Social Development In The Hare Krishna Movement - Discussion

Any questions or comments about Finn Madsen's Social Development In The Hare Krishna Movement can be placed here.

It seems to me that Prabhupada realized pretty quickly that this idea was impossible. When I joined in 1970, men and women lived in close proximity in the temple. There were few if any sannyasis in the movement. It seemed more or less expected that devotees would marry and the temple atmosphere during congregational activities like arati was heavily charged sexually. Married couples lived together in the temple where space allowed.

I myself was married in 1971 with the full expectation of living together with my wife in the small Ottawa temple. However, when we moved to New York in 1972, a great change came over the movement when Bali Mardan (ironically) came back from India and insisted that married couples not live together in the temples. Anyone who was in the Brooklyn temple during that time will no doubt remember the rather comic situation of young married couples sneaking off together to find places to talk and snuggle--the cloak room, offices, hallways. It seemed you couldn't go anywhere without infringing on someone's "private space."

So, in my recollection, the drive to marriage was Prabhupada's first instinct, but this changed when many marriages began to fail (he overestimated Western boys and girls capacity to accept arranged marriages) and men who had been to India became ambitious for sannyasa and the authentic Indian experience.

I'll bet that Subal could shed much light on this.

I wonder whether ACBS was really planning to set up temples GM-style. After I came to Sri Sridhar Swami's CS Math in Nabadwip Dham, it appeared clear to me that the Iskcon-founder had no idea of a GM.

- The Maha-Mantra is sung in breaks, each line repeated
- The use of a harmonium is an absolute "no-no", "Sahajiyas use harmonium"
- Harinam not given with fire-ceremony
- chanting japa is a meditative practice, not so casual like in this loud run-around style
- brahmacharya with wearing saffron is an ashram that is only achieved with some maturity (beginning brahmacaris wear white)
- a lot of the teaching is off the GM-doctrine (fall of jiva, much too much guru-worship, guru-worship even at Mangal-aroti...etc)
- Gita and Bhagavatam not read in GM
- Also, ACBS did not live in a GM in Vrindavan.

I do not know whether all or most GM units keep these practices similarly. I have noticed that other GMs also have young saffron-clad brahmacharis. Whether that is a later development after the onset of Iskcon, I do not know.

A very strong evidence against (ACBS wanting to set up GMs) is his use of his own name. Why did he not accept his sannyas name? What was his sannyas name? Bhakti something Swami Swami? His sannyas name was Swami. (That is why in Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math he is referred to as Swami Maharaj, which would be his proper name in GM-style.)

The notion from the GM point of view was: if he was really surrendered to his guru (if he had a clear picture of the GM), he could not have taken on his name, Prabhupad. I don't think Iskconites realize how offensive that sounded in the ears of Prabhupad BS disciples. That is about as scandalous as if some Iskcon grihasta would take sannyas in his old age, and ask to be called Prabhupad by his disciples. If that person became well known and successful as such, and that with clear deviations from the teachings and practices of his own guru, every ACBS-P-disciple would feel offended. I think he took it as a generic title; I doubt he could have done that if he felt close to his Prabhupad. Who could do something like that to his own guru?

I do not think ACBS planned to set up a GM because he did not know the GM.

It seemed clear to me then that ACBS had not imbibed the GM-teaching. Which later turned out to be favorable, since Iskcon is a bit closer to the Gaudiya-tradition than GM.

Joy Nitai

His sannyas name is Bhaktivedanta Swami.

Then his sannyas-initiation name would have been Bhakti Vedanta Swami Swami... Following the GM-style he would have signed B.V. Swami Swami.

No, Bhaktivedanta was a title that he got outside of the sannyas-initiation, I guess later. That is not his sannyas name.

The full sannyasa title in GM is

1. Tridandi-swami
2. Bhakti * which is a title that is usually given prior to sannyas, as was the case with Bhaktivedanta Swami, but not always. On some occasions, a previous title may be changed at the time of sannyas. But all sannyasis have Bhakti-something as a part of their full name.
3. One of 108 prescribed titles found in Gaudiya Kanthahara, page 262 (15.40), purportedly taken from the Muktikopanishad and the Satvata Samhita). Swami and Goswami are both found in this list, as are Shankara's 10 names and the 12 names of Vishnu used for tilak, the months, etc. These 22 are prefered in the GM, along with a few others. Some seem totally neglected:
   • kSamattR,
   • nirviSayI
   • sthavira
   • svatantradhIH
   • bRhadvratI
   • kSapaNaka
   • aviSakta
   • UrdhvapuNDra
   • muNDI
   • yathAsva
   • UrdhvamanthI
   • tyaktagRha
   • yatoSThadRk
   • virakta
   • udAsIna
   • zikhI
   • klAnta
   • niragni
   • mahattara
   • cauDupaka
   • bhramI
   • maskarI
   • nagna
   Some of these are avoided for the dangerous possibilities of parody (virakta = "irritable"; udAsIna = "uninterested"; "bhramI" = erroneous; "nagna" = naked; "zikhI" = peacock.)
4. The minimum honorific is "Maharaj." Swami is not used except in the "Tridandi Swami" prefatory honorific.

Bhaktivedanta Swami used the title "Bhaktivedanta" which was given him by Sridhar Maharaj, I believe. There is a story that he wanted to call him Bhaktisiddhanta, but that sounds rather apocryphal. Kesava Maharaj gave him the title "Swami". So his full name would have been Tridandi Swami Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj. "Swami Maharaj" would have been the perfectly normal form of address or term of reference current in the GM.

However, I have never seen anyone in the GM continue to use their previous name ("Abhaya Charana/Charanaravinda") after sannyas.

