Q&A
Q&A regarding our protest against the perpetuation of offensive statements against Gauḍīya Maṭh and Gauḍīya Maṭh sādhus in the books of Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja, as well as in his various letters and speeches, which are nowadays widely circulated around the world through different platforms.
QUESTION 1:
I do not believe that Śrīpāda Śyāma Dāsa Bābājī, in his unparalleled effort, could ever change the decisions of the GBC. Therefore, I believe that all the effort of Bābājī Mahārāja in this regard is a waste of time — that is, it cannot produce the expected result. But I do not understand why you have perpetuated the issue by searching for faults in His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedānta Svāmī.
ANSWER 1:
Yes, you are right: there is almost no hope that ISKCON will remove the offences from circulation. And this is exactly why we are no longer bringing this issue directly to ISKCON — we have been doing so for the past 40 years (starting with Śrīla Bhakti Rakṣaka Śrīdhara Deva Gosvāmī Mahārāja in 1982) with no positive response. The offences remain in circulation.
As a result, sādhu-nindā is on the rise: people are going to hell by committing offences after forming a false picture of the great Prabhupāda-pārṣadas, thanks to Svāmī Mahārāja’s “contribution.” At the same time, the common public is being cheated, because those who preserve and spread all these insults and false allegations are depriving people of the association of genuine sādhus — which is the only way to the aprakṛta-jagat. Really this is cruel jīva-hiṁsā. Śrīla Bābā Mahārāja is firmly against this jīva-hiṁsā. Try to recognize his jīve-dayā bhava.
What we like to do is to counterbalance the offences with facts and figures, giving people the opportunity to choose whom to follow and whom not to follow.
Gauḍīya-goṣṭhī-patiḥ Śrī Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda—Paramahaṁsa Jagad-Guru—said: "A fraud sādhu should be brought in to notice of public" (for the protection of pure devotional field—this is our duty).
He also said: “The positive method by itself is not the most effective method of propaganda in a controversial age like the present. The negative method which seeks to differentiate the truth from non-truth in all its forms, is even better calculated way to convey the directly inconceivable significance of the Absolute. It is a necessity which cannot be conscientiously avoided by the dedicated preacher of the truth if he wants to be a loyal servant of Godhead. The method is sure to create an atmosphere of controversy in which it is quite easy to lose one’s balance of judgment. But the ways of the deluding energy are so intricate that unless their mischievous nature is fully exposed, it is not possible for the soul in the conditioned state to avoid the snares spread by the enchantress for encompassing the ruin of her only too willing victims. It is a duty which shall be sacred to all who have been enabled to attain even a distant glimpse of the Absolute.”
Just as Śrīla Prabhupāda expressed this most important siddhānta, our ācārya Keśarī Śrīmad Bhakti Prajñāna Keśava Gosvāmī Mahārāja also affirmed it, saying: “If you want to preach the Absolute Truth, you may hurt someone's heart. 'But if you are not neutral, religion will not be saved [nirapekṣa na haile dharma na yāya rakṣaṇe (C.c Antya 3.23).]". - This simple truth of Caitanya-caritāmṛta should always be kept in mind. If we have to face extreme danger while maintaining neutrality, we should also embrace it and teach it to the whole world. No. 'satyaṁ brūyāt, priyām brūyāt, ma brūyāt satyaṁ priyām.' ["Speak the truth, speak what is pleasant, but do not speak the unpleasant truth."] Unless we completely violate this principle as per Śrīla Gurupādapadma's will, no good can be expected in the Vaiṣṇava Society.”
Now, thanks to our website echoes-of-eternity.com, everyone can access various historical facts, along with conclusions based on scriptural evidence regarding those facts, and ultimately decide for themselves what to do with their lives.
Had ISKCON removed the offences from circulation, still Bābā Mahārāja would serve the same purpose — namely, to preach to people about Guru- and Vaiṣṇava-tattva, Vaiṣṇava-aparādha, etc., in order to save them from following a bogus Guru (or those cheaters) — but in a positive way, without making direct references. That approach, however, would require much more time. So perhaps it is even better that ISKCON did not remove the offences — so now he has the golden opportunity to preach effectively using the negative method approved by The Prabhupāda.
QUESTION 2:
This is all wrong, because Svāmī Mahārāja asked for forgiveness.
ANSWER 2:
This is one of the most frequent statements we hear. We strongly recommend that you consult the following link, where this argument is addressed in detail: https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/beyond-the-veil/ac-bhaktivedanta-swami-maharaj/analyzing-every-justification-for-those-offenses/but-he-asked-for-forgiveness
A brief answer:
Svāmī Mahārāja, aside from a few personal discussions with the Vaiṣṇavas he had offended, asked forgiveness through a third person. This is not the way Mahāprabhu taught us regarding how to properly ask for forgiveness (all scriptural evidence is provided in the link above).
Furthermore, although Svāmī Mahārāja asked for forgiveness, he did not issue an immediate order to remove all those offences, nor did he release any document or note acknowledging his mistake and re-establishing the glories of those sincere followers of Śrīla Prabhupāda whom he had offended. If you slap someone and then ask for forgiveness—while continuing to slap that person again and again—can such an apology be accepted?
Of course, Guru-Vaiṣṇavas do not take offence, nor do they ever feel injustice, because they realize that everything is happening according to the desire of Bhagavān (except for Svāmī Mahārāja, who was always feeling injustice and constantly complained). But can Bhagavān consider such an apology valid?
Our only(?) concern is the continued circulation of these offences. The facts remain: the offences were indeed committed (as acknowledged by Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja himself), and Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja did ask for forgiveness. Yet, somehow, the effects of those offences persist to this day. The problem has not been solved at all.
QUESTION 3:
a) Our movement is descending, and this means that those who are subordinate, or appear to come later, have neither the right nor the duty to point out faults in their superiors. It is always the spiritual master who guides the disciple, even if he is not physically present on the planet. This is the absolute principle. Therefore, only SDG Bhakti Siddhānta has the role of correcting.
b) He [Svāmī Mahārāja] is a godbrother of Bābājī Mahārāja’s spiritual master — so where is the authority to do such a thing?
[questions received from the same person on two different dates]
ANSWER 3:
a) On what basis do you make this assertion? If your mother were insulted, would you remain silent just because the offender is your superior? A disciple has the duty to protect the reputation of his Guru (or Guruvarga). Didn’t Bhīṣma come after Paraśurāma? He was his disciple. Not only did he find fault with his superior, but he rejected his Guru — who was in fact a śaktyāveśa-avatāra — giving us this siddhānta:
guror apy avaliptasyakāryākāryam ajānataḥutpatha-pratipannasyaparityāgo vidhīyate (Mahābhārata, Udyoga Parva 179/25)
“It is one’s duty to leave such a guru who is attached to sense gratification and not busy with bhakti, also who has no common sense about what to do and what not to do, and deviated completely from devotional path towards negative ways can become a so-called Guru, but he should be rejected without any hesitation (or delay). This is the scriptural advice.”
Also:
“Even Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmīpad wanted to protect and preserve the divine dignity of his Gurudeva Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmīpad when Śrīla Vallabha Ācārya out of his false ego wanted to express the audacity of editing the writings (Śrī Rasāmṛta-sindhu) of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmīpad. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmīpad without any delay or hesitation protested against him (Śrīla Vallabha Ācārya) by asking: “What fault did you see in Srila Rupa Gosvamipad’s writing, that you wanted to rectify them?"
Finally, Śrīla Vallabha Ācārya he was astounded to see the profound knowledge of the young Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmīpad. He was simply speechless in front of him. If Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī could not tolerate the audacity of a personality like Śrīla Vallabha Ācārya when he expressed the desire to edit Śrī Rasāmṛta-sindhu written by his gurudev (Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmīpad), how can we tolerate those cruel and sarcastic comments against Gauḍīya Maṭha and Gauḍīya Maṭha sādhuspublished in different books and writings or speeches by ISKCON society?”(taken from https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/no-enmity-only-solution-part-3)
Vallabha Ācārya was superior to Jīva Gosvāmī, and Jīva Gosvāmī fulfilled his duty.
Satī Devī went against her own father because he insulted Vaiṣṇava-rāja Śambhu. Not only did she give a fitting answer to her superior, but she even left her body because she could not maintain the link with the offender from whom she had taken birth. Please find out more about the teachings of Satī Devī from this article: https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/no-enmity-only-solution-part-9
Śukadeva Gosvāmī was only sixteen, yet honored by sages and ṛṣis thousands of years old. What matters in bhakti is the level of consciousness, the depth of realization. Certainly, Vaiṣṇava etiquette exists, but when it comes to aparādha, age does not matter. Just as in your case, where you think Śrīla Śyām dāsa Bābā Mahārāja is committing aparādha, you are telling us what he should or should not do. Only, he is not committing aparādha: he is very merciful and cannot bear to see people follow an inauthentic path and worship a non-genuine sadhu, thereby risking not only wasting this human life but also going to hell.
b) You are asking the same question again. This probably means that you do not agree that Svāmī Mahārāja committed a Vaiṣṇava-aparādha. In that case, we invite you to read the offensive statements made by Svāmī Mahārāja: https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/shocking-letters-discovered and please bring any scriptural evidence which would prove that Svāmī Mahārāja only offended everyone for the higher sake of preaching (or for any other reason), and that there is no fault in doing that. You can quote ślokas from any authentic scripture which supports this argument that it is ok to offend Vaiṣṇavas, in certain circumstances, for certain personalities. Please do not repeat simply “he is a pure devotee” — you must prove that with śāstrīya pramāṇa, just as we have already proven (with full scriptural evidence) that he is not. Emotion is not devotion at all. Emotion can bring demotion in our devotional live, but devotion can give promotion in our devotional lives.
