Addendum 1
The Neo-Mutt Apa-siddhanta
“ . . . 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.”
Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi 12.8, purport
“This Brahma-säyujya mukti is non-permanent. Every living entity wants pleasure, but Brahma-säyujya is minus pleasure; it consists of eternal existence only. So, when those who get Brahma-säyujya mukti do not find transcendental bliss, they fall down to make a compromise with material bliss . . . Because he falls down from Brahma-säyujya, he thinks that this may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even, he was with Kåñëa.”i
“I watched with glee while your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades for the gods they made.”
The Rolling Stones, “Sympathy for the Devil”
The founder of the Western branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda, did not come to the West as an institutional guru. He instead came as a representative of his spiritual master in an unbroken chain of disciplic succession known as the Brahma-Madhva-Gauòéya Vaiñëava sampradäya.
He was initiated by his spiritual master (Siddhänta Sarasväté) early in the Twentieth Century. He intermittently partook in devotional activities and services connected to his guru-mahäräja’s organization, the Gauòéya Matha, during the time that he was living as a householder.
He was not very much appreciated, however, by most of the leading godbrothers of that institution. However, Prabhupäda was so advanced in spiritual knowledge from the sacred Vaiñëava texts that the Gauòéya Matha had to eventually recognize him. Thus, he was also given the title of Bhaktivedänta, a major accolade. He took sannyäsa, the renounced order of life, after receiving that deserved title.
Yet, he was always considered a junior in that organization for a number of faulty reasons. He did not have a great deal of direct, physical association with Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta was one such reason. That he remained a responsible householder and businessman was another, despite giving many substantial donations to the Gauòéya Matha during the time that his medicinal business thrived.
The sannyäsés held sway in the Gauòéya Matha for all of its duration. When Prabhupäda did take sannyäsa, he received the back-handed compliment from his leading godbrothers by being referred to as “Swämi Mahäräj.” Although this, in and of itself, was not a pejorative, there was a belittling element to it. Not everyone can assimilate that, however.
All of this is a very, very long story. In India, Prabhupäda was undermined by his leading godbrothers. Two of them were, via political intrigue, responsible for closing down his otherwise thriving first organizational effort to create a Gauòéya äçrama in Jhansi. That is another long story, full of political and quasi-spiritual treachery. They took away his post as president of a center he established in Bombay, also.
Nevertheless, despite being oppressed, depressed, suppressed, and compressed by most of his elder godbrothers, he did not become discouraged or despondent by preaching in order to spread the message of Kåñëa consciousness. He knew he could do this, because he was a self-realized and God-realized guru at the highest level, although this was not recognized by his godbrothers or their disciples.
His guru-mahäräj had assigned him the task of preaching Kåñëa consciousness in the Western countries decades earlier. His godbrothers—again, mostly unfavorable to him—had a kind of stranglehold on India in terms of the Gauòéya Matha and Gauòéya Mission factions. Only one elder godbrother was actually favorable to him,ii and that was the man who had awarded him the status of sannyäsa in 1959.
He made an attempt to go to Japan (an invitation came to him to do so) in order to first spread his message there, but it was thwarted by the Indian government. As such, he decided upon America. He had to jump many hoops in order to finally arrive on its shores in the mid-Sixties.
However, when he did so, after a frustrating period, he once again began to accrue disciples (who worshiped him as good as God). Yet, he never said that he was the representative of the Gauòéya Matha. In fact, he only told them about his own guru-mahäräj, and that even to a limited extent. He never said that he was a representative of the Gauòéya Mission or the breakaway matha of his sannyäsa-guru in Mathura, either.
For over one year, his disciples knew nothing of his previous travails in India with his godbrothers and the organizations (along with its latter-day, rump and powerless governing body) that splintered after the physical disappearance of Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté.
Requesting help, Prabhupäda had written some letters to the leading men (his elder godbrothers) of those factional missions, but he got, for all practical purposes, no cooperation whatsoever. From the afore-mentioned matha in Mathura, he received a package (broken down and almost unable to be delivered, i.e., not well-packed) from a disciple of his sannyäsa guru. It contained incense, karatals, and a certificate stating that he was a bona fide preacher in the line. Nice, but that was the extent of it.
His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda incorporated the International Society for Kåñëa Consciousness (as ISKCON, INC.) in 1966. He did not incorporate his mission as Gauòéya Matha or Gauòéya Mission, although he could have very easily done so without legal impediment. Again, he was not an institutional guru, and he was not representing any institutions then extant in India when he arrived in New York City.
There were many reasons for this, and we have already, in a consolidated form, touched upon some of them. If you are interested in that detailed history, much of it is on the INTERNET . . . as long as you do not take meaningless shortcuts via cursory searches.
The bottom line is that Prabhupäda did not have a good or working relationship with his godbrothers (or their organizations) even before he decided to travel to America, via steamship, in 1965. Any kind of so-called mutual appreciation that was had should not be blown out of proportion: For all practical purposes, they were not friends. They were not in agreement about the importance of making devotees in the West. Their styles differed. Their ways and means differed. Their preaching differed. There were so many differences.
Not surprisingly, there was also one MAJOR PHILOSOPHICAL DISAGREEMENT, and that will be deservedly highlighted threadbare in this important chapter. Its fact cannot be changed or reversed. It cannot be explained away, although those affiliated with the newest versions of Gauòéya Matha (or Gauòéya Mission) have made bad logic, stupid, and futile attempts to do so.
Facts are stubborn things. This one is the most stubborn of all, because it is not only a fact, it is SIDDHÄNTA.iii In other words, on this all-important topic (or issue, if you prefer), there is profound disagreement. Intrinsic to Vaiñëava philosophy, there must be COMPLETE AGREEMENT on essential topics, such as the siddhänta on origination of jéva-tattva. This disagreement is between Prabhupäda and the rest of his godbrothers, and it is irreconcilable. One side is right and the other side is wrong: It ultimately comes down to that, whether you like it or not.
It should not at all be difficult to discern which side of this “controversy” your author is on; the title at the top of this chapter already indicates where I am situated. However, now you are going to get the details. You are going to get the right details, i.e., you are going to get the Truth.
You are going to get THE SIDDHÄNTA, and, in the process of your securing and assimilating it, you are also being given the opportunity to understand the nescience underlying (and intrinsic to) the apa-siddhänta of both Gauòéya Matha and its surreptitious offspring, Neo-Mutt. They both HEAVILY push that apa-siddhänta, and they are going to be exposed accordingly in this chapter for doing so.
Neither the Gauòéya Matha nor the Gauòéya Mission assisted Prabhupäda in any tangible way during his mission to the West. In the East, his preaching included (in due course) establishing three major centers in India, viz., at Bombay, at Våndävan, and at Mäyäpur. There was contact between Prabhupäda and his godbrothers in India during this time, but not a great deal of it. Cordial relations vacillated between controlled animosity and friendly interaction, although some of the Gauòéya leaders made it known that they did not approve of his preaching.
To go granular into all of this would wind up as a treatise in and of itself. That is not the intent of this chapter, but your author is obliged to at least to give you a taste of it. The animosity was present to the extent that it even made it into Prabhupäda’s purports to his books. These books will eventually become the Lawbooks of Mankind, but only after we pass through this difficult juxtaposition period.
“Those who think that Kåñëa consciousness is limited to a certain section of people, a certain section of devotees, or a certain tract of land are generally prone to see the external features of the devotee. Such neophytes, unable to appreciate the exalted service of the advanced devotee, try to bring the mahä-bhägavata to their platform. We experience such difficulty in propagating this Kåñëa consciousness all over the world. Unfortunately we are surrounded by neophyte godbrothers who do not appreciate the extraordinary activities of spreading Kåñëa consciousness all over the world. They simply try to bring us to their platform, and they try to criticize us in every respect.”
Nectar of Instruction, Verse Six, purport
“ . . . just after his passing away, his (Bhaktisiddhänta’s) 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.”
Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi 12.8, purport
“So, I have now issued orders that all my disciples should avoid all of my godbrothers. They should not have any dealings with them nor even correspondence nor should they give them any of my books nor should they purchase any of their books, neither should you visit any of their temples. Please avoid them.”
Letter to the Toronto temple president, 11-9-75
These excerpts from Prabhupäda’s purports (and one of his letters) can tell you all that you need to know, but there is one letter containing many excerpts which hit the hardest. Please consider it carefully:
“You are right about Çrédhara Mahäräja’s genuineness, but, in my opinion, he is the best of the lot. . . My guru mahäräja used to lament many times for this reason, and he thought if one man at least had understood the principle of preaching then his mission would achieve success. In the latter days of my guru mahäräja, he was very disgusted. . . Still, he requested his disciples to form a strong governing body for preaching the cult of Caitanya Mahäprabhu. He never recommended anyone to be äcärya of the Gauòéya Math. But Çrédhara Mahäräja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Mahäräja, and he, and others who are already dead, unnecessarily thought that there must be one äcärya.
So Çrédhara Mahäräja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one äcärya, and later it proved a failure. The result is now everyone is claiming to be äcärya even though they may be kaniñöha adhikäré with no ability to preach. In some of the camps the äcärya is being changed three times a year. Therefore, we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp.
Actually, amongst my godbrothers, no one is qualified to become äcärya. So it is better not to mix with my godbrothers very intimately because, instead of inspiring our students and disciples, they may sometimes pollute them. This attempt was made previously by them, especially Madhava Mahäräja and Tirtha Mahäräja and Bon Mahäräja, but somehow or other I saved the situation. This is going on. We shall be very careful about them and not mix with them. This is my instruction to you all. They cannot help us in our movement, but they are very competent to harm our natural progress. So, we must be very careful about them.”
Letter to a leading secretary, 4-28-74
There is much to glean from these four excerpts. Admittedly, there are a few (as in, a very few) places where Prabhupäda speaks of his godbrothers in a positive light. Just a couple of years into the zonal äcärya imposition, those references are emphasized by the camp that broke away from “ISKCON” and crossed the river (as well as those who foolishly hold that sentiment). In effect, they declared war on ISKCON (read, “ISKCON”) by doing so, instead of trying to reform the situation.
