The primary difficulty is that society leaders do not focus on the original, absolute philosophy presented by the Founder-Acarya. Most are more absorbed in the sentiment of being a disciple and follower of the Founder. Rather than studying the sastra purported by Srila Prabhupada, the emphasis is on sentimental pastimes. There is very little actual written philosophical contribution by the senior disciples. There are, however, plenty of memoir books printed.

“The Krsna consciousness movement is not a sentimental religious movement; it is a movement for the reformation of all the anomalies of human society.”

We have recently become acquainted with the circumstances surrounding one female devotee, Dhyanakunda devi.dasi, whose private "inner thoughts" about Srila Prabhupada 's absolute position were made public. Two senior sannyasis, Sivarama and Bhakti caru Swami, have apparently resigned their lifelong tenure on the GBC over this incident. Did anyone read any profound philosophical dissertations written by either of these sannyasis addressing the subject expounded upon by the lady in question? We witnessed instead a politically motivated knee-jerk reaction steeped in sentimentalism.

"Close down the forum!" was their cry. Chuck out the culprit, and the forum moderator should be expelled as well, for good measure. The whole affair even digressed into the realm of radical anti-feminist arguments championed by a quasi-political/militant lobby group going by the name the GHQ, an abbreviation for General Head Quarters.

Srila Prabhupada often used the phrase, "religion without philosophy is sentiment.:

Let's face it! To varying degrees, everyone becomes sentimental when remembrances of Srila Prabhupada are invoked. The old-time leaders’ institutional "image" was rooted on the stories of how they initially met and intimately associated with Srila Prabhupada throughout his ISKCON lila period. These embellished myths often emphasized how they were more fortunate, thus they appear more advanced than "the rest of us". The question in my mind is, do they really "philosophically" understand/realize the qualities and pastimes of the personality we know as Srila Prabhupada? We all are aware of the glorious titles: Sampradaya Acarya, the Nitya-Siddha, the Maha-Bhagavata, etc. Yet ISKCON history clearly demonstrates that the leaders didn't have a clue as to the true philosophical identity of Srila Prabhupada. If they had, then how is it that they inaugurated, perpetuated, participated in and violently enforced the zonal-acarya system for a ten years period?

The "Lilamrita" is a literary product of that era’s philosophical misconception. The fact that it is still being printed and distributed by Srila Prabhupada's BBT is proof positive that the original mistaken notion has become institutionally enshrined! Satsvarupa [Sentimental] Swami wrote all the official "zonal" position papers and didn't officially renounce his attachment for being a zonal acarya until 1985. I maintain the theory that none of the surviving zonals have never renounced their false ego self images.

It was only the pressure coming from the rank and file, motivated mainly by their own poor behavior, that caused the zonal acaryas to re-adjust their position. If they did have a genuine "change of heart", as they claim, then where is the written philosophical analysis of why, what, and how this monstrosity of a deviation took place? What are their deep realizations from this experience? How are they atoning for their mountain of offenses?

The bulk of their offenses were not their ill actions taken against us fallen conditioned souls, but their direct offenses against Srila Prabhupada. ISKCON was his "movement", and they brought it to its knees. We are partially to blame. Had we stood up to them instead of propping them up, the offences wouldn't have gone on for so long. Our hearts and common sense was screaming at us to shout out, "stop this craziness!", but we couldn't cooperate together and lacked the ability to effectively organize.

In essence, all our years of silent capitulation was due to our mundane sentiment for ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada. This mawkishness was cultivated to the max by our institutional leaders. Their "Lilamrita" contribution to the world is subtly intertwined with their own self-glorification, for the benefit of the few and "most fortunate ones" who arranged to be the sole inheritors and controllers of everything and everyone in Srila Prabhupada 's world. These charlatans promoted the misconception that they alone truly knew and understood Srila Prabhupada, and the rest were their rightful servants.

To this very day, when I happen to meet devotees who discover that I am an "old Srila Prabhupada disciple", their spontaneous request is to hear my "stories" of meeting Srila Prabhupada. My philosophical realizations are of little or no interest. In fact, many take them as being "too political".

I can't help but think of the many Christians who prefer to relish stories of Christ's pastimes, and enthusiastically recount his painful departure. Of course, many avoid hearing of his heavy preaching on absolute philosophy. They prefer to pick and choose the parts of Jesus' message that reassure them that they’re advanced, pious and special, and ignore the truth that reveals how lowly and fallen they actually are. That same "religious" mentality is present in the institutional depiction of ISKCON history and especially the part played by the leaders.

Officially we are told that Srila Prabhupada is a maha-bhagavata, shakta-vesa, nitya-siddha. On the other hand, the Lilamrita, memoirs, TV series and stories make him out to be "human". But the official doctrine surrounding Srila Prabhupada's stature is more than ambiguous, it is downright contradictory. Dhyanakunda dasi felt secure enough to reveal her doubts in what she was lead to believe was a closed forum, moderated by her friend Madhusudani Radha dasi.

Dhyanakunda’s expressions of private doubts represent, in my mind, the very tip of a giant iceberg. Many Srila Prabhupada followers, both in and outside the institution, internally entertain similar thoughts to hers. It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the "sentimental" wind is blowing with ISKCON, and most devotees know that to express these sentiments is to be branded an infidel.

