Srimad-Bhagavatam: SB 2.6.20: PURPORT:
The householders and persons who have deliberately broken the vow of celibacy cannot enter into the kingdom of deathlessness. The pious householders or the fallen yogīs or the fallen transcendentalists can be promoted to the higher planets within the material world (one fourth of the energy of the Lord), but they will fail to enter into the kingdom of deathlessness. Abṛhad-vratas are those who have broken the vow of celibacy. The vānaprasthas, or those retired from family life, and the sannyāsīs, or the renounced persons, cannot break the vow of celibacy if they want success in the process. The brahmacārīs, vānaprasthas and sannyāsīs do not intend to take rebirth (apraja), nor are they meant for secretly indulging in sex life. Such a falldown by the spiritualist may be compensated by another chance for human life in good families of learned brāhmaṇas or of rich merchants for another term of elevation, but the best thing is to attain the highest perfection of deathlessness as soon as the human form of life is attained; otherwise the whole policy of human life will prove to be a total failure. Lord Caitanya was very strict in advising His followers in this matter of celibacy. One of His personal attendants, Choṭa Haridāsa, was severely punished by Lord Caitanya because of his failure to observe the vow of celibacy. For a transcendentalist, therefore, who at all wants to be promoted to the kingdom beyond material miseries, it is worse than suicide to deliberately indulge in sex life, especially in the renounced order of life. Sex life in the renounced order of life is the most perverted form of religious life, and such a misguided person can only be saved if, by chance, he meets a pure devotee. –
Fallout over Falldown
by Praghosa das,
in response to Ameyatma Prabhu’s dismay over GBC Action on Satsvarupa
Dear Ameyatma prabhu, PAMHO AGTSP Hare Krsna.
Prabhu – the entire affair – and the GBC “handling” of it – is such utter and shameless insanity – that it really is better to just ignore and avoid it. These men and women are absolutely diseased. This entire matter is so beyond the pale that decent men should just shrug their shoulders and allow these numbskulls to simmer in their own sick juices.
This matter and its “handling” are the last straw as far as I am concerned. I will never consider any of them in any way, shape or form again.
As far as I am concerned – their ACTIONS should be disregarded with the same degree of disgust and apathy – as a pile of rubbish. The Problem is – it appears that they are beyond help because they actually “believe” they are the benchmark, the “standard” by which normalcy is to be determined!
Your letter – with all its “analysis” and points – are being delivered to and accepted by WHOM?
DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK ANYONE WHO COULD WRITE WHAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN – COULD ACTUALLY CARE FOR YOUR “CONCERNS”?
IF YOU DO – THEN YOU ARE SORELY MISTAKEN. NOTHING YOU SAY OR WRITE – NO MATTER HOW LOGICAL OR REASONABLE – WILL MEAN ONE THING TO ANY OF THEM. EVER.
I would be shocked if you received one word from them in return.
“Ameyatma das (ACBSP)” wrote:
Dear GBC, Sannyasis, Prabhus and matajis:
Please Accept my humble obeisances. All glories to ISKCON’s Founder-Acharya, ACBS-Srila Prabhupad.
Since Satsvarup’s fall down was a topic that started a discussion some 6 months ago among a number of devotees, I thought I would make some comments on the latest statements by SDG and the GBC and send them to the devotees on that discussion, as well as to a number of other senior ISKCON devotees.
I take issue with these statements by the GBC. The term “retired sannyasi” is a total concoction. Throughout Srila Prabhupad’s teachings he refers to sannyas as the renounced order, and vanaprasth life as that of retired life. A vanaprasthi or sannyasi is one who has retired from family life, retired from material life, who had renounced material life and who has taken up the spiritual pursuit of life full time.
Therefore the term “retired sannyasi” is either a contradictory term, or it must mean one who has given up sannyas, meaning a person who has fallen backwards, who is no longer pursuing spiritual advancement, who is no longer renouncing material life, and thus can only refer to one who is now pursuing sense-enjoyment and activities of mundane entanglement in this world. This is the only acceptable meaning for the term “retired from retired life”.
Here are a few examples from Srila Prabhupad’s teachings showing how sannyas life is retired life:
“And the student life, the householder’s life, retired life and renounced life are the four statuses of cultural advancement towards the path of spiritual realization. Out of these, the renounced order of life, or the order of sannyasa, is considered the highest of all, and a sannyasi is constitutionally the spiritual master for all the orders and divisions. In the sannyasa order also there are four stages of upliftment toward perfection. These stages are called kutichaka, bahudaka, parivrajakacharya, and paramahamsa. The paramahamsa stage of life is the highest stage of perfection. This order of life is respected by all others.” (purport, SB 1.3.13)
The GBC seem to have concocted a new stage of sannyas life called “retired sannyas“, which must mean one who has retired from the pursuit of upliftment toward spiritual perfection.
