Jayapatka, concerned about ISKCON members running to the Gaudiya Matha for instruction in Krishna’s most confidential pastimes, said: “So many devotees are very innocent.They’ll fall prey. They’ll be impressed by some fancy talking and then can be misled.” Prabhupada replied, “Yes.” Jayapataka Maharaja continued, “But Your Divine Grace is very expert in very carefully training them up stage by stage.” Prabhupada replied, “Yes.” (Room conversation, Mayapur, Feb. 10, 1977). This conversation ended with Prabhupada and his disciples discussing how one of the Gaudiya Matha sannyasis, Damodara Maharaja, had tried to implicate ISKCON in some legal proceedings. Regarding Damodara Maharaja, Prabhupada wrote to Jayapataka Swami on December 4, 1976: “Damodara Maharaja is a dangerous man. Remain very cautious with him. He is always causing difficulty.”
Prabhupada had set up ISKCON so that much of its income came from selling books. About the Gaudiya Matha, he said, “They have no other way of income except begging in different way. Now they have taken to this business, parikrama. They earn something, lump sum, by calling men to parikrama, and they pay, say, two hundred rupees. Out of [this], a hundred rupees they save, minimum, and that is their whole year’s livelihood. . . . because they have no books.” (Room conversation, Mayapura, Feb. 18, 1977).
Even though Prabhupada gave Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja, among his Godbrothers, credit for organizing at least a little bit, he considered his own accomplishments to be in a different league. In 1976, devotees brought to Prabhupada a pamphlet published by Caitanya Matha, glorifying the activities of Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja (formerly Kunjavihari Babu). A disciple read from the pamphlet: “Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Thakura took hold of Gaudiya Vaisnavism . . . . In proper time, he got a great personality who readily shouldered the burden of the mighty mission of Srila Sarasvati Thakura.” Prabhupada interrupted: “Just see now. ‘He got a great personality.’ He is that personality. He’ll also prove that.” The disciple continued reading: “That great personality is President Acaryadeva, his holiness Sri Srimad Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja…” Prabhupada said: “This great personality, why he is not accepted by other disciples? How he became a great personality? . . . No one accepts him.”
The pamphlet continued: “In all the missionary works and the management of the mathas, Srila Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Gosvami Maharaja was the right hand of his Gurudeva. By his constant, unstinted service rendered to Srila Prabhupada, whose most intimate disciple he was, he almost became a counterpart of that great saint.” One of Prabhupada’s disciples commented that this language meant that Tirtha Maharaja was “trying to become equal or superior to guru.” Prabhupada said, “Superior.”
The pamphlet continued: “In all preaching work, everybody felt the sober but encouraging hand of Srila Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Gosvami Maharaja. Srila Prabhupada never did anything without consulting him first or without his consent.”
The pamphlet also attempted to subsume Prabhupada’s worldwide preaching under the banner of Bhaktivilas Tirtha Maharaja: “There may not be any doubt among the well-informed people that the Sri Caitanya Matha, with its branches, Sri Gaudiya Mathas, throughout India and abroad, have been propagating the greatest religion, which, from a realistic point of view, has helped to build up a true civilization. Today, due to the activities of Sri Caitanya Matha, a spiritual thirst has been created, especially among the deep-thinking and educated people of the world, for people from all over the world are coming to this institution to learn and follow the great religion of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and to understand the practical Indian way of life.” (Room conversation, Mayapur, January 19, 1976). At this time, no one except Srila Prabhupada had attracted a large worldwide following. Tamal Krsna Maharaja said, “He’s speaking against us all the time. He never says anything good about us.” Prabhupada replied, “He is very envious about us.” At this time, Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja was avoiding coming to the ISKCON center at Mayapur, but was always trying to induce Prabhupada to come to his center. Prabhupada suggested that his policy was to make “an attempt to mix with us so he can take advantage.” According to Prabhupada, Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja wanted to somehow or other take credit for Prabhupada’s accomplishments.
One of Prabhupada’s disciples said, “People are attracted by the Westerners coming to the matha. So if we’re up at that matha [Caitanya Matha], any of us, and then they [the Matha members] say, ‘Just see.’ They say in Bengali, ‘Just see. They are coming. To see our guru maharaja, they are coming.’” Prabhupada answered: “That was the policy of Madhava Maharaja and Sridhara Maharaja, that ‘Although Bhaktivedanta Swami is propagating throughout [the world], he is subordinate to us, under our instruction.’” But Prabhupada’s main response was: “Let them do whatever nonsense they want. We shall do our own business.” He pressed his disciples to get on with the construction of the Mayapur Temple of Vedic Planetarium. Already, far more people were coming to ISKCON’s Mayapur center than to the Gaudiya Matha temples, and Prabhupada wanted that process to continue. (Room conversation, Mayapur, January 19, 1976) What can we learn from this? In evaluating Gaudiya Matha gurus, we should note whether or not they are trying to say that Prabhupada was in some way their subordinate. One way this comes out is through suggestions that Prabhupada was giving only basic teachings whereas the Gaudiya Matha guru is giving the more advanced teachings.
Prabhupada’s Godbrothers were amazed by the expansion of the Krishna consciousness movement. Some of them thought that it was because of something more than Lord Caitanya’s mercy. Prabupada said: “Yes. Our Tirtha Maharaja is accusing me that I have got two crores of rupees from American government to start this movement. (laughs) Even my Godbrother says, what to speak of others.” (Conversation, Mayapura, February 14, 1977).
About the level of Deity worship found in Gaudiya Matha temples, Prabhupada said, “How they can worship? The worship is done by devotee. Unless you create devotee, where is the question of worshiping? Without devotee it is idol worship. There is no life. And without life, how can you pull on artificially?” (Morning walk, Delhi, November 30, 1973) In ISKCON, we should also remember this important aspect of Deity worship. The best form of worship is to have a vibrant, dynamic program for bringing more and more devotees to the lotus feet of the temple Deity. This gives life to the temple. Without this life of preaching, of making new devotees, gradually the number of worshipers of the Deity will decrease to a few old priests.
A temple should be a center for preaching. Prabhupada said: “My Guru Maharaja used to say, prana arthe yanra sei hetu pracara. ‘One who has got life, he can preach.’ The dead man cannot preach. So you become with life, not like dead man. Without life… Just like all my Godbrothers. They are dead men. And therefore they are envious of my activities. They have no life. If you want to make easy-going life, showing the Deity and then sleep, then it is a failure movement.” (Morning walk, Los Angeles, July 13, 1974)
In 1976, Prabhupada received another proposal for cooperation from B.S. Bodhayana Maharaja. Prabhupada replied to him in a letter dated November 9, 1976: “I’m very much obliged to you that you write to say, ‘It is clear to me that you are great powerful Acarya in the Vaisnava world at present.’ Sometimes Sridhara Maharaja also says like that. So, actually if you are feeling like that let us work conjointly. There is great prospect for preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s message all over the world and in India also. At least in India we can preach very vigorously if we combine together. It is already tested in many cases. Whenever we held some festival in big, big cities like Calcutta, Bombay, Hyderabad, Madras, Delhi, etc. thousands of men gather and they request regularly to continue the program. Recently we held a similar program in Candigargh and the devotees of Sri Caitanya Gaudiya Math also participated. They invited me in the local center of Sri Caitanya Gaudiya Math and many thousands of people came to hear me. So there is great prospect if we work conjointly at least in India. So you can consult Sridhara Maharaja also. He’s also of that opinions you have opined and if in this old age we can do something combinedly it will be a great triumph. I thank you very much once more.” The letter essentially says that if Bodhayana Maharaja and Sridhara Maharaja actually think that Srila Prabhupada is the greatest and most powerful Vaisnava acarya in the world at present, then they should give him all facility to preach in the Gaudiya Matha temples so that thousands of people could hear Prabhupada. For Prabhupada, cooperation with the Gaudiya Matha meant that the Gaudiya Matha should give facility for and participate in ISKCON’s highly successful large scale preaching, and not that ISKCON should give facility to the Gaudiya Matha’s efforts.
