Taking Srila Prabhupada Srtaight

[Guest guest]

Taking Srila Prabhupada Straight

 

A letter from Ravindra Svarupa dasa about Narayana Maharaja

 

Dear Prabhu,

 

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada,

 

Last May, (`98) our Potomac temple received requests from both you and

Madhava Pandita dasa that it extend a personal invitation to H. H. Narayana

Maharaja to visit the temple during his summer tour of ISKCON congregations

in America. This matter came to me, as I am a GBC representative for

Potomac.

 

We declined to extend such an invitation. This is in line with ISKCON's

stated policy that directs our members not to take instruction from Narayana

Maharaja.

 

Around the same time I saw an article posted by your good self on a web-site

(VNN).

 

In this article you respond to the complaint from ISKCON about the fact that

Narayana Maharaja is, as a routine matter, reinitiating disciples of ISKCON

gurus in good standing. You absolutely defend this practice. You argue that

this reinitiation is entirely justified according to the principles

enunciated in Sri Krsna Bhajanamrta by Narahari Sakara.

 

There, Narahari Sakara states that if one's spiritual master is in good

standing, and yet is not sufficiently elevated to give a disciple

instruction for his further advancement, then the disciple, taking the

permission of his diksa guru, should take shelter of that more advanced

Vaisnava for instruction.

 

What if the diksa guru does not give his permission? Then, he may be

considered to be envious of the Vaisnavas ('isvarebrantah', that which is

connected with the Supreme), and the disciple should reject him.

 

You apply this principle to the case at hand: Narayana Maharaja is an

advanced Vaisnava. If an ISKCON guru forbids his disciples from taking

instruction from such an advanced Vaisnava, that guru is considered to be

envious, and he should be rejected.

 

This then is your argument:

 

1. If a guru forbids his disciples from taken instruction from and advanced

Vaisnava, the guru, being envious of an advanced Vaisnava, should be

rejected by the disciple. [From Narahari Sakara]

 

2. Narayana Maharaja is an advanced Vaisnava. [Your presumption]

 

3. ISKCON gurus forbid their disciples from hearing from him. [An empirical

fact]

 

Therefore, the disciples should reject the ISKCON gurus.

 

Logically, the argument is valid. In other words, IF the premises are true,

THEN it is certain that the conclusion is true. Truth, however, is different

from validity; the truth of the conclusion of a valid argument is still

contingent on the truth of the premises. One (or more) of the premises may

be false. Your argument, then, helped me clarify my thinking on this mater:

I have no doubts about the first and third premise. But now I must

acknowledge something I was reluctant to face squarely. And this is: There

are good grounds to doubt your second premise.

 

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.

 

I think that many of us have these doubts, and they are based on specific

considerations. Perhaps you are the one to clear them up.

 

After all, Narayana Maharaja is claiming that he is Srila Prabhupada's

chosen successor. All in ISKCON are urged to acknowledge him as our

authorized spiritual master. However, Prabhupada has taught that one should

not blindly accept someone as a spiritual master. Before accepting such a

person, one is supposed to use his intelligence to ascertain whether or not

that person is actually a bona fide guru. We are enjoined to do this.

 

I have grouped my misgivings, for convenience, under a number of headings.

 

Narayana Maharaja's war against ISKCON

 

It has become obvious to everyone that Narayana Maharaja has aggressively

targeted ISKCON's members and congregations for his preaching, and in

lecture after lecture he dwells on the supposed evils of the GBC and other

ISKCON leaders. It is not just that refugees or seekers leave the low-level

"kanistha,karma-yoga" organization (which is the way Narayana Maharaja

and his followers habitually characterize ISKCON) to go to him, but that

Narayana Maharaja habitually acts with extremely aggressive attitude to

recruit them and even "reinitiate" them. His summer campaigns take him

exclusively to ISKCON congregations. And what is the attraction of Houston,

Texas, of all places, for him to spend an exceptionally long time there?

Could the fact that Tamal Krishna Goswami's most successful center is locate

there have anything to do with it?