QUESTION 4:
His Divine Grace is no longer present in his vapu form, so how could he reply to the accusations? This is not a fair confrontation.
ANSWER 4:
This is not a confrontation. This is an attempt to present to as many people as possible a comparative statement: what is Bhaktivinoda-dhārā and what is a-Bhaktivinoda-dhārā. Bābā Mahārāja is now warning the public that if they follow Svāmī Mahārāja and his vicāra, they risk developing a wrong understanding of bhajana (due to the countless erroneous siddhāntas found in his books, lectures, speeches, letters, etc.), forming false ideas about genuine Vaiṣṇavas, committing Vaiṣṇava-aparādhas, and going to hell.
Only a sat-Guru possesses his vāṇī-svarūpa. And if Svāmī Mahārāja truly had a vāṇī-svarūpa, it would have been impossible for him to generate so many mistaken siddhāntas. Simple arithmetic.
QUESTION 5:
Material nature always holds complete power in this material world. What His Divine Grace said about the breakup of the Gauḍīya Maṭh — has not the same thing happened to ISKCON? If not worse…
ANSWER 5:
What Svāmī Mahārāja said about the breakup of the Gauḍīya Maṭh, mostly when he was already hostile towards his godbrothers, is not so important, because he was not actively participating in the life of the Maṭh, nor actively serving the mission of his Gurudeva. His information was that of an outsider (as a gṛhastha busy with his pharmaceutical business).
What happened in the Gauḍīya Maṭh after the disappearance of Śrīla Prabhupāda was arranged by Yoga-māyā. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda left so many powerful qualified Gurus that they could not all stay together in one place like lion. They had to open different branches in order to serve the mission of their Guru to the maximum most level of their capacity and according to the sevā entrusted to them — it was a must.
What happens in societies managed by bonded souls is entirely the responsibility of Mahā-māyā and completely a separate issue.
It is true that some renowned disciples of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda fell down due to offence — but this too is under the jurisdiction of Mahā-māyā, and it is a great warning for all of us that even very elevated personalities (even a jivan mukta) can commit mistakes and can fall down.
But if we accept Śrīla Bhakti Rakṣaka Śrīdhara Deva Gosvāmī Mahārāja, Śrīla Bhakti Dayita Mādhava Gosvāmī Mahārāja, Śrīla Bhakti Hṛdaya Vana Deva Gosvāmī Mahārāja, Śrīla Bhakti Vilāsa Tīrtha Gosvāmī Mahārāja (Kunjada), Śrīla Bhakti Pramoda Pūrī Gosvāmī Mahārāja, etc., as pure devotees or Prabhupāda-pārṣadas, then yāhāṅ Kṛṣṇa, tāhāṅ nāhi māyāra adhikāra — where there is Kṛṣṇa, there Māyā has no right to remain. So how could Mahā-māyā ever influence all those great personalities?
QUESTION 6:
Did not HDG also write about and appreciate the work of his godbrothers in his books?
ANSWER 6:
We object the offenses he made.
QUESTION 7:
What do you know, and what does Śrīpāda Śyāma Dāsa Bābājī know, about the cadmium poisoning allegedly carried out by his closest disciples in the last year of his life? There is serious evidence in this regard — see the profile of Nityānanda Dāsa.
ANSWER 7:
If a devotee dedicates his life to the Absolute Truth, that same Absolute Truth will manifest and protect him whenever it is needed. Devotees of Kṛṣṇa are always protected.
Śrīla Haridās Ṭhākura did not wish to participate in the antardhyāna-līlā (disappearance-līlā) of Śrīman Mahāprabhu; therefore, he requested permission to depart from this world first, and was granted it. He left his body saying “Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya…,” keeping the lotus feet of Caitanya Mahāprabhu on his chest, and gazing at His lotus mouth — this is an example of the glorious way in which Vaiṣṇavas leave this world.
QUESTION 8:
Several times His Divine Grace asked for help from the Gauḍīya Maṭh ācāryas in India, among them Śrīpāda B.D. Mādhava Mahārāja, to come to the West or to send devotees, brahmacārīs, etc., yet no one assisted him. It is not a coincidence that it took as many as thirty years before a preacher from the Gauḍīya Maṭh came to the West (’96?).
ANSWER 8:
We cannot control Guru or Vaiṣṇavas. This is a great offense. They are performing sevā according to the instructions they have received from their Gurudeva. If Gurudeva did not order them to go to foreign countries, then how and why could the disciple go? How can we dare to give instructions or advice to Vaiṣṇavas, or expect any particular sevā from them?
Another point is that our mood should be: all sevā is our sevā — we cannot expect others to help us. The Prabhupāda said once, “‘Etau cāo keno? Eto duḥkha pāo keno? —Why do you desire so much? Why do you suffer so much?’ Why do you expect so much from Nimānanda Prabhu or anyone else? Why do you feel so greatly pained when these expectations are not fulfilled? The service of śrī Guru is entirely your responsibility, from ca-va-tu, or A to Z. If someone helps you in this service, then you should feel grateful. But if you fret over someone’s refusal to help, then you will be at fault, and not him. Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is Kṛṣṇa’s major-domo. She considers Herself responsible for all services to Śrī Kṛṣṇa. If some sakhī helps Her in even the slightest way by, for example, bringing water or grinding spices, She feels indebted to her. But if no one is present to help Her render service to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, She does not complain or feel any animosity toward anyone, even in Her mind.”
Please read the following excerpt from a harikathā of Bhakti Rakṣaka Śrīdhara Mahārāja:
“We should take resort to kīrtana always, but our attitude should be such, Mahāprabhu recommends, tṛṇād api sunīchena taror iva sahiṣṇunā amāninā mānadena. […] We will be, our attitude will be humble all towards high, and if we think that we are being done wrong, still also we shall take to patience, amāni, and under no circumstances we shall work for our own position and prestige. That should not be our aim. From above, amāninā mānadena, and we shall try to respect everybody. […] No cause, we should not extend any cause for resistance, which will create resistance. Won’t create such circumstance that invites resistance: tṛṇād api sunīchena. Still if any resistance unexpectedly approaches me, I shall try my best to forbear, being conscious that my guardian’s eye over me. He’s also eager to help me in my campaign. […] And no other object will come and pollute my aim, the pure purpose of my life. I won’t allow any pollution from outside to contaminate my purity of purpose, amāninā. That pratiṣṭhā will come, or any other temptation will come and induce me to go ahead. I won’t, I should never allow any other but the satisfaction of Guru, Gaurāṅga, and Kṛṣṇa, etc., Vaiṣṇava. No other element can enter there in my purpose. The purity of purpose should always be maintained very scrupulously, amāninā, and mānadena, and I won’t shrink to give proper conduct, to show proper conduct to my environment. That is, won’t expect that they will come and help me. I must not very eagerly, amāninā mānadena Why they are not coming to help me? No such mentality. They are engaged in their own business. It is my own. Alone I shall go on with my duty. I won’t be always searching that someone must come and help me, mānadena. They are doing, let them do their own duty. It is mine. I shall go alone with this, amāninā mānadena kīrtanīyaḥ sadā hariḥ. With this attitude we shall go on.”
Once again, we cannot control Guru Vaiṣṇavas. We cannot find faults with them because they are spotless. We cannot justify any abusive action directed at Vaiṣṇavas based on our own mistaken views.
For pure Guru Vaiṣṇavas, all is the same to them — they see the desire of Bhagavān in everything. So, if “somebody is not helping me,” this means it is the desire of the Supreme Lord. Indeed, for a Paramahaṁsa Guru Vaiṣṇava, it is impossible to abandon the amanina-manadena bhāva; therefore, he never gets agitated even if some sort of injustice has been done to him. What to speak of when no injustice has been done!
Śrīla Bābā Mahārāja often says:
“A genuine Kṛṣṇa bhakta cannot have any personal complaint against anybody or against any situation. If at all any personal complaint is found with some devotee, then surely, he is not doing Kṛṣṇa bhajana.”
Śrīla Bhakti Ballabh Tīrtha Gosvāmī Mahārāja wrote in his book 'Hari-kathā and Vaiṣṇava-aparādha': “A pure devotee has no hostile adverse mentality, personal grudge or dissatisfaction to anybody. A devotee always thinks in case misbehaviour is done to him by somebody, it is the consequence of his own misdeed. He does not blame the person.”
From Srimad Bhagavatam we know the following sloka—
tat te ’nukampāṁ su-samīkṣamāṇo
bhuñjāna evātma-kṛtaṁ vipākam
hṛd-vāg-vapurbhir vidadhan namas te
jīveta yo mukti-pade sa dāya-bhāk
(ŚB 10.14.8)
Oh my Lord! When someone waiting patiently for your mercy to come on his head, thinking what all happening in his life is nothing but the reaction of his previous activities (good or bad), and he can submit unto your Lotus feet with extreme faith by body, speech and mind, then surely he becomes eligible for liberation, for it has become his rightful claim.
Another point is: if we truly believe in Bhagavān, then we cannot think that if some particular personality had not come to save us, we would be doomed. Those who have sukṛti will have to come in touch with a genuine devotee. This is the commitment of Bhagavān. From there, everything depends on our sincerity and on the type of inquiry we are making. Do we truly want Bhagavān, or only something from Bhagavān? So, a false Guru cannot save anyone. At the same time, a sat-Guru also cannot save us if we are duplicitous (not genuinely seeking Bhagavān).
