Aindra's book, part 1

Much has been made of the charismatic Iskcon-kīrtanīya Aindra Dās (Edwin Striker, 1953-2010), who passed away suddenly due to an accident last summer, and his long-awaited book, 'The Heart of Transcendental Book distribution'. I downloaded a copy of the book from the internet, I do not know if the hard copy has the same page numbering, this is a review of the pdf. The language is pompous and the overall mood is rather overbearing - over-sophisticated language in extremely long sentences makes the book quasi- elite and unreadable. There is also a poignant lack of scriptural quotations, which makes the book seem really Aindra's own mental product rather than a genuine representation of eternal Vaiṣṇava siddhanta.

He clearly still believed in envy-vāda, as he writes on page 5:

"It would be inappropriate to acquaint people who have yet to be divested of their long-standing envy of the Lord with Radha-Krishna’s most intimate lilas without first philosophically establishing them in the principles of prema-dharma."

He strikes a more realistic note on page 10-

"My dear Shri Shri Radhe-Shyama! What is the use of having innumerable hands, each distributing transcendental literatures by the billions and trillions, if as an outcome of it all, not even one soul becomes Your fully self-realized, pure, unalloyed kevala-madhurya-premika devotee? What a perfidy if, by broadcasting countless volumes and volumes of transcendental scriptures, not even one thoughtful book distributor could fortunately gain the essential penetrating insight to deeply discover the esoteric truths behind the black (Krishna) letters on all those white (Radha) pages!"

The conclusion of all this is optimistic and positive, though-

"My dearmost beloved Lordships Shri Shri Radhe-Shyama! If, however, as a result of all such laborious efforts even just one fortunate soul could somehow or other by Your unbounded special causeless mercy finally, even if after billions and trillions of lifetimes of devotional struggle, attain that most cherished goal of life, then by all means, please let there be thousands and millions of “brihat-mridanga” printing presses, each producing millions and billions of transcendental literatures describing Your unlimited names, forms, qualities, and madhurya-lilas in the sweetest of all sweetest lands, Shri Vrindavana-dhama."
This a nice one on page 13-

"Let thousands and millions of externally oriented prakrita-bhaktas fill the atmosphere with endless streams of prajalpa, faultfinding, backbiting, and fratricidal bickering, on top of all the petty institutional and interinstitutional wrangling and war – what do we care for it?"

On the same page Aindra starts with some pretty sordid politics, speaking about rubber-stamped Gurus, their pompous pedestals and their proximity to female disciples. Yawn.....even he..... One wonders how much taste a 'rasik bhakta' must have before he can give up such petty sordid gossip. Some of the language about his bureaucratic Godbrothers is so strong one wonders whether this is boldness or outright Vaiṣṇava aparādha? He goes on page after page saying he does not care about rubber-stamped bureaucrats, gṛhamedhīs and show-bottle bhajanānandīs, making one wonder that if he really does not care, why does he waste so much time writing that he does not care instead of relishing Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa aṣṭakāl līlā and harināma. Life is short, as he has experienced himself. Ironically, he stresses the need to focus, focus and refocus [on page 19] - the question, after all these pages, is, focus on what?

Finally, on page 21, Aindra gets more positive-

"We should understand that the sight of others’ misdemeanors and various other calamities are shown to us by Krishna for the purpose of dynamically educing our own pure devotional qualities, to enhance our devotional adhikara."

And on page 23 he gets even charming, telling a story of how a boy attracts a girl's attention first through nasty pranks and later through love-letters etc, making the point that Kṛṣṇa just wants our attention and this may start in a negative way, but has a positive purpose.

Like Jagadānanda, Aindra also has his own ideas about kaniṣṭha-, madhyama- and uttama-adhikārī, which may or may not have been the intention of Śukadeva and Vyāsa.

On page 29 Aindra expresses an interesting strī-tattva:

"He (the elevated Vaishnava) will therefore allow the sight of the illusory womanly form within this world, which faintly resembles the radiance of spiritual muliebrity (not found in my dictionary), to prompt within himself an internal recollection of the supreme root of all minor expanded varieties of femininity. This original feature of all transcendental womanhood is none other than Shri Radha, who mothers not the material existence of repeated birth and death but rather spiritual birth into eternal loving devotion. A subordinate king’s attitude toward the emperor’s envoy conspicuously reflects his general attitude toward the emperor. As a well-wishing emissary coming on behalf of the emperor’s government to examine the condition of a subordinate is to be properly honored, so similarly any expanded form of femininity should be honored as a representative of Radha.........Externally maintaining a respectful distance from Radha’s messenger (duti) so as not to commit offense, while humbly considering himself to be unqualified to directly associate with her as long as he remains in the sadhaka-deha, he will simply pray from within that she mercifully inform her Svamini (Radha) about his pure devotional intents."