 

These pugnacious dealings have understandably given rise to misgivings about

him, for it certainly looks as if he were expressing resentful and vengeful

feelings. Indeed, his hostile activities exhibit that certain driven,

obsessive character which is usually the indicator of hidden, unacknowledged

motives. (Please don't reflexively dismiss this doubt on the presumption

that Narayana Maharaja is a pure devotee, and therefore his motive couldn't

be disreputable. It is that presumption that is at question here.)

 

Recently, more fuel for this doubt came from a mature Prabhupada disciple

who had spent several years with Narayana Maharaja and his followers but has

now become disillusioned. This devotee reports having directly heard—this

was at Gaura Purnima two years ago—Narayana Maharaja vow to reinitiate the

disciples of ISKCON gurus. According to this witness, Narayana Maharaja

voiced the judgment that because Tamal Krishna Goswami, Giriraja Swami, et

al. stopped coming to him, and because we tell all our people not to visit

him, it is proof that we are "not bona fide Vaisnavas." (It seems he gave

basically the same argument you do now, but without the reference you

supplied to Narahari Sakara). And he proclaimed, "I'll reinitiate their

disciples!" His attitude was, "I'll show them! I'll reinitiate all their

disciples!" And that is what he has been trying to do, quite systematically.

 

Narayana Maharaja's dubious claim to be Prabhupada's disciple and successor

 

In 1990 I was persuaded by some who were then taking siksa from Narayana

Maharaja to visit him. In the course of our discussion, the invocation of

Sri Isopanisad somehow came up, and I rendered the meaning and purport the

way it was presented by Srila Prabhupada, mentioning that this world

('idam'), as an emanation from the 'purnam', is also 'purnam'.

 

Narayana Maharaja immediately cut me off, and pronounced (in quite an ex

cathedra manner) that I understood the text incorrectly. "No!" he said. "The

material world is not purnam." 'Idam' did not refer to this materially

world, which cannot be purnam. Rather, he said, 'idam' refers to

Visnu-tattva expansions like Balarama. They are purnam.

 

I was a bit shocked. Here I was Prabhupada's disciple, yet he was telling me

Prabhupada was in error in his books. Of course, I understood at once that

Narayana Maharaja had to be ignorant of Prabhupada's books. He had not been

enlightened by Prabhupada's brilliant account of just what it meant for this

material world to be realized as a complete whole.

 

(It seemed weird to give an interpretation that ignored the context of the

invocation, and to ignore the fact that everywhere in the Upanisads and the

Bhagavatam 'idam' is conventionally used to stand for 'this world'; and how

strange it is to use a neuter singular pronoun to refer to Balarama and

other expansions. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I assume he had some

authority for his gloss of the sruti mantra. At any rate, Prabhupada's

understanding is clearly far more profound. I actually felt sorry for

Narayana Maharaja that he had not received the benefit of Prabhupada's

teaching.)

 

Although during our meeting Narayana Maharaja showed himself skillful at

managing status relations, adroit in assuming the role of the teacher and

putting me in the position of a pupil, he blew it (as far as I was

concerned), and I decided to keep my distance. I had premonitions of

trouble.

 

When, a few years later, it became known that Narayana Maharaja was claiming

to be Prabhupada's (first, senior-most) disciple, and even his designated

successor and therefore our own authorized siksa guru, I remember our 1990

meeting, and I could not accept this claim at all.

 

Didn't Prabhupada emphasize the importance of his books for us? Didn't he

tell us that association with him via his books was better than his personal

association? Now, how is a person who has never even bothered to read

Prabhupada's books to be considered his siksa disciple? How is he to

represent Prabhupada to us?

 

I've been told that the claim Narayana Maharaja makes for himself has

inflated over time. At first, he seemed to present himself simply as a

friend, a benign siksa guru. By now, however, he has announced himself as

the successor-acarya to Prabhupada, the authorized acarya of ISKCON. And he

tells the disciples of Prabhupada, "I know your guru better than you do!"

And one-time followers of Prabhupada, like Yadurani dasi, proclaim the

obvious conclusion: "We can't know Prabhupada unless we go through Narayana

Maharaja!"

