Did Prabhupada Want Cover-ups?
BY: SADANANDA GAURANGA DAS
- From "The Great Transcendental Adventure" by HG Kurma Prabhu
Today's ISKCON leaders often quote the below incident to say Srila Prabhupada never wanted "guru" falldowns to be publicized. But the fact is those who fell down during Prabhupada's time were not gurus. They were just leaders of a group of fledgling devotees and temples, and possibly holding an official position in ISKCON such as a president. We all know Srila Prabhupada severely criticized fake gurus and popular godmen that were running other "spiritual" organizations.
A casual observer would tend to think that Srila Prabhupada was biased towards his followers because he wanted the falldowns of his followers to be covered up while he criticized other godmen "gurus". But it requires a little intelligence to understand that Prabhupada always criticized "gurus" - those fake "gurus" who had no spiritual qualifications of a pure devotee (read the 1st paragraph of the purport to Bhagavad Gita As It Is 10.9). Referring to the below event, if Madhudvisa Swami was a "guru" then, Prabhupada would have criticized him as well.
But today's ISKCON leaders have become expert cheaters in convincing the rank and file devotees that Prabhupada wanted cover-ups. Thus they have tainted the position of Srila Prabhupada and thoroughly misrepresented him. Those who are party to this hypocrisy knowingly or unknowingly are suffering or will suffer the results of this offense to Prabhupada. It takes a little common sense to understand the difference between being a "guru" and being just a leader. Because of these cover-ups at the highest level, hypocrisy pervades all over ISKCON today. And wherever there is hypocrisy, that place is an embodiment of Kali. After Srila Prabhupada left, ISKCON has just become an embodiment of Kali with rampant spiritual corruption. Homosexual gurus, bi-sexual gurus, pedophile gurus, murderer gurus, hippy gurus... name it, you will find an example of them in ISKCON. A conditioned soul occupying the position of a guru is a deliberate act of cheating the ignorant neophytes, and that was thoroughly condemned by Srila Prabhupada.
If someone like Bhavananda was in a civil society in India, he would have been lynched by the public for his sexual crimes. But he is under the safe protection of another "guru". Can anyone say there is morality in ISKCON?
Many of today's ISKCON devotees are no better than Sai Baba worshipers. We criticize Sai Baba and his followers because they claim that he was God. But what have we done? We have also worshiped fallible conditioned souls such as the initial 11 gurus and the several unqualified 10s that followed over the next 4 decades. Thus we have equated conditioned souls to the position of Krishna (sākṣād-dharitvena samasta-śāstrair...) and made a mockery of the entire guru sishya parampara. What spiritual realizations can we expect from a follower of fake "gurus" and "god" such as Sai Baba ?
The ridiculous thing here is, ISKCON follows a policy of "not fallen until (s)exposed." Usually someone is not fallen until he is fallen. But in ISKCON the "gurus" have to be exposed, like how Prabhavisnu was exposed. Until then, no one cares. But after he is exposed, the GBC will let the whole world know that he was fallen for more than 10 years.
Who knows how many such "gurus" are already fallen but are not yet or will never be exposed? Another ridiculous thing is devotees worrying, "How will the guru sishya parampara continue?" It is like a foolish non-vegetarian eater worrying "the world will be full of chickens if people do not eat them". It is also like a group of ordinary monkeys worrying about who will carry the mountain? How much ever the monkeys debate and discuss, neither of them can carry the mountain. Even if all the monkeys get together, they cannot carry the mountain. When Hanuman comes he doesn't need any debate, discussion, GBC appointment, no objection, nothing! He just carries the mountain in the service of Lord Rama.
The Gaudiya Matha was full of such discussions and fights. But Srila Prabhupada appeared like Hanuman and just carried forward the mission of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So ordinary devotees need not worry about carrying forward the disciplic succession because this is just not in their scope. Krishna has his plans and sends his confidential devotee to carry forward this mission, just like how Srila Prabhupada manifested himself 30 years after the disappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. From history we know that those who imitated the positions of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati or Srila Prabhupada after they left were just disturbances to the society.
