Prabhupada asked his disciples in India to obtain some land to build a center in Mayapur. He had asked some of his Godbrothers to assist them, but they did not comply with his desire. Shortly thereafter, Prabhupada returned to America.
Back to America
Around this time, some of Prabhupada’s Godbrothers tried to induce him to join together with them. Prabhupada, sensing correctly, that they wanted to make ISKCON part of an organization that they would control, replied that he would join, but that representation on the organization’s governing board should be proportionate to practical preaching activity. Of course, that meant that ISKCON would have by far the majority of seats. In another incident, a Gaudiya Matha Godbrother asked Prabhupada for money to support his temple. Prabhupada described the incident like this: “Another Godbrother, he asked me [for] fifty thousand rupees to maintain his temple. So I said, ‘Yes, I can give you fifty thousand, but this is mleccha money. You’ll be polluted. Best thing is that give [the temple to ISKCON]. We can maintain. I’ll immediately deposit fifty thousand.’ He has stopped [asking for the money]. (laughs) ‘We are mlecchas. I am the leader of the mlecchas, so my money will pollute you. But if you are feeling difficulty, you hand over the temple to us, and on condition I immediately deposit fifty thousand in the name of the temple.’” (Room conversation, Bombay, April 22, 1977) Prabhupada pointed out that his Godbrothers who would not accept prasadam prepared by the ISKCON devotees, considering them mlecchas, were nevertheless ready, quite hypocriticallly, to accept money earned by the “mlecchas.”
Here is another indication of how Prabhupada saw the Gaudiya Matha in relationship to ISKCON. Prabhupada, regarding efforts to get nongovernmental organization (NGO) status for ISKCON in the UN, wrote to Purusottama Dasa on February 2, 1968: “Regarding the NGO section of the United Nations, I am enclosing herewith a statement addressing Mr. David J. Exley, explaining the very importance of our movement. You can inform him that the Gaudiya Math Institutions in India and in England, are also part of this Institution.” Here Srila Prabhupada saw the Gaudiya Matha institutions of his Godbrothers as at least theoretically part of his institution, ISKCON, which was taking the lead in spreading Krishna consciousness around the world, in compliance with the will of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. We should follow the indication of Srila Prabhupada in making a long range plan to integrate all of the Gaudiya Matha institutions under the banner of ISKCON. This will depend upon the various Matha accepting the leadership of ISKCON in international preaching. Those capable of integrating themselves into the collective leadership process set up by Prabhupada, as per the instructions of Bhaktisiddhanta, may become closely associated with ISKCON whereas those Mathas wishing to maintain their independence, in contradiction to the order of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, may have a more distant but friendly relationship with ISKCON. Those who manifest antagonism and opposition to ISKCON will simply be left to pursue their own course of action, with no relationship to ISKCON. As a practical matter, ISKCON should search among the various Gaudiya Matha entities to find one whose leader is willing to submit himself to the collective decision-making authority of ISKCON, and make an attempt to integrate that Matha into ISKCON as an ISKCON-associated matha. Other Gaudiya Matha leaders who wish to discuss cooperation could then be directed to consider this example as the standard of how such cooperation should be implemented. They could choose to follow suit, demonstrating the sincerity of their desire for cooperation, or they could refuse to do so, thus demonstrating they were approaching ISKCON with some ulterior motive.
On June 22, 1968, Prabhupada wrote the following letter to his Godbrother Jagannatham Prabhu in Bombay, regarding the possibility of opening a branch of ISKCON there.
Dear Jagannatham Prabhu,
Please accept my respectful obeisances at your lotus feet. I am so glad to receive your letter after a long time. I think I met you sometimes in the year of 1950, in Madras Gaudiya Math, when I went with Tirtha Maharaja to attend the Janmastami Festival. I know you are a sincere servant of Srila Prabhupada and you have done excellent service while He was present before us, and you have done similarly even after His Disappearance. I am very glad to learn that your children are well situated, but you are very much anxious to get them in touch with Krishna Consciousness. . . .
Regarding our Gaudiya Math in Bombay: I am very sorry that you are disappointed in respect of their activities. I know this fact because in 1934 I was one of the active members in starting this Math. The Gowalia Tank center was opened by me, and although I lived separately from the Math, practically I was in charge of the Math and under the instructions from His Divine Grace. Then after His Departure, you know so many unhappy things happened, but, as I was a householder, I remained always aloof from those unhappy incidences. I have accepted this renounced order of life in 1958, and since then I am completely devoted to the service of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada. You’ll be very glad to know that by the Grace of Srila Prabhupada, the duty which was entrusted upon me is being discharged as faithfully as possible, and by the Mercy of His Divine Grace, I have got here many American boys and girls, who are sincerely assisting me. I have got 8 branches in U.S.A. and one in Canada, and probably my next move will be in European countries, beginning from London. As you are Prabhupada’s old disciple and you have served His Divine Grace so nicely, I would request you that you can make some attempt to open a branch of this International Society for Krishna Consciousness in Bombay. And if you agree to this, then I can send some of my American disciples to join you. Your children and these American boys under your guidance may do very good service to the cause of Srila Prabhupada in spreading this Sankirtana movement. I have trained my disciples to perform Sankirtana nicely and deliver lectures on Krishna Consciousness, and if your children practically see their activities, certainly they will be influenced. Besides that, they can talk on Krishna Consciousness very nicely. I shall be very glad to know from you if there is any possibility for such activity. Bombay is very advanced city in India in all respects. They have got money, and they have got heart also to participate in such movement. Unfortunately the present workers in the Bombay Gaudiya Math are not at all competent to do any tangible work. They are staying there for the last 35 years, but they have not done any appreciable work. it is simply a place “khabadavar addakhama.” Srila Prabhupada used this word many times in connection with inactive centers. And when one was too much engaged in buildings, He always warned that our business is not for becoming mason workers, or becoming carpenters, neither to create a place for eating and sleeping. So these people are collecting funds and eating and sleeping. The reason is that they deviated from the disciplic succession from Srila Prabhupada. So, I don’t wish to discuss on this point, because you know better than me; but I think you are also old enough, and I am also old enough. At any time we may pass away from this world, but I wish that we may try to do some service to Srila Prabhupada until the last moment of our life.
I was thinking of opening a branch in Bombay of this International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and if you cooperate, we can attempt this important activity. Your letter was addressed to my headquarters at 26 Second Avenue, New York, N.Y., and it has been sent to me at Montreal. I shall be glad to hear from you about these suggestions in your next letter. Thanking you once more for remembering me.
Hoping you are well,
Yours in the service of the Lord,
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Here again we see how Srila Prabhupada came to envision cooperation. If his Godbrothers were truly interested in advancing the cause of Krishna consciousness, they would help him open centers of ISKCON in India. Of course, the centers would be under the direction of Srila Prabhupada, ISKCON’s founder-acarya. We may also take warning that ISKCON centers are to be primarily places of preaching, and not simply nice displays of architecture. If our leading devotees are simply collecting big donations from big donors to make some big temples where there are not sufficient activities of preaching and where instead there are numbers of less qualified persons simply engaged in maintaining the building that is not very good. Also, we sometimes hear that we should not judge the present members of the Gaudiya Matha by the actions of their predecessors. This may be true, that one is not automatically guilty. But we must look at the practical activities and decide how much the “new” Gaudiya Matha resembles the old one. Here Srila Prabhupada gives one standard: are they vigorously preaching and expanding the activities of the Krishna consciousness movement or are they simply content to have some building where they can collect sufficient money for maintaining the structure, and otherwise are simply eating and sleeping?
The issue of cooperation came up once more in Prabhupada’s letter to the Gaudiya Mission in Calcutta, dated May 23, 1969:
Att: Secretary
Dear Sir:
Kindly accept my humble obeisances. I beg to enclose herewith a copy of a letter received from my Godbrother, Dr. Syama Sundardas Brahmacari, of your Mission. Taking the concluding portion of his letter inviting me to cooperate with the Gaudiya Mission in the matter of my activities of spreading the objective of Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Maharaja, I am prepared to cooperate with the Gaudiya Mission in all respects, but I do not know under what condition you wish to cooperate with me. But I am prepared to accept any condition for getting your cooperation in full. So I shall be glad to know from you under what condition our cooperation is possible. But I am prepared in every respect and I shall await your reply with interest.
