“Gaudiya Matha Finished”

August, 2017

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

First of a Two-part Series

“There is every evidence that they (the rascal sannyäsés) are influenced by some of my fourth-class godbrothers. . . . If there is opportunity, try to convince these rascal sannyäsés, who are misled by fourth-class men that, if they at all want to have a change of leadership, why do they not select a better leader than at present moment? What is the use of finding out a fourth-class leader who has no asset as their background?”
Letter to Hayagréva, 9-14-70

“Why this Gauòéya Maöha 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 Äcärya.’ But these people, just after his passing away, they began to fight who shall be Äcärya. That is the failure. They never thought, ‘Why guru mahäräja gave us instruction so many things, why he did not say that this man should be Äcärya?’ They wanted to create artificially somebody Äcärya, and everything failed.

They did not consider, even with common sense, that, if guru mahäräja wanted to appoint somebody as Äcärya, 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 Äcärya. Then another man came, then another . . . So better remain a foolish person perpetually to be directed by guru mahäräja. That is perfection. And as soon as he learns the guru mahäräja is dead, ‘Now, I am so advanced that I can kill my guru, and I become guru.’”
Room Conversation, 8-16-76 in Bombay

Gauòéya Maöha finished, that . . . violated the orders of guru mahäräja.”
Room Conversation, 4-20-77 in Bombay

In order to buttress its legacy and embellish a false claim to legitimacy, Neo-Mutt leaders and followers, as befitting the direct offspring of deviation, insist that there should be no criticism of Gouòéya Mutt. They wrongly claim that Çréla Prabhupäda did not engage in that way, which is ludicrous. He criticized the deviant group and its leaders repeatedly. That will be proved in this two-part series. Neo-Mutt opines that Prabhupäda simply started and developed his own mission separately. In point of fact, he constantly, via many forums, informed and warned his disciples about Gouòéya Mutt, which he called the great sinister movement. Prabhupäda thus provided us a plethora of statements about Gouòéya Mutt and his inimical godbrothers, and you will be given the opportunity to read about all of that.

Neo Mutt was established in the early Eighties under the encouragement of the Gouòéya Mutt mahant in Navadvépa. The time has come to confront it and its malefic bija. The Neo-Mutt splinter group insidiously covers THE TRUTH, almost as effectively as does the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation, which is its contending brother-cult. Gouòéya Mutt also needs to be seen for what it actually was. The mind-boggling unaccountability of “ISKCON,” along with its arbitrary domineering, is only aided by ignorance about how the Gouòéya Mutt influenced its deviations. The same applies to Neo-Mutt, of course.

In this article, we shall extensively quote Çréla Prabhupäda in relation to Gouòéya Mutt. His criticisms of it are applicable to Neo-Mutt, which is today composed of any number of wild-card gurus that have polluted the Vedic and Vaiñëava teachings following in the footsteps of the parent cult of their apa-sampradäya.

All emphases added for your edification and realization.

Progress in spiritual life depends upon, in no small part, not becoming duped by historical revisionism. To become aware of Gouòéya Mutt history (post Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta) can and will help us from falling victim to motivated revisions of its actual history. At this time, there is no chance of healing the fragmentation caused and promoted by the various factions, but historical awareness of the Gouòéya Mutt will help us not to be tripped up by any of the contemporary deviations—particularly, not to become bamboozled by Neo-Mutt.

Leaders of unauthorized sects never acknowledge the shortcomings of their warped versions of history. They are simply engaged in checking your devotional progress. Their institutions and/or personality cults are generally aggressive in this respect. Reluctance to face up to that challenge and fear to even read about (what to speak of confront) the historical roots of the original deviation, will result in eventual spiritual blindness.

They Are Envious”

In his purport to verse six of Upadeçämåta (The Nectar of Instruction), His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda called his godbrothers envious, and, in doing so, he established that fact in the Lawbooks of Mankind for thousands of years. He said there that he was surrounded by them. Heavier quotes than that one can be found in his letters, and from his morning walks and room conversations. We shall now proceed to reproduce some of those.

“They are all envious of my activities here.”
Letter to Brahmänanda, 11-2-68

“They” refers to his godbrothers, of course. As such, this unfortunate fact of their envy was made known to the first president of ISKCON very early on. As we shall see, in the section discussing the Maìgalaniloy saga, Prabhupäda considered his godbrothers to be envious as early as 1966, the first full year of his successful preaching in America.

My godbrothers are envious because they could not do. They could not do even half of guru mahäräja’s work, and I am doing ten times. So, therefore, they are envious.”
Room Conversation, 4-2-72 in Sydney

Here, His Divine Grace makes it clear that he was producing tangible results in converting thousands of Westerners to Vaisnavism by the early Seventies, whereas his godbrothers were mostly ineffective in proselytizing. Their inability to get considerable results, compared to Prabhupäda’s obvious great success, had produced enviousness in them.

