BY: ROCANA DASA
April 23, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials. Today's Obeisances is in response to the recent articles on Dandavats by various authors regarding the departure of Suhotra dasa.
One can't help but have their attention drawn to all the articles recently submitted to Dandavats and the Sampradaya Sun concerning the passing away of Suhotra dasa. Normally I don't read these types of articles because by and large, I find them to be super-saturated with sentimentalism and almost devoid of philosophy.
When it comes to offering critical philosophical analysis, few circumstances seem as difficult as when offering comments on the recent departure of a godbrother or sister. No one wants to be seen as speaking ill of the dead. No matter who the individual is, we can be sure that s/he leaves behind them many friends and associates who grieve their departure. Why, then, would anyone choose such a moment to make critical comments? The reason is that our philosophy requires us to get to the truth - not later, when it's palatable and comfortable, but now. Immediately.
The science of Krsna consciousness does not permit the worship of unqualified, unbonafide personalities who are promoted as being authoritative members of our Sampradaya. The science of Bhakti yoga, as presented by the Six Goswamis and our illustrious Sampradaya Acaryas, tells us in explicit detail how to get the desired results. If you properly engage in certain activities, you can be sure to get the expected results… not some other results that are undefined and nebulous.
In the case of Suhotra prabhu, his claim to fame in the eyes of some devotees was that he was a great philosopher. With the news of his unexpected departure, it has been reported that he was embarking on an ambitious task of writing a study guide for the Srimad Bhagavatam. At the same time, we know that Suhotra has long been depicted as a troubled personality.
In his recent memorial article on Dandavats, Madhava Gouranga dasa wrote:
"It was not uncommon for Suhotraji to work 36 hours straight at times in the privacy of his room, even taking prasadam in there. On Saturday 7th April he mentioned that his mind had become very peaceful now that he could immerse himself completely in his study and writing of the Bhagavatam guide.
He preferred to be left to himself when writing and would call for anything he needed."
We know that studying sastra, especially Srimad Bhagavatam, is a personal matter between the writer of the sastra and purports, the student, and Caitya guru. To say that one is writing a "study guide" is akin to saying that if you study the Srimad Bhagavatam in a certain way, according to a particular study guide author, then you'll make more advancement. This begs the obvious question: why was an individual well-known to have been suffering from mental difficulties being encouraged to write something as lofty as a study guide to Srimad Bhagavatam?
Madhava Gouranga dasa tells us that just recently, Suhotra prabhu was commonly working for 36 hours straight. We also know that he suffered from regular bouts of depression. It seems quite apparent that our godbrother, like so many others in the world these days, was suffering from a manic-depressive disorder. Holing up in one's room, not even coming out for prasadam, for 36 hour stretches of solitary "work" is, I'm afraid, the sign of an obsessive personality. While I know it will pain the loving friends of Suhotra dasa for me to say this, there are clear indications that our godbrother was not fixed up or qualified in his personal circumstances to be writing such critically important philosophical work as a study guide on Srimad Bhagavatam.
So when is it a good time to offer critical analysis on such matters? Today, when devotees around the world are being influenced by ISKCON-approved memorial sentiments to think that Suhotra dasa was a highly qualified Vaisnava? Or in the near future, when his "study guide" is posthumously published and distributed at his samadhi festival?
I am at somewhat of a loss to speak directly on the recent pastimes of Suhotra prabhu, as I have not been in his company in recent years. As we all know, he had scaled the ladder of success in ISKCON enough to be known as a Swami, a Guru, and a GBC Chairman. Of course, in the days when I was actively involved he was well placed in the camp of Harikesa -- ex-Swami, ex-GBC, ex-disciple of Srila Prabhupada, ex-everything. Like all the other Zonal Acaryas, Harikesa had his entourage of chosen friends and associates to whom he dispersed all sorts of benedictions in the way of backing them for sannyasa, for being on the GBC, for being able to accept disciples, etc. In other words, Harikesa was busy making Zonal Acarya "mini-me's".
Due to my middle manager position, I was also in a position in ISKCON to hear through the unofficial grapevine all the rumours concerning Suhotra's eccentric personality, which frankly wasn't much different from Harikesa's backroom antics. I can say with certainty that what the people 'in the know' knew about Suhotra was never broadcast through official ISKCON channels, but it was certainly well discussed amongst the leaders.
Today, as we're hearing about Suhotra's departure, it's not hard to read between the lines of the sentimental smokescreens. Whatever circumstances he was in during recent months are essentially being magnified to emphasize his glorification, although the reality of his circumstances can also be subtly read between the lines.
While many memorial writers use terms like "in my opinion" or "as I understand it", in all honesty this devotee's circumstances weren't as auspicious as they're now being made out to be. He was residing in Sridham Mayapur under the beneficence of his old friends. This, despite all the embarrassment he caused ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada due to his falldown from Swami to some concocted vanaprastha terminology.
Like Bhavananda dasa, Hari-sauri dasa, and so many other fallen swamis, due to having big friends in high place they get special treatment and a level of facility that isn't offered to other Srila Prabhupada disciples, who may feel they want to make a comeback or start a new life, or just do their ongoing service while getting a little more support from the institution.
More importantly, we must be aware of the precedent-setting aspect of all these circumstances. I'm not simply talking about the samadhis, which have been a topic of discussion recently. In the case of Suhotra dasa, we read in the recent Dandavats article by Shanti Parayan das that when he was cremated, "the fire was practically smokeless, indicating a soul in pure consciousness", and that his ashes are now being held while the devotees decide where his samadhi will be. This certainly makes for an interesting new category of departure.
Essentially we have a swami who fell down from all his exalted positions (how long he was actually fallen while still in those positions is another matter). His 'smokeless fire' ashes are now apparently going to be put into some sort of samadhi. The traditional samadhi given to maha-bhagavats, of course, is entirely different. Maha-bhagavats aren't cremated; their body is packed in salt and entombed, as was Srila Prabhupada's and the Goswamis'. I can't say for certain, but I recall hearing that Tamal Krishna Goswami also got that degree of honor, as did Sridhar. So somehow or other they qualified, although there are no published 'rules' on the matter. In fact, I don't know of any Vedic gradation or classification, although I wouldn't be surprised if such detailed instructions exist.
Everything in ISKCON just seems to be so whimsical, and everyone is so oblivious to how we're setting precedent on what could stand for thousands of years, because Srila Prabhupada's legacy is so potent and powerful. Meanwhile, his society and his disciples are practically re-writing the Vedas. What I mean is that they're coming up with all sorts of circumstances that are not described in the Vedas, such as re-writing Srila Prabhupada's books, one of the biggest contentious issues; putting unqualified devotees in "samadhi"; the whole idea of Swami's falling down and being glorified for taking varnaprasta, etc.
I can accept that there are a lot of sentimental neophytes in the form of followers and disciples who are willing and able to broadcast their particular sentiments and memorialize their departed gurus on devotee websites. But I don't hear any enlightened, philosophical explanation coming from those whom we'd expect to be the philosophical core of ISKCON -- whether it's the GBC, the SAC, or whoever -- giving us an explanation of exactly what's going on here.
There's so much talk about Bhavananda, who's also back in Mayapur. While I don't notice that there's a vanaprastha tag on his name, how do the society's leaders categorize a person like Bhavananda? Basically he's a homosexual bachelor who has no intention of getting married, so there's no title for him. He's building his own little separate house on the temple grounds, is giving lectures on the asana, and is locally enjoying the notoriety of being a close friend of the Zonal Acarya, Jayapataka Swami. Consequently, he is the good friend of all Jayapataka's disciples. What will happen when the notorious sexual molester, Bhavananda, leaves his body? Will Jayapataka Maharaja see to it that a swanky samadhi is erected in his honor?
So we can see why the actions taken by the devotees, and particularly by the leaders of ISKCON, are very precedent setting and extremely important. When we read what the Sampradaya Acaryas have to say on the subject, we find them condemning this tendency towards religiosity. What's going on today is obviously a deterioration of the mission of the Sampradaya Acarya -- it's a devolution or eclipsing of the true teachings, mood and mission of the genuine Sampradaya Acarya. And it's all done in the name of Srila Prabhupada, as all the followers say how much they love Srila Prabhupada and they'll serve him to their dying day. Past leaders have so many stories about their pastimes with Srila Prabhupada, yet they didn't love him enough not to do all the things that were obviously going to cause them to fall down. I can't speak with any first-hand knowledge of the bizarre things that Suhotra did which caused him to finally make an eleventh hour move to 'varnaprastha', giving up sannyasa in order to save whatever reputation remained and to quiet down all the rumours about his craziness, which was interestingly similar to Harikesa's. Harikesa, at least, was honest enough to just leave… of course, that was easy since he was leaving with a lot of money.
In the case of Suhotra, as painful as it may be to talk about it, we are left to figure out how to philosophically understand a manic depressive personality who can't be cured by chanting the Holy Name and studying the teachings of the Goswamis, and who claims that he can't properly instruct his own disciples, but who at the same time is manically writing a "study guide" for all the devotees on how to read and understand Srimad Bhagavatam. That in itself is absurd. Without digging through the endless quotes from sastra, we know that it's categorically stated that only maha-bhagavats can give purports or commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam. Suffice to say that Suhotra prabhu obviously wasn't in any shape to do so.
I know that I'm setting myself up for criticism for speaking 'ill of the dead', just as I did with Tamal Krishna Goswami and Bhakti Tirtha Swami. Of course, if our ISKCON leaders were paying more attention and taking more responsibility, they would be offering carefully phrased statements that made clear how the devotees should understand the life, times and departures of such personalities. We can't deny that how such individuals are memorialized in our contemporary Vaisnava literature will have a significant impact on Srila Prabhupada's movement for years to come.
Should we stand by quietly out of some feigned compassion, and allow myths to be created and perpetrated about devotees who were known to suffer all sorts of difficulties, yet are heralded as having 'certainly gone back to Godhead' upon their departures? Will ISKCON continue to allow any and all to go down in our history books as great Vaisnavas, simply because they've left their bodies? What will future generations be reading and trying to make sense of, when we have personalities such as Bhakti Tirtha Swami, who used his own money to make sure that a book was written about him? Or Tamal Krishna "Goswami", who used his own money for his samadhi? It doesn't take long to Google any one of these names and come up with the gory details and unchallenged truths behind these personalities, which ISKCON filters out. Unfortunately, this only makes ISKCON look bad, thereby making Srila Prabhupada look bad. Meanwhile, no one learns any lessons from the falldowns of these personalities. In fact, by their silence, the ISKCON leaders set a precedent for others to follow in the future.
Obeisances to Dandavats, to my departed godbrother Sriman Suhotra dasa, and to all the devotees.
