratise their Hinduism.’ By that logic even beef would be OK and if it is not why not? There are, after all, no rules in Anuja’s view of Hinduism. Our young people are constantly mocked that our religion cannot be taken seriously because there are no core values that Hindus adhere to. Vegetarianism is in fact one of the greatest gifts of Hinduism to the world. Meat eating is destroying the planet, is the cause of many diseases and above all a cause of immense cruelty to animals. Instead of promoting this
great gift to the world, meat-eating Hindus want vegetarianism to become
irrelevant to the faith.

Anuja claims that ISKCON-Hindu school would sit, ‘uncomfortably with the Hindu integrative, democratic and egalitarian principles of a Dharmic world view’. ISKCON devotees distribute free food to tens of thousands of people in UK, they have translated the Bhagavad Gita in most of the worlds languages, and their egalitarian principles
extend to animals. It is no use saying how great our Dharma is and then have
chicken for dinner. Ahimsa and compassion are the greatest gems of our Dharma
take them and away and there is not much to differentiate us from other religions.

Nitin Mehta