Searching for Sadhu? Danger Ahead
BY: ROCANA DASA, SUN EDITOR
Dec 15, CANADA (SUN) — Our regular Sun readers can't help but notice the many articles that have been submitted and approved by the Sun recently from those who have developed great attachment for Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja. We have particularly heard from Murali Krsna Swami and Bhagavat das. In a recent article entitled "The List of 32", I offered my personal thoughts about how one should compare other advanced devotees to Srila Prabhupada. In my role as Sun Editor, I would now like to more directly address the subject of Gour Govinda Maharaja in response to recent articles, in an effort to clarify the Sun's editorial position on the matter (which is a work in progress).
As previously stated, I am personally not a follower or promoter of Gour Govinda Maharaja and I've never met him personally. I don't know him. I also don't know well the devotees who are speaking on Gour Govinda's behalf, and who are essentially part of his lineage or branch coming from Srila Prabhupada. Our understanding of Gour Govinda Swami is based in part on their testimonials. Given the fact that Gour Govinda Maharaja is now departed, we have no way of getting more direct evidence, except by listening to his lectures and reading his writings. As I understand it, his writings weren't extensive and his preaching effort was primarily in Orissa. I am still not clear as to why it is that the devotees want to convince everyone of his pure devotional status, although they haven't clearly said exactly how advanced he is according. They obviously feel that he's a maha-bhagavata, and perhaps they even a nitya-siddha, although the latter is more subtly suggested in their messages.
We know for certain that Gour Govinda Maharaja is no longer a "living guru". What is less clear, however, is the position his own matha now takes about that reality. The Sun recently reported an article on a Gour Govinda Swami 'Gaudiya Matha' in Bhubaneswar, which is under the direction of the "living guru", Narayana Maharaja. The matha's Mission Statement clearly indicates that the matha was established by Gour Govinda's disciples under the direction of Narayana Maharaja, but nowhere is it stated that Gour Govinda Swami himself asked his followers to take shelter of Narayana Maharaja. The truth of how that dynamic has unfolded amongst the Gour Govinda family will undoubtedly become clearer with time. For now, we can only consider the fact that Gour Govinda Maharaja obviously put great emphasis on the need for a "living guru", and presumably deputed such a person to carry on his mission after his departure. According to at least one group of his followers, that person is Narayana Maharaja. However, given the fact that Gour Govinda also preached the great importance of staying in ISKCON, it would be a clear contradiction in terms for him to simultaneously encourage his disciples to take shelter of Narayana Maharaja, who has been soundly banned from ISKCON. We invite all camps within the Gour Govinda branch to publicly state their understanding of their guru's position on this matter.
Getting back to the thread of discussion addressed in my "List of 32" article, whether I or any of us who have never met Gour Govinda Swami now accept him as a pure devotee is not likely to make a great deal of difference in our devotional lives. It may have a big impact on certain individuals, particularly those in the Bhubaneswar area, and I don't fault them for attempting to establish their guru's authenticity, nor do I question their personal experiences with him. However, that does not make his status a dominant issue for the entire family of Srila Prabhupada's followers.
Three Miracles
The Sun has recently published a series of articles submitted by Bhagavat das, the most recent of which appeared in today's edition. In these articles, Bhagavat das has described three miracles said to have been performed by Srila Prabhupada. He compares them to three similar miracles said to have been performed by Srila Gour Govinda.
Srila Prabhupada often spoken about miracles, and played them down. I think the most poignant philosophical point Srila Prabhupada made in regards to miracles is that if you just look around you, and you see the incredible miracles that are constantly being displayed by Lord Krsna. Even an ant is miraculous, what to speak of producing gold or cursing someone from disease. Srila Prabhupada said the biggest miracle of all is what Sri Krsna Caitanya has done, which is to spread Krsna consciousness throughout the world, especially in the western countries. To transform a westerner into a Vaisnava brahman is something no one else could do. What kind of miracle is that, compared to curing someone of some disease, or making the rain come? Such miracles are insignificant compared to the potency of a Sampradaya Acarya, who Lord Krsna is personally caring for.
In my mind, Bhagavat das appears to be somewhat disingenuous in writing his miracle articles, in that he only mentions Srila Prabhupada's miracles in comparison to Gour Govinda Maharaja's miracles. In my mind, it seems that he's not so much promoting Srila Prabhupada as he is comparing and promoting Gour Govinda Swami. He knows that in this atmosphere of the devotee community, you'd better not leave out Srila Prabhupada. In other words, in order to get Gour Govinda Maharaja's miracles heard and hopefully appreciated, you've got to mention something about Srila Prabhupada. So it seems that he's not really trying to glorify Srila Prabhupada so much as he's taking the example of making this comparison in order to glorify Gour Govinda. After all, you never hear Srila Prabhupada talking about these miracles, claiming that he cured this person or that person. In fact, he always puts down miracles as a way of bogusly convincing or converting people.