“Such a householder, after fifty years of age, would retire from the association of woman as a vanaprastha to be trained to live alone without the association of woman. When the practice is complete, the same retired householder becomes a sannyasi, strictly separate from woman, even from his married wife. Studying the whole scheme of disassociation from women, it appears that a woman is a stumbling block for self-realization.” (purport, SB 2.7.6)
If a sannyasi is retired from association with women, then a “retired sannyasi”â can only mean one who has retired from disassociation and is now again associating with women.
“Tapas, or austerity, is especially meant for the retired life. One should not remain a householder throughout his whole life; he must always remember that there are four divisions of life — brahmacarya, grhastha, vanaprastha and sannyasa. So after grhastha, householder life, one should retire. If one lives for a hundred years, he should spend twenty-five years in student life, twenty-five in householder life, twenty-five in retired life and twenty-five in the renounced order of life. These are the regulations of the Vedic religious discipline. A man retired from household life must practice austerities of the body, mind and tongue.” (Bg 16.1, Bg 16.2, Bg 16.3, Bg 16.1-3)
Retiring from Sannyas must mean one who has given up the life of tapasya and has returned to a life of trying to enjoy the body, mind, tongue (belly and genitals). Sannyas is the Renounced Order of life, thus to retire from sannyas means to retire from a life a renounciation. Which defines a person who is now engrossed in a life of sense-gratification. Thus the term is contradictory. There is no such thing as a retired sannyasi. It is a misnomer.
Similarly the GBC say that SDG is also a “retired diksha guru”. Again, what is the meaning of such a term? The GBC defined it as follows: “This means SDG will no longer give initiation nor present himself as an initiating guru.” It is a fact that some bonafide gurus reached a point where they retired or refrained from taking on new disciples. Generally this is when they are suffering due to bad health, etc. Ill health has been the case with Satsvarup. But, the GBC say that he is no longer to present himself as an initiating guru. And, he has been placed under a Guru Monitor Committee, and/or a Probation Committee. Thus, it can be seen that he is not ceasing taking of new disciples due only to ill health, but, due to a very serious, major, fall down.
In fact, let’s examine how major that fall down was. It is not just a sannyasi falling down with a women and having intimate and sexual relationship, but the woman was married. Thus, he engaged in illicit sex life with another man’s wife. Regardless of one being sannyas, this is considered a major violation of the principles of dharma for which there are severe consequences given in the Manu Samhita for one who commits such a grave offense. But, this is not all. Mother Pranada took second initiation from Satsvarup and their relationship had been as guru/disciple. This is the relationship of father and daughter. Thus, to have sexual relationship with one’s disciple is of the same severe offense as having sexual relationship with one’s own daughter. Thus, the fall down is extremely severe, a-dharmic and disgusting.
How can such a person be seen or accepted in Prabhupad’s mission as that of a bonafide guru?, or a bona-fide sannyasi? Yes, the GBC is rightly stipulating that he no longer take any further disciples, but, they did not really deal with the issue of whether he should still be seen or recognized as a bona-fide guru for his existing disciples. Rather, later in the letter we see that the GBC is, instead, encouraging Satsvarup to continue to give guidance to his “disciples”. How can one who has committed such a fallen a-dharmic act be able to give any proper guidance, at all, to uplift his so-called followers? Out of compassion for such devotees the GBC should, instead, be advising such ISKCON members to no longer seek the guidance of such a fallen man.
In this way, the GBC have reduced the position of Sannyasi and Diksha Guru to a total farce. The GBC should have stripped him of the title of sannyas, at least during a prolonged period of time of penance and recovery, and they should have informed his disciplesâ to NOT seek his so-called guidance until AFTER he had faithfully completed a prolonged period of reformation.
This idea of the GBC monitoring a “guru” for one year after such a major fall down is not sufficient, considering that in SDG’s own admission, this was a falldown that was brewing within him for over 25 years. To continue to refer to him as a sannyasi, at this point, has reduced the position of sannyasi and diksha guru to an utter farce in Srila Prabhupad’s ISKCON.
Madness. A Guru is to give shelter and guidance to his followers, leading them back home, back to Godhead, out of this material world. A guru must be renounced from sense enjoyment and must be the example of dharma. Here, the GBC has placed such a fallen savior guru under probation via a committee. Can we find such committees in Srila Prabhupad’s teachings? Can we find this as a defined duty of the GBC, that SP ever instructed the GBC to monitor gurus? To put gurus on probation? These are self-created concocted duties the GBC gave themselves. These are not duties SP assigned to them.
This committee will serve for one year and at that time provide a report to the GBC. Malati dasi, Ravindra Swarupa Prabhu and Giriraja Swami have agreed to serve on the committee.
Another oddity. SDG had a fall down with a woman, and the GBC should be seeing that he disassociate with women, yet they have assigned a woman to oversee that he no longer associates with women. For her to carry out this function she must have some association with him, either via phone or email, or in person. How can she effectively carry out her assigned duty and how is this helping him to no longer associate with women? Why in the three worlds would the GBC have assigned a woman to such a mission? It lacks a show of real intelligence on the part of the GBC.