It is debatable whether or not reform at that stage (in the very early Eighties) was even a possibility. Nevertheless, when those initial and influential second echelon men “crossed the river” and joined the camp of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar in Navadvipa, a circle-the-wagons mentality in “ISKCON” amped up to the next level.
There was then no possibility whatsoever of rectifying the situation, because everything went into siege mentality and all that accompanies it. The initial betrayal of the zonals spawned The Great Schism between the “ISKCON” and the Gauòéya Mutt in 1982.
However, that’s like starting a tale in the middle of the book. There was much deviation before that. The four excerpts above (one of those is partially repeated from the top of this chapter) illustrate why previous deviations led to the first internecine schism. The beginning of how and why all of this went down is our concern here, and it is intricately (and subtly) connected to Gouòéya Mutt.
Again, there are far more references (then the four, above) as to how Prabhupäda was in conflict with almost all of the leaders of Gauòéya Matha and Gauòéya Mission during his worldwide preaching tour (1966-1976), which was very successful and produced tangible results. We really do not need to list any of the many other excerpts, because these four suffice to tell the story.
Remember, all of this is little more than a prologue to the actual issue, which has already been touched upon. It is directly referenced in the title to our chapter, but this prologue must be written and made clear to the reader before we get into the nuts and bolts of the war.
We shall proceed analyzing the excerpts in chronological order. The excerpt from Nectar of Instruction is crystal clear: He calls his godbrothers neophytes. This is in a book, which takes priority over his letters, although they are certainly also important. Prabhupäda is saying his godbrothers are falsely claiming to have a monopoly on Kåñëa consciousness, a monopoly he obviously rejects. He is directly stating that he is not being seen for who he is by his godbrothers.
He is saying that they are trying to bring him down to their much, much lower platform. Prabhupäda is directly stating that he is a mahä-bhägavat, but that comes as no surprise, since he had been taking mahä-bhägavat worship from his disciples for many years previous to the publication of this small but important book. He closes with stating that his godbrothers criticize him in every respect. As a reminder, this is made indelible in written and published literature, a book which will remain around for a very long time, viz., thousands of years.
The next excerpt is also from the books. Prabhupäda strongly criticizes the leading secretaries of Gauòéya Mutt for—without authority and against his guru mahäräja’s orders—voted in a replacement äcärya for the whole Mutt. Siddhänta Sarasväté never recognized anyone in that way, i.e., he did not appoint a Successor. Nor did Çréla Prabhupäda.
Although he does not name the two parties referred to, this vote by the Gauòéya Mutt’s governing body commission created the initial schism in that institution. It created two factions, both of which Prabhupäda states became (and remain) asära or useless. We shall return to that issue of appointing a so-called Äcärya a bit later.
Then we come to two excerpts from important letters; they are not analyzed here in chronological order, because the last one analyzed is most important for a number of reasons. In the letter to the Toronto temple president, Prabhupäda orders that his disciples must avoid all of his godbrothers. He lists no exception. His disciples are ordered not to have any dealings with any of them, including correspondence.
Prabhupäda orders that his books are not to be given to them. He orders that his devotees are not to purchase any of their books nor visit any of them at their centers or temples. The order applies to all of his disciples, and there is no exception to that, either.
This order was issued at the very end of 1975, almost exactly one year before Prabhupäda departed. How can anyone in his or her right mind believe that Prabhupäda changed his view to the diametric opposite on this raw nerve topic before he left us? Of course he didn’t!
How do we know? Judge by the results! In this chapter, you are being given some of those results, i.e., how the first war amongst Prabhupäda’s leading men was, at least indirectly, precipitated by much too much contact with one of Prabhupäda’s elder godbrothers. The fourth of these excerpts, a letter about him, is what we now analyze:
Prabhupäda was responding to a letter sent to him by one of his governing body commissioners. He had previously visited (with Prabhupäda) Swämi B. R. Çrédhar at his center in Navadvipa. The leading secretary, Rüpänuga, is expressing doubt about whether or not Swämi B. R. Çrédhar is actually bona fide. Prabhupäda indicates that his disciple has every reason to doubt that elder godbrother.
His Divine Grace then proceeds to add fuel to that fire, clarifying why it is intelligent on the part of his disciple to doubt the man. Prabhupäda goes on to reveal that his guru mahäräj was disgusted with his own leading men. He had even said in it (not included in this particular reproduction of that letter) that Siddhänta Sarasväté left his body early due to disgust with his leading disciples, including the man in question here.
There is no question that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was one of them, and that is clarified as the letter proceeds. Prabhupäda then states that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar directly disobeyed the order of Siddhänta Sarasväté soon after his premature departure. He did so by voting (along with seven others) for one Äcärya, Änanta Väsudev, to lead Gauòéya Mutt. This precipitated an immediate schism, and that vote (during the initial meeting of that governing body commission) also cracked it in 1937.
Prabhupäda states that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar is responsible for this debacle, along with two others, by then deceased. Obviously, those three men influenced the other five to vote for the unauthorized resolution, but the remaining Commish members (five commissioners) voted against Änanta Väsudeva and then broke away when they did not prevail.
The gambit of voting one Äcärya failed. It caused a fire in the Mutt, in which so many others (after Änanta Väsudeva fell down and left Gauòéya Mutt and Gauòéya Mission) falsely claimed to be an äcärya.
Prabhupäda confirms all of this. He points out how the deviation, at that time (1974), was then reaching the point of absurdity. He also warns that it should not be allowed to enter ISKCON, although it did. It is now even worse than it was back in the remote past in India. Another way of saying the same thing is that his warning was not heeded.
Prabhupäda confirms that none of his godbrothers is qualified to be an Äcärya. That means, in 1974 (and it certainly still remained the case in 1977), none of his godbrothers was an uttama-adhikäré. That certainly included Swämi B. R. Çrédhar, and history firmly buttresses this conclusion. When Prabhupäda called his elder godbrother “the best of the lot,” you do not call out an uttama-adhikäré with such rejoinder, as it is even worse than a back-handed compliment.
Prabhupäda warns his disciple that none of his disciples are to mix with any of his godbrothers. This order would be doubled-down in November of 1975, as we have just read. He says that his godbrothers are prone to pollute his disciples. He indicated three of them who had attempted to do that previously, but these are all long stories. He confirms that this effort by his godbrothers was still going on in 1974.
It is not going on now, because the last of his godbrothers died in 2010. However, it is still going on in the form of Neo-Mutt, which is even—in many if not most ways—more poisonous than Gouòéya Mutt.
He closes his letter to that commissioner by stating that his godbrothers cannot help his mission, cannot help his disciples, and are instead very competent to harm them. They have done just that. How Swämi B. R. Çrédhar harmed so many of Prabhupäda’s disciples will be made clear. Prabhupäda says not to mix with them. He says that this instruction is for every one of his disciples, which was also confirmed in the previously analyzed letter to the Toronto temple president in 1975.
His leading men (what to speak of the lower echelons) were warned to be very careful in any dealings with his godbrothers. That was busted up to the next level (in the excerpt from 1976) ordering that none of his disciples should have any dealing with any of his godbrothers. All of these warning were ignored just months after Prabhupäda left the scene, leading to many disasters, which will be discussed subsequently.
The Vedic literature has given us this piece of knowledge, phalena-pariciyate: Judge by the results. This is excruciatingly relevant in understanding the raw nerve issue connected to the elder Gauòéya Matha leader, which is being analyzed in this chapter. Phalena-pariciyate is applicable in connection to his writings and his statements.
Those who back him as having been a pure devotee at the highest level—allegedly, a laid back, scholarly Vaiñëava of only good intent and advice in relation to ISKCON—certainly find some grist of the mill to back their sentiments . . . but that does not make them right. Prabhupäda did praise him on some occasions, no doubt.
Yet, there is a flip side to this. It will be discussed in some detail, because your author (like almost everyone in ISKCON in 1978), was initially favorable (at a distance) to Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. That was until I finally realized just how much damage he wound up facilitating via his bad advice and massive interference in Prabhupäda’s movement.
First, it is necessary to point out that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar had no influence whatsoever in Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement until after he left the scene. Virtually no one knew anything about him or even of him. Prabhupäda had asked him to take the ceremonial position of President of ISKCON, but the Navadvipa mahant did not accept the offer. That Prabhupäda made this offer was almost entirely unknown by not only the rank-and-file, but also by almost all (if not all) of the second and third echelon in the movement.
Amongst the first echelon, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was known to some extent by some of them, particularly by the sannyäsés and the G.B.C. men of India. However, even at this level, he was an unknown quantity.
Early in the movement, a submission of an article by Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was made to “Back to Godhead” magazine. The editor, Satsvarüpa däs adhikäré, sent a letter to Prabhupäda requesting to know what kind of honorifics were to be attached to his name—but only if Prabhupäda approved that his article was indeed to be published. Here is the relevant excerpt from Prabhupäda’s reply, dated January 30, 1970:
“Regarding Çrédhara Swämi’s article: I do not know what sort of article it is, but whatever it may be, the writer’s name should be Swämi B. R. Çrédhara and not Çrédhara Swämi. Çrédhara Swämi is a different man. Besides that, there is no need of giving any short introductory note at the present moment. Whoever sends an article for publication in our paper, and if we publish such article, it is to be understood that the version of such article is not different from ours. There is no need of discussing siksha-guru and diksha-guru in this connection.”
We can elucidate some conclusions from this. First of all, no special honorifics (such as His Divine Grace, etc.) were to be attached to the by-line. Secondly, in an oblique manner, Prabhupäda let it be known that the çikñä-guru issue was not to be brought up. This is one of the garden variety arguments that Neo-Mutt makes to subordinate Prabhupäda to Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. It is quite obnoxious and offensive, although His Divine Grace did praise once him like that . . . for another reason.
