Sripad BV Avadhuta Maharaja odpowiada na "list" Paraśuramy d
: czw sie 07, 2008 11:26 pm
Oto odpowiedź Sripad BV Avadhuta Maharaja na zarzuty Paraśuramy dasa. w miarę możliwości postaram się cały tekst przetłumaczyć. pod odpowiedzią znajduje się druga wiadomość wysłana również przez Sripad BV Avadhuta Maharaja do Paraśuramy dasa. cała korespondencja do dnia dzisiejszego pozostaje bez odpowiedzi
1. That Narayana Maharaja's emphasis and basic message differs greatly from that of Srila Prabhupada and indirectly fosters a tendency towards cheap sentimentality in the name of devotion (sahajiya-ism).
Reply: Cheap sentimentality is hardly the case with Srila Narayana Maharaja as witnessed by many of Srila Prabhupada’s own disciples. Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy is scrutinized over and over in all classes that we have ever heard from Srila Narayana Maharaja. In his most recent US tour he covered the conversation between Ramananda Raya and Shree Chaitanya in Florida and the instructions by Shree Chaitanya to Rupa and Sanatana Goswamis in Badger using Srila Prabhupada’s translation of the Chaitanya Chaitamrita in both cases. Emphasis was placed in Florida on the real reasons for the descent of Shree Krishna in the form of Mahaprabhu. Bhajans and dramas were there to keep everyone happy but we could all see that Maharaja’s intention was to see that all knew the prime instructions of Shree Chaitanya as well as the very reasons of his appearance. If one has any doubt about this then one can simply go online at http://www.purebhakti.com and see for himself. In fact, I remember at one point the audience was growing a little weary hearing so much ‘siddhanta’ that he said, ‘ Well, after all you came here to hear’.
One may say anything and everything by digging up heaven and earth to find as many possible bad qualities of a personality as if he was one of the sons of Sagar Maharja looking for the missing sacrificial horse. But let anyone examine exactly what was said in the classes and then point out the discrepancy. This of course, should be done honestly.
I can remember when Srila Narayana Maharaja first came to the USA and in the mornings would go through the verses and purports of Srila Prabhupada’s Upadeshamrita. There was no cheap sentimentality in those classes . He, in fact, introduces many Sanskrit verses to assert his case and pushes the audience to remember these verses and their meanings.
In Radha Kund yearly he challenges the ‘babajis’ every year over their false conceptions of bhakti and gets no opposition.
In Mathura he also calls all the pandits and scholars to discuss the most important point of the Srimad Bhagavatam. How is that cheap sentimentality?
He has translated and commentated many of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur’s writings as well as Srila Viswanath Chakravarti Thakur’s writings. ‘Jaiva Dharma ‘ has been published and we expect that the ‘Bhagavat Arca Marichi Mala’ will come soon. Sanatana Goswami’s ‘Brihad Bhagavatamrita’ is near completion. Ujjvala Nilamani of Srila Rupa Goswami is also near completion. In what possible way can this activity which is following strictly in the line of the Goswami’s to be considered cheap sentimentality? The author states in his long critique that Shrila Narayana Maharaja is averse to the Bhagavad-gita. But if that is the case then why on Earth did he go to the trouble of translating and purporting on this great text? If he has no taste for the Gita and its message, then would he not have rejected the idea of publishing it and if one goes through his commentary and that of Shrila Viswanath Chakravarti Thakur he or she will find so many wonderful realizations and revelations that his attachment for this ‘bhasya’ of Krishna will only increase.
As far as sentimentality goes it would seem that the attachment for Rukmini-Dwarkadish is one such case. Although Shrila Prabhupada is on record for naming these Deities Radha-Madhava or Radha-Krishna still out of some sentiment the devotees wanted to have them named for the Lord of Dwarkadish and his wife, although everyone pretty much knows that Krishna in Dwarka does not blow a flute at any time or anywhere. Neither in Dwarka does he sport a feather in His crown from the peacock. Yet, the devotees are adamant to override the decision of Shrila Prabhupada whe confessed to Shrila Narayana Maharaja that he did so only because of their insistence, despite the siddhanta. So, who is sentimental?
2. That in an effort to promote his own convictions, Narayana Maharaja has, at first inadvertently, and more recently quite openly, minimised the position of Srila Prabhupada.
Here again you are making a grand error. I would guess that you have never been to a lecture by SNM because at least the first lecture in any new city he always glorifies Srila Prabhupada. Of course, the fraudulent video that was presented to fool the audience cannot be accepted as proof. It is a cheap attempt to discredit a Vaishnava which is more evidence that the opposition cannot find fault unless they tamper with the words and speech so as to make it appear that some offense has been made. Never have I heard such minimization that you refer to in the last 13 years. If it were so then why are so many of my godbrothers serving him faithfully as if he were non-different from their own ‘siksha guru’?
We are mean to be one-pointed towards Radha-Krishna or Gauranga as evinced by Sriman Mahaprabhu’s own leela wherein He did not see Balarama and Subadra and not even Jagganath, but Brajendra Kumar, Krishna. What may seems as minimization of the avatars simply exaltation of Shree Krishna as the Avatari. This is what Shrila Jiva Goswami himself does in his Krishna Sandarba. In that wonderful book Jiva Goswami even says that the avatars do not have as many marks on their feet as Shree Krishna. Of course, there are many other points such as Krishna being the son of Yashoda and not Devaki but that one can find out for himself by reading.