“This case concerning Satsvarup’s relationship with Pranada is closed and not subject to reinterpretation.” This is typical of the dictatorship mood of the current GBC. They make decisions in closed-door meetings, then announce that their decisions are final and have to be accepted by all ISKCON followers, and that their conclusions are not to be discussed further. This simply cuts off all other senior devotees who do not agree with their conclusions. I do disagree with the way they are handling this situation, and thus I do not see this as being a closed case, simply because the falldown was so grave. A guru had sexual relations with his own spiritual daughter, his own disciple, a married woman. This man should no longer wear saffron. He should no longer be called by the honorable and respectable title of Gosvami. I find the GBC to have fallen far short of administering proper judgment in this case. They have dragged the high title of Gosvami down into the gutter. They are allowing one who has committed such an a-dharmic act to continue to be called a Gosvami. They are allowing such a person, who has lost all control over his senses, to continue to be falsely glorified as a Master of One’s Senses, a Gosvami. They have turned the honor of such an exalted title into a total FARCE.
And they are advising Satsvarup to write letters and books for his disciples, or in other words they are encouraging him to continue to give spiritual guidance to his disciples and thus encouraging his disciples to continue to seek and follow such guidance. I find this totally unacceptable. The man has committed a major fall down and shown a total lack of intelligence in this matter. How can he give any good guidance at this point? And, even though the GBC may see that Satsvarup’s disciples are his, his disciples are, at the very same time, members of Prabhupad’s ISKCON ashram, and as such members of ISKCON it is the responsibility of the GBC to see that such members are given proper guidance. I find it a failure of the GBC to encourage his disciples to continue to seek his guidance at this time. Before he can be recognized as someone capable and qualified to give guidance I would want to see a much more prolonged period of reform.
By not stripping Satsvarup das from the honorable title of Gosvami the GBC have made a farce of the renounced order.
The only reason I can think of for the GBC to have taken such a lax attitude toward Satsvarup is that he is one of the last few remaining of the 11 original “gurus”, who were selected by Srila Prabhupad (only to act in the capacity of Rtvik, yet the GBC, not Srila Prabupad, decided they were to become diksha gurus). If the GBC strip him of his Gosvami title and proclaim him no longer fit to give guidance to any so-called disciples they fear this could be seen to weaken their position on the guru or rtvik issue, thus they have chosen to take very lax and inappropriate measures to deal with such a grave and serious fall down. Yet this lack of strict action itself weakens their stand on the guru issue even more.
Dear Maharajas and Prabhus, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I understand that many devotees still have questions about my past behavior. They doubt why I continue to have a position as an ISKCON leader. Therefore I would like to clarify my falldown in 2002, my recovery, service, and relationship to ISKCON.
“Continue to have a position as an ISKCON leader” ? Hmmm, I had no idea he was still acting as a leader in ISKCON. That is, he had long ago resigned his GBC leadership duties. He is not a temple president, so what leadership role did he have? Oh, maybe they are referring to his being rubber-stamped by the GBC as a bona-fide “Guru”. This seems to have been his only claim to being a so-called current “leader” in iskcon. Yet, no where in Srila Prabhupad’s teachings do I find any mention of such gurus being a part of the leadership of ISKCON. In Prabhupad’s will it mentions TP’s and GBC’s, etc., but I find no mention of any future GBC rubber-stamped gurus. In SP’s ISKCON such gurus have no “leadership” position. Regardless, such a diksha guru who has sex with his own daughter, sex with another man’s wife, if his name were Sai Baba or some other non-ISKCON bogi-yogi we would all be preaching to the world just how fallen such a so-called guru is. But, because he is a GBC rubber-stamped guru we throw out all standards and continue to encourage such a fallen man to give guidance to his so-called disciples, and thereby we are encouraging the disciples to continue to seek his guidance. In this way the GBC have turned the idea of diksha-guru into a total and utter farce in Srila Prabhupad’s ISKCON.
Satsvarup admits that the falldown, at least the seed of it, began nearly 30 years ago. But, lets put this into better perspective. 1978 was the same year that the GBC decided to name the 11 whom Srila Prabhupad had selected to be Rtvik-Acharyas to the position of actual regular guru and the new Acharyas for ISKCON.
Thus, we see that at the very same time that Satsvarup accepted (if not helped push for) the title of regular guru, the high and honorable position of succeeding acharya in our line, he now admits that he was also contemplating enjoying an illicit relationship with a woman. At the same time he was accepting the high honor of that of Acharya, sitting on elevated asanas in Prabhupad’s temples all over ISKCON, allowing his feet to be bathed before the Deities, allowing his name to be chanted and gloried openly in Prabhupad’s temples, accepting the worship and adoration of not only new devotees who would become his disciples, but also accepting the adoration and high respect of his own godbrothers, he was also allowing his mind to become attracted to a woman in an illicit way (as any attraction to women for a sannyasi is attraction for illicit (a-dharmic) sexual relationship).
