Tags
cult weirdos, dandavats.com, gurus, initiation, iskcon gurus, ritvik, sampradaya sun, zonal acharya
This is a reply to a comment from Seeker to the Sri Srila Prabhupada-asstaakaam post.
In Seeker’s comment he links to a few posts on ISKCON guru Trivikrama Swami’s blog, quotes from them, and comments. He points out the bizarre status accorded to Prabhupada in those links, and in the ISKCON community in general. One thing Seeker wrote was this:
Fact is stranger than fiction – any amount of sarcasm to point out flaws in the concept of guru as understood by ISKCON is overcome effortlessly by the comments of ISKCON gurus. Nothing is more hilarious than reality, it seems. Their articles make me wonder what kind of inner world that these gurus must be dwelling in – for example, in this link, an innocent devotee asks what should he do if he hears Srila Prabhupada’s statements being commented as wrong and the guru replies that he should protest and should even be willing to give up his life – scary.
When I was in ISKCON 30-35 years ago, when it came to how Prabhupada was represented, it was quite different than it is now. You wouldn’t hear people speak about Prabhupada having a special position above everyone else. Of course he was spoken of as being special and above all of us, but the attitude was that because we were all so new to bhakti-yoga that of course someone like Prabhupada was special and above us (what to speak of non-devotees). His specialness was taught as being a relative specialness, and, that all of us could attain his level of being eternally liberated, 100% self-realized, and in a direct one on one relationship with Krishna. Of course, Prabhupada was promoted in awe and reverence, but not because he was being taught as some special type of being, as a one of a kind person in all of history—it was because of his books, and how ISKCON began, along with it’s rapid growth, that Prabhupada was held in special awe and veneration. That ISKCON origin story was presented as a miraculous event, as if it was a superhuman feat. But, it was presented as Prabhupada’s empowerment by Krishna due to Prabhupada’s devotion to strictly obeying his guru’s “orders.”
Prabhupada was used as an example of what we could achieve if we also strictly followed our guru’s orders. Prabhupada wasn’t taught as being above any and all faults; you weren’t assailed as a blasphemous demon if you disagreed with anything Prabhupada taught. It was the general mood that it didn’t matter if Prabhupada made mistakes in things he said, he didn’t have to be seen as above making mistakes. It was drilled into our heads that the sole qualification of the spiritual master was in not changing the teachings. If the guru made some mistakes about any variety of other things, that wasn’t seen as diminishing him, and it wasn’t forbidden to disagree with those things. The importance of the parampara was stressed, the strict adherence to “not speculating” was stressed. The all-importance of handing down the unchanged teachings as the qualification for being a guru was taught as what differentiated ISKCON from all the “bogey yogis” who presented themselves with possessing mystic powers as their qualification to be gurus. It was stressed that Prabhupada wanted all of us to be gurus just like him.
And that was why ISKCON transformed so seamlessly and completely into the zonal acharya era after Prabhupada left. Of course many didn’t like it, but that had to do with their belief that those gurus weren’t yet advanced enough to be treated as if they had attained the highest level of God consciousness, as was the presumption about Prabhupada’s position. It wasn’t the idea of the new gurus being treated like Prabhupada that was a problem that was spoken about (at first). The idea or paradigm of their being treated as if they were intimately relating with God, and that they should be surrendered to wholeheartedly as highly qualified empowered leaders, wasn’t the problem. The idea wasn’t the problem, it was the guys filling that paradigm that many had a problem with.
The ritvik ideology grew out of a lack of faith in those gurus. Not long after the zonal acharya era began in 1977-78, a few prominent members (Pradyumna dasa, Jadurani dasi, Kailasa candra dasa, and Yasodanandana dasa) began to criticize the new system, they wrote and gave out tracts in defiance of the new ISKCON. But, their criticism was limited to the qualifications of the new gurus, not the paradigm. They were expelled from ISKCON for their activity, but they affected many members, being as they were respected members of the community. As the years went by, the eccentric, cruel, or criminal behavior of some of the gurus became more and more apparent. In the early 1980s Yasodanandana created the ritvik ideology. Within a few years many people had bought into it, with different groups having different interpretations.
