stonehearted

I heard that the ISKCON 'guru' Bhakti Balabh Puri Goswami was found to be some fraudster. What was disturbing about this was the fact that this fraud had collected that installed so many holy Salagram Silas at scotland temple (Karuna Bhavan), so many salagrams have not even been worshiped by Swamis from Ancient lineages such as Sri, Shankara and Madhva Sampradayas. What will happen to all these Silas who have not been installed properly as the installer was actually a fraud???

Shalagrama-shilas do not require installation. They are self-manifest Vishnu-tattva Deities. They only require to be worshipped by qualified sevaits.

I agree with Yofu that there's no real concern for the so-called disciples evident in this report. But that's not its purpose. It was written as part of the GBC's attempt to safeguard human resources and money. We have to hope that they are making an effort on other fronts to help heal the damaged faith of the followers.

The problem is that the GBC has created the this abuse with its misunderstanding of guru tattva. And the ensured that this would be the case decades ago when they decided not to take advice from senior, experienced vaishnavas such as Srila B. R. Sridhar Maharaja. Instead, they appear to have read any attempt at advice as a threat to their control over ISKCON's assets. The result has been what I've often called a culture of vaishnava aparadha. I consider that to be the root of these problems. They conducted a campaign of vilification of Srila Sridhara Maharaj and anyone who took his advice seriously, for which they eventually issued a sort of apology. But do they allow distribution and discussion of his books? Have they approached those they threw out of ISKCON, in one way or another, because they had greater faith in Srila Sridhar Maharaja than, say, Bhavananda, Hamsaduta, Bhagavan, etc.? If they have made such moves, they have been incomplete, from what I've seen. Otherwise, we'd see some of them, such as Paramadvaiti Maharaja, Narasimha Maharaja, Tripurari Maharaja, invited to speak at ISKCON centers, allowed to lead kirtans at Rathayatras (rather than having microphones taken away from them, as happened recently in SF), and offering their books in ISKCON gift shops and online shops such as Krishna Culture and Krishna.com.

Instead, we see a hemorrhaging of devotees and money in many parts of the world.

And the same goes for ISKCON's process for admitting men to the sannyasa ashrama. It's too bureaucratic, too far from anything that answers to guru, sadhu, and shastra. I'm staying in a huge community with many talented, experienced, and dedicated devotees. I haven't heard of any here who show any interest in leaving their marriages to take sannyasa and preach in far-flung places, or to live rootlessly and just preach.

I'm truly sorry to make such observations. ISKCON remains the largest, most active Gaudiya-vaishnava preaching mission in the world, and my wife and I have poured many years of our lives into supporting it in various ways. But it's not what it could be if it had a firmer basis in guru, sadhu, and shastra.

At least fall downs in ISKCON are reported

Eventually, when they completely lose control of the situation and their control of money and human resources is threatened.

and yes, it seems even advanced devotees can fall down

Of course advanced devotees may encounter difficulties; the essential question here, though, is what you mean by advanced. In the Eigth Canto of the Bhagavatam, Srila Prabhupada assures us that whenever Krishna tests His devotees, he also gives them the strength to overcome any difficulties.

I've never met this gentleman. It sounds as though he and his wife gained much mercy from Srila Prabhupada by their dedicated service over many years. It also sounds as though the risk he took in accepting disciples and the sannyasa order didn't work out for him. Perhaps remarrying would have worked better for him in the long run.

I think this is, unfortunately, yet another clear indication that ISKCON's leadership often has difficulty grasping guru-tattva. Their system for certifying (???or whatever it is???) gurus and for conferring sannyasa don't imspire much confidence in many devotees. Couple that with their penchant for vilifying (however you might dress it up) those who work beyond the GBC's influence, and you have a recipe for problems. Too bad.

The verse was SB 7.6.26. Here are the translation and purport:

Religion, economic development and sense gratification—these are described in the Vedas as tri-varga, or three ways to salvation. Within these three categories are education and self-realization; ritualistic ceremonies performed according to Vedic injunction; logic; the science of law and order; and the various means of earning one's livelihood. These are the external subject matters of study in the Vedas, and therefore I consider them material. However, I consider surrender to the lotus feet of Lord Viñëu to be transcendental.