So far as my starting a separate organization known as International Society for Krishna Consciousness, it was inevitable because none of our Godbrothers are cooperating with one another. Every one of us is conducting his own institution, and there is difference of opinion even between Gaudiya Mission and Gaudiya Math.
So if it is now possible to combine ourselves together, I shall be the first man to welcome this good opportunity. But apart from others, if Gaudiya Mission is prepared to cooperate with me, I am prepared to accept this cooperation in any condition. Please therefore let me know your terms of cooperation, and I shall be very glad to consider it. It has been suggested by Dr. Syama Sundardas Brahmacari that we cooperate at least in London, and I shall be glad to know your terms of cooperation.
Thanking you in anticipation for your early reply.
Sincerely yours,
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
t is important to note that Srila Prabhupada deliberately (and expertly) framed the issue of cooperation in terms of the Gaudiya mission cooperating with him, and not the other way around. As Prabhupada put it, “I am prepared to accept any condition for getting your cooperation in full.”
Prabhupada continued this particular discussion in a letter to Swami B. S. Bhagavata Maharaja of the Gaudiya Mission, in a letter dated August 21, 1969.
Revered Sripada Bhagavata Maharaja,
Kindly accept my humble obeisances. I beg to thank you very much for your letter dated 8th July, 1969 . . . . I have also gone through the Memorandum of Articles of Association of your Mission and particularly seen the specific portion referred to in your letter in reply. I see it is in order, but similarly, we have also incorporated our International Society for Krishna Consciousness pursuant to the religious corporation laws of the state of New York.
The main purposes of this institution are as follows amongst others: 1) To systematically propagate spiritual knowledge to society at large and to educate all peoples in the techniques of spiritual life in order to check the imbalance of values in life and to achieve real unity and peace in the world. 2) To propagate a consciousness of Krishna as it is revealed in the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. 3) To bring the members of the Society together with each other and nearer to Krishna, the prime entity, and thus develop the idea, within the members and humanity at large that each soul is part and parcel of the quality of Godhead (Krishna). 4) To teach and encourage the Sankirtana movement, congregational chanting of the holy name of God as revealed in the teachings of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
So practically there is no difference of opinion in our missionary activities, especially because we all are deriving inspiration from His Divine Grace Prabhupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Maharaja. I think all of our Godbrothers are doing the same missionary activities without a doubt, but still the regrettable fact is we are doing all separately, not in conjunction. I have also read specifically your articles on the matter of acaryas, wherein on the 14th Paragraph I see the acharya shall be entitled to nominate in writing his successive acharya. But we do not find any record where our Srila Prabhupada nominated any acharya after Him. Different persons have interpreted on this point, and every one of our Godbrothers are acting as acharya, so this is a controversial point which I do not wish to enter into while we are proposing for cooperation. I think now we should cooperate fully for preaching the Mission of Srila Prabhupada. He very eagerly desired that the message of Lord Caitanya should be preached all over the world. About 40 years before, Sripada Bon Maharaja, guided by our senior old Tirtha Maharaja were sent to London, and perhaps Gaudiya Mission was established at that time. Since then, activities in foreign countries was practically stopped altogether. Although I was intimately connected with the Gaudiya Math institution, I was a householder. But when I first met His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada, He instructed me to preach in the foreign countries, but I could not do anything tangible on account of my family attachment. So after taking sannyasa in 1959 I prepared myself for coming to the foreign countries. As soon as three books were ready, Srimad-Bhagavatam, I started for New York in 1965. This was out of my inspiration in receipt from Srila Prabhupada, and it appears that my attempt in the foreign countries has become successful to a great extent. By my personal attempt I have established preaching centers numbering about two dozen, beginning from Hamburg to Tokyo. I think if my Godbrothers would have attempted similarly, preaching centers would have been established all over the world by this time. Therefore, I wish that Gaudiya Mission should send their preachers and establish different centers in different parts of the world. That will fulfill the Mission of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Maharaja.
I know there is some difficulty in the matter of getting the passport and visa for preaching in foreign countries at the present moment, but if the Gaudiya Mission decides to send their representatives in all other parts of the world, I can help them in this matter. Similarly, I would also expect cooperation from all our Godbrothers in the matters where I require their help. This mutual cooperation can be established immediately. Apart from the point of the acharya question, I think everyone is working in his individual capacity. That may not be disturbed at the present moment, but if we concentrate our energies for spreading the message of Lord Caitanya all over the world, that will be right missionary activities on behalf of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada.
I thank you very much for inviting me to your head office in Calcutta for heart-to-heart talk and discussion. I shall be always glad to abide by this suggestion, but the thing is if I go to India, it will cost me at least Rs. 25,000 to go and come back. In this old age, wherever I go I take with me one personal assistant. This means if I go to India, I will have to take my secretary, and that means two return tickets also, as well as other expenses. But if something is tangibly understood on the line of cooperation, it will be not difficult for me to go and see the acharya of the Mission for the final decision.
I am going to Germany the day after tomorrow via New York, and therefore my next address will be c/o Internationale Gesellschaft fur Krishna Bewusstein, 2 Hamburg 19, Eppendorfer Weg 11, West Germany. In the meantime I shall request you to cooperate with my missionary activities to supply me 10 mrdangas (kholes), first class and 50 pairs of karatalas, Navadvipa made, first class, every month to our different centers like New York, Los Angeles, London, Hamburg and Tokyo. Also I would request you to arrange for supplying Radha-Krishna Deities made in Vrindaban or Calcutta, 24″ high, for our different centers. We can also cooperate in selling your books in our different centers, and similarly you can cooperate by selling our books in your different centers. So there is ample opportunity of cooperation in good will, and if we continue like that, in the near future it may be possible that we completely amalgamate both our institutions. I hope you will give your due consideration to my proposals and shall be glad to hear from you at your earliest convenience. Also please let me know if personally I can become a member of your society under Clause 3 on page 19 of the Memorandum.
Please offer my humble obeisances to His Divine Grace Sripada B.K. Audulomi Maharaja and other Vaisnavas of the Math.
Sincerely,
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
enclosures: copies of news cuttings of our Rathayatra Festival, which we held in San Francisco, London, Boston, Ohio, and Hamburg.
This very interesting letter deserves careful study, particularly the matter of Prabhupada signalling his apparent agreement for “amalgamation” of ISKCON and the Gaudiya Mission. I wish to make some comments on this, and other matters mentioned in the above letter, but first we should have a look at the following letter to Dr. Syama Sundardas Brahmacari, dated September 5,1969.
Dear Dr. Syama Sundardas Brahmacari,
Please accept my humble obeisances. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22nd August 1969, addressed to New Vrindaban center and redirected here in West Germany. At the present moment I am preaching here in our German center, and next week I am going to our London center. . . . Regarding Gaudiya Mission, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the letter addressed to the Secretary Official. You will understand the whole situation. I am prepared to cooperate with the Gaudiya Mission wholeheartedly. I am prepared also to be amalgamated, and they have invited me to go to India to talk frankly, face to face. But unless we have come to some definite understanding, how I can risk the journey which will involve more or less Rs. 25,000? But I am sure if Gaudiya Mission and I combine together, it will be very nice thing to preach the cult of Lord Caitanya all over the world. I can reorganize all the branches of the Gaudiya Math in India, and if there is any financial question, it will be not difficult for our society to help in that way also. So if you can negotiate about our amalgamation on a cooperative basis, it will be great service to Srila Prabhupada. I have not as yet received any reply to the enclosed letter. . .
