===========
17 Devotees Missing in Nepal
PADA: OMG Pilgrims, I was looking at a video of the Nepal rescue teams, and they were finding a foot -- with some of the leg still remaining, an arm, torn up bodies that probably won't be indentified due to all the damages, and of course fully complete but pretty rough looking bodies. This really looks like a very destructive wipe out for a lot of people. Never mind all the ruined roads, bridges, buildings, infrastructure etc.
Some scientists are blaming climate change for melting the glaciers. I think that is correct, the climate is getting warmer and the glaciers are deteriorating. I feel bad for the devotees who were up there, and lets hope some of them turn up alive and well. But it is not looking promising.
At the same time the ISKCON Mahavishnu swami temple Nepal has been embroiled in a conflict over sexual exploiters and other issues over there, sometimes it looks like these people attract trouble like a karma magnet. Maybe this will affect them, I am not sure.
ys pd
angel108b@yahoo.com
=========
Drutakarma Health.
He has had some sort of a stroke and it has been pretty rough for him. I do not know the current status. I saw him once in Los Angeles and asked him, why is the GBC promoting homosexuals and pedophiles as Krishna's guru successors? He just kept staring -- deer in the headlights -- into the distance, and looking very mentally blanked out.
He just could not answer, so he said, I have to go somewhere now. Yep, they always have to go somewhere when confronted with a simple question. On the other hand, if we ask any American Joe six pack if homosexuals and pedophiles should be worshiped as God's successors, they know the right answer right away. And that is because the average American Joe six pack has some spiritual moral compass that guides them properly, at least on this issue.
Then again, when PADA announced that 50% or more of the ISKCON leaders are probably homosexuals, or leaning that way, some woman severely chastised PADA, "it is more like 95%, don't make false propaganda." OK, hee hee, you got me there pardner! ys pd
========
Interviewer: Oh, okay. All right, that basically covers the third, the fourth, and the fifth questions. Moving on to the sixth question—the main meat of the thing: what happened in 1977 in Vṛndāvana, during the last few months of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s physical presence?
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: Sure. Prabhupāda had gone to Ṛṣikeśa from Bombay, at the foothills of the Himalayas, and on the 17th of May 1977, Prabhupāda came to Vṛndāvana. We got a phone call there that Prabhupāda was coming to Vṛndāvana and that he might die in Vṛndāvana. So we were pretty shocked.
Basically, soon after coming to Vṛndāvana, Śrīla Prabhupāda made a request that all the GBCs should come to Vṛndāvana and meet with Śrīla Prabhupāda, and discuss with him issues concerning the property management of the Society, making a will for Prabhupāda, and things like that.
Personally, I had the opportunity, for almost ten days or two weeks, to massage Prabhupāda at night in mid-May of 1977. At that point I was involved in the gurukula.
What happened was that in 1976, after we went to Chandigarh, I was involved with a few brahmacārīs in my party from South India, and I was helping with Deity worship.
I was chanting the Brahma-saṁhitā near the Deity room, and Prabhupāda’s room was very close to the back of the Deity room. Then somebody came to the Deity room and said:
“Prabhupāda wants you to go see him right now.”
And I thought I was going to get severely chastised. I didn’t know what this was about. I had been chanting Brahma-saṁhitā.
Basically, when I went to Prabhupāda’s room and paid my obeisances, Prabhupāda said:
“Was that you who was chanting Brahma-saṁhitā?”
I said:
“Yes.”
Prabhupāda said:
“Oh, very nice.”
Then he said:
“So then you stay here in Vṛndāvana, train the devotees, and teach the children in the gurukula how to chant like this.”
So by May of 1977, I was involved in the gurukula in Vṛndāvana, teaching the children every day.
Prabhupāda had come there and, basically, he requested all the GBCs to come to Vṛndāvana. So gradually, by the end of May 1977, all the GBCs—or most of the GBCs—came to Vṛndāvana, and they drafted some questions for Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Now, I was not a GBC at the time. I was still Gurukṛpā’s assistant, literally, and basically I was privy to a lot of his confidential files, confidential correspondence with the GBC, GBC notes, GBC minutes, and everything.
Although I was not there when these questions to ask Śrīla Prabhupāda were drafted—I was not in the room when they did that—because I was seeing all the written papers, I had some reasonable idea of what was going on.
So that was the situation.
Interviewer: Yes. What is the story with Śrīla Prabhupāda wanting all of his disciples to come to Vṛndāvana in 1977?
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: That particular story came out of when Prabhupāda went to London, England. In mid-August, toward the end of August, when he came back to Bombay, there was a strike with Indian Airlines.
He could not fly from Bombay to Delhi, so he had to take a train from Bombay to Mathurā.
When Śrīla Prabhupāda came to the Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma Temple, we carried him in a palanquin to his room.
Then what happened was that the late secretary told me that Prabhupāda had told him in Bombay that he wanted all of his disciples to come to Vṛndāvana.
And I said to him:
“What are you going to do?”
I said:
“We’re going to have to tell them to come.”
So somehow or other, that instruction of Śrīla Prabhupāda was suppressed.
Now, again, I’m not pointing a finger at anybody here, but it is a well-known fact that that information was not relayed and given to all the devotees worldwide, to come and see Śrīla Prabhupāda as he had requested.
This is all documented especially well by Ameyātmā in one of his recent books. But I was personally told by the late secretary that Prabhupāda wanted all of his disciples to come to Vṛndāvana.
And Hari-śauri, at that point, maintained an unpublished diary of the activities in September and October. It was typed by Smara Hari’s brother. And this is all related in there—that Prabhupāda requested the devotees to come, and they did not give out the information, for whatever reason.
Interviewer: I see. Okay, next question: any background information on how the controversy over the guru issue started?
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: Well, one of the reasons—because I’ve been asked that question by quite a few people—is: why was this issue not discussed with all the devotees?
First of all, in 1977 there were attempts to discuss that, to get this issue clarified, because you have to remember the May 28, 1977 conversation with Śrīla Prabhupāda about initiations, particularly:
“At that time, when you’re no longer with us…”
This was a private discussion with a few GBCs. This was not available to the devotees for many years—the complete transcript of the conversation.
There were different partial transcripts, incomplete transcripts, and it created a lot of difficulty for many of us who were trying to find out:
“What did Prabhupāda exactly say?”
For example, in August of 1977, I was in Vṛndāvana, outside of Prabhupāda’s room, because every day we would go into Prabhupāda’s room with the gurukula children and do kīrtana.
So one night Bhagavān, Gurukṛpā, and myself were outside of Prabhupāda’s room at the Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma Temple, and we requested the late secretary to be allowed to see Prabhupāda, to get clarification on how the initiation system in ISKCON would go on after his departure.
And Tamāla basically refused, saying:
“Well, Prabhupāda is not feeling well, and I know what he really wants, and this is not a proper time to discuss this.”
Basically, he refused to allow us to see Prabhupāda.
Then later on, during the so-called debate in San Francisco in January of 1994, Jayādvaita and Śāstrī [name uncertain] put out a little paper with their memories of what they felt had happened.
And they made the point that in October of 1977, basically, they went to Tamāla and asked him the same question. They wanted to get some clarification on how the system would work in the ISKCON temples.
Again, the same answer from the late secretary. He would not allow them to do that.
When Gurukṛpā and myself came back from Japan—because what happened in mid-October of 1977 was that we got news from Akṣayānanda and Bhagatji, and a couple of GBCs, that there was a lawsuit from the contractor of the gurukula building, the Bhaktivedanta Swami Gurukula building in Vṛndāvana.
ISKCON was being sued.
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: Prabhupāda called us in and requested us to go to Japan with a Nāma-haṭṭa party and try to collect some money on a quick basis to try to solve this litigation. So we went there, basically.
Then, on the 14th of November, after Prabhupāda departed, we got a phone call:
“You’ve got to come back right away because Prabhupāda just departed.”
So this was a great shock to us, because we were hoping and praying that Prabhupāda would stay much longer. But somehow or other, we were not able to get tickets right away, and we came back on the 1st of December.
When we came back to Vṛndāvana, the late secretary talked to us. It was on top of the gurukula building. Basically, he gave us some mementos from Śrīla Prabhupāda and explained what had happened—the ceremonies after Prabhupāda departed, the whole procession through Vṛndāvana City.
Then Gurukṛpā basically looked at him straight in the eyes and said:
“How is this initiation thing going to work now that Prabhupāda is no longer here?”
Again, the same question, same answer from Tamāla:
“Well, we don’t know yet, and the GBC is going to discuss this.”
He was being very evasive because, according to my personal recollection, after the July 9th letter came out, I was the first devotee who saw the letter. Tamāla showed me the letter, and I asked him:
“What does this mean?”
He said:
“Well, Prabhupāda has nominated some ṛtviks to initiate on his behalf.”
And I said:
“What about after Prabhupāda departs?”
And Tamāla said:
“There’ll be ṛtviks.”
It’s all on tape, of course.
Later on, Tamāla denied this, but the reality is: where are those tapes?
Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita, a couple of days earlier, before the July 7th conversation, heard Prabhupāda say—and he was recording it on the tape recorder—that:
“Tomorrow I will nominate some ṛtviks who will initiate on my behalf after I depart.”
There’s testimony from Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita like that.
And personally, I wrote that statement of Tamāla in my diary.
So, of course, Tamāla denies it, but the problem with all of this is: where are these missing tapes?
Because there are a lot of devotees who have studied this issue. Basically, for example, the late secretary kept the diary in London, England. There’s no record of conversations with Śrīla Prabhupāda, but yet in the late secretary’s diary there are references to all kinds of conversations with Prabhupāda.
Why were they not recorded?
We have a conversation on July 7th where nine names are given, and then the letter two days later, on July 9th, where there are eleven names.
Now, I’m not suggesting that the other two names were not bona fide. Prabhupāda signed that letter. It’s fine.
Why is it that there is no recorded conversation where those two names are mentioned?
In Topanga Canyon, California, the late secretary mentioned that he asked Śrīla Prabhupāda about Brahmānanda Swami because he liked Brahmānanda Swami.
Brahmānanda Swami was beloved by many devotees. Personally, I was initiated through his grace. He got me recommended to Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Then supposedly Tamāla replied:
“No, not now. He has to be reformed,”
or made some reference that later on he could be added to the list.
Okay, where’s the recording of that conversation?
In other words, there are a lot of references to different conversations with Śrīla Prabhupāda, and nobody can provide authenticated recordings of these conversations.
If somebody says:
“Well, we couldn’t record everything,”
my question is:
“Why not?”
These were very important topics and conversations. Very important.
Interviewer: Wow. This is mind-blowing to think that we could potentially have maybe a good few hundred hours of really critical bits of information that are missing, you know, and that would just set things right in the movement, because a lot of people are speculating or misleading other devotees.
You sort of answered my ninth question before I asked it, but I want to go on to the tenth question, which is: what was Gurukṛpā’s connection and involvement with Bhakti Vaibhava Purī Mahārāja?
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: I believe in 1991–1992, both Gurukṛpā and [others] went to Bhakti Vaibhava Purī Mahārāja. He was a senior sannyāsī in the Gauḍīya Maṭha.
Prabhupāda had a good relationship with him. In 1972, when Prabhupāda did the groundbreaking ceremony of the Māyāpur temple, he came there to Māyāpur. He was very supportive of Śrīla Prabhupāda.
In 1971, I believe, he invited Śrīla Prabhupāda and many of his disciples to his temple in Viśākhapatnam. He was very favorable to Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Prabhupāda wrote a letter at one point. He said:
“Perhaps you’re the only Godbrother who is not envious of my activities.”
I’m paraphrasing here.
He was a very fixed-up sannyāsī, and Gurukṛpā basically started to consult him.
In 1993, basically, Gurukṛpā, Bhakti Vaibhava Purī Mahārāja, myself, and Haṁsadūta went to Vṛndāvana, and Haṁsadūta issued a challenge. It was a $108,000 challenge, where we agreed—and Gurukṛpā had the checkbook—to pay 108,000 U.S. dollars to anybody who could prove in writing that they had been appointed by Śrīla Prabhupāda as an initiating guru.
Nobody showed up.
So basically, they consulted him, and basically that is the story.
My basic point and personal feeling about this is not just in regard to Purī Mahārāja. It’s many of the other advisors that senior Godbrothers have consulted over the years.
Where is the record, specifically in the last few months of Prabhupāda’s manifested presence? I’m referring to 1977, from April to November 14th.
Where is the authenticated record or evidence where Prabhupāda told us to go consult other advisors besides himself?
I say it doesn’t exist.
Some people have tried to put out some statements:
“Prabhupāda said this at this time.”
“Prabhupāda said that at that time.”
