Download this in PDF format here:
REFLECTIONS ON INITIATION
Part 1
by
Nitai Das
June 13, 2005
Recently, among the many other projects I
have started and not finished, I was working
on Visvanatha Cakravartin’s
Krsna-bhavanamrta, a delightful poem embodying the
raganuga-bhakti practice of smaran. a or
visualization. The very first verse of the text
contains the word parampara, which, among
other things, may be translated disciplic
succession. The verse reads like this in my
translation:
I surrender to the rain-cloud Krsna Caitanya,
who instantly destroys the world of
darkness and refreshes the whole world
through uninterrupted succession of showers of
his beauty like the beauty of millions of
gods of love. (Krsnabhavanamrta, 1.1)
It is a nice image. Caitanya is like a rain
cloud pouring down his beauty like rain on a
thirsty world. Imposed on this rather poetic,
natural view is the word succession
(parampara). It seems from one angle to spoil
everything. Rain clouds rain
indiscriminately, but in Visvanatha's verse
he has left the natural order behind and
imposed the idea of succession on the image.
Since it doesn't fit the image very easily, he
must have had a very good reason for it. Or
perhaps the image should be one of lines or
bands of rain moving across the landscape the
way one sometimes sees them in the
summer, an intense, dark-blue downpour
soaking a particular area, but leaving the
surrounding areas dry. However one imagines
it, the meaning seems clear: Caitanya's
shower of beauty or light (kanti) is mediated
through successions and for us in the
Caitanya community this means
"disciplic" successions. This verse reminded me of an
insipid little book that was sent to me
recently. Written by someone named Tripurari
(what kind of a Vaisnava name is this,
anyway), it was called Sri
Guru Parampara:
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, heir to
the esoteric life of Kedarnatha Bhaktivinoda.
The book is full of goofy errors, sophistry,
and misunderstandings, but criticizing that
silly little book is not the point of this
essay. The author, however, claims that
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had received diksa
(initiation) in the Gaudiya sampradaya and
this reminded me of my own parting of ways
with ISKCON.
The main reason for my departure from ISKCON
was that I came to believe (and I still
do) that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati had never
received proper initiation into the
sampradaya. This revelation absolutely shook
my world to pieces. I remember sitting on
the roof of ISKCON's Vrindaban guest house
the following day sadly watching the sun
come up. It seemed like a different sun and
the world I saw was a strange and frightening
one. For weeks I had no idea what I was going
to do. The man who broke the news to me
was Dr. OBL Kapoor, elder savant of the Caitanya
Vaisnava tradition and former
member of the Gaudiya Math (his initiation
name in the GM was Adikesava Das). He
2
himself had found genuine initiation outside
the organization of Bhaktisiddhanta, from
the great bhakta, Sri Gauranga das Baba.
Even though I greatly respected Dr. Kapoor, I
refused to accept what seemed to me to be
extremely bad news on his word alone. I
interviewed others and did my own researc, but
every where I turned I found the course led
to the same unbelievable conclusion.
Bhaktisiddhanta had been refused initiation
by Gaura Kisora Das Babaji and he had
insulted his father's guru, Bipin Bihari
Goswami. His enormous ego and rather sharp
tongue closed the doors of Krsna's realm to
him and to those who have depended on him.
When he was called on his lack of initiation
by one of the Caitanya tradition's greatest
scholar-practitioners of the last century,
Pandita Ramakrsna Das Baba, who was
universally respected and honored by
Vaisnavas of all sampradayas, he turned his venom
on the babas who were following the only
recognized form of renunciation in the
Caitanya tradition. This has had a profound
effect on the functioning of Gaudiya Math
and all its children, one among which is
ISKCON. More will be said about this side of the
problem in future installments of this essay.
Why did I come to believe that
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was never initiated? This was
almost universally the reason ex-members of
the Gaudiya Math gave for their own
departures from that organization. I had
always been told that after the death of
Bhaktisiddhanta in 1937, the Gaudiya Math
gradually disintegrated as a result of the
struggle for power and greed. The actual
impetus I learned was more principled than
that. It was the result of the discovery of
the inauthenticity of Bhaktisiddhanta's initiation.
The man who began the fracture of the GM was
Bhaktiprasada Puri Das Goswami,
known before his renunciation as
Anantavasudeva das, the leader of the GM who was
hand-picked by Bhaktisiddhanta himself. His
reason was precisely his own discovery of
the fundamental flaw in the parampara of the
Gaudiya Math.
