Podcast transcription:
On and For the Record
A multi-part series
Analysis of Eleven Naked Emperors
(Review of Chapter Fourteen)
by Kailäsa Candra däsa
HARIÙ OÀ NAMAÙ
In the second half of 1970, Prabhupäda’s still fledgling movement was afflicted by its second major crisis. Here is an excerpt from a letter about thatto Hansadutta, a leading secretary of ISKCON, dated 9-2-70:
“Regarding the poisonous effect in our Society, it is a fact, and I know wherefrom this poison tree has sprung up and how it affected practically the whole Society in a very dangerous form. . . . I have heard that Brahmänanda is preaching about me that I am Kåñëa, that I am Supersoul, that I have withdrawn my mercy from the disciples, that I have left the Society and so on. . . You are also one of the members of the G.B.C., so you can think over very deeply how to save the situation. It is a fact, however, that the great sinister movement is within our Society.”
Led by Brahmänanda, the first temple president of ISKCON, this crises was spread by him to his brother Gargamuni, Viñëu-jana, and Subäl. All four of these men were very influential in the ISKCON Society. About a month later, here is an excerpt from a letter to one of the ringleaders: 1
“Before preaching of your spiritual master as God, you never consulted me whether it was right. This means you were inspired by some external influence. Subäla said that it was a mystic influence. . . That mystic influence was widely spread, which I clearly saw in Honolulu, Tokyo or in other words, wherever Brahmänanda went.”
Spending thousands of dollars, Prabhupäda had made purchases of devotional paraphernalia from India in the early years of his movement. Many of these accounts payable were not being honored by the requisite shipping of the items purchased in advance. As such, Prabhupäda sent one of his first disciples to India to collect that accounts payable. In the process, Brahmänanda stopped off at Gouòéya Mutt centers.
Prabhupäda barely spoke to his disciples about Gouòéya Mutt, his godbrothers, and/or his interactions with them. He was not their emissary. He could have easily incorporated his Society in America as Gouòéya Mutt, even if his godbrothers had opposed it. Instead, in 1966, during the same period he was initiating his first batch of followers, he incorporated as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.
He received virtually no help from any of his godbrothers at any time, including when he asked for assistance in 1965 after having first arrived alone in New York City. They were inimical to him. Via political intrigue, two prominent godbrothers had shut down an organization he had established in Jhansi in the Fifties. None of his godbrothers approved his going to America to preach, although this duty had been assigned to him by his spiritual master.
They believed he made a major offense against Siddhänta Sarasväté by taking the title of Prabhupäda, which they believed was reserved for Siddhänta Sarasväté only. Even though Prabhupäda was a completely pure scholar in spiritual science, honored as such by the title of Bhaktivedänta and was a mahä-bhägavat, that was not really recognized.
As such, once they had the opportunity, they poisoned Brahmänanda when he visited some of them. He brought that contamination back to ISKCON, and a crisis erupted. They movement could have cratered, but Prabhupäda took effective action to prevent it.
We continue to analyze another chapter of Henry Doktorski’s most important work, Eleven Naked Emperors. Henceforward, we refer to it by its acronym, ENE. We have now reached Chapter 14, aptly entitled “The Neo-Gauòéya Matha.” This is a term for that deviant entity which your host speaker introduced soon after it gained traction.
It is a very difficult chapter to review for a number or reasons. On the whole, indeed in all cases, I have given every previous chapter of his work a deserved high grade. There have been flaws in most of those chapters, but I have elucidated them. Indeed, Doktorski has done yeoman’s work in his research, providing so much information concerning the immediate aftermath of Prabhupäda’s movement.
Although I did not thus far grade every chapter, be assured that none of them scored lower than a straight B. Many scored A or even A-plus. Such grades do not carry over to this chapter, however, as it is severely flawed in many ways, although it does have redeeming features.
First, he has revealed many historical specifics that were either entirely unknown or mostly so. They are now on and for the record and will not merge into oblivion. Secondly, he has quoted me profusely in this chapter. By my count, I am quoted eight times. These quotes work against the drift of the chapter, which favors Neo-Mutt.
There is no ahaìkära whatsoever in any of the commentary that I shot off to Doktorski concerning Neo-Mutt and its primary figurehead. The minority report had to be presented, and, for all practical purposes, I was the chief devotee presenting it in an uncompromising way. Doktorski recognized this, so he featured my quotes.
