BY: ROCANA DASA
Nov 6, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.
This weeks' Obeisances is in response to a recent editorial by Dandavats Editor, Praghosa dasa, entitled, Krishna give us Guidance, Oh Lord we need that now. Praghosa dasa begins his article with two questions:
"How can we always know that the decisions we take are the correct ones? That they are pleasing to both guru and Krishna?"
The answer: we can't always know -- unless, of course, one has a self-realized guru one can approach to get definitive answers. Of course, Praghosa dasa doesn't specify what kind of decisions he's referring to. In the material world, it's impossible to make right decisions 100% of the time, or even close to that, and ultimately it doesn't really matter. Praghosa is obviously referring to spiritual decisions, which are of far more importance than our material decisions.
As we read on, we understand why he's asking this question, which is related to the issue of sannyasis falling down. As our readers know, I recently wrote an article about his guru, Satsvarupa das Goswami, who did fall down. Although there was an attempt to cover it up, that didn't work and it became public knowledge. The GBC eventually made a brief statement on the matter, after which Satsvarupa disappeared from the horizon for some time. As I mentioned in my article, due to his particular status in the organization, Satsvarupa was given a "second chance" and was allowed to make a re-commitment to vows -- whatever that may mean. How, in his weakened condition, he was prepared to re-commit himself is beyond me.
Praghosa dasa goes on to say that the questions he posed are simultaneously easy and difficult, and even more difficult when it comes to practical application. Granted, it is very difficult for an aspiring devotee to understand what is the correct position to take, and if you're a leader in an organization, which of course Praghosa is, then it's even more difficult. So the questions he posed really are not easy to answer at all.
Although we have guru, sastra and sadhu as a standard, when the guru has departed people rush to the Vedabase -- not necessarily to find the truth, but to find a quote that will support their position in terms of their application of the truth.
As I've made clear in my major theme of Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya, understanding Srila Prabhupada in this position rather than as simply a guru, or one of many gurus who have composed sastra, means that you're increasing your ability to make the right decisions. There's been much discussion about imitating a person such as Srila Prabhupada, and that applies to presenting oneself as being more advanced then one is. In our unique circumstance, we have access to Srila Prabhupada's conversations and letters, which help us to make good decisions. Devotees today also draw upon all the memoirs, biographies and diaries for guidance. Unfortunately, they place these books in a sastra-like context, which of course they're not. In many cases these biographies contain a great deal of speculation about what Srila Prabhupada did or didn't do, why he did it, and so on. What we end up with are people interpreting something that was previously interpreted by someone remembering something from many years ago. We need to see this for what it really is. It has very little substance when it comes to resolving philosophical dilemmas such as the ones our author has obviously been put into as a disciple of Satsvarupa das Goswami.
We assume that when Praghosa dasa is talking about guru and Krsna in his first question, he's referring to Satsvarupa and not Srila Prabhupada. And when the problem that he's trying to resolve involves the guru, then what is his position? Of course, he's got the institution and the GBC beside him, and they step in and make the philosophical decisions for him. Given the position he holds, we can assume that he acknowledges them as being the collective Acarya and accepts their conclusions, regardless of whether or not his common sense and personal application may be different. So this adds to the confusion.
The essence of Praghosa prabhu's discussion is the whole concept of sannyasis falling down and how they should be treated publicly. Understandably this is a big concern for Praghosa given his personal circumstances, which he's obviously trying to reconcile. His Krishna give us Guidance article displays his confusion over how to deal with the situation. On one hand, he presents us with well-known quotes from both sastra and Srila Prabhupada on what is the circumstance of a sannyasis falling down, eating his own vomit, etc. But on the other hand, he launches into a whole excuse for not applying sastra, and uses anecdotal circumstances and quotes from the Transcendental Diary, which is not sastra.
In his effort to produce evidence that Srila Prabhupada would not have wished to have a fallen sannyasi publicly exposed, Praghosa offers a quote from Srila Prabhupada wherein he is describing a Shiva temple in Hoogli district. There, they practice a program wherein thousands of individuals become sannyasis for one month, offering benedictions to temple visitors. Srila Prabhupada calls them vantasi, vomit eaters, and he says, "Yet if such a devotee is exposed like this, is it to the benefit of anyone”?