Here's the incident: Australia, 1976-1977: Madhudvisa Swami appeared well-situated in his new service in New York. It seemed reasonable to assume that he would not be returning to the Australian zone. This was confirmed when news filtered back from the recent GBC meetings in Mayapur -- Guru Krpa Swami was the new GBC for Australia and New Zealand. The Australian devotees knew that Madhudvisa had needed a change. Although they missed him, they were happy that he had taken well to his new responsibilities in America. It came, therefore, as a considerable shock when the devotees heard that Madhudvisa Swami had fallen down from the sannyasa asrama and left the temple. Many could hardly believe it. Others took it more philosophically, but all were deeply affected.
Srila Prabhupada heard the news in Honolulu, only days after departing New Zealand in the first week of May 1976. While in Australia, Prabhupada had been aware of initial suspicions that Madhudvisa was having difficulties, but he had hoped to keep the matter quiet until he could personally speak to Madhudvisa about it in New York. Unfortunately, the information was leaked prematurely, a fact that very much displeased him. He was angry at both Pusta Krsna Swami and Guru Krpa Swami for irresponsibly spreading the news.
Prabhupada explained that the event should have been a personal matter between the spiritual master and the disciple; perhaps a few others concerned could have been informed. If it had been treated in this way, he said, then there would have been a better chance for Madhudvisa's rectification and re-acceptance. But by widely broadcasting his behaviour, his embarrassment would not enable him to easily return. Prabhupada told the men frankly that now it would be impossible for Madhudvisa to come back and face the devotees again.
In ISKCON's early years, Prabhupada and his followers had reacted with great shock whenever a devotee had gone away. But with time, as such an unfortunate event continued to occur, sometimes striking down leading, trusted disciples, Prabhupada had grown to live with it. But he never stopped feeling bereaved over a lost son or daughter, especially if that disciple had rendered him significant service. Madhudvisa had been one of his leading sannyasis. Prabhupada had personally trained him; in turn Madhudvisa had offered wonderful service, expertly leading the Australasian yatra for over four years. And now he was gone.
A casual observer would tend to think that Srila Prabhupada was biased towards his followers because he wanted the falldowns of his followers to be covered up while he criticized other godmen "gurus". But it requires a little intelligence to understand that Prabhupada always criticized "gurus" - those fake "gurus" who had no spiritual qualifications of a pure devotee (read the 1st paragraph of the purport to Bhagavad Gita As It Is 10.9). Referring to the below event, if Madhudvisa Swami was a "guru" then, Prabhupada would have criticized him as well.
But today's ISKCON leaders have become expert cheaters in convincing the rank and file devotees that Prabhupada wanted cover-ups. Thus they have tainted the position of Srila Prabhupada and thoroughly misrepresented him. Those who are party to this hypocrisy knowingly or unknowingly are suffering or will suffer the results of this offense to Prabhupada. It takes a little common sense to understand the difference between being a "guru" and being just a leader. Because of these cover-ups at the highest level, hypocrisy pervades all over ISKCON today. And wherever there is hypocrisy, that place is an embodiment of Kali. After Srila Prabhupada left, ISKCON has just become an embodiment of Kali with rampant spiritual corruption. Homosexual gurus, bi-sexual gurus, pedophile gurus, murderer gurus, hippy gurus... name it, you will find an example of them in ISKCON. A conditioned soul occupying the position of a guru is a deliberate act of cheating the ignorant neophytes, and that was thoroughly condemned by Srila Prabhupada.
If someone like Bhavananda was in a civil society in India, he would have been lynched by the public for his sexual crimes. But he is under the safe protection of another "guru". Can anyone say there is morality in ISKCON?
