A few years back there was a best-selling book that came out entitled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. It’s the story about a man who was hired by a company with ties to an American intelligence agency to roam around the world with a team of people who pressured governments and financial elites into accepting the dictates of the World Bank, e.g. accept huge loans they couldn’t pay back, then give the bankers and their cohorts in big business control over a countries resources as payback.
I believe the reason that many devotees try to convince people that Prabhupada was a 100% bona fide acarya, fully empowered as Krishna’s pure representative, even when confronted with the fact that he taught contradictory teachings to Krishna, is so that they can exploit that belief for an expansion or increase of their economic situation or status in society.
People associated with ISKCON and those who financially support ISKCON, i.e. the people who believe in Prabhupada to be “as good as God”, are the majority of Gaudiya Vaishnavas who live outside of India. Even amongst the Gaudiya Vaisnava community in India, probably the wealthier or upper classes see Prabhupada as some type of empowered special guru or saktyavesa avatar. If you have an ambition to be seen as a guru or a sadhu, or to make connections among the wealthy and powerful for your “projects”, then it would seriously compromise that ambition if you spoke the truth about Prabhupada. Or so most devotees believe. Since most Gaudiya Vaisnavas revere Prabhupada as a kind of deity figure, a God among us lowly mortals, truth can become compromised by ambition for wealth and status when it comes to Prabhupada and what he taught.
When I started this blog a few months ago there were between 700-1000 visitors per day for around one month. After that the traffic has slowed down to between 400-500 per day. A few days ago there was a spike of visits, and I got comments from 3 people who parroted the same idea on the Hridayananda Goswami: “Prabhupada wasn’t perfect” post. I had written in my response to one of them the following:
Citta
I agree that sastra and reason should be used to try to understand why a bona fide spiritual master would consistently contradict Krishna’s teaching.
Srimad Bhagavatam 11.17.27
acaryam mam vyaniyan
navamanyeta karhicit
na martya-buddhyasuyeta
sarva-deva-mayo guruhOne should know the acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods.
The conclusion is that how can we accept someone as a bona fide acarya if that person consistently contradicts Krishna? Here Krishna makes it clear that a bona fide acarya is identified with Himself. What does that mean? A bona fide acarya will not contradict Krishna because his qualification as an acarya, is in being a manifestation of Krishna by teaching what Krishna taught. Therefore if you contradict Krishna, you are not a bona fide acarya.
All three of them responded with the same riposte, i.e. that since Krishna didn’t always speak the truth that it was perfectly all right if Prabhupada didn’t as well. Well, it doesn’t take a genius to see what was going on with these commentators and the big spike in visitors on the same day. Somewhere a group of people are discussing this blog, these three commentators decided to give the same response probably due to someone inspiring them in their group to give the answer they have given.
What I find interesting is that they all seem intent on making an excuse for Prabhupada’s teachings, which were clearly against Krishna’s teachings, even going to the extent of claiming that Prabhupada should be allowed the same kind of authority as God, i.e. whatever Prabhupada said or did should not lessen anyone’s view of him as a bona fide acarya – because Krishna’s authoritativeness is not lessened by anything he says or does. That theology goes back to the many times earlier on this blog where I was writing about the deification of Prabhupada.
For example: my two posts about Ravindra Svarupa Dasa’ theological contortions at Estimated Profit Prophet and Karma Chameleon. He was trying to explain how Prabhupada was right when he said that there was going to be an immanent nuclear holocaust in 1975. Later when it didn’t happen, his disciples asked him why it hadn’t occurred – Prabhupada said: “Krishna changed his mind”. Ravindra then tries to explain that Krishna actually had planned on allowing a nuclear holocaust in 1975, but that at the last minute he changed his mind. I took Ravindra to task for the ridiculous theological contortions he went through in trying to prove that Prabhupada couldn’t simply have been wrong. Also at We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us and Krishna’s Truth and also in the first post on this blog Reality Check I wrote about how Prabhupada has been given infallible deity status by many of his followers.
This new orchestrated attempt at giving Prabhupada deity status takes us to a new depth of compromise. Not only are we being asked to see Prabhupada as we would see Krishna, but we are being told that it doesn’t matter what Prabhupada taught as long as he was sincere. Why this insistence that we see Prabhupada as we see Krishna, and that we accept him as a 100% bona fide representative of Krishna, even though at times he teaches in direct opposition to what Krishna taught?
