Rocana dasa: “Meeting with B.V. Narayana – what’s the Real Story?”

Oct 31, CANADA (SUN) — I would like to offer some comments on the recent news bulletin released by the ISKCON News Service (INS), reposted in the Sampradaya Sun on October 26th, entitled “ISKCON GBC Representatives Meet With B.V. Narayana Maharaja “.

Those who have been reading the Sun will know that we do not approve of B.V. Narayana Maharaja, on philosophical grounds. We’ve made numerous presentations on the subject, most recently with respect to B.V. Narayana’s blasphemous Holland Lecture. Many articles can be found by searching for ‘Narayan’ or ‘Narayana’ on our Editorials Index page. A summary of older material can be found here.

The INS news release was co-authored by Anuttama dasa, ISKCON Minister of Communications, and Jalakara dasa, BHAKTI Trust Mission’s Public Affairs Director. As we all know, in the business of promotions and communications, institutions such as the BHAKTI Trust and ISKCON follow the same principle as other enterprises do in their news releases – namely, they make every effort to minimize the possibility that the news will result in negative feedback or harmful rumors.

It would be nearly impossible for ISKCON and BHAKTI Trust to have kept this meeting a secret in today’s environment, so from their point of view we can understand that they would wish to release such an official bulletin, reporting on the meeting in a very Vaisnava-like context. Not surprisingly, on close inspection we find that the press release actually says very little. All the questions that a concerned reader would have are left unanswered and in fact, troubling questions are instead created in the mind of the reader. In other words, the news release can be characterized as a rather unsuccessful effort by the communications staff of these two organizations.

First, we see that the ISKCON representatives are presenting themselves in an official manner, representing the Founder-Acarya, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. They inform us that the five devotees went as an official delegation to meet B.V. Narayana Maharaja, but “official” means what? Does it mean that at the GBC meeting last spring, the GBC passed an unofficial Resolution on the matter? We say “unofficial”, because no such official Resolution is found in the 2009 GBC Annual Meeting Minutes. The INS news release says that the meeting had been planned for several months. So how was it that this “official delegation” was deputed? By whom, when, and for what purpose? Did it have the buy-in of the entire GBC? What was the strategic purpose of the meeting, and how does that strategy jive with the current Resolutions on the books regarding how the Society is to deal with B.V. Narayana Maharaja?

Ultimately, this meeting has to be considered as some sort of a power play. Let’s be honest and face reality — B.V. Narayana and his group are competing with ISKCON. They both have the same goals to expand, promote and maintain their organization, facilities and disciples. Both purport to be inline with the Sampradaya with respect to their mission and activities. So how is it that ISKCON, which undoubtedly is the biggest and most prominent of these two groups, agreed to take the subordinate position in this meeting, or negotiation with the competition? Obviously the ISKCON delegation agreed to go to B.V. Narayana’s matha and to be treated as guests, and they will undoubtedly explain this as simply a willingness to be cooperative and humble. Of course, none of the delegation members are Founder-Acaryas themselves, while B.V. Narayana is the Founder-Acarya of his matha, so that naturally puts the ISKCON delegation members in a subordinate position.

Clearly, ISKCON is the most prominently established group, with the bona fide Sampradaya Acarya as our Founder. The ISKCON GBC have made many, many mistakes and according to this particular communiqué, they are ready to admit one of them. They have decided, for whatever reasons, that it’s now beneficial for an institutional delegation to essentially relegate themselves to an inferior position in order to apologize to B.V. Narayana about something that happened 14 years ago, in 1995. The press release states:

“Anuttama dasa, ISKCON’s Communications Minister, speaking on behalf of the GBC, offered a formal apology to Narayana Maharaja for “the GBC’s failure to communicate properly and in a timely personal manner,” to Narayana Maharaja regarding ISKCON policies that were established in 1995.”

Because the communications specialists of the two organizations did not inform us in their press release, we’re left scratching our heads as to exactly what official ISKCON policy it was that resulted in an offense to B.V. Narayana? The matter was not addressed in either the 1994 GBC Resolutions or the 1995 Resolutions.

We’re also not sure exactly who invited who to this meeting — who orchestrated it, and why now? They did inform us that the delegation was ushered into B.V. Narayana’s room, allowing him to make it clear to them that he’s an admirer, a siksa disciple and a supporter of Srila Prabhupada since day one. ‘Even during Srila Prabhupada’s “early days”, B.V. Narayana assisted Srila Prabhupada’. Over the years we’ve heard many such unsubstantiated claims from Narayana’s main followers who, for the most part, are made up of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples.

