Clarifications about my attitude to Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math (Blast from the past)
 |
| Srutakirti Das, Jayapataka Swami, Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Tamal Krishna Goswami, Bhavananda Swami (photo from ca. 1976) |
Jayadharma Prabhu revived this Facebook note from March 2010, but as the intro makes clear, these were written in 2002. Please bear that in mind. I could not find any of this on the blog, so I just repost it here without further comment. It seems strangely relevant. Anyway, I am backposting to March 2010, but sharing it today. (9/6/2019)
Some friends have asked me about recent statements I made to Isa Das in response to his claim that Iskcon had no bhakti and no sat-sanga, etc. In case people make the improbable claim that I favour Iskcon over Narayan Maharaj or indeed have any favouritism towards any branch of the Gaudiya Math, I am posting a number of articles written many years ago on various forums. Bear in mind that they were written eight years ago and I may have a slightly different point of view now, or the people named have changed. I did not bother changing anything.
Various perspectives on the Gaudiya Math and Iskcon
A number of selections from my postings on the internet are floating around supposedly proving how I am working to undermine the Gaudiya Math. Here are a few posts made on the Internet that show that black and white reasoning about me is completely silly.
The following is not meant to be a comprehensive article glorifying the Gaudiya Math. There are plenty of people already doing that. From time to time I have defended or clarified my own position vis-a-vis the Gaudiya Math or Srila Prabhupada. I have simply done a search of some of my postings over the past few months (September to December 2002) in which I speak of Srila Prabhupada or Sridhar Maharaj)
--o)0(o--
Respect for Vaishnavas
Whether you respect me or not is of no great concern to me. Saraswati Thakur did indeed promote the Mayapur birthplace. He believed in it and I cannot reproach him for doing so.
As far as respect is concerned, I take it as the basic principle of spiritual life. The intellectual and devotional life are connected, but of the two, one's devotional life is more important. Respect for other devotees is a part of the devotional life. Intellectual honesty is desirable in a devotee, but everyone, myself included, reaches a limit of "truth intolerance." At an extreme level, the example of truth intolerance is Arjuna, who sees the universal form and says to Krishna, "That's enough."
Another version of this is “search fatigue.” This is not necessarily because we are lazy or fundamentally dishonest, but rather because we are weak and limited in our capacity.
This is where humility and devotional life begin. I accept Mahaprabhu's teaching about how we should treat Vaishnavas. Here is Bhaktivinoda Thakur's song:
kabe mui vaiṣṇava cinibo hari hari
vaiṣṇava caraṇa kalyāṇera khani
mātibo hṛdaye dhari
Some friends have asked me about recent statements I made to Isa Das in response to his claim that Iskcon had no bhakti and no sat-sanga, etc. In case people make the improbable claim that I favour Iskcon over Narayan Maharaj or indeed have any favouritism towards any branch of the Gaudiya Math, I am posting a number of articles written many years ago on various forums. Bear in mind that they were written eight years ago and I may have a slightly different point of view now, or the people named have changed. I did not bother changing anything.
Various perspectives on the Gaudiya Math and Iskcon
A number of selections from my postings on the internet are floating around supposedly proving how I am working to undermine the Gaudiya Math. Here are a few posts made on the Internet that show that black and white reasoning about me is completely silly.
The following is not meant to be a comprehensive article glorifying the Gaudiya Math. There are plenty of people already doing that. From time to time I have defended or clarified my own position vis-a-vis the Gaudiya Math or Srila Prabhupada. I have simply done a search of some of my postings over the past few months (September to December 2002) in which I speak of Srila Prabhupada or Sridhar Maharaj)
Respect for Vaishnavas
Whether you respect me or not is of no great concern to me. Saraswati Thakur did indeed promote the Mayapur birthplace. He believed in it and I cannot reproach him for doing so.
