ISKCON in the US was one of the early Hindu sects which began a campaign to use Sanatana Dharma as the term they want to call their "religion" when specifically "religion" was used as the moniker, but they would call their specific sect a Gaudiya branch of Vaishnava school. I want to clarify, they used Sanatana Dharma ("Eternal Truth") if the question was "what religion?" but use "Vaishnava" if asked "what school?" and Gaudiya if asked "what branch?" - there were further subsections that narrow their regionalism as well, but I do not want to bore you.
This campaign to use "Sanatana Dharma" instead of "Hindu" was started by a Sanyasi called Hanumatpresaka Swami (Huber Hutchin Robinson),born January 12, 1948, Guam but who was an American disciple of Prabhupad, this was part of his campaign in the 1970s that was propagated largely targetting a University student as well as professor audience, a specific organization was created to promote this over "Hindu".
I am not ISKCON, but I know this for a fact because I knew H.P. personally, just as I knew many major personalities of Hinduism in America.
Now I want to mention this, because this emphasis and campaign was very pronounced IN THE UNITED STATES but NOT IN INDIA.
Many ISKCON centers in India continued to use Hindu at the time, but this is a GEOGRAPHIC TERM.
Some US devotees were becoming frustrated that the "campaign" was not really expanding beyond the university level. But they were also confused as to Prabhupad's position, that Hindu is geographical and now should be an accepted term in that manner, but Sanatana Dharma was a Cultural term for a culture, and that the "highest culture" is the culture "of service" in that actually one who serves is higher than one that merges because merging can be a form of selfishness, elitism, and suicide.
We are told Prabhupad "said" this or that. He did say, in one interview with a westerner WHO WAS ASKING ABOUT CULTURE that "we are not Hindus". But the fact of the matter is, Prabhupad ALSO said those Aryans forced to conversion as Muslims, those following Dharma, those who are Saiva, Vaishnav, Smarta, Shakta, livung in now Pakistan and Afghanistan and Persia (Iran) and Baluchistan are ALL singular and geographically a religion of the area of the Sindhu River, and those broadly beyond the Sind as being Hindu, which is a term that became known as the people who lived when various invasions came and used the term Hindu to define the peoples of the greater Sindhu. Honestly, Prabhupad didn't have a big "issue" with Hindu, this is largely over exaggerated by the campaign that really came from Americans to use Sanatana Dharma but Prabhupad saw a difference that was geographical terms and cultural definitions.
It has been over exaggerated. I am telling you the truth. Also, Prahbupad did not totally dismiss some British and non-Indian theories such as the origins of "Hindu" even though it mat be questioned today as not 100 percent reliable but was broadly accepted in the 1950s and 60s,
The ISKCON sect has roots to the sects associated with Lord Chaitanya, who had taught that in the current "age" that Vedic prescriptions of varnashrama are obscured, and some aspects impossible when leaders are corrupt and the world full of invasions and this included Caitanya's and others defiance of Muslim hegemony at that time. Therefore, since CULTURE also has a "hierarchy" the higest value is SERVICE to the Lord, and the best most successful way to counter those who forbid others their natural inclinations is the public chanting of the Holy Names. This is the best in this age, but also will work IN ANY AGE even during Vedic times, any time.
In the Kali Age, it is best to offer all your fruits to God, rather than serve a "leader" or a "caste" or a "sect" or a "politician" or a "job" or even a "family". This was the main focus of the sect of Prabhupad, and yes it was absolutely Krishna centric. This was because Krishna was seen as raised by non-Brahmins, was a Sudra, was a Vaishya, was a Kshatriya, then was a Brahmin all in "one leela" and thus Krishna will take even a flower from ANYONE who offers without exception. And the Love of Krishna was a simple "peasant cow girl".
It isn't that complicated. It is one sect in the broader family of "Hinduism". Hindu might be a "modern term", even if so it simply means the "Family" of ALL the sects.
In the end, the campaign to push only the use of Sanatana Dharma became a big deal to some American devotees, much less so in India. They had good intentions, and had an element of success, other sects also took it on - I AM NOT saying it was a term made up by westerners, it IS a Indian-Sanskrit-et all authorative use. Some westeners took it much to heart and might have even been a bit "too extreme" about NOT using Hindu. But in fact, Prabhupad's supposed opposition to using Hinduism is exaggerated - he did use it, in fact he even at times called Buddhists as Hindus and got angry once when sume newspaper article implied he was a new religion that is not Hindu. He said it was Hindu.
ISKCON is not monotheistic in the sense that Gods and Demigods and Demons do not exist. They do exist. But in the age, it is the time of Krishna devotion as all focus. Not all sects agree. Not within even Vaishnava. And believe it or not, not even within all sects of Gaudiya.
None of this really matters as far as I am concerned - my positiun is ALL HINDUS OR WHATEVER TERM YOU WANT TO USE FOR THE FAMILY MUST BE UNITED IN THESE DANGEROUS TIMES. We cannot afford to shun another Hindu based on caste or some selfish reason, nor on geography or wealth or anything. Because if we do, we will lose everything. United we stand, divided we fall.