In the beginning of Chapter 14, he presents, in a very specific and chronological manner, the origin of the Neo-Gauòéya Mutt. In the beginning, Neo-Mutt was called The Maha-Mandala. Then it was called The Guardian of Devotion (acronym, G.O.D.). Quite the pretension. Now it is known as The World Vaishnava Association (WVA), which holds annual conclaves in Mathura every year.
Chapter 14 begins as follows: “As the oppressive zonal-acharya regime alienated hundreds, if not thousands of disciples of Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda in the early- and mid-1980s, some estranged disciples discovered an alternate Gaudiya-Vaishnava society which included a number of elder and apparently-advanced devotees in the various branches of the Gaudiya-Math, but especially Prabhupäda’s older godbrother, Bhakti Raksak Çrédhar Mahäräja.”
A salient point is made here: “ISKCON” in general (under management of the Governing Body Commission), and, in particular, the eleven zonals (all themselves commissioners) produced an environment which alienated their peers on the second echelon. This is what formulated, to some extent, the initial Neo-Mutt, which was then a branch of Gouòéya Mutt.
After that, there is a description dedicated to the alleged glories of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar, also discussing background of how Neo-Mutt played out in its early years. I have no obligation to cover any of this, and I chose not to do so. Many different topics are discussed, including reaching back to 1968 in India and two of Prabhupäda’s wandering disciples.
The initial prominent second echelon devotees who crossed the river and joined Swämi B. R. Çrédhar in the very late Seventies and the first half of the Eighties are listed by name. They are listed according to their initiated names from Prabhupäda and the new names given to them when they took sannyäsa from Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. 2
Prabhupäda never changed the names of his initiated disciples when he gave them sannyäsa. Instead, the prefix Bhakti was simply added to the name, e.g., Bhakti Svarüpa Dämodar Swämi. Changing of the name is rationalized to this day by Neo-Mutt, but that is to be expected. It is to be expected, because, at heart, they are no longer devoted to His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi, although they will use (as they see fit) their original dékñä from him.
In the early Eighties, Dhéra Kåñëa, the former temple president of the Culver City center, after he crossed the river and joined Neo-Mutt, started Neo Mutt’s first center in San Jose. This center was not recognized by “ISKCON,” which had previously warned its followers not to read the books of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar.
That was prologue to the schism between “ISKCON” and Gouòéya Mutt—which obviously included Neo-Mutt. Dhéra Kåñëa and Jayatértha, one of the original eleven zonals, were together the leading edge of Neo-Mutt, precipitating that schism. Doktorski then goes on to glorify Tripuräré, who reached a fork in the road in the Eighties, as he had secured a powerful position in “ISKCON” as a temple president. He could have gone either way, but he had a close friendship with Dhéra Kåñëa, who was just a hop, skip, and a jump down the road at San Jose. He chose to throw in with Neo-Mutt, a moment of Fate for the “ISKCON” movement.
Doktorski then relates personal stories of some other early and prominent members of Neo-Mutt, replete with seemingly heart-rendering anecdotes, making for quite the drama. Finally, the chapter reaches a section which has substance, although not presented in the most accurate way. Three contentions are delved into in some detail (with an obvious slant), and I am quoted in one of them. 3
Three flashpoints of contention are then mentioned: 1) Prabhupäda ordering his disciples not to associate with his godbrothers or imbibe teachings and/or directives from them, 2) the aforementioned name changes by Swämi B. R. Çrédhar to Prabhupäda’s initiated disciples when he gave them sannyäsa, and 3) the initial break up of the governing body of Gouòéya Mutt immediately subsequent to the disappearance of Siddhänta Sarasväté. This last one is in connection to Swämi B. R. Çrédhar’s involvement in that schism of 1937.
This month’s presentation will be utilizing addenda. The first one is a hyperlink to a chapter in my most recent book, the one which covers everything connected to Neo-Mutt. It emphasizes the apa-siddhänta of no-fall/no fault believed and preached by both Gouòéya Mutt, along with its step child and Western branch, Neo-Mutt.
Addendum Two is fifteen points (related to Addendum Three) that I made in an email to Doktorski. Addendum Three focuses on key excerpts from a letter to one of Prabhupäda’s leading secretaries in the Spring of 1974. It describes Swämi B. R. Çrédhar in particular and his Gouòéya Mutt godbrothers in general. It is not favorable to any of them.
