Nrsimhananda das (ACBSP): Canonization (or canonisation) is the act by which a particular Christian church or group declares a deceased person to be a saint and is included in the canon, or list, of recognized saints. Originally, individuals were recognized as saints without any formal process.
Recent remarks in Mayapur by HH Bhakti Caru Swami at HH Tamal Krishna Goswami’s memorial service seem to be the beginning of Iskcon’s deification of some of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. BCS’s speculation that TKG was an eternal associate sent by Krishna to help SP expand his mission in a very powerful way is merely that, a speculation – an act of guesswork. I don’t pretend to know who or who isn’t a mahabhagavata in disguise as a lowly Western hippie destined to eventually be revealed as pure devotee performing his or her lila. Such evaluations are not possible by this, or any conditioned soul. Even if they were, such pronouncements cannot be verified by anyone other than a pure devotee. I’m sure that BCS’s sentiments of love and affection for TKG are genuine, as must be those of his friends and disciples, but broadcasting such an opinion to the society of devotees by an Iskcon leader should certainly be attenuated by a humble attitude of “I can’t say for sure; I’m just offering a prayer of gratitude.”
The second speculation that BCS offered at the same event was an opinion that TKG chose his time of death. He cites the doctor’s opinion that he left his body before the car crashed as well as some remarks that TKG made the prior day. Frankly, I don’t know where to go with this invention. I ask myself, why? Why do people want to revise history through interpretation. BCS is entitled to his own speculations, but, as an Iskcon leader, guru, etc., he should understand that these fantastic remarks are taken seriously by thousands of adoring fans. What lived in the past as a fact, now becomes a “story.” We are witnessing myth creation in the making.
Such fictionalization also leaves able room for those other gurus who helped SP to attain similar status as eternal associates. If guru by ecclesiastical (call it what you will) convention is the GBC’s invention, elevating the status of the first crop of Iskcon gurus to saintly status may not far behind. I never did understand how the Vatican could post-morteum vote on whether a person could become beatified, ultimately canonized. Now I am seeing the incubation of that process uncannily familiar to rising up the corporate ladder – only this one is Jacob’s.
I ask Iskcon leaders to give us facts; we’re adults (many of us, matured ones) who can make up our own opinions.
For emphasis, I repeat: “Originally, individuals were recognized as saints without any formal process.” True for the Catholics, and, certainly true, for the Vaisnavas.
Note: So far, there is no indication that the GBC is involved in any formal process of canonization, and I don’t want anyone to think that I am finding them guilty of such in any way. I’m just concerned that the silent acceptance of BCS’s speculation will encourage such thinking.
Interesting points.
I have heard also that a kind of hagiography has developed around other ISKCON spiritual leaders who have passed away. One would think that their wonderful deeds and words would be enough to earn them the respect of all, without actually inventing stories that are contradicted by reliable eye witnesses.
Or on the other hand, is it better to just let people glorify devotees however they are inspired to do so, as long as their motives are pure?
We should never falsely criticize a devotee (and we can all agree that TKG has been unfairly criticized and vilified by many), but is there really much harm in ignoring some possibly excessive praise?
I guess one harm would be, if we do create “mythology” about the lives and deaths of our spiritual leaders, this may create suspicion and doubt (in the minds of many) about the authenticity and historical accuracy of the stories about other saints we read about in Caitanya Caritamrta and Srimad Bhagavatam, or in stories we hear about those who are universally recognized as saints within our tradition (e.g., Narottama Das Thakur, Syamananda Pandit, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Jagannatha Das Babaji, etc.)
So, maybe we should insist on being hard-nosed historians when making such inquiries. Who is this doctor who opined that TKG left his body before the crash? On what data did he base such opinions?
As for “ecclesiastical convention” and the process of canonization, I guess I am not as disestablishmentarian as Nrsimhananda. (Technically, the word relates to churches as organs of state government, so it does not quite fit, but I may never have an opportunity to call myself an antidisestablishmentarianist again) :-)
I mean, we have to have some means of deciding whose appearance and disappearance days to celebrate and fast on, who is mentioned in the BBT Calendar, etc. I do not see what is wrong with a group of senior devotees conferring and deciding these issues as ISKCON policy, when and if the need arises. We just hope they decide correctly.
We may not personally agree with all such decisions, but I hope our most enlightened leaders generally will agree about such things. If our process really works, I would expect the steady, senior, sincere practitioners to generally agree.
At any rate, Srila Prabhupada seems to have vested the authority for such decision-making for ISKCON in the GBC. It doesn’t bother me if there is a “formal” process, but I want it to be an accurate process.
By having a formal process, the Catholics really have a serious inquiry into, for example, the miracles that were supposedly performed by their saints.