I don’t think I’m wrong in concluding that if it wasn’t for Srila Prabhupada’s disciples joining his camp on account of being offended by the GBC or some other ISKCON authority, B.V. Narayana’s organization would never have grown to the point that it has. Of course, that’s one of the main tenets of his philosophy — that you require a living guru after your own guru departs. When Srila Prabhupada departed from his physical lila, Narayana’s camp says that it became incumbent upon all his disciples, for their ongoing spiritual advancement, to seek out someone of B.V. Narayana’s spiritual stature and become his siksa disciple. Some of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, like Jadurani devi, even changed their name. Now we’re not here to debate that aspect of his philosophy, which has been thoroughly discredited in other articles, or to argue whether or not Srila Prabhupada would accept this conclusion, but it is the reality.

Because the official news release is not specific as to the actions that were allegedly offensive to B.V. Narayana Maharaja, we are left to speculate. While we do not find a 1995 GBC Resolution on the matter, we do find historical context for the Gopi Bhava Club issue in this transcript of a November 5, 1994 Vrindavan Istagosthi on the matter. It seems quite certain that the alleged offense was related to the 1994-95 debate on the Gopi Bhava Club. Trumped only by the philosophical fiasco known as the Zonal Acarya system, the Gopi Bhava Club was one of the biggest mistakes perpetrated by a number of ISKCON leaders. We won’t go into a great deal of history in this article, but there were two phases referred to as the Gopi Bhava Club. The second, and the one we refer to here, took root around 1989-90, and gradually built momentum. (Details can be found here and here.)

Many of the GBC and highly placed authorities got involved in it, including Tamal Krishna Goswami and the person who benefited from his Last Will, Giriraja Swami, along with Satsvarupa and Sivarama Swami. Bhurijana das, who was at Vrindavan Gurukula at the time, was another active member. Together they were promoting the philosophy that B.V. Narayana was preaching at the time, and is still preaching today. Basically, he says that Srila Prabhupada gave us the ABC’s, the basics of Krsna Consciousness, but he didn’t give us everything – he didn’t give us what B.V. Narayana can give us. According to Narayana, it’s not that Srila Prabhupada wasn’t qualified, but that he didn’t have time, and the circumstances were such that it wasn’t expedient for him to take his disciples up into the higher echelons of Bhakti. This, according to Narayana Maharaja, requires a guru such as himself, to assist the disciples to reach the higher echelons of Bhakti Yoga.

Those disciples of Srila Prabhupada who surrendered to B.V. Narayana’s ideas in this regard formed the Gopi Bhava Club, and with his association, talked about these higher lilas. Of course, such topics are described in Srila Prabhupada’s Nectar of Devotion, but B.V. Narayana basically wanted to re-package and sell this concept, which is foreign to what Srila Prabhupada presented to his followers. Srila Prabhupada said just preach and be sincere, follow strictly the sadhana, and these higher echelons of devotional service will naturally develop. Let us not forget that Srila Prabhupada himself was on this level, and he didn’t require a guru such as B.V. Narayana. He followed his own Spiritual Master’s understanding of the philosophy, and did not seek out another siksa like Narayana after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur departed.

The Gopi Bhava Club members had many meetings, exchanged many correspondences, and wrote papers. They were just on the verge of trying to push through a GBC vote to have B.V. Narayana accepted as the new present Acarya of ISKCON, the successor to Srila Prabhupada, when they were soundly challenged, thankfully, by other straight-thinking members of the leadership. This was one of the few wise things that the GBC has done, rejecting this and nipping it in the bud. Unfortunately, it was far more than a bud – it was a flower in full bloom. I don’t know exactly what took place behind closed doors, in secret, or who was on what side of this disagreement, but basically the majority strongly disagreed with the Gopi Bhava Club position, and gave an ultimatum to those who were in advanced positions in ISKCON management — either give this up and renounce B.V. Narayana’s proposal and philosophy, or leave ISKCON and go join him. Of course, those who had a lot to lose opted to stay in ISKCON rather than join B.V. Narayana’s camp.

Some time after the GBC’s rejection of the Gopi Bhava Club and B.V. Narayana, there were a number of instances when Narayana Maharaja and his followers showed up at various ISKCON temples to preach, and were made unwelcome, or even ejected from the temple premises. We recall having heard of a few occasions where the temple had initially approved the scheduled program, but at the last minute a decision was made to adhere to the GBC policy, and the Narayana camp was not permitted to preach to the ISKCON devotees. So whether the official ISKCON delegation went to apologize to B.V. Narayana for the actual policy rejecting his preaching and his bid to be the successor Acarya, or whether they were apologizing for some of the conflicts that took place on the door stoop of ISKCON temples when Narayana came to preach, this we do not know. The press release informs us that Anuttama dasa’s address to Narayana Maharaja was on: “the GBC’s failure to communicate properly and in a timely personal manner… regarding ISKCON policies that were established in 1995.”