The crucial point is how Prabhupada conceived of this proposed cooperation between ISKCON and the Gaudiya Matha. He envisioned reorganizing the Gaudiya Matha to conform to his own standards, and also envisioned putting ISKCON money into the Gaudiya Matha, if it submitted to his plan for reorganizing it. A Gaudiya Matha reorganized under Prabhupada’s direction and with ISKCON funds would be an extension of ISKCON, operating under Prabhupada’s direction. So this is what Prabhupada meant by cooperating with the Gaudiya Matha, bringing the various Gaudiya Matha entities under the shelter of ISKCON and reorganizing them according to the ISKCON model, using ISKCON money. I believe that ISKCON should have the same long range goal, namely, to bring all the Gaudiya Matha entities under the shelter of ISKCON.
Going back to some of the details of the above letters, especially the letter to Bhagavat Maharaja, we can see that Srila Prabhupada was an expert transcendental diplomat, in the style of Sri Krishna Himself and Srimate Radharani Herself. Yes, he is prepared to cooperate with the Gaudiya Mission, which apparently wants to incorporate his activities into its own. But Prabhupada, subtly and not so subtly, gives many hints that his view of cooperation is somewhat different, the exact opposite, really. He says he has studied the acarya clause in the Gaudiya Mission’s incorporation documents, and objects to it. He says that for now he is not going to make an issue of it, but he clearly disapproves of it, signalling that in any negotiation about cooperation this issue is eventually going to have to come up and that the leader of the Gaudiya Mission may have to give up his position as sole acarya along with his right to designate his successor. Prabhupada indicates that he certainly is not immediately going to give up his independent position as leader of ISKCON to become part of the Gaudiya Mission. Concerning cooperation between the institutions, we have seen in the above letter to Syama Sundardas what Prabhupada’s idea was. In the letter to Bhagavat Maharaja, Prabhupada does not directly come out and say that ISKCON is a much bigger success, in terms of fulfilling the desires of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, than the Gaudiya Mission. But he says it indirectly by pointing out the failure of the Gaudiya Matha to establish centers outside India, while his own efforts, supported by a pile of newspaper clippings, have been greatly successful. Prabhupada diplomatically declines the summons to Calcutta, which could only be interpreted, if he complied, as a sign of submission to the authority of the Gaudiya Mission leadership. He gives an excuse for not coming. And then he gives his own counter proposal, namely that the Gaudiya Mission first make some satisfactory proposal for cooperation. And Prabhupada then also gives them a specific task, the supplying of various goods to ISKCON centers. To me this indicates that Prabhupada is signalling to the leadership of the Gaudiya Mission that any negotiations about cooperation are going to be on his terms, not theirs, and that on the strength of empowered preaching, he is in the superior position. Of course, at the same time, Prabhupada is displaying proper Vaisnava etiquette. ISKCON leaders can take many lessons from this exchange of letters on how to deal with the Gaudiya Matha. It is obvious that the Gaudiya Mission got the point, and that is why they did not reply to Prabhupada’s letter. They could see that their proposal for cooperation would mean their submission to Prabhupada and not his submission to them. Finally, we can reflect once more on how Prabhupada envisioned cooperation with the Gaudiya Matha: all the various Gaudiya Mathas would submit to his plan for reorganization in exchange for which they would receive financial help from ISKCON, thus effectively bringing them under the shelter and leadership of ISKCON. I propose that this should be the explicit long-range policy of ISKCON in relationship to the Gaudiya Matha. Just like the United States and its allies adopted a particular long-range policy toward the Communist countries, especially the Soviet Union, we need to articulate and carry out a long range strategy for our relationship with the Gaudiya Matha. This strategy should be the eventual incorporation of the Gaudiya Matha into ISKCON. In pursuance of this strategy, the GBC and other ISKCON leaders should make a program of regularly inviting the Gauidiya Matha entities and gurus to cooperate with ISKCON on ISKCON’s terms. A good offence is the best defence, the saying goes. In this way, we can take back the initiative which has passed to those advocating cooperation on the terms of the Gaudiya Matha. The key point will be submission to ISKCON’s system of collective leadership, which will mean an end to the Matha system, a system clearly not favored by Prabhupada.
In a letter to Narayana Maharaja, dated September 30, 1969, Prabhupada gave his opinion of the ongoing legal wranglings among the various Gaudiya Matha parties: “Regarding the 92 section case against the Gaudiya Math, I don’t think there is any possibility of compromise. But the Baghbazar party and Mayapur party have unlawfully usurped the missionary institution of Srila Prabhupada, and whenever they will talk of a compromise, it means another complication.” In the same letter, Prabhupada wished Narayana Maharaja a quick recovery from some sickness, and politely turned down a request from him to sponsor a person’s travel to America from India, pleading that “to sponsor a person from India means to send him immediately a return ticket by air, which means Rs 12,000. I do not know who will be agreeing to invest this money for an unknown person.” Prabhupada turned down many other such requests, which periodically came from Gaudiya Matha members seeking entrance to America. In the very beginning, he had thought of bringing some Gaudiya Matha members from India to assist in starting his mission, but later reconsidered. Prahupada wrote to Bhagavan Dasa on November 14, 1975: “I am glad that you now have 20 devotees in Geneva. This is very encouraging. Try to train them up and gradually leave the matters to be managed by them, in the hands of the Swiss devotees. When I started this movement, I wanted to bring some men from India. The problem was that in India the men who joined the Gaudiya Math mission were not very educated. So I declined to bring them in the Western countries and by the grace of Krsna I was able to train the local men. And thus gradually, things became successful.”
A Conspiracy?
In May of 1970, during his stay at the ISKCON temple in Los Angeles, Prabhupada noticed some discrepancies in the activities of his disciples. He thought some of the managers were becoming too self-important. He was upset that they were filtering his mail, not letting some letters reach him (in the name of not disturbing him). A book arrived from the ISKCON Press in Boston. It was a small paperback version of a chapter from the Second Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. The name given on the cover was simply A. C. Bhaktivedanta. The titles His Divine Grace and Swami Prabhupada were left out. In another publication, he was identified as simply the acarya of ISKCON. But he had always specifically asked that he be identified at the founder-acarya, emphasizing his special position. Prabhupada was also upset by letters coming from his disciples in India. In one such letter, a disciple had written that Prabhupada’s Godbrothers were saying he should not use the title Prabhupada. It should be used only in connection with Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Other letters contained suggestions that Prabhupada was not the only guru for ISKCON. Prabhupada was very concerned by these developments. He summoned some of his leading disciples from around the world, and made plans with them to leave Los Angeles. He said, “It is like a fire here. I must leave at once.” (Prabhupada-lilamrta, vol. 4., p. 102). Prabhupada judged that his Godbrothers in India were behind everything. “I made my headquarter in Los Angeles. And they made a conspiracy against me. That’s all.” (Room conversation, Vrindavan, June 17 1977). Prabhupada added, “Anyway, forget the past. Push forward.”