PURPORT

These instructions of Prahläda Mahäräja stress the transcendental position of devotional service. As confirmed in Bhagavad-gétä (14.26):

mäà ca yo 'vyabhicäreëa

bhakti-yogena sevate

sa guëän samatétyaitän

brahma-bhüyäya kalpate

"One who engages in full devotional service, who does not fall down in any circumstance, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman." One who fully engages in the devotional service of the Lord is immediately raised to the transcendental position, which is the brahma-bhüta stage [sB 4.30.20]. Any education or activity not on the brahma-bhüta platform, the platform of self-realization, is considered to be material, and Prahläda Mahäräja says that anything material cannot be the Absolute Truth, for the Absolute Truth is on the spiritual platform. This is also confirmed by Lord Kåñëa in Bhagavad-gétä (2.45), where He says, traiguëya-viñayä vedä nistraiguëyo bhavärjuna: "The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them." To act on the material platform, even if one's activities are sanctioned by the Vedas, is not the ultimate goal of life. The ultimate goal of life is to stay on the spiritual platform, fully surrendered to the parama-puruña, the supreme person. This is the object of the human mission. In summary, the Vedic ritualistic ceremonies and injunctions are not to be discounted; they are means of being promoted to the spiritual platform. But if one does not come to the spiritual platform, the Vedic ceremonies are simply a waste of time. This is confirmed in Çrémad-Bhägavatam (1.2.8):

dharmaù svanuñöhitaù puàsäà

viñvaksena-kathäsu yaù

notpädayed yadi ratià

çrama eva hi kevalam

"Duties [dharma] executed by men, regardless of occupation, are only so much useless labor if they do not provoke attraction for the message of the Supreme Lord." If one very strictly performs the various duties of religion but does not ultimately come to the platform of surrendering to the Supreme Lord, his methods of attaining salvation or elevation are simply a waste of time and energy.

I took a clue from the verse and decided to talk a little about çaraëägaté. That’s the last word in the Gétä, and that’s where the Bhägavatam picks up, beginning with the second verse. This verse is the vastu-nirdeña sloka, which tells what the book is about, which is pure devotional service, completely rejecting any concept of duty or religion with any mix of material motivation. Essentially, I took this instruction from Prahlada as an opportunity to talk a little about the six-fold process of seeking the Lord’s shelter, which has been on my mind more and more over the last few years. From what I understand, bhakti and çaranagaté are not static, but progressive and dynamic.

gHari, are you suggesting an abstract? Maybe I can do that this weekend. As far as what message was received, that would be interesting to know. A number of devotees (I've lost count, which is a good sign, I guess) have thanked me for the class, and I meant to ask them what they liked about it, specifically. Maybe I can still do that, although it would have been more effective within the first day or two.

I dunno bout giving talks to a bunch of devotees. I remember when I served with babhru, we had plenty of experiance. Sudama Swami led a very nice program where all the devotees would take their turn, giving morning class, even speakiong at sunday feast venues to the public. Good practice when we are in our twenties pays off now that we are old.

I accept the opportunity to speak at temples where I am as a chance for more practice. The challenge, it seems to me is to reinforce salutary understanding of our siddhanta and practice, while presenting something stimulating for jaded old-timers, and, at the same time, making it interesting for myself as well.

I gave a short address about chanting Harinam at a reggae festival, 1000 deadhead rastas is not a tough crowd, though, everything is "far out" for them. I kept it simple, focusing on the sheer fun of samkirtana. I put the "restrictions" in my back pocket for the day. If ones speaking engagement is followed by INSPIRED chanting, then Srila Prabhupada is pleased, and that is our goal in speaking, eh?

I agree. An effective speaker will be aware of his or her audience's adhikara and adjust the presentation accordingly. And inspired chanting is the heart of the whole thing, yeah?

You sounded a lot younger than I expected.

I thought you were an older guy.

I guess living good has it's rewards?

 

This is not an insult, but you sounded more like a college student than college professor.

 

I enjoyed the lecture.

But, don't expect to ever hear me lecturing in a Hare Krishna temple.

 

You might see me on a street corner on a soap-box but never a Hare Krishna temple.

 

I preach to the chickens running around the neighborhood here.

And chickens are cool; they just don't have a very long attention span. (We had a whole bunch of them running around our place in Hawaii.) Moreover, didn't we all grow up preaching on the streets?

