Interview on Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Leadership and the Future of ISKCON

Q1. What important instructions and leadership examples of Śrīla Prabhupāda do you feel should be preserved and shared for the longevity and solidarity of ISKCON into the future?

I would like the first principle to be maintained, preserved and cherished: to be principled, to be in this conviction of what Kṛṣṇa consciousness is, in such a way that we are not compromising ourselves for so-called practical purposes.

Simultaneously, or as one of the principles, we have to be flexible. Flexibility is a principle of yoga, especially yoga-āsana – stretching and bending – and this develops flexibility. I think an interesting question would be: how might flexibility be developed by leaders and management? What kind of practices could be instituted for practicing being flexible? I think this could be interesting exercises for training and education.

A second point is being people-centered, as opposed to object- and institution-centered. Just last night I was fortunate to see this new film of Yadubara Prabhu and Mother Viśākhā about Śrīla Prabhupāda, and this comes out so strongly: how people-centered Śrīla Prabhupāda was. I think we always need to remember that.

Among sociologists, starting with Max Weber in the early 20th century, there is a concept of how religions happen and develop: there is a charismatic figure, and when that charismatic figure – after inspiring so many people – leaves or departs this world, then those who follow necessarily need to institutionalize. This institutionalization he called the “routinization of charisma.” It’s a very commonly known expression among scholars of religion.

So I think it’s good to be aware that we will always be in a kind of tension between the need for charisma and the need for routine. It’s built into our tradition. We have our daily temple routines, many sorts of routines, but it’s also all about charisma, originating of course in Kṛṣṇa. Somehow, we need to always be pursuing that balance.

Next, I would say compassion – to be genuinely compassionate. I think also there is scope for discussion on how to cultivate compassion. We might draw help from other religious traditions. There is a popular book that came out recently, something like “12 Steps Toward Compassion,” from a famous lady scholar whose name is slipping my mind at the moment. It’s very recognized.

Perhaps we could study such literature – in addition, of course, to being grounded in our own tradition of compassion, which is so much emphasized – but really think more deeply: are there ways this can be cultivated consciously and systematically? Such a book as I suggested might be useful to think about, and, so to say, “translate,” using our own terminology but getting ideas from her book.

And then, what I see in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s way of doing things is that he was constantly empowering devotees. It’s mentioned in the Hare Kṛṣṇa film that the main way Śrīla Prabhupāda managed his expanding movement was through letters. If one studied what sort of themes and flavors come out, I think a major one would be empowerment – “You can do it,” encouraging: go out, establish a temple, preach, distribute books, etc. Empowerment is very important.

I mention this because I have noticed over the years that, despite our best intentions and despite all the good things that we do, something in our culture tends within temple communities to disempower. This is probably not the case at this temple, but in certain places I have seen it. It can be a very gradual and subtle process.

In particular, I’ve seen this where there are brahmacāriṇīs – unmarried women who live for a longer period of time in the temple – and they become gradually more and more disempowered. I think a lot of thought needs to go into critically looking at our culture. Śrīla Prabhupāda exemplified all of this that I’ve just mentioned.

To be more specific, I think I would need time to reflect and remember particular details of particular occasions like that.

Q2. Do you find any areas of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings that have still not been appropriately implemented, or aspects of his vision for the mission that are yet to be fulfilled? If so, what could be done to fulfill them?

One thing that Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote about from very early on – I’m thinking of a particular article in one of his earliest Back to Godhead magazines in the 1940s – is the notion of temples being places of education, training and education.

To a significant degree, this is becoming more and more realized. Of course, Śrīla Prabhupāda established morning and evening classes on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Bhagavad-gītā and so on, and that goes on, generally at least the morning classes. Then over the years, we have developed the śāstric courses, and those are being taught very nicely in certain places, and also becoming more and more available online. I would just say: I think this trajectory needs to be kept, in the same direction and angle.