Sometimes Gaudiya Matha disciples would come to take shelter in ISKCON. But Srila Prabhupada was not very eager to allow this, as can be seen in his letter to Jayapataka Swami, dated December 4, 1976: “Regarding the two men who have come to us from Gaudiya Math, for the time being we should try not to give shelter to such persons unless they are tested.” This is the model for ISKCON’s current policies regarding giving shelter to disciples of Gaudiya Matha gurus. They can be tested on an individual basis to see whether or not they can remain submissive to ISKCON’s system of authority.
In April 1977, Prabhupada made some reference in a room conversation to some statements he had made about his Godbrothers in one of his Caitanya-caritamrta purports. The verse and purport read as follows (Cc. Adi-lila 12.8):
TRANSLATION
At first all the followers of Advaita Acarya shared a single opinion. But later they followed two different opinions, as ordained by providence.
PURPORT
The words daivera karana indicate that by dint of providence, or by God’s will, the followers of Advaita Acarya divided into two parties. Such disagreement among the disciples of one acarya is also found among the members of the Gaudiya Matha. In the beginning, during the presence of Om Visnupada Paramahamsa Parivrajakacarya Astottara-sata Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada, all the disciples worked in agreement; but just after his disappearance, they disagreed. One party strictly followed the instructions of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, but another group created their own concoction about executing his desires. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next acarya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of acarya, and they split into two factions over who the next acarya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master. Despite the spiritual master’s order to form a governing body and execute the missionary activities of the Gaudiya Matha, the two unauthorized factions began litigation that is still going on after forty years with no decision.
Therefore, we do not belong to any faction. But because the two parties, busy dividing the material assets of the Gaudiya Matha institution, stopped the preaching work, we took up the mission of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and Bhaktivinoda Thakura to preach the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu all over the world, under the protection of all the predecessor acaryas, and we find that our humble attempt has been successful. We followed the principles especially explained by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gita verse vyavasayatmika buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana. According to this instruction of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, it is the duty of a disciple to follow strictly the orders of his spiritual master. The secret of success in advancement in spiritual life is the firm faith of the disciple in the orders of his spiritual master. The Vedas confirm this:
yasya deve para bhaktir
yatha deve tatha gurau
tasyaite kathita hy arthah
prakasante mahatmanah
“To one who has staunch faith in the words of the spiritual master and the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the secret of success in Vedic knowledge is revealed.” The Krsna consciousness movement is being propagated according to this principle, and therefore our preaching work is going on successfully, in spite of the many impediments offered by antagonistic demons, because we are getting positive help from our previous acaryas. One must judge every action by its result. The members of the self-appointed acarya’s party who occupied the property of the Gaudiya Matha are satisfied, but they could make no progress in preaching. Therefore by the result of their actions one should know that they are asara, or useless, whereas the success of the ISKCON party, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, which strictly follows guru and Gauranga, is increasing daily all over the world. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura wanted to print as many books as possible and distribute them all over the world. We have tried our best in this connection, and we are getting results beyond our expectations.
About this passage, Prabhupada said in a conversation that took place on April 12, 1977 in Vrindavan: “In one place I have criticized my Godbrothers . . . in Caitanya-caritamrta. . . . Sridhara Maharaja is little . . .[upset?]” A disciple asked Srila Prabhupada if Sridhara Maharaja had read it. Prabhupada replied, “I think so.” The disciple asked if Sridhara Maharaja had made any comment. Prabhupada said: “He cannot make any comment. These are facts. Two parties there were. One party, to use guru as their instrument for self-aggrandizement, and another party left guru. So both of them are offenders. This Kunja Babu, this Tirtha Maharaja’s party, he wanted to enjoy senses through guru. And the Bagh Bazaar party, they left. . . . So both of them are severe offenders. . . . Sridhara Maharaja belonged to the Bagh Bazaar party. And I was living aloof. My Guru Maharaja approved. He said, ‘It is better that he is aloof from them.’ . . . . he [Bhakisiddhanta Sarasvati] was very sorry. At the last stage he was disgusted.”
Here is a similar purport from Caitanya-caritamrita (Adi 12.12): “There are many disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, but to judge who is actually his disciple, to divide the useful from the useless, one must measure the activities of such disciples in executing the will of the spiritual master. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura tried his best to spread the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to countries outside India. When he was present he patronized the disciples to go outside India to preach the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, but they were unsuccessful because within their minds they were not actually serious about preaching His cult in foreign countries; they simply wanted to take credit for having gone to foreign lands and utilize this recognition in India by advertising themselves as repatriated preachers. Many svamis have adopted this hypocritical means of preaching for the last eighty years or more, but no one could preach the real cult of Krsna consciousness all over the world. They merely came back to India falsely advertising that they had converted all the foreigners to the ideas of Vedanta or Krsna consciousness, and then they collected funds in India and lived satisfied lives of material comfort. As one fans paddy to separate the real paddy from useless straw, by accepting the criterion recommended by Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami one can very easily understand who is a genuine world-preacher and who is useless.”
Prabhupada made more favorable statements about his Godbrothers, such as this one from his Bhagavatam purports: “Among Vaisnavas there may be some difference of opinion due to everyone’s personal identity, but despite all personal differences, the cult of Krsna consciousness must go on. We can see that under the instructions of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja began preaching the Krsna consciousness movement in an organized way within the past hundred years. The disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja are all Godbrothers, and although there are some differences of opinion, and although we are not acting conjointly, every one of us is spreading this Krsna consciousness movement according to his own capacity and producing many disciples to spread it all over the world. As far as we are concerned, we have already started the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and many thousands of Europeans and Americans have joined this movement. Indeed, it is spreading like wildfire. The cult of Krsna consciousness, based on the nine principles of devotional service (sravanam kirtanam visnoh smaranam pada-sevanam/ arcanam vandanam dasyam sakhyam atma-nivedanam), will never be stopped. It will go on without distinction of caste, creed, color or country. No one can check it.” (Bhagavatam 4.28.31, purport) Even here we can see that Prabhupada is subtly highlighting his special achievement, indicating that his capacity was greater than that of his Godbrothers. And, as we have seen from the statements made by Prabhupada in the above cited conversation that took place in 1977, he never withdrew the comments he made in his Caitanya-caritamrta purports.