 

(She says, "Only an uttama adhikari can understand an uttama adhikari,"

which does make one wonder how she is supposed to be able to understand

Narayana Maharaja.)

 

Two years ago, Lokanatha Swami brought ISKCON's parikrama party to Kesavji

Gaudiya Math in Mathura, where Narayana Maharaja addressed them. It became

quite emotional. He said that he used to "lie under the Tamal tree" and to

"rest his head in the lap of Giriraja." He said that even Lokanatha Swami

used to be his friend. But all of them left him. They deserted him.

 

And then, when the parikrama party had left, Narayana Maharaja turned to his

disciples and said, "Not one of these is a true follower of Srila

Prabhupada! I am the only true follower of Srila Prabhupada!" Other

witnesses have head him voice the same idea still more recently: "I am the

successor to Srila Prabhupada," he says. Even: "I am ISKCON."

 

I find it strange indeed that Prabhupada, who was so careful to explain

things to us, revealed nothing of this occult plan for succession. It seems

he transmitted it, in private code, to Narayana Maharaja. For example,

Narayana Maharaja explains that Prabhupada's statement that Narayana

Maharaja could show Prabhupada's disciples how to put their spiritual master

in his samadhi, has an esoteric meaning. To us, it may have seemed that

Prabhupada was speaking about funeral services, but it is revealed to

Narayana Maharaja the deep meaning: that samadhi is Prabhupada's eternal

absorption and participation in Radha-Krishna lila, and so on. (Well, "only

an uttama-adhikari can understand an uttama adhikari.")

 

These so-called "instructions" are cited to establish Narayana Maharaja's

authority over us. In fact they will be persuasive only to those who have

already accepted his authority, and so believe in the validity of his

personal "realizations" about Prabhupada's intentions. On his authority you

accept that this statement of Prabhupada (and maybe every statement?) bears

an esoteric meaning in addition to an exoteric one, and you accept Narayana

Maharaja as the authoritative interpreter of that esoteric meaning.

 

I fear we are being lead down the primrose path of deviation. If we were to

accept Narayana Maharaja's claims, we would be disregarding Prabhupada's

explicit directions to us, and, in so doing, reenacting the error of the

Gaudiya Matha in disobeying the orders of its founder-acarya. While

Prabhupada's alleged directions to Narayana Maharaja are know only to him

and depend upon our accepting his authority as an explicator of Prabhupada

to us, Prabhupada's instructions to us are clear and open and direct, and he

has warned us of the folly of deviating from them:

 

Why this Gaudiya Matha failed? Because they tried to become more than guru.

He, before passing away, he gave all direction and never said that 'This man

should be the next acarya.' But these people, just after his passing away

they began to fight, who shall be acarya. That is the failure. They never

thought, 'Why Guru Maharaja gave us instruction so many things, why he did

not say that this man should be acarya?' They wanted to create artificially

somebody acarya and everything failed. They did not consider even with

common sense that if Guru Maharaja wanted to appoint somebody as acarya, why

did he not say? He said so many things, and this point he missed? The real

point? And they insist upon it. They declared some unfit person to become

acarya. Then another man came, then another, acarya, another acarya. So

better remain a foolish person perpetually to be directed by Guru Maharaja.

That is perfection.

 

(Room conversation, Bombay: August 16, 1976)

 

 

As Prabhupada's disciple, do you wonder what it would be like to stand

before him and explain why you promoted Narayana Maharaja as ISKCON's next

acarya? And on whose authority? Well, as it turns out on inspection,

strictly on Narayana Maharaja's. Because you blindly believe Narayana

Maharaja when he proclaims, "I understand your Guru Maharaja better than you

do."

 

This is my doubt: That my god-brothers and -sisters who are following

Narayana Maharaja are doing so blindly, and they have been beguiled into

accepting a pretender.

 

Narayana Maharaja as deviating from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

Prabhupada

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada radically reformed the

Gaudiya Tradition, transforming it into a global preaching mission for the

modern world. His work was not much appreciated by many, prominent among

them the babajis of Vraja, who felt that he was deviating by his emphasis on

vigorous preaching rather than the esoteric cultivation of raga-marga. His

disciples were constantly assailed by the charge that their Guru Maharaja

was a deviant who could not offer them the "real thing." As you know, a

number of them succumbed, most prominently the unauthorized

"successor-acarya" Ananta Vasudeva dasa (later reinitiated in the babaji

community as Puri Goswami).