The most important point is even subtler: The BTG editor was enjoined to check that submission to see whether or not his version of the philosophy was actually Prabhupäda’s version. He does not say it exactly like that, but that is the subtle meaning to glean from it between the lines.
Indeed, Prabhupäda already knew that there was a distinct possibility that it did not, particularly in the area of one key siddhänta. That siddhänta (actually, its antithesis) has already been brought out in the headline of this chapter. It has been elucidated as the extensive quote at the beginning of this chapter from the Tal and Crow Addendum.iv It is going to be discussed in much more detail as this chapter proceeds.
What also is going to be discussed is the massive interference in the Hare Kåñëa movement (Prabhupäda’s branch, of course) by the aforementioned Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. First, however, it is incumbent to detail (as far as it can be known, which is limited) what both eventually constituted, but first laid the groundwork for, that interference.
The disastrous 1978 Annual Meeting of the ISKCON Governing Body Commission took place in the last week of March in Mäyäpur, India, as usual. Previous to its assembly, some leading ISKCON men had met with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar at his Mutt in Navadvipa. Some of these men were the appointed rittviks. Apparently, they liked what they heard and concluded that they could play him to advantage.
Still, he was held in some esteem at that time by most of those men. They were no longer rittviks, of course, because that service ended for them in the middle of the previous November. As such, when the 1978 asat-sabhä transpired, they believed (with one exception) that they could learn how to be initiating gurus by consulting Swämi B. R. Çrédhar.
This begs the question: If they actually were on the platform of guru, they would be expert in spiritual life, they would be spiritual MASTERS, so why consult anybody? Prabhupäda had spent uncountable hours up close and personal taking their service and instructing them. He had also stated, many times, that everything was there in the tattva and siddhänta he had given to all of his disciples. Here is but one example:
“So, there is nothing to be said new. Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken in my books.”
That certainly included the qualifications, words, and actions of a spiritual master. As such, why did they need to have some meeting about it with a representative of Gauòéya Mutt? The misleading assertion that they did not receive adequate training is false. On the other hand, that they did not apply that training, that they did not uplift and transform their characters from that training, is self-evidently very true.
Those G.B.C. Annual Meetings were never one-day events. They had a history back in the day, especially in the Seventies and Eighties, of degenerating into contentious affairs. Those conclaves were no strangers to nasty exchanges between the most influential men on the Board, although some of the G.B.C. members had little or no influence.
For example, in 1978, one of the commissioners simply had a thatched hut (literally) in the Hoshiapur district of northwest India as his zone; he was anything but a heavyweight in those meetings. However, the eleven former rittviks WERE heavyweights. Then, they had to weigh whether or not it would be advantageous for them to consult Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. The majority—make that the vast majority—were enthusiastic to formally consult him on how to be guru and carry out its duties.
One of those eleven former rittviks, however, was against it: Harikeça Swämi. He considered counsel with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar to be dangerous. He brought up the history of the man, who had been integral to the break-up of the old governing body that met just weeks after the demise of Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté Gosvämi.
That is a long story to be sure, but Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was one of the three commissioners (of that G.B.C.) to vote in a scholarly godbrother, Änanta Väsudeva, as the Successor to Siddhänta Sarasväté. We have previously mentioned this, of course. It resulted immediately in a major schism within Gauòéya Mutt, from which it (along with the Gauòéya Mission) never recovered. As such, Harikesa Swämi rightly called Swämi B. R. Çrédhar a “form breaker.”
Interestingly enough, the Navadvipa Mahant called himself by the same accolade, as we shall read near the end of this chapter.
Here was Harikeça’s recollection (during that 1978 proposal) of how he presented a counter-argument to a resolution to consult an elder representative of Gauòéya Mutt for alleged guru protocol:
“. . . my comments acted as a catalyst after they were tossed aside as irrelevant. Very intense discussions followed, and I attempted to say that any solution other than the one I presented had too many pitfalls to be viable. . . (The counter-argument was) that we should go to H. H. Çrédhar Mahäräja, Prabhupäda’s godbrother, to get advice on what to do. There was some discussion, with most agreeing. I was vehemently against this, as I knew what Prabhupäda felt about him and knew that he (Çrédhar) had a strong inclination to disrupt Mutts. . . Jayatértha, the chairman at the time, called (for) the vote. All hands went up. He proclaimed, ‘It is unanimous!’ I shouted out, ‘Take the no votes.’ He said why should he, as everyone was in favor. I said, ‘Take the no votes, because I want to go down in history as the only one against this insane resolution.’”v
Harikeça Swämi, by his own admission, took the position of “the loyal opposition” and was vindicated in due course of time. However, his being right at that time could not stem the tide, a disaster in the waiting. He was ignored and belittled for voting against what all the other former rittviks hoped would be advantageous to them. In the short run, it certainly was, but not in the intermediate or long run.
The date of this meeting of the G.B.C. with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was, as aforementioned, more or less in the middle of the “ISKCON” Annual Conclave. It was obviously authorized by the G.B.C.. It was (and continues to be) pawned off as previously authorized by Prabhupäda.
Where is the evidence of that? Is there a tape recording? Negative. Is there any hard copy transcription? Negative. Thus, it must be categorized as a very mysterious “authorization.” Was that meeting, perhaps, only between T.K.G. and Prabhupäda? Very possible. If so, would you now at all be inclined to accept what may have been T.K.G.’s version of it?
The primary reason we need to be skeptical about it is context—if it indeed took place at all. We need to be able to judge the context, but we have no chance to do so. What was the result? Disaster! Phalena-pariciyate: Judge by the result. All that bad advice from the Navadvipa mahant should have been rejected, but it wasn’t.
Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was the god that the G.B.C. made, and for decades, all the fighting that has gone on was, directly or indirectly, precipitated in the rump branch of Prabhupäda’s Hare Kåñëa movement, which is now held in contempt by thousands of people throughout the world.
And why was there this crying need to go to him for advice in the first place? Taken at face value, his advice reversed virtually all that Prabhupäda stood for—both philosophically and in relation to the Gouòéya Mutt. We need not neglect (read, forget) that April, 1974 letter excerpt in which he described Swämi B. R. Çrédhar as “the best of the lot.” You do not refer to a great devotee, an uttama-adhikäré, in that way.
Most of the Swämi’s advice in early 1978 goes against the idea that Prabhupäda actually considered him a repository of Vaiñëava siddhänta, even in relation to guru. It turns topsy-turvy so much of what Prabhupäda gave us, including the origination of jéva-tattva.
If you believe Prabhupäda to have indirectly authorized the disaster of the Spring of 1978 (by previously advising his men to learn how to be guru from a person who Harikeça rightly called “a form-breaker”), then your faith in Prabhupäda is compromised.
If you believe that this prior “authorization,”—which is without any solid evidence to discern its context (and only known about through anecdotal evidence)—established a godbrother of Prabhupäda’s to having been the next god or authority for his movement, then you are not in a sane condition of mind.
Worse than that, if you believe that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar is completely innocent of any wrongdoing relative to Prabhupäda’s movement, you are in league with the traitorous Neo-Mutt. In effect, it declared war on Prabhupäda’s branch once ISKCON started to finally—and justifiably—break away from the influence of a man who, at bare minimum, meddled in it to its intermediate and long-term detriment.
In this alleged authorization to go to him for advice, Prabhupäda is said to have said (yes, it is one of those “Prabhupäda said” anecdotes) that his ISKCON leaders should bury the hatchet with Gouòéya Mutt. He is alleged to have coaxed his leading men to align with them (not just in spirit but in tangible ways), work with them, and accept advice from them as to how to carry out Prabhupäda’s mission after he departed.
In this alleged authorization, Prabhupäda is said to have said that, for advice as to how his gurus were to initiate newcomers, his leading secretaries were to approach Swämi B. R. Çrédhar of Navadvipa and Swämi Näräyan of the Devänanda Gouòéya Mutt in Mathura, a.k.a., the Keçava-jé Mutt. Under their guidance, everything was supposed to proceed very nicely after Prabhupäda’s nitya-lélä praviñöhä.
Previous to The Great Schism (according to your author’s knowledge and research on the subject), three or four of these meetings took place in Navadvipa (there is no record of one taking place in Mathura). They initially transpired in March of 1978, which makes perfect sense. At least one of these meetings—likely the most important one—transpired while the Governing Body Commission was in session at its Annual Conclave in Mäyäpur, as afore-mentioned. This is not illogical, as Navadvipa is but a hop, skip, and a jump from Mäyäpur.
In the Spring of 1978, your author was the personal secretary of a governing body commissioner. I was stationed in Atlanta, which was the headquarters of his zone, known as the Southern Region of the U. S. That commissioner, Balavanta däs adhikäré, was favorable to me for a number of reasons. The main reason was that I had led an unexpectedly successful collection party out on the road during the Christmas pick. It consisted of “The Slows,” and these were the farm workers in that zone. They only agreed to go out on the pick once a year and were not at all enthusiastic about it or proficient in conducting it.
There were seven parties that stayed out (on the road) to hit the malls and the intersections during that extended Christmas pick; the women’s party always finished first. In 1977, that trend was not reversed. The Slows always finished dead last every year. However, in 1977, they shocked everybody by finishing second in total collection. This was recognized by Balavanta, and that put me in a position to keep up with the immediate aftermath of Prabhupäda’s untimely departure.
I knew that there was a brouhaha bubbling up about Kértanänanda declaring himself Jagat Guru, initiating newcomers, and taking uttama worship from his godbrothers at the Moundsville compound in late December of 1977. I knew this, because two influential devotees (one of them Satsvarüpa, an appointed a rittvik and then falsely presumed to probably becoming a dékñä-guru) came to Atlanta in January to visit with Balavanta. He wanted to discuss what to do about Kértanänanda’s jumping the gun. Satsvarüpa was accompanied by his good friend, Jayadvaita. The three influential men came to the conclusion that it was best to let the whole thing drift until the Mäyäpur Annual Meeting.
