Sep 23, 2013 — CANADA (SUN) — We recently received a submission from Vidhyabhushan dasa of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in defense of Swami Chinna Jeeyar, the Srivaishnava sannyasi who had been invited to the Denver temple to preach on Janmastami. Vidhyabhushan dasa was concerned that the Sun articles complaining about ISKCON Denver's actions in this regard might constitute an aparadha against Swami Jeeyar, and he therefore set about to defend him.
The Sun declined to publish Vidhyabhushan's original article and a revised version that followed. We were initially open to publish his comments, with a few revisions to make it more on-point, but we quickly established that the author could or would not address the points of concern. Finally he exposed his real thinking on the matter, which made it clear that his was not an apologia we were willing to publish.
As we explained in some detail to Vidhyabhushan, there were two key issues we found problematic in his article: one concerning Lord Rama, and one Lord Krsna.
As stated in the above-linked article, Swami Jeeyar wrote the following about Lord Rama:
"1) LORD RAMA, A PU:RNA MA:NAVA AVATHA:RAM. HE NEVER SAID THAT HE WAS GOD. INSPITE OF DEVATHAS SAYING SO, HE DENIED THAT. THAT PU:RNATHWAM IS SHOWN BY THITTHI " 9 ". NINE AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, IS A PU:RNA SAMKHYA. INDESTRUCTIBLE NUMBER IT IS. MANUSHYA SHOULD LIVE LIKE THAT IN THE HISTORY, BY PRACTISING HUMANE QUALITIES, LIKE THAT OF LORD RAMA. 2) LORD KRISHNA, IS THE INCORNATION OF LORD HIMSELF DIRECTLY ON THIS EARTH. HE IS NOT A MAN LIKE SRI RAMA. WHILE LOOKING AT LORD KRISHNA, ONE SHOULD NOT THINIK OF MAN AT ALL. HE IS GOD-HIMSELF. ACCORDING TO THE VEDAS, GOD WILL BE REVEALED THOUGH A MANTHRA THAT IS " 8 " SYLLABLES, CALLED ASHTA:KSHARI MAHA MANTHRA. THAT IS WHY HE CHOSE TO BE THE EIGHTTH BORN TO DE:VAKI DE:VI, AND 8TH THITTHI ALSO."
Vidhyabhushan's explanation on this was as follows:
"Sri Vaisnavas generally accept Lord Rama as an incarnation of Sriman Narayana but he came with a purpose of establishing righteous in Human moral principles, so this function is very prominent. Like how Mahaprabhu as a devotee is more prominent, even thru he is the Supreme Lord himself. If we look from the practical example, especially in South India, many Ram temples are there, Lord Ram is worshiped as an incarnation of Sriman Narayana, because this is confirmed in Bhag 1.3.22. HH Chinna Jeeyar swami and Sri Vaisnavas accept Bhagavatam as their principle authoritative text. When he said man, it means Lord Ram came with human-like qualities, only a certain amount of powers for a specific function. Srila Prabhupada wrote about this (specific powers of different avatars and how they are different from Krsna ) in Bhag 1.3.28 purport."
As we pointed out to Vidhyabhushan, what Swami Jeeyar actually wrote is not the same as the way Vidhyabhushan was interpreting and explaining it in his article, quoted above. He later provided a video lecture of the swami, filmed while he was preaching at the ISKCON Seattle temple. In this lecture on Rama's pastimes, the Swami spoke further on Lord Rama and apparently did not imply in that lecture that Rama is an ordinary man. But again, the original article addressed the swami's written statement above, not a lecture.
On Sri Krsna, the issue at hand is that the Srivaishnavas don't accept Lord Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the primeval cause of even Lord Narayana. Vidhyabhushan dasa addressed this by writing:
"Sri Vaisnavas accept Sri Krsna as Avatara - We have to understand, they are speaking from the "dharma" point of view. The Lord Krsna who appeared to establish dharma or religious principles is an incarnation of Narayana. They are correct in their siddhanta. The Original Swyam Bhagavan Krsna of Vrindavan is actually different, in-terms of rasa and this vrindavan Krsna is the source of many incarnations not the other Krsna who spoke Bhagavad Gita, that Krsna is Vasudeva Krsna (Incarnation of Sriman Narayana). It also to be known that Hanuman may not always accept Sri Krsna but he is always under the lotus feet of Sri Ram as his master. So the mood of Sri Vaisnavas are one-pointed devotion to Lord Narayana in the mood of awe and reverance."
And he quoted Caitanya-caritamrta Antya 1.67:
"'The Kṛṣṇa known as Yadu-kumāra is Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa. He is different from the Kṛṣṇa who is the son of Nanda Mahārāja. Yadu-kumāra Kṛṣṇa manifests His pastimes in the cities of Mathurā and Dvārakā, but Kṛṣṇa the son of Nanda Mahārāja never at any time leaves Vṛndāvana."