 

A number of our own God-brothers also fell prey to the same attack, even

while Prabhupada was present. And the attack continues to this day. My doubt

here is whether Narayana Maharaja has become an instrument of this attack

against the mission of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura.

 

What he is now preaching and delivering clearly comes from outside the line

of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. He did not get this from Bhakti

Prajnan Kesava Maharaja, his diksa guru. Narayana Maharaja has acknowledged

that there was no practice of raga marga in that matha, no "rasa-katha" but

rather discourse about Prahlada Maharaja, Dhruva Maharaja, and so on.

 

Narayana Maharaja was apparently not satisfied with this, for, as he once

confessed, he left his spiritual master's temple without permission, and he

went to Govardhana. In great distress, crying, Bhakti Prajnan Kesava

Maharaja came and brought him back.

 

But later, after the departure of his Guru Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja

returned to the babajis of Goverdhana, and from among them he accepted a

rasika guru, supposedly the one who "pushed the switch" which made the

"current of bhava flow."

 

It troubles me greatly that after his guru's departure Narayana Maharaja did

something his guru had forcibly prohibited in his presence.

 

This babaji, then, is Narayana Maharaja's siksa guru—a personage, as you

yourself argue, who often can be more prominent than the diksa guru.

Whatever it is that Narayana Maharaja is giving comes from this babaji. This

is his lineage.

 

It is clearly not the lineage from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. I

don't know anything about this babaji, but given the judgment about

Radha-Kunda babaji by our recent acaryas, we have the obligation to be

doubtful. Don't we have to ask a few questions about this babaji, and

whoever else in that community Narayana Maharaja may have learned from? What

did Narayana Maharaja actually get? Is it the real thing?

 

As you know, there is a shadow or simulacrum of authentic spiritual emotion

that can fool even an experienced devotee.

 

At any rate, we know that Narayana Maharaja, against the order of his

spiritual master, went to the babajis for spiritual instruction. (I am sure

he can offer a clever rationalization for this. Indeed, it is surely the

same one he provides Prabhupada's disciples to justify our own disobedience

of Prabhupada's instructions in order to surrender to him. History repeats

itself.)

 

My misgiving is that, in taking siksa from Vrindavan babajis, Narayana

Maharaja is acting contrary to the desires of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasavati Thakura, and as a result is undermining the great acarya's

achievements.

 

There are some particulars that support this misgiving. Let me present one

glaring instance.

 

Narayana Maharaja, of course, finds a great difference between preaching

activities of the sankirtana movement on the one hand and activities of

solitary bhajana on the other. He dismisses book distribution as an inferior

activity, as karma-yoga (at best). It is not actual bhakti, but

bhaktyabhasa, bhaktyaropya. On one occasion, when the accomplishments of a

great ISKCON book distributor were extolled, Narayana Maharaja was quite

dismissive, and he said that the result would be that in his next life the

book distributor might qualify for advanced association (of a rasika

bhakta), but that was all. Yet Srila Prabhupada, as you may still recall,

did not recognize such a dichotomy between Gauranga's seva and

Gopijanavallabha's seva, for, as he famously commented: "Book distribution

is in the mood of the gopis." Srila Prabhupada tells us that he attained

this realization from his Guru Maharaja:

 

In Vrndavana there are prakrta-sahajiyas who say that writing books or even

touching books is taboo. For them, devotional service means being relieved

from these activities. Whenever they are asked to hear a recitation of Vedic

literature, they refuse, saying, "What business do we have reading or

hearing transcendental literatures? They are meant for neophytes." They pose

themselves to be too elevated to exert energy for reading, writing and

hearing. However, pure devotees under the guidance of Srila Rupa Gosvami

reject this sahajiya philosophy. It is certainly not good to write

literature for money or reputation, but to write books and publish them for

the enlightenment of the general populace is real service to the Lord. That

was Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's opinion, and he specifically told his

disciples to write books. He actually preferred to publish books rather than

establish temples. Temple construction is meant for the general populace and

neophyte devotees, but the business of advanced and empowered devotees is to

write books, publish them and distribute them widely. According to

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, distributing literature is like playing

on a great mrdanga. Consequently we always request members of the

International Society for Krishna Consciousness to publish as many books as

possible and distribute them widely throughout the world. By thus following

in the footsteps of Srila Rupa Gosvami, one can become a rupanuga devotee.

