Who's on the Menu at the Hodge Podge Buffet?
BY: ROCANA DASA
Feb 04, CANADA (SUN) — This article is in response to the recent article series by Bhakta Eric Johanson, entitled "Smorgasbord". First of all, I'd like to say that I agree with many of the points that have been presented in these articles. But the last segment, Part Three, reveals to me, and perhaps to other readers who have been following, that there is an underlying problem being demonstrated by the author.
It's important for the readers to understand the author's background, and he has provided some personal details in the Epilogue to Part Three. Bhakta Eric Johanson was previously going by the name Riktaharsan das, but we are not sure who gave him that name. He states that he became initiated during the Zonal Acarya period by Hansadutta das, who he later renounced. In due course, he became close associates with Kailasa Candra dasa, who is one of the earliest reformers in ISKCON… kind of a Che Guevara figure. For a long time we didn't hear anything from Kailasa Candra, and at what point in time they manifested themselves as the Vaisnava Foundation, I'm not entirely sure. Their website indicates that it was in the 1990's.
I have had numerous positive exchanges at various points with both Bhakta Eric and Kailasa Candra das, and I agree with many aspects of their presentation. We have facilitated them in presenting their articles here in the Sun, and previously at HareKrsna.com, and have provided many links to their principle website. I haven't challenged any of their writings in the past, and they have not challenged any of mine. I was somewhat surprised, therefore, to find that Bhakta Eric had included, albiet somewhat indirectly, the Sampradaya Acarya concept under the 'Hodge Podge' category of his paper. Of course, the Part Three article infers that everyone except themselves are 'hodge podge' types, which implies that they are absolutely right, and their perception of our siddhanta is unquestionably in line with the Sampradaya Acaryas.
Now this brings up a big issue. We are in a period of Vaisnava history wherein it appears to be that there is presently no Sampradaya Acarya leading the Sankirtana movement of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Of course, one could argue that Srila Prabhupada is doing that, while in samadhi, and to a certain degree that's also true, but as far as having a physically manifest personality on the level of Srila Prabhupada, I think we all agree that's not true. One has to keep in mind that from the perspective of the time factor, there have been far longer stretches of time when there hasn't been the presence of either a great Acarya or an incarnation of the Lord directly. As such, it's not unusual or greatly lamentable that we find ourselves in this circumstance. We are extremely fortunate, from my perspective, to be trying to make spiritual advancement this close to Srila Prabhupada's manifest lila. We have easy access to a great deal of pure, absolute philosophy spoken by him, in sound vibration or transcribed and printed. If we are sincere, we can decipher the truth from the fiction.
In this regard, I believe that sincere seekers can get some benefit from studying what Kailasa Candra and Bhakta Eric put forward at the Vaisnava Foundation. The problem, of course, is that like all the groups mentioned in the 'hodge podge' section of the paper, the founders and strict followers (we assume there are some) within the Vaisnava Foundation group all believe they are absolutely inline with the disciplic succession, therefore everyone else is a 'smorgasbord type'. Personally, I believe that the Vaisnava Foundation founders should clarify to anyone that reads their material that they're not on the absolute platform -- that they welcome challenges and input, and are not standing 100% on the platform of pure siddhanta, which only a Sampradaya Acarya or pure devotee can claim to be on.
It appears in this article, however, that Bhakta Eric is essentially claiming that everyone else is bogus. He and Kailasa Candra use various terminologies to categorize other groups, such as the "neo-Gaudiya Matha", or the "post-moderns" and "corporate ISKCON". In contrast to their own position or solution, they have shared their perception of what is transpiring amongst these different unbonafide camps and circumstances, whether it be the Rtviks, those who went over to the Gaudiya Matha, those within ISKCON, or those outside of ISKCON who are trying to change it -- and of course, those like myself who accept the Sampradaya Acarya position.
In presenting my thesis, I have emphasized the idea that we could all rally together and engage in some kind of collective effort or movement, casting the widest net in order to have a basis by which we could all cooperate together, if we put at the center the concept of accepting Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya, identifying and glorifying those on that exalted level of Krsna Consciousness who link up our sampradaya. While the Rtviks generally accept Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya, they unfortunately believe that you should only be diksa initiated by Srila Prabhupada, the maha-bhagavata uttama-adhikari, via post-samadhi diksa. That, of course, is an asiddhantic notion.
