“Gauòéya Maöha Finished”

by Kailäsa Candra däsa

Second of a Two-part Series

August 2017

“You are also one of the members of the G.B.C., so you can think over very deeply how to save the situation. It is a fact, however, that the great sinister movement is within our Society. I have not heard anything from Kåñëa das or Çyämasundara, so all of you may try to save the Society from this dangerous position.”
Letter to Hansadutta, 9-2-70

“You can cheat, but it will not be effective. Just see our Gauòéya Maöha. Everyone wanted to become guru, and a small temple and guru. What kind of guru? . . . My guru mahäräja used to say, 'Joint mess' . . . “
Room Conversation, 4-22-77 in Bombay

“ . . . just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of äcärya, and they split into two factions over who the next äcärya would be. Consequently, both factions were asära, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master. Despite the spiritual master’s order to form a governing body and execute the missionary activities of the Gauòéya Maöha, the two unauthorized factions began litigation that is still going on . . .”
Caitanya-caritämåta, Ädi Lélä, 12.8, purport

An Overview

There are no longer any living godbrothers of Çréla Prabhupäda, as his last godbrother died in the spring of 2009. In order to understand the history of Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta's movement, post 1937, we shall herein post--and, in some cases, comment upon--what Çréla Prabhupäda had to say about five specific elder godbrothers.

Çréla A. C. Bhaktivedänta Prabhupäda was one of Çréla Siddhänta Sarasväté's younger disciples, and he was not considered one of the leaders of his guru's movement. Even after he took sannyäsa, Prabhupäda was often called “Swämi mahäräj” by his godbrothers, which was a kind of back-handed compliment. In terms of his elder godbrothers, there were, on the record, two of them who were favorable toward him during the Sixties and Seventies: Swämi B. P. Keçava, who gave him sannyäsa in Mathurä, and Swämi B. R. Çrédhar of Navadvépa, one of the original members of the governing body established by Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté Gosvämé Prabhupäda.

We shall not concern ourselves with Swämi B. P. Keçava here, but we shall reproduce two quotes in connection to Swämi B. R. Çrédhar. In addition to five of his godbrothers, we shall also reproduce two quotes about Swämi Parvat, who was not one of Prabhupäda's godbrothers. He is a disciple of the former New Delhi mahant of Gouòéya Mutt, who was, of course, initiated by Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Prabhupäda.

The Great Sinister Movement

“You are also one of the members of the G.B.C., so you can think over very deeply how to save the situation. It is a fact, however, that the great sinister movement is within our Society. I have not heard anything from Kåñëa däs or Çyämasundara, so all of you may try to save the Society from this dangerous position.”
Letter to Hansadutta, 9-2-70

The great sinister movement referred to here was referencing Gouòéya Mutt. Some opine differently, saying that it refers to the Illuminati. Others believe that it refers to international Talmudic banker influences. All of these misconceptions need to be jettisoned. The context of this letter, as well as the overall context from that particular time (indicated in other contemporary letters), establishes beyond doubt that Gouòéya Mutt, the great sinister movement, was called as such by His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda. We shall provide one example of this in a letter dictated only a few days later:

“There is every evidence that they (the rascal sannyäsés) are influenced by some of my fourth-class godbrothers. . . . If there is opportunity, try to convince these rascal sannyäsés, who are misled by fourth-class men, that, if they at all want to have a change of leadership, why do they not select a better leader than at present moment? What is the use of finding out a fourth-class leader who has no asset as their background?”
Letter to Hayagréva, 9-14-70

Prabhupäda herein called his godbrothers fourth-class, and it was their interference in his movement, when they effectively polluted four of his top men (the “rascal sannyäsés”), that precipitated these letters. It is a long story, but Brahmänanda, the first temple president of ISKCON, had gone to India at that time, in order to rectify shipping irregularities of goods purchased. Prabhupäda authorized his sevä. Once there, he associated with some of Prabhupäda's influential and elder godbrothers, and they poisoned him.

The poison was then spread to his brother (Gargamuni), to Viñëujana, and to Subäl. These four leaders in ISKCON then began to advocate transformations at that time which would have destroyed Prabhupäda's movement (certainly in sync with the Gouòéya Mutt intention) had those changes been enacted. In order to counter the dreadful influence, Prabhupäda created the Governing Body Commission (composed of almost all householders), and he upgraded the four deviant ISKCON leaders to the order of sannyäsa.