 

Madhya 19.133, purport (italics added)

 

This understanding of the unity of Lord Caitanya and Lord Krsna, and their

seva—so fully realized and implemented by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

to form his revolutionary, dynamic sankirtana movement—seems to have eluded

Narayana Maharaja. Why should service to the sankirtana mission of Lord

Caitanya be seen by Narayana Maharaja as something quite different from

service to Krishna in Vraja? How has that happened? Has some contamination

entered?

 

In this connection, I am enclosing an exact (unedited) typescript of

Prabhupada's preface to the original edition of the second volume of Srimad

Bhagavatam (1964). Here, Prabhupada replies to criticisms of his activity.

These very same criticisms of "brhat-mrdanga preaching," voiced by the

sahajiya babajis of Vraja, are unfortunately being recycled by Narayana

Maharaja.

 

Prabhupada begins by saying:

 

The path of fruitive activities i.e. to say the path of earn money and enjoy

life as it is going on generally, - appears to have become also our

profession although we have renounced the order of worldly life! They see

that we are moving in the cities, in the Government offices, banks and other

business places for promoting the publication of Srimad Bhagwatam. They also

see that we are moving in the press, paper market and amongst the book

binders also away from our residence at Vrindaban and thus they conclude

sometimes mistakenly that we are also doing the same business in the dress

of a mendicant!

 

And Srila Prabhupada winds up by voicing his heart-felt conviction:

 

So even though we are not in the Himalayas, even though we talk of business,

even though we deal in rupees and n.P. still, simply because we are 100 per

cent servants of the Lord and are engaged in the service of broadcasting the

message of His glories, - certainly we shall transcend and get through the

invincible impasse of Maya and reach the effulgent kingdom of God to render

Him face to face eternal service, in full bliss and knowledge. We are

confident of this factual position and we may also assure to our numerous

readers that they will also achieve the same result simply by hearing the

glories of the Lord. (Jannama sruti matrena puman bhavati nirmala.)

 

Narayana Maharaja explains Prabhupada's high praise for book distribution

and book distributors a mere tactic to encourage those of us without the

samskara for raga-marga. Therefore it is worth noting that this preface was

written about his own activities and some years before he had any neophytes

to encourage.

 

To recapitulate: In differing from Srila Prabhupada's teachings, Narayana

Maharaja also differs from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura's teachings. As

it turns out, Narayana Maharaja went outside the Sarasvata community to take

instructions from babajis, and now he brings back into that community

opinions that are characteristic of sahajiya babajis and that are anathema

to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada.

 

This misgiving leads me to a fuller explication of a related doubt.

 

Narayana Maharaja and certain sahajiya symptoms

 

Lord Caitanya says (CC. Madhya. 156-157):

 

bahya, antara,——ihara dui ta' sadhana

'bahye' sadhaka-dehe kare Sravana-kirtana

'mane' nija-siddha-deha kariya bhavana

ratri-dine kare vraje krsnera sevana

 

"There are two processes by which one may execute this raganuga

bhakti–external and internal. When self-realized, the advanced devotee

externally remains like a neophyte and executes all the Sastric injunctions,

especially hearing and chanting. However, within his mind, in his original

purified self-realized position, he serves Krsna in Vrndavana in his

particular way. He serves Krsna twenty-four hours, all day and night."

 

 

And Rupa Gosvami says in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.295)

 

seva sadhaka-rupena siddha-rupena catra hi

tad-bhava-lipsuna karya vraja-lokanusaratah

 

"The advanced devotee who is inclined to spontaneous loving service should

follow the activities of a particular associate of Krsna in Vrndavana. He

should execute service externally as a regulative devotee as well as

internally from his self-realized position. Thus he should perform

devotional service both externally and internally."