One experience I had when I went back to university: I did a master’s degree at an institution in America called the Graduate Theological Union. This is essentially a Christian institution, a private institution in Berkeley, California, a consortium of nine different theological schools from nine very different Christian traditions.

Many students there were studying for a degree called Master of Divinity. Having already completed an undergraduate degree, they would then come and do this two-year – actually three-year – course, which would then qualify them in their respective churches to take a position as a minister or priest. Prior to having this degree they were not accepted as proper ministers. They had a very rigorous course of education, including so much theology and a wide variety of courses.

One of the courses they had to take is called homiletics – the study and practice of how to preach. They had professors of homiletics. I heard a Christian preaching by one of these professors, a lady, and she was so good, so powerful, that I thought: if we could have such training in our society, this would be so wonderful. So the educational trajectory: I think we need to keep it up and let it expand.

Related to this, and connected with the earlier point about empowerment versus disempowerment: if we think of modern educational institutions, people enter the institution, study for some time, get some qualification and some degree, and then they go out into the world. The mentality in our society tends to be – and this is of course a generalization – in many centers: to bring people in, welcome them, and then do whatever we can to keep them in.

I think this is one factor that starts to corrode the potential empowerment. So that’s something to think about.

A third trajectory: I think we really should focus a lot more on land-based communities. This is a huge challenge, but just from the perspective of preaching, I see it as very important and essential for showing what we are saying. The philosophy is wonderful, but where are you doing this? How is it being done?

It is going on, but compared to what’s needed, we have only done very little yet, understandably, because of the challenges and because we have many priorities. We may need to do more thinking and acting in this direction, which includes agriculture and, with special emphasis, cow protection (go-sevā, go-rakṣā), because Śrīla Prabhupāda emphasized it so much. Again, very difficult and yet so necessary.

In the last few weeks, for my research on this subject of go-sevā and go-rakṣā, I’ve been interviewing some people who are involved in what I would call “go-sevā activism”. They all make this point: “All problems are solved by serving cows.” I think this is such a nice mantra that we can take more seriously for our whole society as well.

It means, for example: we have this person who has come, and we need somebody to wash pots, so at all costs we will keep this person to wash pots, when actually this person has so much potential. It may be that we need to think in terms of residence periods: someone comes for a specified period of time, gets training and education – maybe one month, six months, a year, two years – and then at the end of that period, we congratulate them, give them some kind of diploma, have a celebration for them and wish them well on their way in life.

Of course, we do all we can to maintain the connection with that person. That person becomes a congregational member. And if everything has gone as it should, just like in the university, there is an alumni association and they are encouraged to feel connected to their institution for the rest of their life, and also to serve the institution by donation and so on. That will only happen if they have had a very positive experience in their institution of higher learning.

Rather than keeping someone as long as we possibly can until, as we say, “they become fried out,” and then they just leave and don’t want anything to do with us again. That’s the idea.

Q3. Please share some of the personal principles and practices which you have held on to in your journey through ups and downs in various leadership roles in ISKCON.

My main practice with regard to management has been to avoid becoming a manager. Really, I’ve never at any time in these forty-some years had any official management position. I have not even been a saṅkīrtana leader. Even preaching in Eastern Europe in groups of two, I was always the second, the assistant, and I was happy in that position.

You might say I was something of a head pūjārī for some time, but even then not really officially. I was ISKCON GBC Minister of Deity Worship for some years, but I was by no means an exemplary minister. My excuse is that I was very engaged in education at the time; I was studying university education. I passed on that position as soon as I could to someone much more qualified and focused.

Having said that, I have observed many of our leaders and managers in our society. One that immediately comes to my mind is Hṛdaya Caitanya Prabhu in Rādhādeśa. From 1981 he was there, and sometime after that he became temple president. Up until just one or two years ago he was temple president, and he is still highly regarded today for how he developed that project – by his personal qualities of patience, persistence, thoughtfulness, and care for the residents. I would also say for his participation in the morning programs – complete morning programs.