As far as respect is concerned, I take it as the basic principle of spiritual life. The intellectual and devotional life are connected, but of the two, one's devotional life is more important. Respect for other devotees is a part of the devotional life. Intellectual honesty is desirable in a devotee, but everyone, myself included, reaches a limit of "truth intolerance." At an extreme level, the example of truth intolerance is Arjuna, who sees the universal form and says to Krishna, "That's enough."
Another version of this is “search fatigue.” This is not necessarily because we are lazy or fundamentally dishonest, but rather because we are weak and limited in our capacity.
This is where humility and devotional life begin. I accept Mahaprabhu's teaching about how we should treat Vaishnavas. Here is Bhaktivinoda Thakur's song:
vaiṣṇava caraṇa kalyāṇera khani
mātibo hṛdaye dhari
O Lord! When will I be able to recognize a Vaishnava? The Vaishnava’s lotus feet are the storehouse of all auspiciousness. When will I hold them to my heart with joy?
nirdoṣa ānanda maẏa
kṛṣṇa nāme prīta jaḍe udāsīna
jībete daẏārdra haẏa
The revered Vaishnavas are always transcendental. They are faultless and full of divine bliss. They love Krishna’s holy names and are indifferent to the material world, but still merciful to all the conditioned souls.
biṣaẏete anāsakta
antara bāhire niṣkapaṭa sadā
nitya līlā anurakta
The Vaishnavas are without pride, they are expert in bhajan, they are unattached to material sense objects. Within and without, they are devoid of duplicity. They are always attached to the Lord’s eternal pastimes.
baiṣṇaba tribidha gaṇi
kaniṣṭha ādara madhyame praṇati
uttame śuśrūṣā śuni
There are three kinds of Vaishnavas: the beginners, the advanced and the perfected. I will show affection to the beginners, bow down with respect to the more advanced and serve the perfected with all my heart.
ādara kariba yabe
baiṣṇabera kṛpā yähe sarba siddhi
abaśya pāiba tabe
By recognizing each Vaishnava according to his position and respecting him accordingly, I will be sure to get their blessings, which lead to all perfections.
yei ninde hiṁsā kari
bhakatibinoda nā sambhāṣe tāre
thāke sadā mauna dhari
The character of the Vaishnava is always pure and holy. Bhaktivinoda promises that he will never speak to one who criticizes such a Vaishnava out of envy, but will remain silent whenever in his company.
In defence of those who took Gaudiya Math siksha gurus
The ways of spiritual life are mysterious. Tripurari and most of the other Prabhupada disciples who went to Sridhar did so because they were disturbed by developments in Iskcon and were looking for guidance from a senior Vaishnava. They believed Sridhar to have been Srila Prabhupada's siksha guru, for Srila Prabhupada himself stated as much. They did not take initiation again from Sridhar Maharaja, so they cannot be considered guru tyagis. Taking many siksha gurus is legitimate activity for a Vaishnava.
There is a fundamental dishonesty in those Western Vaishnavas who refuse to recognize their debt to Srila Prabhupada and the Gaudiya Math. Even if we have vastly different ideas and tastes and are unable to accept many aspects of Gaudiya Math culture, if Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has any meaning to us at all, we have to admit that the root of Western Vaishnavism is A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. This should not stifle debate, but put it on a civilized footing.
As far as Sridhar Maharaj or any other Gaudiya Math sannyasi trying to "steal" Iskcon disciples, I never got this impression in all the years I was in India in Iskcon. I was a regular visitor to Gaudiya Maths and was always treated with much hospitality because I spoke Bengali. The acharyas of these maths were generally cordial, but made no effort to seduce me or to disenchant me from Iskcon. I only heard them praise Srila Prabhupada.
The few times I visited Sridhar Maharaj, I was astonished that despite poor health, he would get up from his bed to come and speak Hari katha to me personally. Yet I never got the impression that this was anything but an act of pure charity and Vaishnava munificence. When Westerners started coming to him, he took them in, as he said, out of reverence for Swami Maharaj, because he had promised to serve in whatever way he could.
