Concerning Satsvarupa Maharaja GBC Executive Committee Statement

[Guest guest]

Jagat has been borrowing from TS Elliot,

 

The Grail legend, the Fisher King

 

[krsna]

Modern people may hesitate to accept a guru

by Suneel Kunamaneni

 

Posted on chakra June 3, 2004

 

I absolutely agree with Zack Sunderman ("To be a Guru"). However, I felt I should express my opinions as well.

 

Firstly, it is very important to realize how fast the world has changed within the last 20 years or so. An ordinary man would feel that there is far more variety and pleasure in material objects than many seemingly monotonous spiritual organisations can provide.

 

Many Vaishnava sects may be existing just because individuals want to be different from others. It is this difference that gives rise to different sectarian views and Vaishnavism, at least in the first few years of the 21st century, appears to be founded on these principles.

 

I have seen numerous arguments on different topics like the issue of authority, strict adherence to the four regulative principles, and vegetarianism, etc. Any busy man of the present day would not be satisfied with the arguments among the many differing groups. I think modern man wants variety and assured relief from transience, and does not like to build an aura around an individual seen as Guru. They are extremely hesitant to be involved in anything that is built around apparently "imaginary" stories and myths, and prefer sects practising ashtanga or falun gong to the varieties that Vaishnavism can provide.

 

It appears that societies like ISKCON are failing in the expectations of their followers. The many guru dropouts and acceptances of weakness have cast doubt in the minds of followers whether this path of variety is going to give relief from the temporariness of this material world. I have also heard complaints of ruination of teenage enjoyment which led to withdrawal at middle age. Societies like ISKCON must be extemely cautious about possible criticisms of hypocrisy and effectiveness of its methodology. I think the issue of authority is a bane for our society in the sense that there has not been conclusive literature on this.

 

An organisational dictating body (like the GBC) is ultimately composed of individuals and the acceptance of a motion is dependent upon the thinking of the majority of individuals, so I cannot influence the minds of the GBC. I can express my concerns; it is up to them to accept it or not. So I can only say "Gurus, be cautious. Your activities are always seen, but no one bothers about a commoner like me."

 

 

[zackv]

Hello everyone...just got an account here, I'm Zack, the guy who wrote "To Be A Guru." I didn't expect it to get so many counter-point articles in response, but I'm glad it sparked discussion...some people took me completely out of context though, so I went ahead and wrote a Part II, which hopefully will show up on Chakra soon. In any case I thought it might be cool to have an account here and be able to jump in discussions, regards...Z.V.

[stonehearted]

Why not post Part II here? I think some of us would like to see it.

[Guest guest]

My friend wrote a response to the "Unattainable guru" article by Ananda das and sent it to Chakra. But Chakra never posted it. Yet, it seems that Ananda das read my friend's response and replied to it in Chakra. Do you guys think that it is dishonest of Chakra to only post Ananda das' article and not my friends. It is almost as though they want to present themselves as "Open" but they are trying to "shape" things in their favor. It looks as though my frind's words about "honesty, integrity and truthfulness" went right over their heads.Does Ananda das work for Chakra?

This is my friend's response:

Dear Madhusudani prabhu,

Reply to: Only the unattainable guru makes no mistakes

 

Yes, everyone's spiritual life, including Srila Prabhupada's happens in the context of human fallibility. Agreed.

 

But, is it not a little ungenerous to bring our founder Acharya into this discussion with references to some of Prabhupada's quaint ideas about women, astrology, or the lunar landings? Or how about the remarks about the everyday hygiene that goes into clearing the dry debris that accumulates in the hair follicles of our founding Acharya's nose? And even more disconcerting, the unnecessary and therefore the unkindest cut of all, the reminder that flatulence was as much a part of the everyday reality of our founding Acharya as it is for all living entities that have a digestive system as wonderfully complex and efficient as ours. I can't help but wonder how all of this or any of these elemental reminders help shed light on the present situation of a Maharaja, who, to be just as blunt, made the choice, and then was found out to be frolicking butt naked in the sack with someone else's spouse.

 

Please! Have we lost all sense of reality here? Prabhupada was less than perfect, he made many mistakes, he had many quaint ideas, some of which were not so adorable; but no one can dispute the solid fact that fundamentally, above all else, our founding Acharya led an exemplary life as a man of impeccable morals, a gentleman to the last with everybody that knew him. In short, Prabhupada was that rare phenomenon in the world, and most conspicuously absent in our movement today: a man of character. And character, dear prabhus, if nothing else, is what all this controversy is about.

