Adhere to the Real Authority

Reject the Minimization of the Person Bhägavata, the Teachings, and the Real Movement of His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda

Part Two of a Multi-Part Series

By Bhakta Çré Hari Vijayaraghavan
(Edited by Kailäsa Candra däsa)

nañöa-präyeñv abhadreñu nityaḿ bhägavata-sevayä
bhagavaty uttama-çloke bhaktir bhavati naiñöhiké

By regular attendance in classes on the Bhägavatam and by rendering of service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is almost completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of Godhead, who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an irrevocable fact.

“Here is the remedy for eliminating all inauspicious things within the heart which are considered to be obstacles in the path of self-realization. The remedy is the association of the Bhägavatas. There are two types of Bhägavatas, namely the Book Bhägavata and the devotee Bhägavata. Both the Bhägavatas are competent remedies, and both of them or either of them can be good enough to eliminate the obstacles.”
Çrémad Bhägavatam, 1.2.18, verse and purport

In Part One, the beginning of inauspiciousness following the disappearance of His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda from this manifest plane was discussed. That analysis is continued here. The above-mentioned verse and purport of the Çrémad Bhägavatam has been invoked in order to bring auspiciousnesss to this humble attempt in presenting the facts and truths connected to a difficult topic.

At this critical hour, when so many deviations are being presented in the name of Kåñëa consciousness (in order to mislead innocent devotees and the general public), may the Book Bhagavatam--bestowed upon us by the Person Bhägavata, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedänta Swämi Çréla Prabhupäda, our object of glorification--eradicate the darkness of all of the various deviations. He has informed us in this purport that the Book Bhagavat is good enough in the matter of eradicating all the obstacles we now face and will face in the future. These obstacles will also be discussed in this series, with the help of the transcendental light (puräëärko) provided to us by the Book Bhagavat, our transcendental torchlight.

Attitude of Negligence

“. . . it appears that, by shaving his head and dressing in robes, with no shirt or shoes, Abhay had become a sädhu.”
-Lélämåta, Chapter 3 - “A Very Nice Saintly Person”

“Abhay went on listening to his spiritual master at every opportunity, but rarely did Abhay put a philosophical inquiry before him."
-Lélämåta, Chapter 4 - “How Shall I Serve You?””

“Abhay sat on a mat of kuça grass beside ninety-year-old Sanätana, also to receive sannyäsa that day.”
-Lilamrta, Chapter 9 - “A Resident of Våndävana”

The Lélämåta author refers the spiritual master by his childhood name (Abhaya) repeatedly throughout the book. He did so even in writing about activities, such as Prabhupäda taking sannyäsa with another godbrother, that took place many years after Çréla Prabhupäda was initiated. Such willful negligence in addressing Çréla Prabhupäda by his childhood name is a manifestation of utter ignorance bred out of contempt. This takes place after a weak disciple becomes too familiar with the spiritual master.

The author of Lélämåta is not some kind of Bhakta Tom, not someone new to transcendence and barely situated on the basic platform of Kåñëa consciousness, who may innocently address the Äcärya casually. Even then, such a bhakta should be, and often would be, corrected in relation to the etiquette of respect that must be shown to a superior, so as not to make the offense known as maryädä-vyatikrama. What is being critiqued here, however, is a literature supposedly glorifying His Divine Grace Çréla Prabhupäda.

It is a literature which was authored by one of his leading secretaries, a book which carries the imprimatur of the asära Governing Body Commission, and a multi-volume work which was enthusiastically distributed worldwide to devotees and a non-devotee public so they could “relish” the life and precepts of Çréla Prabhupäda. There are very high standards connected to such literature as it relates to great devotees in Kåñëa consciousness. The Lélämåta utterly fails to meet those higher standards, and that will be confirmed as Part Two proceeds.

Although that book's author, in many instances, meticulously addressed various other personalities according to their respective honorifics (Doctor, Archbishop, Sir, Äcärya, Goswämé, etc.), his negligence of always extending the same courtesy to his spiritual master—not to mention the even greater respect Çréla Prabhupäda commands and irrevocably deserves--clearly displays that author's duplicitous attitude, a trait of so many Kali-yuga misleaders, particularly found in “ISKCON.”

His addressing Çréla Prabhupäda finally in the right way (only after his sannyäsa initiation) discloses misconceptions he and his cohorts were and are pushing. The author was a sannyäsé who, for many years, was also a pretender mahä-bhägavata (along with ten others), all of whom paraded their false identifications around the world. They thus received a great deal of honor and respect, but, as it turned out, they did not deserve such accolades as per their own mentalities and conducts.