Here is other points of difference from the Gaudiya Math: Prabhupada neither gave the "Bhakti-*" titles, which in the GM are a standard way of showing honor to longtime devotees, donors or disciples, nor did he use the list of sannyas names followed in the GM.

Actually, this is somewhat surprising, as this would have been a way of giving some honor to advanced and ambitious disciples without giving sannyasa, which had so many embarrassing consequences. Traditionally, these "Bhakti-*" titles would be given, usually at Gaura Purnima, with a certificate (AzIrvAda-patram) containing a testament in Sanskrit verse written by the Guru or current head (acharya) of the institution (matha), along with some praise for the disciple.

Here is an example from the 478 Gaurabda edition of the Chaitanya Vani:

zrIzrI-mAyApura-candro vijayatetamAm
zrI-caitanya-vANI-pracAriNyAH sabhAyAH
zrI-gaurAzIrvAda-patram

kaizorAd vayasaH kRSNa-kArSNa-pAdaika-sevine
snigdha-svabhAva-ramyAya vRndAvana-nivAsine
zrImate vIrabhadrAya bhadrAya brahmacAriNe
zrI-caitanya-kathA-stoma-pracAri-pariSat-sthitaiH
bhakti-kevala ity AkhyA sajjanair dIyate mudA
sarasvatI-tripathagA-saGgame sura-sevite
grahAbdhi-veda-gaurAbde guarAvirbhAva-vAsare
Signed by Sri Bhakti Dayita Madhava, President.

These are modelled on the certificate given by the Baghnapara Gosais to Kedarnath Datta "Bhaktivinoda" in 1886, which may be found HERE.

It is Bhaktivedanta Swami. He got the title earlier on, but B.P. Kesava also employed it for his sannyasa-name.

Why Bhaktivedanta Swami Swami? Swami is the name, and that's it. Just like you don't call Narayan Maharaja as Bhaktivedanta Narayana Swami. He's BV Narayana, and you add Maharaja in the end if you wish. I can't recall people in GM using Swami in the end of their name unless Swami is actually their given sannyasa-name. B.R. Sridhar Swami?

As for using his own name, the A.C. in the beginning, the initials of his householder name, was something his sannyasa-guru did not approve of. I recall hearing he thought it would look good in the name of an author in the West.

Well, it is a very generic title, albeit generally used for those representing a vamsa. Hence, his approach was closer to the tradition in this regard, too -- not thinking of the title as something reserved for a certain individual alone.

Yes, they were all Swami. Nowadays in ISKCON they have adopted this Bhaktisomething-tradition, though awkwardly they still add Swami in the end; as in Bhakti-vaidhurya Madhava Swami Maharaja (not around any longer, as far as I know).

Bon Maharaja, the other harmonium-walla and a controversial figure as well, also strayed from the Bhaktisomething-tradition, and gave the same sannyasa-name for everyone. His followers are all Vana (Bon), such as Gopananda Bon, Rasananda Bon etc.

I wonder if Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur actually intended each of his sannyasis to start a dasnami type tradition, giving all their own disciples their own "family" name. Perhaps Bon Maharaj gave this idea to Swami Maharaj. Bon Maharaj did not use the "Bhakti" titles, either. That would be an interesting line of influence, considering how much Swami Maharaj detested Bon Maharaj.

ACBSP also called some of his disciples "Goswami", however, which is also on the list of 108 names. Kesava Maharaj also did something like this by giving everyone in his "family" the "Bhaktivedanta" title.

Yes, both the certificates at Gaura-purnima and giving of titles were mentioned by ACBS. The attainment of titles was based upon passing exams--Bhakti-sastri, Bhakti-vaibhava, etc. Upon attaining Bhakti-vedanta, a person could initiate. From memory, the certificates were not directly related to the titles, but would be given for notable service. I don't seem to have Folio around anymore, but that's what I recall from my days working on the Bhakti-sastri curriculum. This year at Gaura-purnima, certificates were awared for notable (votable?) service.

I looked that up and was quite surprised to see the early date on this letter to Hamsaduta (68-12-03).

Next January there will be an examination on this Bhagavad-gita. Papers will be sent by me to all centers, and those securing the minimum passing grade will be given the title as Bhakti-sastri. Similarly, another examination will be held on Lord Caitanya's Appearance Day in February, 1970 and it will be upon Srimad-Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita. Those passing will get the title of Bhakti-vaibhava. Another examination will be held sometimes in 1971 on the four books, Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Teachings of Lord Caitanya, and Nectar of Devotion. One who will pass this examination will be awarded with the title of Bhaktivedanta. I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples. Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program. So we should not simply publish these books for reading by outsiders, but our students must be well versed in all of our books so that we can be prepared to defeat all opposing parties in the matter of self-realization.

There are several other letters in 1969, to Kirtanananda, Aniruddha and Brahmananda, but nothing came of these plans at that time.

The first exams were held in 1976.

Re: Examinations for awarding titles of Bhakti-sastri, Bhakti-vaibhava, Bhaktivedanta and Bhakti-sarvabhauma. Your response is requested immediately by Srila Prabhupada.

Dear Prabhus,

Please accept my most humble obeisances. Srila Prabhupada has requested me to write you in regard to the above examinations which he wishes to institute. Here in India many persons often criticize our sannyasis and brahmanas as being unqualified due to insufficient knowledge of the scriptures. Factually, there are numerous instances when our sannyasis and brahmanas have fallen down often due to insufficient understanding of the philosophy. This should not be a point of criticism nor a reason for falldown, since Srila Prabhupada has mercifully made the most essential scriptures available to us in his books. The problem is that not all the devotees are carefully studying the books, the result being a fall down or at least unsteadiness.