After a four-month long series of lectures on
the Bhakti-sandarbha of Sri Jiva Gosvamin,
begun in Bengal and completed in Vrindaban,
he called all the members of the Math
together, especially the sannyasis, and
announced his own departure from the institution.
He also informed them that their own efforts
were in vain. Without the proper initiation
of their teacher, Bhaktisiddhanta, the
mantras he gave them in initiation were useless.
The institution of sannyasa, too, the
renounced order of life according to the system of
asramas or stages in a exemplary Hindu life,
which was instituted by Bhaktisiddhanta in
Caitanya Vaisnavism, was also groundless
(since Bhaktisiddhanta had given it to himself).
He advised all the sannyasis to go home and
get married. Their pursuit of sannyasa was a
sham and a waist of time. Most importantly of
all he advised them that for their own
spiritual good they get properly initiated
from an authentic lineage within the Caitanya
tradition. This I heard from several aged
Vaisnavas in Vrindaban and Nabadwip who
knew Puri Das personally and who left along
with him or some time shortly afterwards.
He called the members together, especially
the sannyasis, and informed them that their
efforts were in vain. Without the proper
initiation of their teacher, the mantras he gave
them were useless. He advised them to go home
and get married. Their pursuit of
3
sannyasa was a waist of time. Most of all he
advised them that for their own spiritual
good they go get properly initiated. This I
heard from several aged Vaisnavas in
Vrindaban and Nabadvip who knew Puri Das and
who left along with him or some time
shortly afterwards.
In addition, I did a little research on my
own. During one of my visits to Nabadwip I
visited the bhajana kutir/mandira of Gaura
Kishora Das Babaji and spoke with the pujari
there. I asked him if he knew whether Gaura
Kishora Das Babaji had any initiated
disciples. His answer, after consulting with
some of the other elders of the compound,
was that, as far as he knew, there were only
four, a married couple of modest means and
two others, agriculturalists from neighboring
villages, none of whom were
Bhaktisiddhanta. How he knew this and how reliable
his testimony is, I don't know, but
taken in conjunction with the other evidence
it lends support to the thesis that all that
Bhaktisiddhanta got from Gaura Kishora Das
Babaji were his blessings in the form of a
little dust of Nabadvip sprinkled on his
head.
The third bit of evidence comes from an
eyewitness account. Tripurari Maharaj claims
that there were witnesses to
Bhaktisiddhanta’s initiation (p. 37). He doesn’t mention who
they were or even how he knows there were
witnesses. We are expected, I suppose, to
accept it solely on his authority. His
authority is useless, however, and unless he has some
evidence, we can treat the witness claim with
the doubt it deserves. The eyewitnesses I
know of and from whom I heard were eyewitness
to Bhaktisiddhanta’s admission before
Pandita Ramakrsna Das Baba that he had not
received initiation from Gaurakisora Das
Babaji. Bhaktisiddhanta was in the habit of
visiting Pandit Babaji during his visits to
Vraja since he was without a doubt the most
respected of the Caitanya Vaisnnavas of the
early 20th century. On one occasion,
certainly before 1914 when Gaurakisora Das Baba
passed away, Bhaktisiddhanta highly praised
Gaurakisora Das in Pandit Baba’s presence.
Pandit Baba asked him if he had received
initiation from him. Bhaktisiddhanta said he
had received it in dream. Pandit Babaji said
that that was fine, but he should receive it in
the flesh as well since that is the only type
of initiation accepted as authentic in the
Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said he would
and ended the visit.
A few years later, in 1917-18, Bhaktsiddhanta
returned to Vrindaban, now the acharya of
the Gaudiya Math, a famous man with many
disciples. He visited Pandita Babaji again.
Babaji was living at that time at the
Bhagavata-nivasa asrama on Ramana Reti Road. He
was ill and was there to recuperate. When
Bhaktisiddanta visited him, Pandit Baba asked
again if he had gotten initiation from Gaura
Kishora Das Baba. His answered that he did
not, at which point Pandita Baba got
extremely angry with him for making disciples
without proper initiation. Pandita Babaji
threw him out of the ashrama and
Bhaktisiddhanta, fearing damage to his
reputation, began his calumny of the Vrindaban
babas and forbade his disciples from meeting
with them. This account was given to me by
Advaita Das Baba from Govardhan, who was the
nephew of Puri Das Gosvami and who
claimed he had heard it directly from
Visnudas Baba who as a young lad had been there
4
helping Pandit Baba during his stay at
Bhagavata-nivasa. Visnudasa had been in the room
during the meeting between Pandit Baba and
Bhaktisiddanta and heard this exchange
personally. Advaita Das Baba, then quite old.