Because in Prabhupāda’s mind, even in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s will, he says there’s no need of any change of management. Things should remain the same—not all these changes that were introduced in 1978.
So this idea that people have gone to various advisors trying to prop up some tradition idea, or so-called “living guru” philosophy—this was not supported by Śrīla Prabhupāda.
For example, in 1969, Śrīla Prabhupāda was exploring cooperation with a group in Calcutta called the Chaitanya Mission. They were exchanging correspondence about how to cooperate for preaching.
And what happened in one letter, Prabhupāda said:
“I see that in your articles you mentioned that the ācārya is entitled to nominate his successor in writing. But we do not find any record of our Guru Mahārāja appointing any ācārya after him.”
So this is basically my point: that in 1977, during the last few months of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s manifested presence with us, there’s no record of Prabhupāda appointing, or selecting, or nominating, or choosing—whatever term you want to use—any dīkṣā gurus or initiating ācāryas after him.
That is basically what was called in Topanga Canyon a myth, a fiction.
They invented this.
That’s why many of them refused to discuss the issue when it was brought up to them.
For example, in March of 1978, I was living [unclear]. Bhagavān, Tamāla, Gurukṛpā, and myself—my lonely self—we were all living together in the same room on top of one of the long-wall buildings at Māyāpur.
So one time Bhagavān, who was very friendly with Gurukṛpā—they were out—and I asked Tamāla...
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: I said:
“You know, I’m in the gurukula there teaching, and there are a lot of parents from different zones of the world. They’re asking the question: ‘How is this initiating guru situation going to work?’ Well, there’s no clarification.”
When I mentioned that to Tamāla, I said:
“Why don’t we take all the important conversations which took place with Śrīla Prabhupāda in 1977 and get them transcribed, and discuss this in front of all the sannyāsīs, temple presidents, and senior devotees? We have forty or fifty brāhmaṇas. We could get this done and get some clarity.”
Tamāla was very surprised by my question, and he said:
“Well, Prabhupāda said if we have any questions, we can go ask Śrīdhara Mahārāja.”
And I said:
“Really?”
He said:
“No, no. You can go ask him some questions.”
So actually, I went there with one Bengali brahmacārī and started to ask him some questions about this.
And he raised his hand. He said:
“No. If they have questions, it’s best that they come and ask. Otherwise, there could be misunderstanding.”
So there were efforts to try to get clarification in 1977 and 1978. But then, by that point in time, there were a lot of people who had different ideas about how this thing should be done.
That’s why there was so much confusion and so much misinterpretation of Prabhupāda’s instructions.
Interviewer: So, you know, I know that back in the early ’80s the Śrīdhara Mahārāja camp was booming, and a lot of devotees were joining the Śrīdhara Mahārāja camp.
And Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami was, from what I understand, propagating the idea that Prabhupāda said we can take guidance from Śrīdhara Mahārāja with regard to the philosophy after his physical departure.
In fact, they point to—I think, is it a letter or a conversation?—that Prabhupāda even wanted Śrīdhara Mahārāja to be the president of the Māyāpur Temple.
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: Yes, there is documentation with regard to that.
But my point is—and I don’t want to offend anybody; it’s not my position to criticize any disciple of His Divine Grace Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. They’re obviously all special souls—but with regard to ISKCON and Prabhupāda’s Society, Prabhupāda wanted things done a different way.
And it is well known that Prabhupāda did not approve of the ācārya appointment that took place in the Gauḍīya Maṭha in 1937 after the departure of His Divine Grace Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.
There is a famous letter to Rūpānuga where Śrīla Prabhupāda documents the breakdown of the Gauḍīya Maṭha.
Prabhupāda very specifically mentioned certain individuals who were responsible for disobeying Guru Mahārāja’s order.
There are also different conversations that took place at different times. It’s all available in the Prabhupāda conversation books, where Prabhupāda explained the whole breakdown of the preaching mission of the Gauḍīya Maṭha.
And Prabhupāda did not want the same thing to happen to his mission.
I personally was in Prabhupāda’s room in 1977 when Prabhupāda told two senior men:
“Please do not allow my institution to become like the Gauḍīya Maṭha or the Catholic Church.”
What did they do?
They did the exact same thing.
So Prabhupāda was very concerned about this.
That’s why he wrote in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā, Chapter 12, in connection with the sons of Advaita Ācārya, some of whom had deviated from his instructions and teachings. Prabhupāda mentions the whole history of the Gauḍīya Maṭha breakdown.
So this idea that Prabhupāda wanted us to get advice and consultation from different advisors—that is not documented. That is not a fact.
As a matter of fact, the only documentation which I’ve heard was a conversation between Śrīla Prabhupāda and Pradyumna Paṇḍitjī, when Prabhupāda basically told Paṇḍitjī that if you have any technical questions about the translation of the Sanskrit commentaries of the ācāryas on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, then he could consult Śrīdhara Mahārāja.
But this was not an open floodgate for questioning him on everything about Prabhupāda’s Society, because Prabhupāda, in his mind, had set everything up.
Everything had been set up.
That’s why in Prabhupāda’s will there is mention:
“There is no need of changing the management.”
There is no need for that.
And that system that they introduced was a complete change of everything Prabhupāda had made: change in the Deity worship, change in the guru worship, change in the kīrtana, change in the way we worship the ācāryas—so many unnecessary changes.
So this is a very important point.
Prabhupāda was very careful to document everything carefully about his Society, his directives, his orders, how he wanted everything.
And in this most important issue, he would forget?
No.
He did give documentation. He gave that letter of July 9th, which was signed by him.
And when people say:
“Well, the letter was written by Tamāla. It doesn’t count.”
Well, it was signed by Prabhupāda.
You know, when Prabhupāda created the BBT, that document was drafted by a lawyer in Los Angeles. Prabhupāda signed it.
There are many letters in the Śrīla Prabhupāda letter books containing directives to the Society. Like the “Topmost Urgency” letter in 1974. This was dictated by Prabhupāda’s secretary.
In 1975, Brahmānanda sent a letter that he signed on behalf of Prabhupāda about not going to the Gauḍīya Maṭha, not buying their books, not going to their temples.
Prabhupāda didn’t directly sign it. It was a directive that Prabhupāda dictated to his secretary, and it was accepted as Prabhupāda’s order.
That letter was Prabhupāda’s words, and it was never amended. It was never changed. It was never altered.
My question is: where is the other letter that people claim appointed them?
What is this idea that they were appointed as Prabhupāda’s successors?
