A few problems with Jadurani and Narayana Maharaja (ISKCON) ys pd

This is a reply to Jadurani Dasi. In her recent article in the Sun, "The Homonym IKSCON", she has listed a bunch of criticisms made towards her guru, Srila Narayana Maharaja, which she then attempted to counter. This is my reply to some of what she wrote. Beginning with:

COMPILATION 1: Narayana Maharaja Mathura, October 24, 1999: "We can glorify Swamiji, Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja. But those who are falling down, how can they glorify him? They cannot glorify him, never; they are cutting. They are establishing that he was the founder of ISKCON, but I know that he was not founder, he was one of the members of this in guru parampara. It was founded by Krishna, and first acarya was Brahma, then Narada, then Vyasa. Only he has changed the name and he has preached these things in Western countries."

REFUTATION 1: The compilation's use of Srila Maharaja's quotes, saying that he is the siksa disciple of Srila Prabhupada and then saying that Srila Prabhupada is not the founder-acarya of ISKCON, is meant to show that he is not really Prabhupada's disciple. But Srila Maharaja is saying nothing that Srila Prabhupada has not said many times. In his Bhagavad-gita Preface Srila Prabhupada says ..

I don't think that anybody familiar with Gaudiya Vaisnavism and the history of ISKCON would confuse the statement: "A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON" to mean anything different then Srila Prabhupada being the founder of the organization that goes by the name of ISKCON. So what is the point in Srila Narayana Maharaja stating what everyone already knows? Does anyone for a second think that the title "Founder-Acarya of ISKCON" refers to the founder of Gaudiya Vaisnavism or Vaisnavism in general?

COMPILATION 2: Narayana Maharaja 28th April 1999, morning, Caracas: "Also you should know that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the founder of ISKCON. Swamiji, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja is one of the prominent acaryas in this line only. He is not founder; he's one of the prominent acaryas, who spread all these things [over] whole world, in a very short time.

COMPILATION 3: Narayana Maharaja Murwillumbah, Australia: Feb. 18, 2002 (eve): "Your Prabhupada, Srila Swami Maharaja, only changed the name into English. He is not the founder-acarya of that eternal ISKCON… I am ISKCON. I'm not different from ISKCON. I am 'Bhaktivedanta' [Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja]. Like father, like son. I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other. You should know this very openly. I am Bhaktivedanta and he is Bhaktivedanta, but he received this name after I did. I'm senior to him in this regard… I'm Bhaktivedanta, and I'm also ISKCON. Don't think that I'm out of ISKCON."

REFUTATION 3: COMPILATION 3 did not quote this accurately. By this inaccurate quote it wants to say that Srila Narayana Maharaja is trying to usurp Prabhupada's position as founder-acarya. But the truth is that Srila Maharaja is actually revealing his pride in being Prabhupada's humble servant. The compilation did not include the preceding sentences and explanation, and it also substituted an important clarification with a mere three dots. The following is the actual version of the statement as it was posted on the Internet. (The words in brackets, also included in the Internet posting, were ours:)

"At the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Thakura, Srila Sarasvati Thakura was the president of ISKCON. He sent one arm, Srila Prabhupada Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, who was given sannyasa by Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, and who then gave ISKCON its English name [Previously it was called by different names, like Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti,* Gaudiya Matha, Visva Vaisnava Raja Sabha, and Krsna-bhakti-rasa bhavitah mati.] Your Prabhupada, Srila Swami Maharaja, only changed the name into English. He is not the founder-acarya of that eternal ISKCON. [Srila Prabhupada sometimes said he was the founder-acarya for two reasons: for management and legal purposes, and also for the faith of his young disciples who would not have understood another presentation at that time.] The founder-acarya is originally Brahma, and it was actually established by Krsna. All of you who are following this disciplic succession are ISKCON. Don't think that you are not. I am ISKCON. I'm not different from ISKCON. I am 'Bhaktivedanta' [Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja]. Like father, like son. I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other. You should know this very openly...

...Srila Maharaja is simply encouraging us to remember to honor our previous acaryas. They can also help us and bless us. If we think that Prabhupada is the first in this movement, we are not glorifying him. He does not want to be disconnected from his guru-parampara. His glory is his chastity to the words and moods of his disciplic succession. If we think that Prabhupada is first, it means we think we don't have to refer to the previous acaryas of the succession to understand what he is trying to teach. It means we think that we, and conditioned souls like us, are the authorities on understanding him.