The ritviks appealed to the ISKCON community outside of ISKCON properties with endless written and verbal attacks on ISKCON gurus. It seems they felt the best way to affect change to the ritvik cause was to attack the credibility of the ISKCON acharyas. This had a profound effect on the gurus and would lead us to where we are today in ISKCON.
One guru, Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada, was sent to prison as part of a murder conspiracy against a ritvik devotee named Sulochana. Sulochana das was upset with his wife refusing to leave Kirtanananda’s ashram community in West Virginia to live with him. He was a mentally unsound person who couldn’t accept that his wife left him because of her dislike for him and the lifestyle he planned for them (living in a van or motorhome while travelling around selling stuff). Sulochana had bought wholeheartedly into the concept Prabhupada had taught on how a wife was supposed behave—she’s supposed to be a completely submissive slave-like worshipful disciple of her husband/guru. Sulochana’s wife refused to behave like that, and left him (she described him as a lazy, unwilling to support her and the kids, delusional, and constantly stoned). He blamed Kirtanananda for allowing her to stay in his country ashram community. He was incensed that Kirtanananda Swami didn’t agree with him, with Prabhupada, about the role of the wife. He expected and demanded his wife be sent to him. Thinking there was nothing wrong with himself, thinking he was someone whom his wife should worship, he couldn’t believe she would voluntarily leave him. He believed it was a conspiracy by Kirtanananda, who “poisoned” her mind against Sulochana so she would join the money making apparatus of Kirtanananda Swami.
Sulochana became obsessed with revenge, with writing a long diatribe on ritvikism, and generally speaking in a threatening manner about Kirtanananda. This would have serious repercussions for him, Kirtanananda, ISKCON, and the ritvik movement. Fearing a crazed Sulochana harming Kirtanananda (who had been attacked and almost died shortly before, by a mentally disturbed ISKCON member) and possibly fearing the dissemination of information revealing Kirtanananda’s homosexual and pedophile proclivity, a murder conspiracy was hatched by Kirtanananda and or his closest cohorts. Sulochana was shot and killed while sitting in a parked vehicle he was living out of, right near the ISKCON temple in Los Angeles, 1986.
It wasn’t long until newspapers and television shows around the world blared the story of the sordid murders orchestrated by leading members of the Hare Krishnas. This history is well known to most Hare Krishnas, if you need more info there is plenty on the Internet to read.
The ISKCON gurus were undoubtedly worried about the Sulochana affair. The ritviks propagandized heavily that Sulochana was killed because of his exposing the bogus guru ideology of the ISKCON gurus. The gurus probably saw it a bit differently, more likely they were afraid of people like Sulochana causing them physical harm, more so than any philosophical exposé. Because Prabhupada had casually advocated extreme violence or killing people for blasphemy as not only God sanctioned, but at times imperative; and because ISKCON membership had never lacked in the violent member department due to its then easy to join open-door policy on full-time membership—it’s than easy to understand the gurus being worried about the combustible combination of the ritvik claim of their punishable great offense for taking the role of guru, along with the number of potentially violent mentally unsound people in and around ISKCON.
It was then, after years of criticism for daring to act as gurus, or for not allowing any more gurus, that ISKCON guru policy began to change. They thought that if they could share their position with others then the criticism would damper. It did appease many, and many more gurus were added over the years, with a policy that allows anyone to become a guru if they pass strict qualifications. But the ritviks were not satisfied, as well as many others. The ritvik ideology was attractive to so many because it does away with the ISKCON gurus altogether. There were many disgruntled members and ex-members who blamed various gurus for all the problems in ISKCON, and many had personal troubled acrimonious dealings with the gurus over the years. Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if those problems and potential problems went away for good? And wasn’t Prabhupada special? Isn’t the proof of his specialness in the low caliber of the ISKCON gurus when compared to him? That was the genesis of how ISKCON and the wider community came to promote Prabhupada in the future as like a God among mere mortals.
As the ritvik groups began to gain more and more of a following, and because the Internet made it easy for them to try to convince everyone that ISKCON gurus were not only insincere egotistic usurpers; fools; redundant; thieves and fraudsters—but were also murderers in a poisoning conspiracy which killed Prabhupada—it became seen as prudent for ISKCON gurus to get out of the line of their fire. The guru policy shift hadn’t stopped the ritviks, and in many ways hardened them. A new guru theology began to emerge, which would radically change ISKCON in hopes of appeasing the ritvik movement, which was starting to gain more steam.