Basically, as this letter to Hayagréva indicates, Prabhupäda predicated the minds of the four sannyäsés to indicate that they harbored a desire to replace him as the Äcarya of the Kåñëa movement in the West, i.e., to select one of the Gouòéya Mutt leaders in India (who polluted them) to be the new leader. Therefore, he denigrates them (his godbrothers) in this follow up letter to the more important one to Hansadutta, in which Prabhupäda calls their clique, which has unnecessarily interfered in his mission, as the great sinister movement.

Most definitely Gouòéya Mutt was just that, and, even more importantly, the leopard did not change its spots, i.e, this interference continued and was especially effective just after the tirobhäva of the real spiritual and devotional leader, His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda.

Questions and Answers

How should Neo-Mutt gurus be understood?

They are not institutional gurus, like the so-called äcäryas of “ISKCON.” They are wild-cards, and, although most of them usually show up for an annual convention in Mathurä, they do not have a governing body. Also, it is important to know and understand that they are not ordinary men. They were all genuinely initiated by a bona fide spiritual master, His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda. Some of them—perhaps all of them—have the shadow smattering of mystic powers primarily which they use to control their chelas.

The Neo-Mutt gurus were trained by Prabhupäda, and, for many years, served him in a way that pleased him. That sevä granted them their powers. To greater and lesser extents, they were all recognized by Prabhupäda, e.g., they received letters from him which remain part of the record, accessible via the Archives and through the Folio.

Unfortunately, they sold out to Gouòéya Mutt after Prabhupada departed, mostly to the person of Swämi B. R. Çrédhar, although they were prone to do their own thing even while he was still (sometimes) advising and directing them. There is a saying amongst Prabhupäda's disciples—those who have remained loyal to His Divine Grace—that the leading devotees of Neo-Mutt all “crossed the river” when they hooked up with the Navadvépa mahant and abandoned ISKCON (or “ISKCON” by then, to be more accurate).

Are they traitors?

As much as it pains your author to have to answer this question in an honest and straightforward way—in an unavoidably brutal way--the pseudo-gurus of Neo-Mutt must be viewed as traitors to the branch of the sampradäya in which they were originally initiated. His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda would never have approved their decision to seed a schism by forming the Mahä-maëòala in the early Eighties and, in doing so, minimizing His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Prabhupäda. They traded a most valuable diamond for a select stone of cubic zirconium, the best of the lot.

A Great Rascal”

“Regarding the action of Bon mahäräja, we shall discuss the matter when we meet. For the present, you may know that this gentleman is very much materially ambitious. He wants to utilize Krishna Consciousness for his material name and fame. Sometimes, he greatly offended our guru mahäräja, and it so happened that, at the last stage, practically guru mahäräja rejected him. And the result we can find (is) that, instead of becoming a great preacher of Krishna consciousness, this gentleman has become artificially a head of a mundane institution. To become a very important man in the mundane estimation is not success in Krishna consciousness. He was first deputed by my guru mahäräja, along with our late godbrother, Bhakti Pradép Tértha mahäräja, to open a missionary center in London, and they stayed there for three years but didn't make any appreciable advance, except that (they) spent enormous money of my guru mahäräja, and, later on, they were called back to India.”
Letter to Janärdan, 4-26-68

“The remaining four disciples were entrusted to live at the Institute of Swämi Bon mahäräja, but on account of his canvassing them for becoming his disciples, they left him, although one of them, Håñékeça, is still living c/o Bon mahäräja as his re-initiated disciple(?). Two other of my disciples are still at Vrindäban in my place at Rädhä Dämodara Temple, and Bon mahäräja is still after them to deviate their faith upon me.”
Letter to Tértha mahäräj, 2-7-69

This is a very long story, and there are twists connected to it. Basically, Håñékeça became an initiate of Swämi Bon, after allegedly being re-initiated by him. That outrageous action was a major offense to Prabhupäda by both of them. The others were swayed to some extent but left Swämi Bon, and there is a subplot connected to that, particularly in relation to what Prabhupäda wrote in order to encourage one of them (Acyutänanda prabhu) to leave Uttara Pradesh and travel to West Bengal.