His Divine Grace therefore wishes to institute examinations to be given to all prospective candidates for sannyasa and brahmana initiation. In addition he wishes that all present sannyasis and brahmanas also pass the examination. Awarding of these titles will be based upon the following books:

• Bhakti-sastri - Bhagavad-gita, Nectar of Devotion, Nectar of Instruction, Isopanisad, Easy Journey To Other Planets, and all other small paperbacks, as well as Arcana-paddhati (a book to be compiled by Nitai Prabhu based on Hari-bhakti-vilasa on Deity worship)
• Bhakti-vaibhava - All of the above plus the first six cantos of Srimad-Bhagavatam
• Bhaktivedanta - All of the above plus cantos 7 through 12 of Srimad-Bhagavatam
• Bhakti-sarvabhauma - All the above plus the entire Caitanya-caritamrta

Anyone wishing to be initiated as a brahmana will have to pass the Bhaktisastri exam and anyone wishing to take sannyasa will have to pass the Bhaktivaibhava examination as well. This will prevent our Society from degrading to the level of so many other institutions where, in order to maintain the Temple, they accept all third class men as brahmanas. Any sannyasis or brahmanas already initiated who fail to pass the exams will be considered low class or less qualified. Anyone wishing to be 2nd initiated will sit for examination once a year at Mayapur. Answers will be in essay form and authoritative quotations will be given a bigger score. During the exams books may not be consulted.

Srila Prabhupada wishes to begin this program at this year's Mayapur meeting. He requests that you all send your opinions and comments here immediately so that everything may be prepared in time.

Hoping this meets you in the best of health and Krsna Consciousness.

Your servant, Tamala Krsna Goswami (Personal Secretary)

Approved: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

I was around in the first year of Bhakti-sastri exams, and I believe I got one. There were no higher exams at that time. I think the whole program fell into disuse again after that, though it was apparently revived again. As far as I know, these are still not particularly meaningful, nor is "Brahmin" initiation linked to any exam.

I believe that the attempt to revive the titles was an initiative of Jayapataka Maharaj, who would have been well aware of the GM system.

I remember that first exam as being shockingly easy.

Okay, what I heard at CS Math was that his "proper" sannyas name was Swami. It seems to be part of a list of sannyas-names that Shankaracharya introduced, which includes names such as Giri, Puri etc. Swami was supposed to be one in that list of names. That's why technically his name was Swami Swami.

But where does this second Swami come from? You don't add it to others. There is no BR Sridhar Swami, BV Tirtha Swami, BP Puri Swami or BV Narayana Swami. Why should there be a Swami Swami, then?

Aaah, I see, the second Swami is the (assumed) designation of sannyas that a person would, for instance, sign with. Someone would not call himself Maharaja. Instead he would use Swami. The "Maharaja" is a title of respect given by an inferior or equal.

like in that other thread on visiting babajis, in the letter by

So, when ACBS signs with ACB Swami, most assume that Swami to be his humble self-designation. If it was his name, he would add another Swami somewhere, as is usual in GM and Iskcon, see with NM.

My main point was that he was not acknowledging his Sannyas-name as was usual in GM.

It is not unlikely that Narayan Maharaj's signature is the result of his audience. In India he would likely have just signed B.V. Narayan. Usually GM sannyasis will sign just that, or add "Tridandi Swami"

A quick poll of signatures in GM books in my library: 90% precede signature with simply Sri Bhakti Pramoda Puri. Two examples of Tridandi Bhikshu Bhakti Dayita Madhava. Bhakti Ballabha Tirtha puts nothing. Saraswati Thakur signed "Dasa Sri Siddhanta Saraswati".

Okay, I accept. Thank you.

Joy Nitai.

Then, it should be Swami B.V. Swami. Sounds cool.

Jagat wrote:


Yes. In 1965 he wrote a letter to the acarya of Sri Caitanya Matha (which is as Gaudiya Matha as they come). In the letter he asked Bhakti Vilasa Tirta Maharaja for money to establish branchfacilities for Sri Caitanya Matha. This was denied him and two years later he found that the same acarya was not willing to sell him land in Mayapur. He had to buy it from muslim landowners who sold him low lying lands that notoriously gets flooded (like in sept.2000) for colossal overprices. According to Bhakti Vilasas disciples the opposition towards A. C. Bhaktivedanta was due to the fact that hed did not manage to separate the sexes according to Gaudiya Matha standards. So at least by 1967 - if not before - A. C. Bhaktivedanta had found out, that he was basically without support from Gaudiya Matha in India. He then started from scratch, training young persons for a life as devotees in the sankirtana movement. Beginning with the vegetarian prasadam cuisine and gradually implementing dresscode, the four regulating principles, business morals and the lot. According to Bhakti Vilasa's disciples A. C. Bhaktivedanta was advancing so fast that important institutions never were implemented well.

nabadip wrote:


How can we define Gaudiya Matha? My own definition is that what we call Gaduiya Matha today are the groups that revere Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami as their founder, and whose guru-puja is directed towards him. If this definition is viable it is simply wrong to say that A. C. Bhaktivedanta ‘had no idea of a Gaudia Matha’. The differences between ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha that you mention are there no doubt. Plus many more I’m sure. But the question you raise is how well versed he was in scripture, ritual and philosophy. As you mention ‘harinama’ is quite a big day for the devotee in ISKCON, whereas in Gaudiya Matha it is not much special. It can be given to anyone who is old enough to talk and thus able to repeat the mahamantra. Parents take their children to their matha for this ritual, as they do for annaprasadam or the first cutting of the hair. Maybe A. C. Bhaktivedanta wanted a more flamboyant atmosphere along with the harinama since he was mostly given harinama to young adults who expected a lot. It seems to me that A. C. Bhaktivedanta‘s precariousness in the ‘jiva issue’ is more serious and could indicate lack of knowledge about theological ‘details’.