Srila Prabhupada’s dealings with his Godbrothers were complex. In his personal dealings he was cordial. He appreciated that they were following regulative principles and doing their best, according to their understanding, to fulfill the desires of Lord Caitanya and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. But at the same time he never forgot that they were responsible for disobeying the order of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and he could make realistic comparisons between their accomplishments and his own. He was also capable of guaging the proper relationship between his disciples and his Godbrothers, between ISKCON and the Gaudiya Matha. And his decision was that the relationship should be a limited one. His disciples should be respectful of the Gaudiya Matha but should not mix very thickly with it. None of the factors entering into that judgement have changed, and therefore the policy is still valid today.
In 1977, some of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples were negotiating with with the head of the Gaudiya Matha branch in Dacca, who wanted to give his temple to ISKCON. Prabhupada told his disciples about the previous history of the place. The temple was originally started by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, but after his disappearance Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja wanted to give it to a Calcutta Muhammadan in exchange for a piece of property in Calcutta. Srila Prabhupada personally intervened, informing the original donor of the temple what was being planned. Prabhupada thus sabotaged his Godbrother’s plan. Prabhupada recalled the episode: “Gaudiya Matha. Gaudiya Matha. . . . So it will be nice. That [Dacca temple] was started by my Guru Maharaja. We have to take. . . . Tirtha Maharaja was planning to exchange that property with a Calcutta Muhammadan, that he would give him that property, and this Muhammadan would give him this property, his property. I checked it. I approached the donor, the Bali-hatti zamindar, that ‘You donated this temple and it is going to be in the hands of Muhammadan. Do you like it?’ So he said, ‘No, I don’t like it.’ I said, ‘Make it inquiry.’ He inquired, and he immediately wrote Tirtha Maharaja that ‘You are contemplating. This we do not approve. We are the donor.’ So Tirtha Maharaja replied him that ‘It is no more in the hands of the donor. I am the trustee. Whatever I like, I can do.’ . . . . There was very strong correspondence, and Tirtha Maharaja could not dare to do it. Otherwise he arranged like that, to give the temple to a Muhammadan and accept a Calcutta property which belonged to the Muhammadan. . . . He had no spiritual idea. Simply he wanted to exploit the property. That’s all.” (Room Conversation, Bhubaneshwar, January 19, 1977) Regarding the attempts of his disciples to get the Dacca Gaudiya Matha temple from its current leaders, Prabhupada said: “These people will not give. . . . These rascals, Gaudiya Matha. . . . They have nothing. . . . .There is no poison, but the hood is [there, like a snake]: ‘Arrhh.’ (laughs) . . . . Even this bite, there is no poison. . . . Canakya Pandita says, manina bhusitah sarpah kim asau na bhayankarah: A snake . . . sometimes snake has got some jewel on the hood. So he can go in the darkness by the light of the hood. If somebody thinks, ‘Oh, here is a snake with jewel. Let me embrace him,’ no, no, no, it is very ferocious. Even it is jewel there, it is ferocious. Similarly, these people are envious. Although they have become so-called Vaisnava, they are ferocious. They have not acquired the qualification of Vaisnava. Simply vesopidin(?), by dress. So what is there? They could not do for the last fifty-sixty years. Still… They wanted to exchange. I stopped it.” (Room conversation, May 24, 1977)
Last Days
In Prabhupada’s last weeks, he was visited by Narayana Maharaja. Prabhupada said that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had “said that we should preach in Europe, America. That was his desire. And his other desire was that we all would work together jointly to preach.” Narayanana Maharaja said, “Yes, that is right.” Prabhupada then expressed again his desire that Bhaktisiddhanta’s followers work jointly. He also asked his Godbrothers for forgiveness. Furthermore, he asked Narayana Maharaja to guide the ceremonies which would take place upon his departure from this world. Narayana Maharaja also said that whatever Prabhupada had created should be protected, and pledged to help.(Prabhupada-lilamrta, vol. 6, pp. 399-400). There were other visits from Prabhupada’s Godbrothers. On one occasion twenty of them gathered around his bed. Prabhupada repeated his requests for forgiveness of any offenses he may have committed. Prabhupada said, “All over the world there is a beautiful field to preach Krishna consciousness. I didn’t care whether I should be successful or not. People are willing to take. They are all taking also. If we preach together, the saying of Mahaprabhu, prthivite, will come true.” Prabhupada said, “Forgive all my offenses. I became proud of my opulence.” Puri Maharaja replied, “No, you never became proud. When you started preaching, opulence and success followed you. That was the blessing of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Krishna. There cannot be any question of your being offensive . . . . You have saved millions of people around this world.” Others of his Godbrothers said, “You are the eternal leader. You rule over us, guide us, and chastise us.” (Prabhupada-lilamrta, vol. 6. pp. 415-416).
Some have suggested that ISKCON’s current policy toward the Gaudiya Matha should be based on a onesided interpretation of these exchanges between Prabhupada and his Godbrothers. The implication is that Prabhupada really had been offensive, and that his Godbrothers had forgiven him. And now Prabhupada’s disciples should be prepared to forget everything Prabhupada had told them about the Gaudiya Matha and his Godbrothers, and accept them as competent to guide them, individually and collectively, in Prabhupada’s absence. But I don’t see this as the best way to understand these last exchanges. Throughout his life, Prabhupada had always been cordial with his Godbrothers in his personal dealings. He would visit them at their mathas, and he would invite them to his temples in India. On these occasions he would always show them proper respect, and there would be affectionate dealings, appropriate to the circumstances. They were his Godbrothers and he loved and respected them, yet at the same time he had a realistic appreciation of their shortcomings and failings. This should not be surprising. As an ISKCON member, I sometimes encounter Godbrothers who once had big positions but did not live up to the expectations of Srila Prabhupada. I know this, but at the same time, I can see that even in their present positions they are still disciples of Prabhupada. I know that he appreciated their service. I can deal with them respectfully and affectionately, but at the same time I remain aware of their shortcomings. If we look at all the statements that Prabhupada made about the Gaudiya Matha and his Godbrothers in 1977, we see that he did not change his basic opinion about them. So I think that Prabhupada’s last personal exchanges with his Godbrothers are not essentially different from any other personal exchanges he had with them. He was always cordial to them. He was always ready to cooperate with them, on terms he specified. And he was always aware of their shortcomings and how his disciples should behave towards them.
Another angle is that most of the Gaudiya Matha personalities Prabhupada talked about are now gone. This is certainly true, but Prabhupada was not differing with his Godbrothers simply on a personal basis but on the basis of fundamental actions,policies, and attitudes. It is certainly true that statements Prabhupada made in relation to departed Gaudiya Matha personalities do not automatically apply to their successsors. But to the extent that the successors manifest the same actions, attitudes, and policies as their predecessors, the statements made by Prabhupada should apply. Some of the objectionable actions, attitudes, and policies would be: 1. continuing failure to unite the Gaudiya Mathas for dynamic preaching, under a real collective authority system; 2. mediocre preaching results in whatever organizations exist now; 3. attitudes of superiority to Prabhupada, manifested, for example, in the attitude that Prabhupada gave the basics, and the Gaudiya Matha guru is giving the advanced teachings; 4. policies subversive of ISKCON authority and preaching, such as canvassing for disciples among ISKCON members.