Laws were passed, speeches were written, the mood in ISKCON was changed. Prabhupada was no longer just another member of the parampara; his level of God consciousness was no longer just like our own potential; no longer were the gurus after Prabhupada ever to be seen as on the same level as Prabhupada, in fact they were no longer gurus in the traditional sense according to ISKCON law. The official ISKCON guru theology was changed to reflect the fear of ISKCON leaders and gurus of being constantly criticized on the Internet, and threats of bodily harm. They hoped that by putting Prabhupada on an unreachable special God-like level, and then actually make it written into law that the only role of the guru in ISKCON is to “connect the disciple to Prabhupada,” rather than to God, as is the traditional role of a guru—that all their unrelenting critics would finally relent. After all the new role of the guru in ISKCON is officially that of a ritvik priest in all but name. And after all, they’ve adopted a vision of Prabhupada as a demigod, full of mystical powers and possibilites of an infinite variety, a spiritual superhuman superman, a once in a planet’s history savior; like Krishna he has descended from heaven to save humanity, and whose every whimsical idea is perfect eternal law in ISKCON (officially). To disagree with Prabhupada, or present any idea of any other guru, or to compare anyone else to Prabhupada—can get you banned and demonized as a heretic blasphemer.
Till now, the plan hasn’t really worked. The ritviks and guru haters are more rabid than ever before. Once they realized the power of the Internet, the criticism went into overdrive. Every little guru is constantly examined and judged, and of course found wanting to say the least. The hatred for them is evident on a myriad of websites, blaming them for every sin under the sun, but especially for being rogue agents in their takeover as the worshipful gods of ISKCON from Prabhupada—thereby being “offenders” to Krishna, and even worse—to Prabhupada. Anyone who looks at the Sampradaya Sun website, or the Prabhupadanuga websites and others, besides the Prabhupada worship, can see their passionate denunciations of ISKCON leaders daily, as if there is an unlimited supply of Prabhupada related offenses to complain about. Really there’s just a handful, repeated in different ways ad nauseam. At the other end of the spectrum are the ISKCON and pro-ISKCON websites, which also display an unending supply of bizarre over-the-top Prabhupada worship, having him essentially supplant Krishna as the point and purpose of Gaudiya Vaishnavism for that community.
To all of them Prabhupada was Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Allah, Krishna, and Jehovah combined. He’s worshiped as the almighty perfect source of anything and everything worthy of mentioning about anything. If it ain’t Prabhupada—it’s somehow or the other pure unadultered crap—unless it’s from an acharya previous to Prabhupada. But they’re of course mostly relegated to obsolete redundancy.
This is the current ideology of not only the Prabhupada devotee ISKCON hater community, but also of ISKCON and it’s devoted community:
Srila Prabhupada, the most wondrous benediction moon, gave us everything—and all we will need, forever. Who do we think we are thinking that we can understand the previous acharyas anyways? As our guru and savior, we are meant for nothing but devoted servile loyalty to Prabhupada. Any other instruction from any other guru or person is a betrayal. After all, without Prabhupada we wouldn’t be saved, we would all have gone to hell. Prabhupada changed our destiny. We don’t even need scriptures, simply by worshiping Prabhupada; meditating on Prabhupada’s pastimes; offering food to Prabhupada; chanting Prabhupada’s names and bhajans in his glorification, we attain perfection
Simply by serving and worshiping him, Prabhupada has the ultimate ultimo super mystic super potency to magically transform us all into the highest level self-realized nitya-mukta parishad (eternally liberated associate of God). It will please God so much you’ll be liberated without delay if you make Prabhupada your life and soul. Nothing else is needed or even matters. Then, upon leaving our bodies, we will go live with and serve Prabhupada eternally as his menial servants. Until then we should pray to Prabhupada for he can see and hear us, he can reveal himself to us in dreams or through others. By revealing our hearts and minds to him as we beg for one drop of his divine mercy, our ever well-wisher will then grant us the boon of everlasting bliss in service to his lotus nectarean feet.
