Prabhupada's Sannyasa - Did it legally sever the ties with his family?

(I figured that I should put this in the ISKCON, etc. forum.)

In another thread (here), there is a discussion about sannyAsa. In this connection, I vaguely recall something to the effect that when Prabhupada's family was trying to take over ISKCON's holdings after his death, one of the arguments used against them was that Prabhupada was a sannyAsin, hence legally dead and thus any assets accumulated by him after his acceptance of sannyAsa cannot be claimed by his family.

Is this correct?

If that claim was made and upheld then it behooves Iskcon sannyasis to not take a farthing from their family members.

I would say, If the case was accept than it behooves Iskcon sannyasis; when still alive, they should not take the institutional money for their family, too.

bhIkSu means a beggar. Accepting is not forbidden. In fact, the kUTIcaka-sannyAsin is particularly described as sustaining himself with that which is brought to him by his former family, I believe in particular the eldest son.

QUOTE(Elpis @ May 30 2004, 02:53 PM)

In this connection, I vaguely recall something to the effect that when Prabhupada's family was trying to take over ISKCON's holdings after his death, one of the arguments used against them was that Prabhupada was a sannyAsin, hence legally dead and thus any assets accumulated by him after his acceptance of sannyAsa cannot be claimed by his family.

Is this correct?

I believe one of his sons attempted to declare the assets of ISKCON as his rightful heritage. BV Narayan Maharaja writes in his memories of ACBS:

QUOTE

Around 1980, ten or twelve letters were loaned for the ISKCON court case in Bombay. They were very wonderful, detailed letters from Swamiji. The lawyer presented them as prime evidence to the Bombay court. The ISKCON devotees requested me to travel from Mathura to Bombay eight or so times to testify in Swamiji's favor... I testified that Srila Swami Maharaja took sannyasa initiation in our Kesavaji Gaudiya Matha and that I had performed the fire yajna and Srila Bhaktiprajana Kesava Maharaja, my Gurudeva, had given him the danda and mantras. It was all bona-fide. I had to testify as their expert witness that according to the siddhanta of our line, Swami Maharaja was certainly included in that same line. I gave many arguments from Sat-Kriya-Sara Dipika, the Vedas, Upanisads, and Puranas. Thus the case was won by sastra and by the evidence of those letters from Swamiji.

QUOTE(Madhava @ May 30 2004, 12:45 PM)

bhIkSu means a beggar. Accepting is not forbidden. In fact, the kUTIcaka-sannyAsin is particularly described as sustaining himself with that which is brought to him by his former family, I believe in particular the eldest son.

You are right regarding the kUTIcaka, but who accepts that type of sannyAsa these days? Even VAsudevAzrama, a medieval author of a manual on renunciation, admits that in his time everybody was given paramahaMsa sannyAsa. He uses kUTIcaka and the remaining lower types of sannyAsa to explain away the rules that he does not like (i.e. they apply to the lower types, not to the paramahaMsa).

Concerning acceptance of things, then food fall in a special category. There is, if my memory serves me right, a rule that a sannyAsin must never accept gifts, and it is even stated that he must not do so even in dreams.

QUOTE(Madhava @ May 30 2004, 12:52 PM)

I believe one of his sons attempted to declare the assets of ISKCON as his rightful heritage. BV Narayan Maharaja writes in his memories of ACBS:

QUOTE

Around 1980, ten or twelve letters were loaned for the ISKCON court case in Bombay. They were very wonderful, detailed letters from Swamiji. The lawyer presented them as prime evidence to the Bombay court. The ISKCON devotees requested me to travel from Mathura to Bombay eight or so times to testify in Swamiji's favor... I testified that Srila Swami Maharaja took sannyasa initiation in our Kesavaji Gaudiya Matha and that I had performed the fire yajna and Srila Bhaktiprajana Kesava Maharaja, my Gurudeva, had given him the danda and mantras. It was all bona-fide. I had to testify as their expert witness that according to the siddhanta of our line, Swami Maharaja was certainly included in that same line. I gave many arguments from Sat-Kriya-Sara Dipika, the Vedas, Upanisads, and Puranas. Thus the case was won by sastra and by the evidence of those letters from Swamiji.

It seems that Narayana Maharaja was called upon, among other things, to establish that Bhaktivedanta had indeed taken sannyAsa. Interesting. I am curious to know how the modern legal system in India treats sannyAsins.

Traditionally, since sannyasis were considered "dead" to society, is it that they could not act as gurus since whatever mantra one received from them would be considered a "dead mantra"?

Posts on guru as brAhmaNa and gRhastha split into another thread.