In any case, if we want to make a big issue of last statements, then we should also pay attention to statements by Prabhupada’s Godbrothers that he was not offensive and that he was the eternal leader of all the Gaudiya Matha Godbrothers, meant to rule, guide, and chastise them. I would take this to mean that they, or their current representatives in the Gaudiya Matha, should follow the instructions and desires of Srila Prabhupada by becoming part of the preaching instrument he created. They should harmonize their teachings with his, their practical instructions with his, their institutions with his.
Another point to consider is that in his last will, Prabhupada indicated that property trustees and managers were to be his disciples, indicating that Gaudiya Matha personalities were not eligible for these leadership positions.
As a practical gesture of cooperation, Prabhupada set up the Bhaktivedanta Charity Trust to help renew places of pilgrimage in Mayapura, working with the Gaudiya Matha temples. Gaudiya Matha sympathizers take this to mean that Prabhupada desired that ISKCON should cooperate with the Gaudiya Matha to the extent that ISKCON should become part of the Gaudiya Matha “family” and accept the leadership of senior Gaudiya Matha personalities. But Srila Prabhupada’s references to cooperation with the Gaudiya Matha were on the level of practical preaching matters only, with no mention of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples approaching Gaudiya Matha personalities for spiritual instructions in the higher levels of Krsna consciousness. Even the instructions about practical cooperation were very specific. Any merging of institutions was to be strictly on ISKCON’s terms. Earlier, Srila Prabhupada wrote concerning a proposal about jointly developing the birthsite of Bhaktivinoda Thakura with Lalita Prasad, the brother of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati:
“Regarding Lalita Prasad Thakura’s proposal, merging is possible in two ways: They become merged in our institution and we make it as one of our branches. In that case, as we are supplying all necessities to our branches, similarly, this branch will be also supported. When there is scarcity of money, everything will be provided by us. So in that case the management will be under our direction. Otherwise, if they want to keep their own identity then there is no other alternative than to take the land on lease. They can keep aside their portion independently, and the land which is given to us on lease, we keep ourselves independently. So far our relationship is concerned, even though we keep independent of one another, there will be no misunderstanding, because the central point is Bhaktivinode Thakura. Our only ambition is that the birthsite of Bhaktivinode Thakura must be gorgeous and attractive so that people may come to see from all parts of the world. Bhaktivinode Thakura is no longer localized. His holy name is being expanded along with Lord Caitanya’s. So let them understand this point. They are occupying the place for more than 50 years and none of their men could fulfill the desire of Bhaktivinode Thakura in the matter of preaching in foreign countries. With this spirit we should combine. So next you can talk with them on this understanding. I can understand also that Lalita Prasad Thakura is very much favorable in giving us the concession but his assistants may be hesitating unnecessarily.”(letter, May 17, 1972)
Here it is clear that any merging means they merge into ISKCON under ISKCON’s control and leadership (because ISKCON had demonstrated its superiority in the matter of practical preaching). It is not merging for the sake of merging. Srila Prabhupada had a very specific object in mind. He did not see that ISKCON was lacking in any way, and that merging would provide ISKCON with better spiritual leadership. He simply wanted that the birthsite of Bhaktivinoda Thakura be glorified. Therefore he was considering different proposals for cooperation. Cooperation had to be there because the Lalita Prasad group controlled the site. So it was not cooperation for the sake of merging organizations but to carry out a very specific practical preaching program that could not be carried out by the other party. And there is no mention that Lalita Prasad will then become a siksa guru and rasa guide for ISKCON followers (quite the opposite). The cooperation is on the level of practical preaching.. But that does not make it less, because the transcendental goal of the practical cooperation will be the glorification of Bhaktivinoda Thakura.
As for the Bhaktivedanta Charity Trust, set up during Srila Prabhupada’s final days, it does not seem that Srila Prabhupada envisioned it as some grand scheme to unite ISKCON and the Gaudiya Matha. This idea was, however, introduced by his disciples. This can be seen from the following conversation, which took place in Prabhupada’s room in Vrndavana on October 29, 1977, shortly before his departure.
Tamala Krsna: …for getting a little more clear purposes of the Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity Trust we’re developing at Gauda-mandala-bhumi. Would you like to hear what we have written?
Prabhupada: Hm.
Svarupa Damodara: “First point: To systematically propagate spiritual knowledge to the residents and the visitors of Gauda-mandala-bhumi. Second point: To propagate the consciousness of Krsna, as it is revealed in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, and to propagate that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is Lord Krsna Himself, as is revealed in Sri Caitanya-caritamrta and the Caitanya Bhagavata. 3) To bring all the members of Gaudiya-Madhva sampradaya together nearer to Lord Caitanya and thus develop within humanity at large that each soul is a part and parcel of Godhead, Krsna. 4) To teach and encourage the sankirtana movement of congregational chanting of the holy names of God given in the teachings of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. 5) To erect temples, schools, colleges, universities, institutes of higher studies, hospitals and other buildings with or for the advancement of the objects of the Trust and to maintain, alter and improve the same, including existing buildings, and to furnish and equip the same. 6) In keeping with the spirit of the previous acarya’s vision of Gaudiya-Madhva sampradaya, to cement relations with all the sister temples of Gaudiya-Madhva sampradaya under one banner, to solidify preaching the message of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, as desired by His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada and Srila Thakura Bhaktivinoda and all the previous acaryas in this line. 7) With a view to achieving the aforementioned purposes and to publish and distribute periodicals, magazines, and other books and other items. 8) To do all such other things for the attainment of the objects of the Trust. 9) Trustee members are appointed lifetime. The members should always be seven. 10) A meeting once a year at Sridhama Mayapura during Gaura-Purnima. 11) There should be a chairman, a treasurer, and a secretary elected each year. 12) A quorum of at least five members.” Finishes.
Tamala Krsna: “So these are the points, Srila Prabhupada, that we have… We expanded this. Your original simple point was to form a Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity for developing Gauda-mandala-bhumi. So we have expanded it into these points if they please Your Divine Grace. We took the ideas mostly from your original points in the…, when you formed the New York corporation, Srila Prabhupada. We used those points and just changed them around a little bit.”
The most important words in the above passages are from Tamal Krsna Goswami: “Your original simple point was to form a Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity for developing Gauda-mandala-bhumi. So we have expanded it into these points. . . ” It is clear that Srila Prabhupada just wanted a charity trust set up so that different pilgrimage places could be repaired and developed, and since these places were mostly under the control of various Gaudiya Matha institutions, of course their cooperation would be required. But all the flowery language about uniting all the Gaudiya institutions under one banner was the creation of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples and not of Srila Prabhupada himself. As Tamal Krsna says: “Your original simple point was to form a Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity for developing Gauda-mandala-bhumi. So we have expanded it into these points. . . ” I think it would be best in our current discussion of the Trust, as it relates to “cooperation,” to stick to the “original simple point.” But if we do wish to discuss unification of institutions, it can only be along the lines that Prabhupada himself suggested whenever the topic of cooperation with the Gaudiya Matha came up—integrating the Gaudiya Mathas into ISKCON.