Where is this evidence?
A few days after that letter of July 9th was issued, there was a conversation about Haṁsadūta, who had been preaching in Sri Lanka, and Prabhupāda said:
“Continue to become a ṛtvik and act on my charge.”
And the next major conversation that took place was on the 18th of October, when Śrīla Prabhupāda mentions the word “deputy”:
“I’ve deputed my disciples. Some deputies are there.”
“His name was on the list.”
What list is he talking about?
The July 9th letter.
So this is a very important point.
There’s no record in 1977, in the last few months prior to Prabhupāda’s departure—specifically from April 22nd, 1977, until November 14th, 1977—where Prabhupāda ever issued an order for any of these original eleven, or any deputy, to become an initiating guru or dīkṣā-guru.
It doesn’t exist.
As a matter of fact, if you carefully study the Topanga Canyon conversation of December 3rd, 1980, from Topanga Canyon, California, the late secretary admits that there is no evidence for this guru appointment.
He says:
“It’s a myth.”
M-Y-T-H.
And on the basis of false propaganda, they propagated this.
Now, these things can be corrected. There’s always room for correction.
But it seems that the disease has become like an epidemic now. They vote them in. They rubber-stamp them.
It’s like a Mahābhārata factory—a paramahaṁsa assembly line. You rubber-stamp them.
This was not Prabhupāda’s teaching.
Interviewer: Yes. Hare Kṛṣṇa.
I think, you know, just a quick comment on my end. There’s a letter to Rūpānuga, probably in 1974, where Prabhupāda goes into the brief history as to the disintegration of the Gauḍīya Maṭha.
And Rūpānuga had mentioned—I think on Sampradaya Sun—that he sent a letter to Prabhupāda because he had recently attended a Gauḍīya Maṭha festival at Śrīdhara Mahārāja’s maṭha.
So he said to Śrīla Prabhupāda that he did not find Śrīdhara Mahārāja to be very genuine...
Interviewer: So, in response to his letter, Prabhupāda says:
“You are right about the genuineness of Śrīdhara Mahārāja, but in my opinion he’s the best of the lot. At least he follows the regulative principles.”
And then Prabhupāda talks about the breakup of the Gauḍīya Maṭha, and he attributes the cause of that to Śrīdhara Mahārāja and a few other gentlemen having unauthorizedly appointed Ananta Vāsudeva as the sole ācārya to Bhakti [unclear].
Now, Prabhupāda, of course, always showed the Vaiṣṇava etiquette of offering formal respect to his Godbrothers. But I think a lot of devotees have problems with separating, in their minds, that there’s a difference between following Vaiṣṇava etiquette and respecting Prabhupāda’s Godbrothers, and being philosophically chaste to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings and not making unnecessary compromises.
You know, it seems a lot of devotees have problems with that, and they think that just because Prabhupāda said some faint praise of his Godbrothers on certain occasions, that it was some sort of endorsement of the teachings that they were preaching, you know.
So, yes.
Okay, my next question: Bhakti Vaibhava Purī Swami has candidly admitted Śrīla Prabhupāda’s setup for ṛtvik deputies in his physical aftermath. Then, in another interview, he laughed at the concept of ṛtvik post-samādhi. Why such conflicting views from one person?
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: Well, let me just say this.
Again, I don’t want to criticize any disciple of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.
Prabhupāda set up ISKCON in a very unique way. In the beginning of his mission, he tried to cooperate with various members and leaders of the Gauḍīya Maṭha. Every time, that did not work.
He built his mission. He preached his mission. And he was very careful to give guidance to many of his leaders in private conversations about not repeating the same mistakes of the Gauḍīya Maṭha.
If anybody wants to study the Caitanya-caritāmṛta text, it’s right there—Ādi-līlā, Chapter 8, Text 8, like that.
Why would Prabhupāda introduce an ācārya appointment system that he had criticized repeatedly with regard to the Gauḍīya Maṭha?
That would be a major contradiction.
What Prabhupāda did was basically nominate some senior men to carry on the formalities of initiation.
He did not want to repeat the Gauḍīya Maṭha Part Two mistake.
That was not Śrīla Prabhupāda’s point. He wanted to avoid that.
At the same time, he chose some physically present persons who would carry on the formalities—the chanting on the beads, the choosing of the name, the performance of the fire sacrifice, like that—to carry on the process.
If Prabhupāda wanted to appoint some successor gurus, successor dīkṣā-gurus, or initiating ācāryas, why did he not say so in public—not in secret, but in public?
And at the first meeting that the GBC had in Māyāpur in 1978, if they were so convinced that they had been appointed as ācāryas or dīkṣā-gurus, why didn’t they bring up their so-called “appointment tape” in public and discuss it in front of everybody?
The fact of the matter is, they had their own private, secret discussions, and then they introduced it into the Society immediately after Māyāpur.
It’s not a very complicated issue to understand.
Purī Mahārāja came from the system in the Gauḍīya Maṭha where they have all these different independent maṭhas, where they all appoint their successors.
This was not Prabhupāda’s idea.
Every time Prabhupāda was asked whether or not he had nominated a successor after him, he said:
“No. I have a GBC, a governing body. They will carry on.”
What they did was borrow a Gauḍīya Maṭha deviated, failed program. That’s what they did.
And the whole preaching was disturbed. The mission was disturbed.
There’s a lot more behind this whole story, but basically Purī Mahārāja contradicted himself.
He said in one interview that he asked Prabhupāda:
“Did you appoint one guru?”
Prabhupāda said no.
Prabhupāda replied:
“I’ve not appointed any guru. I’ve appointed some ṛtviks.”
Basically, after Prabhupāda departed, he criticized the whole concept.
Why?
Why criticize Prabhupāda’s arrangement?
It was a perfect arrangement.
Their arrangement resulted in these original eleven—all of them falling down or having major deviations.
How do they explain that?
There was a tape with, I believe, Madhu Paṇḍita.
Incidentally, I very respectfully disagree with my good friend Gurukṛpā when he criticized the Bangalore devotees with Madhu Paṇḍita, saying that they don’t follow śāstra.
Following the order of the ācārya is following śāstra.
That is following śāstra.
That ṛtvik arrangement was Prabhupāda’s arrangement for continuation of initiations in his Society.
He did not want a Gauḍīya Maṭha Part Two program, and it’s exactly what they introduced—these misleaders introduced into Prabhupāda’s Society.
And when we tried to discuss it in 1978, they didn’t want to hear it.