I am a people person for sure, but I can't deal with the formal situation.

Yeah--well, it looks as though I got another chance. It's a little embarrassing to have my nervous stammering on the World Wide Web. Wait until KB gives a class somewhere. Then I'll get him back.

The Goncourt brothers were interesting writers, whose work I believe was mentioned in Proust's magnum opus. However, they seem to have been woefully misinformed with regard to Krishna's pastimes.

Guruvani is indeed correct; Krishna is a cowherd boy, and he has all sorts of relationships with the residents of Vrindavan, including romantic relationships with the girls in the cowherd village. But he never impregnated any of them. The Goncourts seemed inclined to sensationalize many things to one degree or another.

Too bad we aged so rapidly, eh

 

<!-- / user info --><!-- message, attachments, sig --><!-- message -->

 

What is my facination with jaws? Maybe cause i saw rthe breaks back then from hookipa, and just wondered, like kaena point. Looks like a circus now, each wave probably costs at leats $1,000 to ride, ands no ones gonna ride theswe buggahs without dropping another $10,000 on a camara crew (I wouldnt, even if I was still 22).

 

Gimme a crisp six footer in the middle of nowhere with only the seals and the crabs watchin. yo bro, mahaksadasa

Jaws is plenty fun to watch, but I wouldn't want to surf there--especially now!

When I lived on Peahi Road, I could hear Jaws at night. I knew something amazing was going on. I remember seeing it from Hookipa, but I had a better sense of the place by hearing.

I have been told by respected devotees that one cannot take a Govardhan sila from Vraja without permission from a dham bhasi.

Govardhana sila is worshiped in raga marga as it is Krishna.

 

Shalagram shila is Vishnu and must be worshipped with strict regulative principles.

As such, it is very risky as offenses are easy to commit in the vaidhi marga.

 

I would recommend that if you could get a Govardhan shila with the blessings of resident of the dhama, then that would be best.

 

To worship Shalagram shila requires very rigid brahminical regulation and is on the platform of awe and reverence as in worship of Lord Narayana in Vaikuntha.

 

Govardhana shila is worshiped in raga marga like the residents of Vraja and does not require such strict regulation as in worshiping Lord Narayana in the form of Shalagram shila.

Yes, Giriraja is a raga-marga Deity, and His worship is particularly appropriate for Gaudiya vaishnavas. And I'd accept him only on the advice of the spiritual master and with the blessings of dhamavasis. He is very merciful to those who worship Him nicely. (See my Rowdy Boyz, Krishna and Balaram, at left.)

However, Shalagrama-shilas may also be worshipped as Krishna. I heard this explained by Sri Visvambhar Goswami of Radha-Ramana Temple in Vrindavan. He said that, as Krishna is the source of Narayana and all avataras, He is also present in the Shalagrama-shila. I have worshipped my Shalagrama-shila as Krishna, whose name is Murali-manohara, for many years. Neither He nor any devotees I know have complained. However, there are certain strictures I have always observed in His care. One is to eat nothing before worshipping Him. That's a strict rule; I started out observing it because it's the rule; after some time, I do it because I wouldn't think of eating before I've served my Thakurajis.

Here's Murali-manohara about seven years ago:

I wouldn't buy one; it's prohibited by shastra. The site linked to here calls the prices "donations." I wouldn't make such donations unless I knew who the recipients were. I think receiving one as a gift is best, and if it's from someone you know, you might want to reciprocate somehow.

Interesting, but i just read we supposedly don't leave Vaikuntha due to maya, we leave because we choose to leave and only after we leave does maya get us under her spell.

Where did you read that? And why, pray tell, would anyone choose to leave Goloka? Do you know who lives there? Those entities who are constituted of Krishna's svarupa-shakti, and siddha jivas, whether you figure them as nitya-siddha or sadhana-sidha. Now, what reason in the world would cause someone constituted of svarupa-shakti to leave Goloka? (Boy--talk about a point that needs some shastra-pramana . . . ) And if siddha jivas choose to leave Goloka, what about Krishna's promise in Bhagavad-gita that those who attain His abode never return to the material realm?

Tripurari Maharaja has a habit of preaching from memory without citing exacting specific references which then places him as the source or authority for knowledge.

. . .

I am a little skeptical of this approach.