bhavaprema said:
Vrajabhumi
Bravo! Great historical analysis! Great article! As for the “poison” issue, several years ago I heard one prominent ISKCON guru, sannyasi, and GBC member questioned about it. His response was, “If you believe Prabhupada was poisoned, then you can’t believe in Prabhupada’s special position as a pure devotee, saktyavesa avatar. Krishna says He protects His devotee. Just like they tried to kill Jesus Christ but they couldn’t because he was protected by Krishna.” That was the answer…superhuman powers and special protection. To me it doesn’t matter one bit, the poisoning issue. It seems the side that promotes the idea is completely wacked out and insane. However, I’m curious about your opinion on the “poison” issue. No one may ever know for sure unless they were in on it, or there is overwhelming evidence one way or another. Of course there are those weird recordings, but I have not read anything conclusive on their authenticity, might be fraudulent. It’s all just interesting wacky weirdness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzyT98NLIUk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3SBe8Jf6To
http://www.youtube.com/results?search=Search&resnum=0&oi=spell&search_query=prabhupada+poisoned&spell=1&sa=X
bhavaprema said:
Vrajabhumi
There was a mistake with the last link I provided. Here is the one intended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrYNDdcBKDg
Vrajabhumi said:
bhavaprema
I remember reading the opinions of some doctors, they had said that Prabhupada had diabetes that had gone untreated for many years, and it was amazing he had survived that long, but his death had all the symptoms of untreated diabetes. I don’t think it was so amazing, doctors in the west are used to treating people with very poor diets, and who often are heavy drinkers and smokers. They were just not used to dealing with people who maintained a healthier lifestyle their whole life. Prabhupada’s hair was tested and was found to contain higher than normal levels of arsenic, but Prabhupada didn’t display the symptoms of arsenic poisoning, which are very specific, he displayed all the classic symptoms of untreated diabetes. The higher than normal levels of arsenic could have been caused by his diabetes which led to Prabhupada’s organs being unable to expel toxins normally, which could have led to a build up of arsenic, which was present in the drinking water. The whispers in the tape are hard to make out, but because we are being told what they say, autosuggestion causes us to accept that as what we hear. If someone was to hear those whispers with no knowledge of what it was supposed to be saying, I wonder what they would think?
If Prabhupada was poisoned, it may have been to ease his suffering. His untreated diabetes and old age was causing his body a total breakdown. Possibly there could have been a conspiracy to remove Prabhupada for other reasons, but there is no direct evidence as of yet. The evidence is not incontrovertible on poison. Either way, destiny is a foregone conclusion due to Krishna being the controller of our destiny. Unless there is solid evidence on who did it, it has no significance. The ISKCON guru haters like to bring up the poison issue as a way to defame the whole bunch of them, otherwise why make such a big deal out of it without direct evidence and a culprit? The idea is that if one or more of them poisoned Prabhupada, that is representative of them all.
Vrajabhumi said:
bhavaprema
Krishna Kant, a leader of a ritvik faction, claims that what Prabhupada is saying in that video is taken out of context in the English translation, see http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/poison_does_sp_support.html
Seeker said:
Thank you so much for the detailed history, Vrajabhumi. It really helps us understand how things have evolved to the state they are right now.
bhavaprema said:
Vrajabhumi
The poison issue is just entertaining to me. I was just curious on your take of the allegation. I would think if it was an actual plotted scheme a smoking gun would have showed up by now. Either way it has no importance. Diabetes will in fact shut down the pancreas, kidneys, and adrenals not allowing the blood to be filtered of various waste products. Arsenic in groundwater (well water) is a big problem all throughout India.
http://www.sos-arsenic.net/
Seeker said:
Hi Vrajabhumi,
I want to raise another topic for discussion and would like to hear your thoughts on the same. It is ‘Vaishnava aparadha’ – the real intent behind the introduction of this idea and how it has been twisted out of shape to suit people’s agenda. I have presented my ramblings below.
For example, let me refer to these links – http://radhanathswami.blogspot.com/2010/07/beware-of-vaishnava-offence.html or http://www.dandavats.com/?p=3774.
People don’t realize that they are born tabula-rasa and God arranges different life experiences for them to learn and eventually reach their full potential. It takes practice to get accustomed to living with God and understand and accept that we are not alone. It means waking up everyday and trying to see how God comes at you through various channels – your interactions with others, the writings/videos from this blog or any other media, and most importantly, what we used to consider as our own thoughts – to realize that God directs us and supplies our thoughts.