As a matter of fact, one of their leaders from Māyāpur, one of the original eleven, told one gurukula teacher:
“There is nothing to be discussed. We have already decided everything. They”—meaning Prajñāparamitā [name uncertain] and some other devotees—“should just accept. There is nothing to discuss.”
What kind of idea is that?
That’s why every time we tried to bring it up to the late secretary, he refused to discuss it. He refused to bring it out in the open.
The GBC did not bring the issue out in the open in 1978, at the March meeting.
They refused to discuss it.
They forced it through.
As a matter of fact, their first report contains a great insult to Śrīla Prabhupāda.
They said:
“The process for continuing initiations, in consultation with higher authorities…”
What is this nonsense?
Higher authorities?
Did they ever provide evidence that there were higher authorities than Śrīla Prabhupāda in his movement?
Prabhupāda was the supreme authority in his Society.
Who did they consult?
Were they referring to themselves as higher authorities?
Still, they cannot explain.
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: Sure. Prabhupāda had gone to Ṛṣikeśa from Bombay, at the foothills of the Himalayas, and on the 17th of May 1977, Prabhupāda came to Vṛndāvana. We got a phone call there that Prabhupāda was coming to Vṛndāvana and that he might die in Vṛndāvana. So we were pretty shocked.
Basically, soon after coming to Vṛndāvana, Śrīla Prabhupāda made a request that all the GBCs should come to Vṛndāvana and meet with Śrīla Prabhupāda, and discuss with him issues concerning the property management of the Society, making a will for Prabhupāda, and things like that.
Personally, I had the opportunity, for almost ten days or two weeks, to massage Prabhupāda at night in mid-May of 1977. At that point I was involved in the gurukula.
What happened was that in 1976, after we went to Chandigarh, I was involved with a few brahmacārīs in my party from South India, and I was helping with Deity worship.
I was chanting the Brahma-saṁhitā near the Deity room, and Prabhupāda’s room was very close to the back of the Deity room. Then somebody came to the Deity room and said:
“Prabhupāda wants you to go see him right now.”
And I thought I was going to get severely chastised. I didn’t know what this was about. I had been chanting Brahma-saṁhitā.
Basically, when I went to Prabhupāda’s room and paid my obeisances, Prabhupāda said:
“Was that you who was chanting Brahma-saṁhitā?”
I said:
“Yes.”
Prabhupāda said:
“Oh, very nice.”
Then he said:
“So then you stay here in Vṛndāvana, train the devotees, and teach the children in the gurukula how to chant like this.”
So by May of 1977, I was involved in the gurukula in Vṛndāvana, teaching the children every day.
Prabhupāda had come there and, basically, he requested all the GBCs to come to Vṛndāvana. So gradually, by the end of May 1977, all the GBCs—or most of the GBCs—came to Vṛndāvana, and they drafted some questions for Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Now, I was not a GBC at the time. I was still Gurukṛpā’s assistant, literally, and basically I was privy to a lot of his confidential files, confidential correspondence with the GBC, GBC notes, GBC minutes, and everything.
Although I was not there when these questions to ask Śrīla Prabhupāda were drafted—I was not in the room when they did that—because I was seeing all the written papers, I had some reasonable idea of what was going on.
So that was the situation.
Interviewer: Yes. What is the story with Śrīla Prabhupāda wanting all of his disciples to come to Vṛndāvana in 1977?
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: That particular story came out of when Prabhupāda went to London, England. In mid-August, toward the end of August, when he came back to Bombay, there was a strike with Indian Airlines.
He could not fly from Bombay to Delhi, so he had to take a train from Bombay to Mathurā.
When Śrīla Prabhupāda came to the Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma Temple, we carried him in a palanquin to his room.
Then what happened was that the late secretary told me that Prabhupāda had told him in Bombay that he wanted all of his disciples to come to Vṛndāvana.
And I said to him:
“What are you going to do?”
I said:
“We’re going to have to tell them to come.”
So somehow or other, that instruction of Śrīla Prabhupāda was suppressed.
Now, again, I’m not pointing a finger at anybody here, but it is a well-known fact that that information was not relayed and given to all the devotees worldwide, to come and see Śrīla Prabhupāda as he had requested.
This is all documented especially well by Ameyātmā in one of his recent books. But I was personally told by the late secretary that Prabhupāda wanted all of his disciples to come to Vṛndāvana.
And Hari-śauri, at that point, maintained an unpublished diary of the activities in September and October. It was typed by Smara Hari’s brother. And this is all related in there—that Prabhupāda requested the devotees to come, and they did not give out the information, for whatever reason.
Interviewer: I see. Okay, next question: any background information on how the controversy over the guru issue started?
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: Well, one of the reasons—because I’ve been asked that question by quite a few people—is: why was this issue not discussed with all the devotees?
First of all, in 1977 there were attempts to discuss that, to get this issue clarified, because you have to remember the May 28, 1977 conversation with Śrīla Prabhupāda about initiations, particularly:
“At that time, when you’re no longer with us…”
This was a private discussion with a few GBCs. This was not available to the devotees for many years—the complete transcript of the conversation.
There were different partial transcripts, incomplete transcripts, and it created a lot of difficulty for many of us who were trying to find out:
“What did Prabhupāda exactly say?”
For example, in August of 1977, I was in Vṛndāvana, outside of Prabhupāda’s room, because every day we would go into Prabhupāda’s room with the gurukula children and do kīrtana.
So one night Bhagavān, Gurukṛpā, and myself were outside of Prabhupāda’s room at the Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma Temple, and we requested the late secretary to be allowed to see Prabhupāda, to get clarification on how the initiation system in ISKCON would go on after his departure.
And Tamāla basically refused, saying:
“Well, Prabhupāda is not feeling well, and I know what he really wants, and this is not a proper time to discuss this.”
Basically, he refused to allow us to see Prabhupāda.
Then later on, during the so-called debate in San Francisco in January of 1994, Jayādvaita and Śāstrī [name uncertain] put out a little paper with their memories of what they felt had happened.
And they made the point that in October of 1977, basically, they went to Tamāla and asked him the same question. They wanted to get some clarification on how the system would work in the ISKCON temples.
Again, the same answer from the late secretary. He would not allow them to do that.
When Gurukṛpā and myself came back from Japan—because what happened in mid-October of 1977 was that we got news from Akṣayānanda and Bhagatji, and a couple of GBCs, that there was a lawsuit from the contractor of the gurukula building, the Bhaktivedanta Swami Gurukula building in Vṛndāvana.
ISKCON was being sued.
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: Prabhupāda called us in and requested us to go to Japan with a Nāma-haṭṭa party and try to collect some money on a quick basis to try to solve this litigation. So we went there, basically.
Then, on the 14th of November, after Prabhupāda departed, we got a phone call:
“You’ve got to come back right away because Prabhupāda just departed.”
So this was a great shock to us, because we were hoping and praying that Prabhupāda would stay much longer. But somehow or other, we were not able to get tickets right away, and we came back on the 1st of December.
When we came back to Vṛndāvana, the late secretary talked to us. It was on top of the gurukula building. Basically, he gave us some mementos from Śrīla Prabhupāda and explained what had happened—the ceremonies after Prabhupāda departed, the whole procession through Vṛndāvana City.
Then Gurukṛpā basically looked at him straight in the eyes and said:
“How is this initiation thing going to work now that Prabhupāda is no longer here?”
Again, the same question, same answer from Tamāla:
“Well, we don’t know yet, and the GBC is going to discuss this.”
He was being very evasive because, according to my personal recollection, after the July 9th letter came out, I was the first devotee who saw the letter. Tamāla showed me the letter, and I asked him:
“What does this mean?”
He said:
“Well, Prabhupāda has nominated some ṛtviks to initiate on his behalf.”
And I said:
“What about after Prabhupāda departs?”
And Tamāla said:
“There’ll be ṛtviks.”
It’s all on tape, of course.
Later on, Tamāla denied this, but the reality is: where are those tapes?
Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita, a couple of days earlier, before the July 7th conversation, heard Prabhupāda say—and he was recording it on the tape recorder—that:
“Tomorrow I will nominate some ṛtviks who will initiate on my behalf after I depart.”
There’s testimony from Gaurīdāsa Paṇḍita like that.
And personally, I wrote that statement of Tamāla in my diary.
So, of course, Tamāla denies it, but the problem with all of this is: where are these missing tapes?
Because there are a lot of devotees who have studied this issue. Basically, for example, the late secretary kept the diary in London, England. There’s no record of conversations with Śrīla Prabhupāda, but yet in the late secretary’s diary there are references to all kinds of conversations with Prabhupāda.
Why were they not recorded?
We have a conversation on July 7th where nine names are given, and then the letter two days later, on July 9th, where there are eleven names.
Now, I’m not suggesting that the other two names were not bona fide. Prabhupāda signed that letter. It’s fine.
Why is it that there is no recorded conversation where those two names are mentioned?
In Topanga Canyon, California, the late secretary mentioned that he asked Śrīla Prabhupāda about Brahmānanda Swami because he liked Brahmānanda Swami.
Brahmānanda Swami was beloved by many devotees. Personally, I was initiated through his grace. He got me recommended to Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Then supposedly Tamāla replied:
“No, not now. He has to be reformed,”
or made some reference that later on he could be added to the list.
Okay, where’s the recording of that conversation?
In other words, there are a lot of references to different conversations with Śrīla Prabhupāda, and nobody can provide authenticated recordings of these conversations.
If somebody says:
“Well, we couldn’t record everything,”
my question is:
“Why not?”
These were very important topics and conversations. Very important.
Interviewer: Wow. This is mind-blowing to think that we could potentially have maybe a good few hundred hours of really critical bits of information that are missing, you know, and that would just set things right in the movement, because a lot of people are speculating or misleading other devotees.
You sort of answered my ninth question before I asked it, but I want to go on to the tenth question, which is: what was Gurukṛpā’s connection and involvement with Bhakti Vaibhava Purī Mahārāja?
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: I believe in 1991–1992, both Gurukṛpā and [others] went to Bhakti Vaibhava Purī Mahārāja. He was a senior sannyāsī in the Gauḍīya Maṭha.
Prabhupāda had a good relationship with him. In 1972, when Prabhupāda did the groundbreaking ceremony of the Māyāpur temple, he came there to Māyāpur. He was very supportive of Śrīla Prabhupāda.
In 1971, I believe, he invited Śrīla Prabhupāda and many of his disciples to his temple in Viśākhapatnam. He was very favorable to Śrīla Prabhupāda.
Prabhupāda wrote a letter at one point. He said:
“Perhaps you’re the only Godbrother who is not envious of my activities.”
I’m paraphrasing here.
He was a very fixed-up sannyāsī, and Gurukṛpā basically started to consult him.
In 1993, basically, Gurukṛpā, Bhakti Vaibhava Purī Mahārāja, myself, and Haṁsadūta went to Vṛndāvana, and Haṁsadūta issued a challenge. It was a $108,000 challenge, where we agreed—and Gurukṛpā had the checkbook—to pay 108,000 U.S. dollars to anybody who could prove in writing that they had been appointed by Śrīla Prabhupāda as an initiating guru.
Nobody showed up.
So basically, they consulted him, and basically that is the story.
My basic point and personal feeling about this is not just in regard to Purī Mahārāja. It’s many of the other advisors that senior Godbrothers have consulted over the years.
Where is the record, specifically in the last few months of Prabhupāda’s manifested presence? I’m referring to 1977, from April to November 14th.
Where is the authenticated record or evidence where Prabhupāda told us to go consult other advisors besides himself?
I say it doesn’t exist.
Some people have tried to put out some statements:
“Prabhupāda said this at this time.”
“Prabhupāda said that at that time.”
Because in Prabhupāda’s mind, even in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s will, he says there’s no need of any change of management. Things should remain the same—not all these changes that were introduced in 1978.
So this idea that people have gone to various advisors trying to prop up some tradition idea, or so-called “living guru” philosophy—this was not supported by Śrīla Prabhupāda.
For example, in 1969, Śrīla Prabhupāda was exploring cooperation with a group in Calcutta called the Chaitanya Mission. They were exchanging correspondence about how to cooperate for preaching.
And what happened in one letter, Prabhupāda said:
“I see that in your articles you mentioned that the ācārya is entitled to nominate his successor in writing. But we do not find any record of our Guru Mahārāja appointing any ācārya after him.”
So this is basically my point: that in 1977, during the last few months of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s manifested presence with us, there’s no record of Prabhupāda appointing, or selecting, or nominating, or choosing—whatever term you want to use—any dīkṣā gurus or initiating ācāryas after him.
That is basically what was called in Topanga Canyon a myth, a fiction.
They invented this.