Thus, from the very beginning of his proclaiming himself, or allowing himself to be proclaimed, as a great Acharya and guru, he was falling down. Thus, he was not qualified from the very beginning to accept disciples. And, this shows us the dishonesty of that period. When he saw himself being attracted to a woman he should have rejected the idea of becoming regular guru. He should have been honest to himself, to Krsna, to Prabhupad, to his Godbrothers, and especially to his potential disciples, and admitted he was not yet really qualified to be a regular guru.
This reveals the cheating propensity was there from the very beginning. He was cheating himself, trying to cheat Krsna, and was cheating his so-called disciples. He put on a show, only, of being qualified, when within he was allowing his mind to become attracted to the opposite sex.
Later, I gave her and her husband at the time, Vadiraja Dasa, second initiation. I never revealed this attraction to her or anyone. In 1980 when Pranada Dasi’s marriage to Vadiraja dasa failed I suggested she move to Gita-nagari. Sometime later she began managing Gita-nagari Press, my tape ministry, and assisting me in a secretarial role as my typist for letters to my disciples and other duties required to fulfill my GBC responsibilities. From 1980 to 1985, due to my ongoing attraction to her, I instructed her, as her spiritual master, to do many things that were quite difficult for her. These included moving away from Gita-nagari, leaving her son behind, and getting married (I had previously insisted she vow never to remarry). After she married and moved away from my home zone my attraction subsided. Therefore, my attraction lasted about seven years.
This is very sad. But, at least he finally admits here what he had done. And, it reveals to us how disruptive and destructive it was for the members of ISKCON and ISKCON itself to have propped those men up, artificially, glorifying them as actual bona-fide and qualified Gurus, when in actuality at least not all of them were actually qualified at all at that time. You see, many of us, many of Srila Prabhupad’s disciples had problems with this whole farce from day one. I did not have close association with Satsvarup prior to 78, but I had with Ramesvar. I absolutely knew that he was not at all qualified to become (falsely) glorified as a bona-fide Acharya. He was no where near qualified at that time. Thus, we had problems with this GBC rubber-stamping from day one. But, those who protested where immediately kicked out or put down in one form or fashion and thus the whole idea that those men were to be seen as real bona-fide gurus was founded on dishonesty and cheating propensities.
And, just see, the result was that he was giving all bad guidance to this one disciple, Mother Pranada. Then, how can we assume that all his other disciples he was giving proper and good guidance? It brings all of his so-called guidance under suspicion. This was at the same time he was compiling the Prabhupad Lila books.
Not only did his bad and a-dharmic guidance given to her cause problems in her life, but, what about her son’s life? Because the Gosvami could not control his mind and lust, because he was uncontrolled, a-gosvami, he was wreaking havoc in the lives of others. When Mother Pranada’s first marriage failed he first instructs her to take a vow not to remarry. This is directly following the teachings Srila Prabhupad gave, that if a marriage fails the woman must not remarry. So, this was actually good advice, and was given in an attempt to faithfully follow and teach what Srila Prabhupad had taught. This was actually good advice and good guidance because it was upholding and promoting that which Srila Prabhupad taught. But, due to Satsvarup’s falling down, due to his uncontrolled mind, uncontrolled lust, he turns around and now advises her to break that vow. He has become attracted to her and wants to protect himself from falling down overtly so he now gives all sorts of bad mis-guidance. To protect himself from falling down and breaking his vows, he now advises this mataji to break her vow. It may be that he was trying to protect himself from falling, but, we cannot dismiss the fact that it was he who put himself into the position of such close association with this woman. Thus, it was he who created his own problems, and not the fault of mother Pranada. Yet, his way of handling the situation was to make her suffer, not only her, but her son suffer due to his uncontrolled lust. Prabhupad so many times quoted that a woman who remarries becomes the enemy of her children. Thus, this bad guidance was the worse thing for the boy. And, it also involves Nagaraj. Dharma Shastra teaches us that one should only marry a chaste woman, and that there is no such thing as divorce. Thus, Pranada already had her religious husband, she should not have remarried. To remarry her was a fall down for Nagaraj because in essence he was marrying another man’s wife, which is a-dharmic. In this way, Satsvarup was giving all sorts of bad advice and causing so many problems in others’ lives simply because he did not have control over his lust. He was not Gosvami. Thus, he was dishonest and was given in to the propensity to cheat others. If he were honest, and not a cheater, he would have admitted that he was not qualified to be guru. He would not have been giving others so-called guidance when he himself was falling down. He could not control his own senses, yet he was allowing himself to be glorified not only as Gosvami, but as an Achayra in our sampradaya. In a desperate move to keep his senses under external control, he used the lives of others to try to selfishly protect himself. To keep himself from falling, overtly, and lose his false position, he readily ruined many other devotees’ lives.