Even in the spiritual field, my godbrothers are envious. You see? So as soon as you become successful, there will be many enemies. That is natural. That is the sign of success.”
Room Conversation, 11-3-73 in New Delhi

They were envious of him and inimical to him. It is made clear here that inimical propaganda by a godbrother against another godbrother may sometimes be indicative of envy of that devotee’s effective preaching. Directly related to this, genuine preaching will naturally produce enemy action, especially from such envious godbrothers. That principle remains operative today, but only a few are able to apply it rightly.

Just like all my godbrothers. They are dead men. And therefore they are envious of my activities. They have no life.”
Morning Walk, 7-13-74 in Los Angeles

The most important word here is “all.” He also calls his godbrothers dead men, which should not be read figuratively or easily dismissed. It was an accurate description. Dead men make others dead to spiritual life, and some of Prabhupäda’s disciples were spiritually killed by his envious godbrothers, particularly after he departed.

“So these rascals, godbrothers, they are envious . . . Just see what kind of men they are. They are not even ordinary human being. They are envious of me, and what to speak of make a judgment by estimation? They’re envious. Enviousness is immediately disqualification of Vaiñëava, immediate. . . Their only business is to kill Kåñëa. . . They are envious.”
Room Conversation, 10-16-75 in Johannesburg

This is the heaviest quote. In this excerpt, he calls them envious in four different places. He then says that these envious godbrothers are not even on the platform of ordinary human life. He goes on to say that their only business is to kill the Kåñëa consciousness movement, which has been proven over time. He also calls them rascals.

“Kindly copy this and send out to all the temples accordingly that they should have no dealings with Swämi Bon or others who are envious.”
Letter to Rämeçvara, 10-17-75

This references an incident in Canada, precipitated by Swämi Bon, an extremely envious godbrother. He first arrive there and stayed at a Canadian ISKCON center, pretending to glorify Prabhupäda and to be his well-wisher. It turned out, predictably, that he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. As such, once Prabhupäda was made aware of Bon’s vicious propaganda against him, His Divine Grace had his personal secretary type up a letter that was sent to all the movement’s leaders. The gist of this letter, which was authorized directly by Prabhupäda, was that there should be a complete break in all dealings with anyone (any leader or godbrother) connected to the Gouòéya Mutt. This incident will be referenced and discussed in more detail subsequently.

“So what is their tangible objection? Of course, they cannot do all these things, it is beyond their power, but if somebody else does it, why should they be envious and obstructive to this plan?”
Letter to Swämi B. R. Çrédhara, 6-6-76

The subtext of this excerpt is that certain powerful Gouòéya Mutt leaders were working behind the scenes to keep Prabhupäda from purchasing land in Mäyäpura for construction of an ISKCON temple there. They were effectively interfering with, and obstructing, his right to preach the glories of Lord Caitanya’s movement, but they had no justification for this. As such, Prabhupäda complains of this injustice to his elder godbrother, who wound up harming his mission (after he departed) more than all the rest of the godbrothers combined.

Prabhupäda: They were envious that, “How do you live so opulently? You do not do anything? You have got so many cars. You eat so nicely. You live in such a nice house. And no anxiety.”
Leading Secretary: . . . they think we’re getting money from somewhere, from government.
Prabhupäda: Our Tértha Mahäräja accusing me that I have got two crores of rupees from American government to start this movement.”
Conversation on Temple Roof, 2-17-77, in Mäyäpura

This excerpt discloses the enviousness of Swämi Tértha, who had died about one-half year previous to this statement. It had reached such a stage that he (Tértha) concocted a story that Prabhupäda was only able to prosecute his movement in the United States because the American government had surreptitiously provided him with a huge sum of start-up money. Such was the nature of his envious godbrothers, viz., they would go even this far in lying about His Divine Grace and his mission. That is the nature of envy. Çréla Prabhupäda, on more than one occasion, defined envy as “you cannot live.”

Envy means the cow has got right to live. He does not allow the cow to live. That is envy. You cannot understand this? Suppose you are walking. You have got right to walk, I have got, and, if I kill you, you cannot walk. That is envious. Everyone has got right to live.”
Morning Walk on 4-10-76 in Våndävan, India

There Will Be Fire”

“He told me directly, that, ‘I know there will be blazing fire in this place.’”
Room Conversation, 9-6-76 in Våndävan

“He said, that, ‘Since this temple has been given by Mr. Datta, our men are fighting . . .’”
Room Conversation, 2-24-77 in Mäyäpur

“He said personally to me, ‘If I could sell this Gauòéya Maöha building, that would have been better.’ He predicted, that, ‘there would be fire within these walls.’”
Letter to Rämeçvara, 8-14-76

“‘ . . . in a rented house, there was no trouble, (but) as soon as this Datta gave us this marble palace, then there was competition who will occupy which room. In this way, dissension began. So I am desiring that this dissension will increase, and there will be fire.’”
Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta (as quoted by A. C. Bhaktivedänta), Morning Walk, 9-19-75

At a certain point, Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta wanted that destruction rain down on the leading devotees who were deviating his great movement.