“Bon Mahäräja was deputed, but he wanted to cheat. He thought that, 'I shall go to England and become. When I come back, I shall advertise myself (that) I have preached in this way and that way and that way and exploit.' Just like Vivekänanda. They are all cheaters. Vivekänanda had no knowledge . . . He was such a rascal. And he went to America, and he picked up three women, that's all. That is his achievement. One Sister Nigrita, his private secretary, that's all. This is all cheating.”
Room Conversation, 10-27-72 in Våndävan

Swämi Bon was a big fan of the well-known impersonalist Vivekänanda.

Prabhupäda: He (Bon) is a rascal, rascal.
Leading Secretary: He told one professor that our devotees in general, they're not tolerant when someone speaks something.
Prabhupäda: You are also not tolerant. Why you have come here? Because you are envious. You are the most intolerant. You are blaspheming.
Morning Walk, 6-30-75 in Denver

“Why you have come here?” means that Prabhupäda was referring to the recent fact that Swämi Bon had left India for the West, arriving in Canada at that time.

“ . . . you meet Bon Mahäräja, and, if he talks again time, say, 'You were sent in London for establishing a temple, why you could not do it? You remained there for three, four years. And why you were called back by Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté? What did you do for the three, four years in spite of full support from Gauòéya Maöha?' We were sending seven hundred rupees. In those days, seven hundred rupees means nowadays seven thousand. He was squandering the money. 'Authority, authority, scholarly. How many books you have published from your institution for the last forty years?' He was in London. In the 1930's, he came back. Came back means guru mahäräja called him back. Then, he separated from Gauòéya Maöha, and he tried to start this institution.”
Morning Walk, 6-30-75 in Denver

Here we see that Prabhupäda authorized his devotees to confront Swämi Bon, so it is not unprecedented that the real guru wants his disciples to confront Gouòéya Mutt nonsense, which has caused so much irreversible harm to the real Kåñëa movement.

Their only business is to kill Kåñëa. He is also doing that, our this Bon Mahäräja. He never speaks of Kåñëa. His rascal, that Institute of Indian Philosophy, nobody goes to there. . . Still, he is so envious, black snake. So, one circular letter should be issued to all our center, that 'Any Bon Mahäräja or anyone, his representative, should not be received.' They are envious.”
Room Conversation, 10-16-75 in Johannesburg

This constitutes the complete break by Prabhupäda with Gouòéya Mutt, although, previous to this, he gave Swämi Bon some tepid benefit of the doubt. Here, Prabhupäda says that Bon's consciousness was that of a reptile, not a figurative statement.

“And the Bon Mahäräja is his follower. He's in name a disciple of Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté, but he's a servant of Vivekänanda. He's a great appreciator of Vivekänanda. He has put in his curriculum Vivekänanda philosophy, Gandhi philosophy. Rascal. What philosophy they have got? Now I am convinced he's a rascal. He's nothing but a great rascal. My guru mahäräja rejected him. Therefore, he was called back, rascal, he used to say like that, banamänuña. Banamänuña. His name is Bon Mahäräja, and my guru mahäräja used to say banamänuña. Banamänuña means the gorilla. He is black also like gorilla. He has given so much trouble to guru mahäräja. Called him back: 'Call this rascal back.' Every month, he was being sent seven hundred rupees. That, in those days, seven hundred rupees is a big amount.”
Morning Walk, 7-10-76 in New York City

From this excerpt, we are informed that Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté Prabhupäda actually gave Swämi Bon a derogatory nickname.

“And Bon Mahäräja, his institute is suffering from the very beginning (until) now, simply begging, begging and paying, paying the professor. No student. First of all, he started Vaiñëava philosophy, so doctorate, Ph.D. So, especially in India, who is going to take Ph.D. in Vaiñëava philosophy and starve? So, this is failure.”
Room Conversation, 7-27-76 in London

“And what he will write? What does he know? Simply bluffers. Chaliots. Our Bon Mahäräja is also one of the chaliots. What is the English for chaliot? It means he has no assets, but he shows that he is very big. That is called chaliot. Bluffer.”
Room Conversation, 8-21-76 in Hyderabad

Leading Secretary: Actually, that Bon mahäräja is very black . . .
Prabhupäda: A black snake. In Bengal, it is said if a brähmaëa is black, he is dangerous. That means he's not pure brähmaëa. Brähmaëa cannot be black.
Room Conversation, 9-6-76 in Våndävan