Much more important than this, I had access to documents that Balavanta allowed me to read, as I was now his personal secretary. This included transcripts of the afore-mentioned meetings of leading devotees with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar at his äçrama in Navadvipa that Spring of 1978. My memory is such that I do not remember the exact number of these transcripts, but I did take a keen interest in them, being a journalist by both tendency, training, and action.
Much (but not all) of what I am going to report here is already on the record and relatively well known by anyone who, over the years, wanted to know it. Apparently, some of the transcripts are available online. I have reason to believe that, if such is the case, at least one of those transcripts is missing. It contained a very important quote by Swämi B. R. Çrédhar, one that was seared into my memory the moment I read it.
Here are the key utterances from the Navadvipa mahant to various ISKCON leaders during those meetings. None of those meetings were confrontational. All of them were cordial and respect for the elder godbrother of Prabhupäda was accorded. That was clear in the transcripts themselves. That cordiality would soon break down in the early Eighties, but it certainly was fully present in the Spring of 1978.
It can be truthfully said that everything discussed centered around the immediate future of ISKCON initiations and the gurus who were to conduct those initiations. The Swämi emphasized that Kåñëa consciousness is authoritarian, and this is true.
Indeed, totalism (The Absolute Truth) demands it. He did not mislead anyone when he spoke about that. His general utterances about the authority of the spiritual master were in accord with Prabhupäda, who himself—despite his liberality on occasion (his roses)—was more often like a thunderbolt when it came to laying down the law.
However, much of the direction that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar gave to the devotees who attended those meetings can only be filed under the category of: ADVICE, BAD. When he asked what was the basis of this idea that Prabhupäda appointed eleven dékñä-gurus, the reply was that he had appointed rittviks, who were then considered to carry on the mission after Prabhupäda departed. To this, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar replied: “Rittvik-äcärya, then it becomes as good as äcärya.”
This is considered (by some) to be controversial. It is considered so not only in the sense of its legitimacy, but also in the sense of whether or not he actually stated it. This statement (advice) was in one of the transcripts that I read. It was seared into my memory, but, apparently, there is no record of it. As such, I am the only witness of this quote, which, by some devotees, is denied as ever having been uttered.
Again: Phalena-pariciyate.
Here are some of the other gems: “Mat guru si jagat guru.” This is a Bengali trope. It means that the disciple is supposed to think that his guru is a jagat guru. Technically, a jagat guru is a guru of the whole world, which means that it is completely inapplicable in relation to a madhyama-adhikäré. It only applies to a mahä-bhägavata, like Prabhupäda.
This was one of the foundations upon which the ultra-opulent worship of the “new gurus” was underpinned. If the disciple is supposed to believe that his guru is a jagat guru, then his guru should be worshiped as a jagat guru. As we all know, that was implemented throughout the movement, except in Raman Reti, the Kåñëa-Balaram mandir in Våndävan.
If the newcomer’s guru is actually not an uttama-adhikäré, well, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar had another gem for that: “It is to deceive the disciple.” A transcendental deception (allegedly), but nothing was transcendent about what was forced down everyone’s throats when the “new gurus” returned to their zones. It was anything but transcendental implementation; it was, in effect, a pseudo-spiritual smash-and-grab. It proved very effective—make that diabolically effective—but only in the short term.
On the basis that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar could recognize that none of the eleven was qualified as a mahä-bhägavat, he had a special trope for that, as well: “Just put on the uniform, and you will become the soldier.” He went into a spiel about how Southeast Asian Indians, during the Second World War, were urged to fight the enemy, although they had no experience or skills in fighting. They were urged by the government to put on the soldier’s uniform. As such, it would, almost magically, imbue them with the power and skills necessary to kill the enemy.
Maybe so, but this is not applicable to becoming guru. You first must be a genuine guru, then you can don the garb of a guru. Only then can you initiate disciples (if you have received the order to do that) and act as an initiating spiritual master. First deserve, then desire. This is the authorized motto, not “imitate and you will become.” That is a New Age concept, and it is entirely unauthorized according the actual spiritual master, namely His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda.
Prabhupäda always ordered his leading men to only follow in his footsteps and to never imitate him. Swämi B. R. Çrédhar advised differently. In effect, by his bad advice in this connection, he directed the eleven rittviks to pretend to be uttama-adhikärés. That particular advice from him certainly set the tone for what would become a horrendous disaster in the Hare Kåñëa movement in but a few short years.
The eleven rittviks believed that they were appointed gurus-in-waiting in July of 1977. Now, by what they were hearing in Navadvipa, they were required to be pretenders. Two of them did not fully buy into that directive from the Navadvipa mahant. More on that soon.
Another gem from the Navadvipa Mahant was the concept of the “äcärya of the zone.” That is what he initially called it, although the eleven shortened the accolade to “zonal äcärya” upon its imposition. Each of the new gurus was advised to have a zone carved out for him, one in which he was the initiating spiritual master for newcomers who entered it in order to become initiated devotees of the Lord.
This was a replica of a governing body commission zone, and all of the “new gurus” were commissioners in the G.B.C.. In point of fact, they were the most influential and powerful commissioners on the Board. As such, if they decided to convert and transplant control of a zone by a commissioner to control of a zone by a guru, that could be easily done . . . and it was. Remember who initially gave them this advice.
If any of those men were advanced in spiritual life, if any of them was actually guru, they would have rejected all of these bad ideas. They didn’t, because they weren’t. A guru can make a disciple in whatever geographic place in which he finds him. Guru and his to-be initiated disciple meet by transcendental arrangement. This applies to the madhyam-adhikäré, as well, who has been authorized by his guru to initiate.
The flawed gems from Navadvipa cut into the authority of the G.B.C., although the creation of “guru zones” left the other non-guru segment in the worst lurch. Overlapping zones of authority are bound to create big-time stress on the newcomers: Who to accept as final authority? This would be the case during crises. The non-guru G.B.C.s were all losers until the mid-Eighties when The Second Transformation wormed its way in to bust down all of the high-flying gurus.
The final gem from Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was his advice to create a prophylactic board within the G.B.C. for the benefit of the G.B.C. members, who were now äcäryas of their zones. This became known, in due course, as The Äcärya Board, although technically it had a different name. The Äcärya Board was supposed to be untouchable, since the non-guru G.B.C. contingent (allegedly) had no right or power to correct any of the eleven gurus, either individually or collectively.
This potentially gutted the legitimate power of the Governing Body Commission. There are many important factors that must be explored about this board within the board. Do not forget who introduced this concept of The Äcärya Board, which unsurprisingly, was wholeheartedly endorsed and implemented by the vitiated G.B.C. in the Spring of 1978. This deviated it from the Charter of its authorityvi and converted it into a broken arrow, a wild-card governing body. Just another flawed gem of horrific advice from the Navadvipa Mahant.
The eleven great pretenders were seeds of unauthorized ambition; they wanted to have the worship, power, and glory of their spiritual master without first coming even slightly close to paying the price. Those seeds needed soil in which to sprout. Swämi B. R. Çrédhar gave them fertile soil in order to quickly bloom into what they soon turned out to be: Poison plants, much to the detriment of Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement of Kåñëa consciousness.
The malefic effects of what went down after those three or four meetings with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar (in 1978, because there were many more later) have not been completely purged from “ISKCON.” There is more than a lingering, bad astral smell connected to them. The transitive principle is readily applicable here. Yet, any criticism of the man has been made controversial; it has been made so almost solely by the splinter group he was integral to having created: Neo Mutt. It has blown up the godbrother etiquette argumentvii all out of proportion in comparison to what is ACTUALLY important.
What was actually essential in the Spring of 1978 was to have preserved Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement according to his desire and what he authorized. The G.B.C. failed miserably in this connection, and Swämi B. R. Çrédhar played a significant role in that failure. Those who take shelter of the godbrother etiquette argument (in order to relieve him of the responsibility of all that he advised) attempt to induce guilt and fear by doing so. They make this attempt via over-emphasizing the godbrother etiquette that one should not criticize a spiritual master’s godbrother, especially one who was an elder to Prabhupäda.
“ISKCON” is, of course, responsible for creating this dilemma in the first place. The leaders of the movement were entitled to be leaders over the rest of the rank-and-file—but only if they were actually learned men in the spiritual science. History proves that none of them were, because, if they were, they would have never accepted (or internally, even tolerated) all of that bad advice from Navadvipa.
Swämi B. R. Çrédhar meddled extensively in Prabhupäda’s movement after His Divine Grace left the scene. At the end of this chapter, after we discuss the origination issue, we shall present even more evidence of his massive interference. Prabhupäda’s actual disciples are OBLIGED to object to all of it, and that is what is being done in this chapter.
Prabhupäda’s actual disciples should not feel even a twinge of guilt or fear in doing so. Ironically, it is the stubborn adherents of the godbrother etiquette argument who will be subject to guilt and fear for having pushed that nonsense. They then went on to intimidate, vilify, and/or condemn those real devotees of Prabhupäda who tell is like it is.
Here are ten items of meddling from Navadvipa:
- The Swämi gave a great deal of bad advice about guru;
- He “re-initiated” a devotee who had previously been initiated by Prabhupäda, giving him an entirely new Sanskrit name;
- He advocated deception by the guru with his disciple;
- He advocated becoming a guru by first pretending to be one;
- He introduced the concept of an Äcärya Board in the G.B.C.;
- He introduced the concept of “äcärya of the zone”;
- He gave new names to all (but one) of the devotees who soon joined him later and took sannyäsa from him;
- He allowed himself to become the fulcrum of a group of “ISKCON” dissidents, who went on to form the Mahä-maëòala, which eventually morphed into the World Vaishnava Association. We refer to this entity as Neo-Mutt throughout our treatise;
- In his Will, he appointed, by name, his successor as a so-called rittvik to himself, thus creating the astral seed of what would turn into the Rittvik movement very soon thereafter;
- Contrary to Prabhupäda’s siddhänta on the topic, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar preached—to Prabhupäda’s initiated disciples—that the conditioned jéva-tattva did not originally come from the spiritual world of form and activity. He preached that the jéva had never been there. This is standard Gauòéya Mutt apa-siddhänta, and leading disciples were obliged to have been wary of it when they listened to him.
