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

Section 2-JURISDICTION

The GBC is stating that since there is no real system of dealing with such problems on the local level in ISKCON, the grievance committee is having to deal with it. What they are really saying is that since the GBC has never really studied or understood, or compiled anything on the relationship between husband, wife, and guru, either before or after Srila Prabhupada's departure, Sulocana dasa is now forcing the issue. There are some very obvious problems which arise when unqualified men pose as "gurus" and come in between husband and wife. But, since Sulocana dasa is the only one to date who has thoroughly studied the matter fully, and can speak authoritatively from Srila Prabhupada's books and letters, backing every point with sastra, the GBC did not respond to hardly any of Sulocana's challenges.

Section 3-GENERAL PRINCIPLES

The general principle of the GBC is that ISKCON's "gurus" are bona fide. Since all the statements made by the GBC are based on this absurd proposition, the entire document is invalid. Sulocana's upcoming book proves conclusively that these "gurus" were never appointed. Most devotees realize this by now anyway. So, as Prabhupada often explains, if you start an equation with one plus one equals three, then naturally all the rest of the equation is going to be off. This is all that really need be said about the philosophical arguments presented by the GBC on women, marriage, and guru. Still, we will go into some of the points just to show the foolishness of the official position of the "GBC".

PART ONE

WOMEN'S GURU-HER HUSBAND OR A "SANNYASI"?

Everyone should have a bona fide pure devotee guru, including women. That does not mean that everyone should take initiation in the same way. According to the Vedic system, the husband takes initiation from a bona fide guru, and the wife serves that same guru by serving her husband. Prabhupada says, "The man becomes a devotee of Krsna, and the wife becomes a devotee of her husband." They are thus both initiated since they are "two halves of the same body." There is absolutely no difference if the wife has formally taken initiation or not. She is automatically the disciple of the husband's guru. If the wife devotes herself to another man, who the husband disapproves of, then the relationship of the woman to both "husband" and "guru" is illicit. No bona fide guru would allow such a thing. A wife is never initiated separate from her husband. In Vedic culture she is not initiated at all. When Jadurani first approached Srila Prabhupada for initiation, Srila Prabhupada told her to go find herself a husband amongst the devotees in the temple. Later he gave concession to women for the sake of engaging them, since he could plainly see they were not going to accept the Vedic standard. That is the only reason Srila Prabhupada initiated women in a separate ceremony. Factually, any woman is automatically Prabhupada's disciple if she marries a Prabhupada disciple. Wherever a woman's heart is, that is where her husband and her guru are. A woman cannot have two husbands or two gurus. Prabhupada says that an ordinary woman cannot imitate Draupadi by thinking she can equally serve and devote herself to more than one man, what to speak of a "sannyasi". A woman can only have one guru, her husband, and through him she may devote herself to his guru, not separately.

CAN WOMEN BE INITIATED SEPARATE FROM THE HUSBAND?

The GBC argument that Prabhupada initiated women separate from the husband is not a valid argument for the above reasons. But Prabhupada also initiated single women? He could do that for several reasons. (1) He knew they would be marrying one of his disciples, since his standard order was that all women were to be married. (2) Even if a woman was not going to marry, but finally decided to remain single as a nun, Prabhupada could also initiate nuns. Prabhupada could initiate anyone he wanted to, because he is an uttama-adhikari, completely pure devotee with no sex desire or ulterior motives in his heart. No one today can make that claim. (3) Because Prabhupada was such an elevated uttama-adhikari, he could adjust the standard religious principles for time and circumstance. Others, those not on that level, must follow his instructions, not imitate. Initiating women is just such an adjustment. It is true that time and circumstances are basically the same now (women's liberation) as in 1966, but there is one big difference. It is a very, very, very, big difference. These new "gurus" are light years from being uttama-adhikaris. If Prabhupada had wanted his neophyte disciples to imitate him after he departed, then why didn't he mention such a thing anywhere in his books or letters? Aren't we supposed to be following the instructions and not imitating? (4) Prabhupada initiated single women but he never initiated a man's wife if the man did not want to take initiation also-and visa versa. At least he stated in several letters that he did not want to do such a thing. He was requested to, but he didn't comply. That would have been coming between a husband and wife. Prabhupada was a pure devotee, so naturally he would never do such a thing.

The GBC's arguments simply reveal the well-known tendency of the "gurus" to imitate Srila Prabhupada, and not to follow his instructions.