Of course, a genuine sannyäsé is worthy of honor and respect, but so are pure devotee Person Bhägavatas--irrespective of their designation and position in mundane society. Indeed, they are worthy of much greater honor and respect than your garden variety sannyäsé. The ill-motivated intentions evidenced in the Lélämåta should be recognized by all intelligent devotees. Such recognition will help them to rightly reject such literature as nothing more than the product of a stone-cold sahajiyä heart. That author and his cohorts have shamelessly, both openly and subtly, promoted themselves as being equal (or sometimes even greater) than Çréla Prabhupäda; they are nothing of the sort, and devotees are realizing that now.

That attitude of negligence (better called selective negligence) has been going on for quite some time. These “ISKCON” misleaders had also previously displayed that trademark attitude. For example, they neglected to exercise the voting mandate of the D.O.M. (the Direction of Management, the constitution created to govern the Commission), i.e., they intentionally let the voting mandate in the D.O.M. lapse. They conveniently neglected to inform ISKCON temple presidents of their fiduciary responsibility, as those presidents were supposed to select commissioners on a rotational basis.

The Commissioners also neglected to keep the G.B.C. unincorporated. By centralizing the G.B.C. as an incorporated institution in the early Nineties, they neglected to keep all the temples decentralized centers, the model His Divine Grace both wanted and demanded. The G.B.C. also neglected to stop the printing and distribution of such publications as Lélämåta and SPFAI; instead, the Commission endorsed these works.

The Commission's negligence was further demonstrated by instituting eleven pretender mahä-bhägavata zonal äcäryas. After that hoax crumbled, they approved a voting procedure for institutional gurus. That scheme was followed by various other concocted methods of creating gurus.

In this way, there are many examples of negligence that could also be listed, but the common theme has always been that the Commission concocts one cheating scheme after another. They do so while neglecting the directions set forth by Çréla Prabhupäda, and they thus neglect him in the process. Readers are invited to consult Çrémän Kailäsa Candra prabhu’s GBC: The Gods Who Failed for an elaborate analysis of this particular topic.

Nonsense Analogy

"Whenever he (Çréla Prabhupäda in childhood) was to go out even to play, his mother, after dressing him, would put a drop of saliva on her finger and touch it to his forehead. Abhay never knew the significance of this act, but because she was his mother he stood submissively 'like a dog with its master' . . . “
-Lélämåta, Chapter 1 - Childhood.

Here is an analogy in the mode of ignorance! Although analogies are supposed to help to convey deep and profound philosophical thoughts via a recognizable form, foolish analogies should never be used, especially in connection with a great personality such as the bona fide uttama bhägavata spiritual master. We can find many wonderful analogies in transcendental literature, and everyone of them is of an exalted nature. Those great analogies connected to transcendental personalities never employ examples lower than those in the mode of goodness.

Let us consider an example of an excellent analogy. This analogy is from the concluding portion of Çrémad Bhägavatam, where Çré Süta Goswämé, the bhägavata äcärya (narrator of Çrémad Bhägavatam), instructed the sages of Naimiñäraëya, headed by Çré Çaunaka Åñi, by glorifying Çrémad Bhägavatam with beautiful analogies. Here is one of them:

“As glorious as Ganges amongst the holy rivers, as glorious as Lord Acyuta amongst all personalities, as glorious as Lord Çiva amongst all Vaiñëavas, and as glorious as Käçé (also known as Väräëasé) amongst all places of pilgrimages, similarly, Çrémad Bhägavatam is the most glorious literature amongst all puräëas.”

Lord Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, and all äcäryas following in His footsteps, taught their followers that the Bhägavatam is the spotless puräëa, scientifically (sarva vedänta säram) and sumptuously glorifying (amåta säharam) the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Çré Kåñëa (çrémad bhägavatam pramäëaà amalaà; hari guru vaiñëava bhägavata gétä).

Let us analyze another exemplary analogy, viz., let us consider Lord Çiva summarizing the teachings of Bhagavad-gétä as per Padma Puräëa (in Gétä-mähätmya) where this mahäjana--one of the twelve mahäjanas and the original disciple of the Lord and ädi-guru of Rudra Sampradäya--compared Lord Çré Kåñëa, Vedäntic knowledge, Çré Arjuna, and the teachings of Bhagavad-gétä (and the devotees relishing them) to a cowherd boy, a cow, a calf, nectarian milk, and those who partake. That is another excellent analogy as per the Bhägavata tradition.

Finally, let us consider this analogy: Çré Viñëu explaining to Durväsä Muni how He (the Lord) comes under the control of His devotees just as chaste women (sat-striyaù) bring their gentle husbands (sat-patim) under control by their service. Similarly, He too inconceivably comes under the full control of His unalloyed devotees due to their exemplary devotional service.