“ . . . in 1933, Bon was given the first chance to preach Lord Caitanya's movement in London. He remained there about four years and not a single person could be converted to become a Vaisnava, and he was receiving regularly seven hundred rupees per month for his expenditure, being supported by the whole Gauòéya Maöh institution, and still, as he could not do anything appreciable, he was called back by guru mahäräja. Then, where is his authority?”
Letter to Satsvarüpa, 6-4-75

“On the whole, if his motive is to suppress me, and that is why he has come here. How we can receive him? He has already given one professor a wrong impression.”
Letter to Satsvarüpa, 6-4-75

Prabhupäda said that he was always oppressed, depressed, compressed, and suppressed by his godbrothers, and that is re-iterated here.

“I have instructed Puñöa Krishna Swämi to issue one newsletter to the temple presidents, G.B.C., and sannyäsés concerning the nefarious activities of Swämi Bon. Kindly copy this and send out to all the temples accordingly that they should have no dealings with Swämi Bon or others who are envious.”
Letter to Rämeçvara, 10-17-75

Confirmation of the break with Gouòéya Mutt in the mid-Seventies.

“Regarding Bon mahäräja, in the future he should be completely avoided. We shall have no further connection with him.”
Letter to Viçvakarma, 1-10-76

He Tries to Pose Himself”

“I tried my godbrothers to join together for this preaching work in the foreign countries by combined force. I tried first Keçava mahäräja, then Bon mahäräja, and then Tértha mahäräja, but I have failed to get any cooperation . . . ”
Letter to Maìgalaniloy, 5-16-66

Formerly known as Kuïjabihäré or Kuïjada or Kuïja Bäbu, Swämi Tértha caused a great deal of difficulty to Prabhupäda's mission, as he (Tértha) was clearly a leader, if not the leader, of the great sinister movement, the Gouòéya Mutt.

“Çréla Tértha mahäräja promised me all help to get this exchange sanctioned by seeing the President and the Finance Minister, as he is supposed to have some influence over them. This correspondence is going on since January, 1966 with Çrépäda Tértha mahäräja, but his last letter appears to me very disappointing.”
Letter to Maìgalaniloy, 5-16-66

“I requested Çrépäda Tértha mahäräja, and, at first, he promised see the President and the Finance Minister, but, later on, he is trying to avoid it.”
Letter to Maìgalaniloy, 6-23-66

These letters were part of the Maìgalaniloy saga. Çréla Prabhupäda approached Swämi Tértha for help, but no help was forthcoming, as could only be expected. In other words, we should view this now as Prabhupäda engaging in that effort in order to show us all how utterly uncooperative his godbrothers were with him and to show just where they were at.

“Regarding Bhakti Puré, Tértha mahäräja, they are my godbrothers and should be shown respect, but you should not have any intimate connection with them, as they have gone against the orders of my guru mahäräja.”
Letter to Pradyumna, 2-17-68

As early as the beginning of 1968, Prabhupäda did not want his disciples to have anything to do with his godbrothers, so the writing was on the wall regarding later years.

“You have written to say that Tértha mahäräja will give me all facilities to present before the audience during the Golden Jubilee function . . . but I do not think he has any intention to give me such facility, because he has, in his pamphlet, presented one picture of Bon mahäräja's preaching work, which is defunct for the last forty years, but he has purposefully not mentioned even a single line about the preaching work now going on in Europe, Canada, and America under my direction.”
Letter to Jagannätham Prabhu, 2-8-69

This excerpt shows the level of delusion-cum-condescension that the Gouòéya Mutt leaders had for Prabhupäda and his mission. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Swämi Tértha was completely aware of Bon's “results” in London; that mission turned out to be a complete failure and waste of considerable funds. Yet, Swämi Tértha retroactively glorifies Bon and utterly neglects Prabhupäda, who, by early 1969, had converted over one thousand Westerners into austere, dedicated, and practicing Vaiñëavas.