Before Prabhupada left Los Angeles, he signed a document establishing a Governing Body Commission to run ISKCON. In this document he said, “I am getting old, 75 years old, therefore at any time I may be out of the scene, therefore I think it is necessary to give instruction to my disciples how they shall manage the whole institution.” The next day he signed a document setting up the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust to publish his books. Prabhupada then decided he would go to India to preach and establish temples. He wrote to Satsvarupa and Uddhava: “You are all my children, and I love my American boys and girls who are sent to me by my spiritual master and I have accepted them as my disciples. . . . After taking sannyas, I was more engaged in writing my books without any attempt to construct temples or to make disciples like my other Godbrothers in India. I am not very much interested in these matters because my Guru Maharaja liked very much publication of books than constructing big, big temples and creating some neophyte disciples. As soon as He saw that his neophyte disciples were increasing in number, He immediately decided to leave this world. . . . At the present moment in our ISKCON campus politics and diplomacy has entered. Some of my beloved disciples on whom I counted very, very much have been involved in this matter influenced by Maya. As such there has been some activity which I consider disrespectful. So I have decided to retire and divert attention to book writing and nothing more.” (Prabhupada-lilamrta vol. 4, p. 105)
Around this time, Prabhupada wrote to Jayapataka, who was staying with Acyutananda in Calcutta. He had been encouraging them to leave the Gaudiya Matha temple where they had been staying. The timing suggests that Prabhupada wanted to remove them from association he regarded as possibly damaging to their spiritual lives. The letter, dated July 10, 1970, read in part: “I have written two letters addressed to both you and Acyutananda in which I wanted to know if you have changed your place. In you letter dated 29th June you wrote to say, ‘We shall move into our apartment the next day after or tomorrow, Acyutananda says,’ but in your letter dated 2nd July it appears that you have not gone there, so I am surprised why the delay. It is not possible to stay at the Gaudiya Math because we want to organize our preaching work in our own way which we are following here. So in the Gaudiya Math we will not get any facility except for staying, neither they will be able to accommodate more men who are intending to go to India. . . . Regarding the Math, naturally because they are getting great name and fame by your service they will not like you to leave, but if more men go where they will live. I do not know why there is hesitation still. We must have our own place.” Up to this point, Prabhupada had tolerated his disciples living in the Gaudiya Matha temples in India, but now he wanted to change things, for two reasons. The first appears to have been a concern that they were being exposed to influences that were not helpful. The second appears that Prabhupada wanted to jump start his own temples in India, and needed his disciples to do the groundwork. Prabhupada also emphasized that there was a difference between his preaching and that of the Gaudiya Matha. This is evident in his statement that “it is not possible to stay at the Gaudiya Matha because we want to organize our preaching work in our own way which we are following here.” He also objected to the Gaudiya Matha using the presence of his American disciples, the results of his preaching in the West, to advertise its own position.
On his way to India, Prabhupada stopped in Japan. There he learned that at a festival in New Vrindavan four of his sannyasi disciples were preaching that he was Krishna. Prabhupada judged that they had been influenced by impersonalism, and sent them out of ISKCON for some time, to preach on their own. He suspected they had been contaminated by influences from the Gaudiya Matha in India.
On August 29, 1970, Prabhupada arrived with his disciples in Calcutta. He went to Navadvipa, where he met with his disciples in India, such as Acyutananda and Jayapataka. He began the serious effort that led to the establishment of major ISKCON centers in India. From this time on, he would make tours to the West, but he spent much time in India each year. In 1971 and 1972, he and his disciples obtained land in Mayapura, Vrindavan and Bombay and he began the construction of temples there.
During these early days in India, Prabhupada continued to warn his disciples about associating too closely with his Gaudiya Matha Godbrothers. Having uncovered more hints of a conspiracy of his Godbrothers against him, Prabhupada wrote to Rupanuga on September 25, 1970 from Calcutta: “I am very pleased that you all GBC members are remaining vigilant so that the disturbance in our Society may not continue. In Isana and his wife’s letters there is reference to Tirtha Maharaja’s name, as if they were advised by Brahmananda Maharaja and company to come to India and join Tirtha Maharaja. It appears like that. I shall be glad if you kindly inquire on this point. It is now clear that my Godbrothers take objection of my being called as Prabhupada and on this point they wanted to poison the whole Society–that is now clear. But how it was manipulated–that is a mystery.”
Policy of Restricted Assocation
To Yamuna Devi Dasi, Prabhupada wrote on November 18, 1970, from Bombay: “Regarding the Gaudiya Math, our position has nothing to do with them. They cannot do anything and if somebody does something, they will be envious. That is the nature of third class men. My Guru Maharaja once told this story; one friend informed another that one man has become the High Court Judge. ‘Oh no,’ he replied, ‘No. That cannot be right.’ ‘Yes, he is now a Judge,’ said the first friend. ‘I have seen him sitting on the bench.’ The second man replied, ‘Maybe. But I don’t think he is getting any salary.’ Such envious men will find out some fault anywhere. There is no fault, actually, but they will manufacture some fault. That is their business. So many persons were envious of my Guru Maharaja, but He was preaching and did not care for them.”
In a letter Jayapataka Swami, dated February 23, 1971, Prabhupada once more gave his opinion about cooperation with the Gaudiya Matha: “So far as cooperating with my Godbrothers is concerned, that is not very urgent business. So far until now my Godbrothers have regularly not cooperated with me and by the grace of my Spiritual Master, things are still going ahead. So cooperation or non-cooperation, it is the desire of Bhaktivinode Thakura to preach the Caitanya cult all over the world and in 1875 he predicted that someone would come very soon who would individually preach this cult all over the world. So if his benediction is there and my Guru Maharaja’s blessings are there, we can go ahead without any impediment but all of us must be very sincere and serious. We have been a little inflicted by public criticism that we Godbrothers do not work together. My Guru Maharaja wanted also us to work together but some how or other it hasn’t happened up until now. So your program of cooperating with Madhava Maharaja is not so important. Best thing is that all we Godbrothers work together [my note: in the sense of each working separately to carry out the mission of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati by vigorous preaching]. Then the criticism will stop, otherwise even we join together, criticism will go on. So this has been going on for the last 24 years, but everyone of us is doing his best keeping Lord Caitanya in the center. We should be satisfied so much.” Here Prabhupada is apparently engaging in a little transcendental diplomacy. Prabhupada respects his Godbrothers. He appreciates that they are doing their best according to their understanding to carry out the mission of Lord Caitanya. But by referring to Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s prophecy, he is indicating that he is the one who has gotten the mercy of Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. The implication is that the Gaudiya Mathas should be cooperating with Prabhupada, and that it is not seemly for Prabhupada’s disciples to be engaging in their own “cooperation” with his Godbrothers. Prabhupada appears to be saying that first of all let his Godbrothers come up to his level of preaching, following him, and then there might be some possibility of real joint endeavor.
About the lack of real preaching in the Gaudiya Mathas, Prabhupada said: “Missionary activity is not laziness or sleeping. My Guru Maharaja used to say that . . . [some gurus say] ‘I have got some dozens of disciples, and I have got a temple, and people are contributing. Now I have got good arrangement for eating and sleeping. Now I am perfect. Because I am getting some food without any work, and honor, then I am perfect.’ This is not the mentality. . . . You must be engaged continually for these missionary activity. The Gaudiya Mission has failed in preaching work because they adopted this principle. As soon as they got a little shelter under the name of Matha, or temple, and a few dozen of…, not few dozen, one dozen [disciples], then he is settled up there. Now he is bhajana, ‘Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna,’ showing that he is very great chanter. And what is your preaching? . . . Therefore my Guru Maharaja condemned this policy. Mana tumi kisera vaisnava: ‘What kind of Vaisnava you are?’ Pratisthara tare nirjanera ghare: ‘And simply for cheap popularity, Oh, he is a Vaisnava. He is chanting. All right.’ . . . No botheration, because if there is no preaching, there is no botheration. You can sit down and show people, ‘I have now become a very liberated soul,’ and chant and meditate. That means sleeping. This sort of business is condemned by my Guru Maharaja. Pratisthara tare nirjanera ghare tava harinama kevala. This is simply cheating. He did not approve this kind of business. He did not approve. He wanted to see that everyone is engaged in preaching work, some sort of preaching work, either indoor or outdoor. When you are indoor you have to be busy writing articles for a magazine and proofread and so many things indoors. And outdoors you have to go door to door, make them members, make them interested in this movement, collect money for expenses, outdoor. Preaching, you have to meet opposing elements. So many will criticize, so many will attack. Nityananda Prabhu was hurt personally, but still, outdoor. This is missionary work, not that ‘Whenever I find some opportunity, go to some solitary place and sleep.’ This is not missionary life. So we should adjust things, not that ‘All right, it is going on. That’s all.’ You have got very responsible business, this Krsna consciousness. It is genuine, it is authorized, and Lord Caitanya wants us to do it all over the world. The things should be adjusted and keep us always alive to our self responsibility. That is missionary life.” (Bhagavatam lecture, Gorakhpur, India, Feb. 11, 1971).