Here, Praghosa dasa is stretching to find an authoritative quote to support his position. In fact, there is essentially no similarity between the situation Srila Prabhupada describes at the Shiva temple and our own ISKCON situation. While the vantasis of Hoogli may step-up for one-month "instant sannyasa" rotations, there has never, ever been a supposition that devotees stepping up to take sannyasa in ISKCON are doing it just for a month of "pretend sannyasis" to fulfill some religious role in the temple. In ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada made it very clear that sannyasis must keep to Lord Caitanya's standards of sannyasa. So for Praghosa to use the above example as evidence that fallen ISKCON sannyasis should not be exposed in public is ridiculous. Praghosa characterizes Srila Prabhupada's comment as being "very intriguing", which I suppose it is to one speculating and fishing for excuses. Praghosa writes:
"…still Prabhupada is also indicating that it does not make sense to expose such a fallen soul because such exposure is also of no benefit."
Looking at this quote in context, I think it is far more likely that Srila Prabhupada is saying it's pointless to expose such persons because they are cheaters by the dozen, serving those who wish to be cheated. This is very different than saying it's pointless to expose the fallen sannyasis of ISKCON, for whom the pure devotee has explicitly set the standard.
Praghosa then tries to cement his point by telling an ISKCON story about Madhuvisa's difficulties with sannyasa. In the case of Madhuvisa, Srila Prabhupada expressed his displeasure with the devotees who took action without his instruction by publicizing Madhuvisa's falldown. Of course, Srila Prabhupada would have been sure to get a far different outcome in dealing with Madhuvisa than one of his followers might get under the same circumstances, so we can understand his desire to deal directly with his disciple. Srila Prabhupada was also angry at Gurukrpa Swami for going against a direct instruction, which has nothing to do with whether or not a fallen sannyasis is publicly called to task. The bottom line of all this is that Praghosa would have us believe that when ISKCON leaders cover-up a high level person's falldown, we should simply understand that they are following Srila Prabhupada's example.
Praghosa then takes it one step further and gives us another interesting story, which he says further highlights the point. He never tells us who the leader in question is or what the circumstances are that the devotee in question was having, so we have no way to judge whether his conclusions are right or wrong. The upshot of the story is about some devotee falling down, and whether or not it should be made public. We don't know if the person in question is a sannyasi or an institutional leader, which are big factors in any event.
What astounds me, and many persons looking at the circumstances in ISKCON, is the fact that the leaders, whether they be sannyasis, gurus or some other institutional leader, know sastra and know that the Sampradaya Acaryas has made it abundantly clear what their responsibilities are in assuming such positions. As the author himself points out, they get a great deal of respect, adoration and followers on account or assuming these positions. But the trade-off is that they not only have to assume all this responsibility, they have to maintain it. As sastra tells us, it's easy to create something, but much more difficult to maintain it.
When we say a person is "fallen", what does that really mean? Do they personally admit they're fallen, or are they caught being 'fallen'? At what point did they start doing these fallen behaviours, and how did that impact their responsibilities, to the institution and their disciples? These big questions are seldom raised, and Praghosa dasa himself doesn't address them. This is not simply a hypothetical set of circumstances. Many ISKCON gurus have accepted disciples while they were already in a fallen state. Their fallen state was often serious, such as the sannyasi who isn't even supposed to think of a woman, let alone have any kind of intimate relationship with her. That's Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's standard for a sannyasi. For a householder to have an affair with another woman is also fallen, but for the sannyasi it's much more serious.
The question of honor is also there, in terms of how these personalities are perceived by the rest of the Vaisnava community and the general society. What amazes me most is the denial of the followers, friends and associates of such a fallen individual. In this particular case it doesn't take much reading between the lines to know it's Satsvarupa that Praghosa is really defending in his article. Of course, beyond just falling down with a woman, there were all sorts of manifest symptoms which indicated that this individual was not spiritually sound, or even sane, yet people are willing to totally ignore that and give him the same kind of respect he enjoyed when he was supposedly not fallen. All this may be very nice in terms of forgiveness or being conciliatory, but here we're talking about the science of Krsna consciousness, and the potency of being a transparent via medium to Krsna, sastra, the absolute truth and the disciplic succession. So it's like a short circuit in an electrical wire. It blows the fuse. Basically, you are not getting what you think you're getting in terms of your relationship with Krsna
Unless a person has a certain amount of understanding of the science of self-realization, as Srila Prabhupada presented it on behalf of the Sampradaya, then everything is based on sentiment. You may assume or think or hope or pretend that you're connected, that you're a bona fide disciple connected to the Sampradaya, when in reality that may not be true. Of course, Sri Krsna's in your heart, true enough, and he's determining to what degree you're receiving the mercy of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. But as a disciple and a follower of Lord Caitanya, you also have to rely on your own intelligence, your own common sense and understanding of sastra, and be honest with yourself.