Prabhupäda, in many letters–and even in some purports to scripture in his books—criticized his godbrothers. There were private room conversations where he did this also, sometimes forcefully. Those are anecdotal to some extent, so I shall not bring them up here.
The aforementioned three contentions begin with the subtitle “Sishyas defend their shiksa guru.” Although it is simply reporting, no objective reader could deny that there are assumptions in that subtitle. Similar bias is present in the contentions themselves.
The first one, as just mentioned, is that Prabhupäda criticized his godbrothers. He most certainly did, repeatedly. He did not hold them in high esteem. The chief point made in the first contention is that these criticisms did not apply to Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. One of his new Western çiñyas is quoted making this assertion. It is patent nonsense.
Consult Addendum Three in the text wall after the Endnotes, and you will be disabused of that fellow’s notion. Regarding the second contention, I shall simply reproduce here my quote in ENE applied to it:
“Kailasa-Chandra claimed, ‘B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja directly reinitiated Buddhi-yoga dasa (a Prabhupäda initiate) very soon after Prabhupäda departed. Neo-Mutt tries to hide these reinitiates, mostly by falsely claiming that they were standard name changes for sannyäsis. Such was not the case during Prabhupäda’s preaching while he was here. None had their names radically changed. Give me some tangible examples of complete name changes while Prabhupäda was manifest. I do not know of any such things.’” 4
In relation to the third contention, emoting is used to defend Swämi B. R. Çrédhar in relation to the breakdown and schism of Gouòéya Mutt in 1937, just after the disappearance of Siddhänta Sarasväté. Most definitely, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was an integral player in that event. Here is an excerpt from Addendum Three:
“He (Siddhänta Sarasväté) said openly you make a G.B.C. and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of G.B.C. who would come out successful and self effulgent Äcärya would be automatically selected. So Çrédhara Mahäräja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one Äcärya and later it proved a failure.”
Letter to Rupanuga, dated 4-28-74
Ananta Väsudeva, one of the thirteen commissioners in the first G.B.C. meeting after Siddhänta Sarasväté’s disappearance, was nominated to be the Äcärya of the whole Gouòéya Mutt. The vote was 8-5 in favor of his being appointed to this post, but that was not what Siddhänta Sarasväté either wanted or authorized. He did not recognize any of his disciples as qualified for this capstone position atop the hierarchy.
He instead specifically ordered that his G.B.C. was to conduct the mission without any Sole Äcärya overseeing how its leading men were to conduct it from the centers which each of them controlled. According to Prabhupäda, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar went against this order, along with two others on that Commission. This led to that nomination of Ananta Väsudeva as the new Sole Äcärya. His appointment created a schism in which those five who voted against Ananta Väsudeva broke away.
The idea that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was not integral to this break-up of the Gouòéya Mutt is false. The historical record establishing it being false was recorded on and for the record in a letter by Prabhupäda to a leading secretary in April of 1974. Consult Addendum Three.
Chapter 14 then meanders into syrupy sentiment (“Love and trust lacking in ISKCON”), along with another entry: “The comfort B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja brought via his preaching to some of Prabhupäda’s disciples was certainly an improvement to the politics and ‘executive force’ they had suffered in ISKCON.” 5
However, ENE then begins to present balance in connection to the two opposing points of view. Quoting your host speaker:
“Kailasa-Chandra claims that B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja was the principle founder-advisor of the zonal-acharya system, and it was due to his bad advice that the policies of the eleven became manifest. In the spring of 1978, he claims, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar successfully injected massive procedural changes.”
I herein choose to highlight five of these, all from ENE:
“B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja suggested that the zonal acharyas should not accept disciples in other zones except their own. This was similar to the unspoken agreement between the acharyas of the various Gaudiya-Math temples after the departure of Bhaktisiddhänta Saraswati Prabhupäda. Kailasa-Chandra claims this was a concoction, as the bona fide spiritual master can accept disciples from anywhere on the earth.
Kailasa-Chandra also points out that B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja introduced the concept that a guru, even a madhyama-adhikari guru, must always present the appearance of an uttama-adhikari. ‘It is to deceive the disciple.’ In other words, Çrédhar Mahäräja indicated that all of the ISKCON gurus should pretend to be uttama-adhikaris, otherwise their disciples might doubt their legitimacy.
