BY: ROCANA DASA
Aug 21, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.
Thanks to the presence of the new website, Dandavats.com, we again have a chance to hear from some of our ISKCON leaders on the Net. In the spirit of open dialogue, we are happy to launch this new weekly column, "Obeisances to Dandavats". Each week, we will comment on and challenge the philosophical accuracy of recently published articles and editorials on Dandavats.com.
While we applaud any effort to communicate to the Vaisnava community, the real challenge comes not in publishing editorial material, but in dealing openly and directly with rebuttals and engaging in meaningful dialogue with challengers. It takes time, honesty, and philosophical agility to defend one's position. So, each week we'll comment on the Dandavats offering, and will hope to see replies come back from across the water.
We'll begin the series by commenting on the recent article by HH Satsvarupa dasa, "How All Generations Can Stay with Srila Prabhupada".
Satsvarupa dasa begins his article by bringing up what he calls "the final lesson", which is his remembrance of Srila Prabhupada in the final days leading up to his disappearance. Reading this brought back emotional memories for me, as Satsvarupa dasa played a significant role in my life in the final days of Srila Prabhupada's manifest lila.
Just prior to leaving his body, Srila Prabhupada instructed his senior men to ask all his disciples to come see him during his final days. Unfortunately, the authorities decided that they were not going to comply with this request, and they instead instructed that only a few of the senior disciples should be summoned. Being the Temple President of Seattle at that time, with Satsvarupa dasa as my GBC, I was invited by Satsvarupa to go with him to Vrindavan to be with Srila Prabhupada.
Shortly after we arrived, I was personally present when the GBC who were attending Srila Prabhupada, which of course included Satsvarupa dasa, met and decided that they were going to make a joint plea to Srila Prabhupada to stay. Their philosophical assumption apparently was that if they simply asked him to stay, he had so much spiritual potency that he could ask Krsna to let him stay and his request would be granted. At least, that's what appeared to be happening on the surface.
Shortly thereafter, I happened to be in the room with Srila Prabhupada, massaging his feet, when they all crowded into his room unannounced and began to make an empassioned plea for him to stay. From my vantage point, it seemed to me that Srila Prabhupada was not at all pleased with the way the whole situation was orchestrated. It took quite some time before the episode come to a halt. Looking annoyed, Srila Prabhupada finally said yes, he would ask Krsna. This audience was very jubilant, and the room cleared out.
These senior devotees apparently concluded immediately that there was now no great emergency. Srila Prabhupada was going to get better and upon his own will, he would decide not to leave. On the basis that there was to be no eminent departure, the senior men informed all the other devotees that were planning come see Srila Prabhupada that they should cancel their plane reservations. The very next day Satsvarupa dasa ordered me to go back and prepare for the Xmas marathon. Consequently, I missed being with Srila Prabhupada at the time of his departure. In hindsight, I should have been less obedient and compliant, but unfortunately that wasn't my mood, or the mood of anyone in my position at that point in time. A great many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples missed an opportunity that had been Srila Prabhupada's final direct wish for them.
In my mind, this whole episode seemed quite conspiratorial. Srila Prabhupada departed just before the big Xmas marathon, and the leaders didn't want to have all the devotees, let alone all the leaders, take their minds off the business at hand.
We have never had an explanation from the leaders as to what their thinking was in going against Srila Prabhupada's direct request to have his many disciples come for his departure, but I think Satsvarupa dasa should be one of the first to provide that answer.
In his editorial, Satsvarupa dasa says that in his Lilamrta, he "told about how the news of Prabhupada’s departure affected his disciples around the world." What he did not write in the Lilamrta is how the devotees were harmed by the decision of the leaders to go against Srila Prabhupada's personal request that we all come to Vrindavan to be with him.
Philosophically, it's not accurate for us to say that Srila Prabhupada should or could request Krsna to let him stay. We must assume that whenever Krsna wants to take the pure devotee, he won't protest against it.
Satsvarupa dasa makes the philosophical point that his activities in writing the final chapter of Lilamrta were akin to vipralambha-seva, service in separation. While he states that we too can feel a form of vipralambha-seva even though we're not so advanced, he does not spell out the difference between actual vipralambha-seva and the level of service in separation he and the other devotees were actually expressing.
The omission of this philosophical distinction is particularly significant given that the writer was personally instrumental in establishing the Zonal Acarya system, practically days after Srila Prabhupada was put into samadhi. Satsvarupa himself was the author of many of the bogus philosophical papers they produced trying to depict themselves as being instant krpa-siddha acaryas. Under the auspices of these papers, the leaders assumed the Zonal Acarya mood and took over the movement.
Because Satsvarupa dasa was a key figure in the takeover, I think it is particularly incumbent upon him to make a very clear philosophical distinction as to the difference between his own expression of service in separation, and actual vipralambha-seva.
In September 1985, eight disastrous years after the Zonal Acarya era came to a supposed end, Satsvarupa dasa wrote the following as a letter of apology. This letter depicts the extent of his realization as to horrendous results achieved by all the excess worship the Zonal Acaryas had demanded:
" .... I personally do not feel it was wrong to perform the guru-puja in these past eight years. IF THE DIFFERENT WORSHIP SYSTEMS WE INSTITUTED ARE EXCESSIVE, MY ANSWER IS THAT WE DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PRECEDENT OR SCRIPTURAL RULE THAT SPECIFICALLY TOLD US WHAT TO DO. Specifically regarding the guru puja, we took the precedent of Srila Prabhupada himself who accepted a daily guru puja and considered it an important function. However, as years have gone by, some God brothers have been disturbed by the guru-puja of their guru-Godbrothers, and even more importantly as some of the designate gurus have fallen down from religious life, it has become apparent the daily guru puja is questionable.... I wish my disciples to see it as follows; For eight years we performed this function and there is nothing wrong in doing so, but seeing the evolution of ISKCON with many gurus, and with the need to establish Prabhupada's pre-eminent position we should now cease in this function.... The ceasing of the guru puja does not mean that your spiritual master is not to be worshipped as good as God or that he has become an ordinary man, or that he has misbehaved in some way........”
Signed Satsvarupa das Goswami
Given the fact that Satsvarupa das is still heralding his Lilamrta as being a bonafide depiction of the pure devotee, just as he promotes it in this Dandavats editorial, I think he is greatly remiss in not offering to the devotees his own philosophical explanation of the Zonal Acarya system. How is it that one who supported the Zonal Acarya system, and had no greater realization about its negative effects than as evidenced by the letter above, could at the same time write a "bonafide biography" of the pure devotee, Sampradaya Acarya?
Those who are familiar with my writings will know that I consider the Lilamrta to be a direct product of the Zonal Acarya era. I've stated this many times, most recently in my Sampradaya Acarya paper:
The Zonal Acarya’s "Lilamrita" Influence
During the ISKCON lila period, an elite group of senior disciples enjoyed exclusive access to Srila Prabhupada’s direct association. This privileged exposure unfortunately resulted in an overly familiar attitude towards the Sampradaya Acarya. In stark contrast, ISKCON’s rank and file membership displayed a mood of awe and reverence in relation to Srila Prabhupada.
The historical record shows that within a few months of the Acarya’s disappearance, the elite amongst the senior disciples conspired to form the notorious Zonal Acarya fellowship. The first task executed under their calculated plan was to capture the minds and hearts of ISKCON’s grassroots followers, which were exclusively reposed in Srila Prabhupada. In order to accomplish this goal, they went about undermining the prevailing “myth” of Srila Prabhupada being a nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya. Their diabolical plan called for propaganda that simultaneously elevated the eleven imitator’s spiritual image while at the same time deflating the all-pervading exalted conception of Srila Prabhupada. To accomplish this goal, they made absurd claims within their published papers, saying they had received divine benedictions anointing them with instant “kripa-siddha” Acarya status. Next they diverted copious BBT funds towards the creation of the voluminous “Lilamrita”, which immortalizes their spurious “human” conception of Srila Prabhupada, degrading his transcendental pastimes into mundane events. Tragically, these intrigues temporarily accomplished the Zonals' desired objectives. Despite Lord Krsna’s exposing and deposing most of these infamous Zonal conspirators, the Lilamrita remains unchallenged to this day, carrying on the embodiment of their fallacious conception of Srila Prabhupada.
I've also written:
"The Lilamrta certainly describes Srila Prabhupada in terms of one who has achieved perfection through sadhana. Details on the exact statements presented in the Lilamrta that verify this claim may be found in a scholarly research paper by Yasoda nandana dasa.