As for Narayan Maharaj, I have spoken positively about him on these forums before. The devotees who have gone over to him seem more convinced that Iskcon needs Narayan Maharaj, and perhaps NM has begun to believe it, but we have discussed this often enough.
There is a big difference, though maybe most don't see it, between Tripurari Maharaj and Narasingha and Sudhir. Tripurari Maharaj has a far more nuanced and liberal understanding of Krishna consciousness than either Narasingha or Sudhir. These two are both sincere and dedicated souls, no doubt, but somewhat harsh and narrow in their understanding.
Two people may look at the same historical facts and come up with a different interpretation of them and so a certain amount of argument ensues. I say, let's get the historical facts straight and then go from there. In my article on "Charismatic Renewal in Gaudiya Vaishnavism" (Part I, Part II) I made this point. But whether one interprets Saraswati Thakur spiritually or sociologically, he created a significant revival movement and this should be recognized.
My point about understanding history is that we may have to make adjustments at some time in the future and that even Saraswati Thakur's innovations need not be seen as absolute in the larger context of what needs to be done to spread Krishna consciousness effectively.
My feeling is that the Gaudiya Math really needs to become more tolerant. All this demonization is a waste of time. Calling others Sahajiyas and Mayavadis left and right blinds us to the positive contributions made by all these other Vaishnavas and cuts us off from learning possible lessons from them. By the same token, if anyone considers himself to be "superior" to the Gaudiya Math, he should, at least on this point, act superior.
Respect for even Kanishtha Vaishnavas
I most definitely feel that one should exercise self control. Since when is going around calling even kanishtha Vaishnavas abusive and derogatory names a legitimate freedom?
Even the lowest devotee on the lowest rung of devotional service merits our formal respect. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said, pūjya se śreṣṭha sabākāra. I have yet to see any evidence that "W" is on a higher level of spiritual practice and understanding than Narayan Maharaj. I may not agree with Narayan Maharaj in everything he does, nor necessarily find it always savory. I likely would not seek his association nor would I necessarily be welcomed by him into his company, but I will still give him my wholehearted respect as a matter of principle.
And I will similarly wholeheartedly condemn foolish, self-important armchair devotees who think they can cross the line between rational discourse and Vaishnava nindā. One can criticize without resorting to bad language. When one crosses that line, one has not only shown lack of self control, but maliciousness and hatred for Krishna himself.
ye ninde hiṁsā kari
bhakatibinoda na sambhāṣe tāre
thāke sadā mauna dhari
The character of the Vaishnava is always pure and holy. Bhaktivinoda promises that he will never speak to one who criticizes such a Vaishnava out of envy, but will remain silent whenever near him.
At any rate, if so-called freedom means engaging in Vaishnava ninda, then I stay at a distance. You may have some deep understanding that permits you to transcend fundamental good manners and Vaishnava etiquette, or you may have some "pristine" understanding of spiritual life that has no need for "process" like showing respect to Vaishnavas. Whatever, my response to you is "dhik! dhik!" All your philosophical speculations are worth a pile of manure.
Iskcon's failures
There is no doubt that Srila Prabhupada introduced the chanting of the Holy Name to the West. Since the Holy Name is fundamental to the spreading of Vaishnava culture, there can be no denying that any history of Chaitanya's movement will have to accord a special place to Srila Prabhupada.
Even the most glorious divine personality would have difficulty training up people to act as exemplary saintly leaders in twelve years or less. The poor people who were saddled with the incredible responsibility of running Iskcon after he left were ultimately unprepared and they cracked in various ways. The inability of the Hare Krishna movement to successfully keep so many of its followers, to raise its children in a way that they will maintain the culture, or to find a way to keep its principles intact while still finding accommodation with the larger society are all very significant failures.
It all comes from a rather big paradox: on the one hand, there is a resistance to taking inspiration from more senior Vaishnavas, whether of the Gaudiya Math or other traditional sampradāyas, on the other there is a resistance to innovation that could have been achieved through either simple learning or genuine inspiration from deep religious experience. There are so many things in world religious history or the history of our own tradition that could have helped us discriminate between essential and peripheral factors, but we failed.
Neither an openness to outside guidance nor to internal inspiration is possible where individualism is not honored. If working cooperatively means crushing individuality, then the most creative individuals leave and only the most obsequious and least imaginative remain.
Jagat (Sept 16, 2002)
Speculations on Srila Prabhupada's succession plans
Prabhupada may have said so many things [that are later interpreted by the Ritvik-vadis as favorable to their interpretations], but when it came to the crunch, he could not go against the diksha tradition.
His choice of the eleven successors was based as much on politics as spiritual advancement as such. He was hoping for a collegial system in which the eleven initiating acharyas would work together. The eleven people he selected were the most powerful politically and he knew that he had to protect Iskcon against inner struggles for power. Remember, power struggles were where the GM's problems began. In this sense, Prabhupada's decision was correct, because when Tamal made a move early on to place himself above the others as the primus inter pares, he was quickly crushed.
Prabhupada no doubt knew that some of the eleven would fall down, but he didn't know which ones. By naming eleven, rather than only one or two, he was hoping to keep the odds in Iskcon's favor. No doubt the extent of the rot was beyond his wildest nightmares.
Whatever Prabhupada's intentions, it would have helped had he given more detailed information about how he wanted things to proceed, especially if he were making a radical change to the tradition such as instituting something like the Ritvik Acharya system. For instance, he might have specified "no puja" if this is what he had wanted.
The Ritvik-vadis may not "buy" it, but this is because they cannot simply believe that their "omniscient guru" could make a mistake. In fact, perhaps Prabhupada's biggest mistake was that he did not put a Ritvik system in place!
But he clearly said, "They will be his disciples." Do all the world jugglery you like, you cannot change that. If you want to put a Ritvik system in place now, closing the barn door after the horses have bolted, as it were, that is alright. There are no doubt many advantages to such a system. And it may indeed be what Prabhupada really wanted, or would have done if he had been able to take the step. But he must have known that this radical step would have been Iskcon's death knell with the other Gaudiya Maths.
Prabhupada was very sensitive about what the GM thought of him and Iskcon. It was this sensitivity that made him react so strongly to criticism and to prohibit association. At one point, he asked Sridhar Maharaj to take over after he left, which Sridhar wisely refused. Other than Sridhar, Srila Prabhupada felt there was really no one else in the Gaudiya Math he could trust. But he also must have recognized that there were cultural differences that would be insurmountable if a Gaudiya Math acharya were imported, and this would lead to political problems in the society. Those in leadership positions in Iskcon would not have taken kindly to being usurped by an outsider who had not earned his stripes in Iskcon itself. And besides, how could Iskcon leaders suddenly have faith in a Sridhar or anyone else after all that Prabhupada had stated about them beforehand?
In view of all these considerations, Srila Prabhupada went ahead with the eleven successors plan. Had he gone ahead with a Ritvik plan (if he gave it any serious thought at all), it would have made Iskcon a total apasampradāya in the eyes of his godbrothers. Prabhupada prided himself on following Siddhanta Saraswati. He would not have wanted this kind of infamy amongst his own godbrothers, who, whatever else they may have said, did indeed very much respect him for his preaching accomplishments.
I don't know why you think I have something to gain by taking one position or another on this issue. I have no disciples, nor do I want any. I am not preaching on behalf of anyone or any institution. Nor do I have any deepseated hatred of Iskcon or any other institution. I have repeatedly said that I wish the best for each group -- Ritviks, Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math, what to speak of the Vrindavan Vaishnavas. May they all find success, both in the achievement of their spiritual goals and in the communication of the highest spiritual ideas to the world. If they can find friendship with each other, all the better.