“He (Bhaktisiddhänta) said, that, “There will be fire in this Gauòéya Math: Ägun jvälbe.’”
Room Conversation in London, 7-26-76

The aftermath history of the Gouòéya Mutt is not a happy one. In the mid-Thirties and just after Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté Gosvämé Prabhupäda, its founder, entered tirobhäva on the first day of 1937, major problems immediately ensued in that institution. The night before he departed, he never mentioned that there should be one Äcärya to lead the Mutt after he was gone, but the governing body commission he had created voted to do just that.

The fire (ägun jvälbe) was already smoldering hot by the time of that first governing body conclave, as a competitive atmosphere had been reigning. The chief competition was between Kuïja Bäbu (Kuïjabihäré), a married manager and administrator, and Änanta Väsudeva, a sannyäsé, who was a very learned scholar and skilled orator.

The date of that first G.B.C. meeting is not known by your author, but it is incomprehensible that there was any long delay between the founder’s tirobhäva and its assembly. One of my godbrothers wrote a piece about six years ago, and it included a number of specifics about that first conclave. According to that report, there were thirteen members in the initial governing body; we know for certain who three of them were, and it is not difficult to guess many of the others. Ultimately, the exact make-up of that commission, in terms of the names of its leading secretaries, is not all that important.

At any rate, according to this report, that first G.B.C. voted 8-5 to install Änanta Väsudeva as the next Äcärya of the Gouòéya Mutt. This was completely rejected by the minority report, and they broke away. Their leader was the aforementioned Kuïja Bäbu, who eventually took the title of Swämi Bhakti-viläsa Tértha. The two parties had already been at loggerheads, and both were ambitious. Just as obviously, Änanta Väsudeva successfully pressed his claim as Äcärya, being backed by influential sannyäsé supporters on the commission.

Kuïjavihäré took aim at the properties, particularly the Caitanya Mutt in Mäyäpur. He also claimed ownership of the marble temple in Calcutta, known as the Bägh Bazaar, as well as all the other properties and assets of Gauòéya Math, but Änanta Väsudeva was very strong in Calcutta, his headquarters. He and his men kept it.

Although Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta wanted the governing board to control and manage all Mutt properties and funds–and specifically expressed that in his Will–Kuïjavihäré contested the Will’s legitimacy. He and his people put forth a bizarre argument, claiming that Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta had received the properties on behalf of God, and, since that was the case, he was not their rightful owner. As such, he (Bhaktisiddhänta) could not determine any kind of future ownership of these properties in his Will.

Litigation was initiated early on, and the legal battle dragged on for decades, as the court system in India moves very slow. Most of the members of the Gouòéya Mutt sided with Änanta Väsudeva (since the G.B.C. had made him Äcärya), and they contended that he was the final arbiter of the properties. As the saying goes, possession is ninth-tenths of the law: Kuïjavihäré controlled the Caitanya Maöha and other assets in Mäyäpur, while almost all of the other Mutt properties and temples throughout India were controlled by the followers of Änanta Väsudeva. The fighting between these camps did not simply remain in the courts, i.e., it also broke out on the physical plane. Some say that there were even one or two murders, although your author has not been able to verify that.

The preaching mission was severely impacted, almost to the point of complete breakdown. Our Çréla Prabhupäda did not join either faction, and he severely criticized both of them in later years. Certainly, what went down back was a major deviation from the instructions of Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta. One other godbrother (of your author) has reported that the legal wrangling followed a peculiar path, with one lower court initially ruling in favor of Änanta Väsudeva, but then a higher court awarding two-thirds of the properties to Kuïjavihäré and one-third to Änanta Väsudeva.

Be that as it may, Änanta Väsudeva did not stay on top for long, despite the fact that, initially, his followers were more numerous and dedicated. Another of my elder godbrothers has reported that love letters were discovered in due course, indicating a liaison between Änanta Väsudeva and a woman. The discovery of that correspondence led Swämi B. R. Çrédhar and other sannyäsés affiliated with him (according to this report, which can be found in the Folio) to request Änanta Väsudeva to step down. He refused.

This led to a second schism. Most of the Mutt sannyäsés thus broke off from the two contending factions. In due course, Gauòéya Mission, Caitanya Gauòéya Maöh, Keçava-jé Gouòéya Mutt in Mathurä and others emerged. The unity of the Gouòéya Mutt was torn asunder, and the fighting raged and increased in intensity and viciousness.

Some opine that Änanta Väsudeva was still being protected by Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta up to that point, but such a sentiment makes little or no sense. Änanta Väsudeva eventually turned against Bhaktisiddhänta, preaching against some of his principles, as could only be expected. According to the standard history, he later took an initiation into the caste gosvämé cult, accepting another name as Puré Gosvämé. He also began associating with the bäbäjés of Rädhä-kuëòa, who were vitriolic in their antagonism against Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta. He had preached strongly against them earlier when visiting the dhäma, and they nursed a very deep grudge against him for that.