 

I understand that it is characteristic of the sahajiya to transgress this

injunction to keep the activities of the siddha-deha and the sadhaka-deha

separate. The sahajiya is known for displaying in his mundane body and

relationships actions that belong only to the spiritual body and its

relationships.

 

There are several habitual actions of Narayana Maharaja that give the

appearance of such an improper conflation.

 

The first I may call as witness is his well-known disposition to

crookedness. He is extremely cavalier with the truth. For instance, he often

lies outright about what transpired when he visits some ISKCON temple. (His

claim that he was "locked out" of the Houston temple is a notable example.)

Even some of his own followers have found his disposition to dissimulate

hard to reconcile themselves to. However, they have been told that it is a

symptom of his transcendental position, and they have acquiesced to it.

 

Narayana Maharaja himself justifies his behavior on these grounds: "Unless

you learn to be crooked, you cannot qualify for Vrindavan." He points out

that the Yamuna is crooked, that Krishna's staff is crooked, and so on.

 

In effect, he has announced to his own followers that he is free to deceive

them, and that they should, as part of their surrender, agree to be

deceived. In this matter, Narayana Maharaja reminds me greatly of

Kirtanananda, who used to do something similar. If you found that he has

lied to you or cheated you, and you call him on it, he would preach that

dishonesty in Krishna service was a virtue, and ask, after all, for Whom

were you cheated? If you were persuaded by this, he felt free to cheat you

again and again.

 

During Kartika last year, Narayana Maharaja was holding a darsana in which a

number of disciples of Gaura Govinda Maharaja were present. He announced

that last night Gaura Govinda Maharaja had appeared to him in a dream, and

after speaking some words (I can't recall the matter of it), Gaura Govinda

Maharaja merged into Narayana Maharaja's body.

 

Is this a true dream? Or, in the mood of crookedness, is it the

opportunistic psychological manipulation of susceptible people.

 

Yet if he has a (transcendental) license to be crooked, why should we take

as truthful all those accounts of his deep relation with Prabhupada, his

reported dreams of Prabhupada, and even his effusive public glorification of

Srila Prabhupada?

 

There was a time when Narayana Maharaja criticized Prabhupada in public. He

pointed out "mistakes" in his books and "mistakes" in naming of certain

Deities. Now, however, he claims that he never said these were Prabhupada's

mistakes but those of his followers, and he never criticized Prabhupada.

This is not true. The truth (if it matters) is that in private Narayana

Maharaja still belittles or criticizes Prabhupada, while praising him in

public: a crooked course. And of course, if the private is made public he

simply denies it happened.

 

In Srimad Bhagavatam we have read that in Kali-yuga truthfulness is the last

leg of dharma; it now seems that Narayana Maharaja is intent on establishing

crookedness as the last leg of dharma. In fact, truthfulness is required

always of the sadhaka, and to supplant it with the "crookedness" of the

siddha is a perfect illustration of sahajiya contamination.

 

The other area in which Narayana Maharaja seems to conflate the mundane and

the transcendent realms is in his relationship with women. Here he

outrageously transgresses the behavior proper to a sannyasi.

 

Many have witnessed the ritual in which a group of dreamy-eyed women massage

his feet. Narayana Maharaja's spokesmen deny this, but we can dismiss their

denial. Like him, they are acolytes of the higher crookedness, and there is

ample testimony from those still bound by mundane honesty. One

well-brought-up European lady reports encountering Narayana Maharaja during

his tour of the Continent. Women sat at his feet, stroking and massaging his

lower limbs. One lady was languorously caressing the soles of his feet with

her fingertips. The observer found this tableau charged with eroticism.

Beckoned to join the group, she could not bring herself to do it.

Instinctively, she felt repelled.

 

He also forms relationships with women by unabashedly using the language of

carnal courtship and seduction. "Now you belong completely to me," he will

tell one girl. Or: "Now your heart is mine forever,I have captured you

and will keep you." And so on.