There is no question of employing a dog and master analogy. It is indefensible. Only fools rush in where angels fear to tread, i.e., only idiot disciples defend these kinds of analogies used by their so-called guru. We are keeping tabs.

Some of the genuine disciples of Çréla Prabhupäda, such as Çrémän Kailäsa Candra däsa, will continue to make sure these things are recorded. Let us not forget that the idea of obedience and loyalty to Çréla Prabhupäda has been repeatedly proven itself foreign to the “ISKCON” misleaders, although they have been pretending to be very great disciples for a long time. Their doggish mentality produces doggish analogies, which remain always and forever nonsensical.

When great Äcäryas sometimes refer to themselves, via writings or conversations, in some kind of self-denigrating manner, all intelligent devotees clearly understand those statements in proper context. Such a statement, made with realized humility by the Äcärya, gives no conditioned soul the right to foolishly quote it out of context. When one whimsically cites those statements, it demonstrates his own immaturity in spiritual life. Such uncontrolled and offensive words disqualifies him as actually being eligible to write anything of value about the Äcärya.

Foundation for Catastrophe

“Your cooperation means you please hear about Kåñëa.”
Platform lecture, Bombay, March 19, 1972

“Cooperation means what we say, they must do. . . Don't try to amend the instruction of Bhagavad-gétä. . . Why we should amend Kåñëa's word? Surrender and do. That is cooperation.”
Meeting with Mr. Dwivedi, Bombay, April 23, 1977

Çréla Prabhupäda’s definition of real cooperation being “surrender and do” perfectly summarizes Bhagavad-gétä teachings. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Çré Kåñëa, instructed Çré Arjuna to fully surrender unto Him (mäm ekaà çaraëaà vraja). Then Arjuna, as a fully surrendered devotee (kariñye vacanaà tava), did what Lord desired him to do. This sets the perfect example, as per Vedic and Vaiñëava teachings, of the guru (the Lord being the Supreme Guru) disciple relationship of cooperation.

In comparison to institutional concoctions, there is no comparison. Real cooperation yields profound insights and transcendental realizations. Those insights clearly evoke the paramparä teachings in a straightforward manner, and the spiritual message is thus comprehended! The following is an example of what it means not to cooperate with the Äcärya:

“Very recently, Kértanänanda has developed a different consciousness of Mäyä, which is called misuse of one's minute independence offered by Kåñëa. By misuse of one's independence, one at once becomes a victim of Mäyä, and thus he loses all importance in Kåñëa Consciousness. So, it is my definite opinion that his lecture anywhere now will bear no spiritual sequence. . . By lips he says that he is a surrendered soul, but by action, he is thinking differently.”
Letter to Satsvarüpa, Oct. 6, 1967

The bogus literature similarly displays a different mentality:

“It should be noted that Çréla Prabhupäda went on making efforts at cooperative endeavors with Gauòéya Maöha members up until his last breath. His persistence is testimony to his commitment to the order of his spiritual master. This is his spirit . . .”

“They (Çréla Prabhupäda’s godbrothers) were practically competing to see who would get the benefit of his services. Perhaps, Abhay thought, this should be his life's work: serving humbly under the direction of his godbrothers.”
Lélämåta, Chapter 8 - ”Crying Alone In The Wilderness”

In SPFAI, the good professor, via masterful word jugglery, goes to extraordinary lengths to define what cooperation allegedly means. His definition is naturally meant to delight his fellow institutionalists. When the time was ripe for dethroning the so-called zonal-äcäryas, when their exclusive enjoyment scheme was breaking down, his penning the position paper “Ending The Fratracidal War,” ushered Ravindra Svarüpa dasa in as the leader of an era of “cooperation.” He then became the leader of the “ISKCON” movement and de facto controlled the vitiated G.B.C.

The two excerpts at the beginning of the sub-header reveal the intentions of their authors. They are very expert (read, cunning) in terms of projecting their deviant thoughts on the Äcärya. They then go on to present those misrepresentations as evidence of the Äcärya’s real mood and mission! Such outrageous concoctions are designed to mislead the foolish devotees and the innocent public. Nevertheless, intelligent devotees ought to take shelter of the definition His Divine Grace has given, that is, if they desire to escape the clutches of concocted doctrines.

By instead conforming into a model monkey fixed in the “cooperation” mentality pushed by the “ISKCON” institution in general and the G.B.C. in particular, the compliant monkey will get his banana from the misleaders of the cult. One of these bananas is the “mass liberation” cheating scheme, a post-dated, blank check--linked to an account without any balance.

