*   

In order to be able to adapt, it requires making a crucial distinction which Rupa Goswami lays out in chapter six of the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, the Nectar of Devotion. It is the distinction between general principles and details. Rupa Goswami says that his brother Sanatana Goswami wrote a book giving all the details, the secondary rules, in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, and that he wants to focus on the general principles, which are not negotiable. If you look at them, there are five general principles which are, chant Hare Krishna, read the Bhagavatam, associate with devotees, worship Tulasi and so on. Then there are things like, learn from a bonafide guru, which is a simple point. 

So we confuse details with basic principle if we think dressing a certain way is eternal Vedic culture, even if it involves wearing a kurta, which is a Muslim contribution to India. Professor Neelis was making an interesting point. Among the classical Indian dance styles there is one that is called Kathak. What is interesting is that I have seen this several times at major Ratha Yatra festivals, presented as a taste of Vedic culture, and then it turns out that the Kathak style really was a result of the invasion of India by the Huns. You can imagine that they were somewhat crude, passionate people and they had this passionate dancing. It is kind of comical that people think naively that this is Vedic, when it is really coming from the Huns. So we have to make this distinction between basic principles and details.

I don’t think there is anything we can do to prevent our children from having a good laugh at us. I think eventually ISKCON will have to make a more clear distinction between Indian and Vedic. I am not recommending any specific changes because that gets into management. I am more interested in the philosophical, historical concept as opposed to getting involved in all kinds of debates about practically doing this or that. In general we have to get past a—on the one hand very understandable but on the other hand quite naive—belief that all Indian things are Vedic.

If you look at the history of India, it is a large civilization. There are lots of intelligent people in India. It has always been a country, as far back as we can go, that was culturally sophisticated. If you take away the Americas and look at a map—without the Western hemisphere—India is actually in the center of the world. There is significant evidence that India has always been interactive with other regions of the world. The picture that Prabhupada gives us—and if you take sastra seriously—Vedic culture was not simply Indian. It eventually became confined to India, and that is the picture that Prabhupada gives, but actually Vedic culture was around the world.

So there is this very unfortunate confusion of ethnic details with cultural principles. We say Vedic culture a lot, but there is no such thing in Sanskrit. The word Vedic is there, vaidika—it is so close to English—you make the adjective by adding the k-sound after the word.

What you find is a culture of principles, such as, that people dress chastely. Men tend to be visually aroused, more then women, therefore there is a principle that women dress chastely. What is chaste dress? What parts of the female anatomy are erotic? Beautiful and erotic are not the same. A woman may have a beautiful face, but she doesn’t have to wear a mask to be decent – at least in this country. If you look at the history of the world, you find that the notion that the erotic zone of the female anatomy moves around a lot. The lower part of the body is covered in all civilized societies, so we are talking about the torso.

As far as the upper part of the body there is overwhelming evidence that a woman’s chest, at many times and places in history, was not considered erotic. It’s a fact that in many parts of India, before the Europeans came, most respectable women, brahmanis etc., were topless. It doesn’t mean that they were always that way, but you see it in temple sculptures. I have seen it myself in rural West-Bengal especially in the 70ies and 80ies, and to some extent even today, that women typically wore just saris—no blouses—and were not particularly concerned about covering their chest. Even in very conservative periods in European history, you see paintings of queens and noble women who have plunging neck lines but their necks are covered, because a woman’s neck in those times was considered more erotic than her chest.

So what is Vedic dress? What I would argue is that I do not find anything in any Vedic scripture that is Vedic dress in terms of a specific dress style. There is a principle, a dharma of dress, which obviously is that one’s dress should be clean and appropriate in whichever culture. We live in a culture in which men have been deeply conditioned to become even crazier than they normally are when they see certain parts of a woman’s body. So obviously, if a woman’s mission in life is not to make everybody forget Krishna and think of her dying body instead, which is not going to do much for anyone, she will dress appropriately.  So we should dress in a way that we are not making people forget Krishna—and not strongly encouraging them to think of ourselves as mere objects of sense gratification. You literally degrade yourself in the mind of the other person and perform a disservice.

