From Common Sense Depart?

BY: ROCANA DASA

Oct 16, CANADA (SUN) — Dear Kesava Krsna dasa, thank you for your most recent response. Your apologies are accepted.

In my last article, I didn't offer the quotes from Srila Prabhupada as an answer to your challenges so much as to illustrate a certain important point: Since time immemorial, the ultimate problem in Krsna Consciousness is in determining what level of advancement someone else is on, and acting accordingly. Whether they be a diksa guru, Tridandi sannyasi or GBC, we should not simply depend on the outward dress or designation to make our determinations for us. Instead, we use sastra and guru as a way to determine whether or not the person is worthy of worship or, in some cases, of criticism. What is in question is whether or not one should see fit, as I do, to express their observations, conclusions and detailed analysis of such persons.

Naturally in our conditioned state we have built-in filters, and I'm in a different type of relationship than you with the persons you claim I'm being so critical of. If you need a reference in terms of both guru and sastra, then I refer you to a morning walk that Srila Prabhupada took on September 4, 1975 in Vrindavan:

Prabhupada: "That is bodily. (chuckles) That is another foolishness. Just like we have dress. So this dress of sannyasi is not all. I must be real sannyasi in knowledge, in education, in behavior, not that... Hitler studies by the dress. That is the foolishness. It is not by the dress, but by the quality. Dress is also required. As I am sannyasi, I cannot dress otherwise. That is also essential. But if one judges, “Here is a sannyasi,” then he’ll misled. That is being done. People are being exploited in the dress of a sannyasi, although actually he is not sannyasa. That is also stated in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. “A sannyasi or a brahmana will be accepted by the outward feature.” If somebody has got a thread only, two paisa worth, he becomes a brahmana. And when one takes a danda, he becomes a sannyasi. This will be the identification in the Kali-yuga."

You may answer that the personalities you're so concerned over have some sanction from other members of the institution, but need I go to the extent of pointing out ISKCON history? Someone who's had two initiations go south is, in and of themselves an illustration of what I'm saying. In other words, the reason that persons who have fallen and stayed in power in ISKCON is that their peers took the same position you hold. Being a fallen leader in ISKCON can mean actually accepting disciples, what to speak of representing the sannyasa order, Srila Prabhupada, the GBC body and ISKCON. Many leaders held these positions while it was well known amongst their peers, sometimes for many years, that they were actually fallen. Still they took the same position you hold today. I've brought this up before, but you will not acknowledge it to be true, even though you were a double victim of such circumstance.

Now you may consider that I'm critical of these persons, but I'll again point out that what I'm really finding fault with is not a particular person's character, but rather the asiddhantic system that they were upholding and involved in which actually caused their fall down. Those leaders who have fallen down from their exalted positions, and those even today who are in the process of falling down while they still hold such lofty positions, are a great loss to the Sankirtana movement of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Unless people speak out about this and put pressure on the institutional leaders, from whatever position they happen to be in themselves, nothing will ever change. In my case, I have a certain degree of approval from my guru to do this, by his own actions and by the very fact that I'm his disciple, and I have a duty to protect or try to stop the deterioration of the transcendental movement that he started. But you think I should put all that aside just for the sake of avoiding criticism, or aparadha, as you call it.

You don't have to read much, even on ISKCON websites like Dandavats, to find those who are themselves members of the GBC, such as Prahladananda Swami, saying virtually the same things I am saying. I encourage everyone to read the excellent paper written by Prahladananda Swami, Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, published in today's Sun. While he's not "naming names", he is saying many of the same things I and others on the outside have been saying for years. I presume you feel that he's "authorized", but you don't feel that I'm authorized. Who knows, after reading his paper, perhaps you'll think Prahladananda Maharaja is no longer authorized, either. Or is it simply "naming names" that determines one's real authorization to speak the truth? Please also remember the following instruction, which Srila Prabhupada committed to sastra in his purport to Bhagavad-gita 10:4:

"According to social conventions, it is said that one can speak the truth only when it is palatable to others. But that is not truthfulness. The truth should be spoken in such a straight and forward way, so that others will understand actually what the facts are. If a man is a thief and if people are warned that he is a thief that is truth. Although sometimes the truth is unpalatable, one should not refrain from speaking it. Truthfulness demands that the facts be presented as they are for the benefit of others. That is the definition of truth."