In his Part Three article, Bhakta Eric states the following:
"The really articulate writers are the post-modern equivalent of munis, and these authors all explain points that set them aside from the others. Someone will claim that the most important order of Srila Prabhupada is to establish varnashrama dharma. Someone else will say book distribution, another Harinam. Yet another will strongly argue that anyone who wants to be taken seriously should chant sixty-four rounds. Some will, quite unnecessarily, insist that the Sampradaya Acarya must be an eternally liberated nitya siddha devotee (what about Srila Narada?). The less experienced readers then pick and choose from all of these many conclusions in much the same way that one makes up a plate at a smorgasbord."
I did challenge the author when I received this article from him, asking him to clarify exactly where I stated this conclusion in my Sampradaya Acarya paper. He couldn't come up with a citation, of course, because I never made that claim in my paper. Bhakta Eric rather vaguely said 'Oh, I don't know where… I think I heard it somewhere' (or something to that effect), but as I pointed out to him, that's a rather unsatisfactory answer. Given the fact that neither he or Kailasa Candra dasa have offered any rebuttal of my Sampradaya Acarya position, and given that Bhakta Eric is publishing his article in my Sampradaya Sun forum, which he knows is the prime venue for promoting the Sampradaya Acarya position, if he was referring to someone else making such a statement, it would behoove him to make that clear. He did not, and we can only assume he was referring to me.
What I did say in my paper was that our Srila Prabhupada, along with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur are, in my belief, all nitya-siddhas. They have been sent by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu in order to fulfill his prediction that Krsna Consciousness would be spread throughout the world. I have never said that "the Sampradaya Acarya must be an eternally liberated nitya siddha devotee". As I often state in my writings, one of my principles is that you cannot say something that restricts Krsna. Krsna can do whatever He likes, anything He desires. If He wants to take a personality who is a sadhana-bhakta and empower them to become a Sampradaya Acarya, then so be it. At the time of writing my Sampradaya Acarya paper, I had not taken the time to do exhaustive research on any exceptions to the rule that within the List of 32, presented by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada, all are nitya-siddha personalities. I am currently working on a new and expanded edition of that paper, and will get into much more detail on that point. But suffice to say, I did not, and would not say that one must be an eternally liberated nitya siddha in order to qualify as a Sampradaya Acarya.
Bhakta Eric challenged me based on the principle that Narada Muni, a personality at the very top of the List of 32, just below Lord Brahma, according to a pastime presented in our sastra was not born a nitya-siddha. Now without getting into a long presentation on the matter here, I believe that this pastime was presented as just that – a pastime, in the same way that Arjuna's pastime was that he appeared to be bewildered in order for Krsna to speak Bhagavad-gita. Narada Muni's pastime is not so different, from my point of view. We know of no evidence that by the time Narada Muni passed the disciplic succession on to Vyasa, who passed it to Madhvacarya, he was not nitya-siddha. And of course, it's within Krsna's power to create a nitya-siddha at any time, empowering a sadhana-bhakta to be eternally liberated.
The pastime of Narada Muni that we assume Bhakta Eric is referring to illustrates a very important aspect of our philosophy -- that there's absolutely no material circumstance that can disqualify anyone from becoming a pure devotee of Krsna, or receiving Krsna's mercy. There are no material pre-requisites for being a pure devotee of Krsna, and this is the very same position Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu made, which was very revolutionary.
On the question of a personality on the List 32 not being nitya-siddha, to my knowledge within bona fide Vaisnava sastra and accepted history, there is nothing to indicate categorically that any one of these personalities is not nitya-siddha -- keeping in mind that Krsna, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu in particular, displayed pastimes in which their pure devotees acted or appeared to be in illusion in order for some pastime to transpire. And like Narada Muni's pastimes, this illustrates a very important aspect of our philosophy.
One might say, for instance, that Srila Prabhupada's birth and pastimes, especially prior to his ISKCON lila period, do not appear to indicate that he is a nitya-siddha personality, and there are even a few statements he made wherein he humbly indicated what might be construed as a declaration that he wasn't nitya-siddha. Likewise, there are many pastimes that took place during Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's lila, such as Haridas Thakur, or a Goswami having essentially been Muslim. But do we highlight that aspect, i.e., indications that could be taken as a sign one is not nitya-siddha, or do we accept that these personalities were part of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's lila, and as such, this is how He chose to present his pure devotees? Similarly, this is the way I view Srila Prabhupada. So this little technical point about Narada Muni that Bhakta Eric tosses out is not enough to disqualify or categorize the Sampradaya Acarya position as being part of some 'smorgasbord' of distraction, which is how he chose to depict it.
"The less experienced readers then pick and choose from all of these many conclusions in much the same way that one makes up a plate at a smorgasbord."