Kailasa-Chandra further claims that B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja also introduced the transitive misconception: ‘Ritvik-acharya, then it becomes as good as acharya.’ By this he meant that Prabhupäda’s appointing ritviks (during his manifest presence) meant that they all then automatically became acharyas (dékñä gurus) upon his manifest departure. This is nowhere verified in çästra.
Kailasa-Chandra claims that B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja introduced the process of pretension, ‘Just put on the uniform, and you will become the soldier.’ He told them not to feel insecure about their actual less-than-exemplary third-class spiritual development (many ISKCON leaders at the time, it appears, were less than neophytes, because neophytes follow the rules and regulations of vaidhi-bhakti), because if they simply put on the dress of the acharya, then they would become real acharyas, with Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda and Krishna’s help. ‘Just take this garb and the dress will tell you what you have to do,’ Çrédhar Mahäräja advised. However, Prabhupäda contradicted this, ‘Of course, one must deserve these facilities. First deserve, then desire.’
Kailasa-Chandra notes that B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja also recommended that the eleven should form a special committee within the G.B.C. that would control everything from behind the scenes. ‘There should be an Acharya Board to guide the whole thing from behind, without non-acharya within the meeting,’ he said.” 6
I am not going to present all or even most of the Neo-Mutt arguments made in favor of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. I have no obligation to do so. The audio would go too long if I did that. Just as importantly, why should I pollute your minds with such propaganda? You are free to consult ENE via Kindle or hard copy if you want to read any of that.
TATTTVAMASI
Here and there, however, there will be a factual nugget that is made by one of the Neo-Mutt leaders, such as this one:
“ . . . B. V. Suddhadvaiti Mahäräja pointed out that since the eleven tried to cheat B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja from the beginning, Çrédhar Mahäräja turned the tables and instead cheated them.” 7
This point is factual. Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was playing 3D chess with the eleven seeds of personal ambition, but they were only making moves on their own in-house checker board. One of them even said to him that he considered the Navadvipa mahant to be non-different from Prabhupäda. They did not all have that attitude, but some of them did, contributing to the major schism of 1982.
As such, he had a huge advantage over them. They lapped up everything he said, much of which was false and bad advice. This is pointed out threadbare in Addendum One. The eleven seeds of personal ambition needed fertile soil, and Swämi B. R. Çrédhar provided it. In the process, he cheated everyone in Prabhupäda’s movement. He also formed a new branch of Gouòéya Mutt from those disgruntled second echelon men.
ENE then asks a poignant question:
“Upon deeper analysis of the conversations in the spring of 1978 between Çrédhar Mahäräja and the G.B.C., it becomes apparent, as Kailasa-Chandra says, that Çrédhar Mahäräja did introduce concepts in ISKCON which were not in the same mood as Srila Prabhupäda’s concepts. But could he do otherwise, given his Gaudiya Math background and ‘conditioning?’
Plus, Srila Prabhupäda, by telling his disciples that Çrédhar Mahäräja had messed things up in 1937 after Srila Bhaktisiddhänta Saraswati Thakur’s departure, had warned them not to take these kinds of concepts from Çrédhar Mahäräja after his disappearance. So if the eleven did take Çrédhar Mahäräja’s advice, which was not exactly according to Prabhupäda’s teachings, it is because that advice was just what they wanted to hear. Therefore the blame lies on the ISKCON G.B.C. for following the advice, not on Srila B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja.” 8
Half right. The blame lies with both. Nevertheless, there are bona fide interjections in this chapter that have value. Here is another one:
“Çrédhar Mahäräja also differed with Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda on some philosophical issues. . . In his 69-page essay, Srila Prabhupäda and the Gaudiya Math, Drutakarma elaborated on one of the philosophical differences between Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda and B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja, ‘Çrédhar Mahäräja had a concept of the origin of the jiva that was different than Prabhupäda’s. Prabhupäda taught that all jivas were originally with Krishna, and had fallen from the spiritual world into this world. Çrédhar Mahäräja taught that the jivas had not originally been with Krishna. . .
