Hridayananda's Progressive Deviation
BY: ROCANA DASA
Nov 08, CANADA (SUN) — This is a response to Candrabhanu das's latest article, "Crossing the Line", which was a reply to my article, "Vaishnava Aparadha or Bona fide Criticism?." Candrabhanu opens his article with this question:
"When does the analysis of alleged mistakes in a Vaishnava's preaching cross the line to become personally offensive??"
To properly answer this question, we should first clarify that what Candrabhanu das refers to as 'analysis of Hridayananda's preaching mistakes' actually refers to the comments of all the different Vaisnavas who have presented critical commentary on Hridayananda Goswami's personal behaviour and preaching. Some of his questionable behaviour can in no way be described as 'preaching'.
So, when do these critical comments cross the line and become personally offensive? The answer is simple: Hridayananda is no doubt immediately offended by the criticism put forward, and I'm sure he reacts as soon as he reads what his critics have to say.
A better question for Candrabhanu to ask is: "Would Srila Prabhupada be pleased with Hridayananda's so-called preaching?"
Hridayananda has put himself in the position he's in today, not only taking sannyasa and accepting so many disciples, but taking on the role of GBC. He's a very public figure, and we all know he has his own style of preaching. But we're not talking here about one particular incident where his 'unique preaching' was called into question. He's being criticized not for one particular set of circumstances at a single time and place. We're talking about his lifestyle, and his significant departure from Vaisnava philosophy and tradition.
Every aspect of Vaisnavism has a philosophical root: what you eat, what you wear, what you say, and so on. This philosophy was dictated to us by the Sampradaya Acaryas, personified by the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, Srila Prabhupada. So while Candrabhanu would like to minimize the importance of the matter, we are not so easily distracted.
Candrabhanu das has presented various quotes from Nectar of Instruction and Skanda Purana, which are very good reading, but unfortunately, he doesn't inform us as to the context in which these statements are made. Nor was the Skanda Purana purported by Srila Prabhupada.
The reader should also know that Candrabhanu das is duty bound to defend Hridayananda, because his wife is a Hridayananda disciple. Candrabhanu would have been wise to disclose that fact in his first article, but he did not. We learned it from another source. We can understand that he is having to deal with his wife's upset over the current public criticism being made about her guru maharaja, but more importantly, Candrabhanu will be the one who has to deal with her shock and heartbreak when Hridayananda officially ends up like most of the other Zonal Acaryas.
Our philosophy describes in minute detail what are the symptoms, qualities and characteristics of people who are at various levels of Vaisnavism. As Bhakta George recently pointed out in his article, "Are All Vaishnavas Above Criticism?", Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur considers that there is a category called 'asslike Vaisnavas'. Given that Srila Bhaktivinoda identified those particular qualities, perhaps we should consider Hridayananda a Vaisnava in this category. But even as an asslike Vaisnava, he is certainly offending Srila Prabhupada, and that is what all the recent articles have been primarily dealing with. And again, Hridayananda has not simply offended Srila Prabhupada one time, but rather has engaged in continual offenses, and this has been going on for years and years. There is no question of it. It is well known, and the GBC themselves have know it all along. Hridayananda is not acting as a representative of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, and that is the real problem here.
Candrabhanu das points out that in an outright philosophical debate over Vaishnava siddhanta and sastric authority, Hridayananda will be a formidable opponent. However, even though Maharaja is a professional debater and has made a thorough study of the scriptures and Vedic culture, the fact is that he has personally chosen not to participate in that culture, in various ways.
If we examine his website, Ask Acharyadeva, we find many disturbing things that support some of the criticism made about him. Take for example this Q&A dialogue, posted just a few days ago, on October 29, 2009:
Question: "Please explain to us why you do not wear neckbeads or a brahmana thread.
HDG: I can’t wear neckbeads or a brahmana thread because I have a condition diagnosed by a dermatologist that makes my skin break out in a terrible rash if I wear anything around my neck. During my last preaching tour, I accepted some flower garlands, and just from that I had a bad rash for several weeks.
Question: Can you also explain why you do not use a japa bag and a Tulasi mala when chanting your rounds?
HDG: According to a medical specialist, I have a problem with the radial nerve, which becomes inflamed when I chant on beads.