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.26.28
The literal take on this sloka – God revealing himself as the mind (Aniruddha), rather than just appearing in the mind – I have not heard that in ISKCON. Also, in the eleventh canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, Krishna says:
We don’t see God everywhere at all times because we are not qualified – true, but only in the sense of a pre-schooler not yet qualified to study quadratic equations and not in the sense that we are sinful that God won’t come before us. Not that we require special mercy and get some magic water sprinkled on us but that mercy is through the teachings of how to attain this state. Obviously, you cannot give what you don’t have – and so, these clueless gurus need a cop-out when practitioners start questioning about their lack of progress.
The typical answer is to say that holy name is very powerful but then, we start committing offenses. That nips away any potential problem right at the bud – the implicit message being passed is that don’t think ill of the guru that he is not teaching you the right things. It is your fault if you don’t experience anything because it is due to offenses. It is never the case that I have never taught you the right things. What exactly do they do in ISKCON? Get yourself enrolled and then be assigned with some service. Hear repetitious lectures on some stories with no significance to your lives or meaningless Prabhupada anecdotes which have no relevance to theology. With such pointless sravanam (hearing), you will not make progress and so, bring in vaishnava-aparadha and apply it out-of-context to retain followers.
If devotional service will indeed be destroyed by the “mad-elephant” offense, then people will start thinking, “Well, what is the point?” and you won’t have followers to give you dakshina or provide seva. Okay, so let us tone it down a little and say like Radhanath Swami, ” Devotional service cannot be destroyed but it can be covered by the cloud of illusion”. And in the comments section of http://radhanathswami.blogspot.com/2010/07/beware-of-vaishnava-offence.html, you can see people reeling down begging him to save them for committing offenses. “Heads I win, tails you lose” – if you experience anything at all, then it is our mercy, our preaching that saved you and if you don’t feel any progress, then it is your fault – yup, whatever we preached is true but then, you made offenses. If you start thinking analytically about what happened or is happening, then you will end up committing more. It disempowers people and alienates them from processing their own ideas and throws them into a confused state.
Of course, many who visit this blog don’t mind throwing offenses here – all in the name of protecting Prabhupada or ISKCON. The only relevance that ‘beware of offenses’ has for me is that if you are not open-minded and irrationally condemn someone, then you are not going to listen to their ideas. For example, people might want to defend Prabhupada but if they can learn to treat this blog as something which is not operating within their paradigm, then it will make it a lot easier for them to avoid throwing abuses and will set the platform to process things as they once did before deciding to dedicate their lives to ISKCON. Of course, Prabhupada had a clever move there – he said that you can analyze the spiritual master before committing yourself but once you have accepted, no going back. Now, that just doesn’t make any sense to me but people fall for it. So, when people hurl abuses in this blog, they just prevent the right teachings here from seeping in their minds. In that sense, well, offenses do prevent their progress.
Maybe, when Mahaprabhu spoke about the “mad elephant” offense, he was probably directing it towards the general audience to whom he was preaching to take the new sampradaya’s teachings seriously, more towards the neophytes to treat each other with respect, and also probably people at all stages of God realization to understand that it is God who is in control of everyone and there is nothing to feel superior that we end up offending one another under any pretext. In the current day, when it is interpreted to mean that one cannot dissect another person’s statement and call out that the ‘emperor is naked’ and when ‘vaishnava-aparadha’ is treated as a separate and dangerous ontological category by itself, then the actual theology itself becomes distorted. In my opinion, this is an important point that seems to plague the innocent devotees today and keeps them in perpetual fear and it would be great to hear your exposition on the same.
Sanjaya said:
Thanks to seeker for the many questions he raised, so that we can hear Vrajabhumi’s wonderful explanation.