That’s why many of them refused to discuss the issue when it was brought up to them.
For example, in March of 1978, I was living [unclear]. Bhagavān, Tamāla, Gurukṛpā, and myself—my lonely self—we were all living together in the same room on top of one of the long-wall buildings at Māyāpur.
So one time Bhagavān, who was very friendly with Gurukṛpā—they were out—and I asked Tamāla...
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: I said:
“You know, I’m in the gurukula there teaching, and there are a lot of parents from different zones of the world. They’re asking the question: ‘How is this initiating guru situation going to work?’ Well, there’s no clarification.”
When I mentioned that to Tamāla, I said:
“Why don’t we take all the important conversations which took place with Śrīla Prabhupāda in 1977 and get them transcribed, and discuss this in front of all the sannyāsīs, temple presidents, and senior devotees? We have forty or fifty brāhmaṇas. We could get this done and get some clarity.”
Tamāla was very surprised by my question, and he said:
“Well, Prabhupāda said if we have any questions, we can go ask Śrīdhara Mahārāja.”
And I said:
“Really?”
He said:
“No, no. You can go ask him some questions.”
So actually, I went there with one Bengali brahmacārī and started to ask him some questions about this.
And he raised his hand. He said:
“No. If they have questions, it’s best that they come and ask. Otherwise, there could be misunderstanding.”
So there were efforts to try to get clarification in 1977 and 1978. But then, by that point in time, there were a lot of people who had different ideas about how this thing should be done.
That’s why there was so much confusion and so much misinterpretation of Prabhupāda’s instructions.
Interviewer: So, you know, I know that back in the early ’80s the Śrīdhara Mahārāja camp was booming, and a lot of devotees were joining the Śrīdhara Mahārāja camp.
And Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami was, from what I understand, propagating the idea that Prabhupāda said we can take guidance from Śrīdhara Mahārāja with regard to the philosophy after his physical departure.
In fact, they point to—I think, is it a letter or a conversation?—that Prabhupāda even wanted Śrīdhara Mahārāja to be the president of the Māyāpur Temple.
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: Yes, there is documentation with regard to that.
But my point is—and I don’t want to offend anybody; it’s not my position to criticize any disciple of His Divine Grace Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. They’re obviously all special souls—but with regard to ISKCON and Prabhupāda’s Society, Prabhupāda wanted things done a different way.
And it is well known that Prabhupāda did not approve of the ācārya appointment that took place in the Gauḍīya Maṭha in 1937 after the departure of His Divine Grace Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.
There is a famous letter to Rūpānuga where Śrīla Prabhupāda documents the breakdown of the Gauḍīya Maṭha.
Prabhupāda very specifically mentioned certain individuals who were responsible for disobeying Guru Mahārāja’s order.
There are also different conversations that took place at different times. It’s all available in the Prabhupāda conversation books, where Prabhupāda explained the whole breakdown of the preaching mission of the Gauḍīya Maṭha.
And Prabhupāda did not want the same thing to happen to his mission.
I personally was in Prabhupāda’s room in 1977 when Prabhupāda told two senior men:
“Please do not allow my institution to become like the Gauḍīya Maṭha or the Catholic Church.”
What did they do?
They did the exact same thing.
So Prabhupāda was very concerned about this.
That’s why he wrote in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā, Chapter 12, in connection with the sons of Advaita Ācārya, some of whom had deviated from his instructions and teachings. Prabhupāda mentions the whole history of the Gauḍīya Maṭha breakdown.
So this idea that Prabhupāda wanted us to get advice and consultation from different advisors—that is not documented. That is not a fact.
As a matter of fact, the only documentation which I’ve heard was a conversation between Śrīla Prabhupāda and Pradyumna Paṇḍitjī, when Prabhupāda basically told Paṇḍitjī that if you have any technical questions about the translation of the Sanskrit commentaries of the ācāryas on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, then he could consult Śrīdhara Mahārāja.
But this was not an open floodgate for questioning him on everything about Prabhupāda’s Society, because Prabhupāda, in his mind, had set everything up.
Everything had been set up.
That’s why in Prabhupāda’s will there is mention:
“There is no need of changing the management.”
There is no need for that.
And that system that they introduced was a complete change of everything Prabhupāda had made: change in the Deity worship, change in the guru worship, change in the kīrtana, change in the way we worship the ācāryas—so many unnecessary changes.
So this is a very important point.
Prabhupāda was very careful to document everything carefully about his Society, his directives, his orders, how he wanted everything.
And in this most important issue, he would forget?
No.
He did give documentation. He gave that letter of July 9th, which was signed by him.
And when people say:
“Well, the letter was written by Tamāla. It doesn’t count.”
Well, it was signed by Prabhupāda.
You know, when Prabhupāda created the BBT, that document was drafted by a lawyer in Los Angeles. Prabhupāda signed it.
There are many letters in the Śrīla Prabhupāda letter books containing directives to the Society. Like the “Topmost Urgency” letter in 1974. This was dictated by Prabhupāda’s secretary.
In 1975, Brahmānanda sent a letter that he signed on behalf of Prabhupāda about not going to the Gauḍīya Maṭha, not buying their books, not going to their temples.
Prabhupāda didn’t directly sign it. It was a directive that Prabhupāda dictated to his secretary, and it was accepted as Prabhupāda’s order.
That letter was Prabhupāda’s words, and it was never amended. It was never changed. It was never altered.
My question is: where is the other letter that people claim appointed them?
What is this idea that they were appointed as Prabhupāda’s successors?
Where is this evidence?
A few days after that letter of July 9th was issued, there was a conversation about Haṁsadūta, who had been preaching in Sri Lanka, and Prabhupāda said:
“Continue to become a ṛtvik and act on my charge.”
And the next major conversation that took place was on the 18th of October, when Śrīla Prabhupāda mentions the word “deputy”:
“I’ve deputed my disciples. Some deputies are there.”
“His name was on the list.”
What list is he talking about?
The July 9th letter.
So this is a very important point.
There’s no record in 1977, in the last few months prior to Prabhupāda’s departure—specifically from April 22nd, 1977, until November 14th, 1977—where Prabhupāda ever issued an order for any of these original eleven, or any deputy, to become an initiating guru or dīkṣā-guru.
It doesn’t exist.
As a matter of fact, if you carefully study the Topanga Canyon conversation of December 3rd, 1980, from Topanga Canyon, California, the late secretary admits that there is no evidence for this guru appointment.
He says:
“It’s a myth.”
