by Swami B.K. Giri
Prabhu Subal Vilasa,
Deviation from Srila Gurudeva’s Will began in Navadwipa on April 7, 2010 at the first meeting of the International Acharya Board. It was at this meeting that Sripada Goswami Maharaja insisted all the acharyas “defer” to Sripada Acharya Maharaja.
Thus began the first of many deviations. They all followed BSG’s direction, instead of Gurudeva’s direction. All that is, except me. I followed the direction of Gurudeva’s Will to “be the Acharya of New York…” Many of you severely criticized me for doing so.
BSG knew deferral was a deviation as proved below where he instructs me in the use of the word “the” as in “I want to see Sripad Avadhut Maharaj as “the” Acharya in Russia.” (Gurudeva’s LW&T)
The deviation, or “infection” to use your terminology, did not travel “from New Jersey”, aka Giri Maharaja, it traveled from Navadwipa.
IT DEPENDS ON THE MEANING OF “THE.”
On a matter involving the use of the word “the”, Sripad Goswami Maharaja had this to say to me:
A small example from what you have just written: You write that I once described myself as, “the” protégé of Srila Sridhar Maharaja, as opposed to what was actually written, “a” protégé of Srila Sridhar Maharaja.
“the” meaning, “only” [Definite article]
“a” meaning, “one among others” [Indefinite article]
One wonders, are you unaware this is misleading; is it intentional?
Email: BSG to BKG, Date: January 31, 2011 (presented in it’s entirety at: https://scsmathglobal.com/?p=121)
In every instance in Srila Gurudeva’s Will, where he names an Acharya, this terminology is used, “the Acharya”, meaning there can “only” be one and it must be the “only” one he named.
I want to see Sripad Avadhut Maharaj as “the” Acharya in Russia. (Gurudeva’s LW&T)
If Sripad Goswami Maharaja “wrote” the Will, as he has claimed, then BSG knows very well that “the” Acharya means the “only” Acharya in Russia, and the same elsewhere, where other acharyas are named for specific regions.
Has BSG forgotten his own rules of grammar?
If Srila Govinda Maharaja thought any one of the six acharyas he named should initiate in Russia then he would have used; “a” meaning, “one among others” [Indefinite article] not; “the” meaning, “only” [Definite article].
In other words, according to BSG, if Srila Gurudeva intended there be multiple acharyas for Russia, as there are now, where not only Avadhuta Maharaja is initiating but also “acharyas” Goswami Maharaja and Acharya Maharaja, Gurudeva’s Will would have to read this way:
I want to see Sripad Avadhut Maharaj as “a” Acharya in Russia.
But the Will doesn’t read that way, does it?
Srila Govinda Maharaja’s Will reads in every instance, where he names an acharya, “‘the’ Acharya.”
Now that BSG has claimed the status of “a” acharya for himself, when he was not named as “the” acharya of any region, as the six acharyas were that Srila Govinda Maharaja actually named, I think it’s fair to turn BSG’s question back to him; “One wonders, are you unaware this is misleading; is it intentional?”
For those of you who think Srila Govinda Maharaja did a great injustice to BSG by not naming him to be “the” acharya of anything, or that Gurudeva made a mistake by not naming him, or forgot to name him, what other wrongs did Gurudeva commit that now need to be reversed by those of you who know better than him?
I urge you to consider if you may be confusing emotion with devotion.
And for those of you who think it is absolutely vital that BSG be recognized as “a” guru within SCSM, you should be pleased to know I offered a suggestion that would have satisfied your desire and, if you want to think it, the desire of Gurudeva.
In an email I sent to BSG on February 7, 2011, I offered what I still believe was a very reasonable solution.
“Maharaja, you know better than anyone that we are a shiksha guru parampara.”
“It is not necessary that you be recognized as the seventh Acharya for us to give due honor and respect to your ability to present the siddhanta of our Sri Guru Varga. In the end, that is our one and only hope, that we be recognized as properly representing the line of “Pujala ragapatha gaurava bange mattala sadhujana visaya range.”
“Maharaja, I can worship you as a vaishnava. That is no problem for me. Your service and recognition by our gurus demands that I do so. First, however, I believe these other matters must be dispensed with.” (email presented in it’s entirety at: https://scsmathglobal.com/?p=121)
Shiksha guru is guru, but it was not enough “guru” for BSG. He wanted a position that Gurudeva would never give him, the position of Acharya within SCSM.
What he couldn’t get from Srila Gurudeva, he took for himself.
Obviously BSG found my reasonable solution unacceptable.
Some of you seem to be of the same opinion.
You can’t please all of the people, all of the time.