nabadip wrote:


I know specifically about guru-puja in Gaudiya Matha, that it is usually carried out for Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, but in at least one of the lines that arose after the courtcase was settled in 1948 the acarya has changed it so it is directed towards himself. Much to the displeasure of members of the other lines.

nabadip wrote:


Yes - I can see your point and I agree. Bhaktisiddhata Sarasvati Gosvami Thakura was much more inspired than his father by the South Indian Madhva school as far as templeorganizing concerns. Still - characteristic of the Bengali Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition is that it builds on Sri Caitanya. And the Gaudiya Matha lives up to this criteria. I have often sensed a genuine interest among ISKCON devotees for Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s way of doing things. The whole bhakta-vrksa program that ISKCON carries out also points away from the strong monastic construction of Gaudiya Matha.

Yours Finn

Did you do much research into post-BSS Gaudiya Math history? I'd really like to know more about the various court-cases, and exactly what the issues were and when. I have only heard vague accounts from biased parties.

If you did write about this in your thesis, I would really appreciate it if you were able to make it available. Besides which, your book no doubt would have possibilities in the English-speaking market. Have you been working on getting it translated?

Too bad that Edwin Bryant did not get you to write for the Columbia University Press volume that is coming out. I am sure that you could have made an important contribution.

atha hainaM janako videho yAjJavalkyam upasametyo-vAca, bhagavan, saMnyAsam (anu) brUhIti. sa hovAca yAjJavalkyaH:

brahmacaryam parisamApya gRhI bhavet, gRhI bhUtvA vanI bhavet, vanI bhUtvA pravrajet, yadi vetarathA brahmacaryAd eva pravrajet, gRhAd vA vanAd vA. atha punar avratI vA vratI vA snAtako vA asnAtako votsannAgniko vA yad ahar eva virajet tad ahar eva pravrajet.

Once Janaka, King of Videha, approached YAjJavalkya and said, 'Venerable Sir, teach me about renunciation.' YAjJavalkya said:

'After completing the life of a student, let one become a householder; after completing the life of a householder let one become a forest dweller; after completing the life of a forest dweller, let one renounce, otherwise (if a suitable occasion arises) let one renounce even from the state of a student or from the state of a householder or from that of a forest dweller. Whether one has not completed the injunctions or completed the injunctions, whether he is a student or not, even if he has not completed the sacrificial rites, on whatever day he has the spirit of renunciation, that very day let him renounce (and become a recluse).'

JAbAla UpaniSad 4

Perhaps we should ask from the Gaudiya Matha?

The main gripes they seem to have with Bhaktivedanta's implementation is especially with this Matha-aspect, the monastic standards, which Bhaktivedanta did not have much experience of, given that he never lived in one. Therefore, he would naturally not have much experience of the day-to-day ways of doing things in a Matha. That you can hear in just about any Gaudiya Matha, including that of Bhaktivedanta's supposed siksha-disciple, Narayan Maharaja, himself a ritual-walla.

I always thought this was done to "strengthen the standards" for Western disciples, so that the whole ritual aspect of it would impress on them the importance of their commitment. But then again I suppose I can understand why the GM-wallahs cannot understand why it is made out to be such a big deal.

I wonder, Finn, whether you could actually supply some more info on this.

What I have heard (from Sri Sridhar Maharaja) was that Sri Kunja Babu, the later B.V. Tirtha, was the one by whose managerial and fund-raising power the GM with its 64 Mathas were established throughout India. The whole thing was not Sri Bhaktisiddhanta's idea. Kunja Babu was the big hero. Probably there was some tension then between the tough sannyasis around BS, and that grihasta on the other side.

I have never read an outline of the history of it, but just heard bits and pieces, about the break-up and the litigation later on. I am not sure who is who in all this. The last details aren't that important, but a general picture, an outline of it all would be welcome here.




I think it is a practical working-definition (even though I do not know about the guru-puja part), as we apply it here on this website also, when we speak of GM in an inclusive way. But I think it is good to remember that several off-shoots do not consider themselves to be part of GM. That is probably the case with all those that have a different name altogether or a special sub-title in their name-plate at the gate. It is definitely the case with a place like Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math of Sri B. R. Sridhar.

Some GM-sannyasis had a problem with what happened with the break-up of the GM, and decided to start their own thing. That is what Sridhar Maharaja did, and I think ACBS did the same. Sure, he would have wanted support from whatever faction of the GM, but he certainly was not planning to start another GM-branch in the West. Bon and Pradip Tirtha Maharaja had done that in London in the 1930ies. There was one legally and functionally existing there.

But, you know Finn, I understand that you had to take a working-hypothesis for your dissertation, and that is what you took, to line up all the arguments for and against it. It is a hypothesis, and as such it is fine.

There are so many versions of this history, and unfortunately most of the real-life witnesses are no longer alive. A coherent, unbiased account would be useful. As indeed would be a history of post-ACBSP Iskcon. Too many interested parties and their versions. But now that Tamal is dead, the same problem may arise: no one will be left to answer the questions.

Yes, the names of the Mathas in Mayapur for the riksha used to be, 'Madhav Maharaj Math', 'Gosvami Maharaj Math', 'Swami Maharaj Math' (also known as 'Sahib Math'!)... ACBSP was the only old GMath devotee called 'Swami'. Some noted the '...ananda' titles he gave his first sannyas disciples seemed to be after the Ramkrishna Math style.