Jayadeva Goswami glorifies all the ten avatars in his poetry he is nevertheless giving us the most rasik of literatures in Gita-Govinda. Although this has been translated by Srila Narayana Maharaja anyone who has purchased a copy knows that it is prefaced by a large introduction explaining the reasons for publishing and especially the ‘adhikar’ for reading the book and that same ‘adhikar’ is what is required for hearing ‘rasa katha’.
Regarding the preachers being only devotees of Mahavishnu, this seems to be a mistranslation of sorts. Maharaja would not say such. He is also preaching. His sannyasis and householders are all traveling and preaching but not as devotees of Mahavishnu but as Mahaprabhu. Somethings can be misunderstood if we are not directly hearing from someone. Although the internet is great in one sense, in the other sense of ‘darshan’ and ‘ sravana’ it cannot ever replace live hearing. That is why our Shrila Prabhupada emphasized hearing from the ‘lips’ of the pure devotee.
3. That in his preaching, and as a direct result of the above, Narayana Maharaja has countered several of Srila Prabhupada's important preaching points and criticised several of his decisions.
It is the siddhanta of the jiva wherein most devotees have seen a clear difference between the two acharyas. However, when confronted by OBL Kapoor, whom Srila Prabhupada had told the BTG editors to print anything they like of his, Srila Prabhupada told him that his disciples were so full of Mayavada and impersonalism that he had to side-step the siddhanta on the tatasha jiva in order to satisfy them. This being in answer to the question of why he had diverted from the standard Gaudiya siddhanta on jiva-tattva. Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja explained it by saying that we were spiritual babies and Srila Prabhupada took the liberty of hide some facts, perhaps to keep things simple and easy to digest. After all the ends does justify the means.
Therefore despite the fact that Jiva Goswami in his Sat Sandarbas and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in his Jaiva Dharma describes a maginal state of ‘tathastha’ from where the jiva falls from, still Srila Prabhupada had us believe that we were in Goloka with Shree Krishna, although in his books he always stated as he did several times in Canto Three - ‘it is a fact that no one falls from Vaikuntha, for it is the abode of the Lord’.
If you read Srila Naryana Maharaja’s books also you will not find any conflict except perhaps with this one point which Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja was trying to correct, but got the axe from the GBC due to their inability to accept his authority.
4. That, even through this may not have been his original intention, Narayana Maharaja's preaching almost exclusively to ISKCON devotees and temples and congregational groups, unnecessary constitutes an unwarranted and unhelpful interference in the work of the ISKCON movement.
On order from my guru Srila Prabhupada to help his disciples, who are in Srila Prabhupada’s own words in need of higher guidance, Srila Narayana Maharaja is preaching to the members of Iskcon. To not do so would be to deny his instructions during Srila Prabhupada’s last days on Earth.
Of course, many of Srila Praabhupada’s disciples left their practices of Krishna-consciousness after the departure of their guru due to immaturity. They have due to his kind compassion come back to their former practices.
So, why obstruct him in his duty? If you feel others are more qualified to preach on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, even if not having received a direct order, then no harm, go to them.
There was an objection in the letter in question that Shrila Prabhupada would have appointed his god-brothers to be acharya if he really felt that they were qualified. He did. At least it is on record that he asked Shrila Shridar Maharaja to come and be the President of Iskcon and live together with him in the Temple. He offered to put in an elevator to facilitate that very purpose. The one person Shrila Prabhupada pointed the finger at as regards the failure of the Gaudiya Math to follow the orders of Shrila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, Shrila Prabhupada asked to preach in the Temple and remarked that people would come from around the world to hear.
That same thing would happen if Shrila Narayana Maharaja was allowed to preach in the Temples. People from around the world would come to hear him and conceivably assist the Iskcon society in its effort the thwart Maya and establish Krishna-bhakti.
5. That Narayana Maharaja has gone from being a spiritual supporter and friend of ISKCON some years ago, with an avowed intention not to initiate anyone affiliated with ISKCON, to a stage where he is openly declaring his animosity to his close followers, and in his bid to become the successor to Srila Prabhupada, indiscriminately offering initiation to even new congregational members whom he hardly knows. This he does without any consultation with any ISKCON authority.
One thing about real Vaishnavas is their ability to see within the heart of the conditioned souls. Numerous times Srila Prabhupada made all of us witness to his psychic abilities of knowing what we are thinking and what we are contemplating. The same traits have been attested to by the followers and disciples of Srila Narayana Maharaja. He has always asked newcomers at his programs for a recommendation from some senior Vaishnava, but we are all convinced that he knows what is in the heart of his would-be followers.
That he would initiate disciples already in Iskcon seems to be the biggest cause for our inability to cooperate, yet he openly declares as you have said that if any guru or Vaishnava denies his disciple or subordinate the opportunity to hear Hari-katha from another senior and advanced Vaishnava then that personality withholding permission immediately disqualifies himself or herself. This would seem to be imposing one’s will indiscriminately if that disciple or devotee is keen to hear from such a soul advanced in Krishna-bhakti.
