Management Vs. The Ācārya

In this article ‘Management Vs. The Ācārya’ (originally named ‘Praśnottara Stambha’ or ‘Q&A Column’), first published in The Gauḍīya (Vol.16, Issue 11) in 1937, Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja addresses a question concerning a particular problem in the Gauḍīya Maṭha after the disappearance of Śrīla Prabhupāda Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. What to do when a prominent manager who was established and praised by the guru, later becomes inimical to the successor ācārya?

The revered Śrīyukta Lālā Madana-mohana Rāya Mahodaya has requested us to provide appropriate answers, based on śāstra and the consensus of the mahājanas, to a certain question that has arisen in the community. All these questions and their answers have been discussed in various ways in The Gauḍīya over the past few months and even earlier, especially during Śrīla Prabhupāda’s manifest presence. However, speaking in the language of Śrīla Prabhupāda, it can be said that the state of being averse to Bhagavān or the nature of lording over others is akin to the logic of a dog’s tail.*(1) Below, we provide brief answers to those questions once again for clarity and reference.

**QUESTION: **If a person, who was previously respected spiritually, becomes a hypocritical non-Vaiṣṇava, or an atheist, then is there any proof and reason that someone who is being called the best of Vaiṣṇavas or who is a guru today, will not become the same? What leads to fall-down in the realm of bhakti? Is the directive to give lifelong respect to a particular individual and to appoint them as secretary or chairman beneficial or detrimental? Why do we hear of instructions to make such a person into a manager?

**ANSWER: **If such a consideration originates from empirical thought and logical reasoning, then it ultimately results in atheism or attachment to mundane things. Śrīla Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda has written:

During the time of accepting a guru, one must examine whether the guru is proficient in the tattva which is delineated in the Vedas and para-tattva (the supreme truth). Such a guru must certainly be capable of imparting all kinds of philosophical teachings. The dīkṣā-guru is not to be rejected, however, there are two reasons he may be given up – when a disciple, at the time of accepting the guru, did not examine that he was expert in philosophy and a Vaiṣṇava guru, then if during the process, that guru does not perform any function, then he should be rejected. There is plenty of evidence from śāstra for this. The second reason is this – at the time of accepting a guru, one’s Gurudeva may have been a Vaiṣṇava and an expert in tattva, but later, due to defective association, he became a māyāvādī or envious of Vaiṣṇavas. Then it is one’s duty to abandon such a guru. (Jaiva Dharma, Chapter 20)

Following the reasoning of Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda, the empiricists will say, “Then it is only safe if we don’t make any gurus, or another precaution is to refer to an asad-guru’ (bogus guru) as a sad-guru (genuine guru). How can we say that the person that Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura publicly gave respect to as his guru throughout his life fell down? When Vaiṣṇava Sārvabhauma Śrīla Jagannātha Dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja appeared, then at that time, Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda demonstrated the ideal of internally rejecting his guru and embraced him (Jagannātha Dāsa) as his worshipable deity. Someone at that time may present the argument, ‘Is there any proof that Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda will not abandon his worshipful deity again?’”

In our previous āśrama, following worldly tradition, I accepted a kula-guru (family guru), but then, after abandoning that kula-guru, I accepted a dedicated māyāvādī-smārta guru. But after hearing the message of Śrīla Prabhupāda, I was attracted and surrendered at his lotus feet. Still, we heard the arguments of the empiricists, namely, “You rejected your kula–guru, whom you referred to as sad-guru, then he who was sat became asat after a couple of days! So where is the proof that after a few days, your present ‘sad-guru’ won’t become asat?”

Actually, ignorance of Vaiṣṇava siddhānta is the reason for such arguments.

*jīvan-muktā api punar bandhanaṁ yānti karmabhiḥ

yady acintya-mahā-śaktau bhagavaty aparādhinaḥ*

(From the Vāsanā-bhāṣyodhṛta Śrī Bhagavata-pariśiṣṭa-vacana)

In other words, if they commit an offence against the inconceivably powerful Bhagavān, even liberated souls may again attain a state of subjugation through their actions.

jīvan-muktā api punar yānti saṁsāra-vāsanām

This means that jīvan-muktas (jīvas who have attained liberation in this lifetime) sometimes acquire worldly desires. Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī Prabhu and other prominent ācāryas have cited this śāstrika śloka in their commentaries in texts such as Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta. If someone reads these śāstrika statements, they may say, “Today, someone whom we consider to be a jīvan-mukta, is served by us and we feel that we have attained true knowledge from them – but in the future, if they become an offender at the feet of Bhagavān and fall down, then we will not trust any jīvan-mukta mahā-puruṣa. Thus, atheism should be adopted, otherwise a person who is a fallen offender will be accepted based upon their previous certification.” Both of these arguments are misleading and detrimental to one’s own welfare. We also see this in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s letters:

Ṭhākura Mahāśaya has said:

*daiva-māyā balāt kāre khasāiya sei ḍore

bhava kūpe dileka ḍariya*

Your māyā potency forcibly untied the rope of Your mercy, and cast me into the well of material existence.