Similarly, if we have a formal process (not necessarily using the methods and criteria of the Roman Catholic Church), it will have a tendency to avoid “myth” creation.
We could inquire in detail (for example) about the basis for the doctor’s opinion that TKG actually left his body before the crash. We could also inquire from those who were in the car and survived the crash whether TKG had showed signs of having left his body before the crash, and see how their observations tally with the doctor’s.
Even if TKG apparently left his body due to injuries from a car accident, that does not take anything away from the enormous service he did in ISKCON, or on Srila Prabhupada’s great affection for him and trust in his abilities, or on his magnificent exposition of Krishna consciousness.
[I am eagerly awaiting the imminent publication of his doctoral work at Oxford. Is it published yet?]
I did not hear Bhakti Caru Swami’s class about TK Goswami’s disappearance. I did watch the class about H.H. Bhakti Tirtha Swami on Mayapur TV and loved it!
But the idea of “guru” or “saint” by ecclesiastical convention is one we have to look at and thoroughly discuss.
If one can really give Krishna’s instructions to a disciple, intact, and train the disciple in the authentic ways of bhakti, he or she is a “guru”, whether officially recognized as such by any official church or government, or anyone else.
Conversely, if one distorts the teachings of Krishna or cannot actually train a disciple in how to perform His devotional service, he or she is not a “guru”, even if officially (or privately) recognized as such.
This is quite apart from the consideration of whether ISKCON should continue the process of regulating who may serve as initiating guru in ISKCON. It is an entirely different point. ISKCON may have reasons for requesting a devotee who may otherwise be qualified not to perform that function (of serving as initiating guru in ISKCON), and ISKCON may give devotees a chance to perform that function even though they ultimately prove unworthy (Srila Prabhupada himself gave devotees a chance who later fell down).
It is not that having a group of devotees decide something is less reliable than just letting everyone come to their own conclusion.
But there may be danger in how we enforce such decisions.
There is a danger that lurks in large, powerful organizations, yet we want ISKCON to be a large and powerful organization. We just need to avoid the dangers.
When a big organization, whether state, church, school or corporation, has an official policy of honoring and respecting someone, there is a great danger of inauthentic feelings, of coerced and phony respect, and of backlash by “rebels” who feel they are being intimidated to be untrue to themselves and to God (their higher selves).
We see this a lot in government. A king is supposed to be a representative of God. Any authority is. A father, a teacher, a platoon commander, should be obeyed. Why? Because God should be obeyed, and we show our obedience to God by how we obey those He has appointed as our authorities.
In many societies a king is even considered an incarnation of God (as in ancient Egypt or countless other civilizations), or a descendant of a family of incarnations. In Vedic civilization the royal families of the sun and moon, in which Rama and Krishna appeared, are full of divine avatars. It should be so. No one but God should be obeyed, and those we obey should be ordained by God as our authorities. That is the natural order of things.
Therefore to organize politics it often becomes expedient to create a God-like status of a state leader, whether or not the leader is worthy. George Washington notably resisted this pressure to become super human, but a strain of public worship of Washington is still there in American nationalist sentiment, in spite of its running counter to the ideals of the American revolution.
There was a religious cult accepting Maximilien Robespierre as “Prophet of the last days, herald of the New Dawn,” which, whether or not he actually encouraged it (a debated point), figured in his downfall. Napoleon succeeded in being accepted as a God-like figure.
Tyrants like Stalin or Kim Il Sung are surrounded by a cult of worship, along with repression and punishment of those who are suspected of not being devoted and obedient. Paranoia and deception become a way of life. People are not free to express their true feelings.
Sometimes I think that the intense, even pathological hatred and hostility we see from some of ISKCON’s detractors springs from this kind of dynamic. They felt, whether rightly or wrongly, that they were being officially forced to worship unworthy men, against their conscience. It still seems weird to me, though.
We remember Jayananda Prabhu on the Vaishnava calendar. Perhaps days can be added to remember similar powerful contributors to the Sankirtan Movement as well who have now passed away. Although I personally am not inspired by TKG, having many painful and unpleasant experiences in relationship to him, I can at the same time understand that others might feel inspired by him and his service, and wish to remember him.
Was this article written by ITV Nrsimhananda das, ACBSP, or some other Nrsimhananda das? Thank you.
Your humble servant
Dhira Nitai das
The crux of the issue is that Bhakti Caru Maharaja refers to Tamal Krsna Maharaja and Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja as eternal associates of Srila Prabhupada saying “Just as he came from the spiritual sky these devotees also came from the spiritual sky.”
In effect Bhakti Caru Maharaja is stating here that Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja and Tamal Krsna Maharaja, like Srila Prabhupada, are nitya siddha associates of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Quite a bold proclamation!
Srila Prabhupada did say that in the ultimate issue there is no difference between nitya siddha and sadhana siddha, as liberated is liberated. However, even if one believes that Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja and Tamal Krsna Maharaja were truly perfected souls it remains imperative to maintain the distinction between such devotees and great saints and acharyas in our line like Jagganatha dasa babaji and Rasikananda.
Indeed the theology of Gaudiya Vaisnavism is dependent on maintaining a distinction between accomplished devotees like TKG and BTS and the parishads or direct associates of Mahaprabhu such as Svarupa Damodhar and the Goswamis.
In other words, the literature of the parsadas of Mahaprabhu is the foundation of Gaudiya Vaisnavism; while the dissertation of Tamal Krsna Maharaj, and the Spiritual Warrior series of Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja, though they may be insightful, are not exactly scripture.
Respectfully, Brahma Das (ACBSP)
Our hope is that our practice of Krishna consciousness devotional service will please Krishna and attract His merciful attention. Behind much of the discussion, when one takes a step back to analyze, there is too much concern for the position attained by the bhakta. I will be bold in criticizing much of this as too much concern for pratishtha or position. Our self-worth is established only in as much as we are connected with Sri Krishna’s devotional service. We have see many guru-cults come and go both within and outside of the world of Krishna consciousness. It is vital, I would suggest, that we place these concerns far in the background. I know that our feeling is that we are not worthy to offer anything to Krishna, and so we offer all through the Guru Parampara, so that our offering will ultimately be placed at the Lotus Feet of the Lord. And, the bhakta to whom we offer such service ideally will be a “transparent” medium to Krishna, and not an opaque or translucent obstacle to such passage of divine service.
So, I hope that my comments are taken in the right way. These things merit thinking deeply about, but only in as much as they lead to the diminution of pratishtha or standing. Krishna consciousness is just that, awareness, remembrance, glorification, loving service to Sri Krishna. We offer this through our Acharyas with the hope that they will indeed reach Krishna, and not be deviated by the cult of pratishtha-centric obstacles to bhakti. Trinadapi sunicena…..
From my own side, we know that Srila Prabhupad loved His many disciples, and we are grateful to see the wonderful service that many have done in both preserving his legacy and expanding the Sankirtan Movement. It is good to glorify such devotees always, but it is not necessary to consider what their position was. Our hope is always that Krishna will be merciful upon us. Hare Krishna.
Pusta Krishna das
“Indeed the theology of Gaudiya Vaisnavism is dependent on maintaining a distinction between accomplished devotees like TKG and BTS and the parishads or direct associates of Mahaprabhu such as Svarupa Damodhar and the Goswamis.
“In other words, the literature of the parsadas of Mahaprabhu is the foundation of Gaudiya Vaisnavism; while the dissertation of Tamal Krsna Maharaj, and the Spiritual Warrior series of Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja, though they may be insightful, are not exactly scripture.”
Thanks for this, Brahma.
I know very little about this subject of parishads or parsadas of Mahaprabhua (or of Lord Krishna for that matter). I am eager to hear more about it.
I do remember reading in Nectar of Devotion that we should not aspire to become Nanda Maharaja, because that position is “already assigned”, but we may aspire to follow his mood (actually I am forget the exact quote). Later I read a discussion in one of Sivarama Swami’s books (Krishna Sangati) about this subject of parsadas.
Aside from that subject, there is the question of how Gaudiya Vaisnavas come to recognize who is nitya siddha, who is sadhana siddha, and who is, well… not quite siddha.
And there is the subsidiary question raised by Narasimhananda regarding how (or whether?) ISKCON should officially recognize such status.
It seems obvious that wherever Srila Prabhupada recognized a particular devotee (Nanda Maharaja, Arjuna, Swarupa Damodar Goswami) as an eternal associate of that sort, ISKCON must recognize the same. I guess that is a “no brainer.”
Similarly obvious (I think) is that where an authority accepted by Srila Prabhupada (e.g., Kavi Karnapura, Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur) has recognized an eternal associate, ISKCON also must do so. (Right?)
For example, authoritative Bhagavatam commentaries discuss different groups of gopis as nitya siddha, sadhana siddha, Vedas personified, former rsis etc. Of course we follow those commentaries.
It gets murkier when claims are being made about our contemporary devotees. Srila Prabhupada said Jayananda Prabhu went back to godhead. Did he say whether Jayananda was nitya siddha or sadhana siddha? Does it even matter?
Suppose a majority or two-thirds or all GBC members accept Jayananda as nitya siddha. Is it conclusive? Is it even the GBC’s role to decide such things?
I suppose no one but the GBC can make such decision “for ISKCON”. But that begs the question whether ISKCON should make such decisions.
Thoughts?