I put credibility to siddhanta that is presented with proper shastric reference, not the shooting-from-hip approach of Tripurari Maharaja.

 

He proposes that everyone should just trust him that he has all the siddhanta put to memory, but when dealing with esoteric or intricate siddhanta I don't accept such a presentation, even though I do admire Tripurari Maharaja.

I don't think that's his express purpose; neither do I consider his approach shooting from the hip. Srila Prabhupada doesn't always cite sources, either. My experience is that if you ask Maharaja, he'll always tell you where to find something. I think it's helpful to cite sources, but that's my style, coming from an academic background. If you read his books (I have in mind especially his Aesthetic Vedanta and Siksastakam), he cites his sources very frequently. His footnotes and endnotes are quite extensive. Those Sanga Q & A notes are less formal.

Yes, according to Radha-Krishna Gannodesha-dipika. His name is Vyaghra (Tiger).

I look forward to fall. (Don't know about winter; I know it'll be cold.)

Yep, the temple is really nice. I've met some nice devotees. Everyone has been very warm and kind to us. I've seen Balavanta at the temple sometimes, but I haven't approached him. But everyone has been really nice. I gave Bhagavatam class yesterday, but I hadn't slept the night before and was a little nervous, so the class wasn't what I intended. (Maybe there'll be a next time.)

I agree here, too, KB. It's as relishable as ABC gum. (That's "already been chewed" for the uninitiated.)

I'm with you, KB. This is not an interesting topic for me. It's mainly irrelevant to most devotees' lives, and I've written all I'm going to write on it. I was more interested in the way it was being discussed than in the topic itself.

BTW, it's really hot here, and humid! But pretty.

This was a response to ***'s reply to my earlier article:

Srila Prabhupada’s Desire: No Sense Gratification

I have no intention of becoming embroiled in a tit-for-tat argument with *** prabhu about the propriety of polygamy; however, I do want to respond to a few problems I found in his reply to my article, “Lord Ramachandra’s Example.”

First, it should be clear to anyone who reads my article carefully that it does not disparage polygamy, either as a principle or in its correct practice. It argues for careful consideration in argument. That’s all. In the article to which I responded, *** simply ignored any views other than his own. As I teach even my first-year college students, any successful argument must take into consideration other sides of an issue, including any questions or objections that may be raised. ***’s didn’t, and I simply wanted to point out that if we intend to include this practice in our understanding of establishing varnashrama-dharma, we should do so carefully. “We must also be humble enough to acknowledge the limits of our actual understanding,” is what I actually said. I stand fast by my advocacy of humility.

Further, anyone who reads my article can also see that nowhere in it do I attack ***’s character or his motives for repeating Srila Prabhupada’s words. I met *** when he lived in <st1:city w:st="on">Los Angeles</st1:city> and never had any impression of him except that he is a serious, sincere devotee. And since an interlocutor’s character is an important element of classical rhetoric, maybe I should mention my own track record: I have been a faithful disciple since early 1970 and a faithful husband to my wife for 26 [now over 34] years. Ask anyone who knows me.

Since *** finds it appropriate, however, to question my motives, let me deal with that section of his recent article first. He asks, “Are you trying to create a generation of young prostitutes so you can enjoy them?” Not at all. I’m strictly monogamous, and at 51 [i'm now 60] I’m done with sex and headed in the other direction. I’m probably more upset than *** is that so many of our devotees’ daughters aren’t properly situated; many of them were my students. Moreover, as far as I know, no one has ever before suggested such a flaw in my character. I find it insulting to Srila Prabhupada, to my vaishnavi wife, and to my godbrothers’ daughters. More to the point, though, such character attack, although it’s certainly his prerogative to indulge in it, weakens ***’s argument.

Early in his article, *** misstates my comments. Regarding the June 28, 1977 conversation, *** says I’m “reading things that just aren’t there and putting words in SP’s mouth that he didn’t say.” This is simply not true. Even in Ameyatama’s quotation in this most recent article, right where he tries to prove I’m making things up, Srila Prabhupada says, “If the woman allows husband, ‘He likes.’ . . .” I didn’t say this; Srila Prabhupada did. His main point here is, as *** points out, that a chaste wife who is properly protected ought not to object. But Srila Prabhupada does say that a second wife would be permitted “If the woman allows.” *** says, “I only read that SP says the wife must not mind very much if her husband takes more than one wife.” Then read it again, more carefully this time, prabhu, because you seem to have missed a sentence. “If woman allows.” One more time—those are not my words, but Srila Prabhupada’s own. *** should read his own article more carefully, or at least be careful enough to edit out what he doesn’t want us to see.