Therefore Sri Vaisnavas or Jeeyar Swami was referring to Vasudeva Krsna and not the Vrindvan Krsna."
What was not addressed by Vidhyabhushan, of course, is the fact that no matter which Krsna we refer to (which incarnation, pastime or period), Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. From Sri Krsna comes His immediate expansion, Balarama, then the first of two sets of catur-vyuha expansions (Aniruddha, Vasudev, Sankarsana and Pradyumna), then Narayana, who is an expansion from, as we understand it, both Vasudev and Sankarsana. So the fact that Jeeyar Swami and Antya lila 1.67 are referring to Vasudeva Krsna (Krsna in Dvaraka) does not alter the fact that Lord Narayana is an expansion of Lord Krsna, not vice versa. That is the Gaudiya Vaisnava conclusion.
So while we agree that under the right circumstances, it may be right and proper to invite a Srivaishnava into an ISKCON temple to address the congregation, we have been making a specific point in Sun articles and in the recent exchange with Vidhyabhushan dasa and other prabhus. That is, that it's the duty of our ISKCON leaders -- GBC, gurus, sannyasis, temple presidents -- to ensure that our congregational members have the benefit of hearing Gaudiya philosophy on these matters. Our members should be well educated in the philosophical differences between the Gaudiyas and the Srivaishnavas on matters like the transcendental identities of Lord Rama and Lord Krsna, before they hear these topics from preachers outside our sampradaya. ISKCON devotees should not be exposed to having preachers from other sampradayas come in to propagate their conclusions, which are different from the Gaudiya conclusions, unless they are qualified to hear such discourse. 'Qualified' means solid preaching at the local level, education in our philosophy. And clearly, inarguably, the great majority of ISKCON congregations are not protected in this way.
Therefore, in addition to asking Vidhyabhushan prabhu to more specifically address in his article the issues mentioned above, we also suggested that he consider addressing the problem just stated -- adequately preaching to our own members before bringing outside sampradaya representatives into ISKCON temples to preach to them.
Vidhyabhushan replied:
"Jeeyar swami had already spoken in Iskcon temples on a few occasions in the past without any problems. Personally I see no harm in him speaking Hari-katha, of-course we don't have to invite him for Gaura-Poornima and Radhastami but if it's Jamastami or a general program there shouldn't be a issue. 'Invitation' means if Jeeyar Swami happened to come by our area, then to follow Vaisnava etiquette we should invite him to speak."
As we pointed out to Vidhyabhushan, him personally seeing no harm in the swami's preaching is not the issue. The point is, what are the standards set down by sastra, the Sampradaya Acaryas and Srila Prabhupada for what's preached to members of our society. And it's not exactly true that there have been 'no problems in the past'. Certainly there have been complaints, e.g., about ISKCON Seattle bringing the swami in to preach Rama lila.
We also pointed out that Janmastami is hardly a "general program" in ISKCON. Janmastami has always been celebrated in ISKCON on par with, if not even more opulently than Radhastami and Gaura Purnima. Janmastami cannot be relegated as somehow less important, or of less distinction than Gaura Purnima and Radhastami.
Nor do we accept the notion that Swami Jeeyar ''just happened" to be in Denver at Janmastami, and therefore 'needed to be invited' to come lecture, out of etiquette. Clearly, there was nothing so casual about the event.
Vidhyabhushan ended his article by saying:
"We may have theoretical knowledge but Jeeyar Swami has high realizations on the subject matter of Aiswarya-Bhav, many of us may not even realize that we are not this body. Realized knowledge is always much superior to theoretical knowledge, and such if such personality are available then he should be given the vyasa-san."
We may have "theoretical knowledge"? In fact, we have the preaching of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhu -- not just the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON, but the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya of the Gaudiya line. For ISKCON devotees, his preaching far overshadows that of any guest preacher from another sampradaya who happens to be visiting one of our temples.
Vidhyabhushan essentially suggests that Srila Prabhupada's senior preachers have only "theoretical knowledge", whereas Jeeyar Swami has something higher -- "Aiswarya-Bhav". But to say that he has something even higher than our preachers who are preaching what Prabhupada preached is an offensive position to take.
To suggest that those ISKCON members who haven't yet realized that they are not this body, yet they should hear from the high realizations of Jeeyar Swami is, we think, complete foolishness. If that's their level of knowledge, then they should be hearing from Bhagavad-gita As It Is, -- not that they should be exposed to 'Aiswarya-Bhav' preaching by a swami from outside our Sampradaya -- not matter how advanced he may be.
Vidhyabhushan's reply to us concluded with this:
"I'm afraid you're unable to understand Sri Vaisnavism, Gaudiya Vaisnavism and Guru tattva proper, therefore I won't go further."
This exchange serves to illustrate the importance of not exposing ISKCON congregational members to the advanced preaching of outside swamis if they do not themselves have a solid foundation in Gaudiya philosophy, as taught by Srila Prabhupada.
