This Ain’t Hearsay – Part 2

BY: RADHA KRISHNA DAS

Dec 06, MEXICO CITY (SUN) — In his various articles, Hridayananda’s virtual sidekick, Krishna das, refuses to deal with the issues of Hridayananda’s long history of lusty behavior, mundane lifestyle, or deviation from the orthodox Vaisnava doctrine that he was supposed to represent. Instead, he goes into an airy rambling about Vaisnava ideals and loving exchanges not practiced at the Sun. But facts are what really matter. Excuses don’t do. Hridayananda’s actual behavior is the most important evidence of his character.

Much has been said about Hridayananda already. Nonetheless, I want to relate another instance that will help us understand better the dilemma with him. For a change it has nothing to do with saris or fashion, but with Hridayananda’s conception of himself in relation to Srila Prabhupada.

In the progression from thoughts to words to actions, words are usually not considered as important as actions. My daughter once told me, "I don't love you anymore," which I didn't take seriously as her actions tell a different story. But in certain instances, words mean everything, and through them we can judge a person's character. To mind comes Jesus Christ saying, "I am the Way." His miracles, personal example and teachings made him indeed "the Way" to an audience desperate for the Biblical messiah. But if a guy in the street says, "I am Jesus Christ," we'll know what to make of it.

In Hridayananda's case, certain statements made by him over the years reveal what he thinks about himself and Srila Prabhupada. Unfortunately for the English speaking audience, these most intimate revelations are reserved for the Spanish and Portuguese speaking devotees.

One day back in the late 1970s, his old buddy Jayajagadish came to my office at the Spanish BBT in Los Angeles. He was disturbed, and proceeded to play for me a tape in Spanish that he had just received as head of Hridayananda's tape ministry, which was located at our offices. It was a question-and-answer session. One devotee asked Hridayananda who were more fortunate, Srila Prabhupada's disciples or his own disciples. He immediately replied that his own disciples were more fortunate because they had both Srila Prabhupada and him. Time has shown otherwise. Countless newcomers have received a minimized Srila Prabhupada and a truckload of nonsense.

But this is an old story, you may say. It is a consistent trend nonetheless. So let's fast forward to December 28th, 2005, to the Mexican city of Leon, where Hridayananda is conducting an outdoors istagosthi while visiting some of his hardcore fans. He is dressed as a karmi for reasons that beat me, while a good portion of the audience wears traditional Vaisnava attire.

Harikatha das, one of his eldest disciples and maybe less of a zombie than the rest, starts by asking Hridayananda why he abandoned his disciples for eight years [by not coming to Mexico] when his support was required, and made them feel as orphans. Hridayananda proceeds to reply making various points, as follows.

    "Prabhupada… traveled for twelve years. I… have been traveling for almost thirty four years, in other words almost three times more than what Prabhupada traveled."

We all know that this is a blatant lie, from different perspectives. To begin with, Srila Prabhupada's traveling mission in the West lasted 13 years (1965-1977), not 12, while "almost" 34 years is not the same as 34. So 13 in relation to less than 34 comes short of the "almost three times more" that Hridayananda announces in his contest against his own spiritual master.

Then, Srila Prabhupada's travels as a missionary were not limited to his work in the West. Back in 1953, Srila Prabhupada registered The League of Devotees, which is a direct predecessor of ISKCON all the way down to its statutes and mission statement to divulge the teachings of our param guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur.

But lets go back further in time. In 1944, Srila Prabhupada started Back to Godhead and continued writing, printing and distributing it until 1960, when he began concentrating on the Srimad Bhagavatam. During World War II it was difficult to secure paper for BTG, and Srila Prabhupada moved to different cities all those years. Nonetheless, he would always find the way of printing and distributing it. Then Srila Prabhupada began publishing and distributing books in the 1950s, starting with Easy Journey, which always required endeavor and travel.