He was a siksa disciple of the great
smarana teacher Manohar Das Baba of
Govardhan. When I met him he was the
mahanta(abbot) of Govinda-kunda, the asrama
of Siddha Manohara das Baba. I
expressed my anxiety about leaving ISKCON to
Advaita das Baba. I knew I would incur
Bhaktivedanta Swami´s anger if I left ISKCON
and sought shelter at the feet of Kisorikisorananda
das Baba as I was thinking of doing. He
laughed and assured me that I had
nothing to fear from Bhaktivedanta´s anger.
His exact words were "such anger is
powerless". I took my leap of faith
shortly thereafter and have never looked back with any
regret.
Does all this prove that Bhaktisiddhanta did
not receive initiation?
It depends on what one means by proof. Some
people set the bar so high for proof that by
that standard nothing can be proved beyond a
doubt. There are still some twisted ones
who claim that the Holocaust did not happen
because it has not been definitively proven
to have happened. I think the preponderance
of evidence falls against Bhaktisiddhanta’s
having received authentic initiation. It is
not just a matter of hearsay, as some rather thick
and loud demagogues want to claim. The people
how actually lived through those events
were alive when I was faced my difficult
choice and they shared with me their experiences
and insights. Moreover, it is absurd to think
that Bhaktiprasada Puri Goswami would
have made such a momentous choice based on
mere hearsay. He gave up the highest and
most honored post in the GM to live a life of
seclusion and service in Vrindaban. His life
was put in danger because of it and had he
not been hidden by some of the Goswamis of
the Radharamana Temple in Vrindaban, some of
the members of the GM would have
killed him. Finally, there is the fact that
the mainstream Vaisnava community does not
regard ISKCON and GM (IGM) as authentic
members of the Caitanya tradition. This is
most dramatically demonstrated by the fact
that main-streamers do not eat with members
of IGM and as far as possible do not
associate with them. Is this widespread feeling of the
mainstream community towards IGM based simply
on hearsay? I think not. It is based on
the conviction that IGM is not part of the
community of Vaisnavas who trace their
tradition back to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
They are an apasampradaya, renegade
community.
My advice to ISKCON-men and women and to
ex-ISKCON-men and women and to non-
ISKCON-men and women is the same as that
given to me many years ago by Dr. Kapoor:
get yourselves properly initiated. There are
several members of authentic Vaisnava
parampara around whose lineages are
undisputed.
5
REFLECTIONS ON INITIATION
Part 2
by
Nitai Das
June 14, 2005
In this installment we will have to grapple
with the question of the”success” of ISKCON.
ISKCON-men will often cite the success of
ISKCON as proof of the power and
authenticity of Srila Prabhupada. Viewed
objectively, however, a strong argument
can be made that ISKCON has not been all that
successful and one might extend that
argument to its mother organization in India,
the Gaudiya Math. A lot, of course, hinges
on what is considered success. It is possible
to lower the thresh-hold of success so low that
anything can be considered success;
conversely it is possible to raise it so high that
nothing can be considered successful.
Obviously, however, some more or less objective
standards are needed to evaluate success. I
will try to find and apply such standards in
three areas that are usually associated with
success:
• size and wealth of the organization,
• level of advancement of its members, and
• effect of the organization or its teachings
on the awareness or consciousness of the
West.
If size and wealth are to be considered
evidence of success, then ISKCON will have
difficulty demonstrating its success.
Compared to many other religious organizations,
ISKCON has done no better and in several
cases it has done worse. According to several
sources, ISKCON had at its peak (mid-1970s ?)
less than 5,000 full-time members in the
United States (Melton, 1982), a number which
has dropped to about 3,000 today. The
current list of centers provided on ISKCON’s
own home page has around 75 entries for
the United States. According to an
independent source, ISKCON currently has about a
million followers in the world with about
8,000 full-time followers among them
(Chryssides, 1999). Another independent
source claims that there are 3,000 core
members and about 250,000 ”lay” members in
the United States (New Religious
Movements, University of Virginia, 1998).
This might at first seem quite impressive, but
how does this stack up with some of the other
20th century religious groups in the United
States? Independent sources place the number
of followers of the Unification Church,
which was founded in 1954 by Rev. Sun Myung
Moon, at between one to three million
around the world (Chryssides, 1999) with some
10,000 full-time members in theWest
(Bishop, 1987). Scientology has according to
their own account eight million followers,
but it turns out that the Scientologists
claim as a member anyone who has ever availed
themselves of their services (auditing, etc)
since the founding of the Church of
Scientology in 1954. Dissident former
members, however, claim that there are less
than 700,000 in the United States. Somewhere
between those two extremes lies the actual
6
figure. The most recent estimate places the
number of members at 5.6 million worldwide
(Chryssides, 1999), but this again is
dependent on church publications. Of those, there
are around 11,370 full-time members according
to the same estimate. The numbers for
Transcendental Meditation vary from around
50,000 in the world (Melton, 1993) to one
million in the United States and three
million in the world (Occhiogrosso, 1996).
Obviously, it is hard to find reliable
tallies of any of these groups. Nevertheless, assuming
that these figures bear some resemblance to
reality, ISKCON when compared with its
peers has not turned in a very strong
performance. In fact, it seems to have
lagged somewhat behind; all of the other
religious groups cited here appear to have done
better than ISKCON. Or, if one exercises a
much warranted skepticism over the figures
available, ISKCON has at least done as well
but certainly no better. It must be pointed
out, however, that the Unification Church and
Scientology have been in existence for at
least ten years longer than ISKCON and that
the former, at least, still has its leader. This
hardly amounts to the flooding of the world
with preman predicted in the Caitanyacaritamrta.
Nor is it a stunning display of the
superiority of Prabhupada’s potency and
authenticity. On the basis of the evidence
such as it is, one would have to claim at least as
much potency and authenticity for the Rev.
Moon, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Maharshi.
Perhaps this is not the way to recognize
ISKCON’s success, then. Followers, centers, and
wealth could be merely a manifestation of
good organizational skills and sound business
sense, not empowerment.
Let us consider the advancement of the
followers of ISKCON, then. Perhaps this is where
the secret of ISKCON’s success lies. But we
are wandering into the middle of a very
slippery quagmire here. How can one tell how
advanced a devotee is? The bhakti
scriptures give examples of symptoms to look
for in advanced devotees, but do any of the
ISKCONers manifest such symptoms and if so,
are they genuine? These are difficult
questions to answer. I remember how
reassuring it was back when I was a member of
ISKCON to think that someone in the society
had really made visible advancement. We
all believed that Yamuna Devi Dasi, of
instance, had reached the level of bhava. This
must have been a claim that had originated
with Prabhupada. Who would dare to
make up such a thing. I at least stood in awe
of her when I finally met her years later in
Brindaban. What a mind blowing experience
then when one day during his daily massage
Prabhupada turned to me and asked if I knew
Yamuna Devi Dasi. I said that I did and
waited expectantly for Prabhupada to praise
her for how highly developed and saintly she
was. Instead he said: ”She has spoiled many
brahmacaris and sannyasis!” What an
earthquake! I felt like the ceiling had
fallen down on my head. So much for past
greatness; is there any greatness among the
current followers of ISKCON? I am certainly
in no position to say since I have
purposefully removed myself from all ISKCON
association. During the six years I spent as
a member of the organization I met no one
who I thought had advanced very far and
worried a great deal about the rate of my own
advancement. I remember the ludicrous
spectacle of a Brahmananda Swami stealing
money, running off to whore houses in Africa
for months, and then crawling back on his
hands and knees to Prabhupada’s feet begging
for forgiveness. Brahmananda was one of
7
Prabhupada’s oldest disciples. Besides that
he was bully. I have personal experience of
that. I need only mention the names Kirtanananda
Swami, Bhavananda Swami, and
Hamsaduta Swami to provide other stunning
examples of ISKCON’s failure. I suspect
that not much has changed, that there are
still no devotees who have advanced beyond
the even the lowest rungs of sadhanabhakti.
This, if true, is very sad thing and a very
strange. One would think that someone in the
last forty years would have made some
advancement. The only devotees I have ever
seen who were on high levels of
development were outside of both ISKCON and
the Gaudiya Math. One remembers, for
instance, Sri Krsnacarana Das Baba who could
no longer attend readings of works on
Krsna-lila because tears would start
squirting from his eyes uncontrollably, his hair would
stand on end and slobber would run down his
chin. The other members of the audience
would take more notice of him than of the
text being read. I never saw this happen to
him, but this is how Dr. Kapoor described him
to me once. I also recall sleeping outside
of Tinkudi Baba’s (Kisorikisorananda Baba)
room when I first joined him and waking
early in the morning to hear him laughing and
talking enthusiastically in his room with
someone. When I peeked in I saw that he was
alone. Those around him told me that he
often did that and that he was talking with
Radha and Krsna and the other gopis. They in
addition claimed that Radha and Krsna were
actually there with him. Those around him
also claimed that they had at various times
seen all of the eight sattvika-vikara appear in
his body. Unfortunately, my Bengali was too
poor at that time to understand what he said
there in his room. Even in my profoundly
covered state, however, I could sense that
something powerful was going on within and
around him.
Can ISKCON boast such advanced devotees? I
doubt it. If there are some similarly
advanced devotees I would be glad to learn of
it. ISKCON doesn’t even recognize such
things as achievements, though. To ISKCON-men
selling more books, building more
temples, bringing in more money, making more
disciples are the signs of advancement.
This is all Prabhupada used to talk about.
The wealth of the heart doesn’t count for much
in ISKCON. ISKCON’s full attention is
directed outside. My thesis is that this is because
the path inside is blocked for ISKCONers and
this is because it has no genuine initiation.
Initiation opens an inner door and as Tinkudi
Baba once said connects one with the
powerhouse Krsna. If that inner path is
blocked by worthless mantras, if that inner door
is locked shut, one’s attention is forced
outside and one is stuck with judging one’s
success on the basis of external measures. As
Baladeva Vidyabhusana has said in his
Prameya-ratnavali, quoting the Padma Purana:
yad-uktam. padma-purane
sampradaya-vihina ye mantraste viphala matah
As it is said in the Padma Purana:
mantras that have no community of
transmission (sampradaya) areconsidered fruitless.
8
Community of transmission here means
disciplic succession. Mantras that are not
received through disciplic succession are
powerless. ISKCON’s mantras have proven
useless in transforming the hearts of its
initiates. That is anyway how it appears to outside
observers like me. Thus, neither from the
point of view of material success nor from the
point of view of advancement of followers
does ISKCON appear to be in any sense
empowered.
What about ISKCON’s influence in transforming
the consciousness of the West? Has not
ISKCON had a profound effect in transforming
Western culture? Perhaps it is too early
to draw any conclusions on this issue, but at
present it looks like ISKCON and indeed
several of the other religious movements of
the latter twentieth century are destined to
be mere footnotes to the religious life of
the century. I have increasingly noticed how, in
the classes I teach, fewer and fewer of the
students have ever heard of the Hare Krishna
movement. Those who have heard of the
movement know next to nothing about its
teachings and practices. If a student does
know something, it is something negative: that
the Hare Krishnas used to harass people in
the airports and city streets, forcing books
and incense on them and short-changing them
whenever possible, or that they were a cult
that brain-washed their follows. This is
ISKCON’s real legacy. Older people associate
ISKCON with the kidnapping of kids and
scandalous murder cases. Penetrating studies
have been done on the psychological profiles
of people who join such ”fringe” groups as
ISKCON, with the objective of getting such
people help so that they will not do such
things in the future. While much of this hype
is based on a misunderstanding of what
ISKCON stands for and a corresponding refusal
to recognize that similar psychological
weaknesses can be found in people who become
members of any evangelical or
fundamentalist religious group, it
nevertheless contributes to the overall cultural
perception of ISKCON. Thus, ISKCON and the
other groups like it have become
manifestations of the feared ”other.” Very
few Americans today would consider it an
honor if their sons and daughters became
members of ISKCON. In other words ISKCON
has given Krsna a bad name in the West.
On the positive side, it can be said that
groups like ISKCON have served to strengthen
and to nourish the pluralism that exists
today in American religion and indeed
increasingly in religion in other parts of
the world. Thus, it can be said that ISKCON has
indeed had an effect of the consciousness of
the world, but perhaps not the one it hoped
to have. The process has not ended yet. The
current rise in fundamentalisms is a reaction
to the increased strength and visibility of
pluralism, to which ISKCON contributed, and
may bring about the ultimate demise of
pluralism. Who can guess what repressive order
may replace it? (Bush?)
The absence of a genuine initiation may
account for the absence of real empowerment in
ISKCON, but what about the power of the holy
name? Surely that is a factor that would
contribute to ISKCON’s success. The holy name
requires no initiation, knows no rules or
limitations. The holy name and the holy named
are one and the same and thus the holy
9
name is always empowered. Since ISKCON
practices and promotes the chanting of the
holy name it must thereby have some
connection with that powerhouse you spoke of. If
ISKCON has had only moderate success, why
hasn’t the holy name changed that? This is
indeed an interesting question and that will
be the one I tackle next month.
Select Bibliography
Chryssides, George. Exploring New Religions.
London, U.K.: Cassells (1999).
Melton, J. Gordon & Robert L. Moore. The
Cult Experience: Responding to the New Religious Pluralism. New York: The
Pilgrim Press (1984 [3rd printing; 1st
printing 1982]).
Melton, J. Gordon, Encyclopedia of American
Religions. 4th ed. Detroit: Gale Research Inc. (1993).
New Religious Movements (University of
Virginia) (1998) (web site:http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~jkh8x/soc257/nrms/).
Occhiogrosso, Peter: The Joy of Sects: A
Spirited Guide to the World's Religious Traditions. NewYork: Doubleday (1996)
REFLECTIONS ON INITIATION
Part 3
by
Nitai Das
June 15, 2005
Last month I argued that if one examines the
empirical evidence, there is no support for
the contention that ISKCON and its mother
organizations, the Gaudiya Math and its
splinters, are empowered as one would expect
them to be if they possessed a genuine line
of initiation. I used three criteria:
material wealth and followers, production of advanced
followers, and influence on the consciousness
of the time. One needs only to look at the
beginnings of the Caitanya movement to see
what empowerment looks like. Vast numbers
of people became followers, temples were
built to house the movement’s many deities,
numerous followers showed signs of
advancement on the path of bhakti, and
consciousness was profoundly transformed.
Within a century a vast literature was created
and the influence of that movement was
exerted on Bengali literature for several
centuries. As an example of the last
criterion, one need only recall the huge numbers of
songs and poems written in Sanskrit, Bengali,
and Braj-bhasha about the love of Radha
and Krsna. So profound and lasting was this
transformation of consciousness that
centuries later it influenced perhaps
Bengal’s greatest poet Rabindranath Tagore who,
using (maybe the words adopting, adapting, or
downright pilfering would be better words
to use here) the figures and moods of bhakti
poetry in his Gitanjali, won recognition from
the world as India’s first and only Nobel
prize winner. Perhaps that prize really belongs to
Mahaprabhu and his many poet followers.
Since the “big bang” of those beginnings,
however, not much of that magnitude has
happened. The universe has continued to
expand at a steady rate, but the only major
milestone in the last five centuries seems to
have been the expansion of the movement
beyond the boundaries of India to the rest of
the world. Credit for that only partially rests
at the feet of Prabhupada (Bhaktivedanta
Swami). Other representatives of the Caitanya
10
tradition came West before him, learned and
charismatic devotees like Premananda
Bharati and Mahanamabrata Brahmacari preceded
him by over a half a century. Though
from our perspective at the end of the 20th
and beginning of the 21st centuries, their
efforts seem to have failed, in actuality,
during their times they met with a good deal of
success in spreading the faith. They wrote
books and dissertations, produced journals,
established temples and asramas, and gave
lectures to hundreds. Premananda even made
numerous disciples whom he took to India with
him and who carried on in their own ways
after his untimely death. The Gaudiya Math,
too, sent representatives like Swami Bon to
try to establish the movement in Europe and
boasted a few intelligent and high-profile
disciples like Sadananda and Walter Eidlitz,
author of several important studies of
Caitanya Vaisnavism. Prabhupada’s success may
well turn out to be no greater than theirs
and more long-lasting.
Still, it is enticing to think that perhaps
over the centuries the Caitanya movement
became too complacent, too self-satisfied
with the rich inner world it had been given
access to. Having been given, by the grace of
their living successions, the keys to the inner
door in initiation, it became very hard to
resist using those keys to enter into the eternal
inner world of lila. Why indeed would one
want to resist such a thing? Therefore, perhaps
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Bhaktivedanta
Swami, and others like them are to be seen as
unwitting instruments in the hands of
Mahaprabhu, instruments capable of doing things
for the spread of the movement that duly
initiated members find very difficult to do. If
the inner door is closed and locked, one is
forced to live and work among the externals,
amidst the money, the followers, the public
relations, the publications, the land deals, the
lawsuits and the temples. One is funnelled
into a life of busy-ness (or business) if the
inner eye remains shut. Thus, ISKCON and its
parent organizations might be seen as
something like loud noise makers, attracting
the attention of the people of the world with
a carnival-like atmosphere and drawing them
to an awareness of the world of Caitanya
Vaisnavism. Once those people have been put
in orbit around Mahaprabhu it would be
easy for some small percentage of them to
make the transition into association with
Mahaprabhu’s authentic followers. If this
thesis is correct, then making this transition,
though important for some, is not for
everybody. Some must remain locked out in the
external realm as part of the carnivale, at
least for a few more lifetimes, in order that the
process may go on and the sirens may continue
their song. This seems to be what has
happened and is continuing to happen with IGM
(ISKCON/Gaudiya Math).
Maybe something like the scenario outlined
above was in Dr. Kapoor’s mind when he
shattered my safe little ISKCON world by
informing me of the absence of initiation in
ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math. He himself, as I
mentioned before, had been reinitiated
already by Gauranga Das Baba and I recall
quite clearly his emotional
description of the day on which he met his
initiating guru (Baba). Dr. Kapoor’s
suggestion for me was that I too take
initiation secretly and remain within ISKCON. This
was apparently what he had done, since he had
kept up his relationships with his old
Gaudiya Math god-brothers, kept his GM
initiation name, and at least on the surface
11
appeared to be no different from them. When I
asked him for initiation, he wisely
declined. Instead he recommended Tinkudi Baba
as the most advanced of the bhaktas in
Braj at the time and as the best candidate
for my initiating guru. He mentioned other
possibilities as well, speaking highly of
Krsnacarana Das Baba and others. That was when
I began to visit Tinkudi Baba, meeting him
for the first time at Cakleshar on the banks of
the Manasasarovar near Govardhan. But that
story is for another installment.
Somehow Dr. Kapoor’s advice didn’t sit very
well with me, however. I had just had my
head chewed off a month earlier by Prabhupada
in Mayapur over a plan I had devised to
create an accredited guru-kula and that in
front of many of the GBC. I can still see the
smirks on their greasy, self-indulgent faces.
His words still ring in my ears, too: “Do you
think the world needs more scholars?! No! It
needs more devotees!” I never could accept
the idea that one could not be both a scholar
and a devotee and, quite frankly, I still
don’t. I felt, therefore, out of place in
ISKCON and I considered it somewhat
hypocritical to take initiation secretly from
someone else and then pretend to be
Prabhupada’s disciple still. I began from
that time to plan my departure, looking for an
opportunity to slip away quietly and
unnoticed into the morning mists of Braj. But that
too is a story for another time.
Looking back at that time from the present I
am convinced I did the right thing. Sure, I
could have secretly helped correct ISKCON’s impotence
by bringing in an authentic
initiation line. Perhaps others have done
this and many of the mantra now transmitted in
ISKCON have been brought to life. There were
many rumors of various other disciples of
Prabhupada receiving initiation from other Vaisnavas
like Lalita Prasada Thakur. My
own disciples, if ever I had any, would have
been benefitted no doubt and perhaps the
worship of that heart-guru (caittya-guru)
accomplished in the first of the inititation
mantras and gayatris given in genuine initiation
would have helped me guide ISKCON on
more wholesome paths. Still, there is a
horrible flaw and obstacle at work in ISKCON
and its parents that nothing short of
complete separation can correct. This flaw is also the
strongest evidence against the idea that the
Gaudiya Math and ISKCON are instruments
in Mahaprabhu’s plan. It is to that flaw that
we must now turn.
Apart from ISKCON’s impotence due to lack of
initiation, it suffers from the serious
commision of offense to the holy names.
Repeating the holy name requires no initiation
and has no limits in terms of proper place,
time, or practitioner. Anyone can utter or
repeat the holy names and reap the benefit of
being in the presence of the holy named,
Krsna, through his holy names. The only
obstacle that can interrupt this positive
influence is committing an offense to the
holy names. That is precisely what has infected
the Gaudiya Math and its offshoots (ISKCON).
This offense began with Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati himself and is inherited by
everyone who counts him or herself a follower of his.
First of all in IGM there is the most obvious
offense to the holy name, the first listed on
the traditional list of ten offenses,
blasphemy of the saintly (sadhuninda). This began in
the Gaudiya Math after Bhaktisiddhanta was
severely criticized by Pandit Ramakrsna
12
Das Baba for not being authentically
initiated by Gaurakisora Das Baba (see the my first
essay). Sarasvati´s egotistic response was to
blast the babas one and all and why he was at
it why not throw in the caste Goswamis, too.
This offensive practice became part of the
very institution of the Gaudiya Math and its
offshoots. We heard it often enough from
Prabhupada in person and in his writings. It
became the basis of the instruction to avoid
anyone claiming to be a Vaisnava outside of
ISKCON. That extended even Prabhupada’s
own god-brothers from the GM. I understand
that Prabhupada eventually realized the
seriousness of this offense and for I hear
that on his death bed, he called leading
members of the Vrindaban Vaisnava
communitytogether, his god-brothers and caste
Goswamis alike, and asked for their
forgiveness. Too little, too late? Who knows. Real
Vaisnava are a humble and forgiving bunch.
The really serious offense to the holy name,
however, is one that few think recognize. It
arises from neglect or disrespect of the guru
(gurv-avajna), the third offense. Not to take
proper initiation is to commit the offense of
neglecting the guru and that, too, is a
powerful obstacle to the holy name. The great
commentator Visvanatha Cakravartin gave
an interesting characterization of the way
this offense works in his commentary on the
Bhagavata Purana 6.2.9-10. He says:
Some people are always engaging their senses
in the sense objects
like cows and asses and don’t know, even in
their dreams, “who
is God, what is devotion, who is the guru.”
Such inoffensive persons
are saved even without a guru by repeating
the holy name in
the manner of a “semblance of holy name”
(namabhasa) like Ajamila
and others. Others, however, have
discriminating knowledge: “Hari
is to be worshipped, worship is the way to
attain him, the guru is
the instructor of that, many people of the
past have attained Hari
by means of the devotion taught by the guru,”
and yet, on the basis
of claims: “initiation, good practice, and
expiation are not needed;
the mere touch of this mantra, composed of
the name of Krsna, on the tongue brings the
result,” and on the basis of those very
examples
of Ajamila and others, they think: “why
should I go to the
trouble of finding a guru? By kirtana of the
holy names alone I will
get the Lord.” Because of this great offense
of neglecting the guru,
they will not attain the Lord. However, when
that offense becomes
eliminated, in that lifetime itself or in
another lifetime , they, too,
will find shelter at the feet of a guru and
reach the Lord.”
From this it appears that in some ways it is
better not to know about the importance of
the guru than it is to know about importance
of the guru and not to take shelter of one. I
conjecture that this is exactly what
Bhaktisiddhanta did. Perhaps he really wanted to take
initiation from Gaurkisora Das Baba, but for
some reason was unable to and could not
find another who met his high standards. That
is understandable and even admirable. But
13
to start accepting disciples without have
made that initial offering of oneself to Krsna in
the moment of surrender to a guru, that is
inexcusable. Moreover, those who now believe
he was not properly initiated or who at least
honestly doubt that he was properly initiated
and yet are reluctant to get themselves
properly initiated suffer from that same offense.
The result is the same: the effectiveness of
repeating the holy names is impeded. Not
until after the offense is destroyed and one
has found shelter with an authentic guru does
one get Krsna.
In conclusion, where do we now find
ourselves? Two results have been arrived at
concerning the Gaudiya Math and ISKCON:
first, they are cut off from the powerhouse
by the absence of proper initiation and
second neglect of that absence is offensive to the
holy name stopping even the holy name from
acting to purify and perfect their followers.
I noticed this second phenomenon quite
dramatically toward the end of my stay in
ISKCON. During my last days in ISKCON I was
given the position of head pujari of the
Krsna Balarama Temple in Vrindaban. I decided
it would be a good opportunity to do
more rounds of japa (chanting on beads). I
specifically wanted to try to chant one lakh
(100,000 names or 64 rounds on the beads) a
day as the scriptures (Caitanya bhagavata)
recommend. With practice I did reach the
level of doing one lakh a day. The result was
surprisingly unimpressive, however. I still
had high hopes, but I didn’t feel that power and
that presence that I hoped I would. Later,
after I took shelter with Tinkudi Baba, far
away from anything ISKCON, and he made it my
sole responsibility to chant three lakhs
a day and extraordinary things began to
happen. The holy name became effective again.
At that time I had not received initiation
from Baba yet, but the holy name was having an
overwhelming effect on me. That effect or
change of heart was indeed what Baba was
waiting for before giving me initiation. The
only explanation is that previously, when I
chanted a lakh in ISKCON I was guilty of
offense by association with offenders and the
holy name acted only weakly for me. Only
after I left that atmosphere did I begin to feel
the great power of the holy name.
No comments:
Post a Comment