The fact that Bhakta Eric chose to include in his denigrating smorgasbord example what is not a movement (nor is it my desire to create a movement), but is simply my presentation of who is Srila Prabhupada, leads me to consider that Bhakta Eric, Kailasa Candra and the Vaisnava Foundation are finding themselves somewhat frustrated at the present time. In fact, this reality was also indicated in the cover note Bhakta Eric sent with Part One of the Smorgasbord series, which said something to the effect that 'This article won't be ignored!' They apparently feel that they are making all these profound and very articulate presentations, and getting too little response. Personally, I accept that their articles are generally very well craft and well presented, and they do hit upon many essential philosophical points. But they seem to be in a state of almost disbelief that after making these profound statements, people are not rushing to become part of their group.
Of course, as the founding fathers, and particularly Kailasa Candra dasa, they never state categorically if either of them is a pure devotee or a qualified Spiritual Master. One can only assume that's what they are saying (at least with respect to Kailasa Candra), because one of their philosophical points is that you must aspire to find a Spiritual Master who is manifest -- that's the sastra, and we should believe that such a Spiritual Master exists who is genuinely in the sampradaya. Reading between the lines, one could easily conclude that what they are saying is that one or both of them is such a person. A qualified Spiritual Master.
Personally, I have not discouraged anyone from seeing Kailasa Candra as such, nor would I discourage him from accepting disciples if those who came to take shelter and instruction from him wished to enter into that relationship. That said, I don't know him well enough to recommend anyone to him. He has made a habit of staying quite reclusive, and I don't even know if he's inviting people to come and associate with him in that capacity, as a student or disciple. Regardless, I think it's high time that the Vaisnava Foundation's readership gets a very clear answer to this question: Is that how they see themselves? An answer to this question would help us to understand their ultimate motivation. Of course, they wish to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the world and enlighten people on the Absolute Truth and pure siddhanta. According to their own words and presentation, part of that process is to become a disciple of a bona fide Spiritual Master. Now they have very articulately made their position clear, that they don't think anyone else is qualified, and within the realm of reality that we are aware of, that includes ISKCON, the Rtvik camp, and the Gaudiya Matha camp which includes Sridhar Maharaja (and loosely includes B.V. Narayana). Of course, some would include the Vaisnava Foundation as being one of the smorgasbord of options.
As I said, the whole concept of 'smorgasbord' is derogatory. They have used it synonymously with 'hodge podge', which suggests that it's wrong, off, and not philosophically accurate. In order to make such a statement, they must be very confident that what they have to offer has no smorgasbord qualities to it. Therefore, of course, the logic is that we should all surrender to them. They make a point of the fact that everyone within this smorgasbord category is leery about surrendering to a leader, although leadership is essential. Srila Prabhupada did create ISKCON with a hierarchy of leadership, and he clearly understood the importance of leadership. Every entity that creates or maintains something is based on this principle, whether it be a country, a municipality, an army, a business corporation, or a preaching mission – they all need good leadership.
As I've said myself in earlier articles, I do accept the fact that this problem exists, that devotees who have left the ISKCON institution have become very much anarchists in that regard. They don't want to accept anyone as an authority, even though many of them exhibit strong sudra qualities, and by definition require leaders in order for them to function properly and be happy. The whole varnasrama system is based on leaders. At the top you have the two main leaders, the brahmans and the kshatriyas, one taking care of the spiritual leadership and the other taking care of the material leadership. So leadership is essential. Now, the articles by Bhakta Eric have certainly given us the impression that such leadership lies within their ranks at the Vaisnava Foundation, with Kailasa Candra and perhaps also Bhakta Eric. We're not that clear what their relationship is at the present time but obviously, if Kailasa Candra is a bona fide Spiritual Master, one wonders why Bhakta Eric is still Bhakta Eric, and not an initiated disciple of Kailasa Candra? We assume he's not, since he's not presenting himself with a spiritual name, given by his diksa guru.
So this is all somewhat mysterious, and I believe the Vaisnava Foundation should clarify exactly what their solution, and what their perception is of who is a bona fide Spiritual Master – and whether or not Kailasa Candra and Bhakta Eric are such bona fide Spiritual Masters? Are they accepting disciples? Do they believe their perception of the philosophy is absolutely true or more accurate than anyone else within the smorgasbord category? These are the questions that come to my mind, and I invite our readers to analyze the Smorgasbord articles, especially this last one, and give us their opinion on what's contained therein. I think it would be valuable for everyone.