For Hridayananda, Srila Prabhupada's decades-long activities in India traveling and preaching don't mean anything. He is in competition against his own guru, and he even thinks that he already beat him. "Srila Prabhupada traveled for only 12 years and I have been doing it for 34 years. I am much better than him." And his sheepish audience reacts: "Jaya Acharyadeva."

The fact is that Hridayananda hadn't been traveling and preaching for almost 34 years, as he stated. By 1984 he had permanently stopped living in ISKCON temples and spent years studying in college, away from ISKCON's mainstream missionary activities. He even resigned from the GBC to concentrate on his private affairs. Then, during the istagosthi he himself declares that by the end of 1977, he was experiencing recurring nervous breakdowns that kept him prostrated for months at a time. How is it then that he has been traveling for almost 34 years? Maybe the total range of years added up to almost 34, but it is full of gaps that severely decrease his actual "flying time".

And Hridayananda is saying all this nonsense precisely as a reply to a very simple question: "Why did you abandon us for so many years?" He abandoned his mission of preaching and developing Latin America, which was Srila Prabhupada's most important instruction to him, made evident by the fact of naming him ritvik guru for this portion of the planet. But he considers this time of neglect as part of his glorious "almost 34 years" of travels. Manipulation of facts and numbers seems to be his expertise.

We also have to consider Hridayananda's own words during the istagosthi, that the guru needs "a life of his own," which would further decrease actual time traveling in missionary work. The numbers just don't add up, except in Hridayananda's head, attempting to look superior to his own guru, Srila Prabhupada. His fans exclaim anyway: "Jaya Acharyadeva."

Then there is the quality of the preaching work. Let's be honest. Hridayananda can travel for a hundred years but it won't match one second of Srila Prabhupada's preaching. He goes to a place demanding to be worshipped, served, entertained, glorified, congratulated for his jokes and have his lackeys jump fast every time he shouts to them. He travels around dressed as a karmi, chatting with girls, coming up with foolish jokes, and taking away money from the temples. In Srila Prabhupada's case, we had the travels of a nitya-siddha; with Hridayananda we have the flying circus of a nitya-baddha.

Let's now see the result of Srila Prabhupada's 12 years of preaching and travel, compared to Hridayananda's "almost 34 years." Srila Prabhupada formed a powerful spiritual movement that presented Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings worldwide for the first time in history. In turn, Hridayananda has been exploiting that same institution for his own sense gratification, has mismanaged it again and again, has been a key factor in every crisis this movement has experienced, and his "preaching" is tinged with his mundane considerations that alter the correct development of the Movement.

Hridayananda then tells of about his experiences as a guru:

    "Certain devotees see the guru more or less as a blessing machine, a guru that doesn't need to have his own life."

For Hridayananda, the guru indeed requires to "have his own life" ("tener su propia vida", in Spanish), a private life. Nonetheless, he is wrong and is simply trying to justify his own anartha-laden lifestyle. The fact is that real gurus and sannyasis don't need their "own life" because they are selfless and compassionate. In fact, they should not have their own life. If they want it, they should resign as sannyasis and gurus.

Maybe a married Vaisnava guru in an Indian village may need a few moments here and there to take care of his family affairs and home maintenance, but he still acts as a paka-Vaisnava and probably has some brahmacaris living at his home, which is always open to everyone. But that is not the same as maintaining a private life in Gainesville or Beverly Hills, surrounded by smiling damsels, teaching mundane academics at the local college, and playing Bach on a keyboard.

And in ISKCON, due to Srila Prabhupada's personal example as a sannyasi and guru, the principle of total commitment to the mission of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu should be stressed. His example was one of dedication 24 hours a day, body and soul in the service of Lord Krishna, of His devotees, and of the conditioned souls who want relief from material existence. Indeed, gurus and sannyasis don't have their "own life." Their life is one of dedication and surrender.