It has become a fashion recently for ex-ISKCON members or ISKCON members sympathetic to Gaudiya Matha gurus to bring such gurus out of India, and take them on tours of places where there are ISKCON centers. This is good, that they are getting out of their temples in India, and traveling about the world. But this kind of traveling can’t be compared to the kind of traveling that Prabhupada did, going out on his own into cities where there were no temples, no devotees, and, depending only on guru and Krishna, making devotees where there were none. If instead of collecting followers from among disaffected members of ISKCON these gurus would begin to organize missionary activities directed towards bringing Krishna consciousness to those who don’t have it, that would be an improvement. The distinguishing characteristic between ISKCON and the various Gaudiya Mathas remains ISKCON’s strong commitment to intensive missionary activity on a worldwide scale, under collective leadership. ISKCON members who don’t have the strength to continue a life dedicated to intensive missionary activity, or who have difficulty living under the system of collective management devised by Srila Prabhupada, following the order of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, may indeed find some comfort in the shelter of the Gaudiya Mathas, where there is less pressure, less organization, and more emphasis on bhajan. But that was not the style of Srila Prabhupada or Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, who wanted to see lots of highly organized, dynamic, creative, intensive missionary activity on a worldwide scale.
Prabhupada seemed to find transcendental competition, rather than cooperation, the best model for ISKCON’s relationship to the Gaudiya Mathas. He wrote in a letter to Jayapataka Swami, dated July 30, 1972, about the Mayapur temple: “If you make it a first-class temple, there will be no lack of visitors for preaching, you will never even have to leave that place for preaching. And if you serve nice prasadam, the whole of India will come. So stick to our principles very rigidly, and everyone will come to see these American Vaisnavas. I want that we shall excel the Caitanya Math. They have been struggling for the last 50 years, and we shall surpass them in two years. We are working two shifts of labor: that is American style of doing things. I am very pleased if you can continue in this manner of American style. But if you do not, then I shall remain on the same level, then it is a great discredit to the Americans. But if I defeat my Godbrothers, then I am worthy to be called the guru of the Americans. Even there is competition in spiritual life.” Prabhupada’s prophecy came true. Anyone can make the comparison. On any weekend, go to Caitanya Matha, and you will see a quiet and peaceful place with almost no one there. Go to ISKCON Mayapur and you will see thousands of visitors crowding the place.
In February 1972, Prabhupada and his disciples visited Madras. One of Prabhupada’s more envious Godbrothers wrote to him: “Your disciples dance with Hare Krishna mantram, (I) are they really God-intoxicated as Lord Chaitanya? (II) Have you Swamiji really got free of your ego? If so, why you said, ‘I challenge,’ and why are words like ‘I’ and ‘my’ always on your lips? (III) Why do you use a cushion unlike a real yogi—Did Lord Chaitanya use cushions? (IV) Why do you wear a ring and a wrist gold watch? Are you not free from material attachment? (V) Did you visit Lord Chaitanya Krishna Temple at Gaudiya Math? If not, why not—The purest Vaishnava cult is indwelling there with pious Swamijis with Lord Krishna dwelling therein. Melodious sound from your throat is absent, but a jarceing [sic] undivine comes out. Is there any divinity in your person. I doubt. One disgusted on hearing your speech.”
A kinder letter came from Puri Maharaja, who invited Prabhupada and his disciples to visit his ashrama in Visakhapatnam. Prabhupada accepted the offer and arrived there with his disciples on February 17, 1972. Prabhupada had friendly dealings with Puri Maharaja and also with another Godbrother, Ananda Brahmacari. He cooked expertly for Prabhupada and his disciples, and humbly served the preparations to them. Puri Maharaja praised the preaching activities of Srila Prabhupada in the West. Prabhupada invited him to come to the West for preaching. He also invited him to come to Mayapura. Puri Maharaja agreed and traveled there with Prabhupada and his disciples.
On February 29, 1972, Gaura Purnima, Prabhupada conducted the official corner-stone laying ceremony for ISKCON Mayapura temple. He invited his Godbrothers to attend. Ten Gaudiya Matha sannyasis came. Prabhupada received them graciously. During the ceremony, each of the Godbrothers spoke in praise of Prabhupada’s preaching in the West. But a few days later, some of them returned to complain about his use of the title Prabhupada. He explained that his disciples were using this title out of their respect for him. But he did not use the title himself on his own stationary.
Prabhupada would sometimes use the example of the breakup of the Gaudiya Matha as a warning to his own disciples. He wrote to Kirtanananda Swami on October 18, 1973 the following letter:
Now this displeasing of Godbrothers has already begun and gives me too much agitation in my mind. Our Gaudiya Math people fought with one another after the demise of Guru Maharaja but my disciples have already begun fighting even in my presence. So I am greatly concerned about it.
Following in the footprints of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu:
trnad api su-nicena taror iva sahisnuna
amanina manadena kirtaniya sada harih
“One should chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street; one should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly.”
We must always remember this verse and be as tolerant as the tree, as we execute the Krsna consciousness movement. Without this mentality we cannot be successful.
Material nature means dissension and disagreement, especially in this Kali yuga. But, for this Krsna consciousness movement its success will depend on agreement, even though there are varieties of engagements. In the material world there are varieties, but there is no agreement. In the spiritual world there are varieties, but there is agreement. That is the difference. The materialist without being able to adjust the varieties and the disagreements makes everything zero. They cannot come into agreement with varieties, but if we keep Krsna in the center, then there will be agreement in varieties. This is called unity in diversity. I am therefore suggesting that all our men meet in Mayapur every year during the birth anniversary of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. With all GBC and senior men present we should discuss how to make unity in diversity. But, if we fight on account of diversity, then it is simply the material platform. Please try to maintain the philosophy of unity in diversity. That will make our movement successful. One section of men have already gone out, therefore we must be very careful to maintain unity in diversity, and remember the story in Aesop’s Fables of the father of many children with the bundle of sticks. When the father asked his children to break the bundle of sticks wrapped in a bag, none of them could do it. But, when they removed the sticks from the bag, and tried one by one, the sticks were easily broken. So this is the strength in unity. If we are bunched up, we can never be broken, but when divided, then we can become broken very easily.
Srila Prabhupada did not want ISKCON to turn out like the Gaudiya Matha, a bunch of ineffective little mathas, with no strong, unified preaching. To some extent, Srila Prabhupada’s fear has been realized. Many ISKCON members have not been able to live with the admittedly difficult process of discussion and submission to collective decision making set up by Srila Prabhupada. Such members have become frustrated and displeased, and instead of continuing to work within the system, have left to set up their own organizations, have joined the organizations of various Gaudiya Matha gurus, or have drifted off into isolation. This has certainly weakened ISKCON. But to some extent, Srila Prabhupada’s hope has been realized. A critical mass of ISKCON members continues to work together, in the spirit of unity in diversity, tolerating all the difficulties of submitting to a process of collective decision making by the GBC. If we look carefully at the above letter, we can see that Srila Prabhupada says that the collective decision making process should involve not just the GBC but “all GBC and senior men.” To some extent, exclusive focus on the authority of the GBC may at times have weakened the collective decision making process. The presence of “all senior men” (and women) at Mayapur should be given due attention as part of ISKCON’s collective decision making process. But in the end, it does become necessary for each individual to adopt a humble mood and be prepared to bow to the will of the leadership system devised by Prabhupada. This also entails some sensitivity on the part of those who may find themselves in the party that prevails at any point in time. It may be said that at times the GBC has made the wrong decision. I cannot see that Srila Prabhupada ever said the GBC system would always yield a perfect result. He simply said that the considered opinion of a number of senior persons is preferable to the decision of one appointed leader (unless the one person happens to be the “self-effulgent acarya” who might arise out of the collective leadership, freely recognized by all). The vast gulf between ISKCON and the various Gaudiya Mathas has always been and remains acceptance of the principle of joint action under a collective decision making process.