What has been said does not imply that we are ungrateful; we recognize Svāmī Mahārāja’s work, but by committing and perpetuating Vaiṣṇava-aparādha, he did not give us the chance to glorify him.
QUESTION 9:
There are mitigating factors in the alleged offenses of HDG:
a) he had to deal 24 hours a day with people who did not come from any Vedic/Brahminical culture;
b) the accusations were mostly directed toward his godbrothers in an attitude of equal challenge on the battlefield;
c) we do not know exactly which subtle or gross poisons he had to ingest in his preaching activity.
ANSWER 9:
Please provide evidence from śāstras that “mitigating factors” for Vaiṣṇava-aparādha exist, and that any of the justifications you give qualifies as one of them.
QUESTION 10:
A SMALL FAULT, EVEN OF A MALIGN NATURE, CANNOT COMPROMISE THE BEAUTY OF A PURE DEVOTEE OF THE LORD!
ANSWER 10:
The affirmation you are making is a wrong siddhānta. Either one is a pure devotee, or one has a fault, however small it may be.
But let us examine some “small faults” of Svāmī Mahārāja — or rather, some of the faults or deviations which are not small at all when we consider the position and duty of an ācārya. Śrīla Prabhupāda has said: “Slightest deviation from the track of Guru-pādapadma can ultimately throw you away from Hari-bhajana.” We never tire of presenting the absolute truth:
-
INSULTING VAIṢṆAVAS.
Take a look at some of the shocking letters that we have discovered: --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/shocking-letters-discovered and other offences (against Tulasīdāsa-jī, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, and Gosvāmīs) --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/beyond-the-veil/ac-bhaktivedanta-swami-maharaj/analyzing-every-justification-for-those-offenses/he-was-a-mahabhagavat-therefore-he-cannot-make-any-mistake/part-5
-
DESTROYING OTHERS’ FAITH IN THE MISSION OF HIS OWN SAT-GURU, AND CREATING COMPETITION WITH GAUḌĪYA MAṬH.
Find out more: --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/trinad-api-sunicena
-
SNIFFING TOBACCO
all scriptural evidence regarding this matter is provided here: --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/no-enmity-only-solution-part-17
-
BLAMING/COMPLAINING ABOUT GODBROTHERS.
Please refer to all the siddhānta-vicāras provided in ANSWER 8, and find all the scriptural evidence here: --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/beyond-the-veil/ac-bhaktivedanta-swami-maharaj/analyzing-every-justification-for-those-offenses/he-was-a-mahabhagavat-therefore-he-cannot-make-any-mistake/part-1
-
MODIFIED THE SĀDHANĀ-BHAJANA PROCEDURES BY LOWERING THE PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF ROUNDS TO SIXTEEN.
This is the rule. Śrīla Bhakti Pramoda Pūrī Gosvāmī Mahārāja has said:
“Śri Śrīla Bhakti Siddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Ṭhākur Prabhupāda insisted that everyone should attempt to complete one lakh of Holy Names as a daily function. He used to remark gravely that Śrīman Mahaprabhu would not even accept water from one who did not take to chanting one lakh of Holy Names daily. Thus, his counsel stood, as all would have to find time regardless to complete this chanting of one lakh of Holy Names without fail as a daily practice. He added however that to simply complete that amount was not the main factor, but one had to strive to remain attentive throughout such chanting and try to keep clear from the offences to the Holy Names. Those who had really the slightest regard for Śrīman Mahaprabhu would never in any way neglect His words.”
You could say that Svāmī Mahārāja made some concessions to his Westerner followers, because otherwise it would have been impossible for him to preach. Here is the opinion of Śrīla Prabhupāda:
“The person to whom the ācārya is pleased to transmit his power is alone in a position to convey the divine message. This constitutes the underlying principle of the line of succession of the spiritual teachers. The ācārya thus authorized has no other duty than that of delivering intact the message received from all his predecessors. There is no difference between the pronouncements of one ācārya and another. All of them are perfect mediums for the appearance of the Divinity in the form of the transcendental Name, who is identical with His form, quality, activity, and paraphernalia.”
(Excerpt from ‘The Harmonist’, December 1931, 445 Caitanya era, by Śri Śrīla Bhakti Siddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Ṭhākur Prabhupāda)
All those concessions could have been considered an act of mercy if the preaching had been done under the shelter of The Prabhupāda and if his idealism had been maintained as the goal. But we see that this is not the case:
"In former days, sixty-four rounds used to be the standard quota from Gaudiya Vaisnavas. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura ordered his disciples to chant sixty-four rounds daily. Prabhupada saw that his Western devotees could not handle such a high quota. He asked them if they could do thirty-two rounds, and they said that was too much also. So he fixed the minimum quota at sixteen rounds, to be chanted without fail. Nowadays, many ISKCON devotees chant sixty-four rounds on Ekadasi and minimize their other activities. One reason the devotees don’t chant such a high quota is that Prabhupada has given us so many other services to do in prosecuting the Krsna Consciousness Movement. We can’t sit around all day and chant japa. A devotee asked Tamala Krsna Gosvami how he could improve his japa. TKG said that he should observe Ekadasi strictly. He should chant sixty-four rounds and stay up all night singing bhajanas. This would rejuvenate one’s spiritual life. Even that recommendation is hard to do for most of us. The sixteen rounds, chanted attentively and without offense, is sufficient."
https://satsvarupadasagoswami.com/sdgbook/free-write-journal-40
"Nevertheless, it was his sheer spiritual genius that he made various transcendental technical adjustments to suit the current times and circumstances in order to propel the movement of Lord Caitanya forward. We should never confuse such unconventional measures with deviation from disciplic conclusion. One such adjustment was the stipulation of chanting 16 rounds a day, when originally it was 64. Another is the ṛtvik system of conducting initiations."
https://www.iskcon-truth.com/Initiations-After-1977.html
-
INTRODUCED ĀŚRAMAS WHERE MEN AND WOMEN MIX TOGETHER,
which goes against the tradition of monastery life in Gauḍīya Maṭha. The attraction between men and women is a natural phenomenon. Monks must not share the same habitat with ladies.
Richard Shaw Brown, a Harināma disciple of Svāmī Mahārāja and dīkṣā disciple of Bhakti Hṛdaya Vana Deva Gosvāmī Mahārāja, stated in one of his last interviews that Vana Mahārāja suggested him not to return to ISKCON, because living in an āśrama with women would not be conducive to his spiritual life. Richard did return to ISKCON. Later he admitted: “The reason I left Vana Maharaj was because I became polluted by the mundane association of ISKCON devotees, who convinced me that Vana Maharaj (and all Gaudiya Matha devotees) were no good. It was my bad karma, but also the greatest spiritual mistake of my life leaving the sweet shelter of my Shiksha & Diksha Guru Srila Bhakti Hrdaya Vana Maharaj; and since returning to ISKCON I found everything different from the bona fide Gaudiya Math system of Srila Param-Gurudev. The whole taste is completely different.” He also stated in one of his articles: “I lived with him [Vana Mahārāja] in Vraja. In fact, he never ever criticized any of his Godbrothers.” Please find more here --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/beyond-the-veil/ac-bhaktivedanta-swami-maharaj/analyzing-every-justification-for-those-offenses/this-was-a-loving-exchange .
But the conclusion of Svāmī Mahārāja was that Vana Mahārāja was envious… Richard Shaw Brown shared his opinion about it in one of his last interviews: “Vana Mahārāja never criticized Prabhupāda [Swāmī Mahārāja]. He never said anything. He could see what was going on with girls and guys (everybody mixed together). [...] 'this is absolutely not suitable for your advancement' and he was right; he was absolutely right. I am sorry to say, he was absolutely right. [...] So it was never any put down on Prabhupāda [Swāmī Mahārāja], but Prabhupāda [Swāmī Mahārāja] had this huge put down on Vana Mahārāja — he kept saying that Vana Mahārāja is jealous and envious. It almost seemed like Prabhupāda [Swāmī Mahārāja] had been jealous and envious of Vana Mahārāja his whole life."
-
COUNTLESS WRONG SIDDHĀNTAS.
Here, as a mere example, we mention the incorrect explanation of the śloka ŚB 7.9.14 and the accusation against Śrīla Prabhupāda: the claim that Prabhupāda ordered the killing of a snake. Please read about it here --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/suppression-of-fact-is-a-great-offence-then-what-to-speak-about-misrepresentation-of-the-fact-part-1 & here --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/suppression-of-fact-is-a-great-offence-then-what-to-speak-about-misrepresentation-of-the-fact-part-2 . But there are truly countless unusual things he was preaching. From time to time, we publish articles about them.
-
UNUSUAL STATEMENTS ABOUT WOMEN, BLACK PEOPLE, ADOLF HITLER, VIOLENCE, ETC.
Find out more here: --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/beyond-the-veil/ac-bhaktivedanta-swami-maharaj/analyzing-every-justification-for-those-offenses/he-was-a-mahabhagavat-therefore-he-cannot-make-any-mistake/part-3 . Some say that those statements are grounded in the context of the epoch in which Svāmī Mahārāja lived. But we are following the ācāryas from the same epoch, and we have never heard anything like that from them.
-
ETC.
QUESTION 11:
Therefore, I kindly request Śrīpāda Śyāma Dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja to cease any public accusations or the search for faults in the activities of previous ācāryas, among them the liberator of the Western world, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swāmī Mahārāja. He should remember that the very ācārya, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, whom Bābājī always mentions, empowered his disciple to preach in the West — otherwise, how could he alone have accomplished so many wonders? And I repeat: if there were any mistakes, it is the duty of the spiritual master to correct the disciple, not others, and least of all openly, publicly.