You, on the other hand, have to deliberately blind yourself to the facts because you can't believe that Prabhupada might have made a mistake. As it is, I don't even really say Prabhupada did make a mistake in naming the eleven successors. He made a decision and things turned out the way they did. The fault lies with the eleven, not with Srila Prabhupada.
Had he chosen the Ritvik option, I think that the hemorrhaging to the Gaudiya Math would have been even greater. Iskcon had made such a great to-do in its preaching about finding a living guru, that if they had no one to point to at all, everyone would have felt obliged to turn to the Gaudiya Math, even more than they did in the actual circumstances.
If, from a knowledge of past, present and future, Srila Prabhupada had named just Satsvarupa, Hridayananda, Tamal and Jayapataka (the only survivors), the political problems would likely still have become very pronounced. Tamal would have quickly taken over (the other three being less ambitious), but not without a fight from the seven (and others) not named. And what would have happened to the movement in Eastern Europe, etc.? It is likely that schisms and disruptions would have been even greater.
On the whole, then, it seems that of the many options, Prabhupada chose the only one he could. Anyway we can fantasize all we want. What's done is done. Whatever social system we choose, the important thing is to become Krishna conscious, is it not? (Sept 1, 2002)
As I have stated previously, I think that Prabhupada did the best he could in the circumstances. I cannot honestly say that there were no errors, but once you set a big snowball sliding down a mountain, there is little you can do to stop it.
Sridhar Maharaj and Narayan Maharaj took a position relative to Iskcon based on their understanding of Gaudiya siddhanta. Neither of them actively sought to "poach" disciples from Iskcon, but Iskcon's problems were thrust on them. Their first instinct was to support the status quo in Iskcon. It wasn't their business and it was an obvious mess. They didn't feel like leading a revolution, and that is a sign of their good faith, in my opinion.
I furthermore think that the extreme negative portrayals made by Pada and others of Narayan Maharaj and of Sridhar Maharaj are entirely unjustified. I believe that the condition of world Vaishnavism would be immeasurably worse if it were not for the service these two men rendered. And that goes for B. B. Tirtha, B. S. Govinda, B. P. Puri, B. B. Bodhayan, and many other Gaudiya Math sannyasis. I bow down to them all without any reserve.
Hierarchically speaking, I do judge the devotees whose behavior I observe on these forums and elsewhere. I see many very fine human beings who have a deep inner commitment to Prabhupada's movement and who have moved beyond much of the pettiness that has almost destroyed it. These devotees may be in Iskcon or elsewhere, but I bow down to them all without reserve.
On a lower plane, there are a great number of devotees who have been stuck in Iskcon and never looked beyond its limited purview. They have rejected the Gaudiya Math and all Vaishnavas outside the Gaudiya Math because of things Prabhupada said against them. Thus deprived of more advanced Vaishnava association, they have developed a culture of offensive behavior and show little sign of Vaishnava character, internal or external.
Iskcon as a whole suffers from the absence of advanced Vaishnava association. The leadership is more involved in management questions than in the culture of Krishna consciousness or developing a broader understanding of spiritual life. There are certain notable exceptions and I wish I knew more of them.
There are, of course, various grudges and long held gripes in almost every Vaishnava faction -- whether between the different sampradāyas, or between Babajis, Goswamis, and Gaudiya Maths. I say to everyone, "Get over it."
I am for deepening our understanding of Krishna bhakti
As far as being anyone's "bucket boy" is concerned, just scroll through this thread. It started with me being condemned by a follower of Sridhar. Followers of Narayan Maharaj have blasted me on this forum; Ritvik followers have criticized me; it goes without saying that Iskcon does not care much for me.
What I am for is this: a deepening of our understanding of Krishna consciousness and spiritual life in general. We have to go deeper, both spiritually as individual human beings growing into divinity, towards human perfection, and intellectually towards understanding our own tradition historically and theologically on the one hand and how it fits into more universal traditions of spirituality on the other.