As it turned out, many of them weren’t. Of the ten items just delineated, it could be argued that this last one was the worst. It represented a most objectionable and negative impact. It made many Prabhupäda disciples (not your author, however, since I never bought it) doubt Prabhupäda’s philosophical integrity. It advocated a completely different and opposite so-called siddhänta connected to the origination of jéva-tattva.
It is an in-depth topic. This chapter will make every effort to clear up the “controversy” surrounding it for the benefit of all . . . at the very least, for as many of you as possible. Remember: Any such so-called controversy is automatically decided by the “opinion” expressed by Prabhupäda on it. We do not present (read, believe in) or advocate anything else but his final authority on all matters.
This is applicable both materially and spiritually. Materially, for example, his opinion on race—which is cent-percent based upon the clear statement of Padma Purana and Prabhupäda’s explanation of it—is what we accept and preach. It goes against the Western, anti-Vedic, warped misconception of race, but this should come as no surprise, of course.
Prabhupäda’s “opinion” of the origination of the jéva-tattva is personal: The jéva originates from the form and activity region of the spiritual world, not from either the impersonal brahmajyoti or from Mahä-Viñëu lying on the causal ocean. These sources of so-called origination are (potentially) all merely later sources; they are not the ORIGINAL source.
What did Swämi B. R. Çrédhar have to say about it?
“The fallen souls come from the marginal position within the brahmajyoti and not from Vaikuëöha.”
This apa-siddhänta is from one of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar’s books, which some unlucky Prabhupäda disciples purchased and imbibed. We again remind you that Prabhupäda stated the origination very differently:
“This Brahma-säyujya mukti is non-permanent. Every living entity wants pleasure, but Brahma-säyujya is minus pleasure; it consists of eternal existence only. So, when those who get Brahma-säyujya mukti do not find transcendental bliss, they fall down to make a compromise with material bliss . . . Because he falls down from Brahma-säyujya, he thinks that this may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even, he was with Kåñëa.”viii
The two statements are at odds, and they cannot be reconciled. From the Vaiñëava perspective, only one of them is true. From the Absolute perspective, the binary cannot be successfully neutralized—it remains a polarity. Causal conflicts produced by siddhäntic assertions can only be resolved by choosing the right one.
This principle also cannot be compromised. The statement on origination from Swämi B. R. Çrédhar is held by all of the Gauòéya Math, and this appears to have been the case for decades. Neo-Mutt has fully adopted it, as could only be expected. Its leaders overtly push it. Simply because some kind of assertion or conclusion has been in vogue for many decades by Vaiñëava groups (Gauòéya Mutt and Gauòéya Mission) does not automatically mean that it concurs with Çréla Prabhupäda’s preaching or that it is Absolute Truth. He never encouraged us to blindly accept anything, especially when it contradicts him. The Neo-Mutt apa-siddhänta on origination certainly contradicts him.
Although this raw nerve topic should be (and is) presented in detached logic and context, there is no way that it can be devoid of confrontational elements. Controversial topics must be confronted for the purpose of ascertaining the Absolute Truth. One should not avoid them, because, as long as they are important and essential to any given issue or topic, they work to spiritually strengthen the mind and intelligence. That is, if you are on the right side of the Truth, of course.
Isn’t the “before that even” excerpt by His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda so glaringly clear and self-evident that any one of his devotees should already know the Truth of this issue? We shall now make it even more self-evident. Here are two more validations from Prabhupäda:
“A living entity misuses his little independence when he wants to lord it over material nature. This misuse of independence, which is called mäyä, is always available. Otherwise, there would not be independence. Independence implies that one can use it properly or improperly.”
Çrémad-Bhägavatam 3.31.15, purport
Dr. John Mize: Did all the souls that were in the spiritual sky fall out of the spiritual sky at once or at different times, or are there any souls that are always good, they’re not foolish, they don’t fall down?
Prabhupäda: No, there are. Majority, ninety percent, they are always good. They never fall down.
Dr. John Mize: So, we’re among the ten percent?
Prabhupäda: Yes, or less than that. Just like in the prison house, there are some population, but they are not majority. The majority of the population, they are outside the prison house. Similarly, majority of living being(s), part and parcel of God, they are in the spiritual world. Only a few fall down.
Excerpt from a room conversation, 6-23-75
The living entity has eternal independence in the matter of properly or improperly using his free will to serve the Supreme Lord. If his primeval origin was the brahmajyoti, how can there be misuse of independence? There is no service attitude there. The inconceivability argument by Neo-Mutt is a stretch. If a teacher gives a student full knowledge, and the student still chooses wrongly, then the student is at fault.
The issue is never full knowledge. The issue is free will. If God originally made the jéva nothing more than an impersonal spark in the brahmajyoti, how is it that that spark’s, according to Swämi B. R. Çrédhar, “equilibrium somehow became disturbed?” How could such a falldown be the jéva’s responsibility? It would be God’s responsibility if that were the case, and the so-called free will of the jéva would be a myth.
One may contend that the ability of the jéva to initially become envious of God is a constitutional fault. Actually, it is a symptom of the jéva’s free will, which is one of his constitutional glories. Subconsciously (or even consciously), humans who cling to the belief that the living entity originally came from the brahmajyoti must feel that evil is supreme. That is one of the reasons why the apa-siddhänta of no fall/no fault, held by both Gauòéya Mutt and Neo-Mutt, is covert Mäyäväda.
Inconceivability comes into play when the query is about just how and why an individual jéva fell. That cannot be known without specific revelation. While still in the conditioned state, we cannot know it, and, as such, it remains acintyä or inconceivable.
“. . . so the potency to fall under the influence of the lower energy is always there.” Excerpt from a letter to a early devotee president, 12-2-68
“So, there is chance of falling down even from the personal association of God . . .” Excerpt from a room conversation, 9-19-73
“The souls are endowed with minute independence as part of their nature. And this minute independence may be utilized rightly or wrongly at any time, so there is always the chance of falling down by misuse of one’s independence.” Letter to a Governing Body Commissioner, 4-25-70
You do not turn away from service to the Lord in the brahmajyoti, because there is no service attitude to turn away from there. Turning away from service must be from the spiritual world of form, activity, and seva that is higher than the white light of the Lord’s effulgence.
“When the living entities desire to enjoy themselves, they develop a consciousness of duality and come to hate the service of the Lord.”
Çrémad-Bhägavatam 4.28.53, purport
“When the living entity thus turns away from the Supreme Lord, he also forgets his own constitutional position as a servant of the Lord.”
Çrémad-Bhägavatam 11.2.37, purport
Floating in impersonal Brahman, how can you hate the service of the Lord (seva) and turn your face away from that service (bahirmukha) when you are not engaged in any service whatsoever? Even in the buffer region of çänta rasa in Vaikuëöha, there is service. There is no service at all, however, in the brahmajyoti, the impersonal effulgence.
For the spirit soul to become disturbed in the first place, it has to have an innate nature of something more than the non-differentiated state. Otherwise, what is there to become disturbed about? That innate something else is a service attitude in combination with an original, personal relationship (svarüpa-siddhi) with the Supreme Lord.
If the jéva has infinitesimal free will, how can he develop an aversion to service when he has never been engaged in it? The proof of our eternal service is that we are still serving here, although we are serving the mäyä. Especially if it commits spiritual suicide, in the brahmajyoti can a jéva’s perverted desire to cease serving altogether be facilitated?
You have an eternal relationship with the Lord in the spiritual world. We have completely forgotten it in saàsära. That relationship (svarüpa) is beyond both the impersonal Brahman and the buffer region, which is higher than the brahmajyoti:
“ . . . we have forgotten our eternal relationship with the Lord. Every living being, out of the many, many billions and trillions of living beings, has a particular relationship with the Lord eternally. That is called svarüpa. By the process of devotional service, one can revive that svarüpa, and that stage is called svarüpa-siddhi—perfection of one’s constitutional position.”
Bhagavad-gétä, Introduction
“The living entity cannot be forgetful of his real identity unless influenced by the avidyä potency.”
Çrémad-Bhägavatam 3.7.5, purport
“We have come from the spiritual world into this material world. We have forgotten our Father. So, we have to revive this relationship with our Father, or God—or Krishna.” Platform lecture, 10-7-75
Revive a relationship in the brahmajyoti? Ridiculous!
” . . . but, in the material world, by the spell of mäyä or illusion, this eternal relation with the Supreme Personality of Godhead is forgotten . . . “
Çrémad-Bhägavatam 1.15.25-26, purport
The constitutional position of the jéva is as a spiritual spark, but that does not mean that he originally comes from impersonal Brahman. That spiritual spark has a “perfection of one’s constitutional position,” as verified in the Introduction of Bhagavad-gétä. Our original relationship of service to Krishna is never lost. It was ripped away from us by the prakñepätmikä-çakti of mäyä.
That was due to misuse of free will. We were then covered by her ävaraëätmikä-çakti of forgetfulness. As such, our original relationship with the Lord is forgotten, and this has tragic consequences for the jéva. We futilely try to re-establish that personal relationship with material liaisons, conducive to only temporariness and related misery.
This individual pit of illusion is temporarily transcended by artificially adopting Mäyäväda and self-imposing the belief that we have never had any personal relationship with Krishna.
“The conditioned souls are parts and parcels of the Lord and thus were with Krishna before being conditioned . . . similarly, each soul has seen Krishna . . .” Letter to a Governing Body Commissioner, 2-25-70
“We are all originally Krishna conscious entities . . .”