ANSWER 11:
Śrīla Bābā Mahārāja, for our spiritual benefit, is only presenting the facts and providing scriptural evidence. Someone should be there to open our eyes. This is not criticism according to Śrīla Prabhupāda, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, and other previous Guruvarga.
Svāmī Mahārāja indeed received power from The Prabhupāda, but he ultimately misused that divine power.
Now, how can we accept Svāmī Mahārāja as the liberator of the Western world? Kindly consider all previous answers. The members of a society that prints books containing offenses against Vaiṣṇavas have not understood what bhajana is, because even the very preliminary knowledge is missing there — the knowledge of the danger of Vaiṣṇava-aparādha. Liberation (or bhakti according to our Gauḍīya siddhānta) is the result of proper practice. If practice is not proper, the result cannot be proper.
Bhakti Rakṣaka Śrīdhara Deva Gosvāmī Mahārāja, while explaining ajñāta-sukṛti, says:
“Suppose a man has built a dharmashala. So many persons of different types come to stay there, but because they take advantage of the energy of the builder, the results of their actions will go to him. A dacoit may come and stay. A pilgrim may also come and a sadhu also. If a dacoit will stay, then because he utilizes the energy of the owner of the dharmashala, the owner will have to take some bad reaction (papa), and will suffer for that. But if an honest man will stay there then the owner will get some punya, pious credit. In this way, papa and punya will come to him, but after duly suffering or enjoying those fruits, they will be finished. However if a real sadhu, a devotee, will stay there and utilize the owner’s energy, then that owner will acquire something permanent.”
By giving our energy to some sinful person, we will ultimately suffer negative reactions. Now, consider the case when we give our energy to someone who commits aparādha. We should be very careful whom we serve, what kind of organization we belong to, and what kind of literature or information we are spreading.
To open the eyes of the general public is called jīve-doya. Vaiṣṇavas cannot bear how common people are destroying their lives in the name of Hari-bhajana.
QUESTION 12
What I don’t understand is that you focus on quibbles instead of observing and appreciating the work that Śrīla A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swāmī has done and continues to do — something at which others have historically failed.
It’s like the story of the sour grapes: since you haven’t reached, or cannot reach, what A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda has accomplished, you limit yourselves to saying that the grapes are sour — you minimize or even ridicule His works.
ANSWER 12
What limit was maintained by your late Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja in the way of insulting and abusing Śrī Gauḍīya Maṭha and Gauḍīya Guruvarga specially Gauḍīya Maṭha Guruvarga—so that now you are ready to teach us the limitation of our strong objection against those remarks, whereas limitless efforts should be done for the protection and preservation of the divine dignity of Śrī Gauḍīya Maṭha and Gauḍīya Guruvarga as per the conclusion of all Sat-śāstras. Why you like to forget the case of Dakṣa Prajāpati who insulted Vaiṣṇava-rāja Śaṁbhu unnecessarily and the final result of his Vaiṣṇava-aparādha. Satī-devī burnt up her body in fire flashed out of yoga-agni to cut off forever her bodily relationship with such dirty father who was a great Vaiṣṇava offender.
BEFORE PASSING ANY REMARK ABOUT THIS YOU ARE REQUESTED TO STAND ON THE NEUTRAL PLATFORM AS PER GAUḌĪYA-SIDDHĀNTA-VICĀRA.
Many temples, many followers, much opulence — these are not the signs of perfect guru-sevā, nor of success in the spiritual field. Every result would have had positive value only if it had been achieved under the guidance of Śrīla Prabhupāda (Bhaktisiddhānta) — that is, by following his siddhānta and method without alteration.
Śrīla Prabhupāda (Bhaktisiddhānta) never made compromises. The goal is not expansion; the goal is to transmit divya-jñāna — eternal knowledge. And if people continue to print books that contain Vaiṣṇava-aparādha, then even the foundations for beginning spiritual life are missing — what to speak of attaining success (which is a long journey).
History shows what happened in ISKCON with the so-called “advanced” disciples. We don’t wish to go into details here (nowadays everyone can find plenty of information on the internet) but we mention it only to make it clear that real success is something entirely different.
Of course, everyone is free to follow whichever Guru or organization they wish — this is not our concern. Here we are speaking about offenses, which must be removed. Once the criticisms are removed from the books and the internet, we won’t raise the topic again.
Who else would have “failed”? Gaura Kiśora Dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja? Rūpa Gosvāmī? Jīva Gosvāmī?
Bhakti means to love the Vaiṣṇavas, not to engage in personality cults. It’s not a competition. If you love your Guru, you must also love the other Gurus. If you feel satisfied while Vaiṣṇavas are being constantly offended, then something is wrong in your spiritual life.
QUESTION 13
Why would Swāmī Mahārāja have made those statements?
Was he being attacked?
ANSWER 13
We would also like to understand this… We have not seen anywhere a single offense directed toward Swāmī Mahārāja. Philosophical debates are one thing, but poisoning an entire generation is something completely different.
QUESTION 14
Although I do not know him personally, I consider Śrīpāda Syām dāsa Bābājī an honest and sincere devotee of the Lord, and I do not see the reason for this display of spiritual knowledge set against SDG A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swāmī. After all this time, what is the purpose of such a fierce confrontation? I have seen that true sādhus never openly criticize anyone—rather, they see the sin, not the sinner. Do you think that Bābājī’s contingent action fits the three reasons given by Bhakti Vinoda Ṭhākura for when it would be appropriate to find fault in someone?
Śrīpāda Syām dāsa Bābājī is a high-grade Vaishnava, but if it were possible to point out to him that he has nothing to gain from this issue…
----------------------------
The statement by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura that this question refers to:
"The scriptures have not condemned a careful critique of someone’s faults”
However, provided one has the right motive, the scriptures have not condemned a careful critique of someone’s faults.
*Proper motive is of three types: desiring the welfare of the person criticized, desiring the welfare of the world and desiring one’s own welfare
There are three types of proper motive:
(1) If the intention in analyzing someone’s sins is to ensure that he attains his ultimate welfare, then such reflection is auspicious.
(2) If the motive behind reflecting on someone’s sins is to benefit the whole world, then this is to be counted as an auspicious act.
(3) If such reflection is undertaken for one’s own spiritual welfare, then it too, is auspicious. There is no fault in such reflection.
When one reflects upon the historical accounts of personalities like Valmiki or Jagai and Madhaiin light of one or more of these three virtuous motives, then such reflection is never the cause of incurring sin. When a disciple humbly asks his spiritual master to instruct him on how to identify a Vaiṣṇava, the spiritual master, desiring the welfare of his disciple and of the whole world, explains that those who exhibit unholy behaviour are non-Vaiṣṇavas. He thus points out how to identify true Vaiṣṇavas through antithesis.
With the motive of encouraging one to accept the shelter of the lotus feet of a true Vaiṣṇava by abandoning false, so-called preachers of religion, one neither risks committing blasphemy of saints (sādhu-nindā) nor vaiṣṇava-aparādha (offence to Vaiṣṇavas). In such cases, even criticism directed at a specific person is free from fault. These are all examples of criticizing with the proper motive.
(Vaisnava Ninda)
----------------------------
ANSWER 14
Śrīla Bābā Mahārāja never had any desire to do all this, and he would never have done it if ISKCON had responded properly to the letters of protest repeatedly written by the entire Vaiṣṇava community. Bābā Mahārāja accepted this seva from the senior Vaiṣṇavas. Still, faced with the negative response of the people, he was ready to stop—provided that the present ācāryas would send him signed letters releasing him from this responsibility, so that he could show them to Prabhupāda and find peace concerning the sevā entrusted to him. Here is the link we have published many times: --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/a-very-urgent-note-of-humble-apology-on-behalf-of-our-society-sri-bhakti-siddhanta-vani-seva-trust
There, it is highlighted: if no ācārya sends any request, then we may take it for granted that they approve of this kind of absolute sevā by Śrīla Bābā Mahārāja. Until now, however, no letter has been received.
So if you can, please speak with the ācāryas you know and ask them to send this request in the way that has been outlined.
In any case, Bābā Mahārāja has already written that he will stop speaking about this subject on December 31st. Until that date, he will respond to all controversial questions. Here you can read what he has said regarding our misfortune: --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/a-divine-declaration-done-by-srila-shyam-das-baba-maharaj
His notes of protest were approved by Bhakti Vijñāna Bhāratī Mahārāja and by other Vaiṣṇavas. Please read the following in order to understand why it may appear that the activities of Śrīla Bābā Mahārāja differ from those of our previous Guruvarga. Here is a link to an article called "Why do you say or do what no Vaishnava has ever said or done previously?": --> https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/beyond-the-veil/ac-bhaktivedanta-swami-maharaj/analyzing-every-justification-for-those-offenses/why-do-you-say-or-do-different-things .
In one Harikathā, Bābā Mahārāja said that ISKCON committed a grave mistake in not withdrawing from circulation all the offenses against Vaiṣṇavas made by Swāmī Mahārāja — and therefore now he is compelled to reveal the full truth about Swāmī Mahārāja’s personality.
Yes, Bābā Mahārāja is acting fully under the guidance of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura. In almost all of his articles you will find support for his words from Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, Prabhupāda, and the other Guruvarga.