 

Character and truth. Please, let's make a little more effort at practicing at least a minimal standard of intellectual integrity when we write and reflect about these painful issues. If we are to continue growing in love, we must be truthful, no matter how difficult, no matter the pain or the humiliation. Because truth is a preliminary step and works as a necessary astringent before opening the heart to the values of compassion and humility. Because truth, along with Prabhupada, must not be additional victims of this wholly deplorable and tacky scenario. Because truth sacrificed in the interest of providing a little comforting anesthetic to our pride, only serves to perpetuate more delusion and more ignorance of the worst sort. Never mind also that Prabhupada was a hole in the flute through which Krishna's breath moved through - and even to this day.

 

Thankfully, in this one issue, somehow we have moved beyond truth. And the issue before us now is only love. Love as in compassion and support for Satsvarupa Maharaja who has already made a courageous decision in his spiritual life that, ironically, is also an eloquent and touching lesson of humility and faith in Krsna - for all of us. None of us are so pure or perfect that can dismiss Satsvarupa Maharaja public statements. Lets give the healing process enough space to continue its course. Love and understanding never condemn - rather they look to support and encourage. Love does not threaten. Love does not forbid. Love only invites, and grows impatient only when it feels the separation from Krishna.

 

In fact, I can't seem to remember what first compelled me to write these lines. What was this controversy about? It happened so long ago that I can't remember anymore. No matter, dear Satsvarupa Maharaja and devotees of Krsna everywhere, there is so much, so much wonderful service yet to be done!

 

Hare Krsna

[zackv]

I thought about posting Part II here but I'll give it a few days and see if Chakra puts it up. I'm almost sure it will since it's a follow-up...I hope so, anyway. If not, I'll put it up here.

 

Here's something I found interesting: in Ananda das's reply, he refers to me by my full name "Zachary Sunderman" even though it's nowhere on Chakra. I also got an e-mail about my article from a reader, but my e-mail address is also nowhere on Chakra.

[zackv]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Chakra doesn't post immediately. It took a few days before my article went up and I thought it had been voted against or something like that. So perhaps that reply will surface.

[stonehearted]

It's no mystery to me that Ananda knows your full name. He's one of the editors at Chakra. I've known him since February of 1970. And it does take some time for articles to be accepted and edited before they're posted. I had an article on the site last fall (actually, it was on Chakra, VNN, and Dipika at the same time, which I think is unprecedented), and it was clear that the article went back and forth among Ananda, Hae Krishna dasi, and Madhusudani Radha.

[theist]

welcome Zack

 

You may want to just place an article here while Chakra mulls it over or goes through whatever its process is.

 

JNdas and his crew are pretty tolerant as long as we don't get too far out there and commit aparadha's.

 

Opposing views may follow but then that's just dialouge.

[ancient_paztriot]

I'd like to read what you've written Babhru. Where is the article you wrote?

 

And please do post any more articles you write here.

[gHari]

From Chakra:<blockquote>To be a Guru

 

by Zack V. Sunderman

 

Posted May 26, 2004

 

I recently heard the news about Satsvarupa dasa Goswami [...]</blockquote>

BTW, I prefer this ending. I am confident that those qualified to hold an opinion are in a position to do the needful for Srila Prabhupada. What can we out here do for Prabhupada? If we are bent on ridicule, then let it begin from the inside out.

 

[stonehearted]

Paz: I'd like to read what you've written Babhru. Where is the article you wrote?

 

What I was referring to was a lengthy article written in response to an article by Danavir Maharaja which was very critical of Tripurari Maharaja's edition of Bhagavad-gita. If you like, I'll find it and post the links. I edited the Dipika version differently from the others because an ultimatum from Umapati Maharaja.

[stonehearted]

Chakra's version (in three parts):

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/BMOct30_03.html

 

VNN's version:

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0311/ET01-8432.html

 

Dipika's version:

http://www.dipika.org/2003/10/26.31/28.vraja.bhakti.in.gita/index.html

[ancient_paztriot]

Again! Yes. Please post the links.

[stonehearted]

I have some other articles that have been published on those Web sites as well. Perhaps I'll post some of them on another thread. I also have a bunch of Vyasa-puja tributes and other stuff I haven't shared very widely yet.

[theist]

writing is good for the author and when shared is good for all.

[ancient_paztriot]

I picked the VNN version.

 

You had me laughing at the end of your first paragraph… and convinced. I don't want to read Danavir Gosvami after your comments of him. You open your attack by telling your enemy what he's done, what you're going to do, and set about doing it. Powerful. I admire your skill and am highly entertained at watching you excercise your art.

 

A little later… Well I read for several minutes, but I admit I'm not so interested in the subject matter of debate. However I read enough to have a higher opinion of you. You impressed me as sincere and convicted and having an excellent grasp of the circumstances. Wonderful piece. Really.

[zackv]

Well, nothing I've said has been motivated by, or included any ridicule. I have no desire to do anything like that.