I remember watching back in 1987 a TV interview with a young charismatic Catholic priest, during Pope John Paul's visit to Los Angeles. The interviewer asked him what had it meant for him to become a priest. His answer was: "Before, first it was me, then it was me, and at the end it was me. And if there was any time left I could then think about others. Now it is the opposite. First there are the others, then the others and at the end the others. If after that, if there is a moment left I can use it for my basic needs."

This priest is talking about a life of dedication to the Christian mission. And if we see Srila Prabhupada's example, or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura's or the Six Goswamis', it is the same life of dedication to internal practice and unlimited mercy, far removed from Hridayananda's concoction of "a life of his own" for a guru or a sannyasi.

And this "life of his own" is such a pernicious trend if we consider the way Hridayananda has been munching on the Movement. I remember that once, after having become "Acharyadeva," he came to Los Angeles and ordered me that the Spanish BBT had to buy him a Cadillac for him to use during his visits there. Ramesvara's shiny Mercedes Benz had awakened his competitive spirit. I refused to do it. I also remember that back in the late 1970s he once arrived at the Brazilian farm, demanding that they build him his own house with a swimming pool. I was there when that happened. In a later visit the house was already built, with Devamrta dasi included as an assistant. And then we have his legendary visits to Mexico, whose high point was when he was offered thousands of dollars as dakshina from each temple. There are plenty of witnesses to that. Just a short time ago in our blog there was a story from those days, when he asked the President of the temple in Veracruz to loan him $10,000 U.S. He never returned it or sent any explanation.

In his mind, everything belonged to him and everything was his to enjoy. In Miami the same trend appeared. He built his personal quarters on the penthouse, spending more money on it than on the temple room underneath. And after all his demands and whims were satisfied, he moved anyway to a rental in the building next door. With these attitudes it is understandable that he backs the idea that the guru has to have "his own life."

Then Hridayananda points this out:

    " [Some devotees think that the guru] doesn't need to take care of his own health, and that his ideal destiny is to become a martyr, that his most glorious destiny is "to die in the battlefield."

This is just more of his nonsense. I don't know of anyone who expects that sannyasis, preachers and gurus be negligent with their own health and toil until they collapse and die. He is saying this only to justify himself and manipulate the sentiments of his audience.

Here he confuses causes with consequences. We all agree that the guru shouldn't just labor until collapsing and dying "in the battlefield." But we have seen how a bunch of voracious individuals, who named themselves successor "acharyas" of Srila Prabhupada, tried to exploit and monopolize fame and glory. After experiencing a severe case of existential indigestion for trying to swallow the entire universe and receiving unexpected karmic reactions due to their ambition, many of them fled from their original responsibilities, arguing that they were dying on the battlefield and they now need "their own life."

Hridayananda next says something that we have heard a thousand times, but that by now hardly any one believes:

    "In the year 1977, Prabhupada named eleven devotees to take on the responsibility of becoming gurus. …amongst us only few survived. Thanks to Krishna I am one of them."

Srila Prabhupada didn't name Hridayananda guru in 1977, nor in any other year. Srila Prabhupada didn't name him an acharya either, as he himself and the other ten individuals claimed. And Srila Prabhupada would have never allowed Hridayananda to call himself "Acharyadeva," considering the lousy example that he has been giving for years.

Hridayananda and 10 others forced ISKCON to accept them as enlightened acharyas and bonafide successors of Srila Prabhupada, abusing everyone's sense of cooperation and desire to make ISKCON succeed. But in due course of time, their offenses got to them. Some of them went crazy, others simply fell down, others turned to a life of isolation and weirdness, and still others have experienced severe illness and sudden death. What we know is that some sort of heavy curse fell upon the impostor successor acharyas. The only ones still around ISKCON are Satsvarupa, Jayapataka and Hridayananda. We all witnessed how fallen and confused Satsvarupa IS. Jayapataka suffered a stroke last year that left him incapacitated. And Hridayananda has been living almost like a karmi for years, with many devotees doubting that he really survived.