There is one thing that all bhaktas need to be cognizant of. Just as we recognize that Krishna is the Infinite Supreme Person, and we are so many infinitesimal persons, so too we can remember that not all people share the same destiny or destination. In the material realm of samsara, some souls are transmigrating upward and some downward. Similarly, the spiritual mood, and the unique relationship that each and every jiva soul has with Krishna, places them in different spiritual realms. In the spiritual sky, there are the countless Vaikuntha planets where Lord Vishnu is worshiped and served with awe and reverance. In Goloka, the pure sweetness of Krishna rasa and love supreme are expressed in exchange of loving service unique to that realm, as we all know. And, at any time, even here in the world of sadhana-bhakti, we must appreciate that different individual souls are receiving realization or revelation in different qualitative and quantitative ways.
We may not like to hear that one is more advanced than”I” or that someone with only a short exposure to Krishna consciousness could surpass me in spiritual purity or reciprocation by Krishna Himself. Nonetheless, these are the facts. While we may have a tendency toward enviousness, we should suppress that mentality of the mind and heart in favor of praise for others.
However, what Nrsimhananda Prabhu has done here is become the “messenger” of a tendency to upgrade the “status” of certain individuals based on their position in this world, based on their apparent heroic activities, etc. We may miss the fact that there could be a very humble person living inside or even outside of a temple with tremendous favor of Sri Krishna. Point is this: It is better to avoid developing a cult of each and every leader in ISKCON, upgrading each to a position that may or may not be real. It is better, in the grand scheme of things, in my useless opinion really, to simply appreciate the wonderful service the individuals had performed. Krishna we know will recognize them and save them, one and all, because He is the Friend of the devotees and the protector of the devotees. That is our conviction.
Who will become a denizen of Vaikuntha, who will become a player in Goloka, that will be determined by Krishna, as we want only to please Him, in the realm of divine spiritual love and ecstasy. Krishna knows where we will be placed to best please Him accordingly, forever. Pusta Krishna das
Bhaktivinoda Thakura taught that the svarupa is inherent within the jiva and in this sense is predetermined. Caitanya-caritamrta describes this as follows: krsna prema nitya siddha sadhya kabhu nay sravanadi suddha cite karaye udaya “Krsna prema is eternally existing. It is not something that is attained as a result of spiritual practice. Through the spiritual practices of hearing, chanting, remembering, and so on, one’s heart is cleansed and prema awakens therein.”
The Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya is a lineage that facilitates the development of love for Krsna in Vrndavana. Thus souls destined for this kind of love of God are attracted to the Gaudiya lineage. In its wide-scale propaganda Mahaprabhu’s movement may touch all kinds of jiva souls, including those destined for devotion in awe and reverence in Vaikuntha.
However, Srila Prabhupada gave his disciples the Gaura mantra and Krsna mantra at the time of initiation. (One’s ista devata is the Deity propitiated in one’s diksa mantras–as addressed in Hari-bhakti-vilasa) Thus, the istadeva for the vast majority of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, grandisciples, and so on is Krsna, who has appeared in this age as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. While there will always be exceptions—it’s safe to say that the vast majority of initiated devotees in the Krsna consciousness movement are destined to someday enter Krsna lila in Vrndavana.
Brahma
I am very happy that Brahma das Prabhu has brought up the issue of ‘final destination’. Naturally, that is not ultimately in our hands, but rather Krishna’s divine Will. Since you have brought up the divine personality of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, then we can review his direction given to up in his writings like Prema Pradipa and Jaiva Dharma. I will not go into details in writing on Dandavats.com about the spiritual mood that attracts Krishna to permit entry into his intimate entourage in Goloka Vrindaban. And, it may take any of us many lifetimes to become sufficiently recognized by Krishna for Him to give us entry. We are on a path that may take many lifetimes (bahunam janmanam ante).
The point I wanted to make, however, is that we can recognize that although all jiva souls are equal (existentially, 1/10,000 the tip of a hair, part and parcel of Krishna), their devotional characters will differ. I wanted, therefore, to caution individuals not to because angry or envious if someone might be favored in one way versus another. Otherwise, all might be envious of the “master”, since an envious mentality might consider that ‘I want to become master too…I am as good as any other.’
I hope that we can follow the simple directive of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu…trinadapi sunicena….Humility, tolerance, giving honor to others…this is the way to the Heart of the Holy Names.
These are all really deep concepts that we are skimming the surface on. We all need to continue cultivation of the bhakti that Srila Prabhupad offered us entry into.
Offered affectionately,
Pusta Krishna das
Hare Krishna! Interesting and important discussion. I would just like to add that HH Bhakti-tirtha Swami wrote also many devotional books, not only Spiritual Warriors series following the commentaries of our great acaryas. We will serve these great souls in the best way by keeping their spirit alive amongst us, not by contradictory proclamations.
Thank you
Your humble servant
Dhira Nitai das