In the section immediately above, in bold, Jadurani dasi has given an opinion which makes no sense in the light of the common knowledge of the Vaisnava community. Everyone knows that Srila Prabhupada did not found nor is the only acarya in the history of Vaisnavism. Claiming that Srila Narayana Maharaja's motives for the various statements he made like the ones above is to teach us to honor the previous acaryas and to teach us not to think that Srila Prabhupada is the first acarya, I would think that would make Srila Narayana Maharaja incredibly ignorant on the level of knowledge of contemporary Gaudiya Vaisnavas.

In fact, I don't accept Jadurani's opinion because I don't think Srila Narayana Maharaja is that ignorant. What Srila Narayana Maharaja is really doing should be obvious, since it is. The reality is that one of the criticisms made many times towards Srila Narayana Maharaja and his followers from members of ISKCON is that Srila Prabhupada asked his followers to stay in ISKCON. Also Gour Govinda Maharaja asked his followers to stay in ISKCON. So in order to counteract that criticism Srila Narayana Maharaja has repeatedly claimed that he is in ISKCON, that he is ISKCON, that the real meaning of ISKCON is Gaudiya Vaisnavism in general.

While the idea of ISKCON as being more then just the institution of that name has philosophical merit, that idea of a universal ISKCON was not what Srila Prabhupada meant when he asked his followers to stay within ISKCON. If he had meant it in a more philosophical, metaphoric way then it would have been more prudent to have said "Please remain active in Gaudiya Vaisnavism". But for devotees active in ISKCON he requested in many letters that they remain in ISKCON. I'm not saying that you cannot please Srila Prabhupada outside of an active role in ISKCON or that your spiritual advancement is solely dependent on being an active member of ISKCON.

What I am saying is that Srila Narayana Maharaja was not trying to make some philosophical point nor was he simply glorifying the previous acaryas. Rather he was trying to convince people that what Srila Prabhupada and HH Gour Govinda Maharaja had asked of them to do would be done if they served Srila Narayana Maharaja.

"All of you who are following this disciplic succession are ISKCON. Don't think that you are not. I am ISKCON. I'm not different from ISKCON. I am 'Bhaktivedanta' [Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja]. Like father, like son. I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other. You should know this very openly."

The compilation quoted Srila Maharaja saying, "I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other." Perhaps, by doing this, the compilation is trying to say that Srila Maharaja is not bona fide because a self-effulgent acarya does not need to proclaim himself. But the compilation is wrong in its assumption. Surely Srila Maharaja is only separating himself from the hundreds of pretenders who masquerade as gurus, and there is no harm in that. This statement is not exclusive but inclusive. When Prabhupada was asked in 1969 in Boston what Jesus meant when he said

I am the only son of my father. No one can come to Him but through me, Prabhupada replied, "He means, 'by me or anyone like me; in other words, by me or any bona fide representative of God.'" Similarly 'guru is one', as we have heard, and at the same time there is more than one bona fide guru. Srila Maharaja is not disparaging other bona fide teachers. He is simply saying that it is no small thing to perfectly represent the line of Gaudiya acaryas.

Srila Maharaja's statement can also be seen in this way: His is the statement of a son who loves his father (Prabhupada) so much that he can say that "No one can love my father as much as I." This is not at all pride in himself, but in his beloved Srila Swami Maharaja, our Srila Prabhupada. We cannot imagine such love in our Western culture.

I am perplexed by Jadurani's explanation of the above statement by Srila Narayana Maharaja. I don't see the problem as being: "Perhaps, by doing this, the compilation is trying to say that Srila Maharaja is not bona fide because a self-effulgent acarya does not need to proclaim himself." Why would a follower of Srila Prabhupada have a problem with a person "proclaiming himself" to be a bona fide guru? Srila Prabhupada claimed to be a bona fide guru, so do all bona fide gurus who are preaching. There is nothing unusual or wrong in that. So Jadurani is wrong in her interpretation of the motive of the people who supply the above quote as being questionable. The real problem should be obvious. It's the part where it says: "I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other."

It's one thing to claim to be *a* real successor of Srila Prabhupada, it's another thing entirely to claim to be the only real successor, and that there is no other. Jadurani's explanation for these words are baffling. She claims they mean the exact opposite of what they appear to mean. She claims the statement is inclusive when an ordinary reading would tell us that they are exclusive, as in "me and only me". She then claims that what Srila Narayana Maharaja really meant is the same thing that Jesus really meant when he supposedly said "no one goes to the father but through me".

The problem with Jadurani's interpretation is that we have to wonder why Srila Narayana Maharaja would make such a statement if he didn't mean it literally. Is he in the habit of making statements which are the opposite of what he means? The idea that when Jesus said "that nobody goes to the father but through me" really means Jesus represents the guru and the statement by Jesus really means "no one goes to god without going through the guru", is a Vaisnava reaction to an exclusionary claim to God by Christians. I highly doubt that Jesus ever made such a statement because a real bona fide spiritual master would never make such an untrue statement. In reality, I am sure that the quote attributed to Jesus was added to the Bible in order to make an exclusive claim to divine empowerment for the Christian religion.

So I see no reason to make up an interpretation that is 100% the opposite meaning of what Srila Narayana Maharaja literally said, especially since Srila Narayana Maharaja did not say that he is the only bona fide conduit to God as the Christians claim about Jesus, rather he claimed that he is the only real successor to Srila Prabhupada. The comparison to Jesus is a faulty analogy. It would appear that he, like Christians of the distant past and up to today, is making an exclusive claim to divine empowerment, i.e. claiming that he is (or was) the only real successor of Srila Prabhupada.

To me the reason for such a claim seems obvious when seen in the light of the other claims that he is ISKCON. He is simply trying to convince people to surrender to him rather then to ISKCON or to some other Gaudiya guru by claiming that he alone is worthy of their surrender.

COMPILATION 7: Narayana Maharaja conversation, Murwillumbah, Australia: Feb.12, 2002 (morning): "Therefore, in his service to Radhika, for rati-keli-siddhyai, a guru cannot serve in his male form. Srila Swami Maharaja and my Gurudeva are both serving there in their female forms as gopis. In that realm my Gurudeva is Vinoda Manjari, Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakura is Nayana Manjari, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura is Kamala Manjari, Srila Jiva Gosvami is Vilasa Manjari, Srila Rupa Gosvami is Rupa Manjari, and Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami is Rati Manjari. These manjaris can serve Radha-Krishna Conjugal." [Sripad Dhrstadyumna dasa:] "And our Srila Prabhupada?" [Srila Narayana Maharaja:] "If you fully surrender, by body, mind, words and ego, then I may tell you. Otherwise, I will not. I know who he is, but you do not know. None of the ISKCON leaders know. Your Prabhupada has cheated them all, in the sense that he has not revealed himself to them at all.''

REFUTATION 7: Perhaps the compilation is trying to say that Srila Maharaja said Prabhupada is a cheater, and the ISKCON leaders were cheated by him, and he is not a bona fide spiritual master. But Srila Maharaja is not saying that at all. He is only saying that Prabhupada did not reveal his spiritual identity. Due to their, and our, not having the qualification to know, he kept it a secret.

I don't know what the compiler of those quotes had in mind, but I doubt they were thinking what Jadurani thinks they may be thinking. Srila Narayana Maharaja is obviously not claiming that Srila Prabhupada is not a bona fide spiritual master since he says that *he knows* Srila Prabhupada is serving Radha as a gopi and that he knows Srila Prabhupada's manjari name. The unusual thing in the quote for me is the part where he says:

"If you fully surrender, by body, mind, words and ego, then I may tell you. Otherwise, I will not. I know who he is, but you do not know. None of the ISKCON leaders know. Your Prabhupada has cheated them all, in the sense that he has not revealed himself to them at all."

Before he makes that statement he tell us the manjari name of his guru and the manjari names of many other gurus. Why then does he want complete and full surrender before he tells them Srila Prabhupada's manjari name? And why would he claim that none of the ISKCON leaders know?

One thing that I do know is that Srila Sridhara Maharaja claimed that Srila Prabhupada revealed in various places in his writings that he is a gopa in nitya Krishna lila. He also claimed that Srila Prabhupada's establishment of Krishna Balarama in Vrindavan was also revealing that Srila Prabhupada is a gopa. Back in the year 2,000 Jadurani got into an online debate with Tripurari Swami over this on VNN.org. Also there has been friction between Srila Narayana Maharaja's sanga and Srila Sridhar Maharaja's sanga over this and other things as well. In Jadurani's refutation for this part she goes into a lengthy exposition on how Gaudiya Vaisnavism is for the sole purpose of leading people to become gopis and that Srila Prabhupada is a gopi, etc.

So to me it just seems like more of Srila Narayana Maharaja trying to convince people that they should surrender to him because he is above everyone else. And then Jadurani subtly rehashes an old argument while trying to assert the superiority of a gopi centric form of teaching Krishna consciousness.
COMPILATION 8: Narayana Maharaja, Lecture given on September 19th, 1994:...

I didn't want to copy everything written in #8. Whether or not the compilation is accurate can only be decided by the actual recording. There is one section where Jadurani quotes Srila Narayana Maharaja which I found to be a bit odd:

Who is Maha-Visnu? Sri Advaita Acarya. He is the amsa (part) of the amsa of the amsa of the amsa of the kala of Krsna Himself. He is a part of the part of the part of the part of Krsna. Being so far away, He can preach with kirtana, but He cannot give Vraja-bhakti. He is not qualified for this. Only Krsna can do this. When He came, therefore, He preached through sankirtana that highest love and affection, as well as the process to achieve it.

advaita-acarya -- isvarera amsa-varya
tanra tattva-nama-guna, sakali ascarya

Sri Advaita Acarya is the principal limb of the Supreme Lord. His truths, names and attributes are all wonderful. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Adi 6.33)

I think it is not correct to say that Advaita Acarya is not qualified and cannot give Vraja-bhakti. Maybe it is just Srila Narayana Maharaja's poor understanding of English, but to say that Advaita Acarya "cannot" do something or "isn't qualified" to do something is complete nonsense. Advaita Acarya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore he can do anything.

advaitam harinadvaitad
acaryam bhakti-samsanat
bhaktavataram isam tam
advaitacaryam asraye

Because He is nondifferent from Hari, the Supreme Lord, He is called Advaita, and because He propagates the cult of devotion, He is called Acarya. He is the Lord and the incarnation of the Lord's devotee. Therefore I take shelter of Him. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Adi 6.5)
advaita-acarya gosani saksat Isvara
yanhara mahima nahe jivera gocara

Sri Advaita Acarya is indeed directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. His glory is beyond the conception of ordinary living beings. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Adi 6.6)
mahavisnura amsa - advaita gunadhama
isvare abheda, te-i "advaita" purna nama

Sri Advaita, who is a reservoir of virtues, is the main limb of Mahavisnu. His full name is Advaita, for He is identical in all respects with the Lord. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Adi 6.25)
jiva nistarila krsna-bhakti kari' dana
gita-bhagavate kaila bhaktira vyakhyana

He delivered all living beings by offering the gift of krsna-bhakti. He explained the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam in the light of devotional service. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Adi 6.28)
COMPILATION 10: Narayana Maharaja Salt Spring Island, B.C. Canada May 2001(Morning):... If anyone does not have belief in my statements, he can acquire and hear the cassette. At that time he spoke in Bengali so that others would not understand. If he were to say that all his disciples were ignorant, that they did not know very much, and that they were imperfect, they may have become upset. For this reason he spoke so many things in Bengali. He told me, 'I brought them, but I could not teach them in full.' If he had told them everything, and if they were so knowledgeable and expert, why have so many of the senior devotees, even those in the renounced order, fallen down? Where are they now? Where they are now is not ISKCON. They were not ISKCON, they are not ISKCON, and they will not be ISKCON. …If there is no need for Prabhupada's disciples to continue hearing from a bona fide guru, then why are they falling? Why? I know more than you, much more than you."

REFUTATION 10: Perhaps the compilation is trying to say that Srila Maharaja is criticizing Prabhupada and saying that he only gave ABCD. The actual fact, however, has already been discussed in refutation 9. Prabhupada trained us as much as we were trainable. Moreover, Srila Maharaja is saying that Prabhupada has offered us much more than we can imagine, but we were neither qualified to hear him say nor to see it in his books. Prabhupada's books are just like a treasure chest. If we can open it, we will see a great treasure there. Perhaps we can open it and see some treasures inside, but along with those treasures there is another treasure chest with still more valuable treasures, and it is locked. How will we open it? Yaha bhagavata pada vaisnavera sthane. The key is in the hands of another mahabhagavat like Prabhupada. Only a mahabhagavata can understand another, and only a mahabhagavata can explain another.

Whether or not the conversation recalled by Srila Narayana Maharaja is accurate can be decided by the tape. One thing I do find odd is the statement in bold text. Why does he claim that the devotees who had "fallen down" and left ISKCON "were not in ISKCON"? That seems like an unusual siddhanta which I have never seen written anywhere other then from lectures by Srila Narayana Maharaja. Is there any sastric backing for such a claim? He also said they "will not be ISKCON". Is he claiming the ability to see into the future of all people who served in ISKCON and then "fell down" and left ISKCON?

Then he says "If there is no need for Prabhupada's disciples to continue hearing from a bona fide guru, then why are they falling? Why? I know more than you, much more than you."

This is a statement which I find particularly strange. First off, why is he saying:
"If there is no need for Prabhupada's disciples to continue hearing from a bona fide guru, then why are they falling?"

Where are there disciples who say like that? I have never heard devotees claim they do not need to hear from a bona fide guru. What he really meant was: "If there is no need for Prabhupada's disciples to continue hearing from a *another* bona fide guru, then why are they falling?"

That makes sense in the light of his claim: "He told me, 'I brought them, but I could not teach them in full.' If he had told them everything, and if they were so knowledgeable and expert, why have so many of the senior devotees, even those in the renounced order, fallen down?"

What he is saying is that the reason they fell down is because they didn't go to another guru after Srila Prabhupada left who could "teach them in full" and "told them everything". If that is the case then what is the problem with all those who went to Srila Narayana Maharaja and took his siksa and were taught "everything in full" and then fell down? What was the cause of their falldown? Were they never in ISKCON (since he is ISKCON)? Will they never be in ISKCON?

The reality is it doesn't matter how much you have learned or think you know, knowledge alone doesn't prevent devotees from "falling down". You can be very knowledgeable but if you commit offenses to Vaisnavas, or if you have not risen to the platform of an uttama adhikari, then you can leave Krishna bhakti in pursuit of other objectives due to the lure of the illusory energy. Only the uttama adhikari or liberated soul, the jivan mukta, is not susceptible to the powers of the illusory energy.

From the purport to Bhagavad Gita 6.3 by AC. Bhaktivedanta Swami:
"As far as the development of faith is concerned, one who is well versed in the literatures of devotional service and has attained the stage of firm faith is called a first-class person in Krsna consciousness. And in the second class are those who are not very advanced in understanding the devotional scriptures but who automatically have firm faith that krsna-bhakti, or service to Krsna, is the best course and so in good faith have taken it up. Thus they are superior to the third class, who have neither perfect knowledge of the scriptures nor good faith but by association and simplicity are trying to follow. The third-class person in Krsna consciousness may fall down, but when one is in the second class he does not fall down, and for the first-class person in Krsna consciousness there is no chance of falling down."

Here Srila Prabhupada says that the second-class devotee (madhyama adhikari) "does not fall down". Yet we have seen many seemingly madhyama adhikari Vaisnavas "fall down". This is because the definition of "fall down" in this instance is qualified in the beginning of the paragraph with the words "As far as the development of faith is concerned". So what is meant is that the persons who have achieved the real actual level of a madhyama adhikari, that their faith will not be lost. They will not fall down in the sense of the loss of their "development of faith" in Krishna. They may fall down from the path of sadhana bhakti, but they will not lose faith. Srila Prabhupada also writes in the above: "for the first-class person in Krsna consciousness there is no chance of falling down". That is to contrast with the less emphatic description of the second-class devotee where he claims they "do not fall down". The first class devotee or uttama adhikari or jivan mukta has no chance of falling down in any sense of the term. Everyone else is susceptible to the lure of the illusory energy.

Purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 3.4.31 by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami:
"The specific qualification for becoming the representative of the Lord is to be unaffected by the material modes of nature. The highest qualification of a person in the material world is to be a brahmana. But since a brahmana is in the mode of goodness, to be a brahmana is not sufficient for becoming a representative of the Lord. One has to transcend the mode of goodness also and be situated in unalloyed goodness, unaffected by any of the qualities of material nature. This stage of transcendental qualification is called suddha-sattva, or vasudeva, and in this stage the science of God can be realized. As the Lord is not affected by the modes of material nature, so a pure devotee of the Lord is also not affected by the modes of nature. That is the primary qualification for being one with the Lord. A person who is able to attain this transcendental qualification is called jivan-mukta, or liberated, even though he is apparently in material conditions. This liberation is achieved by one who constantly engages in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. In Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.187) it is stated:
iha yasya harer dasye karmana manasa gira nikhilasv apy avasthasu jivan-muktah sa ucyate
"Anyone who, by his actions, mind and words, lives only for the transcendental loving service of the Lord, is certainly a liberated soul, even though he may appear to be in a condition of material existence." Uddhava was in such a transcendental position, and thus he was selected to be the factual representative of the Lord in His bodily absence from the vision of the world. Such a devotee of the Lord is never affected by material strength, intelligence or even renunciation. Such a devotee of the Lord can withstand all onslaughts of material nature, and therefore he is known as gosvami. Only such gosvamis can penetrate the mysteries of the Lord's transcendental loving relationships."