|
oldchakra.com HOME |
|
Srila
Prabhupada Prabhupada Page About Prabhupada Disciple Database |
|
Features Advertisements Appreciations Calendar Debates Downloads Earlier Topics Gopal Jiu In Memoriam Jokes Letters Other News Personals Philosophy Resources |
|
Lifestyle Cow Protection Education Matchmaker Recipes Vegetarianism |
|
Books BBT Book Distribution Book Changes |
|
Websites CHAKRA Links |
|
Social Issues Child Abuse Women Youth Charity |
|
Opinion Editorials Narayan Mhrj Poison Issue Ritvik VNN |
|
ISKCON ISKCON Page ISKCON Reform GBC Temples |
|
Contributors Danavir dasa Gosw Indradyumna Sw Kavicandra Sw |
By Vrindavan Das Thakur das
|
Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Well we all know the Deity is not stone though it is made out of stone, or is not metal though it is made out of it, etc. We all know Tulsi is not just a plant, and we all know the Sila is not just a fossil.
Tulsi, though a great devotee of Vishnu and more then a plant, is still a plant. Furthermore, if you do studies about her or read books about her, you will see she goes under the category of creeper. But of course, everyone with sufficient intellect will regard her as much more then just a creeper plant.
Prabhupada was much more than a mere human but was human, in an Indian body as well and Bengali as well and male as well.
Sila is more than a stone. We all know that, and if it is true, I can accept it as being a fossil as well (if such research is made and it is confirmed it is), but at the same time, as in the case of Tulsi, I will know of its greatness, or in the case of Prabhupada, though he was human, I will know who he really is.
Now we can all go back and question Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. Why did he accept cars, kurtas, wristwatches? That was not bonafide. Why did he put presses in the temple— such an offense— just next to the Deity? Why? Is that bonafide? Then furthermore, how many controversial things did Prabhupada himself do to preach? How about women getting brahman initiation? Is that bonafide? Why not go all the way and question them?
All I can see is that His Holiness was preaching, and in order to preach, he said what he said so his preaching could go smoother. I can tell you frankly, if I was stopped at an airport by barking dogs (you know which barking dogs I'm talking about) and I was carrying Tulsi, I would easily say it is a plant so I can pass into the country and continue my worship of the Tulsi plant on that soil and preach from the benefit of it.
As well, if Prabhupada was with me, I would easily say he is Indian and wants to come in just so he can go into the country and preach there. I probably would not bother explaining how exalted Prabhupada is and even though he is human he is an avatar as well...
All I have to say is I'm glad that ISKCON has people like His Holiness, who are 24 hours in preaching and doing their best to preach and satisfy Prabhupada. They are my inspiration, and they have my admiration (especially because I myself am not able to do it). But I guess it is just the fashion nowadays in Vaishnava society to criticize. So far, in ISKCON I have only seen two extremes. One is guru-blind and one is guru-criticizing. There is no middle stream.
All I can say is that devotees adopt the ways of preaching according to time and circumstances, as Srila Prabhupada did, as Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati did. That’s why, for example, today woman can receive brahman initiation. We should understand Srila Prabhupada’s mood and desire, and judge if someone did deviate, from a far better understanding than a superficial way of looking at things. I don’t think that action of His Holiness was a deviation. I think he was on a preaching mission and he was satisfying Prabhupada.
Your servant,
Vrindavan Das Thakur das
© CHAKRA 6 May 2002
