Same old, same old

Ah, things doesn’t change much, does it? People change so very, very slowly.

So it’s back on track. On the same day, two different communiqués are published. One is on Bhaktabhandav and is about Sri Premananda Prabhu’s relation to Srila Gurudeva and the sorry state of Gurudeva’s samadhi. On backtobhakti there’s an article about how we all should just get a long, but not any reference on what this is about or how to actually resolve issues.

I’m so sick of this. It’s like a rerun of how isckon crashed after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, just much less ugly – which shows some progress after all to get on the bright side of things. Here’s the problem in a nut shell:

Our whole religion and organization is built upon the Guru system. You have one all powerful guy that pretty much runs the show. When that person disappears, everything breaks down. Why?

Since there is no organizational structure, no leaders and no recognition of leadership, it comes down to small chiefs who runs and bullies whatever they want. We follow those we believe are the most “spiritual”, which is a pretty subjective thing depending on the vision of each individual. So we have a lot of individuals running around, trying to gather up as much followers and power (money) and do some backstabbing if necessary. Small kings on small kingdoms.

To try to create some unification ipbsys have created an advisory board, but of course: Small chiefs don’t care much about advisory boards if it goes against their wishes. I have no idea if the advisory board itself works.

It takes maturity to deal with so much problems. It takes mature people guiding and working with people the whole time to be able to work itself through things.

Now, I can talk about how to deal with conflicts because there seem to be little knowledge on how to deal with it. First you confront a problem, have it clearly defined by the people having the problem and then you work through it. More articles of the type “you should not criticize” and the reference to the Harmony booklet is of no use. But of course, small kings don’t want to deal with problems unless it brings an advantage to them.

But most importantly, it only takes one individual to create a whole lot of good. Our whole parampara consists of one person who was enlightened and achieved so, so much. Our society is built around people and organizations, but our parampara is build on one person. There’s this mismatch there.

The veda’s clearly define that we need to approach an uttama-bhagavata. But it seems like what to do after an uttama.bhagavats disappearance is broken when there still is a sanga is in place, a resemblance of an organization. Or more to the point; it shows how broken we people are. Sure, the problems were there while Gurudeva was here, he just kept it in check. Sure, it’s not the first time Gaudiya Matha splits apart, it happened after the disappearance of Srila Kesava Maharaja as well. And Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, so there is certainly precedence.

I just don’t see a divine plan in it. It just seem broken to me.

And all the while, there is no proper samadhi for Gurudeva when all it takes is *one* person taking charge.

10 thoughts on “Same old, same old

  1. “Sure, the problems were there while Gurudeva was here, he just kept it in check. Sure, it’s not the first time Gaudiya Matha splits apart, it happened after the disappearance of Srila Kesava Maharaja as well.”

    How so? Param-gurudeva appointed Srila Vaman Maharaja as acharya befoe he left this world. Where was the split?

    Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur was never in the “Gaudiya Math”. His son established it in 1920 when Thakur was aged and 6 years away from passing. He never joined his son’s organization.

    Forget maths and religious organizations. Only doing sadhan-bhajan under guidance of rasik vaishnava can manifest bhakti. If you cannot find such sanga then just get together with friends who share your enthusiasm for bhakti and discuss Hari katha with them until you do.

    • That Gurudeva established Srila Vaman Maharaja as acharya is news to me, and I also have trouble believing this. His wishes was to establish ipbsys, not an acharya.

      Your right in that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur didn’t establish the organization Gaudiya Math. There were still a split in his devotees after his disappearance.

      I see your point on forgetting organizations, and I partly agree with you. Searching out advanced devotees and maha-bhagavatas is our main concern no matter where our loyalties lies. Though, a sanga/math/organization is important in association, maintaining Gurudevas temples beutifully. If an organization is run well, I think they can do wonders. Take isckon if we forget all the troubles there. They have a lot of temples worldwide. They introduce sooo many people to krishna consciousness, and the work they are putting in is great and important. An organization can help in having greater reach in preaching.

      And I want both – I want sadhan bhajan under a rasik vaishnava AND I want a well functioning organization(s). I’m greedy like that 😉

  2. “That Gurudeva established Srila Vaman Maharaja as acharya is news to me”

    Gurudeva? Gurudeva is the guru-bhai of Srila Vaman Maharaja, not his guru and therefore of course he didn’t appoint him acharya. I did not say Gurudeva established him as acharya of the Gaudiya Vedanta Samhiti, I said Param-Gurudeva did.

    ” His wishes was to establish ipbsys”

    What is ipbsys?

    • Param Gurudeva is Srila Bhaktiprajnana Keshava Maharaja. Param means “grand” in this context. Like father/grand-father, there is guru and param guru, or the grand-guru, the guru of the guru. I was addressing the claim made by the author that “Sure, it’s not the first time Gaudiya Matha splits apart, it happened after the disappearance of Srila Kesava Maharaja as well.”

      I don’t recall ever reading or hearing of any “split” after Param Gurudeva’s disappearance. The tradition in most, if not all, branches of Gaudiya Math is that the guru appointed an acharya to give diksha after his disappearance.

      Srila Vamana Maharaja was appointed by Param Gurudeva and functioned as the acharya of the Gaudiya Vedanta Samhiti and diksha guru for many years. If and when people approached other vaishnavas, such as our Gurudeva, for diksha, those vaishnavas sent them to Srila Vamana Maharaja for diksha. It was only in his elderly years that Gurudeva started giving diksha, and that too very quietly (until the westerners came along).

  3. Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaj appointed his disciple Srila Bhakti Vedanta Vamana Maharaj as his successor. Later in Srila Narayan Maharaj left that mission (Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti) and founded IPBYS.

    Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti is still flourishing in care of Srila Vamana Maharaj’s successor, Srila Bhakti Vedanta Paryatok Maharaj.

    But don’t be discouraged by misgivings after the acarya’s departure. It’s simply time for crystallizing.

  4. Thank you, that explains it. I remember reading this a long time ago, but I dismissed it since I’ve forgotten it.

    Yeah, things are probably crystallizing. I do take great hope in that the problems after Gurudevas disappearance is so much less ugly (a lot less ugly!). I still find it… unpalatable though. But on the bright side, I’m one of the rare people that find conflicts to be positive because there usually is much growth in it. It just is painful while it happens, and it pains me when I see so much… well, pain.

    • “And I want both – I want sadhan bhajan under a rasik vaishnava AND I want a well functioning organization(s). ”

      Sorry, you can’t have both. Organizations by nature mean some sort of conflict that results in dysfunction.

      • Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur wanted both deep bhajan and broad outreach.

        Acaryas like Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Srila Narayan Maharaj have served that ideal. It’s not going to stop. The problems that come along are opportunities for more and deeper preaching, preaching to devotees, not only the masses.

      • I think Syamananda Dasa stated it beautifully. Furthermore, I think you can’t avoid dysfunction and conflicts. There is dysfunction while the Guru is present and in the organization he creates while present. The Guru dispels dysfunction in us because that dysfunction hinders our progress in bhajan.

        I don’t think conflicts results in dysfunction. I think dysfunction creates conflicts which means it is in us from we decided to enter the material world/not serve Krishna.

        Though, I think your main point is to always be under the guidance of a rasik vaishnava and I certainly agree on that.

Leave a Reply to syamananda dasa Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *