Sukhada

Despite some talk to the contrary, in my years in ISKCON there seemed to be almost a wholesale tendency towards madhurya-rasa by most all the disciples of Srila Prabhupada I ever knew, including some rough and tough guys that you would never imagine embracing the concept of madhurya-rasa with Krsna.

 

So, how is it that a guru in sakhya-rasa produced thousands of disciples aspiring for madhurya-rasa with Krsna?

 

That is the mystery to me that just is not answered with a conclusion of Srila Prabhupada being in sakhya-rasa with Krsna.

 

Even the most course and crude devotees guys I ever knew were internally aspiring towards madhurya-rasa with Krishna.

 

So, a guru in sakhya-rasa accomplished that?

I find it a bit incredible.

That was going to be my next remark.

 

From what I know of Tripurari Maharaja and his character, I would say that he would make a real good friend of that trickster Krishna.

 

But, that might just be external.

Well, ok.

 

So, sooner or later what I am about to say will be said by somebody, so it might as well be me.

 

Now, bear in mind that what I am about to say is not necessarily my opinion but something that I see will inevitably be raised in question of the book.

 

Some people will say that Babhru is just the front man for a campaign by Tripurari Maharaja to prove that Srila Prabhupada is in sakhya-rasa and that for developing madhurya-rasa one will need siksha from a guru in the madhurya-rasa.

 

In this way, Tripurari Maharaja will attract ISKCON devotess away from ISKCON to his camp where they can get madhurya-rasa from Tripurari Maharaja who imbibed madhurya-rasa from his siksha guru Sridhar Maharaja.

 

They will also say that the reason behind posting the booklet on the forum was for the sake of making such propaganda and attracting devotees away from ISKCON to the madhurya-rasa camp of Tripurari Maharaja.

 

 

Yep, leave it up to ol' Sonic Yogi's mind to come up with such critical thinking, though in fact this is not his own particular politics or heartfelt conclusion on the matter.

To digress a bit here, I see the above statement as an example of the unnecessary making of religious politics that present day Gaudiya Saraswats are unfortunately becoming known for. If you study the "The War Over Navadvipa Rathayatra", you will see that Srila Sridhar Maharaja also heartily disagreed with holding Rathayatra in the big cities of the world for, "so-called preaching purposes", yet although this statememt was made during Srila Prabhupada's time, he completely disregarded the apparent slight. Also when told of some of the apparent disparaging statements by Srila Prabhupada about him, Srila Sridhar Maharaja laughed and said, "just see he has even abused me in his preaching campaign." He also said, "I am not cent percent one with Swami Maharaja." But when Srila Narayana Maharaja is "not cent percent one" with Srila Sridhar Maharaja and holds some contrary opinions, which in fact are often the opinions of his diksa and sannyasa guru, Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja, he is publicly raked over the coals, castigated, and even blasphemed as though it is some sort of fashionable sport of the day!

 

This cynical strategy has also encouraged irresponsible leaders and members of Iskcon and the Hardcore Rtviks to continue their absurd campaign against Srila Narayana Maharaja. Its ironic that this campaign contains the same vitriolic and demagogic language used against Srila Sridhar Maharaja by the Iskcon GBC, their fellow travelers and budding Hardcore Rtviks in the early eighties.

What I do find peculiar though is that the only written sentiments of Srila Prabhupada that we have that seem to show a sakhya-rasa tendency were written on the eve of his launching his preaching mission in the USA. Prior to that time it doesn't appear as if there is much of anything written or expressed by Srila Prabhupada that seems to show him as being inclined very specifically towards the sakhya-rasa.

I thought Babhru prabhu had requested to keep this discussion friendly and Vaishnava-like? Now we see that without even the slightest provocation, Gosai has exposed himself as a hater, once again. I used to respect the fella. No more. Was is it really necessary to introduce Nara's envious jabs and hate-mongering politics into the discussion? C'mon, Sukhada. Why post such garbage. You didn't do Srila Prabhupada any favors by adding this to the discussion. Disgraceful. Who is your spiritual master? Does he approve of this?

I was forwarded Sripad Narasingha Maharaja's comments on the booklet. Here is what he had to say:

Swami,

Some things just can't wait. Vidagdha Madhava Prabhu wrote me to query what I thought about the article/pdf book. So I set aside some time and carefully went thru several chapters. Impressive won't suffice to describe how well put together and convincing a job you and Babhru have done. Excellent!

However, I'm not sure I like the idea of a discussion on the internet — I mean, what more is there to say without getting into arguments? Devotees will either agree with you or they won't. I don't think the Narayana Maharaja followers will dare to reproach your presentation, they would have to be complete fools to try — the risk of further exposing their gurudeva as being antagonistic to Srila Sridhara Maharaja.

Well done Swami — I'm a believer! I'm just not advanced enough to make more of it than that. I guess the only thing left to do now is get more cows!

Gosai

Back then I was hoping and praying that Tripurari Maharaja would give up trying to become an ISKCON guru and just take shelter of Srila Sridhar Maharaja.

 

Eventually my prayers were answered and one of my favorite Godbrothers Tripurari Maharaja gave up trying to become a voted in guru of ISKCON and took guidance from Srila Sridhar Maharaja.

 

I was very happy about that.

I understood the true position of Pujyapada Sridhara Deva Goswami, as opposed to what the Iskcon GBC had told us, in 1984. At that time I contacted those who had taken shelter of him and had been rejected from Iskcon because of their affinity for him. They advised me to try to stay in Iskcon and find receptive devotees to speak with about the value of Srila Sridhara Maharaja's siksa. In those days we thought it would not be long before Iskcon realized its mistake and we would move on happily under the realized guidance of Sridhara Deva Goswami.

My coming under the influence of Srila Sridhara Maharaja happened to coincide with pressure that many were putting on the GBC, including non guru GBC members, to increase the number of gurus in Iskcon thus taking some of the power out of the hands of eleven men and creating a "fair field for preaching," to use a term coined by Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja. After all, many senior devotees were preaching and awakening faith in new devotees only to have one of the eleven gurus fly in and initiate new devotees and turn them against the senior devotees who had awakened their faith. These were troubled times for Iskcon and many disciples of Srila Prabhupada felt oppressed.

I was approached by Hridayananda Maharaja, who told me that I should initiate and that he realized that the leadership was stifling other senior devotees. Thus he submitted my name to the GBC as someone he thought was a qualified preacher that should initiate his own disciples. By then he and others knew that I had been influenced by Srila Sridhara Maharaja. I told Hridayananda Maharaja that I agreed with him that Iskcon was stifling but that this negative impetus to move on was not the whole story. There was considerable positive impetus in the form of the siksa of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. In other words, I told him that if Iskcon would broaden the preaching field for senior devotees, for me this was not sufficient reason to remain in Iskcon. Iskcon needed to embrace the siksa of Pujyapda Sridhara Deva Goswami.

When the GBC met in 1985, they interviewed me. The only question that had for me was why I was interested in Srila Sridhara Maharaja. I told them that if I left the Iskcon I did not feel that any of them would come after me to bring me back, but that Srila Sridhara Maharaja upon learning that a senior sannyasi had left would send someone for me. Thus they did not recognize me as being qualified to initiate.

With one foot out the door already and realizing more and more that Iskcon was not about to change, and with the encouragement of those under the shelter of Srila Sridhara Maharaja who had previously advised me to stay in Iskcon and try to bring reform, I set both feet outside of Iskcon. I then started in a humble way from scratch to preach independently from Iskcon under the inspiration of Srila Prabhupada, my eternal guru, and Pujyapada Sridhara Deva Goswami, my eternal siksa guru. He advised me, "Swami Maharaja has told you everything. Now go and start something yourself and I will be in the background to help you." This is what I have done by the grace of Sri Guru and the Vaisnavas with some success, at least internally.