Whatever the actual crux of the apology, a group of ISKCON notables obviously concluded that it was wise and expedient for them to approach B.V. Narayana and ask his forgiveness. It’s my personal opinion, and I’ve expressed it repeatedly, that B.V. Narayana is a very cagey and powerful person, and it doesn’t take much knowledge about political etiquette to understand who had the upper hand at this meeting. We need only consider Vedic culture. If you go hat in hand to some other king or authority, if you go to their castle, under their terms with an official delegation, then you are essentially the subordinate party.

In the press release, it’s interesting to note that B.V. Narayana: “made several proposals how to improve the relationship between ISKCON and himself and his followers.” Of course, the press release doesn’t tell us what these proposals were, or how they were received. We read that the parties were “respectful and cordial”, and the two groups would like to see “mutual respect and understanding”. We’re not sure what that means, either. However, if it was a highly successful meeting, it surely would have lasted more than half an hour, and we’d expect to hear all sorts of positive statements and go-forward plans the two side had made for cooperating to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the world. But in my mind, it doesn’t look like a successful meeting, from what we can ascertain by reading between the lines.

Dealing with the very serious philosophical differences between the two groups would take a lot longer than half an hour, and we can therefore assume that ISKCON did not challenge B.V. Narayana on his overall philosophical presentation of Krsna Consciousness, which even Srila Prabhupada’s other godbrothers do not support. And let’s remember that Narayana Maharaja is not a godbrother of Srila Prabhupada, he’s a god-nephew, so to speak. His guru was from the Mathura Caitanya Matha, which B.V. Narayana took over when Srila Prabhupada’s sannyasa guru, Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Goswami Maharaja, departed. There were some politics around how that matha was taken over by B.V. Narayana, who has apparently now distanced himself from that matha, leaving the Indian disciples to run it. I’m not sure of the details, but perhaps our more informed readers will fill us in. At any rate, the ISKCON delegation did not meet with B.V. Narayana at his Mathura matha, but rather at his Giridhari Gaudiya facility.

So we are left to wonder about the details of this meeting… what the strategy behind it is, and what purpose it was hoped to serve. From my point of view, because I’m presenting Srila Prabhupada’s position as the Sampradaya Acarya, that position automatically characterizes B.V. Narayana’s relationship in comparison to Srila Prabhupada, just as it does with all of Srila Prabhupada’s godbrothers. I claim that Srila Prabhupada is a nitya-siddha, and while I concede that many of his godbrothers are sadhana-bhaktas, and have probably reached very high levels of advancement in the pursuance of their sadhana, there is a great difference between them and Srila Prabhupada, who is eternally liberated, and was sent by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu to achieve what he did. If the ISKCON GBC had adopted that position, they could have dealt with circumstances such as B.V. Narayana very easily, simply by letting him understand what their position is with respect to Srila Prabhupada. They could ask Narayana Maharaja point blank: do you accept Srila Prabhupada in this position? Obviously he doesn’t, and neither do his followers, or even the members of the GBC, or they would have adopted this position a long time ago.

So while that straightforward question could be put to B.V. Narayana, ISKCON can’t take that position, first of all because they haven’t articulated it as their official position, and secondly, because many of them don’t believe it to be a true depiction — primarily the big Gurus prefer their followers do not see Srila Prabhupada in this manner, as they fear it would undermine their position and power.

Because the GBC has not clarified their position on Srila Prabhupada, they continue to have this huge problem with B.V. Narayana, and with the rest of the Gaudiya Matha, with the Rtviks, and with any other groups – all because their own position is not clear as to how they officially present Srila Prabhupada. They formed a standing committee that is chaired by none other than Ravindra Svarupa das, who was a member of the official delegation sent to B.V. Narayana, but we haven’t seen any conclusions.

This delegation very much gives the impression that our Srila Prabhupada is on an equal level with the Founder and Acarya of the BHAKTI Trust. Only a fool would not think that the B.V. Narayana camp isn’t fully aware of this dynamic.

I think we should be very, very concerned. The communiqué is made to appear benign, but anyone who shares the same conclusion I do in regard to Srila Prabhupada having the status of a Sampradaya Acarya should have their alarm bells going off. Did the philosophical contamination of the Gopi Bhava Club go underground in 1995, and does this delegation now indicate that the sentiment is still prevalent?

What is certain is that the followers of B.V. Narayana, many of whom were Srila Prabhupada’s own diksa disciples, will embrace and celebrate the publication of this press release. In temples all around the world, devotees like myself, who do not accept B.V. Narayana on philosophical grounds, are having to interface with godbrothers and godsisters who have ‘crossed the river’, taking up with the Narayana camp. Dealing with them in the local temple communities has been difficult enough. That situation will now be exacerbated by this news release, which will undoubtedly be used by the Narayana followers to rationalize and legitimize their position. This will result in increased conflict, and will further degrade Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON, without a doubt.