Prabhupäda on the first Hare Krishna album
You are not Kåñëa conscious in the brahmajyoti. To be Kåñëa conscious means to be in seva consciousness. There is no seva there. Neo-Mutt is not concerned with Prabhupäda’s writings and conclusions on this topic. Its leaders (as could only be expected) heavily emphasize how Gauòéya Mutt interprets Siddhänta Sarasväté on origination.
This should not be misinterpreted: There is no difference in siddhänta between Bhaktivinode Öhäkur and Prabhupäda or Siddhänta Sarasväté and Prabhupäda. It is the asära Gauòéya Mutt/Gauòéya Mission apa-siddhänta which is pushed by their nasty offspring, Neo-Mutt.
Still, when Neo-Mutt mis-leaders think that have found something in Prabhupäda’s commentaries which back up their wrong origination theory, they bring that forward. Here is one such quote they use:
“The all-pervading feature of the Lord, which exists in all circumstances of waking and sleeping as well as in potential states, and from which the jéva-çakti (living force) is generated as both conditioned and liberated souls, is known as Brahman.”
Çré Éçopaniñad, Verse 16, purport
Please note that the adverb “originally” is nowhere to be found in this quotation. Jévas may descend (or generate) many times in this way from brahma-säyujya into the material world, but that does not make the brahmajyoti their original home.
Remember that all-important statement by Prabhupäda, which was featured at the very beginning of this chapter: “Because he falls down from Brahma-säyujya, he thinks that this may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even, he was with Kåñëa.”
The quote from this Éçopaniñad purport (pushed by Neo-Mutt) is in the category of evidence, granted, but it is not in the category of conclusive evidence. It is far from being in the category of proof. There is an inconceivability element present in it. We could speculate on it, but we choose not to do so. We choose not to punch the tar baby. We choose not to get into all of the convoluted bad logic of Neo-Mutt. And, most importantly, we are not obligated to do so.
Instead, we are obliged to present the actual siddhänta, and we have done that conclusively. The self-evident, clear, and overwhelming evidence given to us by Prabhupäda overcomes the apparent contradiction of this particular Éçopaniñad purport.
Lord Kåñëa left a material body when He departed manifestation of His pastimes a little over five-thousand years ago. Prabhupäda, in the Éçopaniñad purport, has given a tid-bit of an argument to Gauòéya Mutt and its brat offspring, Neo-Mutt, which milks it for all that it’s worth. He explained to us that Kåñëa left that material body in order to give the atheists an argument later in Kali-yuga. Realize the similarity, because Mäyävada is covert atheism.
Prabhupäda made it clear in many other quotes—only some of which have been presented in this chapter—that we initially were all in the spiritual world of form, activity, and seva. He made it clear that some of us may have climbed back into Brahman after the initial fall, only to fall back down from there, but, BEFORE THAT EVEN, we were with Kåñëa.
Prabhupäda rightly considered this issue important. The proof of that is not only how he repeatedly spoke about it, but also by choosing to name his monthly magazine “Back to Godhead.” Does he mean back to the brahmajyoti? Even staunch Neo-Mutt adherents would not propagate such a ludicrous interpretation. He obviously meant back to the personal Godhead, which is beyond the impersonal light. In one sense, do you even need more proof than this? If you do, he provided plenty of it.
There are other obtuse angles that Neo-Mutt uses to convince people (with a poor fund of knowledge) that we were never in the spiritual world of form and activity. However, remember that their apa-siddhänta comes from a wrong belief held by the men within Gauòéya Mutt and Gauòéya Mission. I am not referencing today’s top echelon of that burnt remnant. Neo-Mutt are far more powerful than anything that latter-day Gauòéya Mutt or Gauòéya Mission has to offer.
I had personal experience of this in 1983. During the last three months of that year, I lived in Swämi Näräyan’s temple in the heart of Mathura. This is known as the Devänanda or Keçava-jé Mutt. I was given a nasty room in the basement under renovation (which was appreciated), although I did catch a cold down there due to its difficult conditions.
At any rate, I would shower with Swämi Näräyan in the morning before the maìgala-ärati. One of those cold mornings, I asked him whether or not we were ever in the spiritual world. His reply was not ambiguous: “We have never been there.” This is where the whole of the Gauòéya Mutt was always at, but Prabhupäda did not share this view. Neo-Mutt fully shares and pushes it, and in this chapter, we fight back.
Another popular Neo-Mutt rationalization is far deadlier, but only if you buy into it. This one, if you believe it, will (at least subconsciously) cause you to doubt the fidelity of Prabhupäda’s philosophical presentation. It promotes a most insidious idea.
In order to explain statements in his purports and room conversations about the initial fall down, the idea is that Prabhupäda utilized it as a kind of ploy. This means, if believed (and you should not believe it), he knew that the impersonal Brahman was the source of origination. Yet, he (allegedly) changed the teaching in order to accommodate the so-called bias of his Christian and Talmudist followers.
As adolescents, they were all taught to envision God—(generally, an old, bearded Man in the Clouds of Heaven, as per Michaelangelo) as a Person on high in His realm. They were all taught to envision that we fell down from there (in heaven) due to initial defiance of how we were meant to be with Him in that realm . . . or some version of that.
Besides the fact that the heavenly realm is far inferior to the spiritual world, there are three major flaws (read, evils) connected to this rationalization. First of all, it has the audacity to speculate about the intention of the pure devotee. It speculates that he was devious and deceptive about this pillar of philosophical importance. That is gurv-aparadha on the part of Neo-Mutt . . . at least on the part of those factions of them which strongly push this idea.
Secondly, a spiritual master does not completely invert and turn on its head, topsy-turvy, a key plank or pillar of the ultimate and absolute philosophy in order to accommodate anyone. The guru never does this. Prabhupäda never compromised like this on any major point of philosophy or on the process of purification. To believe that he did so in this philosophical area, on this key point, opens Pandora’s Box into believing that he might have done so elsewhere in his presentations, particularly in some essential philosophical presentation.
He did not. No Vaiñëava guru ever would. Some adjustments can be made in areas that have nothing to do with the Absolute Philosophy of pure Kåñëa consciousness or guru. Prabhupäda indeed made some of those adjustments, but there is no need to detail any of that here.
Compromising the Truth that the living entity is personally responsible for falling into the material world (due to misuse of free will) cannot ever be considered as viable in any time, place, or circumstance . . . what to speak of an uttama-adhikäré, çaktyäveça-avatär compromising like this!
However, there is another point which should not be neglected: He had no need whatsoever to engage in any such deception:
“Actually, the hippies are our best customers. Almost all of our important disciples are recruited from that group, and you are also from that group. So actually, we should try to serve the hippy group more than others, because there is great potency of recruiting Krishna Consciousness devotees from them.”
Excerpt from a letter to an early disciple, 7-12-69
“ . . . many hippies from your country are coming, but they are simply hungry and dirty and being cheated. During our pandal program, some of them came to me and became my disciples. So, we must look out for them and take interest that they should be delivered from this miserable condition. They are our best customers.”
Letter to an American Governing Body Commissioner, 11-25-71
The hippies—coming from the counter-culture of the Sixties and the very early Seventies—were almost entirely Prabhupäda’s first disciples. Your author was part of that group. All of Prabhupäda’s initiated disciples (1966-77) were aware that the hippies constituted virtually all of his original disciples, and many that followed, such as myself.
And I also knew, from plenty of personal experience, that hippies did not give rat spit about the philosophical underpinnings of either Christianity or Talmudism. They may have been raised (as youngsters and early adolescents) in one of those mleccha-dharmas, but they were no longer believers when they were part of the Woodstock era. All of the hippies had totally renounced any connection to such Abrahamic religious ties in the scattered sun of the hippie religion.
If Prabhupäda had taught us that the living entity originally came from the impersonal Brahman, we all would have accepted it without hesitation. He didn’t. He had no need to adjust the siddhänta. Those who make this Judeo-Christian deception argument are pushing a dead letter, and they put on full display their foolishness in doing so.
The Tal and Crow Addendum established the siddhänta that we did not originally emanate from brahmajyoti. It was not brought out by the Commission (in a sense, it was hidden) until 1982, just after the Great Schism with Gauòéya Mutt. If it had been made known to the devotees at large previous to that, it could soon have undercut the undeserved position they had elevated Swämi B. R. Çrédhar to in the Spring of 1978.
Satsvarüpa Goswämi was selected to write the position paper which was to establish the new zonal äcärya imposition—to no small extent, empowered by Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. It was entitled: “The Process for Carrying Out Çréla Prabhupäda’s Desires for Future Initiations.” The sub-header read: “In consultation with higher authorities.”
That sub-header was misleading on two counts: 1) No higher authorities were actually consulted, and 2) the plural was inaccurate. Only Swämi B. R. Çrédhar had been consulted by the G.B.C.. Satsvarüpa did not think his sub-header through very well. Labeling Swämi B. R. Çrédhar as a higher authority more than merely implied that he was higher (more spiritually advanced) than the G.B.C. It did far more damage than that.
It would soon come back to bite “ISKCON” in many ways. One of those ways was that first and second echelon men from the institution began visiting him in order to consult with him for their own purposes. This was acknowledged by Puraïjan däs while he was serving under one of the zonal äcäryas in the Bay Area, (namely Hansadutta, who was also known as “Kåñëa-kértan Öhäkur”):
“Çrédhar Mahäräja then became the darling çikñä-guru of the ISKCON gurus and ISKCON overall. For example, Satsvarüpa was sending out audio tapes to all of ISKCON, where the G.B.C. were speaking with Çrédhar . . . Hansadutta installed huge photos of himself with Çrédhar Mahäräj in the foyer of the Berkeley temple, and anyone who doubted Çrédhar’s authority was demonized and kicked out.”ix
All of the “ISKCON” gurus were great pretenders and great offenders. It would not take long for the vikarmic reactions of their imitation to catch up with them, starting with the weakest and most flagrant of the group. The first major scandal was in connection to Jayatértha, who was actively engaged in taking LSD and having illicit sexual connections with his female disciples. Word leaked out, and the G.B.C. had to call an emergency meeting in May of 1980.