“You rightly remember that His Holiness Bhakti Säraìga Goswämé (then president of the New Delhi Gouòéya Mutt) presided over the meeting in which our revered Keçava mahäräja also participated. But, at that time, on account of my selecting Goswämé mahäräja to preside over the meeting, Çrépäda Tértha mahäräja (then Kuïjada) and Bon mahäräja also refused to accept my invitation.”
Letter to Govinda mahäräj, 5-24-70

“Éçana Däs has inquired from Tamäla regarding Tértha mahäräja. I do not know what is the sequence of this inquiry, but it is clear that there is a great clique and the so-called sannyäsés are the via media of spreading contamination in our Society. It is a very sorry plight.”
Letter to Hayagréva, 9-14-70

This excerpt from a letter to Hayagréva conclusively proves that the great sinister movement was not the Illuminati or international Jewish bankers but was Gouòéya Mutt. Just twelve days previously, Prabhupäda had written to Hansadutta:

It is a fact however that the great sinister movement is within our Society.”

That letter described the four deviant sannyäsés, who are referred to as “the so-called sannyäsés” in the just previous letter to Hayagréva. In that letter, Prabhupäda refers to the leaders of the Gouòéya Mutt as “a great clique.” He specifically names Swämi Tértha, and the excerpt also demonstrates that Tértha and his comrades were actively engaged in attempting to influence some of Prabhupäda's initiated disciples—and not without success.

“In Éçana and his wife's letters, there is reference to Tértha mahäräja's name, as if they were advised by Brahmänanda mahäräja and company to come to India and join Tértha mahäräja. It appears like that. I shall be glad if you kindly inquire on this point. It is now clear that my godbrothers take objection of my being called as Prabhupäda and, on this point, they wanted to poison the whole Society—that is now clear.”
Letter to Rupänuga, 9-25-70

Further confirmation that one of the leaders, if not the leader, of the great sinister movement was Swämi Tértha, who was considered a pure devotee by many foolish devotees connected to the Gouòéya Mutt. Does that remind you of something a bit more recent?

“Just like guru mahäräja gave blessings to everyone, but, if they do not try, if they remain Kuïja Bäbu, then they'll remain Kuïja Bäbu. What can be done?”
Room Conversation, 4-2-72

“Our Kuïja Bäbu also planned like that. He thought, 'By cheating all the godbrothers, I have got now Caitanya Maöha. And people will come to see Caitanya Mahäprabhu's birthplace, and I will get good income. And it will be distributed amongst my brothers and sons and myself.' That's all. That is his scheme. It is another way of earning money. And he was always after guru mahäräja only for this purpose. Guru mahäräja took, that, 'Oh, this man is helping me.' But he had no such plan to help Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté. He had the plan: 'Keep Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasväté in front, earn money, and put it in my pocket.' That was his very beginning. He was taking money like anything.”
Room Conversation, 9-21-73 in Bombay

This excerpt is pregnant with ramifications, but only two of them will now be discussed. First of all, the man in question is Swämi Tértha, but Prabhupäda does not call him by that title. As of September, 1973, Kuïjada had taken the honorific and get-up of a sannyäsé for a significant stretch of time (even adding a halo to his picture on one of his book covers), yet, as shown here, Prabhupäda called him Kuïja Bäbu. He was calling a spade a spade, recognizing him for what and who he was, and, at least indirectly, this shows that Prabhupäda did not recognize that fellow's self-appointed status as a great holy man.

Secondly, we get a hint, somewhat indirectly, of how an uttama-adhikäré can be taken advantage of, because, unlike everyone else, he actually sees all devotees serving the Parameçvara better than he is serving the Supreme. This is in relation to Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta's liberal vision of Kuïjada, although Prabhupäda obviously never shared it at that time nor did he share any such viewpoint in 1973.

We should learn from this. We have no obligation to artificially try to see things as the uttama-adhikäré sees them, especially relative to devotees that the mahäbhägavat has initiated. When we know where people are at, we can speak up about it. Actually, we are obliged to speak out, because, if we do not warn other devotees about cheaters, then the unfortunates will be more prone to be misguided by wild-card gurus (read, those of Neo-Mutt) and institutional gurus (read, those of the so-called “ISKCON” confederation).

“So, our present Tértha Mahäräja, Bhakti-Viläsa-Tértha Mahäräja, he's representing Prabhupäda. At least, he tries to pose himself.”
Conversation with Swämi B. R. Çrédhar, 6-27-73 in Navadvépa

Because Swämi B. R. Çrédhar had some lingering respect for Kuïjada, Prabhupäda uses the honorific titles in referring to him. At the same time, however, he also gives his elder godbrother a hint as to where Swämi Tértha was actually situated.