It takes an intelligent, straightforward woman like Dhyanakunda to articulate what is in the minds and hearts of so many confused followers. After all, they have been weaned from "spiritual birth" on the sentimental conception of Srila Prabhupada. I believe that Dhyanakunda dasi’s academic training allowed her to cut through the sentiment and get to the real, subtle message of the Lilamrita, in which Srila Prabhupada is depicted as simply an extraordinary personality. His achievements are inferred to be within the realm of possibility for any of us, even in this lifetime. As far as I am aware, presently on this planet there are no manifested nitya-siddhas. Keep in mind that in the late seventies the official GBC position on the original eleven was that they had transformed into "instant" Acaryas, pure devotees, uttama adhikaries…by the inconceivable will of Krsna based on the request of Srila Prabhupada. In other words, they were kripa-siddhas. Historical incidences of such benedictions are as rare as the manifestation of nitya-siddhas. This twisted philosophy was endorsed by the GBC, and the Lilamrita was composed as a part of their propaganda presentation.

The under-lying philosophical conclusion of who Srila Prabhupada is according to the Lilamrita does not mesh with the sastric definition of a "nitya-siddha maha-bhagavata".

From their very birth these rare souls [nitya-siddha] exhibit unmistakable transcendental symptoms, as did Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada accepted and presented his spiritual master, Srila Bhakisiddhanta Sarasvati, as a nitya-siddha "Viakuntha man". Bhaktivinoda Thakura has been presented as such by both Acaryas following in his footsteps.

The question arises, do we expect our Srila Prabhupada to be in the same category as the two other nitya-siddha acaryas? If so, philosophically how should we portray Srila Prabhupada, and what can be said about the manner and mood exhibited first in the Lilamrita, and now in the "Abhaya Carana" TV series? This is a fundamentally serious aspect of the philosophy. If Srila Prabhupada 's official representatives, the GBC, are actively broadcasting an offensive sentimental impression of Srila Prabhupada there is no wonder the movement is in trouble. So many Srila Prabhupada followers are gravitating towards the Gaudiya Matha, others are embracing Rttvik-ism, and disciples of ISKCON gurus are minimizing Srila Prabhupada 's significance.

To philosophically pervert, in an organized manner, the correct understanding of Caitanya Mahaprabhu's specially empowered ambassador is dangerous, as the quote below illustrates:

You can't have it both ways. Either Srila Prabhupada is a nitya-siddha or he a sadhana-siddha. If you choose to view him as a sadhana siddha, then you are faced with the determination of what level of Krsna Consciousness Srila Prabhupada evolved to at various stages of his life.

I realize that it is philosophically challenging to convince learned scholars educated in the western tradition of the philosophical concept of nitya-siddha verses sadhana-siddha. Still, we have to try -- without diminishing the truth regarding Srila Prabhupada's nitya-siddha status. Explaining that God in his original form is a blue cowherd boy is a challenge also.

At present, there is no authorized biography depicting Srila Prabhupada as the nitya-siddha. Consequently, individuals are left to speculate and work these dilemmas out for themselves. I guarantee you, if I thoroughly surveyed the top echelon leaders within ISKCON on this subject matter, I would end-up with a rainbow of opinions. As a result of this confusion we are faced with a barrage of "outrage" from the supporters of Gaudiya Math leaders who do not make any distinction between Srila Prabhupada and his successful "Acarya" Godbrothers. They refuse to place Srila Prabhupada in the exclusive arena beside Srila Bhakisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

At least the Roman Catholics emphasize the importance of presenting a unified doctrine, seeing it as an essential ingredient to cooperation and unity. The GBC should be focusing on this philosophical level and spending less time putting out institutional fires, many of which manifest due to their lack of philosophical direction. One could easily understand that due to the absence of proper analysis of this issue, the Rttvik backlash was spawned. There has been a dry desert of literary material springing forth from the intellect of the leaders over the last twenty years. Instead, we are subjected to sentimental "memoirs" which only serve to glorify the writer in the guise of canonizing the Acarya. We are allowing the vox populi to create the authentic mythical Srila Prabhupada.

I see an insidious undercurrent of competition amongst the various warring factions in the matter of who paints the bonafide picture of His Divine Grace, Srila Prabhupada. Each paints a portrait which best suits their political agenda. As we pass our glance over ISKCON's historical landscape, back to 1966, we can distinguish the various "eras" and simultaneously view the transformation of the follower’s vision of the Founder-Acarya. Those conditioned souls who gained institutional power within a certain era tend to be attached to the version of Srila Prabhupada fitting that particular period.

Srila Prabhupada can be distinguished from his Godbrothers by the manner in which he emphasized the philosophy instead of sentiment in the guise of "advanced" subject matter. True enough, our extraordinary philosophy exalts the concept of divine personalism over that of impersonal Mayavadi. Gaudiya Vaisnavism rightfully places the unsophisticated Gopi's of Vrindabin on the highest pedestal of devotional perfection. On the other hand, the bonafide Acaryas in our line have gone to great labor to philosophically and scientifically present Krsna Consciousness by speaking out against premature, sentimental pretenses of jumping to levels of perfection beyond our realizations (Sahajiya-ism).

The essential question is, can we also become sahajiya-like in our relationship with Srila Prabhupada? As I see it, the manifested and spiritually dangerous outcome is the same: sentimentalists tend to become far too familiar and casual, and start perceiving Srila Prabhupada from a mundane perspective. In due course, these sentimental followers feel compelled to approach Srila Prabhupada in an attempt to discover signs of his being more "human-like" because it is easier and simpler for neophytes to perceive him in this manner.

Our ability to properly perceive the qualities and pastimes of Lord Sri Krsna and Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu are due to our having faith in the explanations presented by the bonafide sampradaya Acaryas. We are cautioned not to speculate, concoct or fail to apply the principle of counter-balancing "guru, sastra and sadhu". In the absence of a universally accepted authorized personality qualified to present Srila Prabhupada's qualities, pastimes, and eternal status, I suggest we be very cautious and err on the side of "over glorification" rather than run the risk of speculatively minimizing him and his accomplishments. Nitya-siddha and sadhana-siddha are simultaneously one and different.

Rocana das
rocana@harekrsna.com
http://www.harekrsna.com