Damage control was required. Once again, the G.B.C. wrongly decided to use Swämi B. R. Çrédhar to put out this fire and make everything right . . . which he never did but only appeared to do. The G.B.C. voted to take away the zone of Jayatértha and send him to Navadvipa to live with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar, to be corrected by him in West Bengal.
This understandably made Jayatértha far more devoted to the Navadvipa mahant than he was to the “ISKCON” institution or its governing body.
One thing led to another. Jayatértha would eventually petition the G.B.C. to make Swämi B. R. Çrédhar an initiating guru in ISKCON in 1982, along with awarding him the status of its formal advisor. This took awhile to matriculate, but it would come to a head in 1982 as one of the chief factors producing the Great Schism.
Previous to that event (and not necessarily a bad thing), there was a huge scandal connected to another guru, Hansadutta. In March of 1980, Berkeley law enforcement, based on a tip, raided Hansadutta’s rural community in Lake County, California (called Mt. Kailasa) and also his center in Berkeley. A stash of firearms and ammo was confiscated, enough to have engaged in a small war. It was a major scandal.
The G.B.C. was forced to step in, and they disciplined Kåñëa-kértan Öhäkur by removing him as an initiating spiritual master and transferring his zone to another “new guru,” Hridäyänanda Swämi. Hansadutta was exiled to India, but most of his disciples remained loyal to him and bivouacked in the Bay Area, waiting for his eventual, triumphal return. . . which did manifest soon thereafter.
As could only have been expected, Hansadutta played the Swämi B. R. Çrédhar card from the bottom of the deck. Hansadutta brought it to that man’s attention that another zonal, T.K.G., had also been treated similarly. The tactic paid off, as the Navadvipa mahant—allegedly very laid back and not at all a meddler in Prabhupäda’s movement—decided to chastise the G.B.C. for removing Hansadutta from the office of guru:
“This has been a very serious mistake. It can be considered a death blow. . . To challenge the decision of the spiritual master (he is referring to Prabhupäda, here) and give a verdict against his will, to remove the nominated acharyas of Swämi Mahäräj so soon, it has become very undeliberate and is almost suicidal, almost suicidal step. . . (There is) not sufficient cause to remove one from the position of acharya, who has already been selected by guru Mahäräj.”x
It was the elder godbrother of Prabhupäda denouncing (if not condemning) the G.B.C. of Prabhupäda’s ISKCON institution. It had then come to this, but it was not so surprising. The G.B.C., smarting from the chastisement, hesitated. After all, did not they designate the Navadvipa mahant a “higher authority” less than two years earlier?
Temple presidents and influential sannyäsés began visiting Navadvipa even more. The torch of ultimate authority was being passed, slowly but surely, and the whole issue was coming to a head. It did in 1982, the year of the Great Schism. Jayatértha was a G.B.C. member, but the previously chastised gurus (T.K.G., and Hansdutta, also commissioners) had had their zones returned and their statuses as dékñä-gurus re-instated.
However, Jayatértha wanted more. As aforementioned, at the Annual Conclave in 1982 in Mäyäpur, he introduced that resolution meant to exalt Swämi B. R. Çrédhar as an ISKCON guru and permanent advisor. It was voted down by a substantial margin.
Previous to this G.B.C. meeting, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar had advised, through informal channels, that the G.B.C. open the position of initiating spiritual master to senior disciples, those who he deemed more qualified to initiate the newcomers than the former rittviks. This started the war drums beating, and it was time to throw down.
“I think that the decision of the G.B.C. is unhappy and unjudicious . . . many independent acharyas will spring up as the result of this bigoted policy.”xi
That was the response the G.B.C. did not want to hear.
In that G.B.C. sabhä of 1982, the majority vote was that Jayatértha had to give up any and all connection to Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. He adamantly refused, and he crossed the river. The G.B.C. then passed a resolution, entitled “Purity is the Force,” which was directed against Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. It unambiguously demanded that no member of “ISKCON” was to go to anyone outside of ISKCON to seek any kind of spiritual instruction. It had a penalty attached to it for those who dared to deviate: “Whoever does so will sever his connection with ISKCON.”
Major denunciations followed. Çrédhar Mahäräj was condemned as an unauthorized Gouòéya wild card, an insidious deviant (also as a form breaker?), and dangerous to the spiritual life of Prabhupäda’s disciples, initiated or otherwise. However, that had already been indicated, as you have read, by His Divine Grace back in the Spring of 1974:
“Actually, amongst my godbrothers, no one is qualified to become äcärya. So it is better not to mix with my godbrothers very intimately, because instead of inspiring our students and disciples, they may sometimes pollute them. . . We shall be very careful about them and not mix with them. This is my instruction to you all. They cannot help us in our movement, but they are very competent to harm our natural progress. So we must be very careful about them.”xii
Puraïjan recalled which of the major players in “ISKCON” were the most vociferous in their denunciation of the Navadvipa mahant:
“In 1982 especially, Satsvarüpa, Tamäl Krishna, Jayapatäkä, Bhävananda, Kirtänänanda, Harikeça and other prominent G.B.C.s all began to denounce Çrédhar Mahäräj as a dangerous, unauthorized, even insidious deviant.”xiii
Some leading “ISKCON” men found themselves caught within a kind of Kafkaesque situation in this fissure; they considered it to be a debacle against the interests of spreading the Gauòéya message. One such man was the Indian president of Ahmadabad temple in Gujarat, Yaçomaténandan, who had spent most of his life in America. He joined there, but, in due course, was shifted to a more responsible post in the subcontinent.
He believed that keeping Swämi B. R. Çrédhar favorable to the “ISKCON” institution was a priority, especially in India. At his insistence, the G.B.C. gave him permission to talk to the Navadvipa mahant even after the “Purity is the Force” resolution became part of G.B.C. law. The two places were close, and word traveled fast. Swämi B. R. Çrédhar’s response to “Purity is the Force” became known:
“But now you are very much afraid of me, because I am a plain speaker. . . you are ill-treating me . . . and rudely you are behaving towards me. I am very much mortified by that.”xiv
Cry me a river! Yaçomaténandan went the next day to see if he could smooth things over. It was a sentimental decision on his part (and on the part of the G.B.C. for allowing him the interview). As could only be expected, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar dominated the talk with confrontational and incendiary rhetoric. Consider these gems from their “discussion”:
“They say that whatever will be the majority of the committee, that is absolute. I differ there.”xv
“Unfortunately, things are going in such a way as if I am standing in the opposite party, but I don’t think so.”xvi
“Rather, I like to be a form breaker than (a) form maker, if necessary, for spiritual upliftment.”xvii
“What is your Prabhupäda? There are so many spiritual masters in the world. What is the peculiarity of your Prabhupäda?”xviii
“I know your guru-mahäräj more than you do.”xix
Utter horsecrap!
“Whatever you will see, what all of you will see, that won’t reach the depth of my knowledge about ISKCON, that is Kåñëa consciousness. That is: What is, Who is Krishna. You are all primary students.”xx
The misconception that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was a laid back sädhu, a really congenial Gauòéya Mutt leader, (one not at all interested in fighting or changing Prabhupäda’s movement and not a meddler) is belied by these verbal attacks. Yaçomaténandan’s mission was a failure, and what was gleaned from his “discussion” with that man only served to further precipitate and harden The Great Schism.
As could have easily been predicted, former first and second echelon “ISKCON” men soon decided to also cross the river; many of them had already visited Swämi B. R. Çrédhar before The Great Schism. Eleven Naked Emperors lists some of these men: Jayatértha (of course), Dhéra Kåñëa, Kanupriya, Tripuräri (although temple president of the San Francisco center at the time and offered the post of guru, he decided to abandon corporate ISKCON and joined Neo-Mutt in 1986), Alanätha, Païcadravida, Bhävananda Raya . . . and Jagat Guru.
Later, some influential devotees decided to throw in with Swämi Näräyan, the other Gauòéya Mutt leader who, to a lesser degree, meddled in Prabhupäda’s movement (but mostly after Swämi B. R. Çrédhar’s influence waned, especially after his demise in August, 1988). The most prominent of them was Jaduräni däsi. All of this followed in the wake of The Great Schism. Swämi B. R. Çrédhar’s fingerprints are still all over it, although it does take some research in order to discern that.
While Prabhupäda was with us, none of his disciples even considered questioning his teachings about the origination of jéva-tattva. We are all jéva-tattva, and Prabhupäda, although specially empowered, is also jéva-tattva. This was accepted by everyone. That acceptance meant that we all believed that we had originally been in the spiritual world of form and activity. That meant originally in a land or region of Kåñëa that is above and beyond His impersonal effulgence.
The misplaced adulation of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was the result of the G.B.C. foolishly opening wider its Pandora’s Box, allowing the man a prominence that was utterly undeserved. He broke one form in 1937, and he broke a second one in 1978. The G.B.C. gets an F-minus for all of its decisions and actions connected with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar previous to the breakup in 1982, which came five years too late.
The man fully deserved to be counter-attacked once he began meddling in Prabhupäda’s branch of the Hare Kåñëa movement. The wrong-headed idea that he was any kind of an improvement over the eleven great pretenders (whom he initially empowered) was simply the illusion. Those men were bad men, and some of them were worse than others. However, as far as damage to the movement goes, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar scores right up there with any of them. It could even be cogently argued that he did more damage than all of them combined!
Prabhupäda said in October, 1977, that everything was frustrated, and that’s the opinion that we should all have cared about (if only we were all informed about it, which none of us were). Obviously, hardly anyone knew that he said that at the time, just before he left the scene. However, some of us early on could intuit that something was dreadfully wrong. We suffered in the movement for that, but we are now vindicated.
You cannot avoid judging Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. His impact was too substantial in order to neglect judging it. We are all responsible for our influence. If we decide to drift in our judgment about him, his philosophy, and his impact, we are also responsible for that decision to drift.