He says I claim the Ninth Canto purport says “that Srila Prabhupada does NOT want us to take more than one wife.” That is just not what I write there. What I do say is that it expresses his desire that his male disciples accept only one wife and remain faithful to her.

He claims that I see this verse “as some sort of absolute dictum that is so strong and powerful that it totally overpowers and over shadows [sic]” all instructions that favor polygamy. But that’s not what I say, either. Nowhere do I even imply that it nullifies any other instruction. One could make a case that instructions in Srila Prabhupada’s books should carry more weight than comments made in his room, on a walk, or even in a letter. I read a letter to a godbrother named Sadhanananda in which Srila Prabhupada wrote that devotees say, “Srila Prabhupada has said this, or said that.” This is another form of cheating, he said. “If it is not in my books,” he wrote, “I did not say it.” I won’t make such a case. I will, however, present some of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions in the matter, from his books and other sources, to show that this is not an isolated statement that runs counter to his real desire.

In the purport to SB 4.26.4, Srila Prabhupada writes, “One should be satisfied with his married wife, for even a slight deviation will create havoc.” Then he continues, “A Krishna conscious grihastha should always remember this. He should always be satisfied with one wife and be peaceful simply by chanting the Hare Krishna mantra.” In a 1972 Bhagavatam lecture in <st1:city w:st="on">Los Angeles</st1:city>, he said, “So to become <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> conscious means immediately--that is the test--immediately he will become free from lust and greediness. If he's not free from lust and greediness, he is making a show; he's not <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> conscious. This is the test. If one is actually advanced in <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> consciousness, then these two symptoms will be visible in his character: no more lusty, no more greediness. He should be satisfied with one wife or one husband. Why hankering after others? That is lusty. That means it is not on the stage of <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> consciousness; it is in the material platform.” In a 1974 Bhagavatam class, he said, “a person should be so nicely trained up that the one wife with religious, by performing religious ceremony, is given to him, he should be satisfied with her, not to see other women, adulteration. This is Kali-yuga.” In 1975 he told us, “If anyone can maintain a family--family means one wife and one or two children--then he is to be considered very expert, successful,” and in 1976 he said, “Tapasya begins with brahmacarya, life of celibacy, or accepting one wife only. That's all.” Years before, in 1971 he said, “We recommend our students not to have illicit sex. We don't stop sex, but regulate. . . . What is the difficulty? No illicit sex means don't be cats and dogs. Be married man and have one wife, one husband, and be satisfied.”

In 1974, he wrote Sukadeva prabhu, “No, devotees are not allowed more than one wife. Devotees should have no wife if possible, but those who cannot maintain celibacy, they can marry one wife. At the present moment people are so unfortunate they cannot maintain even one wife. First of all at the present moment they are not married and remain mostly unmarried. So for such persons even one wife is a great burden. Under the circumstances how one can think of more than one wife? This is stupidity.” There are more, but this just shows that, although I don’t claim this one purport supersedes all others, it is also not an isolated instruction.

*** objects to my saying that his research shows that, “in the abstract, we should have little objection” to polygamy practiced by men as qualified as Dasharath. He’s particularly upset by “little objection” and suggests we should have “NO” objection. He also doesn’t like “in the abstract.” I agree. I’m happy to change it to “In principle, we should have no objection to the kind of polygamy practiced by men with qualifications similar to King Dasharath’s.” Despite ***’s cleverness, I have no desire to obstruct our understanding of varnashrama-dharma, but to encourage careful understanding and even more careful application.

At one point, Ameyatama concedes that, so far, experiments with polygamy have failed. Then he suggests that “most” monogamous marriages have failed as well, so perhaps we should give up on marriage altogether and just couple like animals. I’m sorry he wasted any of his time energy, and space on this unfortunate point. This is a clear case of the logical fallacy called argumentum ad absurdum.