The meaning of this sentence can be understood by all of us. We all have the capability to fall down.

(Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Letters, Vol. 3, pages 23-24)

When a certain person who was given abundant blessings by Śrīla Prabhupāda, or was given certification, again performed a śrāddha according to smārta regulations and mingled with undesirable association, then at that time, Śrīla Prabhupāda said, in his numerous letters and words, that he had fallen from the spiritual path. Even after that, he still encouraged others to offer him respect, and he even personally tried to confer worldly governmental titles upon him. Some people give the argument that, in a lecture sent from Madras, that person was highly praised. Yet in spite of that, fearing his future fall down, Śrīla Prabhupāda himself wrote in that address:

Having fallen away from the shelter of Gurudeva, who is the embodiment of the philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda, I hope that in future he does not abandon the service of the infallible devotees. These are my ravings! (The Gauḍīya, Vol.10, Issue 31, Page 490, Column 2, Lines 24-27)

If the praises of Śrīla Prabhupāda are accepted, why should these words be rejected?

Later, if somebody follows the non-devotional smārta rituals and performs a śrāddha ceremony and in this way performs activities averse to bhakti, repeatedly says that the guru, param-guru and parat-para guru are śūdras, has the bad association of illicit womanisers and materialists and is driven by such people at every step to go completely against the conclusions of bhakti, imaginatively criticises those Vaiṣṇavas whose devotional qualities Śrīla Prabhupāda discussed before his disappearance pastimes in his lecture published in the 10th year of *The Gauḍīya, *and again refers to persons that Prabhupāda rejected as Vaiṣṇavas – then how can that person alone be considered a Vaiṣṇava and Prabhupāda’s certification is only applicable to him, while all other Vaiṣṇavas during that time are considered worthless? Is there any logic or evidence for this?

Śrīla Prabhupāda told Śrīmat Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda Prabhu to write the Manjuṣā.(2) Till the time of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disappearance, Sundarānanda Prabhu used to edit The Gauḍīya. Śrīla Prabhupāda was always very ecstatic and blissful when reading the siddhānta found in The Gauḍīya, and used to write and tell everyone in his letters that they should read it. Even before his disappearance pastimes, he gave the responsibility to write about the sampradāya to Śrīpāda Sundarānanda and Śrīpāda Bhakti Sudhākara Prabhu under the guidance of Śrīla Vāsudeva Prabhu. To Śrīla Vāsudeva Prabhu, he has given the responsibility to preach about the message of Śrī Rūpa-Raghunātha, to engage in hari-kathā kirtana and to write on the conclusions of bhakti. He made the statement, “By his ideal example of surrender, I am eternally indebted to Bhakti Sudhākara Prabhu. Please take care of him.” Even Śrīla Prabhupāda said about Śrīpāda Narahari Sevā-vigraha Prabhu who was serving in the mūla-maṭha, Śrī Caitanya Maṭha, “Śrīpāda Narahari Sevā-vigraha Prabhu is serving without any deceit and with full dedication. He was born without any enemy. All of you please follow his example.” Śrīla Prabhupāda spoke about Bhakti-vijaya Prabhu’s dhāma-sevā and Śrīpāda Vrajeśvarī Prabhu’s genuine feelings of dedication towards truth – but all of them became guru-drohīs(3) and only one person remained good? Can such a sentiment be reconciled with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s final words? Rather, we should accept every statement of Śrīla Prabhupāda as infallible truth and they should be accepted as completely logical. Whether this person has established himself by rejecting those who have been praised and received the blessings of Śrīla Prabhupāda, or he wishes to establish only one person or many – whatever the case, he does not possess proper spiritual behaviour. He or his party have deviated from the actual truth.

Despite Prabhupāda’s discourse in the 10th year of The Gauḍīya, or the twisted words immediately preceding his disappearance pastimes, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s concern regarding this person’s fall down is evident in his discourse. Due to the example of the repeated quote from the completely distorted last instructions of Prabhupāda to respect only one person, in one party, there is a fear of showing him disrespect – but is the respect to be shown spiritual, or is it the respect befitting an ordinary man? There is much scope for doubt concerning this.

Even the so-called guru of Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda, who had a casteist mentality towards Śrīla Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmī Prabhu, was given proper respect by Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda throughout his whole life, He was given titles, and at one time he was even given the management of the Caitanya Yantra. *(4)

By any consideration, be it from śāstra or from social concerns, the respect given to a manager and the spiritual ācārya, can never be equal. A few days before Śrīla Prabhupāda revealed his disappearance pastimes, in other words, the day when he came from Purī to Calcutta Gauḍīya Maṭha, he was sitting in the ground floor office in the morning when we came from Howrah Station and he spoke something from the life of Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda.