For some followers, it may be enough to say "It's all in Prabhupada's books." But for leaders to close their eyes to the need for such widening of horizons is criminal. Krishna katha is supposed to be navaṁ navam. If it is not freshened with ever deepening realizations or if the so-called realizations are not colored with learning, then it becomes dry and lifeless.
tad eva śaśvan manaso mahotsavam
tad eva śokārṇava-śoṣaṇaṁ nṛṇāṁ
yad uttamaḥśloka-yaśo 'nugīyate
Wherever the topics of Krishna are sung,
it is enjoyable, pleasing, and ever fresh;
it is an ever-delightful festival for the mind
and through it, the ocean of our suffering dries up.
it is enjoyable, pleasing, and ever fresh;
it is an ever-delightful festival for the mind
and through it, the ocean of our suffering dries up.
We have to put the old wine in new bottles. The challenges for Krishna consciousness are great in the modern world. This is why I was very sad to see Tamal Krishna Goswami leave. He at least seemed to understand the intellectual challenges that face a preacher in the 21st century.
Let's face it: most of us were spiritually illiterate when we came to Krishna consciousness. You can compensate for ignorance by being humble, but ignorance combined with arrogance is deadly. That is what we saw in the eleven acharyas and the very same disease is present in people like P.
Gaudiya Math history
As usual, P's interpretation of history is all askew. Srila Prabhupada was a householder, far from any of the Gaudiya Math's politics. He thus went along with Sridhar and the others who promoted Ananta Vasudeva for at least a year or two. Then Sridhar and Keshava and the rest got out. Prabhupada was in this group, so if he was critical of the Gaudiya Math leadership, it was in the association of these other critics. Keshava was the most vocal and negative critic of the two main factions of the Gaudiya Math. Narayan Maharaj is Keshava Maharaj's disciple, so I assume they were on the same page about Ananta Vasudeva and Tirtha Maharaj. They have never said anything overly favorable about these two.
B. P. Puri, on the other hand, after a few years of independent wandering, returned to the Chaitanya Math and stayed there along with Bhakti Dayita Madhava Maharaj until much later. Puri didn't leave Tirtha until 1960 or so, when he joined Madhava Maharaj at the Chaitanya Gaudiya Math, founded only a couple of years earlier. Srila Prabhupada had a less favorable attitude towards them because he had no great love for Tirtha Maharaj.
I still think Prabhupada named the eleven successors to be initiating gurus. But if you really ask me, the movement was destined to go through a period of explosion and disintegration. My expression was in Bengali, sābu kheẏe moṭā, which means "getting fat eating tapioca." I don't quite understand the original meaning, but the expression is used when something gets big and strong without having any real substance.
This was Iskcon. It looked good -- all that money coming in, lots of enthusiasm, big temples, nice deities, buttery prasad, lots of flying around from country to country, holidays in India -- but the spiritual substance was superficial. A real knowledge of shastra, deep spiritual practice and realization, and especially a real cultural assimilation of Krishna consciousness, etc., were frankly absent.
Furthermore, Prabhupada closed the door on association with his godbrothers and other Vaishnavas, which really was the only hope. This may not have done much for the institution, but it would have helped individual spiritual life. So the people who really wanted to find out more about the devotional path naturally turned to Sridhar, Narayan, Puri, Tirtha and others. Most of these people are happier with their situation than those who remained entangled in the Iskcon morass.
Even the Ritviks are in many ways better than Iskcon. There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that they have adopted (or been forced to accept) a more natural social model.
Quite happily I say that I will go where I find true Krishna consciousness. There is more Krishna consciousness in Sridhar Maharaj's toenail than there is in everything you ever have done, are doing or will do.
I have said it before and I will say it again, my dear P. You think that you are leading an intelligent campaign against the GBC, etc., but what you are doing is completely counterproductive. You should go take PR lessons somewhere.