Although *** claims that polygamy is not meant for increasing sex life, Srila Prabhupada seems to have another opinion. In a 1973 letter to Rupanuga, he wrote, “After conferring with my various GBC representatives I have concluded that polygamy must be strictly prohibited in our society. Although it is a Vedic institution still there are so many legal implications. Neither are many of our men fixed up enough to tend for more than one wife. Polygamy will simply increase the sex life and our philosophy is to gradually decrease the sex life till eventually there is no sex life.” Of course polygamy is ideally meant for protecting women. But that’s not its only purpose, as we see in a Srimad-Bhagavatam purport: “A man is allowed to keep more than one wife because he cannot enjoy sex when the wife is pregnant. If he wants to enjoy sex at such a time, he may go to another wife who is not pregnant. These are laws mentioned in the Manu-samhita and other scriptures” (SB4.26.4, purport). And in a Bhagavatam class, he said, “According to Vedic civilization, because man is very aggressive, so he's allowed to accept more than one wife.”

Finally, *** invokes examples different from Lord Ramachandra’s that he seems to think Srila Prabhupada wanted us to follow. Bhima, Arjuna, and other devotees, he points out, had more than one wife. Of course, they were rich kings and perfect devotees. Lord Nityananda had more than one wife, *** says. Maybe, but the example of Nityananda Prabhu’s Srila Prabhupada wants us to follow is his compassion and tireless preaching of the holy names, not his disregard for social conventions. Even Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, he says, ignored Lord Rama’s example by remarrying after his first wife’s passing. In fact, He did, but only at the insistence of his widowed mother. He also left his wife at age 24 to go preach all over <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>.

Ultimately, as evidenced by ***’s title, he suggests we follow the example of Lord Krishna, who had 16,108 wives. However, when Srila Prabhupada discusses the Lord’s household, he doesn’t suggest it as a model for ours, except that, despite lying comfortably next to our wives, we should rise early in the morning, bathe and meditate on <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>. Instead, Srila Prabhupada points out that <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> accepted 16,108 wives to demonstrate His opulence as the full-fledged Personality of Godhead. This is one way <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> shows He is not one of us!

Once more, in case it’s not clear to some, I’m not opposing polygamy. I’m only suggesting that we discuss the issue fully and apply it carefully. In fact, I expect this to be my last article on the subject. I’m much more interested in how we discuss it than in whether *** or anyone else has more wives than I. Neither do I suggest that anyone with an opinion different from mine is an atheist or infected with sinful desires of some sort. I only advocate careful and civil discourse among devotees, especially in public.

Perhaps we should follow Srila Prabhupada’s example. If necessary, marry one wife or husband, conduct our home lives according to the instructions of our spiritual master, gradually give up all material endeavor and sense gratification, and immerse ourselves in distributing prasadam, protecting cows, and chanting and broadcasting the glories of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s sankirtan movement. After all, Narada Muni testifies that “those who are always full of cares and anxieties due to desiring contact of the senses with their objects can cross the ocean of nescience on a most suitable boat—the constant chanting of the transcendental activities of the Personality of Godhead.”

Here's an article I wrote years ago in response to something by a Godbrother who advocates polygamy. I've deleted the other devotee's name because it's unnecessary.

Lord Ramachandra’s Example: “Only One Wife”

*** prabhu’s lengthy response to Prtha’s complaints about polygamy seems to miss one important source: a verse and purport in the Ninth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Chapter 10, verse 54 says, “Lord Ramacandra took a vow to accept only one wife and have no connection with any other women. He was a saintly king, and everything in His life was good, untinged by qualities like anger. He taught good behavior for everyone, especially for the householders, in terms of varnasrama-dharma. Thus He taught the general public by His personal activities.”

In his purport, Srila Prabhupada explains this further: “Eka-patni-vrata, accepting only one wife, was the glorious example set by Lord Ramacandra. One should not accept more than one wife. In those days, of course, people did marry more than one wife. Even Lord Ramacandra’s father accepted more wives than one. But Lord Ramacandra, as an ideal king, accepted only one wife, mother Sita. When Mother Sita was kidnapped by Ravana and the Raksasas, Lord Ramacandra, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, could have married hundreds and thousands of Sitas, but to teach us how to be faithful He was to His wife, He fought with Ravana and finally killed him. The Lord punished Ravana and rescued His wife to instruct men to have only one wife. Lord Ramacandra accepted only one wife and manifested sublime character, thus setting an example for householders. A householder should live according to the ideal of Lord Ramacandra, who showed how to be a perfect person.”