 

Given the above public actions, the following, less public, conduct needs, I

think, investigation. I have it on reliable authority that in addition to

his personal servant Naveen, Narayana Maharaja is attended in Mathura by two

"kumaris"—two unmarried girls in their twenties. He often spends time alone

with them, behind closed doors.

 

You may remember when certain acaryas in ISKCON indulged in similarly

questionable behavior, and yet misgivings and criticisms became suppressed

or repressed by the notion that the "acaryas" were advanced beyond the

regulative principles. Although deluded followers had been convinced by this

teaching, the truth at last came out. Could this be happening again? In my

time, I have seen how many remained convinced that, say, Kirtanananda Swami,

was an uttama-adhikari (whose acts were beyond judgment of the lower), and

how otherwise quite intelligent men swore he was pure and fair and bright.

You ignore the warnings of Srila Prabhupada and of Rupa Goswami at your

peril.

 

Indeed, it seems to me that something eerie has happened to the intelligence

of those disciples of Prabhupada who have become followers of Narayana

Maharaja. There is a mystery about this that needs solving. How it is that

many disciples of Prabhupada have been able to so thoroughly neglect

Prabhupada's instructions with an apparently good conscience?

 

For example, they hear Narayana Maharaja say—within the smaller circle—that

he has no taste for Bhagavad-gita, no attraction for Puri or Dvaraka, no

interest in Rama or Narasingha. What has happened to them, that their memory

has become corrupted, so that they can't recall Prabhupada's unequivocal

judgment about those who make such statements? To cite one example:

 

Therefore those who are sahajiyas, they simply go to the pastimes of Lord

Krsna with the gopis. Other things: "Oh, no, no. That is not Krsna's

pastimes. That is not Krsna's pastimes." That is, they differentiate the

absolute activities of the Absolute. That is called sahajiya. The sahajiyas

will never read Bhagavad-gita, will never read. [sarcastically:] Because

they have been elevated to the mellows of conjugal love. Therefore they have

no interest in Bhagavad-gita.

 

—Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.3.20-23; Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971

 

What influence does Narayana Maharaja exercise to make us disobey Srila

Prabhupada? We can begin to understand it, I think, by looking at the reason

Satsvarupa Maharaja stopped hearing from Narayana Maharaja. He was the first

of ISKCON leaders to reject Narayana Maharaja as a teacher. When a crisis

arose concerning the others who continued under his tutelage, I asked

Satsvarupa Maharaja what made him decide to quit.

 

He told me, "I discovered that I was reading Srila Prabhupada through the

eyes of Narayana Maharaja. And I decided I had better take my Srila

Prabhupada straight."

 

To be sure, Narayana Maharaja has his own interpretation of why Satsvarupa

Goswami left. He took it that Satsvarupa Maharaja was afraid of losing his

disciples to Narayana Maharaja; out of fear and possessiveness, Satsvarupa

Goswami stopped associating with Narayana Maharaja and forbade his disciples

from doing so.

 

Now, I accept Satsvarupa Maharaja's account. He is by nature transparently

honest—even, some say, to a fault. His own account is characteristically

direct, simple and guileless. Narayana Maharaja's interpretation

inadvertently reveals much about Narayana Maharaja's mentality (it is

offensive), but nothing of Satsvarupa Maharaja's.

 

Satsvarupa Maharaja noticed how some subtle and powerful change was

happening in his hearing of Prabhupada, and Prabhupada was now coming to him

in a distorted or crooked manner. He was hearing Prabhupada differently, and

this gave him such qualms that he took remedial measures.

 

Such a change indicates the level on which Narayana Maharaja was able to

act. What Narayana Maharaja is able to do is to corrupt one's buddhi,

intelligence. As devotees, our intelligence has been formed through our

assimilation of Srila Prabhupada. To keep our intelligence chaste

(vyavasayatmika-buddhi), Prabhupada left us his instructions and directions,

particularly in his books. Repeatedly, he stressed that "the secret of

success in spiritual life is to take the order of the spiritual master as

one's life and soul."