When you see something that's odd, then you should question it regardless if it creates a problem for you. While other friends who are supporters or disciples of the fallen leader in question may look upon you disparagingly, that's no excuse for not seeing and speaking the truth. We can understand the difficult situation Praghosa prabhu is in. The devotee community in Ireland is very close, and for Praghosa to call a spade a spade with respect to Satsvarupa is undoubtedly a big problem for him in Ireland. If Praghosa was to honestly conclude that Satsvarupa is not qualified to be a guru or sannyasi, then he'd face a difficult challenge from those around him. Of course, it's obvious by reading his article that he has concluded he's just going to go along with it, and he's not going to do anything personally. He's somehow hoping it's the right decision. But if you were to ask me, I'd say it's the wrong decision.
I would like to actually hear from the Irish devotees as to how they feel about Satsvarupa leaving Ireland and going off to sunnier climes to recuperate, and now that he's supposedly recovered, he's going off to even sunnier and even more comfortable circumstances in Mexico.
We're given a certain amount of time in our particular circumstances in this human form of life, and being connected via Srila Prabhupada to the Sampradaya, our personal duty is to take full advantage of this golden opportunity. We're going to meet all sorts of challenges along the way to stop us from making progress. Having a guru like Satsvarupa das Goswami is definitely a hindrance. This is a problem that many of the readers don't have, and I don't have, thank heavens, but of course Satsvarupa isn't the only guru to be in this situation. And the way things are going, he's not going to be the last, either
While each set of circumstances are different, in Satsvarupa's case he set a precedent. Now people can point to Satsvarupa's circumstance and say "Oh, we have to be forgiving, the fallen sannyasis should just re-commit himself to his vows. Satsvarupa did it, so why can't I?" And it's not only the sannyasa vows, it's also the average devotee's vows to the Spiritual Master or one's vows to family life, or vows to all sorts of commitments that we make. Let's also remember that Satsvarupa got married, but shortly after left his wife and took sannyasa, setting another bad precedent. Here's this high profile person who can fall down and just say 'I've decided to re-commit myself'. Of course, the huge question is if you're fallen, how can you re-commit? How do you have the spiritual strength to re-commit yourself? What are the tests to be applied before simply accepting such an act as bona fide or successful? Of course, no one asks these questions in ISKCON.
Praghosa dasa ends his article by quoting his title, "Krishna give us Guidance, Oh Lord we need that now". He doesn't acknowledge that one has to be spiritually qualified to receive Krsna's guidance. Wasn't it ultimately Krsna who exposed Satsvarupa's falldown, and exposed it publicly? Is it good for Satsvarupa's spiritual advancement to continue down the same route that originally caused him to fall? Granted, he may be taking it easier now, taking on less burden of responsibility for the institution, but he's still accepting the adoration and distinction of his followers, and presumably increasing his fold. It's much more likely that the cause of his falldown was due to accepting undeserved adoration rather than his over-endeavoring to manage ISKCON.
Now some people may think that I'm picking on Satsvarupa or have something personally against him, and to a certain extent that may be true. As I've stated in many previous articles, I hold Satsvarupa responsible for his actions in regards to setting down the Zonal Acarya system, what to speak of his writing of the Lilamrta. I believe that his actions and words have caused him to experience tremendous physical pain and the fall from his lofty position. While it's not my intent to inflict further personal pain on Satsvarupa by criticizing him harshly, I do intend to broadcast the fact that these actions were very detrimental to Srila Prabhupada's movement. I believe that this message must be broadcast until the institution itself publicly acknowledges the fact and addresses it philosophically. Those who encourage Satsvarupa to continue accepting adoration and distinction, and those who are condoning his activities, are simply subjecting him to more reactions and more pain in the future, because what he's doing is spiritually dishonest. So what kind of mercy is this?
Praghosa dasa has allowed us to have a peek inside the mental process he is struggling with in terms of the 'no-name' Satsvarupa. Everyone's a no-name, including the leaders he's referring to that have given him such great insights. In fact, this unknown leader has given him an excuse to simply allow him to turn his back on the teachings of the Sampradaya Acaryas and the pure sastra, and instead come up with a way to do nothing. For someone in Praghosa's circumstances, doing nothing may seem to be a far easier path, considering the fact that many of the senior people in Ireland, and many of those Praghosa dasa is trying to work with, are Satsvarupa's disciples.
The GBC has also not said or done anything about Satsvarupa in terms of his falldown and his borderline insane behaviour, other than their initial 'announcement' that Satsvarupa has fallen and will be taking a break from his duties while convalescing. In fact, Satsvarupa had been convalescing from his duties for nearly 20 years before the announced falldown. So Praghosa is left trying to justify it all in a way that he can consider bona fide. For someone who himself has a lot of responsibility to a lot of people, this is an untenable position.
Ultimately what I hear Praghosa asking is, is he personally responsible to tell his constituency the truth about Satsvarupa das Goswami? I get the feeling that Praghosa prabhu knows more than any of us about Satsvarupa and his falldown. And I don't just mean his falldown with a woman - I mean his falldown into a state of craziness, as is clearly evidenced by his art and his writings. He's now simply resting on his previous laurels, which primarily stem from his writing the Lilamrta. While discussing the book changes with Jayadvaita Swami recently, I told him that he'd better never fall down, because if he ever does after having edited all of Srila Prabhupada's books, then surely everyone will suspect his work and question what state of consciousness he was in when he was doing the editing. He agreed.
This dynamic is equally true in the case of Satsvarupa and his Lilamrta. In fact, from a certain point of view the Lilamrta is far more unbonafide or suspect then the editing of Srila Prabhupada's books. Yet nobody says anything. This big question mark should be in the minds of everyone in the movement, what to speak of Praghosa dasa.
It's also interesting to note that Satsvarupa and ISKCON love to depict Srila Prabhupada as a person who was sick and old, having heart attacks, penniless, etc., yet he carried on his service. ISKCON website biographies are full of such nonsense. By the dictates of Vaisnava literature, we should never be highlighting such aspects of Srila Prabhupada's external circumstances. Of course, there's no shortage of ISKCON leaders who have found themselves in a similar comfortable situation to Satsvarupa's because their health isn't very good, and they're now begging off their duties due to ill health. Unlike Srila Prabhupada, we never see or hear of them anymore, let alone get the benefit of their active preaching. Yet nobody says a thing.
Praghosa dasa has given us a little peek into the agony he has to go through, and anyone who has even a preliminary understanding of Krsna Consciousness can easily see that he's rationalizing, justifying, and trying to convince himself, with the use of anecdotal information and quotes from the Mahabharata (a scripture that is not emphasized by the Sampradaya Acaryas, except for the Gita). So here we have it. This is exactly what's going on -- a little microcosm of the dilemma that all these personalities are going through, whether it's Satsvarupa's disciples, Harikesh's disciples, or any number of others. The most serious aspect of what's been created is that honest devotees like Praghosa have to become dishonest to themselves, and have to sublimate their own common sense and understanding of the truth as it's presented by Srila Prabhupada. They've had to minimize Srila Prabhupada's truth, not just themselves, but to their followers and subordinates in the institution.
What a pure devotee on Srila Prabhupada's level can do in terms of forgiveness is not something that is there as an example for all of us to follow indiscriminately. Because we're not on his level, we can't simply forgive on that level and get the same effect the pure devotee would get. We have to live by certain standards that Srila Prabhupada set down as sastra, and those standards are abundantly clear, whether you look at Lord Caitanya or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, or Srila Prabhupada.
People have to live by their own results in terms of mistakes, whether it's taking sannyasa prematurely or adopting the Zonal Acarya system or joining the Gopi Bhava Club. We judge by observing reactions, and yet in the case of Satsvarupa, his disciples -- in fact, the whole movement -- has to just pretend they don't see the truth. And that's the most painful thing a devotee can experience. This is the reasoning behind brahmans not getting indebted to anyone, especially political leaders. And political leaders cannot retaliate against the brahmans because sastra protects them. Therefore, they're free to see and speak the truth. That's what Srila Prabhupada wanted us to be, brahmans. But in ISKCON, we can't be brahmans. We can't tell the truth. And without being able to tell the truth, the essential ingredient to success of the preaching movement is eliminated.
Obeisances to Dandavats, and to Sriman Praghosa dasa.