Regarding both conditions, I spent significant time and money with medical specialists, trying to reverse these conditions. Neckbeads, brahman thread and japa are all wonderful devotional paraphernalia and if possible, I would
certainly use all three."
So there is no question about the reports of Hridayananda being regularly seen without neckbeads, brahman thread, and japa mala. He has come right out and admitted that he does not wear or use these items of paraphernalia, which are characteristic of a Vaisnava, what to speak of a sannyasi or guru.
As far as I am concerned, these are nothing but lame excuses, not unlike his recent excuse in Mexico for not showing up at the scheduled initiation ceremony, or the Ratha Yatra. His excuse was that he'd had a medical emergency, but in fact, he only went to the emergency outpatient clinic to get diarrhea medicine. And that was essentially the straw that broke some of the camel's backs, and resulted in the public airing of grievances that are now escalating in the Sun.
I suggest that Hridayananda's excuse for not wearing a brahman thread is simply a ruse. As we all know, brahman threads are nothing but soft, light cotton – undoubtedly the same material that many of his t-shirts of made from. The sacred thread hardly touches any skin, whereas his t-shirts cover the entire surface of his back and chest. But we don't see him going around shirtless... And even if it were true that he is really sensitive to certain cotton strings – perhaps low grade cotton from India, for example -- he could easily acquire 100% pure cotton string and make his own brahman thread. It is not difficult for such an intelligent man. Pure cotton has been on the market for a long time, for use by those with truly severe medical conditions that cause them to react to dyed or treated fabrics.
In order to accept the notion that Hridayananda das is terribly allergic to Tulasi beads, brahman threads and japa mala, we would have to believe these items are repulsed by his body, but he has no problem wearing nylon jackets and plastic sunglasses (petroleum products), regularly touching the ivory keys on his piano, or constantly wearing a dizzying array of baseball hats, all of which have a plastic headband.
In the Q&A section of his website, Hridayananda does not mention having an allergic reaction to tilak, but we seldom see him wearing that, either. He does mention flower garlands, and this is believable. But no one is going to find fault if he doesn't wear a flower garland.
Personally, I have a very hard time believing that after years and years of wearing Tulasi beads, that he would suddenly become so allergic he can't wear them anymore. My common sense tells me that he's blatantly lying, and not only lying, but making a fool out of anyone who believes this nonsense. I'd say it's much more likely that Hridayananda is making a political point. He clearly has an opinion that wearing "devotee clothes" is nonsense, and should be avoided as a regular practice. We have heard reports that he has gone so far as to discourage some devotees from wearing devotee clothes. Perhaps he thinks that because he's a big academic man, he should be free to mix with the karmis without the burden of these distinguishing Hare Krishna props. So we can understand how Hridayananda might find it convenient to do away with the devotee paraphernalia. To my mind, his ridiculous medical excuses are just a way of thumbing his nose at the GBC, saying "Prove that I'm wrong! You can't make me wear beads, carry a bead bag, etc." And it appears that he's right – they either can't stop him, or haven't bothered trying.
Another disturbing statement we find on Hridayananda's 'Ask Acharyadeva' website is this Q&A item, from October 19, 2009:
Question: Often I hear devotees calling matajis as prabhus. Kindly shed some light on this. Thank you!
HDG: Personally, I call women prabhu. I am trying to free myself from the bodily concept of life, and when I meet a saintly Vaishnavi, I try to see her as the Lord’s eternal servant. We do not find any evidence in the Bhagavatam that men, as a general rule, called women “mother”. In any case, ‘mataji’ is a Hindi word.
But here's what Srila Prabhupada has to say on the matter:
Srila Prabhupada's Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 4.14, August 6, 1974, Vrindavan
Prabhupada: Yes. If I see woman as mother, she must see me as son. That's all. That is the system. The brahmacari, the sannyasi go to beg alms from door to door. "Mother, give me some bhiksa, alms." And it is the duty of the grhastha to treat brahmacari and sannyasi as their son. As they maintain their children with food, shelter, cloth, similarly the brahmacaris and sannyasis, they are dependent on the society. They should be treated as the sons of the society. And they must supply their necessities, bare necessities. A sannyasi, brahmacari, does not want more than what they need. They should not collect more than what they need. Bhiksa nirvahana. Not collect more and enjoy at others' cost. No. That is not the business of sannyasi. They can collect so much as they need. That's all.
