Hridayananda das Goswami, Krishna West, and Srila Prabhupada's Infallible Purports

BY: KRISHNA KIRTI DAS

Apr 13, 2014 — SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS (SUN) — Maharaja Hridayananda's recent statements questioning the infallibility of Srila Prabhupada's own statements in his Bhaktivedanta purports have raised an important questiton: As followers of Srila Prabhupada, what authority are we obliged to give his statements and still call ourselves his followers? Maharaja writes, "in obedience to Prabhupada's own rule, I accept as infallible a guru's statement that is confirmed in shastra. Nothing Prabhupada said goes 'against shastra.' When Prabhupada speaks on mundane history, his statements are not taken from shastra, but they are not 'against shastra.'"[1] This statement was offered as a clarification for a prior statement Maharaja made when commenting on Srila Prabhupada's purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.20.26: "Prabhupada emphatically taught that the Guru's teachings are infallible because the Guru is simply repeating Shastra. Prabhupada made it very clear that a Guru is not infallible when not repeating Shastra."[2] That is, Maharaja implies that Srila Prabhupada's purport to this verse is not wrong, but it can nonetheless be ignored since it is not in line with shastra. But this is a distinction without difference, and Maharaja has consistently articulated this view of some of Srila Prabhupada's purports for the last ten years.

But if some of Srila Prabhupada's statements about shastra are not taken from shastra, which Maharaja claims is the case with Srila Prabhupada's purport to SB 3.20.26, then what does it mean to call such statements "purports"? To call something a purport is to also declare that this is in fact the meaning of the passage from shastra. But since in this case Maharaja disputes this, he has necessarily called into question Srila Prabhupada's status as a spiritual authority.

The question over Srila Prabhupada's authority is this: Is Srila Prabhupada on a level with other acharyas whose commentaries we also consider infallible? Vallabha Bhatta declared that Sridhara Svami's commentary was inconsistent, but Lord Caitanya rejected Vallabha Bhatta because of this. This pastime shows that accepting the acarya means accepting his explanation of shastra fully and unquestionably as being axiomatically true, just as accepting shastra means accepting it fully and unquestionably as being axiomatically true.

Indeed, if we look at the various disciplic successions, we will notice the above conclusion put in action. The Ramanuja representatives accept Ramanuja's interpretation of the Upanisads and the Vedanta-sutra as found in his books to be as epistemically valid and axiomatically true as the Upanisads and the Vedanta-sutra. The same goes with the Madhva followers. Even the followers of Sankara consider Sankara's commentaries to the Upanisads to be on par with the Upanisads and equally faultless. This is the meaning of acceptance of a parampara-acarya.

The moment you say that you accept the scripture fully and unquestionably but that you accept the acarya's interpretation of that scripture only partially, it means, in polite scholarly language, you don't accept that acarya the way you are meant to.

Notice that Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu told Sarvabhauma politely that he accepted the Vedanta-sutra but not the Sariraka-bhasya of Sankara. Now, any student of the multiple interpretations of the Vedanta-sutra knows that it is not that Ramanuja or Madhva or any of the other Vaisnava commentators claim that each and every word or sentence of Sankara's Sariraka-bhasya is wrong and hence unacceptable to them. Even a Ramanuja or Madhva follower will confidently assert that they accept Sankara's interpretation of the Upanisads and the Vedanta-sutra when they are in line with shastra, but not when they are not in line with shastra. This is common in traditional brahminical circles in India when dealing with a commentary of a person who is your philosophical opponent. But if you examine the subcommentaries to Ramanuja's writings written by his own parampara followers or the subcommentaries to Madhva's writings written by his parampara followers, it is plain and explicit that the subcommentaries are defensive of their respective acarya and go to great lengths to show how the commentary of Ramanuja or Madhva, as the case may be, is as correct as shastra.

And followers of Ramanuja and Madhva and even our acaryas certainly quote statements of Sankara which are in line with shastra, and even we Gaudiya Vaisnavas will happily say, to the dismay of Sankara's disciplic followers, that we accept Sankara when he follows shastra. It is the "when he follows shastra" which means "we don't accept him the way we accept shastra". But that is never for one's own parampara-acaryas. Never. But because Hridayananda Goswami conditional accepts Srila Prabhupada's purports (only if they are in line with shastra) Maharaja has become a learned opponent, not a follower, of Srila Prabhupada.

This is no different from the affectionate and respectful attitude of Prabhupada's and some of the previous acaryas' biological children who disagreed with their respective fathers' explanation of shastra. In Kali-yuga, this attitude is certainly understandable when it is found in biological children of parampara acaryas, but not when it is found in disciples and disciplic followers of parampara acaryas.

If Prabhupada's "purport" to the Bhagavatam is not in line with the Bhagavatam, then definitely he has misunderstood the intended meaning of the Bhagavatam, at least here and there. But if that view is legitimate, then what is the use of claiming to be a "parampara follower" of Prabhupada and his predecessor acaryas? Such claims would have no worth. Hrdayananda Maharaja could honestly admit that he loves and respects Prabhupada and his predecessor acaryas fully, but that he disagrees with Prabhupada's explanation of shastra here and there, all, of course, to fulfill the mission of Prabhupada (despite what some take to be Prabhupada's partial misunderstandings of shastra) to spread Krishna consciousness to the West. But if this view continues to be tolerated, it will instead spell the end of ISKCON as an authentic instrument of Srila Prabhupada's parampara.