Çrédhar Mahäräja’s ISKCON followers turned it into a major issue. Yes, they said, Çrédhar Mahäräja was giving esoteric truths beyond those taught by Prabhupäda. They, the followers of Çrédhar Mahäräja, were the ones with the true understanding now. And ISKCON should join them in accepting these truths. There developed a schism, of a kind that would be repeated in coming years.’ Just by acknowledging the fact that Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda and B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja differed on this one point, Kailasa-Chandra claims, is enough for a Prabhupäda disciple or follower to reject Çrédhar Mahäräja outright.” 9
It is not a minor point. It is a major foundational siddhänta, and Prabhupäda gave us the eternal siddhänta. Gouòéya Mutt and its step child branch, Neo-Mutt, present the apa-siddhänta, the wrong conclusion. This siddhänta is a pillar of Vaiñëavism; it is not merely an esoteric fine point. If you take advantage of the hyperlink provided in Addendum One, this crux controversy is discussed there threadbare. Here is but one of its entries:
“Unless one develops full devotional service to Kåñëa, he goes up only to Brahma-sayujya but falls down. But after millions and millions of years of keeping oneself away from the lélä of the Lord, when one comes to Kåñëa consciousness, this period becomes insignificant, just like dreaming. Because he falls down from Brahma-sayujya, he thinks that this may be his origin, but he does not remember that before that even, he was with Kåñëa.” 10
ENE then touches upon the çikñä-guru controversy. This is a nasty one, because Neo-Mutt is fanatical about it. Although they do not accept everything Prabhupäda states literally, they do take his calling Swämi B. R. Çrédhar as his çikñä-guru to be an incontrovertible truth.
It isn’t.
ENE covers this controversy to some extent. The gist is that Prabhupäda, in 1968, had two wandering disciples, accomplishing little if any real service, who became polluted by Prabhupäda’s inimical godbrother, Swämi Bon in Vrndavan. They were staying at his center and on the verge of being lost to Prabhupäda’s movement.
Indeed, one of them was, as Swämi Bon gave that young man a new name. This was a major offense to Prabhupäda, obviously. The other disciple was Acyutänanda, the first disciple of Prabhupäda to dance at Tompkins Square Park in New York City while Prabhupäda was leading a kértan. He was also one of the first to receive initiation.
In order to try to save both of them, Prabhupäda sent a letter ordering them to travel to West Bengal and live with another of his godbrothers, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. In this letter, he glorified that elder godbrother, and this can be seen as a kind of incentive to follow the order. The obvious issue is how to interpret Prabhupäda, in that letter, wherein he called Swämi B. R. Çrédhar his çikñä-guru.
If the direct interpretation (which generally should be accepted) is applied, then it is not difficult to comprehend why Neo-Mutt makes this the centerpiece of its justification. However, there are occasions (this being one of them) where the indirect application is merited. Phalena-pariciyate: Judge by the results.
Did what went down after Prabhupäda departed (and Swämi B. R. Çrédhar rose to such influence) provide evidence of him being in the category of the Founder-Äcärya’s guru? That is a rhetorical question if your higher intelligence is active. In the important letter of April, 1974 (reproduced as Addendum Three), Prabhupäda calls Swämi B. R. Çrédhar “the best of the lot.” You do not call your çikñä-guru such a thing, and you do not call a mahä-bhägavat that, either.
If you are interested to put the pieces of this controversy together in the right way, you can consult the longest Endnote I have thus far made, viz., Endnote Eleven. 11
One final point. ENE presents evidence that the devotee who took re-initiation from Swämi Bon in 1968 never received that letter ordering him to leave Swämi Bon (who Prabhupäda deprecated in the letter) and travel to Navadvipa, West Bengal. He stayed, but Acyutänanda did not, and he did not take re-initiation. This strongly indicates—indeed, it is conclusive evidence—that Acyutänanda did receive the letter.
ENE then segues to a discussion of this important letter to Rupanuga on April 28, 1974. This has just been referenced, and your host speaker has decided to include the essence of it as Addendum Three, so that you can study it. Its purport is self-evident.
It describes that Rupanuga’s doubt about the authenticity of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar is justified. It gives details about how he was integral to the appointment of Ananta Väsudeva to the Sole Äcärya position, which immediately catalyzed into that major schism of Gouòéya Mutt in 1937, just days after Siddhänta Sarasväté’s departure. As long as you are not afflicted by Neo-Mutt propaganda, you cannot ignore what Prabhupäda’s view of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was.