To deny a soul access to higher realms of Bhakti would seem to be an offensive statement. The ‘rasika Vaishnava’ is one who has had his ‘swarupa’ revealed to him. He not just only knows siddhanta but has realized it and this is the real key to advancing in Krishna-consciousness – the association of a person who has crossed over to the other side so-to-speak. That is he and Krishna are tied by the chains of love and nothing can ever separate the two. Such association is very, very rare and if one has an opportunity to have such association he or she should according to our scriptures take it.
That is the defining statement of ‘bhakti’ which Srila Prabhupada himself used as the definition of his society – ‘krishna bhakti rasa bhavita mati, kriyatam yadi kuto ‘pi labhyate, tatra lauyam api mulam ekalam, janma koti sukritair na labhyate’. We should have the greed to have such greed and using this verse Sri Ramananda Raya therefore declared that Krishna-consciousness therefore essentially means ‘raganuga bhakti’ and not ‘vaidhi bhakti.
If someone has that greed it should be encouraged and not discouraged as has been the practice. Krishna consciousness is something that transcends ecclesiastical borders according to the Bhaktivedanta purports which leads us to the second most glaring point of opposition expressed herein by the opposition and that is the fundamental reference to ‘rasa’, which by the way is part of the above mentioned verse.
Why does Srila Narayana Maharaja open up the doors of ‘rasa’ when purportedly we are not ready for it. Why try to force an attachment to leela when we are not at the stage to hear, supposedly. But then what if some are at that stage. If he speaks about leela of Krishna and someone develops attachment, then what will happen…..According to Srila Rupa Goswami he will loose all attraction for the material world. If such detachment from matter is there one will no longer be interested in such things as mundane sex, which leads me to think we should at least test the ‘association’ or ‘sanga’ or ‘institute’ by the fruits, as we recall Jesus saying to his disciples, ‘ know ye the tree by its fruits’.
If we examine Srila Prabhupada’s society what have we seen as its primary fault? Srila Prabhupada himself admitted this fault of his in respect to his granting sannyasa to unqualified men. But having lived for more than 35 years in this institution I and others have witness the ravaging of mundane sex over our most earnest endeavors to rise above the mundane level of consciousness. Srila Prabhupada was bold in comparing this sex interest to animals like hogs, dogs, cats, camels and asses and yet still devotees all over fell down and spoilt their own name and the name of the society.
My GBC was a prominent sannyasi and fell down in Srila Prabhupada’s presence. The history of your county U.K. is known by many, that the first ‘guru’ fell down with many women. The next ‘guru’ fell down. Then recently the sannyasi in charge of the manor fell down and can be seen on his new website with his wife. One would find it difficult to actually compile a complete list of all the fall-downs that have taken place and are still taking place today. Not long ago I have seen another guru of the country just north of U.K. being relinquished of his duties due to fall-down and because of the internet the news of one of Srila Prabhupada’s first disciples who had compiled his biography also fell. Practically Iskcon has become the society of fall-downs for the notoriety is all-pervasive. The question then looms how will this lust for sex be stopped in a society that has the greatest philosophy in the world? That is the question.
The answer in my humble opinion is to develop this ‘lauyam’, greed for the name, guna, rupa and leela of Hari. If Hari’s rasa-leela katha is expanded and living being become ‘rasik’ or attached to such katha, then we would expect a slackening of the ties to mundane sex, would we not and if we look at the track record of the association that has grown over the years with Srila Narayana Maharaja, what fall-downs have we seen that mark the society? To my knowledge there are only two serious ones, in which sannyasis fell, but at least one of those is in good standing with the rank and file devotees having accepted a legal wife and with her preach all over the world. After all it was Srila Prabhupada who told us when devotees fell from the celebate station to still continue the battle with Maya in the householder ashram.
This is real salvation as I see it. Srila Prabhupada in his last conversation with Maharaja admitted that his disciples were still untrained and needed help and what better help than to form an attachment to the leela of the Lord whereby the devotees remain steady in their vows and practices. In this respect Maharaja’s offer to help devotees should be taken advantage of today. In my opinion the doors of the Temples should be opened not closed and I believe Maharaja is still on record saying that if Iskcon does allow him to preach then he will not initiate. If it ever comes to that point then you can hold him to his word.
So, I rest my case for I can personally attest to the personal help of Srila Narayana Maharaja I have received more than once fending off the attacks of the powerful material energy.
In his own words he has stated, ‘Sometimes it sounds to some that I am speaking certain things the Shrila Swami Maharaja has never said. When a seed is planted, it will naturally grow into a tree with branches . Are these branches not included in the original seed? Are they coming from somewhere else? Because it is a tree, all its parts will naturally manifest; they are all hidden within the seed. Shrila Swami Maharaja has written everything in his books. I am not saying anything new. Everything that I speak is coming directly and exclusively from the authentic literatures of our acharyas. I also try to give examples from Shrila Swami Maharaja’s own purports, in his own words. So his tree will certainly grow. New leaves will come and that same tree will give more and more shade. As we water that tree, so many beautiful flowers and fruits will come; that is sure. That watering process is hearing, chanting, and remembering hari-katha.’