Also, BSST's archan schedule was extremely specific: only one altar, 3 deities: Chaitanya-Radha-Krishna, only 3 arotis daily. More was 'sahajiya'.

I heard that ACBSP got his archan from many places, including Govindaji in Rajasthan. Very eccentric from GMath perspective.

One piece I know he got from Jaipur was the 'yani kani ca papani...even the killing of a Brahmana!' 'mantra'. I know this because I used to have a tape of this from Jaipur. GMath critics like to scoff at the oddness of this chant.

I concur with nabadip's list of differences, especially the difference with harinam japa and the notion of diksha.

Are you sure?

I was under the impression that Swami B.V. Swami at first followed the GM system for awarding names. Apparently, at least in some GM branches (I don't know about the parent organization), certain suffixes were normally reserved for brahmacaris (-ananda, -svarupa and -prakash, if I recall correctly).

Thus, the brahmacari (or so they thought) devotee Keith became Kirtanananda, while Michael, soon to be married, simply became Mukunda. And so on.

Remember, Kirtanananda and Brahmananda, etc. were not given those -ananda names at sannyasa; they had them from the beginning.

Of course, as "brahmacaris" later married, and then as other devotees took over the selection of names, ISKCON departed from this standard.

Sounds very credible Vamsi.

Just on the general question of 'caste mobility', which I think was Finn's Masters topic, did you look into MN Srinivas' 'Sanskritization' thesis? A bit dated now, and based on South Indian case studies, but a valuable notion nonetheless.

A friend of mine observed the paradox that Sanskritic upward mobility was largely accomplished, if at all, by putting the women of the family into purdah - the higher the class aspirations, the more total the female isolation.

nabadib wrote:



Please take a look at the text below and tell me - how you would you interpret this?

Letter from A. C. Bhaktivedanta to Tirtha Maharaja, New York, 8 November, 1965

.....I am here and see here a good field for work but I am alone without men and money. To start a centre here we must have our own buildings. The Ramakrishna Mission or any other mission which are working here all have their own buildings. So if we want to start a centre here we must have also our own building. To have a own building means to pay at least Rs 500000/-five lacs or one hundred thousand dollars. And to furnish the house with up to date paraphernalia means another two lacs. If attempt is made this money can be had also. But I think for establishing Matha and temples here you may take the charge and I shall be able to make them self independent. There is difficulty of exchange and I think unless you have some special arrangement for starting a branch of Caitanya Math transfer of money will be difficult. But if you can do so with the help of the Bengal or Central Government, here is good chance to open immediately a centre in New York. I am negotiating with some brokers here who can give us a house and they have suggested like above. Without our own house it will not be possible to open our own centre. For me it will take long time but for you it is very easy. The Calcutta Marwaris are in your hand by the Grace of Srila Prabhupada. If you like you can immediately raise a fund of Rs 10,00,000/- ten lacs to open a centre in New Work. One centre started, I shall be able to start many others also. So here is a chance of cooperation between us and I shall be glad to know if you are ready for this cooperation. I came here to study the situation and I find it very nice and if you are also agreeable to cooperate with it will be all very nice by the will Srila Prabhupada. So I am writing you directly this letter to elicit your opinion. If you agree then take it for granted that I am one of the worker of the Sri Mayapur Caitanya Matha. I have no ambition for becoming the proprietor of any Matha or Mandir but I want working facilities. I am working day and night for my Bhagavatam publication and I need centres in the western countries. If I am successful to start a centre in New york, then my next attempt will be start one in California and Montreal where there are many Indians also. There is ample scope for working but unfortunately we have simply wasted time by quarreling with one another while the Ramakrishna Mission with misrepresentation have made their position all over the world. Although they are no so popular in these foreign countries they have made a great propaganda only and as a result of such propaganda they are very prosperous in India while the Gaudiya Math people are starving. We should now come to our senses. If possible join with our other godbrothers and let us make an effort combinedly to preach the cult of Gaura Hari in every cities and villages of the western countries.

If you agree to cooperate with me as I have suggested above, then I shall extend my Visa period. My present Visa period ends by the end of this November. But if I receive your confirmation immediately then I shall extend my Visa period otherwise I shall return to India. Immediately I want some good assistants to work with me. They must be educated and able to talk in English as also read Sanskrit nicely. For preaching here two languages English and Sanskrit will be very much appreciated. I think under your leadership every camp of our god brothers should supply a man good for this purpose and they must agree to work under my direction. If that is possible then you will see how our beloved Srila Prabhupada will be satisfied on all of us. I think we shall all forget now the past fratricidal war and now come forward for a good cause. If they are not agreeable then do it yourself and I am at your service. Please therefore consider this and let me know by wire if you are agreeable. Otherwise I shall not extend my visa period but I shall return to India without being able to do anything tangible at my first tour. Hope you will take this matter as very urgent and let me know your decision by immediate return of post or by wire to my above address and oblige. Hope you are all well and thanking you in anticipation.

Yours obediently. [A. C. Bhaktivedanta]

I am suspicious of that letter.

Did you receive it from the Caitanya Matha, thus confirming that Swami B.V. Swami actually sent it and it was received? Or did you find it in the files of Swami B.V. Swami, where it may have simply been a draft letter, composed but never actually sent?

I am suspicious of the letter for several reasons. Notice that it is dated November 8, yet the author says that if he doesn't receive a response, he will not extend his visa before it expires in 22 days.