In the days that followed the above conversation, whenever Srila Prabhupada mentioned the Bhaktivedanta Charity Trust, he only talked about using it to make improvements at various places in Mayapura, improvements his Godbrothers had been unable to make in 40 years. So obviously he desired their cooperation, but mainly he just wanted to see somehow or other that the holy tirthas were properly maintained. The following excerpt from a Vrndavana room conversation on October 30 1977 is an example:
Prabhupada: So we shall construct a Yoga-pitha Bhaktivedanta Hall.
Tamala Krsna: Hm. Yoga-pitha Bhaktivedanta Hall.
Bhavananda: Oh!
Prabhupada: And we have a bookstall there. Make it like that.
Bhavananda: Oh, yes.
Prabhupada: For the last fifty years they could not…
Bhavananda: Make.
Prabhupada: Yes.
Bhavananda: Very nice.
Tamala Krsna: What is the idea of that?
Prabhupada: They have no shade. What is called? Darsana-mandapa.
Tamala Krsna: I don’t understand.
Bhavananda: At the yoga-pitha…
Prabhupada: At yoga-pitha.
Bhavananda: …when people come for darsana there’s no covered area for them. They’ve been trying to construct for years and years. They’ve never been able to do. So you have to stand out. If it’s raining, what do you do? There’s no shelter.
Tamala Krsna: Yeah, that’s right. There’s nothing there.
Prabhupada: And Sridhara Maharaja could not finish. He has spent five, ten thousand, I think. Finished. In this way we shall serve Gauda-mandala-bhumi.
So this is what Srila Prabhupada had in mind when he talked of cooperation under the banner of the Bhaktivedanta Charity Trust. He was simply interested in properly honoring the sacred tirthas. Because these were under the jurisdiction of various Gaudiya Matha institutions, their cooperation was required. But Srila Prabhupada’s concern, as he expressed it, was simply that he wanted to serve the dhama in a way that others had not been able to properly do. So it was all very practical, and ISKCON was to take the leading and guiding role in accomplishing these practical programs. The current idea of “cooperation,” which seems to involve merging of ISKCON and the Gaudiya Matha philosophically and institutionally, for the special purpose of bringing in superior spiritual guidance from Gaudiya Matha personalities, does not appear to be what Srila Prabhupada had in mind when he talked of “cooperation.”
In furtherance of the goals of the Bhaktivedanta Charity Trust, ISKCON has organized an association of Gaudiya Math and ISKCON leaders to make further plans for cooperation, such as giving proper respect and assistance to all living disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. This organization is also trying to come up with policies for joint and reciprocal preaching activities. So it is not true, as some Gaudiya Matha sympathizers claim, that ISKCON is ignoring the Gaudiya Matha. Rather, ISKCON is pursuing a policy of cooperation with the Gaudiya Matha, along the lines actually suggested by Srila Prabhupada instead of the kind of cooperation some disaffected ISKCON members would like to see: ISKCON’s incorporation into the Gaudiya Matha by means of installing one or another Gaudiya Matha guru as ISKCON’s siksa and diksa guru.
Before leaving this world, Prabhupada told his leading disciples that if they had questions about Vaishnava practice they could consult with Narayana Maharaja or Sridhara Maharaja. Some have tried to create a myth that Prabhupada wanted them to be overall guides for ISKCON in his absence. But Prabhupada gave many indications how he wanted his society to go on. For example, he said during his last days: “Stick to our principle, and see our GBC is very alert. Then everything will go on, even I am not present. Do that. That is my request. Whatever little I have taught you, follow that, and nobody will be aggrieved. No maya will touch you. Now Krsna has given us, and there will be no scarcity of money. You print book and sell. So everything is there. We have got good shelter all over the world. We have got income. You stick to our principles, follow the… Even if I die suddenly, you’ll be able to manage. That’s all. That I want. Manage nicely and let the movement go forward. Now arrange. Don’t go backward. Be careful.” (Room conversation, Bombay, April 22, 1977). Prabhupada here says that his own teachings were sufficient. It was simply necessary for the GBC to govern the Society carefully according to the principles given by Prabhupada.
Aftermath
After Prabhupada’s departure, Narayana Maharaja oversaw the performance of the ceremonies. In the months that followed, Prabhupada’s disciples, especially those who had been mentioned by Prabhupada in connection with initiation, sought the advice of Sridhara Maharaja about how they were to carry out their duties. According to some accounts, Sridhara Maharaja gave advice to the GBC that helped set up the now discredited zonal acarya system, which appears to have been a modified version of the Gaudiya Matha system, where each Gaudiya Matha guru had his exclusive organization where he was the sole initiator. Under the zonal acarya system, it was considered that each of the eleven original ISKCON gurus had been directly appointed by Prabhupada, and that they should each have their exclusive zone of control, where they would be the sole initiator and ultimate authority. When some ISKCON members later became unhappy with this system, they voiced their discontent to Sridhara Maharaja, who said the number of gurus should be increased. The GBC had independently come to the same conclusion, recognizing that Prabhupada had intended all of his qualified disciples to become gurus, not just eleven, and that the policy of exclusive zones of initiation was incorrect.
During the time when all this was happening, some disappointed ISKCON members began to do more than consult with Sridhara Maharaja. They began to associate very closely with him, and began to regard him as their guru. Some of them took sannyasa from him, and others took initiation. They wished that ISKCON would accept him as a kind of siksa guru for the entire institution. The GBC would not approve this. As Prabhupada had warned earlier, if one of his Godbrothers said anything different from him, it would cause confusion. Therefore he would not call any of his Godbrothers to head ISKCON if he were to depart this world or remain ill in India. For example, Sridhara Maharaja had a concept of the origin of the jiva (soul) that was different than Prabhupada’s. Prabhupada taught that all jivas were originally with Krishna, and had fallen from the spiritual world into this world. Sridhara Maharaja taught that the jivas had not originally been with Krishna. By itself this could have been a minor matter, but Sridhara Maharaja’s ISKCON followers turned it into a major issue. Yes, they said, Sridhara Maharaja was giving esoteric truths beyond those taught by Prabhupada. They, the followers of Sridhara Maharaja, were the ones with the true understanding now. And ISKCON should join them in accepting these truths. There developed a schism, of a kind that would be repeated in coming years.
Unable to find a place within ISKCON, the ISKCON members who aligned themselves closely with Sridhara Maharaja joined his organization or set up their own organizations. Among these devotees were Dheera Krishna Swami, Tripurari Swami, and Alanatha Swami. Before the departure of Sridhara Maharaja from this world, he appointed an acarya, his disciple Govinda Maharaja, to succeed him as head of his Matha. Govinda Maharaja continues to accept disciples among ISKCON’s disaffected followers. And the relatively small associations set up by Sridhara Maharaja’s western followers continue to function in various parts of the world. From this group, particularly the organization headed by Alanatha Maharaja, has emerged the World Vaishnava Association, which is trying to reunite the Gaudiya Matha under the guidance of Sridhara Maharaja followers. For some time, ISKCON and the BBT declined to sell Prabhupada’s books to the Sridharite camps, but this policy has recently changed.