Another one, of course, is His Holiness Rādhānātha Swami. Here I would put the emphasis on his ability to empower others. We see so many of his disciples and followers doing so much simply because he inspires them. He sees that someone has a certain qualification and gives them facility for that.

In fact, we were speaking about this at Govardhana Eco-village yesterday with Rādhānātha Swami. One subject of conversation was that, as managers and leaders, we should identify a particular devotee’s special strength and engage them with reference to that strength, to bring it out. So I see him as exemplary.

Q4. Which leadership values should be included in the training for future ISKCON leaders? (Please mention at least three.)

I would say that we should explicitly acknowledge that there is this tension, and we should reflect on how to make it a creative tension rather than a destructive one.

There is a tension between the need for standardized education and training on the one side, and, on the other, the concern that this can be counterproductive or against the spirit of spontaneity.

Within the side of standards and systems, we should also make a point of celebrating difference. That means highlighting among the students their differences and appreciating them: “Oh, this is very interesting, this is nice; we can think about how this kind of approach could be developed,” and so on.

Sometimes there are differences and questions that may be more on the practical side, and some more on the theoretical, philosophical, theological side. What I see again and again is that our culture tends to push us toward saying, “It’s either this or it’s that,” and there’s no discussion about the possibility that it may be actually both-and, or something in between. There seems to be a tendency in our culture to be very uncomfortable with ambiguity and with grey areas and uncertainty. I think we need to allow for both sides and be comfortable with them, to allow for creative solutions.

When we speak of standards, this brings the notion of rules, and we need to remember Rūpa Gosvāmī’s point that there are principles and there are details. But that doesn’t solve the issue, because one Vaiṣṇava’s principle is another Vaiṣṇava’s detail and vice versa. Still, at least understanding that idea helps us see how a standard may be right for certain conditions and situations.

Values I would emphasize:

• Patience
• Equal vision – a very important value, constantly emphasized in our śāstras
• Empowering others
• The broad, inclusive value given by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura: finding the essence in any person, any situation, any issue. I would translate this as broad-mindedness, which ties back to the principle of flexibility.

Q5. Which leadership skills should be included in the training for future ISKCON leaders? (Please mention at least three.)

1. Listening – the first and fundamental communication skill.
2. Team building – especially important for managers.
3. A good sense of humor – it goes a long way in being supportive and encouraging to others, enlivening everyone and showing how to deal with failure and shortcomings.

Q6. Core strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for ISKCON

1. Core strengths of ISKCON that should be preserved for future generations.
   Very broadly, the outreach thrust of ISKCON – our huge energy for outreach – is something we certainly want to preserve.

2. Underlying weaknesses or shortcomings in how ISKCON is growing and operating.

   • A relative lack of emphasis on what I would call “in-reach” – a culture of reflecting on what we do, encouraging ourselves and others to reflect, whether by journaling or talking with each other. This is part of the culture Rūpa Gosvāmī gives (guhyaṁ ākhyāti …), and svādhyāya can also be seen as self-reflection.
   • Not a completely perfect balance between outreach and in-reach.
   • Over-emphasis on numbers – numbers of temples, numbers of books, etc. – and on “results”. Śrīla Prabhupāda was interested in results, so we shouldn’t drop that, but we should be careful that it doesn’t become an unhealthy over-emphasis. Some devotees in other Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava missions critique ISKCON as being “only concerned with numbers and money.” That’s a message worth reflecting on.
   • Insufficient care for devotees, including congregation members. In some places, senior devotees who become gṛhasthas and move out of the temple wish to stay connected but feel alienated – sometimes because of their own shortcomings, but also due to immaturity in the temple. This can create a division: “the temple” and “the congregation,” and sometimes a complete split.

   We need to think carefully how to avoid this dynamic.