Yours most humbly in the service of Guru and Vaishavas,
Avadhoot Maharaj
druga odpowiedź:
Reply to Parasurama Das, U.K. (A Letter To My Friends):
It seems hypocritical that devotees professing ‘love’ and ‘affection’ for all would be so bullish as you have described in your long diatribe, the likes of which I have unfortunately witnessed before on this ‘Vaishnava’ website. Whether it was over-exuberance or complete lack of finesse on the part of those involved, if true then such devotees are not part of Mahaprabhu’s real mood of ‘trinad api sunichena taror api sahishnuna, amanina manadena’.
However, please refrain from unnecessarily criticizing senior Vaishnavas as we all know what terrible consequences arise therefrom. All of your arguments are ill-founded and based on the same cheap sentiments that you decry. Either way, who wants to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Ramachandra Puri ? At least let us look for the good qualities in others. If you had a problem with devotees on harinam in London then what is the use of criticizing Gaudiyas of this sanga for not preaching. Is harinam not preaching? Of course, as you say proper behavior was not there and certainly it may be said that preaching without proper behavior disqualifies itself.
But in order to not deny our Gaudiya heritage we should know that Shriman Mahaprabhu came to the world expressly for tasting the glories of ‘prema-rasa’ and distributing the method of ‘ragamarga-bhakti’ as per the forth chapter of adi-leela, Chaitanya Charitamrita. Since one cannot enter the abode of Shree Krishna, Goloka-dhama, without having acquired ‘Vraja-prema’ as exhibited by the rasa-imbued inhabitants of Vraja (ragatmika-jana) it is incumbent upon us ‘sadhakas’ to inculcate such moods in our hearts whilst practicing bhakti. If one goes through Srila Rupa Goswami’s teachings carefully then he must come to this realization unless one is fine with the worship in awe and reverence in Vaikuntha Dhama.
Preaching, thus can be performed on different levels. Definitely, realization of our true self in relation to the Supreme Lord will proportionately enhance our words and actions. But will preaching or as is generally seen, distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books, reveal everything? No doubt, as you say we can please our acharyas and thus automatically please the Supreme Lord by such action. But in all of the books we distribute Vaishnava aparadha is condemned with many precepts and examples. From years of experience in Srila Prabhupada’s institute for many, many years it was always common practice to congregationally recite the ten offenses to the holy name of the Lord after ‘mangala aratika’. The most grievous of offenses is the first which you seemed to have ignored wholesale.
It would have been better if you simply had expressed your grievance by giving the microphone back to Ratnavali and reprimanded those who offended her.
In Los Angeles we have never had any problems when chanting with the members of Iskcon in the Santa Monica Promenade or Venice Boardwalk and when I was in Denver and Washington D.C. with others from the Gaudiya Math there was never any disharmony or problem.
If our smaller ‘sanga’ of Gaudiyas is utterly off-the-mark then why would Sripad Radhanatha Swami, who many regard as the most advanced Vaishnava in Iskcon humble himself before Sripad Vana Maharaja ( one of Srila Narayana Maharaja’s principle world preachers) in Laguna Beach at the Iskcon Temple’s regular post-Gaura Purnima Festival saying that he was shy to speak before him as a matter of both etiquette and realization. Why not follow the example of those seniormost in Iskcon?
You should know also that many of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are with Srila Narayana Maharaja now and if we had seen our god-brothers develop pure love of God from preaching, why would we take recourse to associate with Srila Narayana Maharaja? Something is missing in your equation. My dear god-brother Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja preached from realization and yet oddly enough was banned by the envious. Does that not say something? Had he not been banned, perhaps he would still be here today. When he preached there was potency and realization. We may think we are preachers, but without ‘vijnana’, without ‘shakti’, we cannot be effective. It has been compared to empty bullets or ‘blank fire’. That is without pure love of God, there is no ‘shakti’ and without ‘shakti’ there is no punch or word-power, or in other words, ‘blank fire’. No doubt, this is why our Srila Prabhupada said, ‘What is the use of your fifteen minute lecture, better to give someone the book.’
If we actually read the books of Srila Prabhupada then we wil run for sadhu-sanga wherever we can get it. In the words of Prithu Maharaja, Prahlad Maharaja, Bharat Maharaja, Shukadeva Goswami Maharaja and Bhagavan Narayana himself such sadhus are indispensable in attaining bhakti.
Why did Srila Prabhupada call Srila Narayana Maharaja to his quarters in his last days. After seeing him Srila Prabhupada was no longer spoke to anyone else. Why did he ask all who were with him in Novemeber of 1977 to listen to Srila Narayana Maharaja? Why in spite of three of Srila Prabhupada’s top men confirming their knowledge and ability to perform the last rites did Srila Prabhupada still have Srila Narayana Maharaja put him into ‘samadhi’ ?
The best formula for addressing your real issue of someone overlording the harinama is to go directly to the members of the London Gaudiya Sanga and call for a redress of etiquette. But to launch into a tirade of bad-mouthing a real Vaishnava whose literary works will be read, remembered and relished by many aspirants for Krishna-bhakti for years to come, does not at all look well and demands some inner soul-searching on your part at the very least.