When criticized for the 'miracles' articles by another writer, Bhagavat das responded in a predictable way. It always disturbs me when I see devotees use the argument, 'why can't you just be a sweet guy and not find fault… just hear the pastimes rather than making a critical remark about the intent in telling them'. I find this to be a really lame argument, In this case, we have Gour Govinda Maharaja on one hand saying you have to be qualified enough to tell who's a sadhu. In other words, you have to be critical and have to use this philosophy and teachings to make an analysis. It's not that you're just a big nectar sponge, and anything someone like Bhagavat das says you should just accept because it's pure unalloyed nectar. You're actually doing yourself a big disservice if something is stated doesn't seem to resonate with what you understand to be the philosophy as stated by Srila Prabhupada, and you don't challenge it.
Surrendering to Gour Govinda Swami
In the latest submission from Murali Krsna Swami, he brings up the age-old dilemma of how you recognize that someone is a bona fide guru. On one hand, you need a guru to give you the purification and knowledge in order to be able to recognize who a bona fide guru is. At the same time, to surrender to the guru one needs to have a certain amount of ability to appreciate who they are.
Murali Krsna Swami's pre-qualifications in this matter are simply stated as being 'how badly do you want to surrender and serve Krsna?' But if you don't know anything about Krsna and need the guru to tell you about Krsna, let alone surrender and serve Krsna, how is it that you'd want to pay any price to get Krsna? It's all rather rhetorical. One has to always keep in mind when you're reading this kind of material that the person speaking, in this case Murali Krsna Swami, is emphasizing or paraphrasing what is then presented as instructions coming from Gour Govinda Swami's in an excerpt from his Srimad Bhagavatam lecture from 1993.
Let's examine the actual sloka that Gour Govinda is lecturing on from Srimad Bhagavatam. First, we find that there's no purport to the sloka by Srila Prabhupada. Secondly, the content of the lecture has little or nothing to do with the message found in Srimad Bhagavatam. I always find it somewhat suspect when the message that's presented in a lecture has no real connection to the sloka or purport itself. This is something we have experienced many times in lectures given by ISKCON gurus.
We have to keep in mind that it is Gour Govinda Maharaja presenting this particular lecture, and his persona as a sannyasi and guru with a big following sets him well apart from others in the audience or the vicinity where he is appearing, externally at least, to be the most advanced. So when the whole message that he's giving is that you absolutely have to find the sadhu, the essence of your spiritual life is defined by your ability to contact and surrender to an advanced Vaisnava devotee, it's pretty obvious that Gour Govinda Maharaja is referring to himself.
It's interesting to note that during the course of his lecture, Gour Govinda says:
"How can you see a sadhu? You cannot see through your materialistic eyes. See a sadhu through the ears. You cannot see a sadhu through your eyes. You see through your ears."
So using his own words, I am essentially trying to understand his message through my ears, and I have a lot of questions. In this particular setting, who else would Gour Govinda be talking about but himself? In other words, 'here I am, I'm a pure devotee, once should surrender to me, and then your spiritual life will be great… and don't fault-find me…' In the lecture he states:
"So those who have developed reliance on their own material senses, they cannot recognize him. So they are blaspheming, calling ill names to such a pure devotee. Committing great aparadha. And as a result they suffer in hell. If someone has gotten the real mercy of Krishna, then he can recognize a sadhu, otherwise he will be put into a fix. A very dangerous situation. A great dilemma. "Is he really sadhu or not? Really sadhu or not?" Yes, he is in a fix, a great dilemma and this is a very dangerous situation."
Gour Govinda Maharaja considers this to be a very dangerous situation. In other words, looking for a guru is a dangerous proposal. If you don't happen to be able to recognize that someone is really advanced, then you could easily commit great aparadha to such a person, and basically you're going to suffer in hell because you made the wrong decision or you didn't have the eyes to see. Yet you'll be looking for a guru so you can have the eyes to see. In some respects, this is almost discouraging.
"Without recognizing and understanding him, if someone calls him ill names, blames him, and finds fault with him, such a person becomes a great offender. He commits a great offense. He cannot be delivered, life after life he will go to hell and suffer there."
