Better late than never – but still false ego or biasness cannot help us anyway to attain that Absolute

Better late than never – but still false ego or biasness cannot help us anyway to attain that Absolute

Reply given to a devotee who expressed his concern about our future as followers of Śrīla Śyām dāsa Bābā, in light of the seva we are somehow permitted to help carry on — namely, the protest against the circulation of offences toward the Gauḍīya Maṭh and Gauḍīya Maṭh sādhus committed by Śrīla Swāmī Mahārāja:

Dandavat pranam. Thank you for agreeing to this dialogue and for sharing your concerns. I will try to respond to everything according to my understanding.

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 seva 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. 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.

I don’t think I need to write much about the second point you mentioned, namely that “the ācārya is one,” because here already lies a difference of understanding between you and me 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, as I already mentioned, 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…

As for the point “those who appear later have neither the right nor the duty to find faults in their superiors”: 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?”(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 me 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.

Yes, I believe 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.

-------------------------------

The devotee who asked his question referred to this statement from Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, asking whether I truly believe that what Bābā Mahārāja is doing is in line with it:

"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)

-------------------------------

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 ācāryamust 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.

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. I know you have respect for Śyām Bābā and you recognize that what he is saying is correct and fully founded on the śāstras.

I personally did not grow up with Swāmī Mahārāja and, fortunately, I discovered many of these issues we are now discussing before developing an attachment that would have blinded me. 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). I do not care how famous a person is, how many followers he has, or how much opulence surrounds him. What matters to me is being able to sleep peacefully with the philosophy I hear from that person. And the philosophy of Swāmī Mahārāja would not let me sleep peacefully. It frightens me. And thank God there is one person (Śrīla Śyām dāsa Bābā Mahārāja) who told me that, in reality, those things have nothing to do with Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. Others, whom you call “true sadhus,” have not shown me 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.

I think I understood what 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. I repeat: 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. I offer my obeisances to A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swāmī Mahārāja until the last moment, when he was still free from Vaiṣṇava-aparādha.

P.S.: Here is an article I find very important for understanding the situation more clearly:

https://www.echoes-of-eternity.com/post/the-long-standing-critical-problem-can-be-solved-within-a-fraction-of-second-if-you-can-realize-the

Thanks a lot                       

With humble dandavat pranam, we all in the service of Guru- Gauranga and Go-Mata on behalf of the—

Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Vani Seva Trust