3. Biggest opportunities ISKCON should capitalize on.
   • Sharing best practices, for example through “sister temples” or “brother temples,” including big-sister / little-sister relationships where they help each other in different ways.
   • Learning to positively acknowledge other Vaiṣṇava groups and institutions. We need more discussion about how to do this beneficially. I like the example of countries recognizing each other: without recognition, there is no relationship and no possibility of improving that relationship. ISKCON could be a leader in overcoming the tendency among Gauḍīya institutions to ignore or criticize each other. The outside world, through the internet, easily sees that ISKCON is not the only Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava society and will naturally ask about the relationship.
4. Biggest threats and how to deal with them.
   If outsiders perceive that the relationship between different Gauḍīya groups is unpleasant or full of conflict, they may think, “What is this?” That is a threat to our credibility. Also, if we don’t care properly for devotees and congregations, we risk dysfunctionality and fragmentation. We need more mature, caring relationships and structures.

Q7. Please visualize your dream vision for a very successful worldwide ISKCON movement 25 years from now.

One thing that comes to mind is something the GBC has been discussing, though I don’t think they’ve come to conclusions yet: the notion of ISKCON affiliates and “unity in diversity,” from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s famous phrase. How to realize it?

Sometimes one model mentioned is the Roman Catholic Church with its different monastic orders. I am attracted to that idea: the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans and many others – each has specific emphases and styles of living or preaching, while agreeing on the principles of their church.

I think something like this would be very helpful for ISKCON. It would show that Kṛṣṇa consciousness is potentially so inclusive, and it would make our society more attractive.

Again, I would like to see more and bigger country communities (I avoid the word “farm” and prefer “country” as more inclusive – possibly including villages and a variety of settings). In particular, I would emphasize that there be cows, because that could become a kind of trademark of our society: “Oh yes, the Hare Kṛṣṇas – they keep cows, they protect cows.” That can make people think, “Why am I eating so many animals? Why am I eating meat? They are showing that it is not only unnecessary but not right.”

I would like āśramas for everyone, including women’s āśramas. If we read the biography of Mother Yamunā, there is considerable discussion of the challenges she and Mother Dīnā faced trying to establish a women’s āśrama – with practically no help. I also remember Mālatī having a women’s āśrama in Columbus, Ohio, for some time. I think there could be more of that, and more discussion of how such things can be established.

Back to acknowledging other Vaiṣṇava groups: I like to envision that we would indeed have networks and connections with other groups and with non-Vaiṣṇava organizations. This connects with a topic I’m engaged with in a minimal way at present, which I call Dialogical Vaiṣṇavism. It is often called inter-religious or inter-faith dialogue; I want to approach it from a Vaiṣṇava angle.

Thus, I envision more connection with others, so that we are not seen as an exclusivist sect.

As for adjustments, the phrase that comes to mind is Śrīla Prabhupāda’s expression “independently thoughtful”. This needs to be cultivated to allow for fresh ideas on how to remove obstacles and make these things happen.

I am working on some projects:

• Dialogical Vaiṣṇavism – a five-day seminar project with Bhakti Rasāyana Sāgara Mahārāja, hopefully developing course material.
• Cow-care research – I’m writing an academic book called Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics. I hope this draws attention to deeper thinking about cow protection in our society. This connects to a broader theme I call Environmental Vaiṣṇavism.
• Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam studies – together with Rādhika Rāmaṇa Prabhu, I’ve published two books with Columbia University Press: a collection of thematic articles introducing the Bhāgavatam, and a Bhāgavatam Reader with selections from all twelve cantos, our translations, summaries, and some commentary. We hope to bring to the scholarly world a recognition that we are at the center of research on this text.

Sometimes Śrīla Prabhupāda said there’s no need for research – “It’s all here.” Yes, it’s all here, and our research is, in one sense, about helping educated people recognize that it’s all here.

As far as words of wisdom go, I will just say: let us continue following our previous ācāryas with all energy and determination.