(Nov. 11, 2002)
Narayan Maharaj's preaching of Raganuga bhakti
Of course, Narayan Maharaj's mood is somewhat different from that of Sridhar Maharaj, and that is somewhat problematic for the other Gaudiya Maths. Bhakti Promode Puri Maharaj also felt ambivalent about Narayan Maharaj's open preaching of Raganuga katha.
I am an open fan. Why hide the central fact of Mahaprabhu's gift to the world? We are devotees of Radha and Krishna, and more of Radha than Krishna. Narayan Maharaj states the simple truth of what it means to be a follower of Rupa and Raghunath and he is condemned for being arrogant!
Of course there are always risks. Bhaktivinoda Thakur warned,
viparyaẏa buddhi janme śaktira abhābe
One who thinks of his siddha form without having attained the qualifications will understand everything incorrectly because of his lack of spiritual power.
On the other hand, Krishna tells Arjuna that it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all:
na hi kalyāṇakṛt kaścid durgatiṁ tāta gacchati
An aspirant for spiritual perfection is never destroyed, neither in this life nor the next. One who engages in auspicious acts never meets an evil end.
Even more clear is Narada's instruction—
bhajann apakvo 'tha patet tato yadi
yatra kva vābhadram abhūd amuṣya kiṁ
ko vārtha āpto 'bhajatāṁ sva-dharmataḥ
One who has forsaken his material occupations to engage in the devotional service of the Lord may sometimes fall down while in an immature stage, yet there is no danger of his being unsuccessful. On the other hand, a nondevotee, though fully engaged in occupational duties, does not gain anything.
mukunda-sevy anyavad aṅga saṁsṛtim
smaran mukundāṅghry-upagūhanaṁ punar
vihātum icchen na rasa-graho janaḥ
My dear Vyasa, even though a devotee of Lord Krishna sometimes falls down somehow or other, he certainly does not undergo material existence like others [fruitive workers, etc.] because a person who has once relished the taste of the lotus feet of the Lord can do nothing but remember that ecstasy again and again.(HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's translations)
I certainly believe that we can all do better. This is a public forum. I am sure that an intelligent innocent who wanders onto these pages will be more influenced by those posts that are written in a rational, aesthetic and polite fashion. Those that are irrational, ugly and arrogant will not impress anyone.
No matter how glorious your message, your presentation unfortunately counts. The message of Radha and Krishna is glorious; it is aesthetically pleasing; it is profound and becomes more profound with contemplation. I am not ashamed to advise even the most innocent neophyte to meditate on Radha and Krishna's lotus feet. If he should do so following in the footsteps of Gauranga and Rupa-Raghunath, all the better.
I personally left Iskcon because I saw that it was a dead end for Vaishnava association. As far as I was concerned, Prabhupada left and closed the door behind him. I knew this instinctively the moment I heard that he had departed. That was what my inner voice told me.
Nothing the Ritviks or anyone else says can convince me otherwise. When I see the great Ritvik spokesmen, I see nothing persuasive that here is the advanced Vaishnava association that the shastra advises me to seek. I enjoy hearing Prabhupad's glories, but I'm afraid Prabhupada katha does not replace the original Hari Katha.
The "it's all in my books" business has never convinced me either. On closer examination of the books, I am even less convinced. With all due respect to Prabhupada's magnificent achievements in translating so much in so little time, when he closed the door on scholarship, he closed the door on me.