I pray that this letter has not offended in any way, and that the real mercy of sadhus and Vaishnavas will fall on our heads to redeem our souls.
Yours in the wake of their footsteps,
Avadhoot Maharaja
1. That Narayana Maharaja's emphasis and basic message differs greatly from that of Srila Prabhupada and indirectly fosters a tendency towards cheap sentimentality in the name of devotion (sahajiya-ism).
Reply: Cheap sentimentality is hardly the case with Srila Narayana Maharaja as witnessed by many of Srila Prabhupada’s own disciples. Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy is scrutinized over and over in all classes that we have ever heard from Srila Narayana Maharaja. In his most recent US tour he covered the conversation between Ramananda Raya and Shree Chaitanya in Florida and the instructions by Shree Chaitanya to Rupa and Sanatana Goswamis in Badger using Srila Prabhupada’s translation of the Chaitanya Chaitamrita in both cases. Emphasis was placed in Florida on the real reasons for the descent of Shree Krishna in the form of Mahaprabhu. Bhajans and dramas were there to keep everyone happy but we could all see that Maharaja’s intention was to see that all knew the prime instructions of Shree Chaitanya as well as the very reasons of his appearance. If one has any doubt about this then one can simply go online at http://www.purebhakti.com and see for himself. In fact, I remember at one point the audience was growing a little weary hearing so much ‘siddhanta’ that he said, ‘ Well, after all you came here to hear’.
One may say anything and everything by digging up heaven and earth to find as many possible bad qualities of a personality as if he was one of the sons of Sagar Maharja looking for the missing sacrificial horse. But let anyone examine exactly what was said in the classes and then point out the discrepancy. This of course, should be done honestly.
I can remember when Srila Narayana Maharaja first came to the USA and in the mornings would go through the verses and purports of Srila Prabhupada’s Upadeshamrita. There was no cheap sentimentality in those classes . He, in fact, introduces many Sanskrit verses to assert his case and pushes the audience to remember these verses and their meanings.
In Radha Kund yearly he challenges the ‘babajis’ every year over their false conceptions of bhakti and gets no opposition.
In Mathura he also calls all the pandits and scholars to discuss the most important point of the Srimad Bhagavatam. How is that cheap sentimentality?
He has translated and commentated many of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur’s writings as well as Srila Viswanath Chakravarti Thakur’s writings. ‘Jaiva Dharma ‘ has been published and we expect that the ‘Bhagavat Arca Marichi Mala’ will come soon. Sanatana Goswami’s ‘Brihad Bhagavatamrita’ is near completion. Ujjvala Nilamani of Srila Rupa Goswami is also near completion. In what possible way can this activity which is following strictly in the line of the Goswami’s to be considered cheap sentimentality? The author states in his long critique that Shrila Narayana Maharaja is averse to the Bhagavad-gita. But if that is the case then why on Earth did he go to the trouble of translating and purporting on this great text? If he has no taste for the Gita and its message, then would he not have rejected the idea of publishing it and if one goes through his commentary and that of Shrila Viswanath Chakravarti Thakur he or she will find so many wonderful realizations and revelations that his attachment for this ‘bhasya’ of Krishna will only increase.
As far as sentimentality goes it would seem that the attachment for Rukmini-Dwarkadish is one such case. Although Shrila Prabhupada is on record for naming these Deities Radha-Madhava or Radha-Krishna still out of some sentiment the devotees wanted to have them named for the Lord of Dwarkadish and his wife, although everyone pretty much knows that Krishna in Dwarka does not blow a flute at any time or anywhere. Neither in Dwarka does he sport a feather in His crown from the peacock. Yet, the devotees are adamant to override the decision of Shrila Prabhupada whe confessed to Shrila Narayana Maharaja that he did so only because of their insistence, despite the siddhanta. So, who is sentimental?
2. That in an effort to promote his own convictions, Narayana Maharaja has, at first inadvertently, and more recently quite openly, minimised the position of Srila Prabhupada.
Here again you are making a grand error. I would guess that you have never been to a lecture by SNM because at least the first lecture in any new city he always glorifies Srila Prabhupada. Of course, the fraudulent video that was presented to fool the audience cannot be accepted as proof. It is a cheap attempt to discredit a Vaishnava which is more evidence that the opposition cannot find fault unless they tamper with the words and speech so as to make it appear that some offense has been made. Never have I heard such minimization that you refer to in the last 13 years. If it were so then why are so many of my godbrothers serving him faithfully as if he were non-different from their own ‘siksha guru’?
We are mean to be one-pointed towards Radha-Krishna or Gauranga as evinced by Sriman Mahaprabhu’s own leela wherein He did not see Balarama and Subadra and not even Jagganath, but Brajendra Kumar, Krishna. What may seems as minimization of the avatars simply exaltation of Shree Krishna as the Avatari. This is what Shrila Jiva Goswami himself does in his Krishna Sandarba. In that wonderful book Jiva Goswami even says that the avatars do not have as many marks on their feet as Shree Krishna. Of course, there are many other points such as Krishna being the son of Yashoda and not Devaki but that one can find out for himself by reading.