Bābā Mahārāja does not condemn the jīva conditioned by Māyā — how could a Vaiṣṇava do that? If you only knew the anarthas and faults of people with whom Bābā Mahārāja is dealing, and saw how he responds, how he always tries to help them… He is like Baladeva: helping us — who are like Duryodhana — until the very last moment. What he does is solely for our good, and also for the good of Swāmī Mahārāja. He loves everyone, including Swāmī Mahārāja. But it is his duty to show anger in front of Vaiṣṇava-aparādha. You call Bābā Mahārāja a ‘high-grade Vaiṣṇava,’ yet at the same time you think that he is making a mistake. Both cannot be true simultaneously. You have respect for Śyām Bābā and you recognize that what he is saying is correct and fully founded on the śāstras.
QUESTION 15
According to the siddhānta as I have understood it, the ācārya is always one—just like Kṛṣṇa, who is always one but manifests in multiple forms depending on the place and circumstance. Yet His function is always to protect the devotees and annihilate the demons. So if Syām dāsa Bābājī accepts one manifestation of the ācārya and verbally denigrates another, I do not find that correct.
ANSWER 15
There already lies a difference between our opinions regarding the acceptance of Swāmī Mahārāja as that ācārya who holds an eternal place in Vaikuṇṭha. There are many scriptural evidences and countless articles of Bābā Mahārāja showing that Swāmī Mahārāja does not possess the necessary qualities to be described in this way. The decisive evidence is that a Vaiṣṇava can never offend another Vaiṣṇava. And if you intend to “explain” to us that it was a “loving exchange,” please do not, because the results of his preaching show the opposite: aversion toward the Gauḍīya Maṭh, the creation of ISKCON as a new sampradāya with altered rules and standards, offenses against Vaiṣṇavas, and so on. ISKCON cannot be considered a positive outcome of preaching. A society that prints books containing offenses toward Vaiṣṇavas cannot bring benefit to anyone. And one who is tainted by Vaiṣṇava-aparādha, who harbors a hostile or disrespectful attitude toward Vaiṣṇavas, cannot make progress in spiritual life. To say the least…
QUESTION 16
Did not Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta have deep respect for Vāṁśī dāsa Bābājī?
Did Mahāprabhu not say something like: “Even if I were to see Nityānanda coming out of a liquor shop, He is still my adorable Lord”?
[This question refers to the fact that Swāmī Mahārāja regularly sniffed tobacco.]
ANSWER 16
The examples you mentioned (the activities of Śrīla Vaṁśīdāsa Bābājī Mahārāja, or Śrī Gaurasundara’s statement: even if I saw Nityānanda come out of a liquor shop, He is still my adorable Lord) are not applicable. Many stories have been created and spread about Śrīla Vaṁśī dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja. It is said that he was seen smoking, but in reality, he never smoked tobacco or indulged in any other form of intoxication. Paramahaṁsa Vaiṣṇavas are situated on the transcendental plane, beyond all material feelings. As for us, being situated on the material level, we cannot comprehend their vañcana maya-līlā. Still, if one chooses to believe that he was consuming tobacco or ate fish(!), that is their decision. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu made this comment about Nityānanda Prabhu to show that He is completely free from any fault; it does not mean that Nityānanda was actually drinking liquor or having some other addiction. An ācārya must teach through his own example (ācaraṇa), otherwise he cannot be called an ācārya and to take on the role of a world teacher. In the article that raised your concerns (https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/no-enmity-only-solution-part-17) this point is explained. But anyway, Vaiṣṇava-aparādha can never be justified.
QUESTION 17
We grew up with Śrīla Prabhupāda and the sādhus of the Śrī Caitanya Mission, didn’t we?
ANSWER 17
Not all grew up with Swāmī Mahārāja and, fortunately, some discovered many of these issues we are now discussing before developing an attachment that would have blinded them. New generations will come who will look with impartial eyes and, if they have a little sukṛti, they will choose to stay away from ISKCON (if it still exists) and from the vicāra of Swāmī Mahārāja (which contains offenses, mistaken siddhānta, violence, racism, other forms of discrimination, and nonsense). It is not so important how famous a person is, how many followers he has, or how much opulence surrounds him. What matters is being able to sleep peacefully with the philosophy we hear from that person. And Swāmī Mahārāja’s philosophy would not let many people sleep peacefully. It frightens. And thank God there is one person (Śrīla Śyām dāsa Bābā Mahārāja) who told us that, in reality, those things have nothing to do with Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. Others, whom you call “true sādhu,” have not shown us such mercy.
In economics and behavioral psychology there is a principle called the sunk cost fallacy: when someone makes a wrong investment, he tends to keep investing time, money, or energy just because he has already spent so much, even though he knows it is no longer the right choice. In this way, instead of stopping, he continues to lose even more. The wiser choice is to recognize the mistake, let it go, and turn to better decisions. In spiritual life, it is not about money but about the survival of the soul. Letting go of a wrong investment is essential.
QUESTION 18
Why does Bābājī Mahārāja not come to the West to preach, if he has all this combative spirit to challenge Śrīla Prabhupāda? Then he will realize how the siddhānta-vicāra he represents can be used here. Let Bābājī Mahārāja come and try to carry out the activities of preaching and giving shelter to mlecc̣has and yāvanas.
ANSWER 18
You meant that in the West the siddhānta-vicāra preached by Bābā Mahārāja cannot be successful. That is natural. But for this reason, we cannot create a new sampradāya. Preaching becomes easy in that way. Our Gauḍīya Guruvarga teaches that preaching means establishing the siddhānta of one’s Guru in the disciples and instilling in them love for him. But today many people do not even know who the original Prabhupāda is.
Please examine the siddhānta presented by Bābā Mahārāja, and explain why he should not caution us about whom to follow. If any fault is found in his siddhānta, then surely you have your right to protest. If possible, kindly also establish the authenticity of Swāmī Mahārāja’s behavior (in relation to offenses, addictions, deviations, etc.).
The greatest and unrepayable debt for a jīva is to be placed on an authentic path, to gain realizations, and to come into contact with the aprakṛta-jagat. If one insults Vaiṣṇavas, none of this is possible. Yet this does not erase the good intentions Swāmī Mahārāja had at the start of his mission. He was sincere, humble, and empowered by Prabhupāda, but he misused that power. We offer my obeisances to A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swāmī Mahārāja until the last moment, when he was still free from Vaiṣṇava-aparādha.
QUESTION 19:
Svāmī Mahārāja’s Offences Were a Strategy to Protect ISKCON (?)
a) The logical and philosophical mistakes that appear when one studies śāstra [books of Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja] carefully—anyone can notice them, such as the undervaluation of the role of the living ācārya. But isn’t it also true that they [followers of ISKCON] are nonetheless being purified, and that it is Kṛṣṇa who manifests the ācārya? When the disciple is ready, Kṛṣṇa sends the spiritual master.
b) Why, then, not see Swāmījī’s supposed “offences” as a strategy for the survival of an institution not yet mature enough to understand the differences and teachings of other ācāryas? Are you really convinced that Swāmījī did not appreciate his godbrothers? Why, then, did he tell his disciples that “he could criticize them, but they could not”?
ANSWER 19:
a) Following certain rules and increasing the level of sattva-guṇa can help to attain bhakti (indirectly), but only if one does not commit vaiṣṇava-aparādha and if ultimately comes in contact with a genuine devotee. One must be connected with the authentic sampradāya. Realizations can enter our heart only from the heart of a bhakta. Instead, within ISKCON and everything connected to it, there are too many risks of committing vaiṣṇava-aparādha (they are found even in the books they read). So much preaching has been done and is still going on, but why do we not see positive results? Where are the realized souls?
Even before a sat-guru one can be completely deceived by Māyā—what to speak, then, of situations where the gurus themselves do not even possess the minimal quality required to occupy their position—love for Vaiṣṇavas?
Please consult Jaiva Dharma by Bhakti Vinoda Ṭhākura, Chapter 6, “Nitya-dharma, Race & Caste,” in order to better understand the following conclusions:
Bhakti (devotion to Bhagavān) is only possible when one possesses śraddhā (faith). Śraddhā is not something random—it depends on spiritually pious activities, not on materially pious activities. Spiritually pious activities are those connected with Bhagavān and His devotees.
Materially pious and spiritually pious actions belong to two different categories. Material piety leads to material enjoyment, whereas spiritually pious activities lead to the development of śraddhā, sādhu-saṅga (association with devotees), and bhakti.
Without having accumulated spiritual merit, it is not possible to have faith or to advance in spiritual life.
Therefore, one can advance only when these merits are sufficiently developed. We know that offences against devotees destroy spiritual life. This means that one can lose all previously accumulated spiritual merit and thus become deprived of śraddhā and consequently of bhakti. Therefore, if a person who is offensive to the devotees speaks to us about Bhagavān, and even if we begin some devotional practice after meeting that person—which would ordinarily help us accumulate spiritual merit and develop faith—still, because that person contaminates us with offences, they will ultimately destroy our spiritual life. The negative effect of offences against devotees is far greater than whatever benefit might arise from the initial devotional practices begun after such an encounter.
Nitya-sukṛti (spiritual merit that increase faith in unalloyed devotion) is only possible through bhakta-saṅga (association with a śuddha-bhakta, a pure devotee) and through bhakti-kriyā-saṅga (participation in the activities performed by a śuddha-bhakta or performing them on one’s own). Someone who offends Vaiṣṇavas cannot be considered a śuddha-bhakta, and association with such a person will not generate nitya-sukṛti. Those who are committing offences, especially against Vaiṣṇavas are extremely dangerous, because such offences consume all of our nitya-sukṛti and bind us to remain in this saṁsāra in an unending cycle of birth and death.
