Bhima das’ reply.

das

jagannivasa das

I don’t keep up with facebook, and this Madhavananda has certainly never tried to contact me personally. It’s not like I have to answer him anything. I’m the one who has put up the Reward offer of $108,000 to anyone who can show proof that Srila Prabhupada appointed him as guru. That was what ticked Gour Govinda’s followers off. And to date they haven’t collected the money.

I don’t know if Madhavananda is the person I’m thinking of – maybe it’s another. But Madhavananda’s version of what happened is somewhat different from what I recall. It has been many years since, but I do remember clearly that meeting with Gour Govinda Swami.

However, before that meeting took place, three devotees – and maybe Madhavananda was one of them – came to a Sunday feast programme we were having at our place in Singapore off MacPherson Road. I had met the one I’m thinking could be Madhavananda in his apartment in KL. The class was not even finished, and this person challenged that ritvik initiation is unbonafide. He claimed that their Gurudev, Gour Govinda Swami, had been ordered in a letter to become the successor Acharya for the Hare Krishna movement. I asked him how he could be sure of that, and he said that his Gurudev had revealed to his confidential devotees, including himself. Talk about audacity. He actually said that Gour Govinda Swami had a letter from Srila Prabhupada authorizing him to become the successor Acharya of ISKCON! Naturally I asked him if he had seen the letter. He said it was good enough for him to have heard about it from his Gurudev, and the letter was a secret that must not be revealed. None of them had seen the letter.  He tried to continue to challenge that ritvik initiation is bogus, but I didn’t want to engage. It was our Sunday feast programme, and there were members of the public in attendance. It just was not the right time and place for it. I could not accept his so-called evidence sight unseen, and he was not prepared to accept our arguments and evidence (letter of July 9th, 1977), so what could we possibly agree on? I said to him that there was no point to continue to talk, but bring the letter. He behaved very unreasonably, and persisted in shouting, till I told him to his face that it was not his place, and he could not speak in this way. Finally he said okay, when Gour Govinda Swami came, he would bring that letter and show me.

Three or four months later, I was in Yogjakarta, Indonesia, just coming off the plane and walking on the tarmac to the terminal, and happened to see Gour Govinda Swami walking the other direction, towards the plane. He was walking with two or three other disciples, all of them wearing devotional clothing. He was then on his way to Jakarta. And from Jakarta, apparently, he flew into Singapore. I came back to Singapore a day later, and then I heard from Thiru (the ‘devotee lawyer’) that Gour Govinda Swami was going to be at Senan’s house, giving darshan. Thiru said to me, “You’d better get your money out, get ready to pay Gour Govinda Swami the $108,000.” He called me in the late afternoon, and the meeting was that evening.

So three of us went: Thiru, the ‘devotee lawyer’ (he was a law student at the time), Vrindaranya and myself. I brought my cheque book. We arrived at Senan’s house before Maharaja came downstairs. At last he came downstairs, and his disciples did a foot-washing ceremony. They sang “Ohe Vaishnava Thakur, and some other bhajans, glorifying him as the Vaishnava Thakur. I couldn’t tell you who all was there. Madhavananda, or whoever that devotee was who came to our place, did not come greet me, and I don’t remember seeing him there. He probably was there, but I didn’t notice. He says I appeared nervous, but I remember being confident that I was going to find out the truth right then and there. I was there for one reason only, to learn from Gour Govinda Swami if he had a letter of appointment from Srila Prabhupada. Admittedly, I was not interested in hearing anything else from Maharaja. The devotees there knew who I was, and were in all likelihood guarded against whatever I might speak, and I figured they might even forcibly remove me from the room before I could get the words out. I gave Thiru a  piece of paper with some questions on it, and requested him to ask the questions, and he did.

He asked, “Maharaja, you have received a letter from Srila Prabhupada ordering you to become Acharya of ISKCON, so why did you not act on it? Why did you wait almost 20 years for ISKCON to appoint you as a guru?”

The room fell quiet.

Again Thiru tried to ask, “Did Srila Prabhupada appoint you to act as guru?”