This was not at all limited only to Satsvarup. So many of the so-called gurus were doing the same things, not to only one person, but many. At that time I was witness to a number of similar wrong and irreligious guidance given by a number of the 11 gurus. All done with similar or much worse ill motives. I saw a number of families and marriages broken up, on purpose, just to enhance the social position of the so-called guru. (For example, a guru wanted to get someone to come to “their” zone, they may convince that person to divorce and remarry one of their disciples).
Not only did Satsvarup cause Mother Pranada to become the enemy of her own son, by remarrying, but, he also caused the boy and mother Pranada so much unwarranted disruption and suffering by giving the bad advice that she should leave Gita Nagari and leave her son behind, and yet go remarry someone else. I do not know this young man so well, but know enough of him to know that he was badly scarred by all of this. His spiritual life was all but destroyed, and his youth was totally destroyed, first by a break up of his mother and father, then his mother remarrying and practically deserting him, leaving him, at such a time of his own personal needs. How this must have taken a toll on a young boy? His mother and father divorce, so he is struggling with this, then his mother all but deserts him at a time he needs close loving care the most. All of this was done for selfish reasons by Satsvarup, he only thought of his own reputation, he wanted to preserve his post and the false adoration and distinction that came with it, that would be all lost if he were to overtly fall down. Due to his not being in control of his own senses, in his attempt to selfishly protect himself, he wreaked total destruction and havoc in others’ lives.
It is this character of person that the GBC want to hold up to the world and show, this was the approved behavior of a bona-fide GBC rubber-stamped Guru? This is the character the future historians will see and will note that the GBC took action amounting to only a slight slap on the wrist to correct.
The above behavior was not isolated to only Satsvarup or this one incident. Similar instances were committed by virtually all of those “gurus”.
In December of 2001, I was at a medical and spiritual low point in my life. I had wanted to tell Pranada Dasi, before I died of my old feelings for her because this was a part of my life. Naively I told her of my prior attachment to her. I did not anticipate the result of my confession, which was a revival of the old feelings.
Give me a break. It does not take much intelligence to understand that if you go tell some woman that you have or had an attraction to her that it was going to lead to more of the same. That is like saying there was a small fire on the floor and I had no idea that if I poured gasoline on it it was going to cause the fire to erupt so much more intensely. I mean, really, that does not take very much intelligence. Yet, here a man of such weak and misled intelligence is seen by the GBC as someone qualified to continue to give guidance to his disciples???
I read this letter out loud to my family, and immediately my 15 year old daughter said, “What ‘OLD’ feelings? They weren’t ‘old’ feelings.” She immediately understood that if the man is wanting to tell Mother Pranada about his “old” feelings, they were not “old”; those feelings were still there in his heart. He never had gotten over it.
Really, what was the motive, what was the purpose in telling her about his feelings? He presents this to us that here he was, very ill in health and thinking he was about to die soon, so before he dies he has to invite this married woman to come to him so he can tell her that he secretly was attracted to her for 7 years, ending 16 years earlier. “Now that I have told you this, go back home and let me die”?? No, he still had feelings for her and he invited her there to tell her this so that he could finally act on those feelings. If he does not know that is what he was doing, then, it is simply another sign of how great his intelligence was stolen away at the time.
He may say it was due to being ill for so long, but really, what is the real cause of his prolonged ill health and mental breakdowns? Has this whole guru charades taken its toll on him?
Anticipatory Anxiety means he was anxious about failure, anxiety that can lead to a panic attack. Anxiety that leads one to become more anti-social, more reclusive. Fear of being around others, fear of doing things in the public.
These are not the symptoms Srila Prabhupad ascribes to one who performs devotional service. These are not the symptoms of a pure devotee or an acharya or an advanced Vaishnav.
Thus, these illnesses are not the result of performance of devotional activities.
The GBC is failing to give us information as to what could possibly cause such disorders.
This reminds me of just before Harikesh overtly fell down. He also was having psychological problems and major health issues. He also sought modern medical attention and was also given a regimen of anti-depressant drugs. At the time the GBC released an email similar to this one regarding Satsvarup. The GBC, however, regarding Harikesh, glorified Harikesh and informed the members of ISKCON that Harikesh was now suffering a mental breakdown and was seeking medical (psychiatric) help. The GBC (very wrongly) attributed his illness as being caused by years of dedicated devotional service. The GBC claimed that Harikesh’s mental illness was the direct result of his having exerted himself too much in the execution of his devotional service to Krsna.
When I read that I was fuming. What a heap of garbage. I fired off an email to the GBC and Sanyasi conferences, that somehow I was able to post to at the time, or someone posted it for me, I can’t remember, and I blasted the GBC for writing such misleading and philosophically WRONG information. Nowhere in Srila Prabhupad’s teachings does he ever say that the result of performance of devotional service, even if, or especially if, someone exerts himself in such endeavor, will result in mental breakdown and panic attacks. Rather, I reminded the GBC that the symptoms HariKesh was suffering from were very much inline with those suffered by people who commit aparadh. Especially mental disorder is the result of one who offends a pure devotee or one’s guru. I implored the GBC not to let that email stand, because it was philosophically unfounded and wrong. It promoted the false idea that if one performs too much devotional service to Krsna that it will lead one to total mental break down and melt down. That devotional service is bad for one’s health. Rather, I implored the GBC that they should publish another email apologizing for their previous email and that they should, rather, give the proper philosophical causes for one who suffers from such symptoms. They should advise others that it seemed possible and likely that Harikesh was suffering from such illnesses due to his committing apardh, even possibly that he had acted in such a way as to have offended Srila Prabhupad. This was the more proper understanding of why someone would be suffering from such illnesses, and not that it was the result of too much performance of devotional service to Krsna.