Hridayananda then goes back to competing against Srila Prabhupada.

    "Prabhupada took sannyasa at age 63. I took sannyasa at age 23."

Hridayananda continues with his obsession of comparing himself with Srila Prabhupada. This time, it is the age at which they took sannyasa. Here, less is more. Srila Prabhupada is 63, and Hridayananda is 23. Hridayananda wins. In any case, the logic of his comparison beats me, as it cannot explain his mundane behaviour.

We also have to consider the quality as a sannyasi in both cases. Hridayananda is 60 years old now, and in a short time he will be 63, the same age as Srila Prabhupada when he took sannyasa. But Hridayananda often looks like a karmi and it is improbable that he will change much by age 63. Instead, his anarthas and karmi lifestyle are likely to intensify. He will play his keyboard better, his closet will have more and newer karmi clothing, he will have new Crocs to put on during initiations, there will most likely be more pics of him hugging young girls, he will have learned new ways of making his audience laugh, and he will have sat dressed as a karmi on more vyasasanas. Some people bet that he won't even be a sannyasi when he reaches 63. In this context we don't really understand why he tries to compare himself to Srila Prabhupada like this.

    "At age 25, Prabhupada put me in charge of 20 countries."

We see here again Hridayananda's tendency to praise himself and to twist facts in order to appear important. Back in 1974, Srila Prabhupada named him GBC of Latin America. At that time ISKCON had temples in Mexico, Venezuela, Puerto Rico and Argentina. That doesn't ad up to 20. So what he says is false. In the next couple of years temples were opened in 6 more countries due mostly to our godbrothers' unstoppable desire to please Srila Prabhupada. But even that doesn't add up to 20 countries, and by then Hridayananda wasn't 25 anymore. Do you get the point? Hridayananda needs to manipulate the facts, and twist the truth to look better, sometimes even better than Srila Prabhupada.

    "I faced the challenge of assuming the role of guru... in a society completely convulsed."

It was the immaturity and personal ambition of ISKCON's leaders, particularly the 11 who had been named ritviks, that created so much convulsion in the Movement. In order to establish a system in which they appeared as pure devotees, the world was divided into 11 private zones of influence. They had to crush the opposition, lie frequently, keep their own scandals under the rug, fight among themselves for money and followers, etc.

ISKCON became convulsed due to people like Hridayananda. It is false that he became a guru in a convulsed institution. He and others were the cause. At that time, the real challenge was to lead an institution in the right direction, endeavoring with selflessness and intelligence. But that didn't happen. The opportunity of a lifetime was wasted. Now he tries to present himself as a hero when in fact, he was screwing up Srila Prabhupada's mission while carving a little empire for himself.

Conclusion

The abstract presented here corresponds to just the first few minutes of the istagosthi, which goes on for another two hours! With arrogance, false statements, twisted facts, and minimizing Srila Prabhupada, Hridayananda expects to convince his gullible audience in Leon that he is doing just fine.

We wonder, what is the need of saying that he has traveled three times more than Srila Prabhupada, or that he took sannyasa three times younger than Srila Prabhupada? Would you, dear godbrother/sister, make comparisons of this kind? His desperation to change the facts to look like a hero is so evident. Throughout the istagosthi you hear his half-truths, excuses and manipulations, like when he considers as bickering any complaint against the institution, and so on.

His own words, which are not just hearsay, as we can listen to them on YouTube, give the rest of us a glimpse of the real Hridayananda, the one who has been able to set his own rules in an anarchic and decadent institution. No one expects anymore for the GBC to assume a proactive, firm attitude in his case or in the thousands of other issues lagging in the society. But at least we individually can have an idea of what is really going on in ISKCON and with an individual who considers himself a bona fide representative of Srila Prabhupada.

Here is Part 1 of 11 of the recorded darshan in Leon, Mexico.

This Ain't Hearsay – Part I



Homepage


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

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

Copyright 2005, HareKrsna.com. All rights reserved.