 

It is clear enough that that Narayana Maharaja differs greatly from Srila

Prabhupada, but the deviation is explained away by claiming that Prabhupada

was, in effect, a lower-level guru (a teacher of vaidhi-bhakti only) while

Narayana Maharaja is a higher-level guru (a giver of raga-marga).

 

In essence, then, those who follow him may set aside significant parts of

Srila Prabhupada teachings and directions as a kind of outgrown elementary

instruction. In effect, Narayana Maharaja gives them the way to

(respectfully) disregard Srila Prabhupada's teachings without suffering the

pang of conscience.

 

Although Prabhupada sought to keep us from being misguided by stressing,

over and over, the virtue of strict fidelity to the instruction of the guru,

Narayana Maharaja has circumvented this safeguard by sabotaging the

denotation of "guru." While all of us thought that "fidelity to the guru"

meant simply "fidelity to Prabhupada," Narayana Maharaja has enabled some to

now understand it as "fidelity to Narayana Maharaja." This is an instance of

"corruption of intelligence."

 

How has Narayana Maharaja been so effective in thus replacing Srila

Prabhupada with himself? A large part of it rest upon his ability to

convince some of us that he was Prabhupada's first and most intimate

disciple, that Prabhupada handed us over to him, that he knows Prabhupada

better than we do, and so on.

 

Yet all these claims turn out to have no evidentiary basis. They are

accepted simply on Narayana Maharaja's authority. Having been accepted, they

are then used to establish his authority.

 

To me, this is smacks of blind or sentimental following. I am afraid you

have been fooled.

 

I have given further reasons for doubting Narayana Maharaja's claims to be

Prabhupada's follower or designated successor and an advanced Vaisnava. He

acts in an envious manner to Vaisnavas and seems to be driven by a

competitive spirit of domination. He is unacquainted with Prabhupada's

teachings and he differs from them in many ways. He has gone outside the

line of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura for instruction, and he does not

follow the directions given by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. He

receives teachings on his "raga-marga" from babajis, and gives evidence

having absorbed, in the process, sahajiya contamination.

 

All these things make me seriously doubt his claim to be an advanced rasika

Vaisnava and successor to Srila Prabhupada. Instead he seems to be some kind

of talented pretender or imposter, who has seduced, beguiled and misled many

people.

 

Before we accept someone as a guru, we should examine that person with

critical intelligence. I have done so, and I cannot accept Narayana

Maharaja. From what I have seen, most of my God-brothers and -sisters

choosing to follow Narayana Maharaja have not used their intelligence in

this matter. Instead, they have surrendered their intelligence and let it

become corrupted. They have accepted Narayana Maharaja improperly.

 

I would like you to come back to Srila Prabhupada. I beg you to follow in

Satsvarupa Maharaja's footsteps and, if only as an experiment, try to "take

your Srila Prabhupada straight."

 

For a start, you might read Prabhupada's Cc. Madhya-lila 19.159 and purport.

There different kinds of unsaintly behavior (nisiddha-acara) are described,

such as kuTinaTi (duplicity), jiva-himsana (killing the soul), labha (desire

for profit), puja (desire for adoration)and pratisTha (desire for

distinction) These are all weeds that kill the true creeper of bhakti. I

have claimed to find some of these weeds quite evident in the person of

Narayana Maharaja. If I am right, then you may ask, why do so many

apparently intelligent, well-intentioned, and perceptive people follow him?

 

There is an answer in that purport. "Sometimes these unwanted creepers look

exactly like the bhakti-lata creeper. They appear to be of the same size and

the same species when they are packed together with the bhakti-lata creeper,

but in spite of this, the creepers are called upaSakha [unwanted]. A pure

devotee can distinguish between the bhakti-lata creeper and a mundane

creeper, and he is very alert to distinguish them and keep them separate."

 

There is a counterfeit creeper that can fool even otherwise discerning

people. I fear that just such a counterfeit is present in this case. I have

taken some pains to try to tell you why. Please consider what I have

presented. It is not too late to return to the service of Srila Prabhupada,

who saved you and who will save you still.

 

I hope you are well,

 

Your servant in the service of Srila Prabhupada,

 

Ravindra Svarupa dasa

 

CHAKRA 7-Aug-98