Some of the Gouòéya Mutt members still followed this Puré Gosvämé even after all of this, but then he made another change and became a married man. What ensued after that, in terms of his tragic demise, is briefly brought out by Prabhupäda (below). Änanta Väsudeva’s taking a wife threw the legal battle into disarray, as it was strong evidence of his abdication in the matter of leading the mission. Nevertheless, others took up the legal argument (that the former Änanta Väsudeva had abandoned), and the case ended up before the Calcutta High Court. One of the reasons for their persistence was deep hatred of Kuïja Bäbu:

Prabhupäda: But after the demise, everything burst out. ‘Kuïja Bäbu must be driven out.’ That was the whole plan of Gauòéya Maöha breakdown. The grudge was against Kuïja Bäbu.
Leading Secretary: Who is Kuïja Bäbu?
Prabhupäda: That Tértha Mahäräja. His name is Kuïja Vihäré Sär. So, that was boiling in everyone’s heart. So, as soon as guru mahäräja passed away, that burst out, and the whole plan was how to get out this Kuïja Bäbu. . . This was suppressed by guru mahäräja under his influence, but the rebellious(ness) was there during his lifetime, and it burst. Therefore, he advised, that, ‘You make a governing body, and Kuïja Bäbu should be allowed to remain manager.’ This was directly spoken. He never asked anybody to become Äcärya. He asked, that, ‘You form a governing body of twelve men and go on preaching, and Kuïja Bäbu may be allowed to remain manager during his lifetime.’

He never said that Kuïja Bäbu should be Äcärya. None, none of them were advised by guru mahäräja to become Äcärya. . . but they wanted that, because, at heart, they were, ‘After demise of guru, I shall become Äcärya. I shall become Äcärya’. . . One side, that Väsudeva Äcärya and Sär Kuïja Bäbu Äcärya. And Paramänanda, he thought, that, ‘Whoever will be powerful, I shall join them.’ He only thought, but guru mahäräja never asked that these three men should be trustees.

“He wanted governing body. So, the rebellion broke out immediately after his passing away. And then fight in the High Court. And Kuïja Bäbu, he is very intelligent man. So, from the very beginning, he knew that, ‘There will be fight after the demise of guru mahäräja. So fight will be in the High Court. So, at the expense of guru mahäräja, let my brother and sons become attorneys and barrister, so I will have not to pay all these things.’ It was a planned thing, and that is being done. He was a clerk. It was not in his power to make his brother and sons attorneys and barristers. They were all made at the cost of Gauòéya Maöha to fight . . . in favor of Tértha Mahäräja. These were the planned things.”
Room Conversation, 9-21-73 in Bombay

His Divine Grace also had a related take—particularly in relation to Änanta Väsudeva–on the post 1937 aftermath of Gouòéya Mutt history:

“One of my Gauòéya Maöha godbrothers, big, he became the head of this Bhäg Bazaar Gauòéya Maöha. So, his wife was debauched, and she was bringing new paramour . . . my godbrother, seeing this, he also took poison. This is the end of Gauòéya Maöha scandal. He was also one of the trustees. This Tértha Mahäräja was a trustee, and another godbrother and this man. In the beginning, they were made trustees. . . So, he (Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta) made a scrap paper, that, ‘In case I die, these three disciples will be trustees of the Gauòéya Maöha Institute.’ That’s all. So, this Kuïja Bäbu kept this. There are many long histories. So, one of the so-called trustees was this (Änanta) Väsudeva. . . he died, his end was like this: His wife was a regular prostitute, and she killed her child, and on this shock, he took poison and died. And he was made the chief, and one of the supporter(s) was Çrédhara Mahäräja. He was made chief. Guru mahäräja did not make him chief, but, after his passing away, some of our godbrothers voted him chief.
Leading Secretary: You said that (Änanta) Väsudeva, it was known fact that he was homosex?
Prabhupäda: Yes. He was homosex and sex, everything.
Room Conversation, 6-18-76, Toronto

Prabhupäda had already actually condemned Änanta Väsudeva in 1958:

“Your so-called disciple, the jackal named Änanta Väsudeva, disobeyed your final instructions to keep the mission united, and thereby created a scandalous fiasco. The result of this philosophical deviation is evident to this day, as imitative sahajiyäs are being worshiped as gurus in your temples.”
Virahäñöaka (addressed to his godbrothers), Verse Two of Fifth Octet

This historical background is necessarily made concise, but it cannot be ignored. It needs to be understood as the foundation of the Gouòéya Mutt deviation, and how that influenced Çréla Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda’s Society, both in the modern era and in the post-modern era, after Prabhupäda left the scene. Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta predicted that there would be a fire in his movement, and that prediction came to pass. Çréla A. C. Bhaktivedänta Prabhupäda has stated, in his books, that the Gouòéya Mutt is now useless:

“Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Öhäkura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next äcärya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of äcärya, and they split into two factions over who the next äcärya would be. Consequently, both factions were asära, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master. Despite the spiritual master’s order to form a governing body and execute the missionary activities of the Gauòéya Maöha, the two unauthorized factions began litigation that is still going on after forty years with no decision.”
Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi Lélä, 12.8, purport

The Anointed One

Prabhupäda: Dr. Kapoor says that, “Bhaktivedänta Swämi speaks as strongly as Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté was speaking.”
Initiated Disciple: He also said that, “Çréla Prabhupäda is only one who has really taken the, his mission seriously.”
Prabhupäda: That is a fact. Of course, I don’t say myself. That will not look good, but there is other. They, all my godbrothers, realize it. “But he is only representative.” Somebody, they frankly admit, and somebody do not.
Room Conversation, 7-25-76 in London

The Anointed One was His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda; he was the the only disciple who received the mercy of Çréla Siddhänta Sarasväté. His Divine Grace received power of attorney as çaktyäveça-avatär, and he received the bhakti-sakti. He was the true and only uttama-adhikäré to emerge from the ashes of the joint mess known as Gouòéya Mutt. He did not want to be a sannyäsé, but it was forced upon him by Kåñëa and his guru mahäräj. He had no desire to become guru, but he was empowered to become jagad-guru, the one who brought the whole world to Kåñëa consciousness—at least, to knowledge of the divine opportunity of Lord Caitanya’s supreme gift.

Everything else failed, but he did not fail. His legacy appears to be a bit tarnished at this time, but that will be reversed, and, when it is, those who exploited what he magnanimously offered everyone will be punished, severely. He had to establish the record of the actual situation of his envious godbrothers, and he did so very effectively. It is being repeated here. Not only do we have potent quotes from him in this connection, but we also have the Maìgalaniloy odyssey, and we may draw powerful lessons from it.

The Maìgalaniloy Saga

In the spring and summer of 1966, Çréla Prabhupäda incorporated his ISKCON organization and also performed his first initiation ceremony, i.e., his movement was taking off. These months were also when his mission secured its own independent temple facilities at 26 Second Avenue in New York City. There was a brief subplot during this time in connection to a younger Indian devotee that Prabhupäda had associated with back in Bengal. This devotee was a disciple of one of Prabhupäda’s godbrothers, Mädhava mahäräj.

In this episode with Maìgalaniloy, there were five notable letters from Çréla Prabhupäda, one of which was sent to Mädhava mahäräj. Although these letters do not tell the full story of Prabhupäda’s unsuccessful attempt to bring Maìgalaniloy to America to assist him, they certainly provide telling details as to what the saga reveals, particularly concerning lack of cooperation with Prabhupäda by his godbrothers.

“ . . . the system of bhakti-yoga will be very much appreciable to them (Westerners) if we could open a center here in New York. With this aim in view, I tried my godbrothers to join together for this preaching work in the foreign countries by combined force. I tried first Keçava mahäräja, then Bon mahäräja and then Tértha mahäräja, but I have failed to get any cooperation from either of them till now, and, therefore, when I was just arranging to go back to India to try for myself, it is a great omen to receive your encouraging letter under reply. . . . I think if you come at all, you should come here with a tangible program, and it is encouraging to note that you wish to work under me by full cooperation. . . Anyway your voluntary offer for cooperation is very welcome, and I take it for Çréla Prabhupäda’s help in this great adventure. If I shall remain here for some time more, surely I shall call you, as desired by you, provided you work in cooperation with me fully. . . If you come it will be great help for me provided you agree to work under me.”
Letter to Maìgalaniloy (in Assam, India), 5-16-66

Prabhupäda’s sannyäsa guru was B. P. Keçava mahäräj, who was obviously favorable to him, at least to some extent. However, as stated here, Keçava mahäräj did not actually cooperate with him in his mission to America in the mid-Sixties. Prabhupäda then comments that Bon mahäräj did not offer any help, and that Tértha mahäräj also did not help him in his Western mission. Now, in this subplot with Maìgalaniloy, we shall see that another influential Gouòéya Mutt leader, Mädhava mahäräj, also refused to help him, specifically in relation to Maìgalaniloy’s desire to join Prabhupäda in New York.

At first, Prabhupäda was optimistic about Maìgalaniloy’s chances, going so far as to consider his letter to him a positive indicator that he should stay in America and not return to India. By the late summer of 1966, however, that optimism had dissipated.