Srila Prabhupada does not say here that we should speak the truth, but not "name names". He says we must call the thief a thief so others will know who the thief actually is. In that way, they can protect themselves. This brings the issue down to the personal level, not into the realm of abstraction for the sake of Vaisnava etiquette. So Kesava Krsna dasa, how do you reconcile this instruction with your idea that one should never criticize or talk specifically about an individual -- particularly one who is involved in asiddhantic activities -- because that is considered aparadhi criticism?

As for those ISKCON leaders who damaged the Hare Krsna movement, I think Srila Prabhupada would consider them to be rascals: Jayatirtha, Kirtanananda, Bhavananda, Bhagavan, and the list goes on. All were "authorized" at one time, even while they perpetrated much nonsense against Srila Prabhupada's movement. Yet according to you, because they were "Vaisnavas", it would have been aparadha to criticize them.

The list of such individuals is extensive. I believe there are more than 100 names of people who were once sannyasis, gurus or GBC who've fallen down and left Srila Prabhupada's movement. Had there been a free press within ISKCON, giving people the ability to speak up without being shut down (in the same way you're advocating I should be shut down) it might have helped save them and saved Srila Prabhupada's movement from being so seriously impacted. We could also have saved all the individuals who had to suffer as a result of their leaders' fall downs. Despite the fact that they could have and should have been 'outed' or arrested, they were allowed to remain in power positions and instead many good people, serious devotees, were ousted from the movement because they spoke out against them. That's essentially what we're talking about here, and it is precisely what you've been advocating throughout this conversation.

The people who caused the most serious impact against ISKCON, holding back or stifling ISKCON's potential growth, have not been the "common people", but the leaders. It was their choice to take all this responsibility. In fact, many of them took positions not only out of their own choice, but they tried to keep others from taking positions themselves. The GBC tried to limit the number of GBC. Those who are sannyasis try to put all sorts of hurdles in front of people who want to take sannyasa, even though they themselves didn't have to go through the same hurdles. Even while they themselves are fallen, these leaders have created impediments for others who want to serve as leaders, under the guise of "protecting them" from the risk of fall down

There's also a famous morning walk that took place Feb 26, 1976, wherein Srila Prabhupada was talking about taking sannyasa:

Prabhupada: ...no more desire of material enjoyment he is fit for sannyasa. Anyone who sees: “Oh, this car is very nice. This beautiful wife is very... A very beautiful woman is very nice,” he should not think of taking sannyasa. Visa-bhaksanad apy asadhu: “Such desires is most abominable, more than taking poison.” To commit suicide by taking poison is most abominable thing, because he’s going to be a ghost. He’ll be punished to become a ghost, those who commit suicide. Or, if one is suddenly killed and he has so many desires, he becomes ghost. Therefore visa-bhaksana, taking poison, and die untimely, is most abominable, or commit suicide. By the material law also, to attempt to commit suicide is criminal. You know that?
Devotees: Yeah.
Prabhupada: Yes. It is criminal. (Bengali) If you take sannyasa... Just like there are so many sannyasis, for filling up the belly. Wherever you go they give some alms. But in..., outside India, who cares for the sannyasi? Then why you should be eager to take sannyasa and cheat yourself? You cannot cheat others, but you can cheat yourself.
Hridayananda: Outside India a sannyasi will starve.
Prabhupada: (laughs) So I do not know why our disciples are so anxious to take sannyasa, at least those who are outside. Everyone comes: “Give me sannyasa.” What is the idea?

Not only does Srila Prabhupada complain about people taking sannyasa, but those in attendance inform Srila Prabhupada that they have a new policy where sanyassi candidates have to prove themselves by exhibiting grand preaching efforts over a one-year period. They claim that the only motivation many candidates (other than themselves) have for taking sannyasa is that they want to more easily become leaders or they want to get away from ISKCON authority. For those who know the individuals speaking, they know this ulterior motive applies to them as much as anybody else.

We all know the embarrassing history of guru-ships in ISKCON. For practically ten years [1977-1986], the elite and those who were closest to them were the only ones they allowed to give diksa. And it was only due to grassroots criticism, by the way, that the Zonal Acarya system was partially dismantled. The same nonsense arguments you're presenting to me, those of us who participated in the reform movement in 1985 heard from the Zonal Acaryas. Strangely enough, several of those who are the "big gurus" today are the very same ones who fully supported the Zonal Acaryas, and took over all their disciples when they fell down. Today's big heroes were the Zonals' greatest supporters at the time. When I talk about HH Radhanatha Swami or HH Bhakti Tirtha Swami or HH Indrayumna Swami, or HH Sivarama Swami, just to mention a few, these were the hand-picked, right-hand men of the Zonal Acaryas. It was these individuals who were sent out on behalf of the Zonal Acaryas to silence their critics. Now, viola, here they are! With all the re-initiated disciples of all these fallen Zonal Acaryas. So if you think that this system is worth defending, and that cooperation means to work within and support the system, let alone go out and publicly defend it, as you're doing, then I think you're sadly illusioned.