It is important to note that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was the primary philosophical spokesman on the zonal acarya take-over theory, which was presented as the official 1978 GBC Position Paper. Satsvarupa has also authored a number of more recent philosophical concoctions justifying the actions of the zonal acaryas. Many devotees set aside their initial doubts about the zonal acarya system simply because Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was in agreement with the actions being taken by the GBC. In fact, he was depicted as the “Krsna das Kaviraj” of ISKCON. It was on the order of Raghunatha dasa Goswami that Krsna dasa Kaviraj wrote the Caitanya-caritamrta, and Srila Prabhupada writes in His concluding words in the first paragraph that he has translated Caitanya-caritamrta in accordance with the authorized order of His spiritual master, His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakura Goswami Maharaja. Did Satsvarupa dasa Goswami have authorization from Srila Prabhupada to write His Biography?
At last count, nearly a million Lilamrta’s have been distributed. How much more might humanity have benefited if the same quantity of Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita As It Is had been distributed, instead?"
In his Dandavats editorial, as elsewhere, Satsvarupa dasa makes the assumption that his Lilamrta biography is very touching to everybody, but that's hardly the case. Many devotees, including top ISKCON leaders, refuse to include it on their bookshelves.
Satsvarupa dasa characterizes the Lilamrta as being highly accessible to newcomers, and suggests that he has even lowered the threshold enough so newcomers won't think "this was a story of one guru with his little band of disciples who tried to begin a worldwide movement." He infers that even this characterization would present too high an obstacle for a newcomer to clear. This is actually a very demeaning statement to make about Srila Prabhupada, who was far, far beyond a simple guru. And by the way - he didn't "try" to begin a worldwide movement, he DID begin a worldwide movement.
While Satsvarupa dasa tries to make the point that Srila Prabhupada is greater than just a guru or Acarya, or even the Founder/Acarya, he does not philosophically distinguish between the pure devotee and the regular guru or Acarya. There is, in fact, a huge difference philosophically between a simple guru and a pure devotee, nitya-siddha, Sampradaya Acarya.
Satsvarupa dasa ends his whole paper by coming back to the incorrect, unbonafide assumption that it's best to see Srila Prabhupada as being "human". Whatever that's supposed to mean. I take it to be just sentiment. In reality, the Lilamrta's depiction of Srila Prabhupada as " human" has greatly contributed to the very thing Satsvarupa claims in his article to want to avoid - the minimization of Srila Prabhupada.
It's obvious to anyone (willing to admit it) )who experienced Krsna Consciousness during the period of time when the Zonal Acarya system unfolded that the Lilamrta was intended to give the disciples of the Zonal Acaryas the impression that their guru was going to do even greater things than Srila Prabhupada. The suggestion was that they had actually started at a much earlier age to spread Krsna Consciousness, so everyone could expect even greater things of them. Of course, history tells a very different story.
As evidenced by his editorial, Satsvarupa dasa is in total denial. He has never apologized for his role in the Zonal Acarya fiasco, nor has he gone back and refuted any of the bogus philosophical papers he wrote justifying the Zonal Acarya system. Nor, for that matter, has he gone back and corrected any of the bogus philosophical points made in his Lilamrta, which he continues to promote to this day.
If I'm not mistaken, this Dandavats editorial appeared somewhere a few years ago. The fact that it's now making a re-appearance suggests that Satsvarupa dasa is happy to re-emphasize his role as author of the Lilamrta. In fact, I view his entire article as an attempt to gain some up-to-date recognition due to his long absence from the ISKCON limelight (which is a whole other story).
Personally, I won't stop criticizing the Lilamrta as long as the BBT continues to publish it, and until Satsvarupa dasa owns up to the gross minimization of Srila Prabhupada his unauthorized biography promotes.
Likewise, I won't stop harping on the Zonal Acarya system until such time as the GBC offers an exhaustive philosophical explanation of just how and why this siddhantic deviation took place. Given that Satsvarupa dasa was the big spokesman for the Zonal Acaryas, and has now shown us that he's still capable of writing, I suggest he take on the burden of this endeavor.
Obeisances to Dandavats, and to HH Satsvarupa das.
