VNN Editorial - Colorful History Of Tamal Krishna Goswami

EDITORIAL

January 7, 1999 VNN2803 See Related VNN Stories

Colorful History Of Tamal Krishna Goswami

BY 'A GROUP OF SAD WITNESSES'

EDITORIAL, Jan 7 (VNN) — The following is a explanation of the different colorful and contradictory versions of Tamal krishna Goswami on the instructions of Srila Prabhupada for Initiation system in ISKCON: The contents of this article are from Krishna Kant Prabhu's reply to Drutakrama Das called "Drutakrama fights Phantoms, and also from the reply to GBC "Prabhupada's Order" called "GBC fails to Answer the Final Order". Some minor comments have been added.

Since the GBC are using the contents of Tamal Krishna Goswami Maharaja's mind as prime evidence to support their present Guru system in ISKCON it is pertinent for us to carefully examine whether his record on this issue is solid and reliable. Below the reader will see for themselves how Tamal Krishna Maharaja has offered nothing but a mass of confusing and contradictory positions on what should have happened after Srila Prabhupada's departure:

1) 1978: Tamal Krishna Maharaja agrees with the rest of the '11' that the 11 mentioned in the July 9 letter had been exclusively chosen as the 'material and spiritual successors' to Srila Prabhupada. He enthusiastically participated and supported this system, with the big vyasasanas etc. We can see that at the time Maharaja did not display any outward signs that he had any idea what the 'real' meaning or context of the July 9 letter was. In a document he was party to issued at this time, it states:

"The GBC members met together in Vrndavana and prepared a few last questions to put before Srila Prabhupada. [...] Then he said that he would name the initiating gurus later. [...] Then one day in June he gave his secretary the names of eleven disciples who would be initiating the disciples. [...] A delicate situation may arise when in one ISKCON temple there are disciples of different gurus. The natural way to avoid this is for a guru to perform diksa in his own zone. Srila Prabhupada deliberately chose gurus in different parts of the world to arrange for this. [...] A second seat, however a little below Srila Prabhupad's vyasasana, should be given to the initiating guru. [...] Those who are already empowered to initiate will extend the number by their consideration. In this way it will have spiritual characteristics. The eleven picked by His Divine Grace will extend themselves. [...] Now these godbrother's are worshipped by their disciples as genuine spiritual masters. This means for example, that they are to be considered, as stated in the Guruvastakam, as nikunjo-yuno rati keli siddhyai - intimate assistants in the pastimes of Krsna."

(The Process For Carrying Out Srila Prabhupada's Desires For Future Initiations; A paper prepared by the GBC in consultation with higher authorities, Mayapur,

The Reader should CAREFULLY NOTE HISTORY HAS SHOWN US that out of the ELEVEN "NIKUNJO RATI KELI SIDDHYAI OR INTIMATE ASSOCIATES OF THE GOPIS, AS ALLEGED BY TAMAL KRISHNA GOSWAMI, AND OTHERS SINCE 1978, SEVEN OF THESE ELEVEN HAVE FALLEN DOWN INTO ILLICIT SEX WITH WOMEN MEN AND CHILDREN, the Rest having from the beginning supported these Seven and being part of the same group themselves are considered also fallen from a Philosophical view and Subtle behaviour .

TAMAL KRISHNA GOSWAMI Maharaja offered the following vivid understanding of what exactly he thinks happened at this time:

"The argument that after the departure of the spiritual master anyone of his disciples can give initiation, cannot be applied in the case of Srila Prabhupada who specifically named 11 persons only at first to fulfil this function. These 11 persons were named by Srila Prabhupada in the beginning of July, 1977, in Vrindavana in the back garden of his house. These names were dictated to me as I was serving as his secretary , and now he had me write a letter to all the GBC's and Temple Presidents which he also signed as approved on the 9th of July listing their names and defining their function. [...] Thus, we can understand, that in regard to the third definition of acarya, that Srila Prabhupada clearly appointed 11 successors for initiation. Whatever process may have been followed by past acaryas, Prabhupada chose to appoint. [...] Even after having these facts clearly explained, if some one continues to blaspheme the 11 gurus, their legitimacy, blasphemes ISKCON, the spiritual vehicle created by Prabhupada to fulfill his will, blasphemes the GBC - the approved driver of the vehicle - [...] he is not a disciple at all. Rather he is the killer of gurudev and his spiritual whereabouts is unknown.

(Letter to Upananda Das, 13/12/78)

As is accepted by everyone now including the GBC, Maharaja's understanding of what the letter meant, and the events that transpired after 1978 based on this understanding of the letter by Maharaja, was an understanding that was absolutely FALSE. Thus from the very beginning Tamal Krishna Maharaja had misunderstood the meaning and context of the letter by his own later admission.

Another interesting point to note is that today (1998) Tamal Krishna Maharaj claims (in a lecture given in Hongkong and other parts of the Far East that since the rtviks are using the July 9th letter as their evidence as an instruction by Srila Prabhupada, the July 9th letter was actually never authored or written by Srila Prabhupada, but was written by him, and the contents of the letter were his creation, YET in the above mentioned letter to Upananda Das in 1978, he clearly mentions that it "was dictated to him by Srila Prabhupada, as he was serving him as his SECRETARY, and now he (Srila Prabhupada) had Tamal Krishna write a letter to all the GBCS"------------- "Srila Prabhupada also signed as approved on the July 9th letter". Thus according to the convenience of the situation and the particular climate of ISKCON, Tamal Krishna goswami constantly changes his version of who the July 9th letter was written by. TO BE AN UTTAMA ADIKARI GURU in 1978, he says that the JULY 9th letter was written by Srila Prabhupada, and fully authorised, but to be serving as a rtvik, it was not Srila Prabhupad's idea or letter, but it was Tamal krishna's letter. Very convenient to suit oneself, but extremely painful and inconvenient for all the innocent members of ISKCON.

2) 1980: By this time Maharaja's understanding of what Srila Prabhupada's desires for guru-succession were had become so deviant that even the GBC, who at that time were themselves following a deviated path, suspended him as GBC and guru. At the time Maharaja had become convinced, amongst other things, that (what to speak of his own disciples) even his godbrothers and godsisters could only reach Srila Prabhupada through him!

"Tamala Krishna Goswami, the leader of a large number of sannyasa and brahmacari preachers, insisted that he was now their via media in relating to Prabhupada and expected that his godbrothers follow HIM ABSOLUTELY." ('The Perils of Succession', 1996, A BOOK WRITTEN BY H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja)

3) 3/12/80: Having been suspended Maharaja now gave a new version of events at Topanga Canyon, California. He admits there that:

'Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus. What actually happened I'll explain. I explained it but the interpretation is wrong'. (Topanga Canyon Confessions, 3/12/80)

Here Maharaja is not only confirming that his understanding of the letter in 1978 was totally wrong, but also that now he has finally properly understood what Srila Prabhupada really wanted.

4) 1982: TAMAL KRISHNA Maharaja now changes his mind again and goes back to the version of events that he had supported in 1978 and rejected in 1980:

"I do not think that there is any problem in accepting the spiritual masters who Srila Prabhupada appointed. The first qualification which you should have before you decide on this issue is to chant sixteen rounds and follow strictly Prabhupada's orders. So far as I seen anyone who is doing this is accepting these acaryas, except in a very few instances. The real proof however is to see that they are acarya, not simply by appointment, but by actions. Our movement is progressing and growing more and more, at least as much as it was during Srila Prabhupada's time. [...] You have enclosed a clipping from Back To Godhead in which Srila Bhaktipada is advertised as 'Bona fide Spiritual Master'. You say 'this is something that seems a little strange to me'. Would you please explain to me what seems strange?

(Letter to Gadai Prabhu, 14/6/82) PLEASE NOTE THAT "SRILA BHAKTIPADA" (KIRTANANDA SWAMI) WHOM GADAI PRABHU IS EXPRESSING HIS DOUBT TO TAMAL KRISHNA GOSWAMI AND FOR WHICH HE IS BEING CHASTISED BY TAMAL KRISHNA MAHARAJ FOR DOING SO IS NOW PRESENTLY SERVING A 20 YEAR PRISON TERM FOR ILLICIT ACTIVITIES, YET TAMAL KRISHNA MAHARAJ BECOMES UPSET AT GADAI PRABHU FOR EXPRESSING HIS DOUBT AT THAT TIME WHEN IT WAS CLEAR TO THOSE MEMBERS OF ISKCON WHO KNEW KIRTANANDA SWAMI 'S POSITION FROM THOSE WHO WERE WITH HIM IN NEW VRNDAVAN.

5) 1984: This metamorphosis of Maharaja's version of what happened in 1977 is completed by the publication of his book 'servant of the servant' he in which he states categorically:

Since the disappearance of our beloved spiritual master, we have seen such disenchanted persons come forward trying to cast doubt on the legacy left by Srila Prabhupada. When SP appointed from among his senior disciples eleven persons to continue the process of initiation, and when after their spiritual master's departure those whom he selected assumed their duties by his command, the critics began to bark their discontent. [...] The critics may argue that appointment alone is not a guarantee that one has actually achieved this perfectional stage of life; Prabhupada might have appointed disciples for lack of anyone better, or hoping that they might one day achieve the desired realization. To such irresponsible criticism we answer a decisive "No!" SP chose them because they merited his confidence. [...] SP conferred his blessings upon these disciples, seeing that they had dedicated themselves heart and soul to assisting him in the preaching mission of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Thus he considered them to be uttama-adhikari, all highly advanced devotees worthy to be accepted as spiritual masters. [...] Critics may doubt whether our ISKCON acaryas are actually liberated. Do they know their rasa (liberated relationship) with Krsna, and will they be able to instruct their disciples similarly? But such questions bring one dangerously near the precipice of spiritual calamity.