Gour Govinda Swami did appear to be taken aback by this line of questioning. He asked, “What’s talking? What’s he talking?”

Thiru tried again, “Maharaja, did you receive a letter from Srila Prabhupada?”

Again the question was deflected.

At which point I spoke up – yes, rather loudly – and said, “He’s asking you, is it true that you received a letter from Srila Prabhupada personally to act as the Acharya?”

Gour Govinda still said, “What are you talking?”

So I put it shorter, “Did you receive an order from Srila Prabhupada to become the Acharya?”

Yet again he asked, “What talking?”

That really pissed me off. It was unbelievable. I was embarrassed for him that he was pretending not to understand what we were asking.

Again I asked, “Have you been ordered to become the Acharya?”

He still refused to answer. He said again, “What you talking?”

I burst out, “Just simply answer yes or no. Maharaja, have you been ordered to become the Acharya?”

That’s when he replied, “No order.” He put his head down, and repeated, “No order.” His head went down even lower, and his face was beet red. He said for the third time, “No order.”

No one dared to speak. You could slice the air, it was like jelly. No one knew how to react. The silence dragged on for 5 to 10 minutes. Finally, with his head down, Maharaja told them, “Do bhajan.” Then the devotees softly sang. He sat there. We sat for another five or ten minutes, and then we left. To me, they were defeated. Nothing further to say. Thiru, Vrindaranya and I left. No one dared to approach us or accost us. There was no other discussion or questions. The discussion Madhavananda alludes to is a fabrication. None of the disciples came up to us and said even one word further.

As to who was sincere or not… I’m sure Gour Govinda’s disciples were mortally offended by my confrontational approach, but they were hardly standing on the platform of truth. To this day, I don’t know whether Gour Govinda Swami himself ever made such a claim to his disciples, or whether his disciples invented it. If it was their own invention, then they have to take the responsibility for risking their Gurudev’s humiliation. They came to me with untruth, and after I exposed it, Madhavananda says I was insincere.

We heard that Gour Govinda Swami passed away in India around a week later. His disciples have their own story of that pastime, and so does ISKCON. Who knows what’s what? But from that meeting at Senan’s house, we have not heard from his devotees. None of them have contacted me.

As for the $108,000 Reward, it still stands. I spent about a million US dollars on the BBT court case. What is $108,000 to lose? Of course I knew then and now there is nothing to lose. To this day, no one inside or outside ISKCON has come to claim it.

I hope this clears up the matter. Once or twice some years ago I thought maybe to write about this incident, but let it go. Now that you’ve brought it to my attention the rubbish that Madhavananda has written, I think others should know what happened so they won’t be taken in by lies.

Are you the same Sudarshan from Singapore? – Your servant, Bhima das

On Apr 6, 2014, at 10:39 PM, Sudarshan Das wrote:

On Sunday, 6 April 2014, 20:09, Jai Simman R. Rangasamy <rjsimman@yahoo.com> wrote:

I came across this on Facebook …

A Remembrance of Sri Srimad Gour Govinda Swami Maharaja by Madhavananda Das

In October of 1994 I had the good fortune of being in Singapore with some godbrothers and my spiritual master Sri Srimad Gour Govinda Swami Maharaja. During that visit we attended an evening program that our Guru Maharaja gave at the temple managed by Sundar Gopal Das.

Afterwards I rode back in Senan’s car to his home where we were staying along with Guru Maharaja. There were a couple of other devotees in the car that I didn’t know. On the way, Senan suddenly introduced me to one of the passengers, saying that he was a lawyer and a ṛtvik. He then told the devotee something like, “Madhavananda will set you straight”.

Hearing that, this devotee lawyer then turned and started enthusiastically speaking some of his ṛtvik ideas to me. I listened politely for a while, and finally told him that I saw that he was sincere and I would like to accept his ideas.

However, I said, “There are a few things that I consider to be true that keep me from believing what you are saying. If you could refute those points then I could accept your idea.

He asked me what those three things were.