M-Y-T-H.
And on the basis of false propaganda, they propagated this.
Now, these things can be corrected. There’s always room for correction.
But it seems that the disease has become like an epidemic now. They vote them in. They rubber-stamp them.
It’s like a Mahābhārata factory—a paramahaṁsa assembly line. You rubber-stamp them.
This was not Prabhupāda’s teaching.
Interviewer: Yes. Hare Kṛṣṇa.
I think, you know, just a quick comment on my end. There’s a letter to Rūpānuga, probably in 1974, where Prabhupāda goes into the brief history as to the disintegration of the Gauḍīya Maṭha.
And Rūpānuga had mentioned—I think on Sampradaya Sun—that he sent a letter to Prabhupāda because he had recently attended a Gauḍīya Maṭha festival at Śrīdhara Mahārāja’s maṭha.
So he said to Śrīla Prabhupāda that he did not find Śrīdhara Mahārāja to be very genuine...
Interviewer: So, in response to his letter, Prabhupāda says:
“You are right about the genuineness of Śrīdhara Mahārāja, but in my opinion he’s the best of the lot. At least he follows the regulative principles.”
And then Prabhupāda talks about the breakup of the Gauḍīya Maṭha, and he attributes the cause of that to Śrīdhara Mahārāja and a few other gentlemen having unauthorizedly appointed Ananta Vāsudeva as the sole ācārya to Bhakti [unclear].
Now, Prabhupāda, of course, always showed the Vaiṣṇava etiquette of offering formal respect to his Godbrothers. But I think a lot of devotees have problems with separating, in their minds, that there’s a difference between following Vaiṣṇava etiquette and respecting Prabhupāda’s Godbrothers, and being philosophically chaste to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings and not making unnecessary compromises.
You know, it seems a lot of devotees have problems with that, and they think that just because Prabhupāda said some faint praise of his Godbrothers on certain occasions, that it was some sort of endorsement of the teachings that they were preaching, you know.
So, yes.
Okay, my next question: Bhakti Vaibhava Purī Swami has candidly admitted Śrīla Prabhupāda’s setup for ṛtvik deputies in his physical aftermath. Then, in another interview, he laughed at the concept of ṛtvik post-samādhi. Why such conflicting views from one person?
Yaśodānandana Dāsa: Well, let me just say this.
Again, I don’t want to criticize any disciple of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.
Prabhupāda set up ISKCON in a very unique way. In the beginning of his mission, he tried to cooperate with various members and leaders of the Gauḍīya Maṭha. Every time, that did not work.
He built his mission. He preached his mission. And he was very careful to give guidance to many of his leaders in private conversations about not repeating the same mistakes of the Gauḍīya Maṭha.
If anybody wants to study the Caitanya-caritāmṛta text, it’s right there—Ādi-līlā, Chapter 8, Text 8, like that.
Why would Prabhupāda introduce an ācārya appointment system that he had criticized repeatedly with regard to the Gauḍīya Maṭha?
That would be a major contradiction.
What Prabhupāda did was basically nominate some senior men to carry on the formalities of initiation.
He did not want to repeat the Gauḍīya Maṭha Part Two mistake.
That was not Śrīla Prabhupāda’s point. He wanted to avoid that.
At the same time, he chose some physically present persons who would carry on the formalities—the chanting on the beads, the choosing of the name, the performance of the fire sacrifice, like that—to carry on the process.
If Prabhupāda wanted to appoint some successor gurus, successor dīkṣā-gurus, or initiating ācāryas, why did he not say so in public—not in secret, but in public?
And at the first meeting that the GBC had in Māyāpur in 1978, if they were so convinced that they had been appointed as ācāryas or dīkṣā-gurus, why didn’t they bring up their so-called “appointment tape” in public and discuss it in front of everybody?
The fact of the matter is, they had their own private, secret discussions, and then they introduced it into the Society immediately after Māyāpur.
It’s not a very complicated issue to understand.
Purī Mahārāja came from the system in the Gauḍīya Maṭha where they have all these different independent maṭhas, where they all appoint their successors.
This was not Prabhupāda’s idea.
Every time Prabhupāda was asked whether or not he had nominated a successor after him, he said:
“No. I have a GBC, a governing body. They will carry on.”
What they did was borrow a Gauḍīya Maṭha deviated, failed program. That’s what they did.
And the whole preaching was disturbed. The mission was disturbed.
There’s a lot more behind this whole story, but basically Purī Mahārāja contradicted himself.
He said in one interview that he asked Prabhupāda:
“Did you appoint one guru?”
Prabhupāda said no.
Prabhupāda replied:
“I’ve not appointed any guru. I’ve appointed some ṛtviks.”
Basically, after Prabhupāda departed, he criticized the whole concept.
Why?
Why criticize Prabhupāda’s arrangement?
It was a perfect arrangement.
Their arrangement resulted in these original eleven—all of them falling down or having major deviations.
How do they explain that?
There was a tape with, I believe, Madhu Paṇḍita.
Incidentally, I very respectfully disagree with my good friend Gurukṛpā when he criticized the Bangalore devotees with Madhu Paṇḍita, saying that they don’t follow śāstra.
Following the order of the ācārya is following śāstra.
That is following śāstra.
That ṛtvik arrangement was Prabhupāda’s arrangement for continuation of initiations in his Society.
He did not want a Gauḍīya Maṭha Part Two program, and it’s exactly what they introduced—these misleaders introduced into Prabhupāda’s Society.
And when we tried to discuss it in 1978, they didn’t want to hear it.
As a matter of fact, one of their leaders from Māyāpur, one of the original eleven, told one gurukula teacher:
“There is nothing to be discussed. We have already decided everything. They”—meaning Prajñāparamitā [name uncertain] and some other devotees—“should just accept. There is nothing to discuss.”
What kind of idea is that?
That’s why every time we tried to bring it up to the late secretary, he refused to discuss it. He refused to bring it out in the open.
The GBC did not bring the issue out in the open in 1978, at the March meeting.
They refused to discuss it.
They forced it through.
As a matter of fact, their first report contains a great insult to Śrīla Prabhupāda.
They said:
“The process for continuing initiations, in consultation with higher authorities…”
What is this nonsense?
Higher authorities?
Did they ever provide evidence that there were higher authorities than Śrīla Prabhupāda in his movement?
Prabhupāda was the supreme authority in his Society.
Who did they consult?
Were they referring to themselves as higher authorities?
Still, they cannot explain.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.