("Servant of the Servant", Tamal Krishna Goswami, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1984, Pages 361-365)

THE READER MUST PLEASE NOTE HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT 7 out of the ELEVEN "UTTAMA ADIKARIS" WHOM TAMAL KRISHNA MAHARAJ HAD ADRESSED AS, HAVE FALLEN DOWN INTO ILLICIT SEX WITH MEN CHILDREN AND WOMEN

6) Post 1987: TAMAL KRISHNA Maharaja again changes his mind and whole-heartedly endorses the new reforms and agrees that what he and the other 11 had been doing and teaching for the last 10 years was wrong. To support this new understanding he agrees that in new versions of his book 'Servant of the Servant' the above quoted passage should be edited out.

7) 1992-95: TAMAL KRISHNA Maharaja's understanding of guru-tattva takes a further twist. He now leads the formation of the 'gopi bhava' club, preaching that Srila Prabhupada had not given us the 'highest understanding' but rather that he wanted us to consult with a 'rasika guru', who the chairman of the ministry that has sponsored the article "Prabhupada's Order" considers:

'...a 'crooked' and 'talented pretender or imposter, who has seduced, beguiled and misled many people.' (His Grace Ravindra Svarupa prabhu, 'Taking Srila Prabhupada Straight', 1998)

8) 1995: Maharaja now realises that he was wrong in thinking that Srila Prabhupada had not given us everything and that he had wanted us to consult with the 'rasika guru', as he had himself done and also persuaded many others to do so, for the previous 4 years.

9) 1996: TAMAL KRISHNA Maharaja again accepts the 'appointment' theory that he had REJECTED in the post 1987 reforms:

"6 months before his own demise, Prabhupada had announced that he would APPOINT some of his disciples to perform all of the functions of initiating new disciples as he had become too ill to do so. Those so initiated would still be Prabhupada's disciple while those who would be initiated after his demise would become his grand-disciples. Shortly thereafter, Prabhupada selected eleven disciples to begin assisting him, and asked his secretary to communicate their names to the rest of ISKCON. Following Srila Prabhupada's death and the fateful meeting with Prabhupada's godbrother Sridhara Maharaja, the eleven gurus NAMED by Prabhupada assumed the extra-ordinary position above all others." ('The Perils of Succession', 1996, H.H. Tamala Krishna Maharaja)

Further it will noted in the above that maharaja states that Srila Prabhupada's intention to appoint disciples to assist with initiation, as recorded in the May 28th conversation, (6 Months before his own demise), was motivated by illness EVEN THEN, and that the 'naming of the gurus' done in the July 9th letter flowed directly from the May 28th conversation.

10) 1998: Maharaja now tells us that the issue of appointing the '11' as had occurred via the July 7th garden conversation and the July 9th letter was done independently of the May 28th conversation, though above he has just told us the opposite:

In writing this letter, it was an organisational letter to explain the practical matter of how things would be dealt with because nothing was really changing. Prabhupada was still their guru but at least the actual operational method of how Prabhupada would deal with new candidates was changed. It was very clear in my mind at that time that what we were discussing was the process of initiation in Prabhupada's presence, how things would go on after his presence, he had already instructed us when the 5 or 6 of us had met him on May 28th, one had nothing to do with the other. (Class given by H.H. Tamal Krishna Goswami Maharaja on 6 August 1998, in Hong Kong)

Now we are told, that 21 years later, the best way to understand the July 9 letter and how it arose is to understand it from Maharaja, even though it is accepted that he did not understand it at the time, and that he has been greatly confused on this issue over the last 21 years.

Surely most normal, sane people would not consider the Maharaja a very reliable witness on this issue, with all due respect. The fact that the GBC have placed such store in his testimony in their article Prabhupad Order proves that they are utterly desperate. Possessing not one scrap of hard evidence, nor even a single sound argument, they are now pinning everything on the testimony of Maharaja. Instead of just reading the letter ourselves, we must for some bizarre reason accept the indirect interpretation of a witness who has merrily bounced from one deviant and contradictory position to another over the last 21 years. So instead of any factual EVIDENCE, Maharaja's mental projections must now become the basis on which to justify 'modifications a & b' to the July 9th letter - the modifications that led to the abandonment of the ritvik system and the imposition of the previous, current and possibly a future ISKCON guru system.

We do hope Drutrakrama das will think twice next time before bringing Tamal Krishna Maharaja into this issue.

See Related VNN Stories | Comment on this Story

This story URL: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9901/ET07-2803.html

NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP

Surf the Web on