In another warning to his disciples not to follow in the footsteps of the Gaudiya Matha, Prabhupada wrote to Gurukrpa Maharaja on September 30, 1975: “Why is there this politics? This is not good. If politics come, then the preaching will be stopped. That is the difficulty. As soon as politics come, everything is spoiled. In the Gaudiya Math the politics is still going on. My Guru Maharaja left in 1936, and now it is 1976, so after 40 years the litigation is still going on. Do not come to this.” It has become a fashion for persons who cannot accept the discipline of living under ISKCON’s system of collective decision-making, such as Adridharana Prabhu and Madhupandit Prabhu, to get the courts to impose their personal policy opinions on ISKCON. Although they protest they are not infected with the Gaudiya Matha disease, their symptoms are the same.
In yet another warning, Prabhupada wrote to Ramesvara Maharaja and Radhaballabha Dasa of the BBT on August 14, 1976: “The report of the book printing is both encouraging and surprising. Every time I see this I remember the words of my Guru Maharaja when he told me that wherever there was money it should be used to print books, not that we shall have big big temples and then fight in the court. He asked me to do this and I am trying my little bit, that’s all. It is all by his blessings for without his blessings this wonderful thing would not have happened. He said personally to me, ‘If I could sell this Gaudiya Matha building, that would have been better.’ He predicted that there would be fire within these walls. So I took it, ‘O, His Divine Grace wants some books.’ So I accepted it, ‘Yes, I shall do it.’ It is all by his blessings. Mukam karoti vacalam pangum langhayate girim, by his mercy a dumb man can speak and a lame man can cross a mountain.” Now we have seen that some managers of big ISKCON temples in India, Adridharana in Calcutta and Madhupandit in Bangalore, unhappy with the GBC’s rejection of their proposals for making Prabhupada the only initiator in ISKCON, have decided to take the matter to the Indian courts instead of abiding by the process of collective decision making. I cannot imagine that Prabhupada would be pleased with them.
Prabhupada would encourage devotees to adopt his own mood in carrying out service in the face of obstacles imposed by others. He wrote to Gaurasundara Dasa in a letter dated August 26, 1972: “All along I have been discouraged in every way by my Godbrothers, but still I have stuck to my duty, keeping my Spiritual Master always in front. Because there is some fighting or bickering amongst us, that does not mean that I should go away. If I have understood the order of my Spiritual Master rightly, then I must perform my duty under any circumstances and never once think of going away under disgust.” In the same spirit, Prabhupada wrote to Gurudasa Dasa, on August 29, 1972: “Do not be depressed. All along my Godbrothers gave me only depression, repression, compression–but I continued strong in my duty. So never mind there is some discouragement, continue with your work in full enthusiastic Krishna Consciousness attitude of service.”
Srila Prabhupada did not very much like his disciples to sell or read literatures from the Gaudiya Mathas. In a letter to Sukadeva Dasa, Prabhupada, dated November 14, 1973, Prabhupada said: “Regarding the Gaudiya Math books being circulated there, who is distributing? Who is sending these books? The Gaudiya Math does not sell our books, why we should sell their books. Who has introduced these books? Let me know. These books should not at all be circulated in our Society. Bhakti Vilas Tirtha is very much antagonistic to our society and he has no clear conception of devotional service. He is contaminated. Anyway, who has introduced these books? You say that you would read only one book if that was all that I had written, so you teach others to do like that. You have very good determination.” The reasons for Prabhupada’s objections appear to be several. He appeared to be concerned about some deliberate attempt to infiltrate Gaudiya Matha ideas into ISKCON, as suggested by his asking who sent the books. He was also concerned that deviations and contaminations may have entered the otherwise Vaisnava literature. Prabhupada had presented to ISKCON his own carefully considered synthesis of Vaisnava thought and practice, perfectedly adapted to time, place, and circumstance, and he was worried about the infiltration of different understandings that might have an unhealthy effect on the preaching instrument he had carefully crafted in furtherance of the desires of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Reciprocity was another issue. Why sell their books, unless they sold his? Prabhupada also suggested that his own book were sufficient for ISKCON members.
Prabhupada also objected to an attempt by one of his Godbrothers, Purusottama Prabhu, to insert himself into the process of editing Prabhupada’s books. Prabhupada wrote to his disciple Karuna Sindhu Dasa on November 9, 1975: “I can understand this cunning Purusottama das has taken advantage of your simplicity. So any one of my Godbrothers cannot help me in this way of book writing because they are unfortunate in the matter of preaching work. They are simply trying to infiltrate our society to so something harmful by their attempt. So please do not have any correspondence with this Purusottama or any of my Godbrothers, so-called. And do not do anything without consulting me. You can inform this instruction to everyone and send back to me the sheets of corrections sent to you by Purusottama. I was very much anxious to know how Purusottama entered in our camp. Now the matter is clear. Be careful for further dealings with such men.”
Continuing his policy of warning his disciples from close association with the Gaudiya Mathas, Prabhupada wrote to Rupanuga Maharaja on April 28, 1974:
You are right about Sridhara Maharaja’s genuineness. But in my opinion he is the best of the lot. He is my old friend, at least he executes the regulative principles of devotional service. I do not wish to discuss about activities of my Godbrothers but it is a fact they have no life for preaching work. All are satisfied with a place for residence in the name of a temple, they engage disciples to get foodstuff by transcendental devices and eat and sleep. They have no idea or brain how to broacast the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. My Guru Maharaja used to lament many times for this reason and he thought if one man at least had understood the principle of preaching then his mission would achieve success. In the latter days of my Guru Maharaja he was very disgusted. Actually, he left this world earlier, otherwise he would have continued to live for more years. Still he requested his disciples to form a strong Governing body for preaching the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He never recommended anyone to be acarya of the Gaudiya Math. But Sridhara Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja, and he and others who are already dead unnecessarily thought that there must be one acarya. If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be automatically selected. So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure. The result is now everyone is claiming to be acarya even though they may be kanistha adhikari with no ability to preach. In some of the camps the acarya is being changed three times a year. Therefore we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp. Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya. So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately because instead of inspiring our students and disciples they may sometimes pollute them. This attempt was made previously by them, especially Madhava Maharaja and Tirtha Maharaja and Bon Maharaja but somehow or other I saved the situation. This is going on. We shall be very careful about them and not mix with them. This is my instruction to you all. They cannot help us in our movement, but they are very competent to harm our natural progress. So we must be very careful about them.
This is one of the more important of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions regarding ISKCON’s relationship with the Gaudiya Mathas. Srila Prabhupada’s thoughts about his Godbrother Sridhara Maharaja are worth careful consideration. Srila Prabhupada says on the positive side that he is genuine, that he is his old friend, that he executes the regulative principles of devotional service. Elsewhere he says that he has high realizations but is keeping them to himself. But the critical point is faithfulness to the instructions of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, who wanted a strong governing body to guide the affairs of the Gaudiya Matha by collective decision making. On this crucial point, Prabhupada says that Sridhara Maharaja, despite all his good points, violated the order of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. He attempted to artificially establish an acarya who would solely conduct initiations and guide the affairs for the Gaudiya Matha. When he failed to achieve this, due to the falldown of his proposed acarya, he became the sole acarya of his own Matha, and the other Godbrothers did likewise. Perpetuating his error, he also appointed a successor acarya to take his position in his own Matha after his death. Prabhupada points out that the Mathas established by Sridhara Maharaja and others were not characterized by vibrant, successful attempts to widely spread the teachings of Krishna consciousness. In this regard, they were not proper models and examples for his disciples, even though the leaders of such Mathas might individually have some good Vaisnava qualities and they might make some small contribution in their own way to the spreading of Krishna consciousness. Some of Prabhupada’s Godbrothers were, in his opinion, guilty not only of failing to establish a unified preaching mission and failing to do much on their own in the absence of such a unified preaching mission, but of deliberately trying to undermine ISKCON.