Have you ever sent a letter from an American city to Mayapur? Would you ever send someone in Mayapur a letter on the 8th of the month, demanding that a response reach you before the 30th of that same month? Would you think this was an even less realistic expectation in 1965 than today? Between the postal system and the possibility that the letter's recipient might be traveling, it just doesn't seem sensible.

Even on the basic level of "sensible business practice" this doesn't make sense. Would you "do business" with an individual who approached you in that way? "I insist that you commit within 22 days (or less, depending on when the letter reached Mayapur) to spending $140,000, channeling it through a management structure (me!) you have not used before, or else I will return to India, choosing not to extend my visa." ?

Stripped of the common spiritual sentiment that so often surrounds this, it sounds like an incredibly unrealistic request, poorly presented.

Additionally, we should remember that there is an unspoken subtext to that letter. In effect, what the author is asking is:



There is one other odd little non-sequitur in the letter. The author writes:



I don't see a causal relationship between the publication of an English language Bhagavatam and the presence of centers in western countries. Certainly the Gaudiya Matha published many English language works with only one center (Miss Bowtell's mandir) in the West.

All in all, there just seems to be something fundamentally wrong with this letter. As a scholar, are you SURE that this letter was actually sent to Swami B.V. Tirtha at the Caitanya Matha? Did it reach him before the November 30 deadline? If so, did its contents contribute to a negative assesment of Swami B.V. Swami as someone sensible who could be worked with?

It wouldn't surprise me if the letter was simply a little bit of "wishful thinking" on Swami B.V. Swami's part; something he drafted as a "brainstorming" or "fantasizing what-if" exercise. If, however, the letter is legitimate, it helps me to understand why the Caitanya Matha developed its reluctance to work with Swami B.V. Swami.

That's from Hari-bhakti-vilasa, 12.19.

I loved that bit, 'You have the Calcutta Marwaris in your hands'.

Always the pragmatist!

It struck me on reading this that Tirtha Maharaj and Swami Maharaj had a similar predicament which might have led BV Swami to feel an underlying kinship: they were both business-minded pragmatists trying to motivate an ascetically-inclined group of abstract intellectuals: which is what the GMath mostly consisted of. Hence the tension between both of them and their Gurubhai.

The Brahmin intellectuals in GMath, Sridhar Maharaj is a good example, saw things in terms of abstract ideals, logical consistency, even numerical patterns (3 deities, 3 aratis - don't break the pattern!).

But Swami Maharaj correctly saw that the 'success' of GMath came from the pragmatic business-sense of Kunja Babu, Tirtha Maharaj. Never mind the doctrinal purity of other Gurubhai, this only led to starvation. Tirtha Maharaj had the Calcutta Marwaris, some of the richest men in India.

Starvation is the keyword, Vamsi, don't forget. This reference in the letter is very telling.

In India up till about 1980, starvation was still common - the result of bad networking or stubbornness, as Swamiji points out. His own life-long 'failures' in business were still on his mind. Who cares about past troubles, or even if there was fighting in which people were killed? Occassional fatal neighbourhood disputes are still common in India. The bottom line is that if we are stubborn, we may starve.

***
In fact people in India tend to bury old disputes too quickly to return to normal life. The tensions from unresolved past conflicts remain festering underneath the surface, which is why there are sudden outbursts of seemingly irrational but horrific violence!
***

The Gaudiya Math was founded as an ascetic ideal. It attracted high intellectuals who were often impractical.

Iskcon was founded as a popular enterprise. It successfully attracted the masses. Swamiji's business-sense finally paid off, as he said himself!

I think one of Swamiji's motives in writing to Tirthaji was utterly practical: access to the legendary Marwari money. One should also look at other letters Swamiji wrote at the same time. I'll bet he tried everyone! Though he was strongly averse to working with Ramkrishna Mission people - the opposition - this was *not* I suggest a philosophical stand. I'll bet that he also approached other 'Mayavadis' who he thought might help. We know he did at other times.

Hence I am still skeptical as to Swamiji's intentions regarding Gaudiya Math. I believe his commitment was to his Guru BSS and he saw the GMath as a seperate concern, perhaps a friend, perhaps not.

vamsidas wrote:




No - no - I’m not sure and I did not receive it from Caitanya Matha. I simply found in the ‘Folio’. One thing is being a westerner in India another thing is to be trusted with confidential material. The difficulty in gaining access to sources like these is rooted in the monks’ fear of disclosing internal disputes. But maybe it would be possible to check with the Bhaktivedanta Archives if the letter appears to have been sent, and with the research institute in Kolkata whether it was received. I admit that the problems you mention are there.

Although 5 lacks was and is a fantastic amount of money in India, 100.000$ seems not to be an unrealistic sum if you want to establish a religious community in the US of A. So that is what A. C. Bhaktivedanta asks for. And regarding the date: At November 8 A. C. Bhaktivedanta had only been in America for 6 weeks. Maybe he did not know how long it takes letter to reach Mayapur. But as it shows he had a hunch and in the letter he asks Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaja for an answer by telegraph.