As years passed, Narayana Maharaja also began to attract followers from among ISKCON. He preached that Prabhupada had given the foundation for a life of Krishna consciousness, but that it was necessary to go beyond this, into the development of raganuga bhakti by the specific process of taking instruction from a raganuga guru who would give his disciples entrance into the intimate pastimes of Radha and Krishhna. He gave the impression that the worldwide missionary activities of the Krishna consciousness movement, set in motion by Prabhupada himself, were a kind of neophyte actitivity. He said that he wanted to complete the work that Prabhupada had started, indicating that he wanted to bring ISKCON members from the neophyte platform of preaching to the more exalted platform of raganuga. To many Prabhupada disciples, this seemed to be different than what Prabhupada had said. Prabhupada had told them that simply by carrying out the activities he had given them they would come automatically to the highest stages of Krishna consciousness. There was no need for a special rasa-guru. Like Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja also favored the idea that the soul had never been with Krishna. Some of Prabhupada’s leading disciples became followers of Narayana Maharaja, and, as in the case of Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja was being promoted as a possible successor to Prabhupada, an advanced soul whose advice should be heeded by ISKCON’s leadership. This concept was rejected by the GBC. The leaders who had aligned themselves with Narayana Maharaja and promoted his particular philosophy admitted their error, and obeyed GBC resolutions to give up their association with him. But the damage had been done, and many disaffected ISKCON members continued to seek his association. Narayana Maharaja began initiating disciples even though some of them had already been initiated by gurus in good standing who were members of ISKCON. Former ISKCON members, familiar with Prabhupada’s way of doing things, began to fly Narayana Maharaja around the world, to various places where ISKCON had large congregations. In this way, he attracted many disciples from among those disappointed for various reasons with ISKCON. Puri Maharaja also attracted a following among ISKCON devotees, and some other Gaudiya Matha gurus have also attracted small followings.
If adherents of Gaudiya Matha gurus truly desire their favorites to be welcomed by ISKCON, they would serve this purpose better by emphasizing the commonality of the guru’s teachings with ISKCON rather than the differences. Time and time again, we have had associates of the Gaudiya gurus tell us, “Oh, you think you know the truth about this or that subject because of what Prabhupada said, but there’s more to it. Such and such Maharaja has told us that the real truth is . . .” It would be better if such gurus were to harmonize their teachings with Prabhupada’s, if they truly wished to be accepted as guides by ISKCON. Such gurus should also be wary of presenting themselves as giving higher truths than did Prabhupada. They should be willing to submit to advice of the collective management authority of ISKCON on their preaching within ISKCON as to where, when, and how. Gaudiya Matha personalities who submit to this might be allowed to speak in ISKCON temples on a trial basis a few times a year.
Conclusion
The main reason we have difficulty in relationships with Gaudiya Matha gurus is that they have all grown up under the matha system that came into existence after Bhaktisiddhanta’s departure. They seem incapable of understanding how to work under a collective authority system, and they also seem incapable of relating to others who do. Under the Matha system, one guru becomes the sole initiator and proprietor of the Matha. Upon the departure of the guru, he selects one of his followers to head the matha. Everyone connected with the matha is his disciple or follower. The head of the matha has a position of sole leadership, and is accustomed to functioning in that way. So it is very difficult for such persons to interact with ISKCON and its collective leadership. They naturally wish to interact with ISKCON as they have been accustomed to interact in their own mathas, as the sole leader, the acarya, to whom everyone must defer. They cannot accept that their opinions and advice must be subjected to the collective decision making power of the GBC, and that it may be accepted or rejected depending upon whether the GBC sees it as harmonious with Prabhupada’s desires, teachings, instructions, etc. This mentality, combined with the mentality of the former ISKCON members who wish to see their favorite guru installed as the siksa guru guide for all ISKCON, makes it all but impossible to have any more than the courteous but distant relationship Prabhupada recommended that we adopt toward Gaudiya Matha gurus. It is true that Prabhupada’s Godbrothers have mostly departed, but the basic mentality of the Gaudiya Matha remains the same. They still are not prepared to work under a collective authority system, and that is the main obstacle to the integration of Gaudiya gurus and their followers into ISKCON.
Psychologically, the Gaudiya Matha gurus are not prepared to see themselves as anything other than the superior guide for ISKCON. But they have insufficient ability to guide ISKCON, just as the captain of a small sailing ship on a peaceful lake has insufficient ability to guide a fleet of high powered modern warships into battle on the high seas. They may be able to give shelter to ISKCON members who have fallen off one of the boats in the ISKCON fleet, usually because of inability to accept the results of ISKCON’s collective decision making process. But they cannot command the fleet and its loyal crew. Only the officers trained by Srila Prabhupada are capable of that. If the Gaudiya Matha guru wishes his institution, including former ISKCON members, to become part of the ISKCON battle fleet, he should accept the authority and guidance of the experienced battle-tested officers. And if after some time functioning within ISKCON’s system of collective decision making, it is seen that he displays some special qualities of leadership, then that will be recognized. But he is not going to come into ISKCON as the admiral of the fleet, with ISKCON deserters as his aides-de-camp. The fact that some ISKCON officers have failed in their duties and become casualties is not the issue. The Gaudiya Matha has had its own failures and falldowns. ISKCON devotees who took sannyasa from Sridhara Maharaja are no longer sannyasis.
It is also true that to some extent ISKCON was set up on the Matha system, with Prabhupada serving as sole ultimate managing authority, and sole initiating spiritual master. Some veterans of those early days, seeking to recreate that situation, have found comfort in the association of Gaudiya Matha gurus. But from the very beginning Prabhupada made clear that he intended that ISKCON eventually be governed collectively and that there would be a multiplicity of gurus. Of course, he was also insistent that any future gurus and any future GBC carry out his will as founder-acarya. But the main point is that in the future there would be collective leadership, and ISKCON members, even the most powerful, were expected to submit to it. Prabhupada set up this system during his life and encouraged his disciples to follow it. Sometimes they would run to him with their problems, but he would often encourage them not to do this and to work things out themselves according to the management system he set up. Undoubtedly this is a difficult proposition, and the matha system may seem easier and in some senses more natural. But both Bhaktisiddhanta and Prabhupada made it clear they wanted a unified preaching institution with a collective management system to which all members had to submit.
At the root of every ISKCON heresy lies the Matha mentality. The current rtvik movement wants a Gaudiya Matha regime, the single guru model, except that the single guru does not change—it remains Prabhupada for all time. The ISKCON members who have deserted ISKCON for various Gaudiya Matha gurus are also adhering to this matha system. They could not accept their guru’s decision that they go through the admittedly difficult process of submitting to a collective management system in ISKCON. They want to take shelter of some single acarya figure outside ISKCON or they want to bring that acarya into ISKCON and replace the collective management system that Prabhupada set up with their own favorite Gaudiya Matha guru. Of course, these Gaudiya Matha gurus are quite happy with this, as this is the system that they have grown up with ,the system that they have inherited from their Gaudiya Matha predecessors.