 

The reason I wrote my article in the first place was because I was troubled by the idea that S.D.G. wanted his disciples to remain viewing him as guru. That's why I've been trying to portray the real standard of "guru" so much - I see the philosophy and understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism being dumbed-down to fit the circumstances. People keep seeing gurus fall, so they make a new definition of a guru. Or they think anyone who has disciples is a pure devotee. These are big problems and I see them leading to a diminished representation of Chaitanya's revelation.

 

My history with K.C. is that I started out as a fanatical brahmachari in ISKCON, took initiation, so on and so forth. I later grew up and started to view things with more clarity and understanding and started to have serious problems with a lot of what I saw in ISKCON, so I got out. Eventually I had to reject my guru because I felt he was engaged in extreme examples of aparadha that I could not attribute to a true guru or pure devotee. Now I'm not even sure where I am at spiritually but I have grown to appreciate Gaudiya Vaishnavism in a much more rich, deep manner than originally, and I guess I feel it is part of my duty in what I've learned to give it to others.

 

I can't stand watching devotees excepting party-line statements and not even being able to delve into the true meaning of the philosophy they themselves embrace.

[stonehearted]

I respect the devotees who question Zack's motives, as well as their right to do so, as much as I respect Zack's right to question the policies of ISKCON's leadership. I also found some things in Satsvarupa Maharaja's article a little troubling. It struck me as unseemly that he would implore his disciples not to give up faith in him, although he may have given them reason to question his fitness. After all, how many times did Srila Prabhupada tell us that unless someone is able to deliver his wards from the jaws of death he should not accept the responsibility of becoming husband, father , guru, etc.? It also struck me as unseemly that Satsvarupa Maharaja would cite the api cet suduracaro verse of Bhagavad-gita to support the position that he himself should be seen as saintly. I would have preferred to see clearer evidence of the humility for which he is lionized.

 

That said, although I have found him not always to be as charitable as others have, I have always liked and respected Satsvarupa Maharaja. Moreover, I think it behooves us as Vaishnavas to be generous in our dealings with others, especially those whose aspirations are to serve Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It may well be that Satasvarupa's health problems can be traced to his involvement with ISKCON's management and policies, especially as mistaken as many of the policies seem to have been over the years, and as mistaken as some of the leaders seem to have been. Perhaps the lapses that have become so famous may be due to his affliction with migraine (perhaps due to the anxiety over the policies, etc. mentioned earlier). Any other migraineurs can understand how nearly constant migraine can affect one's personality and behavior.

 

And just as important as being generous with leaders such as Satsvarupa Maharaja is being charitable with devotees such as Zack. I think that many of us can understand his desire to help get our movement in line with Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings, if we remember back a bit. I think we may find it more profitable in the long run to discuss principles rather than personalities.

[zackv]

"Stonehearted" - I don't think anyone could have ever said it better and certainly not myself. That was great to read, thank you.

[stonehearted]

And thank you for your generous words. I look forward to Part II.

[Guest guest]

Babhru,

 

I loved that article you wrote about Mahaprabhu. You should post a link. Wonderful.

-murali

[theist]

Read this on another forum and wondered about it. Thoughts?

 

 

Posted June 6, 2004

 

I just wanted to send in my response to the articles that I am reading regarding His Holiness Satsvarupa Maharaja. I have great respect for him; I always did, and I always will.

 

His contributions to ISKCON can in no way be undermined. It is Lord Krsna's leela how he uses his devotees.

 

If anything, by Maharaja's leela, he has showed by example that one should not neglect the instructions of Srila Prabhupad at any age. He was used as an instrument for all of us to learn from it. Again, that is his contribution to ISKCON, and we have no capacity to judge him on this incident.

 

 

Maharaja's lila? Having sexual relations with your disciples wife is now lila?

 

I can appreciate the effort to see things in there most positive light but does that mean shutting one's eyes to the reality?

 

No capacity to judge? Shouldn't we have gained enough intelligence by now to know that using your disciple who is also your disciples wife(I believe both parties were his disciples could be wrong on that).

 

There is a difference between employing due discrimination and mindlessly throwing stones.

 

Throwing stones and becoming blind to the facts appear to me to be both sides of the same coin.

 

 

 

[krsna]

We have fear to slight this most senior devotee so we will not dare speak the truth.

We will cower frightfully in our little world in safety rather than take the risk of calling a spade a spade.

 

 

***************************************

 

From a devotee weblog:

 

Satsvarupa Maharaja was surrounded by loving friends and disciples and yet they did not catch his fall down until after the fact. Compare this to Lord Caitanya's associates like Damodara Pandita and Govinda, who were vigilant to see that the Lord would not be in a situation that could potentially bring Him ill repute. (When the Lord acts like an ordinary human being, that is always for our instruction.) In a spiritual society, social responsibility is guided not by "innocent until proven guilty" but by "where there is smoke there is fire."

[gHari]

Where did we get this idea?