Some will wish to point to the history of falldown and scandal in ISKCON. As we have seen, the Gaudiya Matha is not without its own history of falldown and scandal. But there is a difference in falling down in pursuing the actual desire of the acarya and falling down in deviation from the actual desire of the acarya. ISKCON, for all its faults, has managed to keep intact the system of collective managament envisioned by Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. ISKCON did not make the mistake of trying to select a single acarya to conduct all initiations and decide all matters of policy for the whole Society. It has also not broken up into many individual organizations each with their own leader, although there have been some individuals, all influenced by Gaudiya Matha gurus, who have gone and set up such Gaudiya Matha style institutions on their own (Tripurari Swami, Paramadvaiti Swami, etc.). In ISKCON, there are many gurus and the decision making power is collectively exercised by the GBC in consort with other senior devotees such as sannyasis and temple presidents. That some leaders have fallen down in this process is certainly a cause of embarrassment. But Srila Prabhupada indicated that among the collective leadership it would be seen in time, in a practical way, who was spiritually realized and who was not. So we are seeing. But in the Gaudiya Matha, the falldowns took place in pursuance of deliberate disobedience of the orders of the acarya. So in the Gaudiya Matha, those who fall and those who don’t fall are, all of them, not completely in line with the desires of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. This defect could be remedied by their submitting to the existing collective decision making process in ISKCON. If they do not wish to join their institutions with ISKCON, then as far as possible ISKCON can try to work with them, to the extent that cooperation can be established along the lines approved by Srila Prabhupada. But under no circumstance can ISKCON permit any unreconstructed Gaudiya Matha leader, accustomed to see himself as the sole initiator in his Matha and the sole proprietor, to exercise any influence within ISKCON, even though such a leader might otherwise have some nice Vaisnava qualities and friendly intentions. And neither can ISKCON recommend that its members go to such persons for guidance in devotional life. In addition to nice Vaisnava qualities, such a person, if he is to be welcomed within ISKCON and recognized by ISKCON as a guide for its members, must show dedication to the dynamic worldwide preaching mission of Srila Prabhupada and submission to the collective management system of ISKCON. In making such distinctions I am not blindly applying statements that Prabhupada made long ago about Godbrothers now dead and gone. I have extracted from Prabhupada’s words some principles that have application beyond the particular circumstances under which they were first uttered. Applying these principles, I conclude that Prabhupada’s recommendation that ISKCON members not mix very thickly with Gaudiya Matha gurus is still valid today. We should not bear them ill will. We should behave properly with them on ceremonial occassions or when visiting their Mathas. But we should not intimately associate with them or try to bring them into ISKCON for leadership purposes. START
Prabhupada was always concerned when he detected signs of the Gaudiya Matha mentality developing in ISKCON. He wrote on October 8, 1974 to Karandhara Dasa: “All these properties and opulences, whatever we have got, this will not go with me when I go away from this world. It will remain here. I am training some of my experienced disciples how to manage after my departure. So if instead of taking the training, if in my lifetime you people say I am the Lord of all I survey, that is dangerous conspiracy. . . In India some of the important members they have collected huge amounts in the name of the Society and spent it luxuriously. I wanted you all my experienced disciples should manage the whole institution very cleverly without any personal ambition like ordinary materialistic men. The Gaudiya Math institution has become smashed, at least stopped its program of preaching work on account of personal ambitions.” Here we can see that Srila Prabhupada expected his own disciples to manage the movement after his departure. But he wanted them to do it without personal ambition. We can also see that he would not be happy if ISKCON survived as a collection of peaceful centers of bhajan. He wanted a unified, dynamic international preaching organization.
Prabhupada also said in his letter to Karandhara: “I believe all my students they are very serious devotees, maybe sometimes influenced by maya, but they can be corrected and the whole thing will go on as usual without any difficulty. Please try to help me in this connection in this endeavor.” This should be the proper attitude of all sincere disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Live in the Society he created, realizing that although sometimes things may appear to go wrong, they can be corrected, by the mercy and grace of Srila Prabhupada and his sincere followers who desire to help him in that connection.
The phenomenon of disappointed ISKCON members leaving the Society to take shelter of Gaudiya Matha gurus (or taking shelter of such gurus after having been asked to leave the Society) is not something new. It happened also during Prabhupada’s time, sometimes with his approval. On January 10, 1975, Prabhupada wrote to Asita Dasa, then residing at a Gaudiya Matha temple in Puri: “If you want to stay there I have no objection. For the time being you can perform your devotional service in Puri and when I return to Mayapur in mid-March, you can see me and we shall see what was the cause for your being asked to leave. It is a big establishment and sometimes disagreement happens and I am helpless. I am enquiring from Mayapur why you were asked to leave there. If you want to take initiation from Madhava Gosvami Maharaja I have no objection.”
Among all the choices available to this particular disciple, I am sure that Prabhupada would have had preferred a different outcome. But it would appear that if a disciple had lost a lot of faith in ISKCON, and apparently a lot of faith in Prabhupada, then Prabhupada was prepared to let that disciple do as he wished. But this was not an endorsement of Madhava Maharaja’s qualification to be a guide for all ISKCON members, nor was it meant to be the example for all ISKCON members to follow.
In 1975, one of Prabhupada’s Godbrothers, Bon Maharaja, toured universities in North America, making statements that belittled Prabhupada’s accomplishments. He insinuated that his own few writings were more authoritative and scholarly than Prabhupada’s monumental output, praised by scholars worldwide. Prabhupada instructed his disciples to challenge him in the following way: “You meet Bon Maharaja, and if he talks again . . . say, ‘You were sent in London for establishing a temple, why you could not do it? You remained there for three, four years. And why you were called back by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati? What did you do for the three, four years in spite of full support from Gaudiya Matha?’ We were sending seven hundred rupees. In those days seven hundred rupees means nowadays seven thousand. He was squandering the money. Authority, authority, scholarly, ‘how many books you have published from your institution for the last forty years?’ He was in London. In the 1930s he came back. Came back means Guru Maharaja called him back. Then he separated from Gaudiya Matha, and he tried to start this institution. . . . And it is ’75 [1975], clear forty years. So what books you have published? Authority, scholarly, what books you have published? And how many scholars you have produced? Why it is closed now? . . . He has simply collected money like anything by this bluff. . . . Therefore Dalmia [a wealthy donor] said [to] one of the trustees, ‘You better give it [the institute] to Bhaktivedanta Swami.’ They have seen. . . . Institute of Oriental Philosophy? Yes. And the students are coming to him with knives. That is his popularity. Amongst his own students, he is threatened with knife. And he has to sign something by such threatening.” (Morning walk, Denver, June 30, 1975)
So it appears that in some cases, if a Gaudiya Matha member was demeaning ISKCON or Prabhupada, Prabhupada was willing to have his disciples reply in kind, directly questioning the Gaudiya Matha member’s competence and qualification, to his face. Today, this may also be necessary in some cases, with proper authorization from ISKCON’s governing body.