To come into contact with a pure devotee, one must have accumulated nitya-sukṛti. If nitya-sukṛtis are not present, then no one can help such a person advance in bhakti, because only a śuddha-bhakta has that power, and the person in question does not yet have sufficient sukṛti to meet and genuinely associate with a pure devotee. Such a person must continue accumulating enough nitya-sukṛtis and avoiding committing offences; only then can they come into contact with a śuddha-bhakta and with śuddha-bhakta-kriyā.
b) A school teacher cannot rebel against university knowledge and against those who teach it.
They can only surrender themselves and tell the students: “Right now it is too early; you must first become qualified.” The school teacher cannot tell the students that the school is actually the university, and that nothing else is needed. Nor can they prevent those who have already passed their exams and are ready to enrol in the university from doing so, slandering those professors and claiming that they are the ones who have deviated.
When the disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda (Bhaktisiddhānta) asked him whether they could go to Śrīla Vaṁśīdāsa Bābājī Mahārāja and Śrīla Gaura Kiśora Dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja, Śrīla Prabhupāda forbade almost all of them, explaining that those devotees were Paramahaṁsas—that is, beyond all rules and regulations—and that their conduct was very difficult to understand. Therefore, visiting them was dangerous, because one might easily commit vaiṣṇava-aparādha. He never said that they were “envious,” “not even human beings,” “śūdras,” or anything of that sort. So, if Śrīla Svāmī Mahārāja considered his Godbrothers too elevated for his followers, he could have explained it in the same way his Gurudeva did.
It is not at all expected that any ācārya would offend Vaiṣṇavas for the sake of preaching. We have never heard of such a thing. Preaching is only possible by the power of Nityānanda through the perfect conduct (ācāra) and idealism (adārṣa). Vaiṣṇavas need not invent any new strategy or display any tricks. They simply follow the śrouta-pāṇṭha—the path shown by the previous ācāryas. Offences to Vaiṣṇavas are never approved by the śāstras. The injunctions of the śāstras clearly state that offending the Vaiṣṇavas is the most dangerous thing that can happen. Here are some evidences from the śāstras:
śūlapāṇi-sama yadi bhakta-nindā kare
bhāgavata-pramāṇa—tathāpiha śīghra mare
(CB Madhya 13.388)
“According to the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (5.10.25), even if someone on the level of Lord Śiva blasphemes a devotee, he will soon be destroyed.”
mahad-vimānāt sva-kṛtād dhi
mādṛṅnaṅkṣyaty adūrād api śūlapāṇiḥ
(389)
“Because of this, even though I may be as strong as Lord Śiva, I shall be vanquished without delay due to my offense at the lotus feet of a Vaiṣṇava.”
hena vaiṣṇava ninde yadi sarvajña hai
se janera adhaḥpāta—sarva śāstre kai
(390)
“In all scriptures it is stated that if an all-knowing person blasphemes a Vaiṣṇava, he will certainly fall down.”
sarva-mahā-prāyaścita ye kṛṣṇera nāma
vaiṣṇavāparādhe seha nā milaye trāṇa
(391)
“Kṛṣṇa’s name, which is the ultimate atonement, does not deliver one who offends a Vaiṣṇava.”
śūlapāṇi-sama yadi vaiṣṇavere ninde
tathāpiha nāśa paya—kahe śāstra -vṛnde
(CB Madhya 22.55)
“Even if someone of the level of the supremely powerful devotee and gunāvatara Lord Śīva blasphemes a devotee, he will soon be destroyed. This is the verdict of all the scriptures.”
ihā nā māniyā ye sujana nindā kare mad
janme janme se pāpiṣṭha daive dose mare
(56)
“Sinful people who ignore the above fact and criticize devotees suffer the heaviest of all punishment of providence birth and birth.”
anyera ki dayā gaura-siṁhera jananī
tāṅhāre o vaishnavaparadha kari gani
(57)
“What to speak of others, even the supreme mother of the Supreme Lord Himself Gaura Simha was not exempt from being considered an offender of a Vaiṣṇava.”
There are precise instructions on how to behave when confronted with offences: one cannot remain silent. Śrīla Bhakti Siddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Ṭhākura said that:
“To become angry or to lose patience while Guru-Vaiṣṇavas are being insulted by someone is called bhakti. To keep silence in that case can make us fall down.”
QUESTION 20:
They Called Us “Mleccha Hippies” in Māyāpura
When we went to Māyāpura the Godbrothers were very disrespectful. They called us the hippie class and not the first class, and refused to eat food "cooked by the mlecchas" and they threw our prasāda plates on the ground. A Kṛṣṇa devotee should be happy to see another jīva become a Kṛṣṇa bhakta and not complain this jīva is a mleccha hippie, Westerner, etc. To say I am a mleccha hippie is called bodily identity, and it is against the principle that I am a spirit soul and not a mleccha, a hippie, or anything else; I am part and parcel of the Supreme God.
ANSWER 20:
This is a very deep subject, and it is not easy to represent all related Gauḍīya siddhānta in one short answer. To understand Gauḍīya darśana, we need to listen continuously to the Hari-kathā coming from the lotus mouth of a pure Vaiṣṇava.
For the better understanding of the readers, we wish to explain that the comment in question was made after we published a post exposing the offences committed by Śrīla A.C. Bhakti Vedānta Swāmī Mahārāja against Bhakti Vilāsa Tīrtha Gosvāmī Mahārāja, Kuñja Dā. We suppose that the author of this comment wanted to justify the heavy criticism by his guru, Śrīla A.C. Bhakti Vedānta Swāmī Mahārāja.
First of all, we are very surprised that someone (the author of the comment in this case) thinks that a genuine follower of Gauḍīya Maṭha does not know the siddhānta regarding the position of a devotee of Kṛṣṇa. The Prabhupāda faced severe opposition from smarta brāhmaṇas during his preaching: he was harshly attacked for giving brahminical initiations to people born in śūdra families and for insisting that the position of a brāhmaṇa and the post of guru are not hereditary. In the assembly at Bālighāi, he presented ‘Brāhmaṇa o Vaiṣṇavera taratamya‑viṣayaka siddhānta’ — a conclusion concerning the comparison of brāhmaṇas and Vaiṣṇavas — providing evidence to ascertain who is truly a brāhmaṇa or a Vaiṣṇava, and asserting that only a Vaiṣṇava is a true brāhmaṇa, superior to those who claim brāhmaṇa‑hood by birth.
We assure you that all followers of Śrīla Prabhupāda are well aware of this basic siddhānta. What to speak of Kuñja Dā, who, as Śrīla Prabhupāda himself stated, is “the very form of service to Śrī Guru and the dearest to Śrī Guru.” Unless one wishes to go against Śrīla Prabhupāda, this statement must be accepted as axiomatic by everyone.
Now, does this mean that brahminical initiation can be given to anybody? No. Unless one demonstrates the minimum qualifications of a brāhmaṇa, one cannot properly chant the Brahma Gāyatrī mantra; and at the same time, the Brahma Gāyatrī mantra can help one attain the perfection of a brāhmaṇa. When a practitioner acquires sufficient qualification, he may be permitted by his sat-guru to perform activities prescribed for brāhmaṇas (in this case, cooking for Kṛṣṇa in the temple).
Remember, Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas are not prakṛta-sahajiyās: each person should follow varṇāśrama-dharma system up to the stage of paramahaṁsa. Once someone reaches the stage of paramahaṁsa, there is no longer any need to follow rules. Still, one point must be emphasized: in our Gauḍīya line, The Prabhupāda and his parṣadas are all paramahaṁsas. Yet they acted within varṇāśrama-dharma out of humility and for our benefit—for preaching.
Everyone can become eligible for bhakti: both those who are within Vedic culture (participating in varṇāśrama system) and those outside it. In the 6 chapter of Jaiva Dharma, Muslims are given as an example, but in case of Westerners it should be clear that they also do not belong to varṇāśrama system and are therefore objectively considered mlecchas. However, this external designation is irrelevant on a soul level, because following varṇāśrama-dharma itself cannot generate spiritual merit (nitya sukṛti); it can only produce material results. Still, it can help elevate one’s consciousness and indirectly assist in accumulating spiritual merit.
Belonging to a certain varṇa, or being outside the varṇāśrama system altogether, is temporary and depends on one’s past activities (pious or sinful). On the material level (the relative point of view), there is a difference between someone belonging to a varṇa and someone outside varṇāśrama, and it is compulsory to follow the rules and restrictions appropriate to one’s position until and unless one develops the qualification to transcend the rules set for this material world—that is, until one reaches the paramahaṁsa stage. On the spiritual level (the absolute point of view), there is no difference at all—everyone has an equal opportunity to attain the supreme goal of life.
Mlecchas, not being part of varṇāśrama, cannot take up the responsibilities prescribed for brāhmaṇas until and unless they attain bhakti, and even in this case they should not transgress religious rules of naimittika nature. For example, marriage is one of the ten kinds of social rites (smarta-karma); therefore, a Vaiṣṇava who is not part of varṇāśrama should only marry someone who is also not part of varṇāśrama.
So, when somebody receives the brahminical thread, this does not automatically qualify them for brahminical activities (Indian or Westerner). One needs to become a brāhmaṇa first. Without possessing the qualities of a brāhmaṇa, it is not possible to become a Vaiṣṇava. In other words, if one is already a Vaiṣṇava, brahmanism is automatically present—just as in 100 rupees, 50 rupees are included.