I find your observation of the poor presentation especially valuable. To expect Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaja to trust his honest face and transfere such an amount seems incredible. And as you say all this speaks against the seriousness of the letter. So how do I dare use the letter as point of departure for a hypothesis about A. C. Bhaktivedanta wanting to establish GM branches in the West? It is because the letter is part of a lengthy correspondence between himself and Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaja. The correspondence reveals A. C. Bhaktivedanta’s attempt to have money transferred from India. On feb. 4 th A. C. Bhaktivedanta writes:

'My dear Sripada Tirtha Maharaja,
Kindly accept my humble dandabats, I am in due receipt of your kind letter of the 1st instant and I am glad to note that you will get the Exchange sanction on receipt of the letter of the donor. The donor is a big business magnet of India and as required by you I am enclosing here with the letter of Sri Padampat Singhania of the J.K. Organizations, Kamla Tower, Kanpur dated 14th January 1966 which will speak for itself. I think you may also know the gentleman and he is competent to spend any amount for a nice temple of Sri Sri Radha Krishna in New York. The Singhania family is traditionally devotees of Dvarakadhisa and therefore they are the right persons to take up this transcendental service of the Lord. Srila Prabhupada wanted such temples in foreign countries such New York, London, Tokyo, etc and I had personal talks with him when I first met Himat Ultadingi in 1922.... '

On feb. 16th 1966 A. C. Bhaktivedanta sends a reminder to Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaja, referring to their previous letters. It was very difficult to have hard currency transfered from India to the US because of Indian juridical restrictions. So on march 5th A. C. Bhaktivedanta tries to involve the Salvation Army (!) by writing the secretary of National Head Quarter of The Salvation Army, asking for his help only this time to transfer 200.000$ from India:

'I have got money in India and I wanted to get it from India for starting the above centre but the Government of India has no dollar exchange to pay in America and therefore I have been handicapped in this attempt. My correspondence with the Prime Minister as well as my devotee Sir Padampat Singhania is complete. The latest replies and their copies are also sent herewith for your perusal. I know that you have a great number of centres in India for your missionary work and you spend many thousands of American money in India for your noble activities. If you therefore accept my money in India for spending there and pay me in dollars here in America for my spending here, it will be a great cooperation. I think we should cooperate in every respects in the matter of raising peoples sense of God consciousness in these days of forgetfulness. I am in need of $200,000.00 two hundred thousands of dollars immediately for starting my centre here in New York. If you help me by this amount in exchange of my money in India, it will be considered a Grace of the Lord.'

Again on march 18th 1966 he refers to his benevolent Godbrother Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaja in a letter. Taken all together these letters speak in favour of my hypothesis that the dialogue was there and that his project was to establish a Gaudiya Matha. I simply find A. C. Bhaktivedanta’s letters too fantastic to be fantasies!

But he also wrote to Salvation Army for 'cooperation in raising God-consciousness'.

Was he then planning to open a branch of same?

No he was writing to anyone who was a likely helper, except Ramkrishna because his father had strongly opposed that group and he could not bring himself to go against his father's wishes. Indeed he had 2 gurus as he says: his father and BSS.


Read my detailed comments above for my interpretation.

Gaudiya Math was simply his Gurubhai who might help or might hinder his mission to serve BSS. He had never been a member of GMath, and as he later implied in talks and writings to his disciples about it, he felt no loyalty or obligation toward that mission, any more than any other mission which might aid his cause.

We know that he also thought he could work with Bhaktivinoda's other son Lalit-prasad, even though he had a separate mission to his brother BSS which GMath saw as a grievous enemy, though Swamiji seemed unaware of this at first. Again, though he was a pragmatist, not a dogmatist.

If the American Christian Churches had adopted and funded his Krishna preaching for BSS, I'm sure he would have happily worked with them! His early preaching to Christians showed a willingness to reach out and find common middle ground, rather than dogmatic fixity. A German scholar has written an extensive book on Swami Maharaj's Christian links.
He is Dr Peter Schmidt : http://www.fphschmidt.de/bs/bs.htm



****
Apart from the early links between Iskcon and GMath, we need to account for the radical alienation which later developed between the two institutions. Surely the extent of the divide is unique amongst followers of BSS. And it was not an 'American conspiracy'. All the breaks with GMath were initiated and insisted upon by Swamiji himself, often very acrimoniously. Hence even now, opposition to GMath is seen as a mark of loyalty amongst certain literalist followers of Swamiji. Surely this is very odd from a disciple of BSS!

adiyen wrote:

Not of course not. A. C Bhaktivedanta had a special role for The Salvation Army. The Salvation army had branches in India. And A. C. Bhaktivedanta thought that they had permission to transfer money between the US and India. He wanted The Salvation Army to transfer money raised in India to America. When they informed him that this was not the case, he asked them to receive money in India from his donators and subsequently cash an equivalent amount to himself in America.

adiyen wrote:

As far as whom would donate money A. C. Bhaktivedanta was not critical at all. Marwalis or bhadralok - vaisnava or smarta - he did not care. But according to A. C. Bhaktivedanta’s files he was not just writing anyone for help. He was specifically writing Bhakti Vilasa Tirta Maharaja to act as a go-between and try to establish a situation so that wealthy Kolkata families could donate money for a temple in New York. And as I showed above he promised it would be a branch matha of Sri Caitanya Matha.

I never personally met A. C. Bhaktivedanta. I only know him from videos, his own books and others peoples books and memories about him. Amongst them your own. A. C. Bhaktivedanta always seemed like a hothead to me - a Bengali hothead - with a good sense of humour. But first of all a person for whom things could not go fast enough. Impatient? For sure. Pretender? Hardly.

When I assess someones motivations I am trying to stick to the academic rule saying: hold on tight to sources and context. I think you maybe overemphasize context a bit and pay too little attention to the concrete sources.

Thanks for the link.

Yours Finn

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. Who said he is a pretender? No we are saying that it is unlikely that he intended to open a branch of Tirtha Maharaja's Gaudiya Math, whatever this particular letter says.

Then what was his intention? For decades he had associated with Gurubhai who had left Gaudiya Math and set up their own institutions : BR Sridhar Maharaj, BP Keshava Maharaj, BS Gosvami Maharaj... Most likely he intended to follow their example and set up his own seperate institution, which is what he actually did.

