Vrindavan, 2018.03.31 (VT): Steven J. Rosen [Satyaraj Das], the editor of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies (JVS), is a well-known and prolific author of books on Vaishnava spirituality and comparative religion. He is also a chronicler of kirtan in the Western world and associate editor of Back to Godhead magazine. He was recently in Vrindavan (February, 2018), though, unfortunately, our paths didn’t cross. That being said, the two of us have known each other for decades and have spent a bit of time together, especially when I was at the University of London. Indeed, a portion of my translation of Gopala Champu was in the very first edition of JVS in the fall of 1992. Each issue of this journal contains scholarly articles constellated around a particular theme; that of the first issue happened to be “Vraja, Land of Krishna.”
VRINDAVAN TODAY: So what made you start with that subject?
STEVEN ROSEN: Well, first let me briefly talk about how JVS came into being and developed as an academic journal. I was sitting in my living room, in New York, with Pradyumna, an early disciple of (A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami) Prabhupada, and we were discussing scholarly breakthroughs and the importance of thorough and objective study. Tony Stewart had recently completed his PhD thesis on Sri Chaitanya, and David Haberman had completed his on raganuga bhakti, and there were many others too. It seemed clear that these scholars were on to something, unearthing useful information, material that could serve the purposes of the discerning practitioner as well.
So we conceived a book and a journal. I immediately started interviewing the most renowned scholars in the field for the book. Soon after, a volume of these conversations was self-published: Vaishnavism: Contemporary Scholars Discuss the Gaudiya Tradition. The late Ed Dimock, the doyen of Vaishnava studies in the West (at the time), wrote the foreword. He loved the book. Needless to say, with his endorsement and the many prominent names interviewed in the volume itself, it did well. Very well. Next thing I knew, we were republishing it through Motilal Banarsidass and it was picked up for study in many college courses.
But what was interesting was how much Vrindavan became a part of those discussions. A lot of that book turned out to be about Vrindavan, in fact, even though, ostensibly, it was a book about Vaishnavism in general, and Gaudiya Vaishnavism in particular. Still, Alan Entwistle spoke about Vrindavan extensively; David Kinsley spoke about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s journey in Vrindavan; Rick Jarow talked about its esoteric aspect, as did Shrivatsa Goswami. So it became clear: the premier issue of JVS should focus on Vrindavan.
Incidentally, the journal knew immediate success: The Southern Asian Institute newsletter at Columbia University ran a full-length article about JVS, praising it in various ways, and, in the Second Edition of Klaus Klostermaier’s Survey of Hinduism, one of the most widely read textbooks on the subject, he wrote, “In late 1992, the first issue of a quarterly Journal of Vaishnava Studies under the general editorship of S. J. Rosen began to appear from Brooklyn, New York. Its book-length issues carry important scholarly as well as devotional articles and the new journal is likely to stimulate research and disseminate knowledge on this major religion associated with the name of Vishnu.” High praise, indeed!
VT: As I recall – and since our focus in this interview is Vrindavan — there were a lot of good Vraja-related articles in that first issue, from translations of Vaishnava texts to theological interpretations, to accounts of personal experience. What did you find particularly relevant or meaningful?
SR: I liked the balance in that issue, and we tried to replicate that technique in every issue since. From the beginning, we wanted the journal to include material by both scholars of Vaishnavism and by Vaishnava scholars. In other words, we wanted material by people who were academically trained in the historical study of religion but no less by scholarly practitioners. We do that to this day. We try to make each issue a thorough exposition on a particular theme, so that a reader will have a rather complete understanding of a given subject by the time he or she is done. So, since we were covering Vrindavan, we had direct translations of texts, such as yours and the one by Gerald Carney; we reprinted O. B. L. Kapoor’s brilliant piece on Vrindavan from a philosophical perspective; Jack Hawley looked at Vrindavan arts and drama; Rick Jarow and Howard Wheeler offered personal experiences of living and travelling in Vraja; Ranchor Prime covered an ecological perspective; Klaus Klostermaier even gave us an overview of Vrindavan’ political climate. So, that’s the idea – to look at a given subject from many angles, giving space to many voices.
VT: So, in addition to the premier issue, which was exclusively about Vraja/Vrindavan, did the subject come up in other volumes?
SR: Oh, yes, repeatedly and in various ways. We actually had another full issue on Vrindavan where we published the proceedings of an important Vraja Conference in 1994 (3.1). This was held at Shrivatsa Goswami’s place, Jaisingh Ghera, or the Sri Chaitanya Prema Samsthana, as it is also called. That issue had two really important articles, in particular: one by Margaret Case, where she focuses on Growse’s work in historical context, and another by Dennis Hudson — breakthrough work on “Vraja Among the Tamils,” where he explains the significance of Vrindavan for South Indian Vaishnavas. (I should mention, too, that one of our important techniques is to cover all the legitimate sampradayas. So each issue tries to articulate the theme at hand from Madhva perspectives, Ramanuja perspectives, and so on.)
But back to Vrindavan. We also had an issue on famous Vaishnava temples (3.3). That volume included articles by David Haberman, where he looked at the origins of Sri Nathji on Mount Govardhana; Catherine Asher explored the temples of Man Singh; Margaret Case did Govindadeva and Radharamana; and Charles Brooks even did a lengthy piece on ISKCON’s Krishna-Balarama temple.