So there is a principle, and in different climates, in different times in history, in different historical circumstances, different parts of the body are considered somewhat erotic, very erotic, indecent etc. The principle is, in the socio-psychological reality that you live in, dress in a way that is appropriate. That is Vedic culture, but we find instead, that someone is teaching that in Vedic culture everyone should wear one specific dress style, which is absurd and there is no evidence for it in any Vedic literature.

OK, so I listened to the tape and to make it simple, I only just left the essence of what he is saying  so that guests can clearly understand too.  Guests will not undertstand “fruitive worker garments” so I changed to “western dress”

If you look at the way we dress the Deities, one thing that is irrefutable is that it is ahistorical. It is not wrong as it is also a matter of the artist’s conception.

One of my godbrothers went to a major American city with the determination that ISKCON  had “gone astray,” had accepted too many modern adaptations, and that we needed to do things precisely as we did them back in the good old days, the roaring 60's and early 70's. Everything, from the drumbeats, to the dress, to the recipes, now needed to be reverted back to exactly what  it was—to a “T.”  He thought that this was what we needed for a true Hare Krishna renaissance. You were not allowed to wear “fruitive worker garments.”  So he went to this major city and did it, and it was basically a complete failure. This leader abandoned the project.

Precisely because it is a delicate operation, I prefer to give the general points and not try to dictate what the practical application should be, leaving it to the Vaishnavas in general and practical circumstances. However cautiously we proceed, certain things are just facts. Historically, certain male and female dress was not considered devotional dress, in India.

Nowadays, there is a whole concept of uniforms. However there is no evidence that that when Lord Chaitanya took His Nama sankirtan party out, that He or His followers were dressed in uniforms. All the evidence seems to be that they were dressed the same as everyone else.

There was a time in our ISKCON history when it was much more open and not fanatical and zealous. At a certain point, we militarized the book distribution, etc. When I joined it was still much more open. I got the last wave of the early period. In the 60's the movement was not fanatical. There was no heavy sankirtan, no heavy book sales, and we very much fit in with the whole 60's scene. We were perceived as being very much part of that scene. Devotees would chant at those anti-Vietnam protests.

They had these huge ballrooms in San Francisco, which were the crucibles for all the new music and all the big bands—Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors—all those big bands would come. It was the Avalon Ballroom which was at the Philmore West. It was one of the cultural centers for American youth. I remember one time we were chanting in San Francisco and we went to the Avalon Ballroom, and because we were so much part of the scene, they let us go on stage. It was actually one of the most astonishing, amazing kirtans. It was so ecstatic.  We were chanting and there were thousands and thousands of young people wildly chanting with us, with complete abandon. It was like being transported to a different world.

When devotees go and chant like they do on campus, in Gainesville, and they are dressed, “come as you are,” that is, in my view, much more historically authentic and much more what Lord Chaitanya was doing.

In terms of dress, Rupa Goswami says that none of these things are basic principles. Krishna is infinitely creative. He has infinite artistic ability. So do we really believe that in the infinite spiritual world, where you have an infinite number of super-creative souls and Krishna Himself, there are less dress styles than on the earth in Kali Yuga? The first question is not, What is the rule? The real question is, Is there a rule? Prabhupada says in his purport to Bhagavatam 4.8.54 that there are no such rules. This is from Narada’s instruction to Dhruva, where he tells him to worship Krishna, desa-kala-vibhagavit—knowing distinctions of place and time. Prabhupada says:

“The method of worship—chanting the mantra and preparing the forms of the Lord—is not stereotyped, nor is it exactly the same everywhere. It is specifically mentioned in this verse that one should take consideration of the time, place and available conveniences. Our Krishna consciousness movement is going on throughout the entire world, and we also install Deities in different centers. Sometimes our Indian friends, puffed up with concocted notions, criticize, "This has not been done. That has not been done." But they forget this instruction of Narada Muni to one of the greatest Vaishnavas, Dhruva Maharaja. One has to consider the particular time, country and conveniences. What is convenient in India may not be convenient in the Western countries. Those who are not actually in the line of acharyas, or who personally have no knowledge of how to act in the role of acharya”—this includes many ISKCON devotees. They are in the line of acharya but they don’t know how to act in a way to really open up the world— “unnecessarily criticize the activities of the ISKCON movement in countries outside of India. The fact is that such critics cannot do anything personally to spread Krishna consciousness.”

Again, there was that one sannyasi who was a major critic of all kinds of innovations and adaptations and went to a major American city and could not do anything to spread the movement.

If someone does go and preach, taking all risks and allowing all considerations for time and place, it might be that there are changes in the manner of worship, but that is not at all faulty according to sastra.

In my view, there is a type of South-Asian chauvinism where, if it is Indian, it is ok, and if it is Western, it is not ok—even if both are ahistorical. To give an example, there is one very popular painting of Krishna which you see in many temples, where Krishna is dressed like a Mogul prince. He is wearing a little miniskirt and those tight pants, which were considered attractive at a certain point in history. Even though this is Mogul dress, Muslim rulers also used to dress that way, so—some consider that it is appropriate for Krishna. Why?  Because it historical or Vedic? No, because it is Indian.

Obviously Krishna has to be dressed decently and appropriately, but if you read the Bhagavad-gita, and had to derive from that, what is Vedic culture, this is what you find: Vedic culture means to act in the mode of goodness and to offer those actions to Krishna—in other words, suddha-sattva. So dress in the mode of goodness! Cook in the mode of goodness! A lot of the mahaprasada that is offered, is not in the mode of goodness.  It is in the mode of passion. Some people think that hot and spicy food is what Krishna likes. Krishna specifically mentions in the Gita that food that is spicy-hot, is in passion. As we know chilly peppers didn’t exist in India during Krishna’s and Lord Chaitanya’s time. Therefore to say it is Vedic is comical. Potatoes and tomatoes were not in India at that time, but are still considered part of Vedic sabji (vegetable stew). My concern is simply to be rational.

When Prabhupada came to Gainesville, after his talk, he was taking questions. There was a kind of challenging, female reporter from The Gator newspaper. She said, “Why are there mostly young people here?” as if that was a problem. Prabhupada—who was the best counter puncher, as I always say—immediately shot back, “Why are there mostly young people in your university?” His question was so sharp and quick that she dropped her pencil—she was so startled. So when she picked up her pencil and collected herself, she said, “Well, that is the age for education,” and Prabhupada said, “Yes, therefore it is the age for Krishna Consciousness. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” So without wanting to offend anyone—you can’t teach an old prabhu new tricks.

Prabhupada would say, “Be a perfect lady or gentleman.” He didn’t bring a hairstyle movement. For brahmacharis who live in an ashram, he said wear the normal monastic hairstyle, which is not even Vaishnava. The riksha-wallas have a sikha, in India. Prabhupada wanted it under certain conditions, but even then, in 1975, in a conversation with Ramesvara, Prabhupada said that the brahmacaris could let their hair grow out a little bit, for sankirtana. Then he admitted that the reason why he did all these things was because he was afraid they would have a relapse and become hippies again. One of Brahma-tirtha’s early services, in New York temple, was to stand at the door with a can of Lysol disinfectant spray, and spray people before they could enter.

Prabhupada said, “You don’t have to be monastic, but be a gentleman.

It is not that you are either monastic or mainstream barbaric. As Prabhupada said, you can be a lady or gentleman. The neutral gentleman’s dress has not changed since my childhood, in 50 or 60 years. 

We have this deep-rooted insecurity, in ISKCON, that we can not compete on a level playing field. If you used a cane for your whole life, you naturally believe you cannot walk without a cane. There are religious movements in this country, growing much faster than we are, that don’t have uniforms. If you couldn’t recognize a Hare Krishna, right off the bat, because he is so freaky, the way he is dressed—although I think neck beads are a great thing—we would be forced to come up with very attractive ways to interest people. We would be forced to think of how to attract people the same way everybody else does. We do have the greatest philosophy; we do have the most powerful practice. Therefore we can compete and even flourish on a level playing field, but we have a deep insecurity that we can’t. 

(Lecture: “Renunciation – Selflessness or Selfishness” in Gainesville, FL on December 4, 2008)