Vrajabhumi said:
Seeker
I think you went through most of what can be said on the topic, the only thing I would add is that the concept of Vaishnava aparadha is also about class, caste, gender, physical appearance, age, etc. An advanced bhakta sees as Krishna tells us to see in Bhagavad Gita 5.18 (besides the slokas you mentioned)
Why do they see like that? The next two verses Krishna explains:
The translation by Prabhupada is a bit off, he puts samam and samye together, which he translates as sameness and equanimity. You can see in the Sanskrit they are apart and each referring to something different. Samye is referring to the mind, and samam to Brahman. Sthitam manah means the mind is standing firm, samye means to see everything having equality of rank or position, homogeneously, sameness, the same. The mind should be fixed on seeing everything having the same nature and character, why? The next line explains: That everything is nirdosa: faultless, defectless, guiltless, innocent, why? Sama brahma, everything is equal in Brahman. Knowing that, you should see yourself also firmly situated in Brahman, tasmad brahmani te sthitah. Krishna is saying that the self-realized person sees everything equally because of the understanding that everything is a manifestation of Brahman, or God. Know that God is in control of and manifesting everything, that everything is equally God’s direct manifestation, yourself included. I like Eknath Easwaran’s simple translation:
Krishna then says:
Here Krishna further elaborates on the nature of self-realization, and states that having attained the level of consciousness mentioned in the previous verses, that you have attained God consciousness (at least the first stage), brahma-vid, knowing Brahman, brahmaṇi sthitaḥ, you’re firmly established in your relationship with Brahman.
Neophytes and mid-level bhaktas tend to see duality in everything and everyone, they see everyone acting and manifesting whatever they are, or say, or do, under their own power and discretion. Therefore they make judgments as to good and bad people, etc. The concept of Vaishnava aparadha is for those people, to make their social interactivity within the Vaishnava community less judgmental, especially in terms of class, caste, gender, etc. Association with the Vaishnava community is important for neophytes and less advanced bhaktas; while you can still advance without it, it certainly is of great help. Besides what you’ve described in your comment, although the idea that we can affect our destiny by Vaishnava aparadha is not really true, the concept serves to aid less advanced bhaktas in how they interact with other Vaishnavas.
Vrajabhumi said:
Seeker
One more thing about your comment. You wrote:
That sloka from Kapila may or may not have been translated by Prabhupada. That part of the 3rd canto was largely copied or almost copied from the Gita Press edition. Ekkehard Lorenz did a study that was published a few years back in The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant. He wrote:
That was understandable at the time, in that same letter Prabhupada mentions Hayagriva and Kirtanananda having just left ISKCON. Hayagriva was his main editor, with him gone maybe Prabhupada didn’t know if he would have the time or energy to complete the Bhagavatam with the editors he had left, whom it looks like he didn’t have much confidence in at that time. So it looks like his plan was to essentially copy the Gita Press edition. Lorenz also wrote that canto 4 was heavily influenced by the Gita press edition, but that the rest of the Bhagavatam was based on the Gaudiya Math Bengali translation, which Prabhupada translated into English. By then Prabhupada’s lack of a dedicated qualified editor had been taken care of. The letter mentioned above can be found online, it’s at the end of a letter to Rayarama Das.
What you said was true about ISKCON not teaching that the mind is paramatma. They generally don’t mention what the mind is other than it being part of your “subtle body” (suksma sarira). They do teach that the jiva (soul) isn’t the mind, that we are different from the mind. Clearly Kapila in the above verse says the mind is paramatma. Paramatma is an expansion of Aniruddha, who is one of the caturvyuha expansions of Balarama. Saying Aniruddha is the mind is the same as saying God is the mind.
Generally Prabhupada wrote that Aniruddha is the “Lord of the mind.” Still, that verse above does appear as it is in his Bhagavatam. Also commenting on another verse from Kapila, Prabhupada wrote this about the mind in a purport in the 3rd canto:
Cacofonix said:
Seeker,
Top class post. I love it.
“Mad-Elephant” -> I did not understand this. Possible some analogy used for describing vaisnava aparadha I guess.
Thanks Seeker and Vrajabhumi.
btw, I like Vrajabhumi translation ” The mind should be fixed on seeing everything having the same nature and character,”
better than Easwaran’s “Such people have mastered life. With even
mind they rest in Brahman, who is perfect and is
everywhere the same.”
Cacofonix said:
Thanks Vrajabhumi for giving the historical context (The original post).
Cacofonix said:
Seeker,
Just want to post that I understood “Mad-Elephant” analogy by searching in google and finding it in vanisource. So please ignore that point.
Cacofonix
Seeker said:
Sanjaya/Cacofonix, thanks.
I was elated to read the translation that you have provided for the below sloka, Vrajabhumi.
Apart from the samye and samam that you had pointed out, the understanding that one will get from this translation is that the word nirdosam is applied only to the self-realized persons (they are flawless). However, the lucid explanation that you have given below drives home the right message that will propel one to move from a dual vision and perceive God in everything.
