Deconstructing the Lilamrta, Part 4

BY: ROCANA DASA - 8.4 2022

A critical analysis of the Srila Prabhupada-Lilamrta by Satsvarupa das Goswami.

In the first three segments of this series, an excellent foundation has been laid by Yasodanandana dasa. I agree with his position on the Lilamrta 100%, and will attempt from here on in not to repeat what he's already said, but to offer a new view and an expansion on some of his points.

In my Sampradaya Acarya paper, I focused on the fact that the Lilamrta has not presented Srila Prabhupada in the light of being a nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya, and that before we try to solve the many problems that ISKCON has, we must go to the actual philosophical essence of where the mistakes lie. And that is, that Srila Prabhupada is not being depicted in the spiritual position he's truly in. The problems we're experiencing are only symptoms of this particular infection.

In discussing this over the years, I've discovered that many of my Godbrothers, and especially the devotees who didn't go through Srila Prabhupada's lila period, find it very difficult to re-examine or challenge their embedded conceptions in order to root out or even identify this type of contamination, which is very insidious. In the article that follows, I hope to convince the reader that this Lilamrta is essentially a subtle form of Mayavadi philosophy. Mayavada philosophy is articulated in Shankaracarya's Sariraka-bhasya and we should all know that Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu forbid us to study this tattva, stating that anyone who did would find their spiritual life was doomed.

We also know that in the salutations to Srila Prabhupada Pranati, which we state many times daily, we acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada came to stamp out impersonalism and to identify how it has seeped into both Indian and western culture.

Unless one is completely situated in pure Krsna consciousness, then one has to assume that to varying degrees, we are contaminated by Mayavadi philosophy.

Srila Prabhupada, when speaking to Indians, very often brought up the concept of daridya Narayana, or 'poor Narayans', and explained how this was Mayavadi philosophy. To depict God as being impoverished is a symptom of Mayavadism. In studying the Caitanya-caritamrta, we find the story of Kamalakanta, who was a longtime personal associate and servant of Sri Advaita Acarya. Once, when he came to Jagannatha Puri he sent King Prataparudra an official request, informing him that Sri Advaita Acarya had a debt of 300 rupees, and he would appreciate it if the King would eliminate the debt. So on one hand, he's explaining how Sri Advaita is the Supreme Personality, while on the other hand he's saying he is indebted. And when Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu heard of this, he ordered Govinda never to allow this Kamalakanta to have His association again, because of this contradiction. In the purport, Srila Prabhupada describes this as being Mayavadi philosophy:

Caitanya-caritamrta Adi lila 12:30-35

"No one knew of that note, but somehow or other it reached the hands of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. That note established Advaita Acarya as an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But it also mentioned that Advaita Acarya had recently incurred a debt of about three hundred rupees that Kamalakanta Visvasa wanted to liquidate. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu became unhappy upon reading the note, although His face still shone as brightly as the moon. Thus, smiling, He spoke as follows. "He has established Advaita Acarya as an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is nothing wrong in this, for He is indeed the Lord Himself. But he has made the incarnation of Godhead a poverty-stricken beggar. Therefore I shall punish him for his correction."

PURPORT

To describe a man as an incarnation of God, or Narayana, and at the same time present him as poverty-stricken is contradictory, and it is the greatest offense. The Mayavadi philosophers, engaged in the missionary work of spoiling the Vedic culture by preaching that everyone is God, describe a poverty-stricken man as daridra-narayana, or "poor Narayana." Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu never accepted such foolish and unauthorized ideas. He strictly warned, Mayavadi-bhasya sunile haya sarva-nasa: "Anyone who follows the principles of Mayavada philosophy is certainly doomed." Such a fool needs to be reformed by punishment."

So how is it any different when someone engages in the contradiction of calling Srila Prabhupada a nitya-siddha in once sentence, while in the next saying that he was penniless, poor and a beggar? The Lilamrta does this not just once, but many times. In the eyes of the reader, Srila Prabhupada was made to look like something other than a nitya-siddha, and it's easy to see that this is a form of Mayavadi philosophy. According to sastra, you cannot contradict yourself in this way. The only excuse the Lilamrta's author, Satsvarupa das Goswami, gives us is that he's trying to make Srila Prabhupada 'human'. As Srila Prabhupada says in his purport, "such a fool needs to be reformed by punishment", and we can assume that's exactly what's happened, as Satsvarupa has been plagued with bad health since the Lilamrta's publication.

Time and time again we read in sastra that great mahatmas of Srila Prabhupada's status are not only very, very rare, but they're personifications of the mercy of the Lord, and they cannot be depicted and presented in any way other than that. So basically, there's no argument when it comes to the fact that the way Satsvarupa is presenting Srila Prabhupada in the Lilamrta is asiddhantic. In fact, the book is filled with his repetitive contradictions wherein Srila Prabhupada is glorified as being on an exalted level, while at the same time being presented as something other than a maha-bhagavata. The technique that Satsvarupa has chosen to adopt is totally contradictory and goes against our philosophy. Due to just one error in judgment, Kalamakanta is contaminated by Mayavada philosophy and should be considered unbonafide. He made one mistake, compared to the volumes of similar mistakes that Satsvarupa has made in the Lilamrta, wrongly referring to Srila Prabhupada.

ISKCON itself is now in a precarious position because if they assert that Srila Prabhupada is a nitya-siddha while at the same time promoting the Lilamrta, which says that he is materially conditioned, then like Kamalakanta, their position is contradictory.

In the Narada-bhakta Sutra, which interestingly enough, Satsvarupa worked on publishing from Srila Prabhupada's original manuscript, Sutra 41 states:

"One can attain Bhakti either by association of the Lord's pure devotees or directly by the Lord's mercy, because the Lord and his pure devotee are non-different."