There is also potential, if you pay your dues, of receiving a really large and ripe banana in the form of becoming a misleader yourself within the baboon troop. You may be able to eventually be appointed an “ISKCON” temple president, an institutional guru, a so-called sannyäsé, or, if you really hit it big, one of the commissioners (at a lower level and fully compliant with the powers that be, of course). By practicing “cooperation” in “ISKCON” style, you can learn the art of moving up in the turtle tank, the foundation of which has been built on lies, deceit, falsity, pretension, and all kinds of concoctions.

With their false definition of cooperation, they misrepresent Çréla Prabhupäda's magnanimous spirit of giving his godbrothers the opportunity to cooperate with him—a desire that was not fulfilled. Yet, the “ISKCON” misleaders project their unauthorized thoughts as if all of their ideas are actually the Äcärya's, and it seems as if they have perfected this.

Through reading Çréla Prabhupäda's letters, hearing his lectures, and reading his purports—and rightly knowing about his efforts in relation to his god-brothers--we come to understand a different history than what “ISKCON” and Neo-Mutt provide us; we learn what actually transpired. He was magnanimous by giving his god-brothers a chance to genuinely cooperate with him in terms of the devotional principles. Due to their lack of surrender to Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté and due to their lack of willingness to work towards fulfilling the desires of the predecessor Äcäryas and Lord Çré Caitanya, they could not cooperate with Çréla Prabhupäda in any meaningful way.

Besides that, their envy of Çréla Prabhupäda buttressed their ability to plant seeds into the psyches of his weak and ambitious followers; those seeds allowed those disciples to deviate the movement into Mäyä and Kali. In this way, the current misleaders both minimize and change the import of the real cooperating spirit. How can a devotee, with intelligence (buddhi) strengthened by strong knowledge in Kåñëa consciousness, accept such a concoction as the “ISKCON” cooperation thesis?

“ISKCON” garbage literature has laid the foundation for catastrophes to follow! So many devotees now have all kinds of misconceptions about who Çréla Prabhupäda actually was. That has assisted the G.B.C in its heavy-handed methods, i.e., allowing it to institutionalize false worship and glorification of pretender mahä bhägavatas in the beginning and, taking it from there, one concoction after another with no end in sight.

If we refuse to learn from the dark history of “ISKCON,” then where will the SPFAI spirit of “cooperation” take us? It will take us to the pie in the sky false promise of “mass liberation,” for starters. It will take us to one cheating scheme after another, all based upon the premise of “cooperating.” It will take us to the point where we witness its dreadful implementation in “ISKCON” and all which that entails. There are many more “ISKCON” cheating schemes lurking in the fertile minds of that cult's misleaders. One who does not learn from their history is rightfully condemned to repeatedly get victimized by it!

Minimization Continues

After some kind of apocalypse eventually breaks loose, the after-affects of “ISKCON” garbage books will remain, i.e., these “literary contributions” will continue to damage the principle and the reputation of the person of Çréla Prabhupäda. That literature has been authorized by the G.B.C. for worldwide distribution and institutional implementation. In other words, the vitiated G.B.C has given its imprimatur or stamp of approval to all of it, but they were duty-bound to have done the exact opposite.

Thus, the stone-hearted G.B.C. leadership, on one hand, has been minimizing Çréla Prabhupäda through the approval of these “literary contributions.” On the other hand, by instituting the worship the sahajiyä äcäryas as being equal to (or even greater than) Çréla Prabhupäda, the governing body has transformed the movement in many ways—going through the stages of creating a concocted zonal-äcärya system to voting into existence institutional gurus. The underlying principle of minimization continues in one form or another.

It is astonishing how, by concocting these endless cheating schemes, the Commission continues to survive! Now is the time to confront and check all of this nonsense literature designed to minimize Çréla Prabhupäda. Such confrontation entails not rationalizing that any of it possesses spiritual value.

How the potent teachings of Çréla Prabhupäda (as per the Book Bhägavatam) have been minimized, especially in terms of who is the Person Bhägavata as per the siddhänta and process given by Çréla Rüpa Goswami, is mind-boggling. Sadly, the devotional science has been heavily contaminated by willy-nilly, whimsical editing against the Bhägavata standards and tradition. Your author pleads that one who is serious about progressing in devotional service via the teachings of Çréla Prabhupäda should acquire his original books and not the adulterated teachings dishonestly being spread in his name.

In the first two parts of the series, we have analyzed how the Çréla Prabhupäda presented in Lélämåta and SPFAI is not who he actually was. Minimization of Çréla Prabhupäda’s teachings (based on adulterating his books) will next be discussed beginning with Part Three.

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