Jayadeva Goswami glorifies all the ten avatars in his poetry he is nevertheless giving us the most rasik of literatures in Gita-Govinda. Although this has been translated by Srila Narayana Maharaja anyone who has purchased a copy knows that it is prefaced by a large introduction explaining the reasons for publishing and especially the ‘adhikar’ for reading the book and that same ‘adhikar’ is what is required for hearing ‘rasa katha’.
Regarding the preachers being only devotees of Mahavishnu, this seems to be a mistranslation of sorts. Maharaja would not say such. He is also preaching. His sannyasis and householders are all traveling and preaching but not as devotees of Mahavishnu but as Mahaprabhu. Somethings can be misunderstood if we are not directly hearing from someone. Although the internet is great in one sense, in the other sense of ‘darshan’ and ‘ sravana’ it cannot ever replace live hearing. That is why our Shrila Prabhupada emphasized hearing from the ‘lips’ of the pure devotee.
3. That in his preaching, and as a direct result of the above, Narayana Maharaja has countered several of Srila Prabhupada's important preaching points and criticised several of his decisions.
It is the siddhanta of the jiva wherein most devotees have seen a clear difference between the two acharyas. However, when confronted by OBL Kapoor, whom Srila Prabhupada had told the BTG editors to print anything they like of his, Srila Prabhupada told him that his disciples were so full of Mayavada and impersonalism that he had to side-step the siddhanta on the tatasha jiva in order to satisfy them. This being in answer to the question of why he had diverted from the standard Gaudiya siddhanta on jiva-tattva. Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja explained it by saying that we were spiritual babies and Srila Prabhupada took the liberty of hide some facts, perhaps to keep things simple and easy to digest. After all the ends does justify the means.
Therefore despite the fact that Jiva Goswami in his Sat Sandarbas and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in his Jaiva Dharma describes a maginal state of ‘tathastha’ from where the jiva falls from, still Srila Prabhupada had us believe that we were in Goloka with Shree Krishna, although in his books he always stated as he did several times in Canto Three - ‘it is a fact that no one falls from Vaikuntha, for it is the abode of the Lord’.
If you read Srila Naryana Maharaja’s books also you will not find any conflict except perhaps with this one point which Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja was trying to correct, but got the axe from the GBC due to their inability to accept his authority.
4. That, even through this may not have been his original intention, Narayana Maharaja's preaching almost exclusively to ISKCON devotees and temples and congregational groups, unnecessary constitutes an unwarranted and unhelpful interference in the work of the ISKCON movement.
On order from my guru Srila Prabhupada to help his disciples, who are in Srila Prabhupada’s own words in need of higher guidance, Srila Narayana Maharaja is preaching to the members of Iskcon. To not do so would be to deny his instructions during Srila Prabhupada’s last days on Earth.
Of course, many of Srila Praabhupada’s disciples left their practices of Krishna-consciousness after the departure of their guru due to immaturity. They have due to his kind compassion come back to their former practices.
So, why obstruct him in his duty? If you feel others are more qualified to preach on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf, even if not having received a direct order, then no harm, go to them.
There was an objection in the letter in question that Shrila Prabhupada would have appointed his god-brothers to be acharya if he really felt that they were qualified. He did. At least it is on record that he asked Shrila Shridar Maharaja to come and be the President of Iskcon and live together with him in the Temple. He offered to put in an elevator to facilitate that very purpose. The one person Shrila Prabhupada pointed the finger at as regards the failure of the Gaudiya Math to follow the orders of Shrila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, Shrila Prabhupada asked to preach in the Temple and remarked that people would come from around the world to hear.
That same thing would happen if Shrila Narayana Maharaja was allowed to preach in the Temples. People from around the world would come to hear him and conceivably assist the Iskcon society in its effort the thwart Maya and establish Krishna-bhakti.
5. That Narayana Maharaja has gone from being a spiritual supporter and friend of ISKCON some years ago, with an avowed intention not to initiate anyone affiliated with ISKCON, to a stage where he is openly declaring his animosity to his close followers, and in his bid to become the successor to Srila Prabhupada, indiscriminately offering initiation to even new congregational members whom he hardly knows. This he does without any consultation with any ISKCON authority.
One thing about real Vaishnavas is their ability to see within the heart of the conditioned souls. Numerous times Srila Prabhupada made all of us witness to his psychic abilities of knowing what we are thinking and what we are contemplating. The same traits have been attested to by the followers and disciples of Srila Narayana Maharaja. He has always asked newcomers at his programs for a recommendation from some senior Vaishnava, but we are all convinced that he knows what is in the heart of his would-be followers.
That he would initiate disciples already in Iskcon seems to be the biggest cause for our inability to cooperate, yet he openly declares as you have said that if any guru or Vaishnava denies his disciple or subordinate the opportunity to hear Hari-katha from another senior and advanced Vaishnava then that personality withholding permission immediately disqualifies himself or herself. This would seem to be imposing one’s will indiscriminately if that disciple or devotee is keen to hear from such a soul advanced in Krishna-bhakti.
