Friend or Enemy
BY: VYSWAMBHARA DAS
Jun 27, CANADA (SUN) —
His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati writes:
“The real sadhu makes us speak out what we keep concealed in our hearts. He then applies the knife. He stands in front of the sacrificial block with the uplifted knife in his hand. The sensuous desires of men are like the goats to be sacrificed. The sadhu stands there to kill those desires by the merciful stroke of the keen edge of the knife in the form of unpleasant language. If the sadhu turns into my flatterer then he does me harm, he becomes my enemy. If he gives us flattery then we are led to the road that brings enjoyment but not real well-being.
(Sri Caitanya’s Teachings: Search for Truth)
Who is Indradyumna Svami’s real friend?
Rocana Prabhu, as well as other devotees point out some defects in the Svami’s behavior. The Maharaja, they say, does not show proper respect for the prescribed duties of a sannyasi and guru. They question the Maharaja’s libertine ways in regard of: 1. His promiscuous behavior with young women and 2. The unabashed self-promotion found in the pages of his Diary of a Traveling Preacher. Other criticisms have centered on the Maharaja’s obvious love of adventure mysticism and his spendthrift ways.
The Maharaja’s followers and admirers view these critics as aparadhis envious of his popularity and success.
The author Praghosh das Responds, outlining his defense of the Maharaja along the line oft ‘Anyone can do whatever he wants and write whatever he wants and let the public be the ultimate judge of things.’ This sounds strangely like a throw back to the old Hippie attitude of “Do your own thing and let live”. In a Krsna conscious society however, each varna and asrama is assigned specific prescribed duties to which he is to be held accountable. Lord Krsna holds even Himself accountable to this principle when He says in Bhagavad-gita (3.23, 24): “For if I ever failed to engage in carefully performing prescribed duties, O Partha, certainly all men would follow my path. If I did not perform prescribed duties, all these worlds would be put to ruination. I would be the cause of creating unwanted population, and I would thereby destroy the peace of all living entities.”
While describing the four asramas, Sri Narada Muni spoke to Maharaja Yudhisthira the following verses from Srimad-Bhagawatam (7.12.6.7, 9-11): “Fully controlling his senses, he should associate only as much as necessary with women or those controlled by women. A brahmacari or one who has not accepted the grhastha-asrama, must rigidly avoid talking with women or about women, for the senses are so powerful that they may agitate even the mind of a sannyasi. Woman is compared to fire, and man is compared to a butter pot. Therefore, a man should avoid associating even with his own daughter in a secluded place. Similarly, he should also avoid association with other women. One should associate with women only for important business and not otherwise. As long as a living entity is not completely self-realized-as long as he is not independent of the misconception of identifying with his body, which is nothing but a reflection of the original body and senses-he cannot be relieved of the conception of duality, which is epitomized by the duality between man and woman. Thus there is every chance that he will fall down because his intelligence is bewildered. All the rules and regulations apply equally to the householder and the sannyasi.”
Bhagavad-gita (3.32) states: “But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not follow them are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and ruined in their endeavors for perfection.” Srila Prabhupada’s purport reads as follows: “The flaw of not being Krsna conscious is clearly stated herein. As there is punishment for disobedience to the order of the supreme executive head, so there is certainly punishment for disobedience to the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. A disobedient person, however great he may be, is ignorant of his own self, and of the Supreme Brahman, Paramatma and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, due to a vacant heart. Therefore there is no hope of perfection of life for him.”
In the Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Antya-lila chapter 2, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu banishes one of his close associates simply for begging some rice from a chaste older lady devotee. The banishment of Chota Haridas is there to instruct the sannyasa order regarding stri-sanga or association with women: “Summarizing this chapter, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura says that one should derive from it the following lessons:
(1) Although Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is an incarnation of mercy, He nevertheless gave up the company of one of his personal associates, namely Junior Haridasa, for if He had not done so, pseudo devotees would have taken advantage of Junior Haridasa’s fault by using it as an excuse to live as devotees and at the same time have illicit sexual connections. Such activities would have demoralized the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and as a result, devotees would surely have gone to a hellish life in the name of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
(2) By chastising Junior Haridasa, the Lord set the standard for acaryas, or the heads of institutions propagating the Caitanya cult, and for all actual devotees. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to maintain the highest standard.
(3) Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu instructed that a pure devotee should be simple and free from sinful activities, for thus one can be his bona fide servant. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu taught his followers how to observe the renounced order strictly.
(4) Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to prove that his devotees are exalted and that their character is ideal. He kindly accepts his faithful devotees and teaches them how much tribulation and disturbance can be produced by even a slight deviation from the strict principles of devotional life.
(5) By chastising Junior Haridasa, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu exhibited his mercy toward him, thus showing how elevated was Junior Haridasa’s devotion for Him. Because of this transcendental relationship, the Lord corrected even a slight offense committed by his pure devotee. Therefore one who wants to be a pure devotee of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu should give up all material sense gratification; otherwise, the lotus feet of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu are very difficult to attain...”
(Bhaktivedanta purport to Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Antya-lila, Second Chapter)
In the Srimad-Bhagavatam (11,17,33) Lord Krsna tells Udhava: “Those who are not married-sannyasis, vanaprasthas, and brahmacaris-should never associate with women by glancing, touching, conversing, joking, or sporting. Neither should they ever associate with any living entity engaged in sexual activities”.