Another consideration we want to bring to your attention is that in Gauḍīya Maṭha we are following the order of Caitanya Mahāprabhu (and consequently of Śrīla Bhakti Siddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda), who stated that he would not accept even a glass of water in the house of someone who is not chanting 64 rounds or 1 lakh of hari-nāma. We know that Śrīla A.C. Bhakti Vedānta Swāmī asked his disciples to chant 16 rounds because, in the West, nobody was ready to follow the instructions of The Prabhupāda. Also, we know that many devotees did not know proper etiquette and rules of purity. We do not say that everybody must follow strict rules and regulations immediately—they can advance gradually—but we do say that the standard in our Gauḍīya bhajana is set by Mahāprabhu: what He decided, that we are to follow, today or tomorrow. And if we do not follow as yet, then we cannot claim to have the proper qualification for certain sevā.
So, Vaiṣṇavas naturally are very careful: they try to follow all the rules themselves and are also cautious about accepting food from others. If they care about their spiritual advancement, they must consider who donated the money (was it donated by an honest gṛhastha or by someone engaged in illegal activities?), who cooked, who distributed it (is their ācāraṇa proper? Have they developed detachment from material life, etc.?).
Even Mahāprabhu was very pleased when Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī stopped inviting Him to take prasāda arranged with the money of Raghunātha’s materialistic father and uncle—even though externally they were initiated devotees. Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī himself never took that prasāda; he was offering it to Mahāprabhu only. These are the words of Mahāprabhu (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā, chapter 6):
Śrīman Mahāprabhu said,—
“viṣayīra anna khāile malina haya mana
malina mana haile nahe kṛṣṇera smaraṇa
“Taking rice arranged by any materialistic people can contaminate our heart in such a way so that we cannot remember all about Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, uninterruptedly.” (278)
viṣayīra anna haya ‘rājasa’ nimantraṇa
dātā, bhoktā — duṅhāra malina haya mana
“Any bhanḍārā arranged by any materialistic person can contaminate both the heart of the donor and the one who is taking prasādam (?) there.” (279)
iṅhāra saṅkoce āmi eta dina nila
bhāla haila — jāniyā āpani chāḍi dila”
“I was in hesitation to ignore the invitation of Raghunātha (Śrīla Dāsa Gosvāmī) so I was bound to accept it unwillingly, but it is very good that he himself could realise the negative point and automatically has stopped inviting Me.” (280)
Śrīla Gaura Kiśora Dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja almost never accepted anything from anyone—even from initiated (Indian) devotees. Should we start fighting with him for that? Or should we admire the kind of idealism he followed?
Prasāda is actually a rare thing. And we are not joking with you. If you want to play a “bhajana game,” you are free to do so; but if you are serious about your advancement, then you need to find out the opinions of our previous ācāryas—for example, Jīva Gosvāmīpāda, who said that not everyone is allowed on the vyāsāsana, in Kṛṣṇa’s kitchen, on the altar, etc.
Here, we quote Bhakti Rakṣaka Śrīdhara Deva Gosvāmī Mahārāja:
Gradations of Prasadam
Sometimes the question is asked whether the ordinary masses benefit from prasāda distribution. So much purity will be transmitted to those that will take prasādam, but the question of degree is there. There is prasādam from the mahā-bhāgavata, prasādam from the madhyama-bhāgavata, and prasādam from the kaniṣṭha-bhāgavata. It all depends upon who is responsible for the prasādam and what is his connection with divinity. The current must be there, just as it is with an electrical box—you may connect all the wiring, but if there is no current then what is its value? Vaikuṇṭha nāma grahaṇe—the transcendental connection must be there. Otherwise form is simply form and it is useless. The spirit must be within the form. Form is also necessary—wiring is necessary in order to utilize the electric current, but mere wiring has no utility. So prasāda distribution should have a real connection with divinity otherwise it is all trade, an external exhibition. An ulterior motive may be there and it will become a business. Just as the jātī-gosvāmīs make a trade of taking money by reading the Bhāgavatam. But if the man behind the prasāda distribution has a sincere connection with the Lord, and the connection comes and pervades everything, then that is prasādam. Otherwise it is imitation.
(Excerpt from Encounters with Divinity by Śrīla B. R. Śrīdhara Deva Gosvāmī Mahārāja)
Pure devotees can never offend—neither another Vaiṣṇava nor any other jīva. But it is possible to misunderstand them if one has not developed proper darśana. It is also possible that some immature devotees might act improperly. Is the author referring to an unfortunate incident, or did he simply fail to properly understand the mood of the Vaiṣṇavas?
Anyway, Vaiṣṇavas are always spotless; we should not try to find faults in them, nor try to control them. As for practitioners, if some of them have made a mistake, why should we offend anyone? Kṣamā (forgiveness) is one of the qualities of a brāhmaṇa.
Also, why did you not raise any protest when A.C. Bhakti Vedānta Svāmī said these things:
"Prabhupāda: […] So unless one is materially not ordinary, he cannot preach. All the Gosvāmīs, they were coming from respectable . . . and why Gauḍīya Maṭha came? These are third-class men, no position in their past life.
Amogha: Most of them just came from the villages.
Prabhupāda: That's all. Uneducated, half-educated, poor, poverty-stricken. They could not do anything.”"
(750508 – Morning Walk – Perth)
"Prabhupāda: Kāla. Kāla means lajjita, black face. Everyone should be ashamed. They may be envious on account of their failure, but if you come to the actual valuation, sabka muh kala, (has made everyone feel ashamed of themselves.) That’s a fact.
Hari-śauri: Actually, that Bon Mahārāja is very black anyway.
Prabhupāda: He’s so black, there is no more black required. (laughter) A black snake. Kala brahmana, pota shudra . . . (Black brahmin, fair śūdra . . .) In Bengal it is said if a brahmin is black, he is dangerous.
Akṣayānanda: If a brāhmin is black?
Prabhupāda: That means he’s not pure brāhmin. Brāhmin cannot be black. Just like a European, if he becomes black, that means he has mixture. European and American, if he’s black, that means mixture. So brāhmin family, how it has . . . still, family, it must be very fair, śukla. Brāhmin, kṣatriya family must be very beautiful. If he’s pure. Kala brahmana, pota shudra, bete musholman, khankir chele, poshya-putro . . . (indistinct) . . . (black brahmin, fair śūdra, dwarf Muslim, prostitute’s son, adopted son . . . (indistinct) . . .) It is a slang language. (laughter) Kāla brāhmaṇa. Brāhmaṇa should not be black, and śūdra should not be white. And a Musselman should not be dwarf. Because formerly, real Musselmens were coming from Kabul, Afghanistan. That is called . . . (indistinct) . . . if a Musselman is dwarf, that means he is not real. Khankir chele . . . (Prostitute’s son . . .) Prostitute’s son, and poṣya-putra, adopted son. They are all of the same class. How this selection? Black brāhmin, white śūdra, dwarf Musselman, and prostitute’s son and adopted son. Adopted son, he gets money without any earning and spends like . . . I have seen so many adopted sons."
(760906 – Conversation A – Vrndavana)
Whereas, as explained before, the varṇa is identified in the following way:
cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ
guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ
tasya kartāram api māṁ
viddhy akartāram avyayam
(BG 4.13)
“Thus the four varnas were created by me according to distinctions of quality and work. But though I made the system for their enjoyment, know that I did not make the system, since I am beyond the system, being indestructible.”
Also, it often happens that people of mleccha origin fight for the rights of mlecchas: “Why can’t we? Why? Why?” And many matajīs are upset about not being able to receive Brahma Gāyatrī mantra, sit on the vyāsāsana, or act as dīkṣā-guru. These people usually say that such regulations are absurd because, in bhajana, there are no considerations of caste or gender. While we agree that in bhajana there is no such discrimination—everyone can attain the highest goal of life—we would like to point out that those who do not identify with the material body remain very peaceful and never fight for such reasons; they accept their current social position and continue their bhajana undisturbed.
See the following examples:
As we all know, Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī came from a very high-class brāhmaṇa family. Yet both of them never entered the Jagannātha Temple in Nīlācala-dhāma because they considered themselves untouchable after the years they had worked for the Muslim governors. They even avoided the Grand Road so as not to accidentally touch the pāṇḍās who often walked there.
Haridāsa Ṭhākura also never went to the Temple of Jagannātha because he was from a Muslim family. He never entered the Gambhīrā Mandira either. Mahāprabhu gave him the title Nāmacārya. There is nothing higher than Nāma; therefore, the one whom the Nāmī Himself gave this title occupies the highest position.
Just to be very clear and remove all doubts, we reinforce that Mahāprabhu knew perfectly well who Haridāsa Ṭhākura was, yet He never tried to convince Haridāsa to change his mind and come inside the Gambhīrā Mandira. He never said, “Oh Haridāsa! Come! You are a Vaiṣṇava—You have your right.” No. He approved Haridāsa’s humble mood.
At the same time, when a Vaiṣṇava acts in a way that breaks the rules of varṇāśrama, it is considered a fault from the worldly point of view. It is the nature of Vaiṣṇavas that, firstly, they feel themselves fallen and unworthy, and secondly, they do not like to create disturbance unnecessarily. Remember when Advaita Ācārya gave the śrāddha plate to Haridāsa Ṭhākura? All the brāhmaṇas started an agitation and eventually left, and Haridāsa Ṭhākura said to Advaita Ācārya: “Why did You do this? You should have offered the plate to a brāhmaṇa.” Even though Advaita Ācārya acted according to the śāstras, still Haridāsa Ṭhākura would have preferred to avoid this incident.