Did he help the ISKCON cause or did he hurt it? This chapter makes clear (to every Prabhupäda devotee free from bias) just what the right conclusion should be about this senior godbrother of Prabhupäda (who he constantly called “Swämi Mahäräj”).
In assimilating this chapter, if you have come to the right conclusion about him, you will find yourself on the right side of history. You will be well situated despite the short-term pasting you may take from Neo-Mutt (if you enter its wheelhouse, which you should not). Never forget that Neo-Mutt declared war on Prabhupäda’s movement—a movement already in deep trouble—when its influential men (comprising the Mahä-maëòala) should have instead tried to bring it back via honest reform.
- iIn 1972, an Australian bhakta claimed that the living entities in the material world were originally situated in the brahmajyoti. According to two ISKCON leaders there at the time, this caused a disturbance. It obviously was against the Back to Godhead message (which does not imply back to the white light). Prabhupäda dictated his response against the idea, a typed copy of which was retained. This is the Tal and Crow Amendment. It was said to have been distributed to the Australian temple presidents. In his statement, Prabhupäda clarified the question of whether or not the origin of the jéva was in the brahmajyoti originally.
- iiBhakti Prajïäna Keçava Mahäräj.
- iiiActually, the origin of the jéva is a major tattva, but it has Prabhupäda’s siddhänta on the topic backing it. As such, it can be called siddhänta also, as that Sanskrit word can be translated as “the perfect conclusion.”
- ivThe Tal and Crow Amendment became known—quite possibly, well known—in the Australian yatra, but not elsewhere. Until 1982, it was not well distributed to other centers. As everyone now knows, “ISKCON” was cultivating ties with Gouòéya Mutt after Prabhupäda’s disappearance. If this Addendum had been distributed widely, that cultivation would have been jeopardized. In 1982, it was distributed widely, which corresponded to The Great Schism with Gouòéya Mutt, of course.
- vExcerpted from Eleven Naked Emperors by Henry Doktorski, p. 135, Kindle edition.
- viEven while Prabhupäda was here, the G.B.C. neglected the restrictions placed in The Direction of Management; it neglected certain Particulars that it found inconvenient in its charter. It did not share these with other devotees. The Particulars about a kind of rinse and re-use vote (to be held every three years by the temple presidents) was completely ignored. The governing body’s motive for doing so is self-evident.
- viiThe etiquette argument was not very important to Prabhupäda. Basically, it is the Vedic etiquette for a disciple (who is qualified to initiate) not to do so while his spiritual master is physically present. In 1970, Prabhupäda dictated two similar letters to two of his leading secretaries. They clearly stated that he not only wanted, but desired, his leading men to become dékñä-gurus by no later than 1975. He was still with us in 1975. It is clear from the tenor of these two letters that he was referring to his qualified disciples initiating newcomers while he was still on the scene, which meant discarding the etiquette.
- viiiThis is from the Tal and Crow Addendum, of course.
- ixExcerpted from Eleven Naked Emperors by Henry Doktorski, p. 148, Kindle edition.
- xIbid, p. 245.
- xiIbid, p. 227.
- xiiExcerpt from a letter to Rüpänuga, 4-28-74.
- xiiiExcerpted from Eleven Naked Emperors by Henry Doktorski, p. 229, Kindle edition.
- xivIbid, p. 231.
- xvIbid, p. 232.
- xviIbid, p. 233.
- xviiIbid, p. 234.
- xviiiIbid, p. 235.
Addendum 2
ANALYSIS OF THE 1974 LETTER TO RUPANUGA
Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors: pp. 400-402, Kindle Edition. This long excerpt is reproduced from ENE, as just delineated.
NOTE: I see no need to spend so much time going converting quotation marks in order to be technically correct in terms of the overall quotation. It begins with quotation marks and ends with quotation marks, as is the standard. However, Prabhupada is quoted (from the letter) in all of the fifteen points, and there should, technically, be a conversion from double to single quotation marks. I see no need to do this, particularly since I am informing you here, in advance, that I made this intentional decision. It does not negatively impact the Addendum whatsoever.
“Kailasa-Chandra analyzed Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s letter to Rupanuga in detail, and made special reference to fifteen points:
(1) “Sridhar Maharaja’s genuineness.” The gist of the discussion about B. R. Sridhar Maharaja in this letter is distinctly and unequivocally negative. As such, when whether or not he is actually genuine is the overall topic (as indicated at the very beginning addressing Rupanuga’s doubt), the inference is that he is not genuine. This will be verified as the letter proceeds. Rupanuga had visited B. R. Sridhar Maharaja in Navadvipa with Prabhupada, and obviously Rupanuga was not at all impressed. That is why he sought clarification, and he got it. This letter is very instructive.
2) “The best of the lot.” Prabhupada, the real acharya, herein “praises” B. R. Sridhar Maharaja by calling him “the best of the lot.” The lot is described as we delve further into the letter. A bona fide spiritual master never refers to another bona fide spiritual master in this way.
3) “They have no life for preaching work.” Does “they” include “the best of the lot?”
4) “All are satisfied with a place for residence in the name of a temple.” It does.
5) “They have no idea or brain how to broadcast the cult of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.” The purport is self-evident.
6) “If one man at least.” Prabhupada is, indirectly, referring to himself here. 7) “He (Siddhanta Sarasvait) never recommended anyone to be acharya of the Gaudiya Math. But Sridhar Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja.” Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada directly states that B. R. Sridhar Maharaja is responsible for the breakdown of the Gaudiya Math mission after the disappearance of its Founder. At the time, in 1937, the Gaudiya Math was governed by a thirteen-man GBC, and, by an 8-5 vote, it selected a single person (Ananta Vasudeva) to serve as acharya of the Math. This was in defiance of the expressed order of the Founder. Thus, a schism immediately ensued. Indirectly, Prabhupada informs us that B. R. Sridhar Maharaja was one of the most influential men on that Gaudiya Math GBC, and he saw to it that a sole acharya was appointed. The stigma was still attached to B. R. Sridhar Maharaja nearly forty years later, when Prabhupada wrote this letter in 1974.
8) “Sridhar Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acharya and later it proved a failure.” It was done without the Founder’s sanction. It was unauthorized. Notice Prabhupada does not name the other two men involved in the split (he does in at least one other letter). This indirectly suggests that B. R. Sridhar Maharaja was the leader of this deviation to select a sole acharya, who was unqualified to be THE ACHARYA. If B. R. Sridhar Maharaja had been authorized (and if his motion had been approved) by the Founder, it would have succeeded. Instead, it failed.
9) “Actually amongst my godbrothers no one is qualified to become acharya.” In 1974, when he wrote this letter to Rupanuga, Prabhupada was accepting maha-bhagavat worship as the acharya of ISKCON. He herein stated, unequivocally, that all the rest of his godbrothers (including B. R. Sridhar Maharaja) had no such qualification.
10) “Better not to mix with my godbrothers very intimately.” This gets clarified a bit later.
11) “They may sometimes pollute them.” “They” refers to Prabhupada’s godbrothers and their tricks.
12) “We shall be very careful about them and not mix with them.” Here is that clarification. And it is delivered in the form of an order from the Acharya A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to his disciples.
13) “This is my instruction to you all.” Prabhupada indicates that he intends this instruction not only for Rupanuga, but for all of his disciples, including the eleven who in 1978 repeatedly went to Navadvipa for advice, and then implemented the advice.
14) “They cannot help us in our movement.” If, as Prabhupada indicated, they (his godbrothers) could not help his disciples, then, indirectly, he indicates that they could only hurt them.
15) “They are very competent to harm our natural progress.” That has been proved. Please note, Prabhupada employed the term “very competent.” He doesn’t say they were very competent to spread Lord Chaitanya’s movement, as verified earlier in this essential letter. However, they were very competent to harm Prabhupada’s disciples. Kailasa-Chandra concluded, “In hindsight, it appears obvious that B. R. Sridhar Maharaja, in conjunction with the GBC, was competent enough to destroy Prabhupada’s branch of Lord Chaitanya’s sampradaya. It was a combination of the vitiated GBC and the poisonous influence of B. R. Sridhar Maharaja that led to the initial conflagration, which led to all kinds of splinter groups in the mid-1980s and further conflagration.”
Addendum 3
THE LETTER TO RUPANUGA OF 4-28-74
“You are right about Sridhara Maharaja’s genuineness. But in my opinion he is the best of the lot. He is my old friend, at least he executes the regulative principles of devotional service. I do not wish to discuss about activities of my Godbrothers but it is a fact they have no life for preaching work. All are satisfied with a place for residence in the name of a temple, they engage disciples to get foodstuff by transcendental devices and eat and sleep. They have no idea or brain how to broadcast the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
My Guru Maharaja used to lament many times for this reason and he thought if one man at least had understood the principle of preaching then his mission would achieve success. In the latter days of my Guru Maharaja he was very disgusted. Actually, he left this world earlier, otherwise he would have continued to live for more years.
Still he requested his disciples to form a strong Governing body for preaching the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He never recommended anyone to be acarya of the Gaudiya Math. But Sridhara Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja, and he and others who are already dead unnecessarily thought that there must be one acarya. If Guru Maharaja could have seen someone who was qualified at that time to be acarya he would have mentioned. Because on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission.
So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self effulgent acarya would be automatically selected. So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure. The result is now everyone is claiming to be acarya even though they may be kanistha adhikari with no ability to preach. In some of the camps the acarya is being changed three times a year. Therefore we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp.
Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya. So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately because instead of inspiring our students and disciples they may sometimes pollute them. This attempt was made previously by them, especially Madhava Maharaja and Tirtha Maharaja and Bon Maharaja but somehow or other I saved the situation. This is going on. We shall be very careful about them and not mix with them. This is my instruction to you all. They cannot help us in our movement, but they are very competent to harm our natural progress. So we must be very careful about them.”