***
(BTW, the above sannyasis were not in the Tirtha Maharaj faction - they split from the Baghbazaar faction. BR Sridhar in particular was known for his longstanding opposition to BV Tirtha, and support for Ananta-Vasudeva. BRS had been very close to BV Swami and his family for decades. It was only with BV Swami's success in the last couple of years of his life that he grew distant from BRS as well as his other Gurubhai).

Have you looked at these other breakaways? You could start with BR Sridhar, website: www.scsmath.org

***
In my own opinion I believe he was so flexible in his approach that, if he had to call the institution a church because that was where the funding came from he would have done so - as long as he retained ultimate control. Decades earlier Yogananda had already established a network of hybrid church/temples in the US. Even if BV Swami called it 'Gaudiya Math', a decade or so later he indicated that he would use his numbers to take over that institution if they gave him a foothold. So his links with Tirtha Maharaj may have looked towards a 'hostile takeover' in the big business sense. Bengali hothead maybe. Businessman definitely, but using his business savvy to further what he saw as the wishes of his gurudev.

So I will concede that he may have wanted to go into Gaudiya Math with the ultimate intention of restoring the old power balance ('cooperation'), with his friends Sridhar Mhrj, Keshav Mhrj, Gosvami Mhrj and co, balancing the Tirtha Mhrj faction who controlled it after the others left. Apparently he assumed that Audulomi Maharaj would just fall in with the arrangement, and he may have even thought that BSS's alienated brother would join them too. Extremely naive, but not insincere.

It is all very arcane Bengali politics, like the machinations of the Marxists, impossible to understand for outsiders- My College supervisor did his PhD on the Bengali Communist party in the 1950's. Apparently it was enormously complicated and of ultimately little interest. Are you sure you want to take this on, Finn?

***
Is this letter the only source from the period?

One reason I do not work in academia (apart from sour grapes!) is that I find that good source-based arguments can often produce wrong conclusions. Christian scholars, for example, produce some very well written source-based critiques of Hinduism which often however completely miss the point.

Good points Adiyen. My feeling was that Prabhupada had a unique set of talents that made it possible for him to succeed against pretty heavy odds. He could cook, do bhajans, give lectures, and as you point out, envision the managerial side of things. Besides which, he seemed capable of a very deep intimacy with his first disciples. Being older also worked to his advantage, I expect.

Finn is right, too, about things never going quickly enough. His age no doubt led to his desire to see things expedited. I am sure he was thinking, "Hanged be the consequences." The energy ball is set into motion. For sure there will be hell to pay afterward, but surely something will survive, grow and flourish, along with all the stinkeroos that will also come out of it.

I still think it was a pretty amazing achievement.

adiyen wrote:
What I say is:

A. C. Bhaktivedanta said he wanted this (and he worked for it) -
he found out it was not possible -
he did something else

What you say is:

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami said he wanted this -
but he was fantasizing (pretending?) -
he did something else

What worries me is that if one starts along this line where does it end? It’s so very comfortable because then anything can become anything. Isn’t it so? If however you 'concede that he may have wanted to go into Gaudiya Math' then there is no base for our disagrement.

aidyen wrote:
All together I had contact to five different lines in Kolkata/Mayapur in 1993/94:
1) Sri Caitanya Matha - Rash Behari Av/Yogapitha Mayapur. Taken over from BSST by Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja. Acarya in 1994 was B. P. Yati Maharaja.
2) Gaudiya Mission - Bagbazar. Taken over from BSST by Puri Maharaja. By vote of no confidence there was only an acting acarya in 1994.
3) Sri Caitanya Gaudiya Matha - Satish Mukherjee Road. Started by Dayita Madhava Gosvami Maharaja and by 1994 the acarya was Bhakti Ballava Tirtha Maharaja.
4) Sri Caitanya Asrama - Behala. Started by Santa Maharaja who was still the acarya in 1994.
5) Sri Sarasvati Gaudiya Asana and Mission - is on Hazra Road. Started by Bhakti Vilasa Bharati Goswami Maharaja and Srirupa Siddhanta Gosvami Maharaja. By 1994 Ranjana Sagara Maharaja was acarya.

Furthermore I went and said hello to a couple of devotees in ISCKON's centre in Mayapur. But that was more or less just to hear the voice of a westener. I was practically totally surrounded by Indian persons while I was there. To the surprice of my wife and children I was eating rice and chilli with my fingers for a month after I came back!

Regarding the three last mentioned lines I don't know the history of the founder acaryas. Also I did not know that BR Sridhar Maharaj, BP Keshava Maharaj, BS Gosvami Maharaj all came out of the Puri Maharaja line. And I'm all ears!

Regarding the two last ones mentioned they are privately owned by the acaryas, whereas 1, 2 and 3 are registrated non-profit religious organizations.

Unfortunately I did not come into contact with the one you mention. It would have been a good thing though, since this line has grown a lot in the West. Still I was quite satsified with myself at that time since I arrived knowing absolutely nothing at all.

Jagat wrote:
Yes - that's the person I am thinking about. And this character trait can be seen over and over in the sources. A. C. Bhaktivedanta went to extremes to get his enterprising ideas in motion. Like this idea of involving The Salvation Army. I mean - can you imagine? As adiyen says he was not naive and I don't think a. C. Bhaktivedanta ever thought that this particular idea would work. But there was a hope so he had to try it out. What does one call this degree of eagerness in connection with initiative? Childish - genius or is it simply the trait of an industrious businessman?

Yours Finn

All three of them.