First and foremost, there's no qualification here of what 'ill names, blames and faults" are, or to what degree they're actually expressed. Is it in their mind, is it something they said, or is it something they purposefully acted upon? Did they make a vendetta against the Vaisnava or pure devotee and speak ill of him, or just casually say a harsh or critical word against him? If what Gour Govinda is so broadly stating was actually the case, then Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers, at least at a certain point during his ISKCON lila period, would all be going to hell and suffering there because they were all speaking ill of him and criticizing him.
If, on the other hand, a complete neophyte is seeing something external and making an "offense" by critically commenting upon it, then our philosophy does not dictate that he will "go to hell and suffer there" as a result. This seems quite over the top, and we have never heard Srila Prabhupada say this. This whole statement requires a great deal of clarification, not only about what Gour Govinda means by 'ill names and blaming and fault-finding', but to what degree, and who is actually fault-finding who? Gour Govinda Maharaja is insinuating that it's a maha-bhagavata he's talking about, and it's not much of a stretch to understand that he's talking about himself here. The message is that people had better not find fault with him.
On one hand, there's the whole idea that you can suffer in hell for fault-finding, while on the other hand you can suffer in hell if you don't see faults for what they are, and get enticed into getting involved with a sadhu that doesn't have the qualifications, even though externally he looks like he's advanced. Of course, we have plenty of examples of that in ISKCON. It would be interesting to hear from the followers of Gour Govinda Maharaja as to who they think, in their own group, is such an advanced devotee. Who do they think is the successor to Gour Govinda Swami? Apparently some think it's Narayana Maharaja, who's not even his disciple, what to speak of not being accepted by ISKCON, who Gour Govinda Maharaja pledges his allegiance to.
The kind of broad statements offered above from the Maharaja's lecture, without detailed qualifications, just leave the listener to come to all sorts of conclusions. Obviously Gour Govinda wants his listeners to come to a certain conclusion, but we have to take into account the personalism involved in this scenario: who's the person speaking this? Are they a maha-bhagavata? And to what extent do you have to go to be condemned to hell and suffer life after life? This is assumed to be commentary on our siddhanta, but while our siddhanta says things like this in a particular, very detailed context, these comments are offered in a very broad, undefined context in the Gour Govinda lecture.
Let's also keep in mind that the circumstances, we're dealing with today are that we have had the appearance of a great Sampradaya Acarya in line with Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and a succession of recent Sampradaya Acarya's have expanded Lord Caitanya's teachings throughout the whole world. They've done so on the principle that Lord Caitanya is indiscriminately opening up the floodgates of love of God, and everyone who comes in contact with the maha-mantra or the bona fide teachings of Srila Prabhupada, or any of the Sampradaya Acaryas for that matter, are going to make tremendous spiritual advancement. Of course, that includes coming in contact with a pure devotee and hearing from him even when he is not personally present -- as is now the case with Gour Govinda Maharaja.
Gour Govinda Swami preaches a commonly heard theme, that there's always a pure devotee on the planet. If one is sincere enough and one wants Krsna strongly enough, then they'll find such a pure devotee. Those who preach this theme often quote Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur as having stated this principle. But let's keep in mind that in the case of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself, he only really recognized two devotees who he considered to be qualified pure devotees, namely Jagannath das Babaji and Gaura Kishore das Babaji. There's no evidence that Srila Bhaktivinoda's enlightenment came from associating with them personally. Rather, his enlightenment came from contacting the previous Sampradaya Acaryas through their writings. The principle that you'll always be able to find a pure devotee of their status could easily be referring to the teachings of the Sampradaya Acaryas, and the fact that if one looks hard enough, you can discover them. From what I understand, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur had to do a lot of research to find the teachings of the previous Acaryas.
So now we're getting back to the concept of Srila Prabhupada and his books, and how the movement is spread around the world based on his teachings. People are becoming devotees simply as a result of reading his books. And yes, there may be some nice devotees who are distributing the books and who are speaking on behalf of Srila Prabhupada and trying to train people in Krsna consciousness based on what he has stated, but at this point, who could say that there's anyone who's nearly as advanced as Srila Prabhupada? Of course, we do find people who make this claim, or insinuate it. The question is, are the followers of Gour Govinda Maharaja among that group? Are they actually claiming that Gour Govinda is on the same exalted spiritual level as Srila Prabhupada? And if not, precisely, philosophically, how do they define the comparative difference between the two. I for one would like to hear this clarification from people in Gour Govinda's branch. I would also like to hear from them whether it's universally accepted that Narayana Maharaja is now their "living guru", or is it just one of Gour Govinda's branches that advertises him as such? For those that do accept this position, we assume they have now gone to Narayana Maharaja for siksa, and are no longer focusing all their attention on Gour Govinda's teachings, since he is no longer here in person to instruct them.