Indradyumna Svami is a wonderful Vaisnava in many ways and a great asset to Srila Prabhupada’s movement. But, several of Maharaja’s Godbrothers have repeatedly appealed to him to stop his promiscuous association with young women and still, he refuses to adjust his ways. Therefore, the Maharaja is in great danger: He is insulating himself from his real well-wishers, preferring instead to bask in the adoration of his followers and supporters who are actually his enemies in this matter.
As far as writing goes, Srila Prabhupada’s instruction on the subject is as follows: “This is the sum and substance of transcendental writing. One must be an authorized Vaisnava, humble and pure. One should write transcendental literature to purify oneself, not for credit. By writing about the pastimes of the Lord, one associates with the Lord directly. One should not ambitiously think, “I shall become a great author. I shall be celebrated as a writer.” These are material desires. One should attempt to write for self-purification. It may be published or it may not be published, but that does not matter. If one is actually sincere in writing, all his ambitions will be fulfilled. Whether one is known as a great author is incidental. One should not attempt to write transcendental literature for material name and fame.” (CC Adi 9.5 purport) “The writing of Vaisnava literatures is not a function for ordinary men. Vaisnava literatures are not mental concoctions. They are all authorized literatures meant to guide those who are going to be Vaisnavas.” (CC. Madhya 24.32) A Vaisnava sannyasi should write following in the footsteps of the Six Gosvamis and previous acaryas: for self-purification and to uplift the reader.
What kind of argument is it to say, “Maharaja is not writing sastra he is only writing for his own audience” or “You are free to write what you like, think what you like, express it and live with the consequences, desirable or otherwise. He is as well. This was and is my point.” (Praghosa das) What possible sastric evidence can there be for uttering such a statement? I wonder if the Praghosa philosophy on writing also applies to the other functions of life? Our imperfections may transpire in our writing, but still, a Vaisnava, what to speak of a sannyasi/guru, has to keep in mind that writing is what Srila Prabhupada called “indoor preaching”. Whenever one preaches, be it in writing, speaking, chanting or by the example of one’s life, one must at least try to represent his spiritual master properly. In writing especially, one should try to only repeat what he has heard and understood at the feet of his spiritual master. Sadhana-bhakti has two divisions: vaidhi-bhakti-following rules and regulations out of sense of duty-and raganuga-bhakti-following rules and regulations out of spontaneous love for Krsna. To say that one may ‘do as you please and live with the consequences’ is not a sign of compassion but a sign of envy. It contradicts the Supreme Lord’s instructions that one must abide by his assigned duties.
Indradyumna Svami’s writing is mundane in that the hero of his stories in not Lord Krsna but himself. The goal is to make himself look good and transcendental in order to juice up his following and earn himself a reputation as a great transcendental personality. This is a tactic the Maharaja learned from his former mentor, Bhagavan das, who was an expert at disguising everything he did as Krsna consciousness. The Maharaja is not alone to practice such duplicitous behavior, nor is he the most expert at puffing up his own balloon. In fact Indradyumna Svami is rather obvious compared to others. So obvious in fact that only the most simplistic and naive or the equally duplicitous applaud and believe his fantastic adventures that are made to look and sound like transcendental pastimes.
Most of his Godbrothers take these adventures with a grain a salt but say nothing about it. After all, they may surmise, what harm is there in a little exaggeration here and there as long as it helps people chant Hare Krsna? But Praghosa Prabhu is a seasoned devotee. He has seen many senior Godbrothers go down the drain, their devotional creeper choked by the anarthas known as labha-profit according to material calculation, puja-adoration achieved by satisfying mundane people and pratistha-becoming an important man according to material calculations. As a friend of thirty years, one would think Praghosa Prabhu would want to give sound advice to the Maharaja and save him from the dangerous course he has taken.
It is not, as Praghosh Prabhu claims, up to the public to decide whether or not the Maharaja’s behavior properly represents the parampara. The public is innocent and must be instructed both in words and by example: “A true Guru teaches his disciple after his own behavior and practice; one can not be the teacher of Dharma, if one does not perform it himself.” (Mundaka Upanishad, 1.2.12) By behaving and writing as he does, Indradyumna Svami is instructing everyone that it is all right for a sannyasi and guru to engage with admiring women in the name of preaching the Holy Name; that it is all right for him to try and write one’s way to fame. This sort of behavior is not in obedience to the prescribed duties of the sannyasa order. The Maharaja has thousands of disciples who will live and preach as he does and, in time, create untold harm to the Krsna consciousness movement by increasing the number of devotees who do not and will not abide by the rules and regulations of devotional life.
Those who criticize the Maharaja on these points are not his enemies; his enemies are those who flatter him or say nothing. In defense of the Maharaja’s ways Praghosa Prabhu pulls out the old argument that, “Just see the Maharaja’s success, isn’t that proof of his purity?” But how many times must this argument prove itself false before devotees stop using it? How many so-called great preachers and gurus must fall on their faces, destroy the faith of their followers and leave their area of responsibility devastated because in this day and age we are all so easily impressed by external success? From the very beginning of his preaching lila in the West His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada refused to lower the standards of Krsna consciousness in order to woo public favor. Success by charisma and the cheating of the innocent public is different from success obtained by purity; misunderstanding the two has proved fatal to many of Srila Prabhupada’s would-be imitators.