What is interesting (in this first reply to Maìgalaniloy) is that Prabhupäda stresses that he (Maìgalaniloy) can only come to join him if he (Maìgalaniloy) works under Çréla Prabhupäda, and not otherwise. This was repeated throughout the letter. It could indicate as well (your author believes that it does) that Prabhupäda did not fully trust this Maìgalaniloy, and for good reason. His Divine Grace did not want to subsidize an Indian disciple of one of his godbrothers in order for that fellow to arrive in America and become a wild-card who could jeopardize his mission. None of this was directly expressed in this first reply to Maìgalaniloy, obviously, but considering how the whole episode played out, it is not at all illogical to give such an interpretation consideration.

“You have asked me to correspond with him (Maìgalaniloy’s guru, Mädhava mahäräja), but, as he is always in preaching activities, it is better you open the negotiation first with him, and, if he agrees to help me and cooperate with me in the matter of preaching work in the foreign countries, it will be great encouragement for me. Up till now, I am working alone without any cooperation of any one of my godbrothers, and it is the first time that you have voluntarily extended your hand to cooperate with me in full spirit.”
Letter to Maìgalaniloy, 6-11-66

Here we see evidence of the tension between Prabhupäda and his godbrothers, specifically, in this case, with Mädhava mahäräj. Why is Maìgalaniloy not consulting his guru? Obviously, Maìgalaniloy is thinking that his guru will not approve him having anything to do with Çréla Prabhupäda, what to speak of traveling to America and working under him. In the letters that Prabhupäda mailed to Maìgalaniloy during these months, he requested him (Maìgalaniloy) to engage in services in India on his (Prabhupäda’s) behalf. Some of these requests centered around contacting the Finance Minister. There is no indication that Maìgalaniloy followed through, which, from one perspective, could also be considered disobeying orders.

Here, Prabhupäda requests Maìgalaniloy to consult with his guru, but there is precious little evidence (if any) that Maìgalaniloy, who was living in Assam at the time, actually then did so. Finally, at the beginning of August, Prabhupäda wrote directly to Mädhava mahäräj, and what he requested of him was jaw-dropping. We shall analyze that letter subsequently, but, as far as this reply is concerned, Prabhupäda unambiguously states to Maìgalaniloy that none of his godbrothers are cooperating with him.

We should also remember that Prabhupäda, possessing full mystic power, also possessed the power of tri-käla-jïa (knowledge of past, present, and future). Was His Divine Grace engaging in this (ultimately futile) effort of bringing over Maìgalaniloy in order to establish the historical record? In other words, by showing how he made every effort to reasonably engage with Maìgalaniloy, and how there was no positive reinforcement or reciprocation from this devotee’s guru, was Prabhupäda thus, playing it forward, giving us tangible evidence of just how uncooperative his godbrothers were to his mission?

Maìgalaniloy definitely wanted to come to America and assist Prabhupäda in preaching Lord Caitanya’s movement, but he was intimidated to such an extent that he could not muster up the courage to approach his guru for permission.

“. . . you want to join first with me then talk with Çrépäda (Mädhava) mahäräja about cooperation, otherwise your journey to this country may be canceled by him. I could not follow the import of this proposal. Do you think that cooperation with me prior to your joining me here is not possible? . . . If, by seeing the Finance Minister, this work can be facilitated, why should we wait for time so that you cannot talk with (Çrépäda Mädhava mahäräja) about any cooperation, because you (are) afraid of your journey here may be canceled? Please do not think in that way. Take everything as Çréla Prabhupäda’s work and try to cooperate in that spirit. The Gauòéya Math institution has failed. . . .”
Letter to Maìgalaniloy, 6-23-66

In this particular reply, the tide is beginning to turn from initial optimism to guarded pessimism concerning Maìgalaniloy’s chances to serve under Prabhupäda in America. In effect, Prabhupäda is mildly chastising Maìgalaniloy for not approaching his guru and getting the ball rolling, for not talking to him (“so that you cannot talk”). His Divine Grace had been requesting Maìgalaniloy to contact the Finance Minister in order to see if he (the Minister) would grant a funds transfer certification in order to facilitate a very wealthy man in Kanpur, Padampat Sighania. He wanted to cover the full cost of building a large Rädhä-Kåñëa temple in New York City. Maìgalaniloy was dithering and had still not even approached his guru about his desire to join with Prabhupäda, perhaps thinking that his mission was different from his guru’s mission or Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta’s mission.

Obviously, the most important element in this excerpt is contained in its last line, viz., Prabhupäda unequivocally stating that the Gouòéya Mutt was a failure. Again, this is a strong indicator that Prabhupäda was engaging in this (ultimately futile) effort at bringing Maìgalaniloy over in order to set the record straight, along with providing an example of just how inimical the Gouòéya Mutt leaders were to his mission.