There was also a “Festivals” issue (7.2), where Jack Hawley wrote about Govardhana-puja and Tracy Pintchman covered Karttik. We also had a “Short Translations” issue (12.1), with an article by Pintchman about Tulasi and one by Haberman about Govardhan. Now that I think of it, we had an entire issue on Govardhan (23.2), including numerous articles about the landscape and theology of the area. So that’s Vraja too.But, really, Vraja/Vrindavan shows up in JVS even where you might least expect it: there were issues on ecology and the environment (18.2 and 24.1), for example, where Gerald Carney wrote about “the religious ecology of Vrindavan” and Graham Schweig wrote about the Vraja Gopikas and the indigenous plant life of the area. There really is so much on Vraja and related themes in so many issues.
VT: What is the relevance of Vraja-Vrindavan to the modern world? Do you have any ideas on Vrindavan and globalization?
SR: I believe that the theology of Vraja, or Vraja-bhakti, might include the deepest philosophical and spiritual insights I’ve encountered anywhere, bar none. The Six Goswamis of Vrindavan have developed this, as you know, and it could only benefit the world to become aware of it, to partake of its profundity. That being said, sometimes, when a secret gets out, it diminishes in value. I don’t think, on a spiritual level, Vraja could ever truly lose its value, or become impotent, but it can certainly become covered, or more difficult to access.
Oh, this brings me into sensitive waters, not to mention the Yamuna [laughter]. I have mixed feelings. While I am glad that Vrindavan – largely through ISKCON’s work — is reaching more people than ever before, it is a bit sad to see that people can no longer bathe in the Yamuna, for example, at least not like they used to, and that pollution and other more Kaliya-esque aspects of modernity now make Vraja virtually unrecognizable. Pros and cons, I guess.
I love that Vraja is now known around the world, and that people can now more readily enter into her mysteries, if not her waters. But that’s the downside, isn’t it? More and more people are coming, and a village becomes a town becomes a city. It is dangerous. That being said, there are still parts of Vrindavan that are the same – but you have to know where to go. There are parts of Vrindavan that still feel like a rural settlement, as if Krishna might jump out of the bushes and remind you to play with him. But this is restricted to out of the way places. And even the central area, attacked though it is by modernity, is still Vrindavan, and for those fortunate souls who do not have that all-too-common material speck covering their eyes, they can see it. God knows, they can see it.
VT: When you do these theme issues, what is your objective? Do you believe in the Western scholarly historical method? Can a believing Vaishnava also follow the historical method? How do you feel about this?
SR: I look for themes that need to be explored. I look for significant recent scholarly research. Really, I think to myself, “What subject would I most like to read about, to know about, and what subject needs the most explication?” Those are my central questions. Then we put out a call for papers, and we see what comes in. JVS has a great reputation. It is the longest running “Hindu” journal in the academy, and it’s considered prestigious to publish in it. Accordingly, we get the biggest and most accomplished scholars in the field, along with scholarly devotees and academic newcomers who need an outlet for their research.
Your second question is more thorny. I do believe in the scholarly, historical method, but I always think, at least for me, it needs to be counterbalanced by guru, sadhu and shastra, at least if one is to rely on it for conclusive knowledge. Still, that being said, facts are facts. If someone knows the languages, for instance, and they translate something, or dig up historical information that is indisputable, well, I think it can at least be seriously considered, gauged against what the tradition itself has to say about it. Balance is needed, no doubt, but scholars and historians have their part to play and have important information to offer.
I remember once conveying to David Haberman that traditional analogy about the bottle of honey. You know the one: If you really want to taste the honey, you have to open the jar and lick what is inside. You can’t know the honey by reading the label. Analogically, the person who is “merely” a scholar cannot truly taste the tradition, and so his or her findings are always suspect; they are not able to truly articulate or represent the tradition in any accurate way. But Haberman’s answer was good. He said, “Maybe we don’t taste what is inside, but we can read the label. So we can tell you a lot about the content, sometimes more than an illiterate person who merely tastes it.” There’s definitely some truth there. Ideally, a devotee-scholar is best, like the Six Goswamis. But then the counterargument would center around true objectivity. Can a believer be objective enough to explore his or her own tradition with real impartiality? They have a vested interest. These are no doubt complex questions, and space is short.
VT: What are recent developments in JVS, and where do you see it going?
SR: Some years ago, Graham Schweig came on board as a senior editor. He has helped immensely as a liaison with the academic community. In fact, he recently effected an affiliation with the Graduate Theological Union at Berkeley. So JVS is now connected with The Mira & Ajay Shingal Center for Dharma Studies at the University of California. This increases our prestige, and it is quite an honor, actually. But more, we are moving into the digital age, and we are working toward making JVS an online resource, both for back issues and for our general subscribers. I don’t think we will ever become a solely online journal. After all, old codgers like myself will always prefer to hold a book in our hands, to smell the print, to feel the pages. No substitute for that, as I’m sure you know. Just as Vrindavan moves into modernity but will always keep precious pockets of its past, so, too, will JVS. We will become state-of-the-art, no doubt, and endeavor to accommodate modern readers, but we will always have print copies as well, at least for those of us who understand its value.
VT: In fact, I think it would be really great if you could publish a single volume of the best articles related to Vrindavan. You have previously done this kind of thing and it seems to be a really great idea. Certainly we at Vrindavan Today would like to be able to share some of this Vrindavan-related research with the world.
Thank you very much for taking the time to share with us an insight into the great service you are doing, which goes well beyond sectarian boundaries to make Vaishnavism, and in particular the mood of Vrindavan, more widely known and understood. It is very much appreciated and I hope that you will come and visit again many more times in the future.
The post Interview: Journal of Vaishnava Studies editor Steven J. Rosen in Vrindavan appeared first on Vrindavan Today.