Devotee: When you address a woman, do you...
Prabhupada: Hm?
Devotee: When you address a woman do you use the word "Mataji"? Is that the right, proper word for her?
Prabhupada: Mataji. Yes, very good. "Mother." All right. Chant. (end)
Srila Prabhupada's Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 1.16.10, January 7, 1974 in Los Angeles:
"So guru teaches him to remain brahmacari, naisthika-brahmacari. Just like my Guru Maharaja, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada. He was brahmacari. He was brahmacari, strict brahmacari, ideal personality. So that is recommended for everyone. Up to twenty-five years' age, nobody should have any connection with woman. That is brahmacari. Strictly. That brahmacari rules and regulation are there in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, that he would go door to door for collecting alms for his spiritual master, and address every woman as mother, from the very beginning. From five years old, if a child is trained to call all woman as "Mother," naturally his culture is different. Because he has learned to call all woman as "Mother." He has no other idea. A small child, any woman comes before him, he knows "(S)He is my mother." So this was the practice. That is not only religiously, but morally, it is so good, to look upon all woman as mother. That is the system still in India, any unknown woman who has no introduction with you, (s)he is addressed "Mataji." Address her. She may be just like daughter or granddaughter, but one would address, as a respect to the woman, as "Mother, Mataji." This is Indian system. Now some rascals have introduced "Bhaginiji, sister." But that is not shastric. In the sastra, all the woman, except one's wife, should be addressed as "Mother."
That is the instruction by Canakya Pandita, a great politician moralist. He said that "Who is learned scholar?" He was himself very learned scholar, but he is giving definition of learned scholar. What is that? Matrvat para-daresu: "Anyone who sees all woman..." Para-daresu. Para-dara means other's wife. Para-daresu. Matrvat. Not his own wife, but other's wife. So except one has got one wife, and all others, other's wife. So matrvat para-daresu, to treat and see other's wife as mother."
What Hridayananda has basically suggested in his Q&A is that it's a philosophical mistake to call women Vaisnavas 'matajis', but we see that he completely contradicts Srila Prabhupada in this regard. And it's not that someone of Hridayananda's stature isn't aware that Srila Prabhupada made these comments.
Hridayananda's statements not only contradict his Spiritual Master, but are actually condescending and deprecating:
"We do not find any evidence in the Bhagavatam that men, as a general rule, called women “mother”. In any case, ‘mataji’ is a Hindi word."
Srila Prabhupada is not his authority on the matter, only the Bhagavatam is the authority. And besides, Srila Prabhupada is 'just using a Hindi word.'
Any sincere follower of Srila Prabhupada should be able to recognize this for just what it is: a slight to Srila Prabhupada. And while I don't have the time to listen to all Hridayananda's lectures, I consider this example to be one drop of the ocean; I know just what the rest will taste like.
So although Candrabhanu das is sure that Hridayananda Goswami will be a formidable opponent, I am more than ready to engage him in a philosophical debate. I invite you, Hridayananda, to publicly debate me here in the Sun, on the question of whether or not you are following the Sannyasa Order, and acting as a disciple of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada in this regard. I know you could bring many arcane Sanskrit quotes to the table, but I challenge you to debate me by relying only on Srila Prabhupada's direct instructions, which are more than sufficient to establish his authority on the matter. Anytime you'd like to begin the debate, let me know, and we will be happy to facilitate it.
While Candrabhanu das would have us believe that those who have criticized Hridayananda here in the Sun are committing Vaisnava aparadha, I suggest that he should be more concerned with the aparadhas Hridayananda is committing to Srila Prabhupada. These offenses are so much greater, and the reactions effect so many more people: his Spiritual Master's mission, all his own disciples, what to speak of the devotees' faith in the Sannyasa Order, ISKCON, and the GBC, who also claim to be 100% inline with Srila Prabhupada, yet allow Hridayananda's offenses to go on and on. Naturally this effects Srila Prabhupada's image. And certainly another public falldown on the same level as the previous Zonal Acaryas will be another major problem for ISKCON -- what to speak of Candrabhanu's own wife.