To deny a soul access to higher realms of Bhakti would seem to be an offensive statement. The ‘rasika Vaishnava’ is one who has had his ‘swarupa’ revealed to him. He not just only knows siddhanta but has realized it and this is the real key to advancing in Krishna-consciousness – the association of a person who has crossed over to the other side so-to-speak. That is he and Krishna are tied by the chains of love and nothing can ever separate the two. Such association is very, very rare and if one has an opportunity to have such association he or she should according to our scriptures take it.
That is the defining statement of ‘bhakti’ which Srila Prabhupada himself used as the definition of his society – ‘krishna bhakti rasa bhavita mati, kriyatam yadi kuto ‘pi labhyate, tatra lauyam api mulam ekalam, janma koti sukritair na labhyate’. We should have the greed to have such greed and using this verse Sri Ramananda Raya therefore declared that Krishna-consciousness therefore essentially means ‘raganuga bhakti’ and not ‘vaidhi bhakti.
If someone has that greed it should be encouraged and not discouraged as has been the practice. Krishna consciousness is something that transcends ecclesiastical borders according to the Bhaktivedanta purports which leads us to the second most glaring point of opposition expressed herein by the opposition and that is the fundamental reference to ‘rasa’, which by the way is part of the above mentioned verse.
Why does Srila Narayana Maharaja open up the doors of ‘rasa’ when purportedly we are not ready for it. Why try to force an attachment to leela when we are not at the stage to hear, supposedly. But then what if some are at that stage. If he speaks about leela of Krishna and someone develops attachment, then what will happen…..According to Srila Rupa Goswami he will loose all attraction for the material world. If such detachment from matter is there one will no longer be interested in such things as mundane sex, which leads me to think we should at least test the ‘association’ or ‘sanga’ or ‘institute’ by the fruits, as we recall Jesus saying to his disciples, ‘ know ye the tree by its fruits’.
If we examine Srila Prabhupada’s society what have we seen as its primary fault? Srila Prabhupada himself admitted this fault of his in respect to his granting sannyasa to unqualified men. But having lived for more than 35 years in this institution I and others have witness the ravaging of mundane sex over our most earnest endeavors to rise above the mundane level of consciousness. Srila Prabhupada was bold in comparing this sex interest to animals like hogs, dogs, cats, camels and asses and yet still devotees all over fell down and spoilt their own name and the name of the society.
My GBC was a prominent sannyasi and fell down in Srila Prabhupada’s presence. The history of your county U.K. is known by many, that the first ‘guru’ fell down with many women. The next ‘guru’ fell down. Then recently the sannyasi in charge of the manor fell down and can be seen on his new website with his wife. One would find it difficult to actually compile a complete list of all the fall-downs that have taken place and are still taking place today. Not long ago I have seen another guru of the country just north of U.K. being relinquished of his duties due to fall-down and because of the internet the news of one of Srila Prabhupada’s first disciples who had compiled his biography also fell. Practically Iskcon has become the society of fall-downs for the notoriety is all-pervasive. The question then looms how will this lust for sex be stopped in a society that has the greatest philosophy in the world? That is the question.
The answer in my humble opinion is to develop this ‘lauyam’, greed for the name, guna, rupa and leela of Hari. If Hari’s rasa-leela katha is expanded and living being become ‘rasik’ or attached to such katha, then we would expect a slackening of the ties to mundane sex, would we not and if we look at the track record of the association that has grown over the years with Srila Narayana Maharaja, what fall-downs have we seen that mark the society? To my knowledge there are only two serious ones, in which sannyasis fell, but at least one of those is in good standing with the rank and file devotees having accepted a legal wife and with her preach all over the world. After all it was Srila Prabhupada who told us when devotees fell from the celebate station to still continue the battle with Maya in the householder ashram.
This is real salvation as I see it. Srila Prabhupada in his last conversation with Maharaja admitted that his disciples were still untrained and needed help and what better help than to form an attachment to the leela of the Lord whereby the devotees remain steady in their vows and practices. In this respect Maharaja’s offer to help devotees should be taken advantage of today. In my opinion the doors of the Temples should be opened not closed and I believe Maharaja is still on record saying that if Iskcon does allow him to preach then he will not initiate. If it ever comes to that point then you can hold him to his word.
So, I rest my case for I can personally attest to the personal help of Srila Narayana Maharaja I have received more than once fending off the attacks of the powerful material energy.
In his own words he has stated, ‘Sometimes it sounds to some that I am speaking certain things the Shrila Swami Maharaja has never said. When a seed is planted, it will naturally grow into a tree with branches . Are these branches not included in the original seed? Are they coming from somewhere else? Because it is a tree, all its parts will naturally manifest; they are all hidden within the seed. Shrila Swami Maharaja has written everything in his books. I am not saying anything new. Everything that I speak is coming directly and exclusively from the authentic literatures of our acharyas. I also try to give examples from Shrila Swami Maharaja’s own purports, in his own words. So his tree will certainly grow. New leaves will come and that same tree will give more and more shade. As we water that tree, so many beautiful flowers and fruits will come; that is sure. That watering process is hearing, chanting, and remembering hari-katha.’