So it is not that ISKCON is blindly preaching hatred of anyone who is associated with the name Gaudiya Matha. Rather we have thoughtfully and carefully considered the insight offered to us by Srila Prabhupada that the Gaudiya Matha failed to institute the collective leadership that Bhaktisiddhanta desired. We are also aware that somehow or other, despite all the difficulties and problems, ISKCON has managed to set up a functioning system of collective leadership to carry out the goals Prabhupada set for ISKCON. And when we see that the current Gaudiya Matha gurus are persisting in the error of their forefathers, then we have a right to maintain a policy of distant respect. And certainly we are not going to reinstitute the matha system by accepting one of them as acarya for all ISKCON. But we will instead follow Prabhupada’s policy of inviting them to cooperate with ISKCON on ISKCON’s own terms. If we find that any Gaudiya leader can learn to function properly in a system of collective management, then we may, like Prabhupada, be ready to almagamate his institution into ISKCON. Otherwise, we shall respectfully pursue separate but parallel courses. It is difficult to allow even a little intrusion of Gaudiya Matha gurus into the affairs of ISKCON, because all of their actions and words are colored by their experience of seeing themselves as sole acaryas of their institutions, the person with the highest realization, to whom everyone must submit. Could such a guru accept the collective decision of ISKCON that “Maharaja, your preaching on this point of philosophy differs from that of Prabhupada, so kindly do not mention it any more in your classes.” Or could such a guru accept a decision that “Maharaja, this year we would kindly like you to confine your preaching to this part of the world”? I suspect not, but the matter could be put to the test and we can see.
For the Gaudiya Matha, the ideal thing would have been for all the Godbrothers to coooperate. They should have formed a GBC and jointly carried out the desires of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. That did not happen. So it was not an ideal situation. Srila Prabhupada adjusted. He carried out his own orders from Bhaktisiddhanta, and when possible he would try to cooperate with his Godbrothers, even with those who had been most responsible for the destruction of the Gaudiya Matha as a unified preaching institution. When his own ISKCON formed, Prabhupada could see that it would have to function on its own. He did not want his disciples to mix very thickly with the Gaudiya Matha, but he did not want them to be disrespectful. Prabhupada resented attempts by His Godbrothers to interfere with his disciples love and respect for him. But still he was friendly to them. In ISKCON we also do not have an ideal situation. It would have been better if all of Prabhupada leading disciples had kept their vows. But many of them did not, causing understandable confusion and resentment among many followers of Prabhupada. This has caused many of them to seek shelter of Gaudiya Matha gurus, and we can see that there are now small but significant alternative associations of Western disciples centering on such gurus. But ISKCON, despite its severe problems, has not broken up. The GBC system is still intact, the world wide preaching mission is still intact. Some gurus have fallen, but many others have not. So what are the options? In this less than idea situation what should we do. In the short term, we should follow Prabhupada’s example of always attempting to cooperate in a limited way with the Gaudiya Matha on our own own terms while at the same time protecting our members from detrimental outside influences.
1. Prabhupada was not in principle opposed to having disciples of his Godbrothers working with him, but he wanted them to be tested on an individual basis. So we could also invite disciples of Gaudiya Matha gurus to work within ISKCON under ISKCON authority, with permission from their gurus.
2. We should not manifest animosity toward any of the Gaudiya Matha gurus. We should maintain a respectful but distant relationship. If they accept certain conditions offered by the GBC, we should allow them to speak, as long as our gurus and senior devotees are given similar privileges in their mathas.
3. At the same time, Prabhuapda did not want any disrespect to his position as founder-acarya, or any deviation from his personal teachings. So we cannot tolerate anyone being proposed as a guide for ISKCON, a successor acarya, without that person first submitting to ISKCON’s collective managament system and demonstrating his qualities within that system. We also cannot tolerate teachings that differ from those of Prabhupada.
For the long term, we should pursue the goal of integrating all the Gaudiya Mathas into ISKCON, along with their former ISKCON members. This will depend upon ISKCON maintaining its commitment to a unified dynamic worldwide preaching mission, under the authority of collective leadership, the quality of which should continually improve.
This was certainly a dramatic read. Some thoughts came to mind while reading, one of which is this.
We often hear that the Gaudiya matha gurus in question, have Srila Prabhupada’s interest at heart. As such, when Srila Prabhupada’s followers leave Iskcon to join them, and in some cases, to get re-initiated, which in itself must be embarassing and disappointing for Srila Prabhupada, then how can willingly accepting disaffected devotees this way be in any way an attempt to help Srila Prabhupada and his mission?
Surely, if someone were truly concerned about the welfare of Srila Prabhupada’s Iskcon, then whenever some unhappy devotees seek to take shelter of a particulat guru, would that guru not say; “Do you realize that Srila Prabhupada wants everyone to work together, however difficult things are between yourselves. You are embarassing him by leaving his mission and coming to me. My way of thinking is different from your guru or Srila Prabhupada’s. Therefore, better that you stay. Please do not leave his mission.”
Because there is a willingness to accept those coming from Iskcon for whatever reason, in spite of saying they have Srila Prabhupada’s interest at heart, these action seem not to tally with their noble sentiments.
There were some instances whereby certain of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples were approached, or even taken onboard other mathas by other Godbrothers, without any following of due vaisnava protocols,which deeply hurt and saddened His Divine Grace. In the abscence of proper vaisnava rules for acceptance and giving of initiation without prior permission from one’s guru and so on, again, how can these breaches indicate a desire to help Srila Prabhupada’s mission?
It may appear to be a blind form of following to say these things, but if these actions differ from the original desire by both Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta to cooperate, against all Kali-yuga odds, then it is more blinding to disobey, however pressing the reasons are for not doing so .
In this regard, we should give more appreciation to all those devotees in Iskcon who still persevere, perhaps even after being initiated by 1, 2 or 3 gurus who fell away, and who could have gone elsewhere or joined with some protest splinter group. These sort of devotees should be engaged to help identify, or bring back those who have lost precious faith due to guru/disciple problems.
Ys, Kesava Krsna Dasa.
Part II
The thinking is that the doctor must “hate the disease, not the patient”. If one does not have the capacity to undertake the care of disease, they should not pose as doctors, and if one cannot see or appreciate the entire serving tree of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, then they should remain fixed in their branch of service and never stray. There may be some who do have that capacity, and still serve Srila Prabhupad as their life and soul, seeing the forest without losing the importance of the trees that make it up.
First, there is full truth that Srila Prabhupad wants his mission to be managed by the GBC collectively. This should remain in perpetuity the method of management. I know that some may have thought that this or that Maharaj who passed on may have been the “next official acharya”. That is not Srila Prabhupad’s purpose. Srila Prabhupad divined substance of Krishna consciousness as paramount. Pratishtha or self-importance has not place in pure devotional service. In the spiritual world, Krishna (not self-consciousness) is the consciousness of the transcendental loving environment. Srila Prabhupad saw the devastation of the preaching mission left behind by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur Prabhupad due to self-interest and position. Our Srila Prabhupad learned from the disobedience of many of his Godbrothers as it related to the propagation of Krishna consciousness in India and beyond. Still, do not judge all harshly, as we do dis-service to the serving tree of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. If one does not have the capacity for this, that is fine. But, I would beg you not to condemn a person like myself, a sincere (I hope) loving servant of Srila Prabhupad as an outsider because I feel it important to view things as I do.
The future may be influenced by our present mood and philosophy. There can be no doubt that some will be bridges builders and some will be breakers of such bridges. Do not expect everyone to be like you, and do not necessarily condemn non-envious souls who may hold different ideals. I do not think that is harmful nor against Srila Prabhupad’s desires. I realize that when approaching these topics as I have, I run the risk of being condemned by some of my ISKCON Godbrothers. I am prepared for that, just as I have opened myself up to condemnation by others in other camps. I remained fully committed to expressing these difficult topics, if Dandavats will kindly print this. Pusta Krishna das
Here’s an excerpt from a letter Srila Prabhupada wrote to Rupanuga in April of ’74:
“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.”