Srila Prabhupada makes abundantly clear in this purport his desire that we establish daivi-varnasrama-dharma by marrying only one wife and remaining faithful to her throughout our lives. Since *** invests much in dates, let’s note that this volume was published in 1977. ***’s research shows that, in the abstract, we should have little objection to the kind of polygamy practiced by men with qualifications similar to King Dasarath. We should also note, however, that even Dasarath’s household was not perfectly peaceful. If men less qualified than he try to care for more than one wife, we can expect just the sorts of problems we have experienced over the years.

In fact, our godbrothers’ attempts at “polygamy” were really meant for increasing their sense gratification, regardless of their attempts to rationalize their behavior. I know of no such arrangements in which the “wives” were all equally satisfied with the results over the long run. In the conversation *** cites as Srila Prabhupada’s “last and final instruction on the matter,” Srila Prabhupada says another wife would be allowed “f the woman allows husband.” He imposed the same restriction on acceptance of the sannyasa ashram by his married disciples. This shows the wife’s importance in the family and underscores Srila Prabhupada’s assertion that both husband and wife should be faithful.

In trying to introduce spiritual culture to the world, we need to be bold, as Srila Prabhupada showed by his own example. We must also be humble and honest enough to acknowledge the limits of our actual understanding of varanasrama’s cultural manifestations, as well as the limits of our understanding of Srila Prabhupada’s desires. Otherwise, we risk minimizing his significance and missing the richness of genuine spiritual culture.

Here’s something about polygamy I thought you all might find interesting. This was excerpted from a tract called “The Marriage System of Bengal,” written by Kedarnath Datta (Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura) around 1857.

“Polygamy is the bane of native [indian]society—a curse that enslaves many of the softer sex. The Kulina Brahmins are inseparable companions of polygamy. In their society it is as firmly advocated as is American slavery in the Southern States. The Kulina women are no better off than the African blacks. But an African black has many advocates around: he has a voice in the “Anti-Slavery League,” whilst a Kulina Brahmini has no zealous friend to tell of her sorrows and relieve them. The legislature ought to hear the cries of the people as far as their interest is concerned. Reform in everything is sought for and as the first movement we desire the removal of polygamy by an enactment.”

I don't think he ran off with the devotee girl to get married. He married someone else altogether, someone who was making a lot of money at the time.

When I read all these expressions of anger, hurt, etc., I have to think about what behavior pleases Srila Prabhupada most. I remember his ire at Tamal's broadcasting Madhudvisa's leaving his post: "Now he can never come back!" I remember what he told us when Aniruddha came to see him at the Honolulu airport in 1974: despite Aniruddha's not being well situated at the time, Prabhupada looked at us and said, "In Los Angeles temple he is the beginning." He sees our service as much more significant than any mistakes we make.

I remember hearing from Tripurari Maharaja about his visiting Srila Sridhar Maharaja just after Ramesvara and Bhagavan left. SSM asked Maharaja whether the reports he had heard about their leaving were true. When Maharaja indicated that they were true, Srila Sridhar Maharaja cried, lamenting that Srila Prabhupada had invested so much in them, and now it was apparently lost. Meanwhile, back in LA, devotees were partying, literally.

Remembering all these things has to override all the other considerations I have based on my knowing him since 1973 and working under him as I ran a gurukula in Hawaii and taught at another in California. It was his stubbornness about not giving up his big worship, as well as his preaching philosophically deviant ideas and failing to chant the number of rounds he had promised Srila Prabhupada and demanded of his disciples, that drove me from ISKCON at the end of 1985.

Even considering that and much more, I have to appreciate the devotees who were kind to him when he showed up in LA.

But he's not eligible for any position of responsibility in ISKCON. Finished.

Urukrama is now B. V. Padmanabha Maharaja, serving Narayana Maharaja.

Some of us eat bhoga, some of us fault-find the Vaishnavas regularly.

some of us do both.

 

I guess we all have plenty to work on before we can see that transcendental TV in the heart.

Amen!

Here's one example (and probably the one I had in mind) of Srila Prabhupada's mentioning that he studied Sanskrit at college: