Saturday, March 10, 2012

Ananta Vasudeva was a jackal 03/10/12

Tripurari swami (TS): Prabhupada criticized Sridhara Maharaja for disobeying the instruction of BSST and choosing a successor acarya, when BSST did not pick one. This is the gist of the criticism. However, in one sense it is actually a glorification of Sridhara Maharaja. Let me explain. BSST asked his followers to form a governing body, and according the Prabhupada, the idea was that an acarya would eventually emerge. However, after forming the governing body (SM was not a member) there was a dispute among the members concerning succession. 

[PADA: The "dispute over succession" was blamed by Srila Prabhupada mainly on Sridhara Maharaja's group. Srila Prabhupada said that Sridhara Maharaja and his group wanted Ananta Vasudeva to be the acharya, and that other senior men objected. The main point is: there was no authorization for any successor, so Sridhara made Ananta Vasudeva the successor artificially, but Sridhara had no authority to do so. Sridhara Maharaja was later saying he was called "the form breaker" by his God brothers because his idea caused the mission to fracture into fighting guru camps. That means the other God brothers blamed Sridhara for the break up by calling him the form breaker. In other words, the brothers recognized that Sridhara was the big founder of the Bagh Bazaar guru deviation. They credited him with orchestrating the break down of the mission.]   

TS: Several sannyasi board members felt they should be given the seva of initiating, while others felt that Ananta Vasudeva should be the successor. So there was a split of sorts. Then given the regard that the board members had for the opinion of SM, they approached him for his opinion. When the split was explained to him he replied that it seemed from what they had said that the sannyasis might have some personal motivation, whereas Ananta Vasudeva himself was not interested in being the acarya. 

[PADA: Right, Ananta Vasudeva had said to the Sridhara maharaja group that he was not qualified to be the acharya, and he wanted to get married. Srila Prabhupada said that the Sridhara maharja group did not heed this warning and they "inisisted" on making Ananta Vasudeva the acharya, but AV had said himself he was not qualified. So when a person is not qualified to be acharya, he should not be put into that post. Yet Sridhara maharaja insisted on putting a person into the post of messiah despite AV had said he was not ready for the post. That means Sridhara maharaja could not distinguish right from wrong in regards to acharyas.] 

TS: That’s all. However this remark ended up carrying the day for those in favor of AV, which only goes to show how highly SM was regarded by his God brothers.

[PADA: Right, Ananta Vasudeva was made the acharya despite the objections of many big senior men, just like Sridhara maharaja supported the 11 GBC gurus despite the objections of many of us senior devotees in ISKCON. In sum, SM forced the issue and basically demanded that his way be followed. "His was" proved to be a disaster. Ananta Vasdeva eventually married a prostitute and after that he committed suicide. "His way" also caused, lets say "devastation" is the best word for it, in ISKCON as well.]

TS: So SM was not actually involved in the selection but gave his unbiased opinion when asked given the choices presented. 

[PADA: No, Sridhara Maharaja said that Ananata Vasudeva should be made the acharya, many others did not think he was qualified, and Ananta Vasudeva himself stated that he was not qualified. Srila Prabhupada said that AV was the "pet fellow" of Sridhara Maharaja and so SM was biased towards AV.]

TS: And that opinion was influential. Thus SM’s opinions are something to reckon with. 

[PADA: His opinion was wrong, he should have listened to Ananta Vasudeva and the other senior men and not made a person who is not qualified into the acharya. The result of making a false acharya was the ruination of the math and the beatings and murders of dissenters. That means his opinion caused all this chaos.]

TS: But we must note that he gave his opinion on what he was asked, while he himself was not involved and served independently of the fighting that ensued in Gaudiya Math. 

[PADA: Right, Sridhara maharaja made a bogus person into an acharya and after so many scandals and dissenters were being beaten and murdered etc., he simply strolled off and did nothing substantial to help reign in the Frankenstein monster he had created. He did about the same exact thing after he endorsed the ISKCON 11 bogus messiahs, as soon as there was a huge problem he said, they will dig their own graves, and so -- he did nothing of worth to rectify the mess he had created by endorsing these bogus 11 as gurus. And ISKCON "went into the grave" that Sridhara maharaja helped the 11 dig, by his supporting the grave diggers. And once again us dissenters were being beaten and killed, while Sridhara Maharaja strolled off for more important business than saving us victims of his false guru process. I would have been killed except for the help of the police, Sridhara Maharaja never would have helped me after he set this mess into motion. He did nothing of note to help the victims of his post 1936 guru imbroglio either, and he did nothing of note to help us victims after he helped prop up the bogus 11. Apparently, our lives are not worthy of continuing and expendible for the cause of making false messiahs?]

TS: He personally refused to initiate even when approached by sincere devotees. However, after the break up of GM he did eventually begin to initiate on the order of Nityananda Prabhu coming within his heart.

[PADA: And this is why Srila Prabhupada said: Amongst my God brothers no one is qualified to be acharya, because they caused the break up of the mission and then made many fragmented parts of various institutions with themselves as the head gurus, of which Srila Prabhupada said "the Gaudiya Matha is finished." And he blamed all this on "personal ambition" to be gurus. And there are hundreds of other quotes where Srila Prabhupada decrys the Gaudiya Matha's leaders, and some of these quotes refer to Sridhara Maharaja as being a person we should not consult with etc.] 