And while we're asking for clarification, there's also the big mystery of Gour Govinda Swami's departure. We have heard a number of different and seemingly contradictory stories about the circumstances under which he passed away. One involves the GBC, who was apparently giving him a hard time based on what he was preaching. That story suggests that he left his body the night before a big confrontation with the GBC was set to occur, and that he left so he wouldn't be put in the position of having to criticize the Vaisnavas (the GBC). Of course, I can see after reading this lecture why the GBC would have a certain amount of concern about what he's said.
To get back to the main theme presented by both Bhagavat das and Murali Krsna Swami, they suggest that Lord Krsna gives the aspiring sincere devotee pure intelligence so that he can recognize and associate with advanced sadhus, and the big test is whether or not you're sincere enough, or you're basically dying to have Krsna, and therefore Krsna will reciprocate with you in this way. Philosophically, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with this message, but there is no clarification as to how a neophyte qualifies for this benediction of pure intelligence from Krsna and how they can have such an intense desire to have Krsna while at the same time not already having a guru - unless, of course, they have been properly instructed by reading the teachings of the Sampradaya Acarya. In other words, one can first read Srila Prabhupada's books, understand who is Krsna and who is a pure devotee, and on that basis go forth in the world searching for advanced devotees, or pray to Krsna (Caitya guru) to help them find the guru.
Sri Krsna is Caitya guru, and He is controlling everything, including whether or not the neophyte searcher will be put into the association of a pure sadhu, then be able to recognize who that sadhu is. This dynamic is especially interesting nowadays, when there's so much competition amongst the supposedly "pure sadhus" who are out there trying to recruit disciples. So we have to assume according to Gour Govinda Maharaja, that all these people who've been initiated in ISKCON by gurus who later fell down, that they deserve to be cheated. They didn't have pure intelligence, and it was maya, not Krsna, who arranged this because these people are insincere. Yet even ISKCON now says that you have the pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada, as your 'safety net'. For the most part, people became initiated on the basis of the fact that they had faith in Srila Prabhupada, and if their guru falls down, most continue to have faith in Srila Prabhupada. And yes, it's a test, but I go back to my theme of the Sampradaya Acarya, and that you need to be connected to the Sampradaya through a Sampradaya Acarya, not just to a guru who happens to be somewhere on a branch. The question here is, is Gour Govinda Maharaja just a guru on a branch, or is he a maha-bhagavata, uttama-adhikari, nitya-siddha, or Sampradaya Acarya? According to what I hear in this lecture, he certainly thinks he's an uttama-adhikari.
According to Gour Govinda Maharaja, one must have a "living guru", and he's out there on the planet somewhere. This puts the aspirant in a dilemma, because all their efforts basically have to be in searching mode. This mindset is one of the reasons there's a huge phenomenon today of people coming to Krsna consciousness, hearing the rush-to-diksa rhetoric coming from ISKCON leaders, then going off on a constant pilgrimage, trying to find their living guru. All that time and effort could simply have been spent just studying and reading Srila Prabhupada's books, associating with local devotees, and rigidly applying the processes, as much as humanly possible. After years of having diligently followed that process, we can trust that Caitya Guru would have had plenty of opportunities to put the sincere aspirant in contact with a qualified guru -at least one qualified to the degree that the aspirant is deserving and desiring of.
Throughout my devotional career, I have heard innumerable lectures by ISKCON gurus similar to the one given by Gour Govinda Maharaja and mentioned in this article. In my mind, they were just self-promotion lectures. This particular lecture, frankly, doesn't seem much different. Gour Govinda Maharaja is a little more Indian-ized in the sense that he speaks very much like you'd hear a Gaudiya Matha preacher sound. Lectures such as this one seem to be well rehearsed, especially when the lecture has little to do with the sloka they've submitted in the context of a class. And of course, we assume it's likely that there are many persons in the audience who are looking to get initiated. And how can someone say these things unless they are a maha-bhagavat, genuine guru, which is like saying 'Here I am. Stop looking. Krsna sent you to me, and you've been given a great benediction. If you don't surrender to me then that's a form of aparadha, and you risk going to hell. And you're only seeing me through material eyes, so you'd better listen to my instructions now, and surrender to me.' In a sense, this is a subtle threat.
The only conclusion you can come to is you either have to accept the fact that Gour Govinda Swami is an uttama-adhikari maha-bhagavat, and if you don't, then at best you missed out on a golden opportunity. At worst, you're an aparadhi and you're going to hell for a good, long stretch of suffering. It seems that Murali Krsna Swami and Bhagavat dasa have decided that they're not going to take the risk, and they're going to accept Gour Govinda Swami as being such a highly advanced Vaisnava.