I also implored the GBC that the only way to really help Harikesh was to find out what offenses he had committed and then help him to rectify those offenses.
I warned the GBC that if they failed to do this, that Harikesh will simply create more and more offenses which will lead him to a total and complete fall down from Krsna Consciousness. Thus, I implored the GBC to act properly, and not improperly, in handling the situation, or I said that they would be responsible for the consequences for not acting properly.
The GBC, at the time headed by Rabindra Swarup, considered the real offender was none other than myself for writing them such an email that disagreed with their views. They labeled me the offender, and did not rectify their position.
A few months latter Harikesh openly began to blaspheme Srila Prabhupad in various ways. The GBC then had no choice but to publicly denounce him as fallen and ex-communicate him from ISKCON. Only one sannyasi, not a GBC, sent me an email after this and told me that he was shocked when he read the email I sent the GBC and sannyasis, he too thinking that it was I who was making offenses, but, when Harikesh publicly fell, this sannyasi wrote to tell me that, in his view, what I wrote was actually correct and he somewhat apologized for previously taking me as the offender.
Here, regarding Satsvarup, at least the GBC is not putting out the same garbage, they are not telling everyone that Satsvarup’s falldown was due to his performance of devotional service, but still, they are not giving any philosophical reason at all for how or why he suffered such falldown. They simply let it slide. He was ill, suffering mental disorders for many years, and then he fell, he had sex with his own (spiritual) daughter, another man’s wife, and they give no explanation, no philosophic guidance as to why he may have been suffering such head aches and mental disorders. After all, he was a senior devotee with so much close personal association with Srila Prabhupad, who rendered so much service over the years. The GBC should be trying to shed some light, philosophically, as to why such a senior devotee could be subject to such suffering.
What I told the GBC regarding Harikesh, that his suffering seems to be most likely caused by guru aparad, holds for Satsvarup.
As we shall read, Satsvarup has been taking professional psychiatric and medical attention, but, such psychologists and psychiatrists will not be able to deal with the real CAUSE of his illness. They are simply treating the symptoms. The GBC, advanced Vaishnavas, they have the knowledge, or access to the knowledge, to be able to actually asses and find out the real cause of this illness. Thus, it is their duty to analyze the true cause of his fall down, the true cause of his anxiety disorders and mental disorders, and then work to rectify the real cause of the illness and fall down.
If the GBC fail to do this, then they cannot actually help Satsvarup. No matter what stipulations and activities they set up for him to follow, none of it will have a real or lasting effect if they do not deal with the actual cause of the fall down. Mental illness and anxiety are more commonly found in people who commit Vaisnav aparad, and thus this has to be examined to see if Satsvarup das had committed guru aparad. Possibly, in connection with the rtvik issue? If that is the cause, or whatever the cause is, only when the actual cause is found and properly addressed can the illness be resolved. Until then, no matter what activities he follows, he will continue to suffer mental relapses and fall down again and again.
Again, these are not the symptoms of one who has performed devotional service, but are more commonly found in those who have committed Vaishnav aparad. Constant headaches. Rather than turn to Krsna’s name for relief, he reduced his chanting and turned to the pain-killer drugs prescribed by a modern doctor, as well as the anti-depressant drugs. He sought relief from his suffering in drugs, not in Krsna’s name. This is the type of guru the GBC have rubber-stamped?
My simple spiritual analysis of this fall is that Krsna saw some pride in me. As a spiritual master, sannyasi, and man I failed miserably before Prabhupada and Krsna. In November 2002 we decided to end the relationship.
I am sorry, but my analysis of this is that he is not qualified to make his own analysis. Pride? Krsna arranged to ruin the lives of so many sincere devotees just to smash the false pride of Satsvarup? It is true that this reveals his false pride, his false sense of who he thinks he is. But, my analysis is that he is suffering from having committed vaishnav and guru aparad.
He needs, yet, to take responsibility for the offenses that have caused the whole ordeal. That is, if my analysis is correct. Until then anything less will not mitigate the actual problem.
The GBC did not immediately act on his falldown. When it became known the GBC basically did nothing (overtly seeable) for years. The falldown is severe, a guru having sex with his spiritual daughter, a sannyasi violating another man’s wife. The GBC are not removing the title Gosvami, they are only putting him on probation for another year. Yet, how has Satsvarup dealt with this for the past 4 – 1/2 years?