“Regarding the Jhansi incidence referred to by your (guru, Mädhava mahäräj), I may inform you that the donor of the house did not like to hand over the estate to any individual person. I therefore registered a society (The League of Devotees), and I invited (Mädhava mahäräj) to join it as the head man. But he, as he was with the then Kuïjada, desired to have the property in the joint name of him and Kuïjada. . . I left the whole scheme.”
Letter to Maìgalaniloy, 7-16-66

Apparently, Maìgalaniloy had, by this time, tried to secure permission to join Prabhupäda from his spiritual master. That permission was not granted, and, although we do not have access to Maìgalaniloy’s letter to Prabhupäda here, the fellow had now been informed about Prabhupäda’s unsuccessful effort in the Fifties as it related to the League of Devotees and a large, stone-walled complex (converted into an äçrama) in Jhansi. As clearly stated in this letter, the donor of that estate did not want it put in the name of any individual, but he was willing to sign it over to a registered society, like the League of Devotees.

Although His Divine Grace did not go into any details, there was a conspiracy, at that time, between Maìgalaniloy’s guru and Kuïjada (as of 1966, Swämi Bhakti-viläsa-Tértha) to shove Prabhupäda out of the picture and gain control of the complex for themselves (after Prabhupäda had invited Mädhava mahäräj to become the president of the League of Devotees there). Again, His Divine Grace is setting the historical record straight, and, since he is indirectly criticizing Maìgalaniloy’s guru for torpedoing the Jhansi äçrama, we can logically conclude that Prabhupäda no longer had much hope (if he even had any at all by that time), that Maìgalaniloy would be able to join him in New York City.

There were no more letters to Maìgalaniloy from Prabhupäda after this one.

“. . . Maìgalaniloy has already agreed to come here to assist me fully, but I wish that each and every one of the different Gauòéya Maöh organizations may kindly send one person respectively to work under my direction in these foreign countries and thus become individually a member of the international organization above-mentioned.”
Letter to Mädhava mahäräj, 8-1-66

The “international organization above-mentioned” is ISKCON, of course, which had been incorporated already, although it was not specifically named in the letter.

The Maìgalaniloy saga comes to an end. Prabhupäda makes a mind-boggling request of Mädhava mahäräj, going well beyond merely asking him to facilitate Maìgalaniloy’s desire to come to America and to work under him in for spreading Lord Caitanya’s mission. He now wants more than just one assistant. Prabhupäda wants a man sent over from every Gouòéya Mutt center in India (opened and/or controlled by his godbrothers). He wants tangible cooperation demonstrated by their sending him one disciple from each temple. Although this is anything but an unreasonable request, it would have been considered preposterous when received by Mädhava mahäräj.

There is no record of his replying to it, what to speak of his making any effort to fulfill the stated desire. It could, from the highest spiritual (and most authorized) perspective, also be considered an order to his godbrothers, which would be considered even more outrageous by them if Mädhava had transmitted it like that to them.

The conclusion of the Maìgalaniloy saga should not be sentimental. Prabhupäda handled it with considerable tact, but, at the same time, the gloves came off! Prabhupäda reciprocated with Maìgalaniloy, in the series of letters exchanged with him in 1966, and he established important facts and history in the process. To foolishly conclude that his exchanges with Maìgalaniloy at that time indicates that we should not criticize Gouòéya Mutt and/or any of Neo-Mutt leaders at this time is to ignore the contents of those letters.

In them, he sets the record straight. He criticized Mädhava mahäräj. He criticized Kuïjada, a.k.a., Tértha mahäräj. Both of those men were then influential leaders in the Gouòéya Mutt. He said that the Gouòéya Mutt was a failure and added that none of his godbrothers was cooperating with him. This particular episode proved that beyond doubt.

End of Part One
Proceed to Part Two


1 Torben Nielsen { 08.02.17 at 04:41 }

Thanks for sharing important information and insight.

“For one who explains the supreme secret to the devotees, devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me. There is no servant in this world more dear to Me than he, nor will there ever be one more dear. And I declare that he who studies this sacred conversation worships Me by his intelligence.”

2 Meena dd { 08.03.17 at 17:01 }

Thank for your hard work and deep research. I carefully read and study your essays. At some point I look forward to seeing how you illuminate the “initiation” issue as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta prescribed for the Gaudiya Math. We see he desired the formulation of a governing body commission to manage. Which did not work. How did he envision initiation be conducted in an organization united by a GBC? As the acharya of the institution he was in control of both the management and the initiation. After his departure with no one person in charge of both functions how would they harmonize? Thank you in advance.