I believe it is because devotees are often compromised by their ambitions. Why do devotees reject being truthful about Prabhupada? Clearly Prabhupada taught against the teachings of Krishna, and not only when he taught that jivas can and do fall from Vaikuntha. In the first post on this blog I wrote about how Narayana Maharaja told his followers that Prabhupada’s Gita was badly edited by his disciples. He claimed that in Bhagavad Gita As It Is 9.32, the translation implies that women are papa-yoni, and that Prabhupada would never make such a mistake:
mam hi partha vyapasritya
ye ‘pi syuh papa-yonayah
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras
te ‘pi yanti param gatim
O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth–women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]–can approach the supreme destination.
I corrected Narayana Maharaja’s misconception and showed that Prabhupada regularly claimed that women are papa-yoni in his lectures. Narayana Maharaja told us that Prabhupada would never say that women are papa-yoni or that black people are sudras, because those are apasiddhantic bogus teachings. I proved Narayana Maharaja to be wrong by citing many lectures where Prabhupada said that women are papa-yoni, and that black people are sudras — and should even be forced into slavery! It wasn’t the fault of the editors of Prabhupada’s books as Narayana Maharaja had claimed. His followers, who are mostly ex-members of ISKCON, didn’t tell Narayana Maharaja that Prabhupada did say those things. Why are they all so intent on not being truthful?
They are compromised by ambition and fear. Just like the commentators I mention in the above, Narayana Maharaja and his followers do not want to speak the truth. They all fear a loss of respect which could lead to a loss of being seen as a guru or sadhu worthy of being followed or supported, and or they fear being denounced by their peers which would lead to a loss of respect, position, etc.
Years ago Narayana Maharaja made a big stink about ISKCON teaching the fall from Vaikuntha theory, he had no problem disagreeing with Prabhupada on that point. That was right after he and his followers become persona non grata in ISKCON. Before they banned him he was always saying that Prabhupada was his siksa guru and that he was devoted to Prabhupada and a big admirer of his books. When the GBC banned him he was no longer fearful of losing the respect of ISKCON members, he then spoke the truth about what he believed. Many years have passed since then and many of Prabhupada’s followers no longer see Narayana Maharaja in the light that the GBC would like them to see him in. So now he is trying to keep their respect by defending what Prabhupada taught by blaming the editors of his books. Unfortunately for him that plan backfired when I exposed the same and even worse siddahantic transgressions (In Narayana Maharaja’s opinion) spoken by Prabhupada in many recorded lectures and talks.
The three recent commentators have also been compromised. They have made biased arguments in their reluctance to speak the truth.
Bhagavad Gita 18.42
samo damas tapah saucam
ksantir arjavam eva ca
jnanam vijnanam astikyam
brahma-karma svabhava-jam
Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, wisdom, knowledge, and religiousness–these are the qualities by which the brahmanas work.
Vrajabhumi,
For the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of or affiliated with Iskcon. I believe Iskcon to be flawed beyond repair, both socially and philosophically. The deification of Prabhupada found there is symptomatic of a distorted understanding of guru-tattva and I find it quite distasteful and a disservice to him. I regard him highly as my parama-guru, and devotionally perfect. Do I consider him to be omniscient or incapable of mistakes? No.
I have no position in any Gaudiya institution to protect, no faith of disciples or sycophants to shore up.
I do not know the other people who posted on the thread you’re referring to, so I think your idea of an orchestrated effort to attack your views is unfounded.
Cheers,
Citta
It was obivous that you three know each other because all three of you gave the same unusual response. It was unusual to me because I have never before seen that justification of Prabhupada’s contradiction to Krishna’s teachings in the Gita. I called it orchestrated in the sense that clearly all three of you have the same agenda to justify Prabhupada’s statements, and clearly you know each other and have discussed the response you gave before posting your comments. The odds that all three of you could post the same obscure rationalization within 30 minutes of each other, when all your comments were held in moderation so that you couldn’t see each other’s comments, by chance, is very low, impossibly so.
What is your and your friends motivation in making the claim that Prabhupada should be seen as an acarya manifestation of Krishna regardless of the fact that he consistently contradicted the teachings of Krishna? Saying “all that matters is a devotee’s motivation” is backed up by what kind of theological or logical proof? I am not saying Prabhupada isn’t a devotee of Krishna or motivated by ill intent, I am talking about the qualifications for being seen as Krishna’s bona fide acarya, his pure representative. Where does it say that all it takes for being respected as acaryam mam vyaniyan is a devotee’s motivation? Nowhere. Therefore according to sastra Prabhupada is not a bona fide acarya because he was not a pure representative of Krishna. That doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a devotee or wasn’t motivated by devotional desires, plenty of devotees are not qualified to be seen as acaryam mam vyaniyan.