Yours most humbly in the service of Guru and Vaishavas,
Avadhoot Maharaj
druga odpowiedź:
Reply to Parasurama Das, U.K. (A Letter To My Friends):
It seems hypocritical that devotees professing ‘love’ and ‘affection’ for all would be so bullish as you have described in your long diatribe, the likes of which I have unfortunately witnessed before on this ‘Vaishnava’ website. Whether it was over-exuberance or complete lack of finesse on the part of those involved, if true then such devotees are not part of Mahaprabhu’s real mood of ‘trinad api sunichena taror api sahishnuna, amanina manadena’.
However, please refrain from unnecessarily criticizing senior Vaishnavas as we all know what terrible consequences arise therefrom. All of your arguments are ill-founded and based on the same cheap sentiments that you decry. Either way, who wants to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Ramachandra Puri ? At least let us look for the good qualities in others. If you had a problem with devotees on harinam in London then what is the use of criticizing Gaudiyas of this sanga for not preaching. Is harinam not preaching? Of course, as you say proper behavior was not there and certainly it may be said that preaching without proper behavior disqualifies itself.
But in order to not deny our Gaudiya heritage we should know that Shriman Mahaprabhu came to the world expressly for tasting the glories of ‘prema-rasa’ and distributing the method of ‘ragamarga-bhakti’ as per the forth chapter of adi-leela, Chaitanya Charitamrita. Since one cannot enter the abode of Shree Krishna, Goloka-dhama, without having acquired ‘Vraja-prema’ as exhibited by the rasa-imbued inhabitants of Vraja (ragatmika-jana) it is incumbent upon us ‘sadhakas’ to inculcate such moods in our hearts whilst practicing bhakti. If one goes through Srila Rupa Goswami’s teachings carefully then he must come to this realization unless one is fine with the worship in awe and reverence in Vaikuntha Dhama.
Preaching, thus can be performed on different levels. Definitely, realization of our true self in relation to the Supreme Lord will proportionately enhance our words and actions. But will preaching or as is generally seen, distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books, reveal everything? No doubt, as you say we can please our acharyas and thus automatically please the Supreme Lord by such action. But in all of the books we distribute Vaishnava aparadha is condemned with many precepts and examples. From years of experience in Srila Prabhupada’s institute for many, many years it was always common practice to congregationally recite the ten offenses to the holy name of the Lord after ‘mangala aratika’. The most grievous of offenses is the first which you seemed to have ignored wholesale.
It would have been better if you simply had expressed your grievance by giving the microphone back to Ratnavali and reprimanded those who offended her.
In Los Angeles we have never had any problems when chanting with the members of Iskcon in the Santa Monica Promenade or Venice Boardwalk and when I was in Denver and Washington D.C. with others from the Gaudiya Math there was never any disharmony or problem.
If our smaller ‘sanga’ of Gaudiyas is utterly off-the-mark then why would Sripad Radhanatha Swami, who many regard as the most advanced Vaishnava in Iskcon humble himself before Sripad Vana Maharaja ( one of Srila Narayana Maharaja’s principle world preachers) in Laguna Beach at the Iskcon Temple’s regular post-Gaura Purnima Festival saying that he was shy to speak before him as a matter of both etiquette and realization. Why not follow the example of those seniormost in Iskcon?
You should know also that many of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are with Srila Narayana Maharaja now and if we had seen our god-brothers develop pure love of God from preaching, why would we take recourse to associate with Srila Narayana Maharaja? Something is missing in your equation. My dear god-brother Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja preached from realization and yet oddly enough was banned by the envious. Does that not say something? Had he not been banned, perhaps he would still be here today. When he preached there was potency and realization. We may think we are preachers, but without ‘vijnana’, without ‘shakti’, we cannot be effective. It has been compared to empty bullets or ‘blank fire’. That is without pure love of God, there is no ‘shakti’ and without ‘shakti’ there is no punch or word-power, or in other words, ‘blank fire’. No doubt, this is why our Srila Prabhupada said, ‘What is the use of your fifteen minute lecture, better to give someone the book.’
If we actually read the books of Srila Prabhupada then we wil run for sadhu-sanga wherever we can get it. In the words of Prithu Maharaja, Prahlad Maharaja, Bharat Maharaja, Shukadeva Goswami Maharaja and Bhagavan Narayana himself such sadhus are indispensable in attaining bhakti.
Why did Srila Prabhupada call Srila Narayana Maharaja to his quarters in his last days. After seeing him Srila Prabhupada was no longer spoke to anyone else. Why did he ask all who were with him in Novemeber of 1977 to listen to Srila Narayana Maharaja? Why in spite of three of Srila Prabhupada’s top men confirming their knowledge and ability to perform the last rites did Srila Prabhupada still have Srila Narayana Maharaja put him into ‘samadhi’ ?
The best formula for addressing your real issue of someone overlording the harinama is to go directly to the members of the London Gaudiya Sanga and call for a redress of etiquette. But to launch into a tirade of bad-mouthing a real Vaishnava whose literary works will be read, remembered and relished by many aspirants for Krishna-bhakti for years to come, does not at all look well and demands some inner soul-searching on your part at the very least.
I pray that this letter has not offended in any way, and that the real mercy of sadhus and Vaishnavas will fall on our heads to redeem our souls.
Yours in the wake of their footsteps,
Avadhoot Maharaja