Please read again: “So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be automatically selected.”
Perhaps Srila Prabhupada had the same idea about his own institution: someday one (or more?) self effulgent acharya would be selected from among his disciples to be the next acharya leader of Iskcon. Prabhupada nominated ‘officiating acharyas’ but was he waiting for a self-effulgent one? At a very least it is an interesting question.
It is also interesting to note, that among Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples some were thought to be ‘self-effulgent’ but there was no consensus on this issue and hence disagreements arose.
Would there ever be a situation when godbrothers can universally agree on who among them is the next self-effulgent acharya? Somehow it seems unlikely…
Regarding comment 3: To reach consensus on a “self-effulgent” acarya would probably be difficult. A consensus of another kind almost negates this possibility at present, and that is the “good as God” adoration disciples have for their spiritual masters, many of whom cooperate as the GBC.
After the demise of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s attempted GBC and the fall from grace of an elected “acarya,” many leading lights of the Gaudiya matha became acaryas of their own various mathas. From “one” elected acarya came many acaryas, that exemplified the Gaudiya matha, and it was a development not of Srila Prabhupada’s liking.
Though the spiritual masters who lead our Iskcon are not acaryas – at least by name or title – there would be little need to discover a unique individual possessed of “self-effulgent” characteristics. If even someone was elected from among Prabhupada disciple God brothers/sisters, perhaps unanimously, we can well imagine the potential resentment of certain grand disciples. We wouldn’t be ready for such a thing at present.
But why not in the future? As this “golden age” within Kali-yuga progresses, and the glories of Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai increase, it will become an increasingly attractive proposition to want to participate somewhere in the world. So we should not be surprised to find just one, but many self-effulgent souls all relishing the mellows of sankirtana.
If they happen to be GBC members, there should be little concern. With succeeding generations of vaisnavas being born and raised, with true standards of learned humility naturally abundant, cooperating should be the easiest thing to do, naturally.
Ys, Kesava Krsna Dasa.
I’m not going to comment on the entire piece at the moment. Rather, I just want to weigh in on one of Drutakarma’s assertions. He wrote, “In recognition of Prabhupada’s learning, Bhaktisaranga Goswami wanted to give him the title Bhaktisiddhanta, but Sridhara Maharaja, thinking it improper to use that title, which belonged to their Guru, suggested Bhaktivedanta. Srila Prabhupada and Sridhara Maharaja continued to associate.”
The more widely accepted understanding of this incident is that other Godbrothers objected to using the title given to their guru maharaja. They ended up approaching Sridhara Maharaja to resolve the issue. He suggested substituting Bhaktivedanta, which he said conveyed the same meaning, and everyone accepted that. Later, we see that Prabhupada’s Godbrother B. P. Keshava Maharaja apparently liked the name so well that he gave that as the title for all the devotees he initiated into Tridandi Sannyasa (including retaining it for Srila Prabhupada), which custom persists among his disciples and their disciples to this day.
Part II
When my friend Srila Govinda Maharaj knew his illness was terminal, in December 2009 he appointed a capable and dedicated servitor to become his sucessor, to care for Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math. There were others (even very close servants of his for many, many years) who started a rebellion, even while Srila Govinda Maharaj was still present. This naturally broke the heart of Srila Govinda Maharaj. Police actions had to be taken because of incredible death threats, and money was also stolen from his mission at that time. Things have settled down, but we can see the extent that this envy and discord exist by studying other examples. In order to avoid such repetitive events from occurring, both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur Prabhupad, and our Srila Prabhupad, recommended the concept of a GBC. Many heads provide a check and balance and can protect the future of a large organization like ISKCON. So, there is no need to require “one self-effulgent acharya” when there are many of them existing simultaneously. There is no precedent that the acharya must be of the stature of a Bhaktivinode, Bhaktisiddhanta, Bhaktivedanta, or the like. That is not the criteria…rather, they must be clean-hearted, selfless representatives of the Guru Parampara. The acharya must be transparent, ie we ultimately must be albe to glimpse Krishna through the acharya, for the potency to be there.
So, the many letters that Drutakarma has organized, and even some of his comments, that need to be separated from the substance of the letters, can give us some understanding of “protectionism” that is necessary for the preservation of the important legacy of Srila Prabhupad, but we must also try to understand things in the context of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s sankirtan movement and its future. While we may not agree with the mood or even the message of others within the service world, there are two main issues that need to be protected against: Mayavadism and Sahajaism. These two are enemies of genuine Krishna conscious theism. Understanding must surpass protectionism, because understanding can foster affectionate dealings amongst vaishnavas and with Krishna. Protectionism places a wall, as it were, around the heart and organization. I have always believed that ISKCON must take the “high road” and be ready to explain these things. Krishna will never let you down, that’s a quote from Srila Prabhupad. Pusta Krishna das
I thought it a very interesting observation of Drutakarma Prabhu how misunderstanding the GBC system as opposed to the “acarya” system is involved in the disaffection from the main branch of ISKCON of not only Gaudiya Math but also ritviks.
I have heard anti-ISKCON critics from the ritvik camp complain that the GBC is a faulty (and therefore bogus) “acarya,” when it should be obvious that the GBC is not an “acarya” at all, but nevertheless was clearly left in charge by the Founder-Acarya in his physical absence.
I might add that the “GBC vs. ‘acarya’ system” misunderstanding contributed to the “zonal acarya” problems of the first decade after Srila Prabhupada’s departure.
Here is an excerpt from Pandit Pradyumna Prabhu’s letter of August 1978 that accurately criticized the zonal-acarya misunderstanding early on:
“First of all, the word ACARYA may be taken in 3 senses. Etymologically the word means ‘one who practices’ or ‘one who practices what he preaches’. This is the general meaning and may be used in relation to any pure devotee – period.
“Secondly, the word means ‘one who grants initiation to a disciple’. This is specifically indicating one who is a GURU. Anyone who grants initiation, or is a guru, may be called as ‘acarya deva’, etc. by his disciples only! Whoever has accepted him as guru must give all respects to him in every way, but this does not apply to those who are not his disciples.
“Thirdly, the word acarya indicates ‘the spiritual head of an institution or pitha’. This meaning is very specific. It does not mean just anyone. It means only one who has been specifically declared by the previous acarya to be his successor above all others to the seat of the spiritual institution which he heads. He alone, among all of his godbrothers, is given a raised seat and special honor. No other godbrother may receive such respect and he is the authority in all spiritual and material matters. This is the strict tradition in all of the Gaudiya Sampradayas.
“Now Srila Prabhupada, it is clear, did not appoint any such successor, because no one of his disciples at present, is advanced to the level of Krishna cConsciousness necessary to assume such a position. Nor did Srila Prabhupada make 11 such ACARYAS. …
“The 11 gurus may be known as ‘acaryas’ only in the second sense of the word–to their disciples as mantra-giving gurus, not in the third sense, as ‘the’ spiritual successors of Srila Prabhupada. That was never meant to be, by His Divine Grace