He did not glorify him or his godbrothers at all in this 1974 letter. He also warned that the ISKCON movement should not follow the bad example of what went down in Gouòéya Mutt in 1937. However, under the influence, bad advice, and massive meddling of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar, it did just that– only times eleven!
In this letter of April, 1974, Prabhupäda orders all of his disciples to avoid his godbrothers, informing them that his godbrothers will not help them but are, on the contrary, very competent to harm their progress in the line. Consult Addenda Two and Three for all of the details.
Chapter 14 steps into Neo-Mutt quicksand under the sub-header of “Which order should be followed?” This sub-header is misleading, because Prabhupäda gave many orders (not just one) to avoid his godbrothers, not purchase their books, etc. The other “order” referred to in this connection is a will-o-the-wisp. It alleges, in relation to Gouòéya Mutt, that Prabhupäda reversed everything he said and wrote in the very last days of his manifest physical presence, rendering all of his previous orders (and criticisms) in connection to his godbrothers null and void.
Apparently, this alleged draconian change went down in one meeting, although, because the whole thing is anecdotal, who can be sure of anything connected to it . . .including, even if it took place at all? Who was present? Was it one or two or three leading secretaries? We don’t know. Is there any solid evidence of it? Any tape recording? Any video? Any transcription of this meeting? Negative!
There is nothing solid about any of it. That is not its only flaw. What was the context of this alleged meeting? We don’t know, except anecdotally from vested interests (read, Neo-Mutt loyalists) who make it a major factor of their argument. Any sane devotee would agree that there could be nuances in context to whatever was said by Prabhupäda in this connection . . .again, if any of even transpired. However, we have no solid basis to work from in order to glean context.
Prabhupäda’s books will, in due course of time, become The Lawbooks of Mankind for thousands of years. This is not in the category of prediction. On the contrary, it is incontrovertible truth in the form of prophecy. In the purports of his books, he criticizes his godbrothers and Gouòéya Mutt. That is called västu, substance. It will remain. That criticism will not be culled out of them. If it is by some bogus entity, then it will be reinstated a bit later in time, that’s all.
In many of his letters, Prabhupäda criticizes his godbrothers and Gouòéya Mutt. He gives orders to his disciples—all of his disciples—in this connection. The historical record of how he was mistreated by his former Mutt and its leading men is on and for the record. This historical accuracy is ascertained for posterity.
You may ask: What is the crux of this? What is the chief justification (read, alleged justification) for Neo-Mutt to blow the alleged new directive way out of proportion with no conclusive evidence . . . what to speak of incontrovertible truth? Believe it or not, it is an argument from chronological timing, to wit: The last order overcomes all other orders connected to any order discussed.
This is puerile logic. Ascertainment comes from västu, substance. It never comes from rumor or anecdote, which lacks conclusive evidence by its very nature. A thousand years from now, the devotees in Prabhupäda’s branch—if the branch has not been scattered by then—will not be relying upon an anecdotal account nullifying all that Prabhupäda said and wrote about Gouòéya Mutt and his godbrothers.
And there is another reason, one which could be said to trump all of the solid evidence against the Neo-Mutt line thus far presented: Phalena-pariciyate. Judge by the results. What was the result of Prabhupäda’s first and second echelon men meeting with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar? What was the result of them implementing the bad advice he gave to them? Devastation of Prabhupäda’s movement was the result!
The bias of this “new order” does not merit quotation. It has been summarized herein, with the siddhänta also provided. In summary: Don’t fall for the unite-with-Gouòéya-Mutt chronological timing argument, especially since it is based upon evidence so flimsy that it would be immediately dismissed in any court of law as hearsay.