Indeed, the recent GBC publication Srila Prabhupada, the Founder Acarya of ISKCON (2014), defines Srila Prabhupada's status as Founder-Acharya of ISKCON and gives a thorough theological justification for it. This status clearly puts Srila Prabhupada on a level at least with that of other parampara acharyas whose purports to shastra we regard as axiomatically true and infallible. Therein it is written,

"We revere and learn from the many great ācāryas in our line, yet as ISKCON Founder-Ācārya, Śrīla Prabhupāda becomes unique among them for us. In ISKCON, Prabhupāda himself remains present, generation after generation, as the single prominent śikṣā guru immanent in the life of each and every ISKCON devotee—a perpetual, indwelling active guiding and directing presence. He is thus the soul of ISKCON. As such, Śrīla Prabhupāda himself continues to act effectively in this world so long as ISKCON continues as the coherent expression and unified instrument of his will. In this way Śrīla Prabhupāda remains the soul of ISKCON, and ISKCON his body" (47).

But if Srila Prabhupada as Founder-Acharya of ISKCON is "the soul of ISKCON" and Srila Prabhupada's own purports are sometimes called into question, then the fundamental legitimacy of ISKCON itself is called into question. Close to the disappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, a leading manager in the Gaudiya Math decided to perform the sraddha ceremony for his deceased mother according to smarta rites rather than Vaishnava rites, and Sarasvati Thakura declared that the lack of faith in such a prominent leader would be the downfall of the Math.

Similarly, a lack of faith in Srila Prabhupada's status as Founder-Acharya of ISKCON will be the downfall of ISKCON. Allowing ISKCON's members—especially leaders—to entertain a less-than-100% acceptance of the infallibility of Srila Prabhupada's shastra vakya is incompatible with our professed acceptance of Srila Prabhupada's status as Founder-Acharya. Hence allowing such views to remain unreformed and unopposed within ISKCON is to assent to ISKCON's corruption if not dissolution. If unopposed, Maharaja Hridayananda's view of Srila Prabhupada's purports as he articulates it will certainly have this effect.

What should authentic reform look like? At a minimum, Maharaja would have to produce a full, sincere and public repudiation of his 2005 paper "Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality", a repudiation of his more recent statements on Draupadi and Yudhisthira, and a general repudiation of his hermeneutical principles that define him as an opponent, not a follower of Srila Prabhupada. It must not be yet another vacuous promise to not disturb others' minds. In 2009, Maharaja wrote the following "apology" for his participation in a "homosexual commitment" ceremony:

"In compliance with that resolution [2009:317] I have flown to Philadelphia and on April 11, 2009 met with H.H. Bir Krishna das Goswami and H.G. Ravindra Svarupa dasa, the GBC delegation. . . . I am writing to reaffirm that I uphold the Krishna conscious principle that sexual union is for procreation within marriage, and that no spiritual leader should encourage or endorse any other form of sexual relation. I regret that I acted and spoke in such a way as to give many an impression to the contrary. I am sorry."[3]

But he is clearly not sorry, as his recent statement on this very subject shows that he publicly stands by his former statements:

'When I state that devotees should encourage gay devotees to give up promiscuity in favor of disciplined monogamy, KK states: "…Srila Prabhupada… unequivocally condemned the very notion—even for the general public, what to speak of for his own devotees." In fact, Prabhupada often stated that Krishna consciousness is a gradual process for everyone. He encouraged everyone to gradually give up sense gratification. Prabhupada condemned intoxication but he stated that the alcoholic should try to see Krishna as the taste in wine.'[4]

In contravention of his public promise in 2009 not to "encourage or endorse any other form of sexual relation," we find that after five years, by defending his former statements, he goes against the letter and spirit of his public 2009 apology. If Maharaja can still publicly stand by all these statements of his, which he had supposedly apologized for, then what was the point of the GBC forcing him make such an apology? There was no point to it, which is why only promises at this point are not enough to acknowledge that he has factually accepted Srila Prabhupada's authority as ISKCON's Founder-Acharya.

The alternative is that he leave ISKCON to found his own institution fully independent of ISKCON. That may be the better solution because, if reform is not possible, it reduces the risk of Maharaja and his Krishna West project contaminating the rest of ISKCON proper with the idea that Srila Prabhupada's purports are only conditionally true. And then Maharaja would have the freedom and comfort to be respected as one of the many, learned scholarly devotees of other Vaisnava institutions who are well-wishers of ISKCON.

Your servant,
Krishna-kirti das

End Notes

________________________________________

[1] "Hridayananda Das Goswami response to Krishna Kirti Das on Krishna West" 10 Apr. 2014, ISKCON.us 13 Apr. 2014.

[2] "Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality" 2005, Acharyadeva.com, 13 Apr. 2014.

[3] "Hridayananda dasa Goswami's letter to the GBC", 11 Apr. 2009, Dandavats, 13 Apr. 2014.

[4] "Hridayananda Das Goswami response to Krishna Kirti Das on Krishna West".