November 11, 1998   VNN2489  

Blame It On The Saints

It is said that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So many swanlike devotees have relished the wonderful association and wisdom of His Divine Grace Srila Sridhar Maharaj, a praiseworthy vaisnava and undoubtedly, a Mahabhagavat. To start appreciating him, one needs only to know how to read since they are in English, at least ten of his own works including an absolutely impeccably high commentary on Bhagavad-gita [The Hidden Treasure of the Sweet Absolute] and the main work of his life Sri Prapanna Jivanamritam.

Prabhupada said in a letter to Sriman Hrisikesha das, "I consider him my own siksa guru" while speaking of his outstanding vaisnava qualities, "so what benefit can you derive from his association." He is also the person that made ISKCON and the vaisnavas aware that Srila Prabhupada was a sakti-avesa avatar.

In His Holiness Jayapataka Swami's Vyasa Puja offering (that somehow stresses his own accomplishments), there is only a reluctant acceptance that Srila Prabhupada himself told his disciples to consult with Srila Sridhar Maharaj. He also recognizes that Srila Sridhar Maharaj certainly had good intentions.

Nevertheless, he is later terribly belittled, and even blamed. It is not the first time that the old core of the GBC are unfair towards this saintly personality. Saints are not out of reach from their blaming sword today. Indeed, those who invented a devaluated version of uttama adhikari and zonal acharyas now do not want to accept personal responsibility for having created these concepts.

It was not enough to expel or excommunicate the ones who warned against deviations; the new startling solution is to blame the saints.

His Divine Grace Srila Sridhar Maharaj's advice was that anyone accepting disciples should open his own preaching field so as not to disturb the already established temples. Srila Prabhupada would then be the only prominent acharya in his temples meant for pilgrimage and education of his disciples and followers. Evidently, following in the footsteps of the acharyas, one must be willing to take in many people from the streets, which involves a lot of risk and personal sacrifice. This kind of commitment is required. This is completely opposite to what took place. Instead, Srila Prabhupada's temples were improperly used for self-propaganda, while personal credit was taken for the preaching performed by the local devotees, and the resources provided by them were taken advantage of.

Sridhar Maharaj's example of the "private room" is actually brilliant, but again, misunderstood. Just as a householder requires at least one private room, a spiritual teacher must create an ashram to guide his disciples. This intimate atmosphere of friendship, love and trust is very auspicious for spiritual life. This is also required to reveal one's heart, as advised by Srila Rupa Goswami. Srila Prabhupada sent away devotees, even those with a little experience, to open new temples, saying "make your own place".

Both sages prescribed the same thing. Where is the difference in vision between them so vehemently claimed by His Holiness Jayapataka Swami which resulted in the fight to lord it over Prabhupada's temples. The advice of the Great Soul, twisted or neglected by immature people with unclean hearts, resulted in lording it over Prabhupada's temples, placing their own god-brothers in an inferior level, reducing them to personal servants.

Stepping over the real preachers, they actually claimed to be the spiritual masters of those who were brought closer to Krishna and nourished by others. The preachers were (and still are) mostly mere employees who bring the souls to the "official" gurus. In turn, these gurus, in many cases, neglect "their" disciples so much that they end up leaving the society disappointed, hurt and disgruntled.

The Mahabharata says that the real father is the one that raises the child. It is also offensive to consider Srila Sridhar Maharaj a "spiritual technician"; a new term for the already dismantled vaisnava dictionary. In this dictionary, the real sages are the youngsters that became the lords and kings of the movement. How far can we be from surrendering to the truth? Spiritual advisors are not technicians. They enlighten others by the strength of their purity, insight and wisdom. Spiritual life is not a material convenience where one calls a technician to fix the TV after one messes it up; only to ready it for the next abuse. The blessed 11 took their guru task as a race to enroll followers in their list.

Srila Prabhupada's idea of a Governing Body Commission (GBC) is feasible if one follows in detail the outline he gave us. In his statement "Direction of Management," he gives the instruction that the GBC's should be elected by the temple presidents and Srila Prabhupada would select four members himself. The first body he established was fully composed of grihastas. The sannyasis formed a separate body. This was later modified as some of the new sannyasis could not be away from their area of influence. This created a hybrid of managers, preachers, monks and householders, later simultaneously called acharyas and GBCs.

Under Prabhupada's guidelines, temple presidents should have the approval and support of the members of their temple and the GBCs would be elected representatives of a group of Temple Presidents (not more than 6 temples per GBC). This makes sense organizationally.

This was never properly applied. As soon as zonal gurus and GBCs started their power-trips, they could not imagine preaching and serving the devotees to be more important than self-promotion. To date they are trying to keep their seats and in a tight circle, Vatican/Mafia-style , selecting themselves as GBCs, gurus and even appointed Temple Presidents. Is this idea from outside of ISKCON?

Where does the power come from to dissolve the BBT and create an incorporated subsidiary of ISKCON (BBTI)? Srila Prabhupada made the BBT a separate trust with trustees appointed for life and not under control of the GBC while the beneficiary was ISKCON.

Jaya Pataka Swami acknowledges now that Srila Prabhupada instructed his sannyasis to initiate without restriction (a well known tradition throughout the Vedic culture).

Nevertheless, years ago, the 11 blessed were the only "officially" authorized initiators. Besides this, he forgets to mention that the initiation process is a mutual and voluntary heartfelt connection. Furthermore, the real qualification is beyond social conventions and colors of dress.

I once heard that Jaya Pataka Swami was ordered to initiate 50,000 disciples. Now I hear it is down to 10,000. Considering the number of active devotees among the second generation in ISKCON, does this mean that he is trying to monopolize the guruship?

Is he able to properly care for so many devotees? He insists on being both siksa and diksa guru and is canvassing to get more devotees under him. Now, probably the ones that were under Harikesh. What are the rest of the senior devotees supposed to do? Twiddle their thumbs? On one hand he is saying that a single person cannot take care of many people, and promotes the idea that service should be properly shared through programs such as Nama Hatta, Bhakti vriksa, Cells, etc. On the other hand his personal example leads in the opposite direction. Instead of decentralization and distribution of responsibilities, his Nama Hatta and other programs are nowadays becoming a structure where participants end up mainly on his initiation list. This is not called devotion; this is the domain of politics.

He also mentions the "Vedic Planetarium" as a priority. It will, perhaps, impress a few, but overall distracts us towards external accomplishments. The devotees, the "birds within the cage," are more important than the bricks.

Oddly enough, this Vedic Planetarium was supposed to be according to Srila Sridhara Maharaj's vision and after Prabhupada's departure, the golden eleven decided that their vision would be more propitious than that of the Mahabhagavat.

But did anyone in the GBC come up with such a novel excuse - diksha propriety - to accept the enlightened advice of the Mahabhagvat. Gentlemen, the air reeks of politics.

I try to convince every bit of myself of Jaya Pataka Swami's integrity, but his words come back to me as a slap in the face. Although the flavor of the offering was bitter, I have some hope, as the truth cannot be twisted forever. Nevertheless, blame the saints. If something goes wrong, don't worry it is their fault. It is Bhaktivinode Thakur who had the Nama Hatta idea, it is his mistake. Next to blame is Lord Krishna for making true spiritual advancement so difficult, and the Holy Name for being so merciful? Parampara in reverse order. Where does it all end?