So while I'm "naming names", I'm not so concerned with talking about the individuals. I am very concerned in talking about the Zonal Acarya system, or the Gopi Bhava Club, and other particular asiddhantic programs that were established by these persons. When I talk about an individual, it's in the context of a bogus system that is harming the movement and must be changed. You charge me with "publicizing bad qualities", but because you never mention names, I don't even know who you're talking about.

You wrote:

"The truth is, Srila Prabhupada does not condone any of the above either in his writings or by the spoken word. It is against his character as a pure devotee."

And:

"The natural inclination of an advancing devotee is that he feels himself unworthy, while the others are so, not liable for criticism of any kind."

I can only say that if one takes on the external trappings of an advanced devotee such as a sannyasi, guru, and so on, then this should apply to them much more than anybody else, including me. They're the ones who have embraced such a high degree of worship, and who are so critical of any Godbrothers who are in any way not kowtowing to the latest system they've put in place. After all, they're the ones that became "instant imitation" Acaryas right after Srila Prabhupada left, and later, in the late eighties, felt they had some exclusivity when it came to being "initiated" by Narayana Maharaja into the topmost echelons of rasa lila, to the exclusion of other Godbrothers/sisters. So I don't know where you get this idea that I should be more advanced by being less critical and more forgiving than they are. Even though they're the ones who enjoy all the adoration and distinction on account of being seen as advanced, your ideas is that the outsider grhastas like myself should display more advanced qualities than the sannyasis, GBC and gurus. By definition, they are supposed to set the highest standard and show by example. And your final conclusion is that we "common folks" should all just keep our mouths shut and "cooperate", regardless of what our God-given intelligence and common sense dictate. As Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur writes in his poem, Jiva Soul:

Should man, the Lord of all around,
From common sense depart?
Man's glory is in common sense
Dictating us the grace,
That man is made to live and love
The beauteous Heaven's embrace.

I continually come back to the theme that ISKCON should adopt what other civilized societies have -- freedom of the press and freedom of expression. These brahminical ideals serve as important safeguards for a healthy society, helping it to run smoothly in the age of Kali. There should be guidelines, no doubt, in terms of regulating free speech, and society should be protected by laws against slander, defamation of character, etc. I'm all for that. But in terms of speaking the truth about what is actually taking place, regardless if this truth negatively impacts someone in a high position of authority, then I think that such a policy must be instituted.

What administrator, since the beginning of time, has not loved this formula of being completely beyond the criticism of his constituency? Let’s keep in mind that those “personalities” of whom you speak so highly chose to become GBC along with all the other duties most of them assumed by taking disciples and/or becoming sannyasis. In the community where I reside there are disciples who haven’t personally heard an instructive or encouraging word from their “eternal” diksa guru, Satsvarupa Goswami, for nearly twenty years.

In order to cooperatively and productively participate in human society, the brahmana must feel free to say what he feels in his heart to be against the principles of guru, sadhu and sastra. The seer of truth must be able to defend his statements on that basis, and that's what I'm attempting to do. I don't think I've deviated from that honest position into fault-finding. Our Srila Prabhupada said what he had to say, many, many times in terms of criticizing everyone and everything that he didn't feel was inline with our absolute disciplic conclusions. Our advanced sastra even criticizes Lord Brahma and Lord Shiva so as to show that everyone in this material world is susceptible to falldown. Let us not forget the example of Lord Balarama killing Romaharshana Suta for not recognizing his divine position. The Zonals obviously and purposefully minimized their extraordinary spiritual master, the nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya, in order to make themselves appear “advanced” to the rest of us.

Let's be abundantly clear that our sastra and disciplic succession are completely straightforward when it comes to calling a spade a spade. Srila Prabhupada made no excuses and never apologized for what he had to say. But of course, the way ISKCON is setup today, people like you, Kesava Krsna dasa, find it so easy to comfortably comply with the existing sick situation. I think that your position is a detriment to the well being of Srila Prabhupada's spiritual movement.

| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |

| About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |