Суд над Бхагавад-гитой / Attempt to ban Bhagavad-gita

ADVANCE COPY FROM AN UPCOMING BOOK BY SULOCANA DASA - JULY 22nd, 1985

CHAPTER SEVEN

A VERY HUMAN STORY

THE LILAMRTA-PLANTING THE WEED

Devotees often react to our statement that Lilamrta's portrayal of Srila Prabhupada's life is bogus and offensive with the following rationalizations:

"If all the struggles and difficulties which Srila Prabhupada went through were actually not struggles at all, but Krsna's lila, then won't that discourage devotees from struggling to serve Krsna? In other words, if devotees see that only a mahabhagavata can do something wonderful, since Krsna only works directly through him, then what is the use of my struggling? I am not a pure devotee."

"If Prabhupada set the example of struggling in Krsna's service in order to encourage us to struggle for Krsna, then what is the point of minimizing his example? He wanted us to see him struggle for Krsna. Otherwise, why would he do it? If we say that Prabhupada never really struggled, then don't we negate his personal example? Isn't that offensive and impersonal?"

"If you say that Srila Prabhupada only pretended to be struggling, so that we would follow his example and struggle for Krsna, then isn't that the same as saying Prabhupada was simply playing a role to trick his disciples into working hard. Doesn't that negate his great achievement and make him out to be a duplicitous person, another offense?"

These are admittedly powerful and logical sounding arguments, but they do not have shastric backing. Obviously, had Srila Prabhupada mystically manifested everything he needed for preaching, without ever appearing to struggle or be in want of anything, then what would have been the reaction in his disciples' minds? They would have thought: "Why should I go out and work hard when my guru can manifest a beautiful temple or a mountain of gold instantly just like Kardama Muni manifested a city in the sky?" The disciples would not want to work for Krsna but instead would want to enjoy Krsna's opulence. Such disciples, seeing this opulence, would only become envious of Prabhupada and crave those mystic powers themselves. Srila Prabhupada instead wanted to give us the desire for the humble service of the Lord. Although to some, this may appear less valuable, it is a far greater opportunity. Therefore, Srila Prabhupada only rarely manifested his mystic potency. He did not want to attract cheap followers. At the same time, he gave stern warnings that the disciple is never to think that the spiritual master is under the laws of material nature. Hence an apparent contradiction.

The pure devotee has the powers and opulences of mystic yogis given to him by Krishna directly, but he does not want our unpure minds to become enamored by it. At the same time it is a serious offense to think the pure devotee is not in complete control, but instead is under the control of the material energy. So how to reconcile this?

According to sastra (scripture), one should not view the spiritual master from the bodily platform. That would include viewing his history from the eyes of a book like "Lilamrta" which accentuates Prabhupada's bodily relationships and tends to bring him down to the level of the conditioned devotee, struggling to do his service to God. In this connection, Chanakya Pandit warns us:

"One should not get too close to the fire, a woman, the King, or the spiritual master. Neither should one remain too far away, for then one cannot get the benefits to be derived. One should deal with these four in the middle way."

This is an excellent example. Everyone can understand the example of fire, a woman, and the King. Fire is the most obvious. Similarly, women are known to be able to lead a man astray and be quite ruthless at times. Kings are known to have a man's head severed at the drop of a dime. But here the Pandit includes the guru in this example. Why? Prabhupada gives the answer in numerous places: The guru is directly connected to Krsna and thus an offense to the guru is extremely dangerous, much more dangerous than offense to the other three combined. They can only harm one's body and mind. Offense to the Guru, however, can completely check one's spiritual progress for many lifetimes. There is no way to calculate the severity of gurvaparada in terms of lifetimes, or hellfire, etc. The damage of becoming too familiar with the guru is compared to a mad elephant entering a china shop or a nicely trimmed garden. They are both utterly destroyed. Therefore, one is advised never to become familiar with the guru. One is only meant to become very well versed in, and familiar with his instructions, not his apparent bodily and mental "needs." But in "Lilamrta," Satsvarupa has described Srila Prabhupada's thoughts and emotions as though he were in a direct link to Prabhupada's head. This is extremely dangerous and offensive. Perhaps this explains why Satsvarupa is now suffering such severe headaches that he has become practically incapacitated. No devotee in his right mind should read even one page of "Lilamrta," and those copies that have already been distributed should be recovered and burned.

So, in dealing with Srila Prabhupada's life in the middle way, some of the main occurrences in his life, such as the childhood Rathayatra festival, his early enthusiasm to worship the Radha-Krsna Deities, his first meeting with his Spiritual Master, his enthusiasm to preach and publish Back to Godhead, etc., could be described. Srila Prabhupada set that example for us. He never went into a detailed description of his own Guru Maharaja's bodily history. Bhaktivinode Thakura had eight children. Should we go into his history with his family? Of course not. So why should Satsvarupa and the GBC think that they can set a new standard? Were Satsvarupa actually a liberated soul, he would have seen Srila Prabhupada's true platform. He would not have been interested in the history of Prabhupada's so-called physical and emotional "needs." Such a history is clearly viewing the pure devotee from the material viewpoint. Aside from provoking the ocean of material emotions within the hearts of women, sudras, the less-intelligent, etc., (the audience the book was geared toward), it can accomplish nothing but the destruction of our transcendental awe and reverence and faith in Srila Prabhupada.

One may argue that such mundane sentiment, since it is directed toward Srila Prabhupada, is actually transcendental and will elevate us to a higher level of devotion and even award liberation. At first this may sound logical, but it is not the conclusion of sastra. Sastra unequivocally states that the pure devotee should never be seen from the mundane or bodily-mental-intellectual point of view. Satsvarupa has projected him in this way, although the author tries to deny he is doing it in some places. If Prabhupada is seen in that way, it is compared to a mad elephant entering the garden. One's spiritual life is finished. He immediately falls down to spend his lifetime in useless speculation.

Many devotees agree with the above conclusion, but they argue that Satsvarupa has made this error unintentionally. But this is not the fact. The GBC, particularly Satsvarupa and Adi Keshava, deliberately decided that the best way to preach via an autobiography of Srila Prabhupada was to project him to the masses as a great man. This was supposedly done for the purpose of preaching, since the masses could never accept Srila Prabhupada as being the sum total of all the demigods. This kind of reasoning is external and is an insufficient excuse for committing such an offense to Srila Prabhupada. A more insidious motive is clearly evident. If Srila Prabhupada is viewed as having been chock full of human weaknesses, then, when these bogus gurus of ISKCON display their weaknesses, such as agitation, fear, sex-desire, ignorance, mistakes, illusion, etc., they will have their excuses in the apparent example of Srila Prabhupada as put forth by "Lilamrta," and the less-intelligent will be unable to distinguish between the two.

The following are some scriptural quotes which substantiate our conclusion. There are many more references; we are only quoting a few:

"When one actually engages in unalloyed, uncontaminated devotional service, he is already liberated. Krsna's devotee is not subject to material condition, even though his bodily features may appear materially conditioned. One should therefore not see the pure devotee from a material point of view. If we consider the bodily defects of a Vaishnava we should understand that we are committing an offense at the lotus feet of a Vaishnava. An offense at the lotus feet of a Vaishnava is very serious. Indeed, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has described this offense as hati-mata, the mad-elephant offense. A mad elephant can create a disaster, especially when it enters a nicely trimmed garden... One is forbidden to observe the activities of a pure Vaishnava from a material point of view. For a neophyte especially, considering a pure devotee from a material point of view is very injurious. One should therefore avoid observing the pure devotee externally but should try to see the internal features and understand how he is engaged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. In this way one can avoid seeing the pure devotee from a material point of view, and thus one can gradually become a purified devotee himself." (NOI, p. 60-63)

"'Acaryam mam vijaniyat.' One should consider the acarya to be as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In spite of all these instructions, if one considers the spiritual master an ordinary human being, one is doomed. His study of the Vedas and his austerities and penances are all useless, like the bathing of an elephant. An elephant bathes in a lake quite thoroughly, but as soon as it comes on the shore, it takes some dust from the ground and straws it over its body. Thus there is no meaning to the elephant's bath. One may argue by saying that since the spiritual master's relatives and the men of his neighborhood consider him an ordinary human being, what is the fault on the part of the disciple who considers the spiritual master an ordinary human being? This will be answered in the next verse, but the injunction is that the spiritual master should never be considered an ordinary man..." (next verse) "Similarly, if the family members of the spiritual master, who is the bonafide representative of the Supreme Lord, consider the spiritual master an ordinary human being, this does not mean that he becomes an ordinary human being. The spiritual master is as good as the Supreme Lord, and therefore one who is very serious about spiritual advancement must regard the spiritual master in this way. Even a slight deviation from this understanding can create disaster in the disciple's Vedic studies and austerities." (SB, 7.15.26)

"When one serves a Vaishnava unknowingly, one still gets a good result, and if one unknowingly insults a Vaishnava one suffers the bad result. A Vaishnava is especially favored by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Pleasing him or displeasing him directly affects the pleasure and displeasure of the Supreme Lord...by pleasing the spiritual master, who is a pure Vaishnava, one pleases the Personality of Godhead, but if one displeases the spiritual master, one does not know where he is going." (SB, 4.9.23)

"It is therefore said, vaisnavera kriya mudra vijna na bhujhaya. A highly advanced Vaishnava lives in such a way that no one can understand what he is or what he was. Nor should attempts be made to understand the past of a Vaishnava." (SB, 7.13.14)