Many of today's ISKCON devotees are no better than Sai Baba worshipers. We criticize Sai Baba and his followers because they claim that he was God. But what have we done? We have also worshiped fallible conditioned souls such as the initial 11 gurus and the several unqualified 10s that followed over the next 4 decades. Thus we have equated conditioned souls to the position of Krishna (sākṣād-dharitvena samasta-śāstrair...) and made a mockery of the entire guru sishya parampara. What spiritual realizations can we expect from a follower of fake "gurus" and "god" such as Sai Baba ?
The ridiculous thing here is, ISKCON follows a policy of "not fallen until (s)exposed." Usually someone is not fallen until he is fallen. But in ISKCON the "gurus" have to be exposed, like how Prabhavisnu was exposed. Until then, no one cares. But after he is exposed, the GBC will let the whole world know that he was fallen for more than 10 years.
Who knows how many such "gurus" are already fallen but are not yet or will never be exposed? Another ridiculous thing is devotees worrying, "How will the guru sishya parampara continue?" It is like a foolish non-vegetarian eater worrying "the world will be full of chickens if people do not eat them". It is also like a group of ordinary monkeys worrying about who will carry the mountain? How much ever the monkeys debate and discuss, neither of them can carry the mountain. Even if all the monkeys get together, they cannot carry the mountain. When Hanuman comes he doesn't need any debate, discussion, GBC appointment, no objection, nothing! He just carries the mountain in the service of Lord Rama.
The Gaudiya Matha was full of such discussions and fights. But Srila Prabhupada appeared like Hanuman and just carried forward the mission of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So ordinary devotees need not worry about carrying forward the disciplic succession because this is just not in their scope. Krishna has his plans and sends his confidential devotee to carry forward this mission, just like how Srila Prabhupada manifested himself 30 years after the disappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. From history we know that those who imitated the positions of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati or Srila Prabhupada after they left were just disturbances to the society.
Here's the incident: Australia, 1976-1977: Madhudvisa Swami appeared well-situated in his new service in New York. It seemed reasonable to assume that he would not be returning to the Australian zone. This was confirmed when news filtered back from the recent GBC meetings in Mayapur -- Guru Krpa Swami was the new GBC for Australia and New Zealand. The Australian devotees knew that Madhudvisa had needed a change. Although they missed him, they were happy that he had taken well to his new responsibilities in America. It came, therefore, as a considerable shock when the devotees heard that Madhudvisa Swami had fallen down from the sannyasa asrama and left the temple. Many could hardly believe it. Others took it more philosophically, but all were deeply affected.
Srila Prabhupada heard the news in Honolulu, only days after departing New Zealand in the first week of May 1976. While in Australia, Prabhupada had been aware of initial suspicions that Madhudvisa was having difficulties, but he had hoped to keep the matter quiet until he could personally speak to Madhudvisa about it in New York. Unfortunately, the information was leaked prematurely, a fact that very much displeased him. He was angry at both Pusta Krsna Swami and Guru Krpa Swami for irresponsibly spreading the news.
Prabhupada explained that the event should have been a personal matter between the spiritual master and the disciple; perhaps a few others concerned could have been informed. If it had been treated in this way, he said, then there would have been a better chance for Madhudvisa's rectification and re-acceptance. But by widely broadcasting his behaviour, his embarrassment would not enable him to easily return. Prabhupada told the men frankly that now it would be impossible for Madhudvisa to come back and face the devotees again.
In ISKCON's early years, Prabhupada and his followers had reacted with great shock whenever a devotee had gone away. But with time, as such an unfortunate event continued to occur, sometimes striking down leading, trusted disciples, Prabhupada had grown to live with it. But he never stopped feeling bereaved over a lost son or daughter, especially if that disciple had rendered him significant service. Madhudvisa had been one of his leading sannyasis. Prabhupada had personally trained him; in turn Madhudvisa had offered wonderful service, expertly leading the Australasian yatra for over four years. And now he was gone.
- From "The Great Transcendental Adventure" by HG Kurma Prabhu
========================================
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.