Candrabhanu das and all those who defend Hridayananda's offensive behaviour will also have to take responsibility in the aftermath of his falldown, because they have contributed to creating a cocoon for Hridayananda. He lives in a fantasy world that his disciples and followers have created for him, just as we saw in the recent videos. They've helped him to create a world where he basically thinks that he's God -- he can do anything he wants. He can say whatever he wants, and nobody will do or say anything about it. We can be sure that he only rarely gets serious pushback from his supporters. We can clearly see in the videos that the GBC came down on him, making him appear for a meeting, then write an apology letter for his blessing of the gay marriage, but in the video he is simply laughing at them. He and his followers are just whooping it up in the back room, making fun of it all. It's obvious that his supporters disapprove of the GBC calling Hridayananda on the carpet; they think he was right, and the GBC godbrothers are wrong. And Hridayananda clearly didn't accept what the GBC had to say. He has maintained his opinions, and is letting them be known, just as he has all along. He simply made the mistake of voicing those opinions a little too publicly… but in his fantasy cocoon-world, all sorts of little things tend to slip out.
Hridayananda is apparently so far off-track now that he doesn't even realize how his behaviour looks to those around him – including some of his loyal supporters. We know, for example, that Hridayananda has recently been going alone to movie theaters with married female disciples. Even if their husbands knew and approved, what possible justification can Hridayananda give for putting these women in such a compromised position – being alone in a theater with a sannyasi? There is simply no excuse for it.
We assume that all our readers were as scandalized and saddened as we were by Aniruddha das's recent report, "Hridayananda's Falldowns", about his intimate association with another female devotee. Aniruddha das bravely and properly offered his testimony in response to Candrabhanu's patent denial that Hridayananda has anything but a spotless character. But we really cannot hold Candrabhanu das responsible for being the catalyst in this embarrassing public airing of Hridayananda's private business. The real fault lies with the GBC. They have turned a blind eye to Hridayananda's deviations as a sannyasi, guru, and GBC for so many years.
Hridayananda should never have been re-engaged as a GBC, given his past falldowns. And in the intervening years, the GBC should have acted swiftly and decisively in dealing with his progressive deviation from proper standards of the Sannyasa Order. But as always, the GBC did not act. As with all the previous Zonal Acarya maha-falldowns, they have done as little as they could get away with, essentially abandoning Hridayananda to hang himself with his own rope. They should be caring for their godbrother, and doing everything possible to save him, but they are apparently unwilling, uninterested, or too cowardly to confront him and take the needed action.
The GBC have again acted in a completely irresponsible fashion. And in that environment of rampant dereliction of duty, certain non-disclosure, and the absence of guardianship of Srila Prabhupada's spiritual movement, they have left us, and the Sampradaya Sun's contributors, to set off the alarm bells.
So for all of you who blanched at Aniruddha's graphic descriptions, calling it Vaisnava Aparadha, or even 'bad taste', blaming the Sun yet again for so-called 'tabloid journalism', we say that you, along with the GBC, are responsible for this situation. Blaming the messenger who comes crying that the house is on fire is a pointless exercise. Please take your dissatisfaction, your disapproval and your discomfort, and direct it instead at your local GBC man. Demand to know why it is that this outrageous situation has been allowed to go on for so long that the disgusted devotees are again left to take their case to the court of public opinion.
As for Hridayananda das Goswami, he has had little to say for himself. All we have received in response to Aniruddha's article is a brief note from his devi assistant, Malati Manjari dd, who wrote to say:
"You may not be aware that Aniruddha Das has a history of mental illness, and is obsessed with being recognized as a Prabhupada disciple. The article is full of fantasies and lies that reflect the sick mind of the author."
What Malati Manjari dasi fails to understand is that not only do we have personal experience that corroborates Aniruddha's story about Hridayananda's affair with this woman, we know others who could give similar, albeit less graphic testimony to that fact. As for Aniruddha having 'mental problems', do you believe for a minute that Hridayananda would put up with keeping a personal servant around for five years who had such problems? This is a man who is famous for not suffering fools gladly. So we hardly accept this lame effort to discredit Aniruddha prabhu.
As for Malati Manjari's crass statement that Aniruddha das is "obsessed with being recognized as a Prabhupada disciple", we can only point out that Hridayananda is exactly the opposite: he seems to be obsessed with proving that he is not a sannyasa disciple of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada. And unfortunately, he is make a convincing case of it.