ENE then segues to Swämi Näräyan of the Devänanda-Keçavajé Mutt in Mathura. After describing the glories of Swämi Näräyana, ENE then presents a vitriolic back-and-forth between those virulently opposed to Swämi Näräyan and those who are dedicated to him. 12
Included in ENE, here are two criticisms of Swämi Näräyan:
“Näräyana Mahäräja said I was basically a demon when I brought out the poison issue; he said this is nonsense, and he invited me to his ashram to talk about it. I waited for ten hours while he hid in his room, then he sneaked off the property. He could not hear one question from me, and he did not want to hear the poison tape I brought with me.”—Tim Lee (Puraïjana däsa). 13
“Näräyana Mahäräja was an offender to the real Srila Prabhupäda. What I find even more offensive is Prabhupäda’s disciples who abandoned Prabhupäda and ran to Näräyana Mahäräja and then he re-initiated them.”—Räsika Rai Däs 14
ENE closes the chapter by discussing some topics that are a bit tangential. It segues into a discussion of the different styles of operation of Gouòéya Mutt (also read, Neo-Mutt) and the current iteration of ISKCON (read, “ISKCON”). I have been to a number of Gouòéya Mutt centers: They are different in style, mood, and general vicära than Prabhupäda’s movement was . . . and that includes philosophy, of course.
“ISKCON” is quoted in this section on its “collective leadership” or the “collective authority system,” claiming it differs from Goudya Mutt’s (and Neo-Mutt’s) Sole Äcärya system. The long explanation by the “ISKCON” representative in this final section is a mixed bag, as it is an example of half truth in the guise of a full exposition.
ENE then included my commentary upon that “ISKCON” rationalization:
“What claptrap!! It is actually a form of self-apotheosis on institutional scale; at the very least, the megalomania of an institutional delusion. This should not be misinterpreted to mean that I accept the Mutt’s gurus. Of course, I do not. However, to compare them to small sailboats (on placid waters!) and ‘ISKCON’ and its governing body to a fleet of huge warships (in a major war on choppy seas!) is such tripe. . . If the guru is bona fide, no matter how small his ashram, his seva and his camp are both blessed by Lord Vishnu. Small is beautiful.” 15
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the loss of charisma in “ISKCON,” particularly with the change from the zonal Äcäryas to The Second Transformation of the collegiate compromise. It is quite well done, including insights from a devotee initiated in 1973, who is now a scholar on the subject of cult charisma. The issue of Prabhupäda’s devotees being enjoined not to criticize his godbrothers is also included under this sub-header. I am also quoted in that close of the chapter:
“Regarding the paragraph quoting Prabhupäda as enjoining his disciples not criticize his godbrothers, even though he criticizes them: Madhava Mahäräja, one of Prabhupäda’s godbrothers, held Prabhupäda in contempt and vehemently criticized him. But Madhava Mahäräja made no attempt to interfere with Prabhupäda’s movement.
Ditto for Damodara Mahäräja, another godbrother of Prabhupäda. To a lesser extent, ditto for Bon Mahäräja. He took away (and so-called re-initiated) a disciple (Hrishikesh), but the damage was very limited, and, from an overall perspective, was more or less ineffective. . .
On the other hand, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar interfered with Prabhupäda’s movement big-time! The history of the movement after his departure would be utterly incomplete without mentioning all the bad advice from the Navadvipa mahant, as well as all of the meetings, as well as the eventual schism. All of that is integral to the history. . .
For those—and there are MANY—who believe no uncle would have been better than the uncle from Navadvipa, WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CRITICIZE HIS INTERFERENCE! We also have every right to point out and reject all of his bad advice. IT IS OUR DUTY TO DO SO! The admonition from Prabhupäda, well before any of the drastic interference by that godbrother went down, has no application at this time.” 16
The admonition is etiquette, which is thus forced to take a back seat and to be ignored due to massive interference in Prabhupäda’s movement.
The colossal hoax, known as the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” confederation, is a pseudo-spiritual scam. The initial deviation of the zonal Äcärya imposition created a backlash. It led, but only in part, to second echelon men cracking the movement’s unity further, breaking away to join the Gouòéya Mutt in Navadvipa.
Previously, Gouòéya Mutt had interfered in Prabhupäda’s Society. In the late Seventies and early Eighties, the great sinister movement—which is what he called Gouòéya Mutt—brought a worse version of massive interference to the next level of outrage.
Neo-Mutt is part of that same poison tree. Do not enter its vortex under any circumstances. Analogously employing a color code to the three deviations of today, Rittvik is ugly brown, and “ISKCON” is a darker shade of that ugly brown. However, Neo-Mutt is black . . . pitch black.