Prabhupada also said about Bon Maharaja, “Of course, he will not be able to do anything. Simply ask him, ‘You, sir, what you have done for the last forty years? And who asked you to start this institute? And why you were called back by Guru Maharaja?’ You ask these things. ‘And you performed some ceremony for neutralizing your guru-aparadha.’ He did it. [To] Some astrologer… He admitted that ‘I have offended my Guru Maharaja. So I am not improving. So can you suggest anything?’ He [the astrologer] said that “You offer 108 bilva patra to Lord Siva.” And he [Bon Maharaja] did it for so many . . .” (Morning walk Denver, June 30, 1975)
During a conference at a Canadian university, one of Prabhupada’s disciples, Uttamasloka Dasa, had replied to some of Bon Maharaja’s statements. For example, Uttamasloka had remarked that all of the scholars had been presenting various opinions about the Absolute Truth without coming to any conclusion about it, thus inviting a debate that would arrive at a conclusion. Bon Maharaja said Vaisnavas don’t argue and debate. Uttamasloka pointed out that Lord Caitanya had converted Prakasananda Sarasvati by argument. “Oh, yes, very good,” said Prabhupada, hearing of this. Bon Maharaja had then said that actually Prakasananda had been converted by Lord Caitanya’s effulgence, not His arguments. “But there was argument, rascal!” interjected Prabhupada, interrupting a devotee’s account of the incident. Bon Maharaja had complained to the scholars that ISKCON devotees are in general intolerant. Prabhupada, as if directly answering Bon Maharaja, said, “You are also not tolerant . . . Because you are envious.” (Morning walk Denver, June 30, 1975)
Srila Prabhupada voiced the same sentiments in a letter to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, dated June 4, 1975: “Regarding, Bon Maharaja, I am actually authority accepted by authority. In the Caitanya Caritamrta it is said, krsna sakti vina nahe nama pracar. So, now the Hare Krishna movement is world known, and learned scholars, etc. give plaudits to me as Professor Judah has. So, then why I am not authority? Nobody says Bon Swami has done it, or Vivekananda, or any other swami. There are so many yogis and swamis coming, but nobody is giving credit to them, they are giving the credit to me. So, why I am not an authority? If Krishna accepts me as authority, then who can deny it? Besides that, in 1933, Bon was given the first chance to preach Lord Caitanya’s movement in London. He remained there about four years and not a single person could be converted to become a Vaisnava and he was receiving regularly 700rs. per month for his expenditure, being supported by the whole Gaudiya Math institution, and still, as he could not do anything appreciable, he was called back by Guru Maharaja. Then where is his authority? Our authority comes from Parampara system. If the Guru was not satisfied with him and called him back, and since then, he gave up connection with Gaudiya Math and started his own institution, then how he becomes authority? And in spite of all these things, if he is still authority by his own imagination, then people should ask him what he has been doing for the last 40 years, about the objective of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Even if he thinks that he has done, certainly he has not done better than me. Under the circumstances, accepting him as an authority, I am greater and better authority than him. So, all Vaisnavas are authorities to preach Krishna Consciousness, but still, there are degrees of authorities. On the whole, if his motive is to supress me and that is why he has come here, how we can receive him? He has already given one Professor a wrong impression. He may be treated as a guest, if he comes to our center, give him prasadam, honor him as an elder Vaisnava, but he cannot speak or lecture. If he wants to lecture, you can tell him that there is already another speaker scheduled. That’s all.”
This letter forms the basis of ISKCON’s policy toward Gaudiya Matha gurus, with questionable attitudes toward ISKCON and Prabhupada, who may wish to speak in ISKCON temples. We honor them as elder Vaisnavas, but we do not let them speak, unless they have proved themselves in line with the spirit of Krishna consciousness exemplified by Srila Prabhupada and are properly respectful of those he left in charge of the institution he created. ISKCON, as given to us by Srila Prabhupada, is a finely tuned instrument for the dynamic mass propagation of Krishna consciousness in the modern world, and even apparently minor differences from Prabhupada’s example in teaching and practice can upset the delicate balance. Therefore we are cautious about letting Gaudiya Matha gurus enter the ISKCON Society, particularly if they are accustomed to functioning in the Matha system instead of the collective management system instituted by Srila Prabhupada, following Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s instructions for how the Gaudiya Matha was to be managed after his departure. If we could find a Gaudiya Vaishnava guru who would submit to guidance by the collective management system of ISKCON, such a guru might be welcome to speak in ISKCON temples. Another qualification would be accomplishments in the preaching field that we might imagine Srila Prabhupada would consider substantial. Unfortunately, at the present moment there does not appear to be any such guru among the various Gaudiya Matha organizations (or among the various former ISKCON members who have become gurus of their own Gaudiya-Math style groups).
Therefore, intimate association should continue to restricted. In the wake of the Bon Maharaja incident, and other incidents, Prabhupada asked his disciples to strictly avoid associating with the Gaudiya Matha. He wrote to Visvakarma Dasa on November 9, 1975: “I am in due receipt of your letter dated September 3, 1975 with the enclosed statement about Van [Bon] Maharaja. So I have now issued orders that all my disciples should avoid all of my Godbrothers. They should not have any dealings with them nor even correspondence, nor should they give them any of my books or should they purchase any of their books, neither should you visit any of their temples. Please avoid them.” This restriction remained in force up to the time of Prabhupada’s departure, when he authorized some limited association for limited purposes with some Gaudiya Matha personalities.
Prabhupada did not consider his references to his own preaching success to be a manifestation of pride or false ego. He said to his disciples: “So it is not my pride, but I can say, for your instruction, I did it. Therefore whatever little success you see than my all my Godbrothers, it is due to this. I have no capacity, but I took it, the words of my guru, as life and soul. So this is fact.” (Bhagavatam lecture, Philadelphia, July 12, 1975)
In explaining the failure of his Gaudiya Matha Godbrothers to accomplish much in the way of substantial preaching, Prabhupada said, “Because one important person learns the science, he will preach it all over the earth. Caitanya Mahaprabhu has directly said they [such preachers] are not ordinary persons. So unless one is materially not ordinary, he cannot preach. All the Gosvamis, they were coming from respectable… And where Gaudiya Matha came? These are third-class men, no position in their past life. . . That’s all. Uneducated, half-educated, poor, poverty-stricken. They could not do anything. Some of our Godbrothers I have beat them.” He made an exception for Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja, who had been able to do something with Caitanya Matha: “In his previous life he had a big, big business organization. So therefore he has been able to organize.” But as far as the others were concerned: “They will admit. They are coming from some third-class status of life . . . this is fact. . . . Who established the mission of Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Rupa Gosvami. He was minister. He was not a cultivator, plow department.” (Morning walk, Perth, May 8, 1975).
Prabhupada compared the quality of the persons joining the Gaudiya Matha to those that were joining ISKCON. He said: “And here they are poverty-stricken. Generally they come, join this [Gaudiya Matha] institution, those who are poverty-stricken, not willingly, ‘Oh, here is a good institution. We should join.’ That is very rarely. . . . The father-mother cannot maintain them, so entrust them Gaudiya Matha. . . . Not that willingly they’re coming, ‘Oh, it is good institution.’ That they do not. One or two, that way they are coming. Otherwise . . . generally all helpless people, no caretaking at home, ‘So let me go to…[Gaudiya Matha].’” (Room conversation, Mayapura, Feb. 20, 1977). Of course, there are also some people who come to ISKCON in that way, and in that regard we should remember what Prabhupada said here.
About his Godbrothers Prabhupada said, “I wanted to serve. That is the difference. But now it is clear. None of them, they want to serve. They want to make one establishment so that they can eat and sleep. Of course, there is some preaching, but if, there is, preaching is the purpose, why they should separate? That is not the purpose. The purpose is that ‘I must have some separate establishment as ordinary karmis they have got their separate establishment.’ Preaching is not that, neither they can preach with enviousness. So, what to do?” (Room conversation, February 10, 1977). In the course of this same conversation, Prabhupada said of his Godbrothers who were speaking against him, “They are very envious.” He went on to recommend: “So envious, upeksa, means they should not be associated . . . . Four division. So four divisions you have to treat in different ways. Prema, Lord, prema, love. Maitri, friendship with devotees. Krpa balisu, those who are innocent, the krpa. Let them learn. And upeksa. As soon as come to the dvisat [envious], no cooperation. Keep aloof. So when we try to keep aloof from the envious, that is not our enviousness. That is just to avoid trouble for preaching work. Not that we hate them. But because… When you avoid a snake, it does not mean I hate the snake, but because he is harmful we have to take precaution. This is the statement of Bhagavatam.” This is the philosophical basis for ISKCON’s remaining aloof from the Gaudiya Matha. We do not hate the Gaudiya Matha gurus, but we have practical experience that they cause difficulties in our preaching, so we remain aloof from them; we avoid them, as much as possible. We should note that Prabhupada’s recommendation for keeping aloof came during his last months. contd part 3 final....
Replies