“Our Tértha Mahäräja's Caitanya Research Institute. . . You have seen that Tértha Mahäräja's one book? The Vedänta as Caitanya Has Seen, like that. And he has given a picture of himself with effulgence on his head.
Room Conversation, 8-21-76 in Hyderabad

Obnoxious and imaginative devices indicating so-called holiness, such as halos, are, most unfortunately, common in India. Vaiñëavas are absolutely forbidden to employ them.

“Perhaps you know that I begged from His Holiness Çrépäda Tértha mahäräja a little piece of land at Mäyäpur for constructing a home for my Western disciples, but he refused the proposal.”
Letter to Govinda mahäräj, 9-22-70

This was at the height of the effort to poison the young leaders and followers of ISKCON back at the beginning of the Seventies. Prabhupäda always tried to get as much as he could anytime he thought it even remotely possible to be successful in the attempt.

“We had nothing to do with him when he was alive, and neither shall we have anything to do with him now he is dead.”
Room Conversation, 9-12-76

Prabhupäda had just been informed of Tértha's death. He did not attend the funeral.

Personally Deviated”

“I have received the booklet known as Paramahaàsa Sarasväté Goswämé issued by the Gauòéya Mission of London. I can understand that this brochure was written by my godbrother, Professor Sannyal, but the essay is not very practical. It contains some ideal discussions only, and I know that this Professor Sannyal is personally deviated from all of these ideas.”
Letter to Räyäräma, 2-22-69

Professor Sannyal was not very much advanced. He committed so many blunders.”
Room Conversation, 12-13-70 in Indore, India

"Regarding publishing articles from the Harmonist, after the departure of my guru mahäräja, so many nonsense things have been written. So, we should know who has written these articles. Articles written by my guru mahäräja can be published without any hesitation, but articles written by Professor Sannyal after 1936, they are not at all good."
Letter to Hayagréva, 11-7-69

Prior to 1937, Professor Sannyal was respected to some extent by the members of the Gouòéya Mutt, including Çréla Prabhupäda, but he became a Party Man after Siddhänta Sarasväté entered tirobhäva. It also appears that the Professor went a bit insane after his guru-mahäräj departed. There is another controversy about him (in terms of his death), which took place very soon after the above-mentioned disappearance. Some say it was natural (Neo-Mutt claims this), but your author has read elsewhere that it was violent.

We have also read, years ago (not having kept that document as evidence, unfortunately) that Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta, who held Professor Sannyal dear during his lifetime, had him killed by slipping on temple steps and cracking his head. We also remember reading that this supernatural arrangement was made in order to keep him, in his bewilderment, from making further offenses. The topic begs further research.

As Venomous as Bon”

“This means that Parvat mahäräja is canvassing to break them from the Society and remain with him. He is another edition of Bon mahäräja . . . From this note, it appears that Parvat mahäräja is misrepresenting himself as the publisher of the paper "Truth.'' But actually, he is not so. It is published by one very big doctor, medical practitioner, Dr. N. R. Sen. I knew this gentleman in connection with my medical business. So, in this way, it is clear that this Parvat mahäräja is trying to entice Jaya Govinda.”
Letter to Brahmänanda, 9-17-68

“I think both Acyutänanda and Jaya Govinda have been poisoned by this Parvat . . . these boys have been entrapped by Parvat. This Parvat is one of the disciples of my godbrother, but he is so salient that he has not replied to my letters, but, instead of replying my letter, he has the impudency of writing to Räyäräma. Räyäräma may not reply this letter until I have seen it. He appears to be as venomous as Bon mahäräja.”
Letter to Brahmänanda, 11-2-68

Obstruction From Behind the Scenes

“Mädhava mahäräja, and also possibly Dämodara mahäräja, are making propaganda against our attempt to construct a township in Mäyäpur . . . In this connection, we have applied to the government for 350 acres of land, and the matter is in the process. However, Dämodara mahäräja and Mädhava mahäräja are trying to frustrate our attempt. . . So why they are obstructing this program? What is the harm to them? People are already coming from all parts of the world to see Mäyäpur and join in the Sankértana Movement, so, if something more attractive is done, more people will come from all parts of the world. So, what is their tangible objection? Of course, they cannot do all these things, it is beyond their power, but if somebody else does it, why should they be envious and obstructive to this plan?
Letter to B. R. Çrédhara, 6-6-76

That situation was far heavier than what this letter indicates. As much as your author would like to share the specifics of how much worse it was, that will not be revealed here. These two Gouòéya Mutt leaders were extremely inimical to His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda, and they both were very influential in and around Mäyäpura. They were able to delay Prabhupäda's acquisition, but they actually wanted to cause much more harm than that.