It is not only the self-realized person who is flawless but rather, the self-realized person see everything as nirdosa with their perception of everything as God’s manifestation. Beautiful.
Seeker said:
Hi Vrajabhumi,
Another related topic that popped up in my head was this common teaching in ISKCON – An uttama-adhikari has to come down from that pedestal to the madhyama platform in order to preach. The reasoning goes something like this: An uttama-adhikari will see God everywhere and think that everyone is serving Krishna except himself. I am not even sure whether that is a right description befitting an advanced stage. That notion almost seems like hallucination to me on the part of an advanced devotee – Why would a self-realized soul be under such a delusion where he has to necessarily see that everyone is more advanced than he is? It seems more realistic that he would be able to see that people are at different stages of self-realization. He would fully realize and understand that it is nobody’s fault. He can try to help as best as he can based on whatever way he is inspired by Krishna. He will not be entangled or emotionally invested in others’ progress by being fully aware that everything is controlled by Krishna. He will understand that he is not superior to anyone else and that God has a script for everyone and just like he has made progress, so will others. That seems more realistic to me.
However, in ISKCON, they make it sound as if an uttama adhikari is paralyzed by his vision of seeing God in everything, loses touch with reality, and hence they cannot preach since that involves discrimination. Prabhupada is the oft-cited example as well – how he is a uttam-adhikari who descended down and did the thankless job of ‘heavy preaching’ out of mercy. I am kinda not clear on why someone has to relinquish his vision of seeing God in everything in order to preach or why someone has to “come down” from his level, etc.., Why wouldn’t a person see Krishna acting through himself when he is inspired to preach as well? That seems straight-forward and simple. With my limited reading, I am unable to recollect such an idea ‘descending down from uttama to madhyama to preach’ in other writers before Prabhupada. In other words, why should there be an artificial dichotomy between preaching and advanced stage of devotion? I would like to hear your thoughts on whether such notions got introduced only by Prabhupada and/or the merit of such notions.
Vrajabhumi said:
Seeker
I don’t think I’ve ever read where Prabhupada said that an uttama bhakta literally becomes a madhyama bhakta and loses self-realization, or needs that in order to teach. I just did a quick search and I found two different things Prabhupada said:
Here Prabhupada is talking about how an uttama bhakta who is a full-time teacher, should present himself, i.e. as a sadhana bhakta, which Prabhupada equates with a madhyama bhakta. I don’t know if that analogy is well thought out, it makes it seem that unless you are a shaven headed man, with the traditional look, that you can’t be an effective teacher. Maybe in Hindu communities that carries a certain amount of authenticity, but not so much in the rest of the world. Plenty of gurus have been very successful outside of India (and inside) without dressing like a traditional sadhu.
Here Prabhupada says the uttama just pretends to act like a madhyama in order to fulfill a role, and in fact shouldn’t always act like he knows there is no distinction between people. I can’t think of any situation where that would be a problem. Maybe Prabhupada was trying to give an excuse for all of the criticism he spoke and wrote towards non-Hindu cultures and people, or even Hindus he disagreed with.
The things you wrote about that you heard from ISKCON devotees may also have been spoken by Prabhupada, since he sometimes contradicted himself. But, as is often the case, his followers extrapolate from things he said, and they end up promoting things he never said. For example: the idea that his books would be the law books of human society for 10 thousand years, most likely he never said that. That comes from Satsvarupa Das Goswami’s Prabhupada Lilamrita who said he heard it in a car drive. I remember hearing Ramesvara Swami dispute it, saying it never happened, that he was in the car with Satsvarupa and that all Prabhupada said was that the movement was predicted to last 10 thousand years, which he had said on more than one occasion. Satsvarupa was heavily criticized by his godbrothers for inventing stuff in that book, and I doubt Ramesvara would have lied. Since Prabhupada’s books aren’t law books, and since Prabhupada was always promoting the manu-samhita, if any books were to be promoted by Prabhupada as law books for 10 thousand years it would be the manu smriti.
Seeker said:
Thanks for the explanation, Vrajabhumi. From what you have written, I understand that it is not a prevalent notion – as you point out, probably it is an extrapolated version that I had heard from just some individuals in ISKCON.