KIRTANANANDA'S ONE AND ONLY ARGUMENT

Sometimes, but very rarely, if the woman was interested in Krsna consciousness, but the husband was an out-and-out demon, Prabhupada would recommend that she live separately from him in the temple. He never recommended that she remarry. Such instances are extremely rare-maybe only one or two letters. But in numerous letters Prabhupada encouraged the woman to tolerate her husband's weaknesses and be patient. He directly told one devotee to cook meat for her husband (consult Baumadeva, Detroit). What Kirtanananda did, in essence, by telling Sulocana's wife to leave him, was directly call Sulocana a demon, and call himself, equal to Srila Prabhupada. His one and only argument was, "Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya told his daughter to leave Amogha because Amogha was blaspheming Lord Caitanya. So you are also an offender, so I told your wife to leave you." Since Kirtanananda considers himself a pure devotee, he compared Sulocana's failure to worship Kirtanananda to Amogha's blaspheming Lord Caitanya. Sulocana certainly never claimed to be a pure devotee, but he does claim that he never for a moment thought offensively toward Prabhupada, Lord Caitanya, or Krsna. Kirtanananda cannot make that claim. He directly attacked Prabhupada, caning him a tyrant, among numerous other elephant offenses (all the letters concerning this gurvaparada by Kirtanananda are in the book).

WHY ISKCON'S "GURUS" CANNOT IMITATE PRABHUPADA

If there were a completely pure devotee on the planet right now, equal to Srila Prabhupada in every way, such a pure devotee could act as Prabhupada did and initiate both men and women, whether they were married or not, and not fall down. But in the absence of such an uttama-adhikari, we have to follow the instructions of the uttama-adhikari, not imitate him. Why does the GBC think Prabhupada wrote so many books anyway? To collect dust? Why does the GBC think that Prabhupada never even hinted in letter or book the concept of a woman having a guru independent of her husband? He never mentions it anywhere. He only refers to himself as a women's guru in a few places in all his writings. He almost always referred to the women as his daughters. He knew no one was qualified to imitate him in any way whatsoever. And he knew that no one would come along in his immediate aftermath on that level either. So he never mentioned it. He didn't want to encourage neophytes to imitate him after his departure. He only stressed to follow his instructions. The only example he encouraged them to imitate was the way he worked 24 hours a day in Krsna's service. The real uttama-adhikari's instructions are crystal clear. The wife should be devoted to her husband, and her husband should be sincere and devoted to guru and Krsna (innumerable references). And, to solidify that instruction, Prabhupada said (paraphrased): unless one is on the level of Haridasa Thakura, Narada Muni, or Srila Prabhupada, then no one can accept service from, or give shelter to a woman (ref. SB 7.7.14). This underlined phrase defines what initiation means.

GBC SAYS: "GURUS DON'T HAVE TO BE PURE-BUT HUSBANDS DO"

How the GBC could have the audacity to deny this instruction of Srila Prabhupada's is inconceivable. This is the way they word it:

"The point that Srila Prabhupada was special, a nitya-siddha, eternally liberated pure devotee and cannot be imitated by his disciples is certainly true; but this is not an appropriate argument in this case (they give no explanation why they make this claim). It is true that no one can claim the infallibility or purity of Srila Prabhupada, but such perfection or equality is not required to perform the duties of diksa-guru." (No further explanation.)

So, they say the diksa-guru does not have to be pure to give shelter to, or accept service from women. But what about the husband? What does the GBC say about the husband's requirements?

"A husband cannot claim the status of a pati-guru (husband-guru) or ideal grhastha without strictly following the four regulative principles and devotional principles, such as a minimum of sixteen rounds, the morning program, etc. The rules and regulations of the grhastha-ashrama are as strict for that ashrama as the rules and regulations for any other ashrama.... A husband who does not act as a bonafide grhastha (defined above) cannot expect his wife to continue to respect him or be obedient to him. Such an unfortunate wife is certainly justified in seeking protection from her spiritual authorities (temple president), including her guru."

We have in our possession a letter from the man who compiled this document, Rupanuga, written to Satsvarupa, which states that Jayapataka and Ramesvara both do not chant their rounds. But then these are minor things compared to the heavy offenses by all the "gurus". But, if an ordinary householder does not chant all his rounds, and perfectly follow all the principles, in other words, if he is not a pure devotee, his wife should neither serve or respect him. Instead, the GBC says she can leave him for the "protection" of her "guru". They say she has every right to grab his children, and run off to live with some popped-out temple president and a "sannyasi".

KIRTANANANDA'S TEN-THOUSAND "WIVES"

So, in essence, the GBC is saying: "A guru does not have to be pure to initiate hundreds of persons, including other men's wives, thereby splitting up marriages and creating 'varna sankara,' but the husband has to be a completely pure devotee, to have one devoted follower, his wife." This claim has no shastric backing whatsoever. It is a serious Vaisnava-aparadha to all those devotees who have had their families destroyed by this bogus philosophy. Can anyone imagine what would happen if all the women in the world, whose husband's were not following all the strict regulative principles perfectly, immediately grabbed the children and ran off to live with some bogus sannyasi posing as a guru. The proposal of the GBC is insanity but they are the ones in charge of the most important spiritual movement in the world. Just try and see the position. These men are not sannyasis or gurus or GBC, they are manipulators and exploiters living at the expense of hundreds of "wives". Some of them act exactly like pimps. In our book we go into elaborate detail on the wife swapping and illicit-sex going on in ISKCON.