Nourished by Loving Exchange
BY: KRISHNA DAS
Dec 01, USA (SUN) — Rocana prabhu I thank you for your comments. You express that in 1986 you purported to have worked towards what many have dubbed The Reform headed by Rabindra Swarup and Virabahu das. You went on to say here in this last piece, "Our Business is to Point Out Who is Not a Saint", that your experience with that effort left you sorely disappointed and served to inspire you to leave official ISKCON in favor of "The Greater Iskcon". Situated thus – you have set aside the business of pushing forward the Sri Krsna samkirtan and promoting the availability of Krsna Consciousness under the guidance of Srila Prabhupada and have now made it your business to "point out who is not a saint".
Were we forced to suffer the so-called "unsaintly" I might see some value in that, however as I said previously - "At least to me – it appears futile – to misdirect our energy to what anyone, anywhere is or is not doing – UNLESS it actually prevents me or mine – from doing the positive things Srila Prabhupada asked of us."
If anyone's lack of "saintliness " is forcing me or mine to endure any form of "interference" with my own ability to share the actual "saintliness" of Srila Prabhupada and his dear followers – then there is a problem and I would indeed do the needful to put a stop to that.
However, as we are – according to HDG Srila Prabhupada – all followers of Srila Rupa Goswami - I would do it in a manner that conformed to the guidance we receive from Srila Rupa Goswami in his Upadesamrta: the six principles of loving exchange.
You presume to be correct in your methods of identifying "problems" that supposedly merit widespread broadcast to men and women all across the globe and believe that this will in fact lead to some tangible and effective resolution to such "problems". There is no record of that however in any of your past campaigns to pull back the curtain on any particular issue.
Your actions in this "field of endeavor" do not represent the six loving exchanges cultivated by aspiring Vaisnavas under the guidance of Srila Rupa Goswami. When devotees discover a problem between themselves and another Vaisnava – born out of general or specific misrepresentation of pure Krsna Consciousness – we are advised to humbly and sincerely approach each other "in confidence" and reveal our concerns to each other with a sincere desire to ameliorate the situation with reciprocal give and take that leads to improvement in all ways, for all parties involved.
Srila Prabhupada states in Nectar of Instruction in his purport to Text 6:
"The International Society for Krishna Consciousness has been established to facilitate these six kinds of loving exchanges between devotees. This Society was started single-handedly, but because people are coming forward and dealing with the give-and-take policy, the Society is now expanding all over the world."
This is our method of approach to resolving all problems amongst devotees. Your scattershot approach has never done anything more than place huge quantities of essentially useless chatter in the public domain. Your method only introduces dilemma but it offers no lasting and tangible resolution to any of the real or imagined problems you consistently insist exist and need addressing. It is completely divorced from real human exchange and interaction; the kind that we all know is how real problems are actually solved.
This latest campaign you are running to supposedly protect the world from the influence of one ISKCON devotee, and in your estimation, errant leader – is simply your latest in a long list of campaigns that eventually – simply fade from the public focus you strenuously work to sustain. One could name 10 such campaigns you have conducted in the past few years, but it would take some careful consideration – such is the overall impact of the process. I affirm that it is precisely because this entire method of yours is so divorced from the six loving exchanges emphasized by Srila Rupa Goswami – that nothing good ever results from all this expenditure of your time. The real world works differently. Genuine effort, reflective of genuine concern and personal and reciprocal exchange of ideas and service are the only means by which real differences are ever truly worked out.
Your method – simply reporting the "facts" as they appear to you or one of your "contributors" who either support your particular bias or whose "contribution" can be employed as a welcome foil to be set up and knocked down by you – really accomplishes nothing. At the end of the day – it serves as a strange form of entertainment only for you and those who – in my view mistakenly take this diet as "healthy" for their devotional creeper.
While you now confidently rail against the past and present transgressions of one ISKCON devotee – devotees all over the world are busy with their actual samkirtan activities. They busy themselves with preparations for the upcoming Christmas Marathon. Are you and your "contributors" similarly and happily engaged? Or have the "past and present" anomalies of this one ISKCON devotee, taken such a hold on your sense of purpose that you have set aside any thoughts for your samkirtan?
I would venture a guess that there are at this moment – many devotees inspired by this one ISKCON devotee's "past and present" encouragement for samkirtan that simply have no time to give you and your contributors' pressing concerns regarding this one ISKCON devotee.