3 Kailasa Candra das { 08.10.17 at 14:48 }

The alternative G.B.C. cobbled together by a faction of the rittviks—and, apparently, there has been one so created—cannot possibly be successful or even acceptable to Srila Prabhupada, what to speak of successful, because Rittvik is an anti-Vedic, anti-Vaisnava concoction. No solution there in fulfilling the desire of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. As far as the “ISKCON” G.B.C. is concerned, with all the direct and tacit deviation and corruption it has rubber-stamped or even merely allowed, it is far beyond the stage of reform. If it voted to indefinitely suspend its operation, that would be a step in the right direction.
The ideal, obviously, would be to have a mahabhagavat physically present at this time to direct this branch of the international Vaisnava movement, with his direct representatives constituting a governing body in order to oversee that, under his orders, the mission is being carried out in a bona fide way. Some opine that we briefly had that in the early Seventies, but we have not had anything like that for forty years running.
The next alternative would be to have madhyam-adhikaris nicely managing the mission keeping the Founder-Acarya in the center, but that neither transpired in 1937 nor in 1978. We must, once again, make the best use of the low cards that Time has dealt us. Fulfilling the desire of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati for a strong governing body—a desire also shared by Srila Prabhupada—cannot be consummated when kanistha-adhikaris comprise such a commission, but even that is not the case now. Currently, the “ISKCON” G.B.C. is populated and run by misra-bhaktas, sahajiyas, or covert mayavadis, and such has been the case since the late Seventies. Forcibly insisting upon and then naively believing in a flawed governing body paradigm—hoping that such a pipe dream either continue or emerge in the near future—is to waste valuable time and float in a fool’s paradise. Such a utopia will be unmasked for what it is in due course, and then all of us will be worse off than we are now.

4 Meena dd { 09.02.17 at 14:05 }

In the absence of the mahabhagavata’s physical presence and the appearance for the first time (second attempt) of an international institution to house Vaishnava principles… where is Krishna’s ultimate authority recognized? A GBC as managerial body, government functions… yes, but who has the ultimate spiritual say? Madyama adhikari’s offering spiritual names and gayatri mantras with Srila Prabhupada’s guidance in his books? Such gurus could hardly be called gurus at all if they are answerable to a GBC. The safer course is the officiating acharya system. a system of priest to give the spiritual names and the gayatri mantras on behalf of the Mahabhagavata.

5 Bhakta Srihari Vijayaraghavan { 09.11.17 at 09:03 }

I think Kailasa Candra prabhu’s comment above has already addressed your key questions.

The bonafide officiating acarya system (also known as Ritvik) Srila Prabhupada employed during his manifest presence concluded on the Nov 14, 1977, upon his disappearance.

The course is always one: To render perpetual seva to Sri Krishna. Due to the time, place and circumstances, uninitiated find themselves in various measures of devotional safety.

The safest course for an uninitiated devotee is, of course, gaining initiation from such a uttama-bhakta (first class devotee, sa mahatma sudurlabha) during his presence to engage in various sevas. He being initiated by Acarya using Ritvik system is immaterial and indeed it’s Acarya’s prerogative to use such a system, if he so chooses. However, pushing an apasiddhanta that such a system can continue (either indefinitely or temporarily etc.) post-samadhi is properly labelled as neo-karta-bhaja deviation by Kailasa Candra prabhu. Devotees engaged in pushing such an unauthorised system are totally working against devotional principles and are simply misleading the, albeit insincere, new comers.

A safer course is gaining initiation from a madhyama (second class or an advanced devotee), who is very special, being fixed in higher mode (and even transcending that by further progress by performing vaidhi-sadhana bhakti) and lower modes not piercing his intelligence at all. Such a guru hasn’t reached spontaneous stage of devotional service, where he is exempted from rules and regulations governing devotional service. The Sanskrit term for regulated devotional service is, of course, vaidhi-sadhana bhakti. An authorised GBC is duty-bound to expose, if such a guru deviates from the rules and regulations of devotional service. Let’s remember that the current vitiated, asara, GBC of fabricated so-called ISKCON is an asat-sabha, and it has been so for four decades already. So there’s no question of emergence of a second or first class devotee from that devotionally toxic environment. It’s an assembly of sahajiyas, covert mayavadis and mixed devotees, all firmly situated on lower than third class devotional platform, then what to speak of higher platforms.

A safe course for an uninitiated is to be engaged in authorised devotional service of chanting the holy names of Krishna, reading Srila Prabhupada books, hearing his lectures etc.. By such engagements, and by developing enough sincerity, seriousness, Krishna conscious knowledge and with a touch of transcendental luck, he stands a chance to upgrade his course to safer and/or safest course by searching out and coming in contact with such a guru. Kailasa Candra prabhu is engaged in cultivating devotees desiring such outcome. He is meticulously documenting the historical accuracy of what went down in Srila Prabhupada’s movement, especially all deviations after Acarya’s disappearance (though such deviations were started taking root even during his presence), is one potent example; his brilliant articles and discourses are further examples of the protection he offers to the uninitiated, who are easily prone to be mislead.

On the other hand, if one’s so unintelligent as to casually/easily (sahaja) think either post-samadhi Ritvik system (wrong school) or rent-acarya “ISKCON” system (imitation school) is a “safer course” then he is certainly delusional and is simply disqualifying himself from any genuine devotional progress.

6 Kailasa Candra dasa { 09.11.17 at 13:02 }

I give my wholehearted approval to this first-class reply by Bhakta Vijaya. He certainly understands both our philosophy and the movement’s history in the right way and accurately. His writing here is also clear and excellent. Everyone should take advantage of it.

Leave a Comment