And finally, it is expected that an authority like Advaita Gosvāmī take the initiative on such occasions, and not the Vaiṣṇava in question himself. (It was not Haridāsa Ṭhākura who said, “Give the plate to me because my position is higher than that of a brāhmaṇa.”)
Please read the following excerpt from Śrī Caitanya: His Life & Associates by Śrīla Bhakti Ballabh Tīrtha Gosvāmī Mahārāja:
“[…] Though Jharu Thakur was born into the Bhuimali, one of Bengal’s untouchable castes, he was a great devotee.
One day, Kali Das went to Jharu Thakur’s house and paid him his obeisances as he sat with his wife. He then made them a gift of some ripe, sweet mangoes. Jharu Thakur recognized Kali Das to be a guest of the highest order. He showed him the appropriate respect and said, Dear sir, I am of a low caste. Please let me know how I can serve you. Just say the word and I will arrange for food to be cooked for you in a Brahmin´s house. If you take prasad there, I will consider myself most fortunate.
Kali Das recognized Jharu Thakur´s humility as being appropriate to a Vaishnava and said, ‘I am extremely fallen. It is only as a result of great good fortune that I have been able to meet you today. If you would only be so kind as to place the dust of your feet on my head.’
Jharu Thakur was embarrassed and felt uneasy. Kali Das recited a few verses that glorify the devotees of the Lord.
[…]
Though Jharu Thakur accepted the truth of these scriptural statements, he humbly stated that they were not applicable to him. Kali Das respectfully paid his obeisances and withdrew, and Jharu Thakur politely followed him a short distance before returning to his home. Kali Das took this opportunity to take the dust from the Jharu Thakur´s footprints and smeared it over his entire body. Desiring to take the Thakur´s remnants, he then hid not far from his house.
When Jharu Thakur entered his house, he placed the mangoes in a banana-bark bowl and mentally offered them to Krishna. His wife then took the mango prasad from the bowl and gave them to her husband. Jharu Thakur ate the mango, and after sucking the seed, placed it back in the bowl. She herself took his remnants and then took the mango seeds and skins and threw the bowl into the refuse pit. When she had gone, Kali Das came and sucked on the seeds and even licked the outside of the skins. As he tasted the remnants of the Vaishnavas, Kali Das was overwhelmed with ecstatic symptoms.”
This kind of conduct is very much expected in Vaiṣṇava society.
When someone shouts, “I am a brāhmaṇa! I have the brahminical thread! Respect me!”, know for certain that he is a śūdra by nature, for only a śūdra can behave in this way.
Genuine Vaiṣṇavas have the right to perform the activities prescribed for brāhmaṇas, but there is always the possibility that people may disturb society by disregarding rules without having attained the proper position. Caitanya Mahāprabhu was always careful to follow these external regulations: He stayed at the house of a devotee who was not a brāhmaṇa by birth, yet accepted prasāda cooked by a devotee born in brāhmaṇa family.
Such are the līlās of the Lord and His devotees, seen from different perspectives.
QUESTION 21:
His Criticism Kept ISKCON United, Unlike Śrī Gauḍīya Maṭha (?)
Is it not true that Bhakti Siddhānta Prabhupāda had ordered everyone to remain united, and that his disciples instead divided, allowing their own interests to override the order of their Guru Mahārāja? They were all great spiritual personalities, yet each followed his own path.
Swāmījī’s disciples would have divided as well, instead of remaining united in a single institution which—with its ups and downs, with offences and philosophical deviations—is still there today, spreading the basic principles of sanātana–dharma, or “Kṛṣṇa consciousness,” as they call it.
ANSWER 21:
Please check ANSWER 5 to better understand the “division” of Śrī Gauḍīya Maṭha after the disappearance of The Prabhupāda.
All the great disciples of Prabhupāda (Bhaktisiddhānta) were internally united. They celebrated the most important occasions together: the disciples of one maṭha would visit those of another maṭha always with great respect and affection.
Being together does not mean sharing the same physical space; it means preaching the idealism of the guru. We do not see that the organization ISKCON is following the standard of Prabhupāda Bhaktisiddhānta. So what kind of preaching is this?
Brahmājī said to Nāradajī:
idaṁ bhāgavataṁ nāma
yan me bhagavatoditam
saṅgraho ’yaṁ vibhūtīnāṁ
tvam etad vipulī kuru
(ŚB 2.7.51)
“O Nārada, this science of God, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, was spoken to me in summary by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and it was spoken as the accumulation of His diverse potencies. Please expand this science yourself.”
yathā harau bhagavati
nṛṇāṁ bhaktir bhaviṣyati
sarvātmany akhilādhāre
iti saṅkalpya varṇaya
(ŚB 2.7.52)
“Please describe the science of Godhead with determination and in a manner by which it will be quite possible for the human being to develop transcendental devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead Hari, the Super soul of every living being and the summum bonum source of all energies.”
In these ślokas we see the foremost instruction on the subject of preaching. Carrying on the mission does not mean geographical or economic expansion; it means establishing bhakti in the hearts of common people. And love for Vaiṣṇavas is natural for one who possesses bhakti. How then can ISKCON print and spread offences against Vaiṣṇavas? And if bhakti is not present there, then how can they help anyone with anything related to bhakti?
A half-truth is not the truth—it is even more dangerous than a lie. When a sense enjoyer or an unqualified individual preaches, this only causes the consciousness of the public to decline. Śrīla Bhakti Vinoda Ṭhākura said that without realizing in one’s heart the teachings of Gaurāṅga Mahāprabhu, one should not go out to preach; otherwise, he will create disturbance. First of all, they need to become established in the ācāra of Gaurāṅga Mahāprabhu, in His idealism; then they may speak one or two words. The ācāra of Gaurāṅga Mahāprabhu is not a cheap thing. The gravity of vaiṣṇava-aparādha is just one of His many teachings—teachings that nowadays almost nobody follows. Did Mahāprabhu accept garlands from mātājīs? Did He allow any mātājī to massage Him? What was the punishment of Choṭa Haridāsa?
Bhajana is not a joke. It is better to live a material life and one day receive the kṛpā of a genuine devotee than to follow offenders with their distorted procedures, thereby risking going to hell.
The mission of The Prabhupāda is to carry the basket of the Absolute Truth door to door and find someone who is truly interested. He never compromised śuddha-bhakti.
Mostly, no one is interested in bhakti in the true sense. A great amount of sukṛti is required in order to be able to digest the Absolute Truth. Vaiṣṇavas will not convince conditioned souls through some attractive (modernized, modified, or simplified) philosophy, procedures, or false promises in order to increase the quantity of adherents. Actually, this is sahajiyāism. Genuine Vaiṣṇavas, when they see kapaṭa-bhāva in someone, send such people away so as not to waste time, because a kapaṭa person can never progress in spiritual life. Why? Because they are not truly looking for Bhagavān. No demand—no supply. Any sort of weakness (material desires, faults) can be forgiven, because what is not possible by the mercy of Śrī Guru, given the surrender of the adept? But duplicity is not allowed in bhajana.
Most people do not know that bhajana (sevā) with anarthas is impossible. Most people do not know the difference between bhajana-kriyā, sādhana-bhakti, and bhāva-bhakti. We see so many falls and so many disappointed practitioners—people are told that by following a half-truth they will get the exclusive result of following the Absolute Truth, which is impossible. At the same time, those who preach half-truths and those who prefer to follow half-truth procedures call those who rigorously follow in the footsteps of the previous ācāryas “non-merciful,” “non-compassionate,” or even “envious” and “cruel,” simply because those sincere preachers never allow conditioned souls to maintain their fallen condition by indulging their senses or nurturing their false ego—especially in the name of spiritual life. And this is precisely why the number of people ready for such a process is significantly smaller.
It is very dangerous when a group of unqualified practitioners starts to think that they have become Vaiṣṇavas and act as if they are in a position to deliver someone in this world. Even more dangerous is when they begin to behave arrogantly, insulting or attempting to control genuine Vaiṣṇavas. What to speak of unqualified practitioners—it is obvious that they should not preach, accept disciples, or present themselves as devotees, for even the purest souls in this world do not consider themselves Vaiṣṇavas and want to avoid ācārya-ship, guru-ship etc.
“The Gauḍīya Maṭh says — in the name of dharmma it is not proper to practise trade. Not using Hari to serve our own pleasures, our duty is only to serve ‘Śrī Hari’. The Gauḍīya Maṭh says that imitating the devotee of Hari or putting on the dress of Nārad as in a theatrical performance is far from walking after the devotee of Hari or following Nārad. The delightful tune, time, cadence alone do not constitute the Hari-kīrttan of the Gauḍīya Maṭh; those are found even in the performances of the gramophone or harlots. Cetanatā, ‘consciousness’ is necessary, the fiery life is necessary, simultaneous practice and preaching is necessary. The Gauḍīya Maṭh says that he who does not possess a pure character is not fit even to be styled man not to speak of being regarded as religious (dharmmik).” (What Gaudiya Math is doing? By The Prabhupada)
QUESTION 22:
ISKCON Prepares Devotees for Higher Association (?)
Everyone chooses a guru according to their desires, sincerity, and qualification. Over the decades, how many devotees have passed from ISKCON to other associations? ISKCON served as a preparation, enabling them to approach gurus more suitable for them, for their level of consciousness. Gratitude should never be lost.
ANSWER 22:
We do not mind that ISKCON prepares people for a serious spiritual life; what we mind are offences and deviations. Once these are corrected, we can embrace them and consider them our very own.