Taking Srila Prabhupada Srtaight

[Guest guest]

On 14 Aug 1999, Harsi das wrote:

> Taking Srila Prabhupada Straight

> A letter from Ravindra Svarupa dasa about Narayana Maharaja

 

> I want to lay before you these doubts.

 

> For the sake of comity and good manners, I and other ISKCON leaders have

simply expressed our conviction that Narayana Maharaja's approach differs

significantly from Srila Prabhupada, and that Narayana Maharaja is not, as he

claims to be, a siksa disciple of our founder-acarya. He does not represent

Srila Prabhupada.

 

> Your article, however, forces me to bring into the open a much deeper

> reservation, and to question whether he is, as he claims to be, "an advanced

Vaisnava," a "rasika devotee," and so on.

 

Having a doubt or reservations about someone being actually a bona fide,

senior Vaisnava is an excusable fault. Doubts are one thing, but to

inappropriately publicize our doubts all over the place is called, in common

term, *slander*.

 

With all due respect, Ravindra-Svarupa Prabhu seems to have lost his previous

sense of "comity and good manners," because by widely publicizing his

"doubts" -- consisting of hearsay and conjectures -- about Narayan Maharaja,

he has in fact branded himself guilty of *sadhu-ninda.*

 

I don't wish to delve into the details of his letter, but simply put, by

making his "doubts" so public, he has effectively, "given the dog a bad name

to hang him." In other words, Ravindra-Svarupa Prabhu's "doubts" have now

become 'judgments' whereby he has already concluded that Narayan Maharaja is

not a bona fide Vaisnava, and he is indirectly declaring this to the whole

world by having this formerly *private* letter distributed. Those who help to

publish or forward RSP's words also implicate themselves in this slanderous

gesture.

 

These are very grave accusations. Even if there is *some* substance to RSP's

charges, nonetheless there is no doubt within the Gaudiya Math that Narayan

Maharaja is a Vaisnava of renowned character, irrespective of anyone's

differences in opinions. To publicly deride such a Vaisnava is

still *sadhu-ninda.* As Krsna states in Bh.gita, bhajate mam ananya-bhak,

sadhur-eva. "He is still to be considered saintly..." We can tolerate so many

personal faults or shortcomings, but when someone wrongly criticizes a senior

Vaisnava, that fault is by far the worse crime. No bona fide devotee can idly

sit by without protest.

 

I have never heard RSP speak so ill even of the fallen ISKCON gurus, some of

whom have taken deep dives into the muck of material existence, what to speak

of the ISKCON leaders who continue to serve and have problems. There seems to

be some inconsistency, therefore, in how RAV applies his philosophical acumen.

 

 

Admittedly, not everyone who poses as an "advanced Vaisnava" is factually

thus. We have had no shortage of such bogus examples in ISKCON, sad to say.

Consequently, due to these unfortunate experiences and other samskaras (past

impressions), some amount of doubt and confusion may be lingering in our minds

about who is sadhu or not. Considering ISKCON's record of falldowns

(apostasy), this sense of mistrust is understandable. The gist of the rtvik

debate has in fact evolved out of a categorical mistrust, doubt and

frustration with the entire ISKCON guru-project -- of which RSP himself is now

a part. Should we really wonder, though, why there's difficulty or confusion

there?

 

If we want to judge by the past, then the Gaudiya Math, with all of its

imperfections, pales in comparison to ISKCON's prodigious record of deviations

(fallen gurus, child abuse, etc.) and philosophical misunderstandings. But

with the log covering our own eyes, we can see only splinters elsewhere, I

guess.

 

I am hoping for reconciliation and understanding between ISKCON, the Gaudiya

Math and all disparate groups, ISKCON's disillusioned membership. But there

can be no possibility of reconciling differences until ISKCON gains some

self-awareness of the seriousness of its own problems. Until that opportune

hour of acknowledgement and sincere regret arrives, further polarization,

separation and divorce are the only alternatives to the present GBC-dictated

course of operations. The GBC seems expert at making enemies and

disenfranchising former supporters, but they fall far short in winning friends

or keeping its own flock in the fold. Yet the GBC (and here Ravindra-svarupa)

dares to criticize Narayan Maharaja for offering positive relief by sinking to

the standard political tactic -- argumentum ad hominem, "give the dog a bad

name and hang him."

 

You can fool some of the people all the time,

and fool all of the people some of the time,

But you can't fool all of the people all the time.

 

Sooner or later, the Truth -- as sure as Krsna is the Supreme Personality of

Godhead -- will make itself known to those who unfailingly strive to know Him.

 

Praying that the light of truth reaches all. Fiat lux!

 

Vaisnava-anudasa-abhilasi,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

> Now here you are getting into what I see as an across the board problem

> with the

> diksas, the rittviks, and the Gaudiya math types. They want Krsna in

> the city of Mathura. They want philosopical paradigms as solutions. They

> want the recipies of Vaisnavism, the books, the philosophy, the

> sampradayas, the dress, etc. And they justify it with a partial

> explanation like the above.

 

Everybody has his own problems, but why is it necessarily a problem to

discuss the philosophy? Or should I perhaps have subtracted Varnasrama

conference from my

comment?