TS: It is true that AV failed. But there is evidence that Prabhupada himself supported AV at one point, referring to him as Vasudeva Prabhu, etc. 

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada said AV was homosex, sex and sex, and everything. Srila Prabhupada said he was a jackal. At one point Srila Prabhupada may have extended some courtesy to him, but Srila Prabhupada said this man ruined the mission of his guru maharaja with the help of Sridhara Maharaja.]

TS: As they say, hindsight is 20/20. Prabhupada is offering hindsight and blaming SM. One can criticize SM in this way, but then one can also legitimately ask why SP did not object and offered criticism only later after AV failed, etc. 

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada said he had to remain aloof, that does not mean he agreed, he did not want to get into their fight over the assets of the mission, because -- he was trying to start his own mission. Which he did.]

TS: Thus such criticism on Prabhupada’s part appears to be part of an overall frustration with what happened to GM, in which “his old friend” SM’s role is exaggerated but in a manner that sheds light on how highly he was respected.

[PADA: Right, Sridhara Maharaja over-used his authority. He had some authority, and he mis-used it. Our 11 had authority, and they also mis-used it. Oddly, Sridhara helped our 11 mis-use their authority as well.] 

TS: And Godbrothers can criticize one another from time to time, accurately and inaccurately. And it is in this vein that in his letter of criticism Prabhupada wrote, “I do not wish to discuss about activities of my Godbrothers . . .” In other words, they may criticize one another, but it is not our position to do so unless they do something in our presence that warrants such, despite their seniority. 

[PADA: I do not want to discuss, but ... keep in mind that none of them are qualified to be acharyas, and they are very competent to harm our natural progress (by rubber stamping bogus gurus). Which they did by rubber stamping the 11 after 1978.]

TS: We saw that BSST and Lalita Prasada were critical of one another, but Prabhupad honored both of them, while taking the side of BSST if confronted with any criticism of BSST. 

[PADA: He told us that Lalita Prasad holds a grudge against my guru maharaja, do not associate with him.]

TS: For several years he allowed disciples to hear from Lalita Prasada. 

[PADA: Well Prabhupada told Guru Kripa and Yasodananda not to go there at all, and he said that early on. I was in India in 1970 and was told not to go to Lalita Prasad's place. I do not know who was being allowed to go there?] 

TS: So criticism among Godbrothers may be there. Brothers disagree and sometimes fight over details, but in principle they agree and are united (hopefully). Note that despite his criticism of SM, Prabhupada wrote that after the break up of GM (the fall of AV, etc.) he wanted to start a mission with SM as the acarya. So he criticized SM for his influence that indirectly led to AV becoming the acarya and he also wanted to start a mission in which SM would be the acarya. This history should help to put the criticism in perspective.

[PADA: He said he wanted Sridhara maharaja to be the president of ISKCON, that would have made Sridhara a subordinate. Sridhara refused. Where did he say he wanted Sridhara to be the acharya of his mission?]

TS: If we see this criticism as something relative and Prabhupada’s repeated, lavish praise that continued long after this letter as absolute, we see these contradictory positions of Prabhupada’s with a spiritual eye. Unfortunately all of Prabhupada’s disciples have not been able to do this. But Prabhupada did teach this in principle. Thus it is apparent that many of them need further guidance.
[PADA: Nothing hard to figure out here, after 1936 Sridhara supported a bogus person as guru and dissenters were beaten and killed, and all this ruined the Gaudiya Matha. After 1978 Sridhara supported the 11, disssenters were once again beaten and killed, and ISKCON was devastated. History repeated. ys pd] 


  1. More evidence that many devotees - same like Tripurari Swami - bear a grudge against Prabhupada. They put forward, although there are "contradictory positions of Prabhupada", everything is in apple-pie order.

    Any profiler clearly sees whats going on - deep within their hearts they feel hurt, devastated, couldnt yet get over it.

    Why Prabhupada installed a managerial system with nutcases, gave them so much power, when in fact real experts were required? Experts - calibers at that time nowhere were available.

    Why did Prabhupada not deliberately instruct the election of GBC and TP?

    In his lectures and conversations Prabhupada explained millions of things. Why did he not say five words: "I remain diksa-guru for ISKCON" ?

    In sum, Prabhupada created a situation so that at one point, a self-effulgent acarya would emerge.

    "So my Guru Maharaja's idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self-effulgent acarya would be automatically selected."

    "Automatically" means, when everything else broke apart, he is still there. People won't have to tax their brain anymore.

    1. I like this conclusion of yours, rm. It is a quality of a good leader that when he or she is no longer physically present, or otherwise must leave the organization, that the organization goes on and persists. In the case of ISKCON, there was certainly a HEAVY degree of malice directed at corrupting the efforts of Śrīla Prabhupāda and so the dynamics of leadership succession naturally become stressed. But by appointing these 11 men as ritviks, he would have basically encapsulated them in a role which would hamper their efforts to assume absolute power as guru(s).

      Where are all the sincere disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda? More urgently, where are the senior disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda? All who come to the front have marred reputations to varying degrees or are associated with persons who are suspect.

      Through it all, Śrīla Prabhupāda's name and example have been spotless. Therefore, all glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda. Hare Kṛṣṇa


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.