Well, he did seek help. But, what help? Did he seek out the guidance of senior vaishnavs? N0. Instead for the past 4 – 1/2 years he has sought the “professional” counseling of modern psychologists and the medical (prescribed anti-depressant drugs) care of a psychiatrist. Drugs and psychologist has been his guide and shelter for the past 4 – 1/2 years in how to deal with a falldown and symptoms of vaishnav aparad. This was just the past 4 – 1/2 years. Prior to this he had been taking shelter of drugs and psychologists for years, what to speak of taking Pranada’s personal treatment for his anticipatory anxiety disorder. I hardly see this as appropriate or effect treatment for what seems obvious to be effects of having committed vaishnav aparad. At the very least, this has to be given very serious consideration and see if this is the actual underlying cause, because if it is, then all these drugs and psychiatric counseling, and, all the GBC monitoring and probation supervision as well, will ultimately end up being a total waste of time and money.
I will now voluntarily implement a peer review system for my publishing efforts-presently, I am continuing the series A Poor Man Reads the Bhagavatam, which should go on for the rest of my years.
I will no longer give initiation nor present myself as an initiating guru. I would encourage those who wish to take shelter of senior Vaishnavas in ISKCON for their spiritual growth to do so. Those who wish to continue as my disciples can hear from me through my books and website, through personal correspondence, and whenever possible, in person.
Why not encourage everyone to take shelter of Srila Prabhupad’s books, his lectures?
I am now sixty-eight years old. I wish to continue my commitment to the sannyasa-asrama that Srila Prabhupada assigned to me. In closing, I hope this communication will help heal the wounds and serve as a warning to others who may become lax in their Krsna consciousness as I did.
His “continuing” commitment to sannyas? Maybe I missed something, but, I don’t see any continuation here. He fell down, royally, from the sannyas ashram. He made a farce of the title Gosvami, he had sex with his own spiritual daughter. How can he say he is continuing in his commitment to be a sannyasi? He has already blown that commitment. In my opinion he needs a much more prolonged period of rehabilitation, during which time he must wear white and drop the honorable title of Gosvami, and no longer be known as a sannyasi. I do not see that he has ever dealt with the fact that he actually FELL from sannyas. Thus, I cannot accept the idea that he can go forward as a sannyasi. There must be a prolonged period where he must give up the sannyas ashram, give up the title Gosvami, and re-prove his commitment first. That proof cannot come from following the counseling of psychologists and taking the drugs, even if less then before, of the psychiatrists.
And, again, nothing will be effective if the actual root cause of his mental disorders is not properly diagnosed and properly treated, and it is my analysis that the cause is Vaishnav / guru aparadha.
BTW, I mentioned this a few months ago, but, one devotee who has a bit of financial success was telling me how so many of the current “gurus” have mental disorders and psychological problems. I was visiting him at his house and we turned on the evening world news. During the commercial break there was an ad for some anti-depressant drug. The devotee then told me how he had been inviting a number of ISKCON gurus to his home and he told me that everyone (or most everyone) was suffering from mental disorders. They all had anxiety disorders, panic attacks. And, all had sought professional psychiatric help and were taking prescribed anti-depressant drugs. They all complained of migraine headaches and anxiety disorders. (All or most all that he knew).
They are all suffering, in my analysis, from guru aparad. Definitely these are not the symptoms or results of one who has performed true devotional service to Krsna for the past 35+ years. These are the results of people suffering from vaishnav aparadh.
Externally, they put on a show of being highly elevated saints, but, in private, this devotee told me, many are broken down mental cases who suffer from a variety of mental disorders and who seek shelter of mind (mental) altering drugs, in one shape and form or the other.
Publicly they want to be seen as Guru, giving guidance to those who take shelter of them, while privately they seek out the shelter of modern psychologists who prescribe them modern drugs to deal with constant head aches, anxiety and mental disorders. These are the qualifications for being guru?
The GBC has totally lowered the standards for the qualifications for being honored as a sannyasi or Gosvami. They are not taking action to deal with finding the root cause of the fall downs, and thus they take no action to deal with the real causes of the problems these “gurus” suffer from.