What is pressing to you – is not too pressing for countless others. In fact, correctly or incorrectly, most have embraced the simple present day reality in these matters since the "reform" of 1986 which you claim to have worked so hard to establish: the freedom to voluntarily choose which devotee(s) they will take inspiration from and serve with heart and soul under the wonderful guidelines of Srila Rupa Goswami's "Six Loving Exchanges".
This might surprise you but many devotees also view the cautious counsel given us by Srila Prabhupada in the 6th Verse of Upadesamrta as being vital to one's spiritual health in Krsna Consciousness. I know! I know! You will argue that its counsel does not apply in this case because you and your "contributors" have already established that this particular devotee does not warrant the prescribed deference advised by Srila Prabhupada in this purport, but I am going to offer this counsel anyway precisely because Srila Prabhupada often said that "if they read one line even of my books – their whole life can be made perfect".
"When one thus criticizes a pure devotee, he commits an offense (vais?n?ava-aparadha) that is very obstructive and dangerous for those who desire to advance in Kr?s?n?a consciousness. A person cannot derive any spiritual benefit when he offends the lotus feet of a Vais?n?ava. Everyone should therefore be very careful not to be jealous of an empoweredVais?n?ava, or a suddha-vais?n?ava. It is also an offense to consider an empowered Vais?n?ava an object of disciplinary action. It is offensive to try to give him advice or to correct him. One can distinguish between a neophyte Vais?n?ava and an advanced Vais?n?ava by their activities. The advanced Vais?n?ava is always situated as the spiritual master, and the neophyte is always considered his disciple. The spiritual master must not be subjected to the advice of a disciple, nor should a spiritual master be obliged to take instructions from those who are not his disciples. This is the sum and substance of SrilaRupa Gosvami's advice in the sixth verse."
Now I am more than aware of the fact that you and yours do not consider HDG Srila Acharyadeva of fitting the description of such an exhalted soul and thus meriting such careful consideration. That is abundantly clear. But the principal reason for why I originally emphasized the futility of all this discussion on your part – thus establishing it as a mere "preponderance" is because there are many who do see him as a wonderful devotee and a great source of encouragement in all ways – to their devotional lives. Thus – your efforts appear to them as jaded and jealous, wasteful of everyone's valuable time, disconnected from genuine Vaisnava practices in such matters, and ultimately and simply – offensive. They view your actions as a childish and ineffective attempt to "advise" and/or "correct" their spiritual master and accept the guidance of Srila Rupa Goswami Prabhupada that "the spiritual master must not be subjected to the advice of a disciple, nor should a spiritual master be obliged to take instructions from those who are not his disciples." This is the correct attitude of the disciple and no one has forced them to adopt this. They do not advocate your being forced to accept Srila Acharyadeva according to this guidance of Srila Rupa Goswami Prabhupada. But they are also not inclined to adopt your position of both opposition and/or apathy to the very individual they accept as their life and soul!
The disciples of Srila Acharyadeva basically view your demands that he enter into a "debate" on the merit of anything he does or does not do, as nothing more than the petulant demands of a frustrated child. He has no need to do this. Clearly – you want and need this to validate all you are doing therein. But this would not serve the interests of Srila Prabhupada. It would only waste everyone's time. He and his disciples are content to allow you to simply and eventually "run of gas" on this issue as you always inevitably do.
No one has been forced to accept the influence of Srila Acharyadeva since 1986. Rocana prabhu, you emphasize the value of this liberty in spiritual life in your website with the following commentary in the section on "Practical application of siksa and diksa":
These are your words prabhu – and the vast majority of the disciples of Srila Acharyadeva have lived by them since 1986! They have all taken full responsibility for their own spiritual path and voluntarily taken shelter of the siksa of HDG Srila Acharyadeva and we will have to tolerate their decision – "UNLESS it actually prevents me or mine – from doing the positive things Srila Prabhupada asked of us."
If you have what you consider a legitimate concern with anything done or said by Srila Acharyadeva – then my humble advice would be to simply contact him personally and discuss it – man to man, keeping in mind the six principles of loving exchange given us by Srila Rupa Goswami and Srila Prabhupada. I do believe that will serve your long term spiritual interest. To err on the side of caution in such matters – is always advised. Such "caution" is manifest in our approaching one another in careful "confidence".
Respectfully
Krishna das