Swami

That is just a snippet.

I am sorry, but I heard him say things that were not so definite.

 

On this matter, I am not accepting a snippet.

 

Please post all the statements Sridhar Maharaja made on the subject and not just a few words that support your belief.

 

He said things that made exception to this statement.

 

Little snippets can never be conclusive without the total body of statements.

You said that SSM's opinion that SP was in sakhya-rasa "cannot be confirmed by any documented statements" and when I produce such a statement, you reject it as a "snippet." If you want the whole conversation and not an excerpt, see chapter 3 in the booklet.

It is very clear there from that statement of Srila Sridhara Maharaja that his opinion was that Srila Prabhupada was in sakhya-rasa.

In relation to your argument that the "total body of statements" make Srila Sridhara Maharaja's position less clear, I searched all the statements Srila Sridhara Maharaja made in relation to SP and sakhya-rasa. I found four classes: Feb. 26, 1981, August 14, 1981, Feb. 13, 1983, and Jan. 9, 1984. I don't want to post them all here because I hate when people post endlessly long quotations. Do you have access to the transcriptions of his classes?

The first class (2.26.81) is the one given in the link above, where he clearly gives his opinion that SP is in sakhya-rasa. The next one, about six months later, does express madhurya as a possibility. I will excerpt the relevant part here. Please note the markedly different language he uses about the madhurya possibility--"maybe, perhaps, might." It seems obvious to me that he is harmonizing here. It is not his personal opinion:

"Devotee: Maharaja, it has been clear now, in a way, that Prabhupada was in sakhya rasa.

Sridhara Maharaja: At least temporarily he has showed like that. What he has expressed there in that journey, here it is almost clear that he liked that sort of lila best, but it may be, that he might have suppressed purposely [madhurya-rasa] it also cannot be denied, maybe. That is one thing. There may be such a possibility, and he has given he has told that Radharani was his gurudeva. His gurudeva was Radharani, but he himself was thinking that perhaps madhurya rasa should not be distributed in the first installment. That might have been his view. Because his preaching was mostly helped by Nityananda Prabhu, Baladev; so influenced by their tendency, mood, he might have for the time being had that posing. And another thing...there is another sign that he showed affinity towards sakhya rasa. In Vrndavana, he has installed Baladeva, Krsna Balarama, and Nitai Gaura. Sakhya rasa preference."

Note also how he ends by giving another proof for sakhya-rasa (Krsna-Balarama in Vrindavana). If you compare the tone of the first and second class, I think we can agree what his personal opinion was.

The third class (2.1383) is an abbreviated version of the first class. He begins by saying, "Sakhya-rasa. I do not know what he has written, but I found it such position from his... only one letter. What he wrote when he was going to America. That letter has been given to me, and I read that, and from there I could suppose that his position is satisfied with that sakhya-lila." He was able to make the assessment that Srila Prabhupada is in sakhya-rasa from one letter. How much more convinced he would be if he had heard all the evidence from the main section of Babhru's booklet?

The last class (1.9.84) is extremely similar to the first class. He says, "From that it is clear to me that he is in sakhya rasa. After he finds his satisfaction there. Very earnestness it shows."

So if you look honestly and objectively at the Srila Sridhara Maharaja's statements on this issue, he is clearly expressing a personal opinion. However, he is also known for being extremely accommodating, harmonizing, and this is also shown (although it is not his personal opinion).

You seem like a very nice devotee and kind person, so I will I reserve my most cutting comments.

 

But, factually, where in the instructions of Guru and Gauranga do we get any instructions that we should try to sort out the mysterious and esoteric rasa of the acharya that he seemed to want to keep secret?

 

If Prabhupada wanted his disciples to know his rasa and his identity as a parshada wouldn't he have just come out and revealed it?

 

If it is so mysterious and secretive, then should we really try to sort it out and post it publicly?