On the other hand, there are many people in the Gaudiya Math with whom I know that I can consistently look forward to intelligent Radha-Krishna katha. The pettiness of the anti-reading books crowd, who are strongest in the Ritvik section, is more evidence of their cramped and stultified spirituality.
bhavanti hṛt-karṇa-rasāyanāḥ kathāḥ
taj-joṣaṇād āśv apavarga-vartmani
śraddhā ratir bhaktir anukramiṣyati
My heroic pastimes are very pleasing to the ear and satisfying to the heart when heard in the association of pure devotees. As a result of joyfully relishing these pastimes in such association, one quickly advances on the path of liberation, passing through the stages of faith (śraddhā), the revelation of one’s divine relationship with Krishna (rati), and true love for him (bhakti). (BhP 3.25.25)
Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur's commentary:
It is said that the mind develops affection for the Lord through the association of devotees. In this verse the progressive development of such affection will be shown. One first develops a little faith for associating with Vaishnavas when he first hears that one should seek it out. In the best kinds of Vaishnava association one hears discussions about Krishna, whereas in inferior association, one may engage in various devotional practices, but not hear any [potent] Hari Katha. The Hari Katha that one hears in such advanced association causes the elimination of anarthas and then firm commitment to such hearing. Then one gets a genuine perception of Krishna's glories (vīrya-saṁvido) and then, as one develops a taste, they become ever more "pleasing to the ear and satisfying to the heart." By continuing to relish Krishna katha with affection (joṣaṇāt) one develops attachment for the Lord, who is the path to liberation (apavarga-vartmani), then bhāva, and then prema. [Kapila says] This kind of devotion will now be spread by me throughout the world following this sequence.
NOTE: Vishwanath is recapitulating the process of devotional service as found in Bhakti-rasāmrita-sindhu, but to make it fit, he translates the word śraddhā found in the last line as āsakti, rati as bhāva and bhakti as prema. The other words that appear earlier in the verse are interpreted to represent various stages on the path of devotional progress.
However, what I really wanted to point out is the hierarchy of association, which Vishwanath says is based on the amount and quality of Hari Katha.
Narayan Maharaj is speaking Hari Katha. He may sometimes forget to admit that he got some of it from the Babajis, but I won't condemn him for this. What I mind is those who think they can spread Krishna consciousness without Hari Katha. Vishwanath is quite right when he says without Hari Katha or with the wrong kind of katha there is no anartha-nivṛtti. Vaishnava aparadh in the guise of Hari Katha has nothing to do with the path to liberation.
saṁmagna-mokṣaṇa-vicakṣaṇa-pādukebhyaḥ
kṛṣṇeti varṇa-yugalaṁ śravaṇena yeṣāṁ
ānandathūr-bhavati nartita-roma-vṛndaḥ
May my respectful obeisances be given to the shoes of those wise entities who have learned the technique of liberating the poor creatures caught in the stinking mud of the ocean of material existence. On simply hearing the two syllables of Krishna’s name, these devotees are overcome with bliss and their bodily hairs stand erect.
I should not say that "I don't mind." I do mind. But I would rather see Narayan Maharaj stealing other's Hari Katha and distributing it than not distributing it at all. Nevertheless, by doing it this way, he is inviting difficulties for himself through self-contradiction.
If I borrow a particular insight (about the highest and most intimate aspects of devotional life) and yet say that those from whom I have borrowed this insight are false devotees, a massive and dangerous contradiction arises.
The first offense to the Holy Name asks "How will the Holy Name tolerate the criticism of those who spread His glories through the world?"
If what seems to be taking place is indeed true, then this would be a perfect instance of such behavior. On the one hand you admit that the glories of Radha and Krishna have entered the world through the insights of an Ananda Gopal Goswami or an Ananta Das Babaji, but then you deny that they are qualified to have such insights and that they are dangerous people. It is the exact opposite of hating the sin and not the sinner, it is loving the insight but not the in-seer. Not good.
It is said that one should take gold even from a dirty place, but we should not abuse this saying. If I take realizations--whether from Freud or Jung, Madhusudan Saraswati, Friedrich Nietzsche, or anyone else--that I feel are applicable to getting a deeper understanding of Krishna consciousness, that does not give me the right to condemn them for their failure to understand spiritual life the way I do. Rather, it calls me to honor the voice of God that spoke through them, the light of understanding that they were invited by the Divinity to shine on the world.
Comments