Caitanya Caritamrta, Madhya-lila 8.128
kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya
yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei ‘guru’ haya
Whether one is a brahmana, a sannyasi or a sudra—regardless of what he is—he can become a spiritual master if he knows the science of Krsna.
The most basic qualification for being accepted as an acarya is krsna-tattva-vetta. Without that qualification no devotee should be accepted as good as God regardless of their purity of purpose, purity of practice, charisma, or scholarly ability.
Vrajabhumi,
You can believe what you want, but I can assure you that I did not discuss my posts with anyone. I’m not with some Gaudiya-Vaisnava CIA.
And in my posts I never said that motivation is all that counts–I noted that statement by one of the other posters myself, and disagree with it. If that were true, then murder would be perfectly acceptable in a preaching campaign, and of course it’s not. “The ends justify the means” ethic has limited application in preaching.
So you’re saying that you accept Prabhupada as a devotee and that he had good intentions but that he was ignorant of Krsna tattva, and was therefore not qualified to represent Krsna as an acarya. If that were true, then why did his Godbrothers B.R. Sridhara Maharaja and Bhakti Promode Puri Maharaja–both acaryas and realizers of Krsna tattva– regard him highly and praise his preaching repeatedly? Were they deluded too, or sycophants trying to increase their prestige and fatten their wallets?
I am surprised at your shift and a little dismayed that you are suggesting a concerted effort. I know I have had no communication with any of these other devotees regarding any of my posts. And Citta, I do not believe the “ends justify the means”. I believe that there are cultural implications to Prabhupada’s presentations and these presentations have varied from time to time through the ages. I also believe Prabhupada knows the science of Krsna.
If you like I can try to time my posts differently so you would feel so paranoid
would not
[...] 21, 2008 by Vrajabhumi This is a reply to Citta regarding his comments on the Spiritual Hit Men: Compromised by Ambition and Fear [...]
By the way, I came across your website when my brother-in- law referred me to theHing.com. There was a link to this website there.
Vrajabhumi,
You say that Prabhupada contradicts Krishna. So you must know Krishna very well. There is of course a way to verify Prabhupada’s opinion; but how are you so sure you KNOW what Krishna’s teachings/opinions are?
You read Bhagavatam and Bhagavat-gita in the original? Krishna speaks directly to you somehow? In sum, how can you be sure you KNOW Krishna’s mind and heart ? How do you know there isn’t any adulteration of His teaching by the time it gets to you?
This is important and genuine question. Please reply.
Jambavan
Prabhupada contradicts the Gita and other sastra. If you don’t accept those sastras as bona fide representatives of God then it doesn’t matter if Prabhupada contradicts them or not. But he did make cruelly racist, sexist, misogynistic, statements. If a bona fide acarya or guru is supposed to be seen as an incarnation of Krishna, what does that say about Krishna if the guru makes cruelly racist, sexist, misogynistic statements? It’s a question of Krishna’s reputation isn’t it?
As an example let’s say I’m a prime minister of a country and you are my ambassador to the United Nations. When it’s your turn to give a speech at the U.N. to represent our country and me – you make cruelly racist, sexist, misogynistic statements – giving our country and me a bad reputation the world over. What choice do I have but to fire you to show the world that your statements do not represent our country and me?
As for the accuracy of sastra, I’ve written about that previously here
Citta, you wrote
Not in so many words, but you imply that type of theology when you said:
We are not talking only about comments made in private. Prabhupada knew that all of his talks were being recorded for posterity, there were people around him with microphones everywhere he went and every time he spoke. He knew the tapes were being transcribed and distributed. Also, in lectures and his books he would contradict the Gita or other sastra. You are implying that Prabhupada didn’t actually believe what he said, you imply that he spoke apasiddhanta to help others because they needed to believe apasiddhanta. Therefore, because his motives were pure we should excuse his apasiddhanta and still see him as Krishna’s acaryam mam vyaniyan.
That is a slippery slope. We can excuse any type of apasiddhanta from anyone with that vision. The whole point of Krishna saying acaryam mam vyaniyan or kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene nay yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei ‘guru’ hay is that it is Krishna’s message which makes a guru a guru. If you teach something that is contradictory to what Krishna teaches, then you are not a pure representative of Krishna, period. That doesn’t mean that you are not a devotee and should be disrespected, you are just not the highest level devotee, you are not qualified to be seen as acaryam mam vyaniyan. It isn’t an offense to not accept a devotee as a highest level devotee mahabhagavat acarya. Just because followers of a guru become offended if you don’t accept their guru as a very topmost level devotee that doesn’t mean it is an actual offense.