“Regarding the Jhansi incidence referred to by your (guru, Mädhava mahäräj), I may inform you that the donor of the house did not like to hand over the estate to any individual person. I therefore registered a society (The League of Devotees), and I invited (Mädhava mahäräj) to join it as the head man. But he, as he was with the then Kuïjada, desired to have the property in the joint name of him and Kuïjada. So, I became silent, and I left the whole scheme.”
Letter to Maìgalaniloy, 7-16-66

This excerpt was also posted previously in relationship to the Maìgalaniloy odyssey. Mädhava mahäräj was a heavy-duty hierophant. Simply take a look at his picture with those black, horn-rimmed glasses, and it will give you a hint about who he was. Dämodar mahäräj was his close buddy, and he was a dangerous man. Mädhava mahäräj aligned himself with Kuïjada in order to sink Prabhupäda's initial preaching effort in Jhansi, although they first took a shot at simply taking it over and pushing Prabhupäda out.

Çréla Prabhupäda was trying to cooperate back then, and they were trying to overlord. It was a win-win for them, because, if they were unable to take over the stone-walled äçrama that Prabhupäda had tentatively secured, at least they could make him a failure in that mission. Paramätmä made an arrangement for the second alternative, but the whole saga was as interesting as it was dark, i.e., very instructive about Gouòéya Mutt politics.

A Dangerous Man”

“What do we care for Mädhava mahäräja or Dämodara mahäräja? They are figs. We must be fixed. Just see: Mädhava mahäräja is against us, and he was supposed to be the greatest preacher.”
Letter to Jayapataka, 6-6-76

Dämodara mahäräja is a dangerous man. Remain very cautious with him. He is always causing difficulty.”
Letter to Jayapatäkä, 12-4-76

The purport is self-evident.

The Best of the Lot”

“You are right about Çrédhara mahäräja's genuineness, but, in my opinion, he is the best of the lot. . . but Çrédhara mahäräja is responsible for disobeying this order of guru mahäräja, and he, and others who are already dead, unnecessarily thought that there must be (one Äcarya) . . . so Çrédhara mahäräja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected (Änanta Väsudeva) . . .”
Letter to Rupänuga, 4-28-74

“So, one of the so-called trustees was this (Änanta) Väsudeva. . . . And he was made the chief, and one of the supporter was Çrédhara Mahäräja. He was made chief. Guru mahäräja did not make him chief, but after his passing away, some of our godbrothers voted him chief.”
Room Conversation, 6-18-76, Toronto

Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was a learned, charismatic, laid-back sannyäsé, and he was extremely influential within Goudya Mutt. He was one of the original members of the governing body, and he voted for Ananata Vasudeva as Äcarya. That proposal passed, and the members of the governing body split as a result. Swämi B. R. Çrédhar later came to regret his decision, especially after love letters were discovered in connection to Änanta Väsudeva. Word of mouth has it that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar then approached Änanta Väsudeva to voluntarily resign as Äcarya of the Gouòéya Mutt, but the request was refused, immediately producing a second schism in that movement.

Frankly, we could produce an article about and concerning Swämi B. R. Çrédhar alone, one just as long as this two-part series. Your author has decided not to do so. Nevertheless, some subtle, important, and difficult points will be explained here.

Swämi B. R. Çrédhar did more damage to Prabhupäda's ISKCON movement than all the rest of his godbrothers combined. He proposed and authorized the zonal Äcarya scheme. He encouraged the eleven pretender mahäbhägavats to pretend to be uttama, inspiring them with the hope that, by such pretension, they would eventually reach the highest stage (by practicing to have already attained it, which is certainly nothing but cheating). He told them that they had to cut jagad-guru profiles, so that their disciples would be able to keep faith in them. We have covered much of his bad advice in previous articles.