This is actually sahajīyaism, as sahajīyas try to compare mundane gender with spiritual gender. In other words, gopīs are gopīs and mundane women are mundane women.

Aindra hits out at the eggheads, on page 33:

"Furthermore, one may unfortunately entertain an immodest impression of one’s “superiority” over others who are less materially qualified, thus gobbling up heaps and piles of temporary hog-stool-like false prestige on the basis of accumulated collegial upadhis. One must sagaciously avoid the snobbish, over-intelligent, grossly idiotic notion that such slaughterhouse academia is in any way a prerequisite for high-grade devotional eligibility, competency, or potential, or to any degree indicative of such. When has such a conceited, specious idea ever been taught by an acarya or upheld by shastra? How highly educated was Valmiki? Were Hanuman, Sugriva, Jambavan, or Jatayu college graduates? How doctorately decorated were Mrigari, the hunter; Dhruva; Prahlada; or even their guru, Narada, in his previous life as the son of a maidservant? How sophisticated or cultured was the prostitute who, by the grace of Haridasa Thakura, converted to Vaisnavism and chanted no less than three lakhs of hari-nama daily? What about Haridasa Thakura himself? How literate was the celebrated South Indian brahmana whom Lord Gauranga embraced, eulogizing him as having truly understood the essence of the Gita? How boastfully bookish was Srila Gaura Kishora Dasa Babaji Maharaja? How many pointed examples are required to illustrate the principle? Besides, we should simply ask – Is the world over not teeming with college graduates and professionals who profess avowed atheism or agnosticism?"

(Bravo, Aindra!)

On page 39 Aindra calls bhāvollāsa rati "the immaculate, spontaneous selfless loving service moods", but that has nothing to do with bhāvollāsa, which simply means a greater love for a devotee than for the Lord. One wonders if Aindra really splashes around fancy words to pose as an advanced devotee, and if he has always perfectly understood siddhānta really.

I do appreciate, and support, his staunch opposition to organized religion, but at the same time he was himself also comfortably living off a corrupt bureaucratic institution.

At least Aindra, unlike most of his fellows, understood (on page 48) that one must first understand siddhānta before one starts preaching, though I wonder how much benefit people will have from the verbal constructions he himself produces in this book.

He tackles another troublesome misconception on page 54:

"We must acknowledge that although solitary bhajana and sankirtana appear to be divergently constituted, the objective of both ways of worship is one – to please Krishna. It is nowhere indicated that progress in Krishna consciousness demands a unidimensional, one-sided approach to the Lord’s loving service."

In page 56 Aindra pleads for the introduction of siddha praṇālī as a supportive tool of one's sādhana (a very good concept), saying:

"It is insufficient simply to know by negation that “I am not ‘this’ [illusory material] body.” At a certain point, a seriously inquisitive individual must inevitably ask, “If I am not ‘this’ body, then what body am I?”

Aindra argues that even the dāsānudāsa concept is a false upādhi (designation). I do not fully agree with this, as Rūpa Goswāmī has clearly said that sādhana is simultaneously done with the external and internal body and both are considered spiritual. Anyway, after rejecting traditional Gauḍīya practises like Siddha Praṇālī as cheap, monkey-ish etc. he says:

"Although the absolute dependency upon siddha-pranali-diksa as such for the evolvement of raganuga-sadhana is denied in the Sarasvata doctrine, timely instruction (shiksa) concerning the internally conceived siddha-deha is nevertheless essential."

After quoting (śāstrik quotes are rare in this book) the necessity of harināma, Aindra writes:

"Shastric evidence such as this, however, in no way poses to preclude the sadhaka’s need to be esoterically instructed."

Acknowledging that you cannot just get svarūpa siddhi by just blindly chanting hare kṛṣṇa.

To be continued. Blog originally composed December 2010