SAD EVA SAUMYA
Follow the links for Addendums 1 – 3:
ENDNOTES
1. Letter to Gargamuni, 10-27-70;
2. The prominent second echelon devotee who joined Neo-Mutt–but chose not to change his name upon receiving sannyäsa in that rebellious cult–was Tripuräré, who then became known in Neo-Mutt as Tripuräré Swämi;
3. As has been the case in these reviews (in which I am quoted), this quote is culled by Doktorski from a dated email that I shot off to him previous to the publication of ENE. In almost all cases, he lists dated attributions, but in this chapter, from my total of eight such quotes, two of them are not attributed. No big deal, simply mentioned;
4. Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors, p. 385, Kindle Edition;
5. Ibid, p. 388;
6. Ibid, pp. 389-91;
7. Ibid, p. 391;
8. Ibid, p. 392;
9. Ibid, p. 393;
10. Tal and Crow Addendum from a letter sent to the Australian president, date uncertain. This is from a very long addendum which discusses, in detail, the origin of the jivatama according to Prabhupäda; the essence of that addendum has been reproduced here. There is plenty more available related to both this addendum and the controversy it generated. It was a factor for the schism between Swämi B. R. Çrédhar and “ISKCON” in 1982;
11. Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors: pp. 396-398, Kindle Edition. This very long Endnote references what is reproduced here:
“Basically, Kailasa-Chandra posits, these two devotees at the time were not heavily engaged in seva to Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda (certainly none that was accomplishing anything tangible, as verified in another letter), and they were, more or less, roaming from ashram to ashram in India. Thus, they were ripe for being misled by someone like Swämi Bon, an older disciple of Bhaktisiddhänta Saraswati Prabhupäda, who possessed philosophical acumen and considered himself far superior to Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda.
In other words, Kailasa-Chandra insists, the overall context of the situation there at that time must be taken into account when considering the two opposing çikñä-guru interpretations (positive and negative) that can be gleaned from the reference to B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja. How should a disciple interpret Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda’s meaning in this letter? Kailasa-Chandra presented his explanation of how to interpret this 1968 letter:
‘Mukhya-vritti is the direct interpretation of sastra and/or the guru’s words. The overwhelming majority of the time, the disciple follows mukhya-vritti. On the other hand, the indirect interpretation, gauna-vritti or laksana-vritti, is applicable only when the guru speaks or writes in such a way that the direct interpretation is illogical and against what he previously (or subsequently) said or enjoined, i.e., when the mukhya-vritti is not applicable. These interpretations are rare. They should be rare. But, when they are applicable, they must be applied.’
Kailasa-Chandra believes this letter should be interpreted according to gauna-vritti and not according to mukhya-vritti. In addition, Kailasa-Chandra notes: ‘The followers of B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja misinterpret Prabhupäda’s actual meaning in this letter. They allege that not considering B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja an uttama-adhikari and an advanced devotee devotee equal to Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda is Vaiñëava-aparadha against B. R. Çrédhar Mahäräja. However, in connection to that one-time letter in late January of 1968, the gauna-vritti is what should be applied. Prabhupäda chose to dovetail a deception (exaggerating his opinion of his Navadvipa godbrother), in order to save two of his initiated disciples. He was able to save one of them, who went on to become a prominent devotee (and who, to his credit, never cooperated with the zonal acharya imposition, although he was invited to do so).
In other words, the situation for those two disciples, Hrishikesh and Achyutananda, was desperate. At least one of them was in the marginal position (in terms of adherence to his spiritual master), and it is more likely that both of them were. A desperate situation sometimes necessitates desperate measures. Prabhupäda chose to use what could be considered, in hindsight, a desperate measure in order to achieve a mixed victory.
The correct way to understand this çikñä-guru controversy in this letter is to understand it according to gauna-vritti. Even Mahäräja Yudhisthira once lied. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda chose to transcendentally dovetail a deception. We should not criticize Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda for taking this risk, but applaud him for it, because he certainly saved Achyutananda from the clutches of Swämi Bon.’”
12. Your host speaker bivouaced in this asrama for just short of four months in late 1983 and early 1984. I discussed philosophy on a few occasions with Swämi Näräyan during my stay in the basement of that building in renovation. Tough gig. Caught a bad cold. In 1983, I accompanied Swämi Näräyan, on a donkey-drawn riksha, in circumambulating Goverdhan on the Goverdan Puja anniversary;
13. Doktorski, Henry. Eleven Naked Emperors, p. 408, Kindle Edition;
14. Ibid, p. 408;
15. Ibid, p. 412;
16. Ibid, pp. 415-416.