The great irony, little understood or even accepted, is that Swämi B. R. Çrédhar is the chief force behind three prominent deviations of Vaiñëavism parading these days as the real thing, especially in the West and in India. His stepson, so to speak, is “ISKCON” (read, “ISKCON”), which broke with him during the great schism of 1982. Previous to that, the eleven pretender mahäbhägavats ate up everything he fed them, because it nourished the seeds of their individual and collective desires to imitate Prabhupäda; as a result, for a time, they enjoyed overlording like no one else on earth. Because of its schism with him (while he was still living in the early Eighties), it (“ISKCON”) must be considered his prodigal stepson.

Its brother-cult was another deviation, Neo-Mutt. This exceptionally dark movement of wild-cards was always in good standing with B. R. Çrédhar, for obvious reasons. It can be considered his direct, pet son, although all of its leaders actually received their connection to the guru-paramparä through His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda. Neo-Mutt has the same demeanor, outlook, historical viewpoint, mode, style, and method as did the Gouòéya Mutt in its heyday--and even in its twilight years.

The third son is posthumous, created by Swämi B. R. Çrédhar in his Final Will, wherein he named his initiated disciple, Govinda mahäräj, as his successor. However, he (Govinda) was not a successor in standard sense of the term; he was allegedly made into a rittvik representative to the actual guru, which supposedly remained Swämi B. R. Çrédhar.

In other words, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar wrote, in his Will, that his mission would carry on as Çréla Prabhupäda's was allegedly supposed to have been carried on, by rittviks. B. R. Çrédhar Swämi's Will became operative in August, 1988, and your author remembers that day well. Rittvik emerged (initially, in Mississippi) in late 1989. Think there was no correlation there? Swämi B. R. Çrédhar inspired the Rittvik concoction, the third deviation pushing concoction in the name of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi. It is the bastard son.

In summation, Swämi B. R. Çrédhar was implicated up to his eyeballs in deviating Prabhupäda's movement in three distinct and horrific ways, and all the blockheads pushing any of those apa-sampradäyas owe the initial push, at least indirectly, to this older godbrother of Prabhupäda, who was, most ironically, friendly to him while he was physically manifest.

Please Avoid Them

“So, it is better not to mix with my godbrothers very intimately, because, instead of inspiring our students and disciples, they may sometimes pollute them. This attempt was made previously by them, especially Mädhava mahäräja and Tértha mahäräja and Bon mahäräja, but, somehow or other, I saved the situation. This is going on. We shall be very careful about them and not mix with them. This is my instruction to you all. They cannot help us in our movement, but they are very competent to harm our natural progress. So, we must be very careful about them.”
Letter to Rupänuga, 4-28-74

By 1974, His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda made it crystal clear, in unmistakeable terms, that his disciples were to avoid Gouòéya Mutt representatives, not mix with them whatsoever, and that the great sinister movement was expert in harming them if they disobeyed this important order. They disobeyed it in a big way after he departed, and they were harmed in an even bigger way for such guror-avajïä. The order was re-iterated in 1975:

“So, I have now issued orders that all my disciples should avoid all of my godbrothers. They should not have any dealings with them nor even correspondence nor should they give them any of my books or should they purchase any of their books, neither should you visit any of their temples. Please avoid them.
Letter to Viçvakarma, 11-9-75

Avoid. No dealings. No visits. No purchasing their books. No reading their tainted commentaries. Could it be more clear than this? Yet, almost all of the ISKCON leaders--and the eleven rittviks (pretender mahäbhägavats) went hat in hand to Swämi B. R. Çrédhar for intimate talks and directives, for what turned out to be for very bad advice, just four months after Prabhupäda disappeared.

The Navadvépa mahant had already made a major contribution in destroying one potent branch of the guru-paramparä in 1937. He got another opportunity to do it again in 1978, and he was just as successful in destroying Prabhupäda's branch, converting it into an Äcarya makeshow, into a colossal hoax. However, none of this would have transpired if the ISKCON leaders had obeyed the clear warnings and orders about his godbrothers issued by His Divine Grace in the mid-Seventies. The unauthorized transformation transpired, and now you know some of the background history as to why it did so.

OM TAT SAT

END OF PART TWO
RETURN TO PART ONE

Tell a Friend

Quotes from the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada are copyright by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust