Universalist spiritual views

It is imper­a­tive that the peo­ple of a spe­cific coun­try give proper respect to their native saints, but no one, although they may hold a par­tic­u­lar belief for their spir­i­tual progress, should go to other places and preach that what their teach­ers have taught is supe­rior to all other teach­ings. This gives no ben­e­fit at all to the world…Each coun­try has its par­tic­u­lar reli­gious rules con­cern­ing proper dress, food, purity and impurity…it is only nat­ural that the var­i­ous reli­gions will appear quite dif­fer­ent. How­ever, it is improper and detri­men­tal to argue over these differences…Pure love is the eter­nal func­tion of the soul. Although the above men­tioned five dif­fer­ences may exist amongst the many reli­gions, the only real reli­gion is pure love.” (pp 8–10)

It appears that Bhak­tivin­ode was a uni­ver­sal­ist in his views. He says as much in “The Bha­ga­vat” also. I am an eclec­tic uni­ver­sal­ist as well. I got to expe­ri­ence Gaudiya Vaish­nav­ism in its home­land of India for three years. I very much imbibed it and lived as much like an Indian sadhu as an Amer­i­can could. Upon return­ing to the West, I sought to present the teach­ings in a way that would appeal to West­ern­ers. This was espe­cially true after leav­ing ISKCON.

I thought about how suc­cess­ful we were in India appeal­ing to Vaish­navas to sup­port their native reli­gion. Back in the U.S., I thought I would try to teach love of God in an Amer­i­can for­mat, Chris­tian­ity, the dom­i­nant reli­gion. Being in a pro­gres­sive denom­i­na­tion like the United Church of Christ (UCC), I was able to do that to a degree. Unfor­tu­nately, most of the local churches are not as pro­gres­sive as the national church or many of the pro­fes­sional leaders.

The UCC is good about not try­ing to con­vert peo­ple. It is very ecu­meni­cal and inter­faith. They send mis­sion­ar­ies to other coun­tries, but mainly to do good works and be in sol­i­dar­ity with the peo­ple and local reli­gious lead­ers regard­less of their reli­gion. Of course, those with­out a reli­gious faith or those who want to change faiths are welcome.

I found that the lay Chris­tians I worked with in gen­eral did not have as deep a com­mit­ment as their Hindu coun­ter­parts in India. Also, the non-dogmatic, non-hierarchical, decen­tral­ized struc­ture of the UCC gave the clergy lit­tle power and leaves them at the mercy of the local con­gre­ga­tion. After being run out of three con­gre­ga­tions in eleven years, I said, “Enough.” How­ever, I did rein­te­grate myself in West­ern cul­ture and learned how reli­gion is prac­ticed and under­stood by edu­cated, pro­gres­sive main­line clergy.

There has to be a way to inte­grate some of these prin­ci­ples with Sri Chaitanya’s teach­ings so that we can learn to develop our love with­out hav­ing to com­pletely change the way we eat, dress, wear our hair, etc. The zeal­ous, evan­gel­i­cal fun­da­men­tal­ism that ISKCON has been guilty of is not the only way to orga­nize a reli­gion. There are much bet­ter mod­els out there.

I feel I have attained a bal­ance in my life. Since leav­ing the church three years ago, I have deep­ened by Radha Krishna devo­tional prac­tices, but I def­i­nitely live a Hawai­ian lifestyle. I’m sure many of you are also find­ing a bal­ance within your lives that works for you. This is the hope for the future, that an indige­nous Radha Krishna devo­tional prac­tice may develop and thrive.


Leave a Reply