© 2001 VNN
|
EDITORIAL  Comment on this story Name Withheld, Shame Withheld BY TARUN KRSNA DAS EDITORIAL, May 16 (VNN) — Dear 'Name Withheld', Greetings. Dainyik dandavat pranams to you in remembrance of our Divine Masters. Dear "Unknown One" (or 2) (or more), In your recent article "Who is Following Who", you have so kindly supplied us with very nice quotes from many of our predecessor acaryas warning us against hearing intimate transcendental topics prematurely. 30 pages worth - smallest print. SO MUCH WORK. Well done! Thank you very much. You claim your meticulous essay has established 9 conclusions: We all agree with your 1st. We all agree with your 2nd. Or do we? Isn't it by the power of true Hari-katha including proper rasa-katha, that all, id est, "the hearer, the speaker and the entire audience become purified"? Aren't these our own Prabhupad's exact words? "Just Go On Hearing About Krsna." If not, then how else? If not, then why did our Prabhupad use George Harrison's donation to print his 10th Canto Krsna Book before even 2nd Canto? He could have spent that donated Laxmi in some other way. Why did our Prabhupad (in your terms) "Jump to the 10th Canto"? And all 90 Chapters! He should have at the very least, left out those 5 most contraversial madhurya chapters. Was he following his Guru Mhrj by revealing Vraja-lila in toto? Are you sure? We all agree on your third. Or do we? Not quite. In 1982, when Srila Sridhar Mhrj was formally 'rejected' by ISKCON, the GBC's main argument was he was 'different' than our Prabhupad. In 1995, when Srila Narayan Mhrj was formally 'rejected' by ISKCON, the main GBC argument was HE was (also) different than Prabhupad. However, in their attempt to prove that so-called difference, one GBC argument was "Prabhupad and Sridhar Mhrj stressed kIrtanam, but Narayan Mhrj stresses smaranam. So he's different." Do we see a pattern here or what? What does Krsna Himself stress? In GItA 8.5-6, Sri Krsna BhagavAn states, "In whatever state of mind (bhava) one quits his body he attains to that stage without fail. Anyone who remembers Me comes to Me." Is smaranam important? Is Krsna stressing smaranam or kIrtanam here? A related point. In your paper, though you quote Srila Sridhar Mhrj as much or even more than you quote our ISKCON's Founder-Acarya (something unheard of and illegal in both ISKCON and CHAKRA circles), 'unbiased' ISKCON and 'open-minded' CHAKRA will gladly publish and use your essay as ammunition against Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayan Mhrj. Smaranam, indeed. Hmm. In 1982, I remember them blaming Sridhar Mhrj for NOT coming to the West. Now they are blaming Narayan Mhrj for COMING to the West. This level of duplicity is so obvious, only a subzero kanistha can fail to pick up on it. But wait a minute. Don't go away just yet. Back to japa and kirtanam, you're favorite. Srila Narayan Mhrj generally asks his sisyas to chant more rounds than our Prabhupad, Srila Sridhar Mhrj or Srila Puri Mhrj ever asked their sisyas to chant. That quickly puts a damper on your so-called 4th conclusion, Oh 'Unknown One'. In addition, Srila Narayan Mhrj emphatically states, "If a kirtan or Aratrik or Bhagavatam class is going on, but you opt to walk away, forego it, skip it in favor of, with the excuse of chanting your rounds, this is not good. Inferior choice. Better to join in that kirtan or katha. You'll receive more benefit. You can chant your rounds later." Did Prabhupad or Sridhar Mhrj ever say this? If not, then who stresses kirtan more? Can we even really say for sure? From our junior position? A few questions: 1) When our ISKCON Prabhupad added the title "Svami" and "Gosvami" to his newly initiated sannyasis' brahmacari names, instead of the way his own Guru Mhrj, Srila BhaktisiddhAnta Sarasvati ThAkur conferred sannyAs, whose example was His Divine Grace following? 2) When our SvamijI aka Prabhupad accepted female disciples and accomodated them by authorizing brahmacarini asrams in all his ISKCON centers, including India, including those 2 most Holy Dhamas, whose example was he following? Banasura's? (Read Dazama-skandha for details) 3) Your anonymous 'Name Withheld, Shame Withheld' captive former follower is requesting his 'former' siksa-guru to tone down his preaching. "I simply wish that you could curtail your flamboyance in secret subject matter dispensation...". At which reduced level would your captive anonymous former follower once again feel at home? Cozy. Like those 'good ole days'? Did our Prabhupad challenge scientists? Professors? Roman Catholic Cardinals? Disciples' parents? Practically everyone he met? Did our Prabhupad "take prisoners"? Any repercussions? Shouldn't he have toned himself down, curtailed his flamboyancy as well? To avoid so much negative criticism? Backpat rather than thunderbolt? Many of Prabhupad's leading disciples left His Divine Grace's mercy and mission while he was still personally present, 1966-77. Why? One's claim was, "SvamijI (Prabhupad) is too strict. He's denying us the basic necessities of life." Prabhupad took that to mean this particular sisya was seeking blessings for his own newly increased sense gratificatory desire. Some of Prabhupad's leading sannyasis gave up renunciation only to later involve themselves in what you would call sahajiya activities. Do you see this happening in Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti? Or do you/we see just the opposite? Isn't it that we see so may Prabhupad sisyas as well as Sridhar Mhrj sisyas as well as fallen-guru sisyas returning (after years) to devotional service under the guidance of a senior vaiSNav, thus, regaining their enthusiasm to continue and further progress in Krsna consciousness? Or not? You tell me, Oh 'Unknown One'. Our Prabhupad sat on highly elevated, highly decorated Vyasasanas. He should've stopped doing it. He could've stopped doing it. Did he? Where was it? In Chicago? Where he sat on the floor instead, because he knew that newspaper reporter would be envious seeing him interviewed while seated on such a majestically cushioned high chair. In Gaudiya Math, we find few or no Vyasasanas. Was Prabhupad following his Guru Mhrj or doing something different? Internally or externally different? ps - Unlike 'Name Withheld', 'Anonymous' was and still is the finest Greek philosopher and most prolific writer the world has ever known. pps - Better to say "Who is Following Whom". Whom is the proper objective form of Who. Otherwise, we are left in a literal circle sans answer or end: Who is following Who is following Who is following Who etc., without object, only subject. Which precisely matches your essay's ultimate conclusion. Therefore, how can we blame you for remaining anonymous. Ergo, "Blame Withheld" as well. Related VNN Stories Comment on this storyContact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