Despite the fact that there was an abundance of direct evidence of illegal behaviour and misappropriation of money by a manager of a well-known and large estate belonging to a zamindar (landlord) in Nadīyā District, why did the zamindar keep that person as a manager for so long, and even tell his sons that after his (the landlord’s) death, “as long as the aforementioned manager could hold a stick, the manager should continue to oversee the affairs of the estate” and be given sufficient respect? Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda posed this question to the said zamindar.

The landlord replied to Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s question as follows – “I know about everything you have mentioned concerning the illegal behaviour of my manger. In spite of knowing that, I cannot find such an competent person anywhere else at present, so I am compelled to keep him. Another principle reason to retain him is that although this person has taken plenty of money for himself, he still manages my estate in such a way that I personally do not suffer, meaning from the tenants. So whatever money he collects for himself is from the tenants only, and not from my personal property. This quality cannot be found in all managers, that is why I accept him wholeheartedly. I do not let him know that I am aware of all his hidden matters. However, the general tenants and other people are not satisfied with him. I do not expect a qualified person like you to take on such managerial work – this is because you will not want to become materially established like this. But if I did get you, then I am ready to tactfully give the present manager whatever he deserves and get rid of him. If not, then I don’t want to see the disarray of the estate during my lifetime, especially in my final days.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda mentioned this topic about Ṭhākura Bhaktivinoda and the landlord’s estate manager, and in this way he revealed his conclusion to some devotees in Calcutta Gauḍīya Maṭha. Someone’s illegal behaviour can never ruin Śrīla Prabhupāda’s personal bhajana. If an expert manager is kept at the forefront for the people as the external form of the mission (which Śrila Prabhupāda many times considered to be a ‘house of cards’) and, without causing harm to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s personal bhajana, he engages in many illegal activities, then till the time a better manager can be found, it is better to retain him as the manager. But if Śrila Prabhupāda, while revealing his disappearance pastimes in accordance with the will of Kṛṣṇa, expresses a different desire, and very tactfully reveals someone’s true nature, or sends him away honourably by rewarding him with appropriate money and titles – if that is Śrīla Prabhupāda’s genuine desire, do we have the power to obstruct it?

Śrīla Prabhupāda’s activities are not confined to management. Through his instructions on devotional conclusions, he has actually regulated management. However, management cannot regulate devotional conclusions. Like Śrīla Prabhupāda used to say, “Spirituality will regulate the society, society will not regulate spirituality.” In the same way, instructions on devotional conclusions, the ācārya’s instructions and the instructions from The Gauḍīya regulate the management of the mission. If the management tries to regulate devotional conclusions, then it becomes the path of appeasement (preyaḥ-panthā).

The secretary, chairman etc. of the mission are governed by the ācārya, or the spiritual head, or the head of the assembly (pātrarāja); this was the case during the manifest time of Śrīla Prabhupāda. However, if the secretary or chairman becomes hostile towards the spiritual head or ācārya, then how can he remain in that post? If the person holding the position of secretary or chairman, while professing complete loyalty to the ācārya in his own writings and speech, suddenly becomes biased and rebellious, revealing contradictory words and actions – that is to say, when there is no truth to their words, then where is the hope of any spirituality being present there?

A servant of the servant of the Vaiṣṇavas –

Tridaṇḍi-bhikṣu

Śrīdhara

NOTES:

*(1) The logic of a dog’s tail (śva-pucchaunnāmana-nyāya) denotes the inflexibility of someone’s nature, just as the tail of a dog, which is naturally crooked, can never be made straight.

***(2) **The Mañjuṣā refers to the Vaiṣṇava Mañjuṣā which was an encyclopaedia which Sarasvatī Ṭhākura was compiling. He began the compilation early on in 1920 and at one point wrote to the Mahārāja of Kasim Bazar (the sponsor of the Mañjuṣā), “If I fail to complete the Vaiṣṇava Mañjuṣā then for this alone I will return to the material world in order to complete it.” Four out of five volumes were completed, but unedited. In his last will, Sarasvatī Ṭhākura requested Sundarānanda Vidyāvinoda to edit the Mañjuṣā. Most of the content of the Mañjuṣā was later incorporated into the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna, published by Haridāsa Dāsa of Navadvīpa.

***(3) **A guru-drohī is one who betrays the guru by willingly rejecting his instructions, regarding himself as more intelligent.

*(4) The dīkṣā-guru of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was Śrī Vipina-vihāri Gosvāmī. The Caitanya Yantra was the printing works established by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura in 1885 which was situated at Bhakti Bhavan, the home of the Ṭhākura in Kolkata.

Translated into English by Swami B.V. Giri and Sanātana Dāsa