I replied, “First of all, I’m convinced that if someone were fully qualified, Srila Prabhupada would want them to be a regular guru. That qualification can be whatever standard you want to designate — be it that one is a pure devotee; that they have kṛṣṇa-prema; or that they have descended from the spiritual world on the order of Krishna to come here to preach etc, etc. If you can convince me that is not true then I may accept your points.”

He was quiet for a moment, and then said, “What is the next point?”

I continued, “Secondly, I’m convinced that Srila Prabhupada did not fail. That he must have at least one disciple who by Prabhupada’s potency is qualified to be guru. If you can convince me that Srila Prabhupada failed in this matter, then I may accept your point.”

Again, he was quiet for a moment, then he said, “What is the third point?”

I said, “I’m convinced that what Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport to Bhāgavatam 9.13.11 is correct. I then read out from my notes: “Prabhupada says, ‘The Supreme Personality of Godhead can be seen or unseen according to his own transcendental desire; similarly, a devotee, being jīvan-mukta, can be seen or not, as he chooses.’ Based on that”, I continued, “I’m convinced that we would not be able to see who is a qualified guru and who is not. Only if they reveal themselves to us can we recognize them.

I appreciate that you are sincere and I would like to accept your ideas. However, I’m convinced that these three points are true. If you can show me that they are not true, then I will be able to accept your conception.”

He was quiet for the rest of the ride.

The next day, at Senan’s house, a group of us were sitting as our Guru Maharaja began singing before his class. Suddenly my ṛtvik friend from the night before came into the room accompanied by a devotee named Bhima Das whom I knew as a leader amongst the ṛtvik devotees in Singapore. During the class, Bhima seemed nervous. He clearly was not listening to the lecture, and was shuffling through some papers he had brought with him. When the lecture was over his hand shot up and he loudly spoke, “Maharaja, what do you say about Srila Prabhupada’s instruction that after his departure the initiations should be ṛtvik ceremonies done on Prabhupada’s behalf?”

Like a simple child, Guru Maharaja looked a little confused as though he didn’t understand the question, especially as it had nothing to do with the talk he had just finished giving. Guru Maharaja then looked to me in a puzzled manner.

Wanting to be as neutral as I could so that the devotees could get the benefit of some exchange with our Guru Maharaja, I said, “Gurudeva, They are suggesting that Srila Prabhupada wanted a ṛtvik system of initiations after his departure.”

Again, like a simple child, Guru Maharaja shook his head and said very simply, “No, no. The GBC body does not accept that.”

At that point Bhima interrupted and started speaking even louder than before addressing our Guru Maharaja in a very challenging way. Unable to contain myself, I spoke up over his voice and said, “Gurudeva, they are not very sincere. They just want to argue. Last night I put forward three points to them that they were not able to refute. They are just coming here to argue.”

Things got a bit more intense at that point, Bhima turned to me and we started quarreling. Without showing any interest in our dispute our Guru Maharaja peacefully got up and with the help of his servant Chaitanya Chandra Prabhu went upstairs to his room.

I followed them up the steps with Bhima close behind me. When we got to the top, Guru Maharaja went into his room and Bhima and I continued our argument. Chaitanya Chandra Prabhu came to me after a few minutes and urged me to calm down and stop the quarrel, but I was too disturbed to do so.

Finally, I turned to Bhima and said, “Bhima, why are we quarrelling? I really don’t see much difference between us. You are taking shelter of Srila Prabhupada through Hamsadutta Prabhu (Bhima’s ṛtvik guru), and I’m taking shelter of Srila Prabhupada through my Guru Maharaja. The only difference I can see is that I consider my Guru Maharaja to be qualified, while you consider Hamsadutta to be unqualified. Other than that what is the difference between us.”

Hearing this comment, Bhima’s eyes squinted and his face turned bright red.

We then went downstairs where we continued our heated discussion. I told Bhima, “Your man could not answer my three questions, so why are you coming here and quarreling?”

He got out a pen and some paper, and said, “What are those questions?”

I related them to him, while he wrote them down. I gave him my email address and Bhima told me, “I will contact you right away with some answers.”

It’s been 20 years now since that exchange and I still haven’t heard back from Bhima