In the purport, Srila Prabhupada describes the position of Mayavadis:

[One can attain Bhakti either by the association of the Lord's pure devotees or directly by the Lord's mercy because] the Lord and His pure devotees are nondifferent.

PURPORT

The mercy of the Lord and that of His pure devotees are equally potent because the devotee and the Supreme Lord impart the same teachings. Sri Krishna says, "Surrender to Me," and the pure devotee says, "Yes, I surrender to You," and tells others, "Surrender to Krishna." Thus the mercy of the Lord and that of His loving servants have the same effect: the seed of devotion is planted in the hearts of receptive conditioned souls. [ ]

Vaishnavas, however, do not tolerate such blasphemous word jugglery. The oneness of God and guru (or God and all living beings) is a oneness in quality. The living entities are small samples of the original Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is full, powerful, and opulent. The living beings tend to forget their qualitative oneness with the Lord, and so He appears in the form of scriptures, great souls, and the caitya-guru (Supersoul) to remind us of our spiritual identity. [ ]

The sac-cid-ananda form of Godhead is different from that of the living entity in both his conditioned and liberated states. Although the Mayavadis will continue to misunderstand the philosophy of spiritual oneness, a kavi, or learned person, doesn't commit such mistakes. Srila Prabhupada describes the position of the Mayavadis and those they influence:

Only atheists consider the living entity and the Personality of Godhead equal in all respects. Caitanya Mahaprabhu therefore says, mayavadi-bhashya sunile haya sarva-nasa: "If one follows the instructions of Mayavadi philosophers and believes that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual soul are one, his understanding of real philosophy is forever doomed." [Bhag. 4.28.63, purport]

Mayavadism and Darwinism

In the west, what Srila Prabhupada refers to as Mayavadism manifests as Darwinism. Darwinist theory is really the current version of Mayavadism that's ruining not only western culture, but the whole world.

Some of the feedback I've been getting is that I'm unfairly coupling the Lilamrta to the Zonal Acarya System, which Satsvarupa was a full participant in. He was sort of the 'Vyasadeva' or the intellectual scribe who presented their bogus philosophy. The Zonal Acarya philosophy, in itself, is another form of impersonalism. I won't get into that here, but will explore the concept in later segments. Some devotees have a hard time accepting my claim that the Lilamrta was written in such a way as to justify or rationalize the Zonal Acarya philosophy. But consider this:

When we go forth and preach against Darwinism, one of the most compelling arguments is to explain that Darwinism was essentially a product of the British Colonial system. If it wasn't for the complete support that was given to Darwinism, it wouldn't have gotten anywhere by its own merit. But the Brits needed a philosophy in order to justify their subjugation of the cultures throughout the world, and especially India. By the late 1700's, the British Raj was well underway. By the mid-1800's, the Brits were very concerned about Indian philosophy, which was becoming widespread in England at the time, thanks in part to Helena Blavatsky and the Theosophists, who were bringing a watered-down version of Vedic philosophy into the salons of the day.

The British government wanted the populists to adopt another philosophy which was in line with their overall philosophy of greed. Of course, much of what they were lusting after was in India. Consequently, they constructed a palatial structure directly across from the Royal Palace in London where, the form of exhibits, they depicted Darwinism. So why is it such a stretch to conclude that for the same reasons, the Zonal Acarya's supported the version of who Srila Prabhupada is that was communicated by Satsvarupa on their behalf, in order to justify and back-up their claims? The philosophy contained within the Lilamrta was the perfect foil, and successfully bolstered the self-important impressions the Zonal Acaryas wished to impress upon the rank and file. In just the same way that Darwinian philosophy deflected the British people's attention away from Vedic philosophy, the Lilamrta influenced the devotees to think that Srila Prabhupada was not so rarified that the Zonal Acaryas (if not the Lilamrta readers themselves) could meet if not exceed his spiritual successes.

This concept may be a great challenge for those who have adopted the Lilamrta as being as true as sastra. In the same way, it's very difficult for those infected with Mayavadi philosophy in the early stages of their spiritual development to give that up and accept the pure Vaisnava philosophy. In fact, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that if you've been afflicted by Mayavadi philosophy, you're essentially doomed and you have a very difficult, if not impossible time accepting the philosophy presented by the Sampradaya Acaryas.

It will take a great deal of scholarship in order to prove that this kind of influence has seriously impacted ISKCON, but I have no doubt that this task will one day be accomplished. Over the years since Srila Prabhupada's departure, there have been numerous controversies wherein prominent individuals in the society have expressed their doubts about Srila Prabhupada, and these statements are always very shocking to many of us old-timers. But no one is connecting the dots back to this Lilamrta contamination. The effect of the Lilamrta has most seriously impacted those who did not experience Srila Prabhupada during his ISKCON lila period, wherein due to his amazing potency, the common conception of Srila Prabhupada was that he was indeed a Sampradaya Acarya -- a rare, exalted topmost Acarya in our sampradaya. This was precisely the problem that the Zonal Acaryas had to face when they took over the movement.

to this day, none of us actually knows who amongst 'The Eleven' were the real preachers of this philosophy, and which of them (if any) preached against it. Some undoubtedly found it convenient to just go along with it, for obvious reasons, but obviously no one spoke up against it successfully among the eleven.

In an impure state, everyone harbors the desire to be God. If given an opportunity to be perceived as being as good as God, it would take a very sincere person to walk away from the opportunity. Unfortunately, the Lilamrta represents the reality that Srila Prabhupada's senior men were not able to walk away. Instead, through the medium of Satsvarupa das Goswami's authorship, they released a potent contaminant into the atmosphere, which caused many devotees to be numbed into accepting the institutionally sanctified minimization of the pure devotee.