The answer to this one is in Chapter 1: Introduction. A good a place as any for you to begin.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja's own opinion on the matter was that Srila Prabhupada was in sakhya-rasa. However, due to the complaints of some and his harmonizing nature, he gave an alternative way of thinking about it.

That is an opinion that cannot be confirmed by any documented statements of Srila Sridhar Maharaja.

 

The opinion of Srila Sridhara Maharaja is clear for the unbiased. But it is far from all that you will have to contend with, not the least of which is Srila Prabhupada's own words.

If you think you have heard all the arguments back in the 80s and therefore you don't have to read the book, you're missing out. There is a lot of evidence that Srila Sridhara Maharaja didn't have access to but which only confirms his insight. As Lao-tzu said, "To see things in the seed, that is genius."

Don't think that the book is about pushing some agenda, imposing something on Srila Prabhupada. This is exactly what is so refreshing about the book. There is no forced agenda. It lets Srila Prabhupada speak for himself. There has been a lot of propaganda that Srila Prabhupada is in madhurya-rasa. This book is a contrast to that.

I should have said that according to bhava, there is no higher or lower.

I do remember that Srila Sridhar Maharaja reserved ultimate judgement on the matter and conceded that the sakhya-rasa sentiments expressed by Srila Prabhupada could have been an upsurge caused by the avesha of Lord Nityananda entering into the heart of Srila Prabhupada.

 

As best I can recall, Srila Sridhar Maharaja never issued a final decree on the matter and reserved giving any final judgement on the matter.

 

Most certainly, Srila Prabhupada's love for Krishna takes a back seat to nobody.

 

Several times in his books he explains that madhurya-rasa is the highest.

 

How can a parshada in sakhya-rasa be preaching that madhurya-rasa is the highest?

 

I can't help but think that the love Srila Prabhupad had for Krishna was of the highest quality, though his being a shaktya-vesha of Nityananda caused the expression of a very prominent sakhya-rasa.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja's own opinion on the matter was that Srila Prabhupada was in sakhya-rasa. However, due to the complaints of some and his harmonizing nature, he gave an alternative way of thinking about it.

As for your question, "How can a parshada in sakhya-rasa be preaching that madhurya-rasa is the highest," the answer is very simple: tattva is one thing and bhava is another. According to tattva, one mood is higher, but according to bhava, everyone thinks their bhava is the highest. For preaching/siddhanta, one has to take the neutral standpoint, as Rupa Goswami did in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (as opposed to Ujjvala-nilamani, which is a book about bhajana). Srila Prabhupada also answers your question very nicely in the booklet (hint, hint). May I humbly suggest we all read the booklet first and discuss from there.

I don't think that it is correct to say that Srila Prabhupada was away from his bhajana and inner mood since 1965. It is more accurate to say that his bhajana overflowed into preaching. Furthermore, he was preaching while he was at Radha-Damodara. He was a gosthyanandi from beginning to end.

The idea that Srila Prabhupada concealed a sentiment for madhurya for preaching is really questionable due to the fact that he didn't conceal the concept of madhurya-rasa. It's in all of his books. So if he preached widely that madhurya rasa is the highest, why make a show to express another sentiment? The logic of that seems very weak. Concealing one's own sentiment is, of course, common, but why express another sentiment?

It is one thing to show deference to Nityananda Prabhu by establishing temples of Gaura-Nitai and Krsna-Balarama Mandir, but quite another for Srila Prabhupada to directly say on more than one occasion that he is a cowherd boy.

So I'm a little confused why you have found so much significance in that quote from Nectar of Devotion. Why search for obscure clues when Srila Prabhupada has spoken directly? Especially in light of all the evidence that Babhru presents in his booklet. Did you read it yet?

I am quite sure that the booklet will become a hotly controversial issue much despised and ridiculed by ISKCON big shots and small timers as well.

What else could we expect from the camp of Tripurari Maharaja?