In Atlanta, I recently wrote about the dealings with Hrdayananda here. Another mental case. I was told that when he came to Atlanta as the new GBC for the temple he was wearing shorts and knit golf shirt. One newer devotee that had never seen Hrdayananda told me that he mistook him to be a total karmi who had just come to the temple for the first time, and the newer devotee started preaching to him and trying to tell him about Krsna. Another devotee stopped him and told him that this was Hrdayananda, their new GBC. That devotee was floored. Within he said, “No way am I going to follow this man, he is totally fallen down.” Hrdayananda began openly preaching that the devotees should STOP wearing dhoti and saris. Not only in the public, but he openly preached and asked that the devotees STOP wearing such clothes even to Prabhupad’s Temple !!! Why? Because, according to him, it had become an impediment to PREACHING. He said that the non-devotees find our wearing of dhoti and sari to be ridiculous, backward, and serves no real purpose. He argued that it was a turnoff for many. He wanted to convert the Atlanta temple to wearing all karmi clothes at the temple. But, Prabhupad disciples resisted and one told him flat out, not here, if you want that, start you own temple and do it there, but not here. I was told that Hrdayananda did try to start another center where he had such mindless standards and it was a total failure and closed down. Still, he totally lowered the standard of Deity worship that had long been established in Atlanta and caused so many disruptions. These were NOT the duties SP ascribed to the GBC. Their duty is to uphold the standards Srila Prabhupad set, not tear them down. But, my point is, the GBC should not allow such a person to serve as a GBC. He should be removed. Instead, they are overly lenient. Srila Prabhupad had instructed that in his presence he was lenient, but in his absence the GBC had to be very strict with one another. While he was physically present he was the topmost leader and thus ISKCON’s leader ship was beyond question pure. Even if a GBC was a bit fallen, the top most leader was without question totally pure. But, in his absence the GBC has become the current leaders, thus they must now assure the posts are kept pure. As SP quoted, Caesar must be above suspicion. Leaders must be removed even if there is suspicion they have fallen down.
But, the GBC are not following these instructions by Srila Prabhupad. Hrdayananda and Satsvarup are 2 of only 3 of the remaining 11 appointed rtviks who haven’t given up entirely their diksha guru post, and so the GBC is bending over to the floor to try and keep them from being seen as totally fallen, even if they have totally fallen down. Rather then deal strictly with them, they have taken the path of being totally tolerant of even the worse falldown, having sex with one’s spiritual daughter. In this way the GBC are totally destroying that last remains of Srila Prabhupad’s mission, they are not performing their duties.
Aspiring to become your worthy and humble servant,
PS A few added thoughts:
“Who cares for the genuine thing? Nobody cares. Dharma (indistinct). That ‘I am your guru, I have followers,’ dharma principle, but he does not know this. This is going on. Neither the rascal guru knows neither his disciple knows. This is going on. Everywhere this is going on. All bluff. This very word used, adharma (indistinct), get a plan, ‘That I am (indistinct).’ That’s all. And have it, that’s all, and do nothing, that’s all. I do not know nothing but (indistinct), that’s all. All these gurus all these chelas are doing that. This Anandamayi, Sai Baba, this, that, so many. What do they know?” (Room Conversation on New York court case — November 2, 1976, Vrindaban)
The rascal gurus, bogus gurus, they do not know what is dharma. The rascal guru does not know and their disciples do not know. Adharma.
Satsvarup had originally instructed mother Pranada not to remarry. This is what Srila Prabhupad taught. It is dharma. While Satsvarup was trying to follow what Srila Prabhupad taught then his guidance was beneficial. But, when he sought to protect himself from falling, he lost all intelligence. He discarded what Srila Prabhupad taught, he did not think what was best for the mataji, what was best for the boy, what was best for Nagaraj, all that clouded his thinking was what was best for himself, only. Acting via such imperfect motive, he then gave all a-dharmic advice, and thereby became no more qualified then any other rascal guru who does not give guidance in accordance with the principles of dharma. If he were not an ISKCON guru we would all openly preach how fallen he is and rightly advise his followers to give up following such a rascal. But, the GBC have rubber-stamped him, so the GBC are doing anything they can to keep propping him up. It is all dishonest and wrong.
Bhagavad-gita As It Is – Macmillan 1972 Edition: Bg 16.1-3 : PURPORT:
Then svādhyāyaḥ, Vedic study, and tapas, austerity, and ārjavam, gentleness or simplicity, are meant for the brahmacarya or student life. Brahmacārīs should have no connection with women; they should live a life of celibacy and engage the mind in the study of Vedic literature for cultivation of spiritual knowledge. This is called svādhyāyaḥ. Tapas or austerity is especially meant for the retired life. One should not remain a householder throughout his whole life; he must always remember that there are four divisions of life, brahmacarya, gṛhastha, vānaprastha and sannyāsa. So after gṛhastha, householder life, one should retire. If one lives for a hundred years, he should spend twenty-five years in student life, twenty-five in householder life, twenty-five in retired life and twenty-five in the renounced order of life. These are the regulations of the Vedic religious discipline.
A man retired from household life must practice austerities of the body, mind and tongue. That is tapasyā. The entire varṇāśrama-dharma society is meant for tapasyā. Without tapasyā or austerity no human being can get liberation. The theory that there is no need of austerity in life, that one can go on speculating and everything will be nice, is neither recommended in the Vedic literature nor in Bhagavad-gītā. Such theories are manufactured by showbottle spiritualists who are trying to gather more followers. If there are restrictions, rules and regulations, people will not become attracted. Therefore those who want followers in the name of religion, just to have a show only, don’t restrict the lives of their students nor their own lives. But that method is not approved by the Vedas.
Srimad-Bhagavatam: SB 1.11.23: PURPORT: The brāhmaṇas in society were never attentive to banking money for future retired life.