Śrīla Prabhupāda had already been disturbed by what he saw as a loose husband-wife situation in Vṛndāvana. Now, hearing this letter from a householder who was improperly inquiring about his family life, he again turned his attention to Vṛndāvana and asked to see his G.B.C. for Vṛndāvana, Gopāla Kṛṣṇa, who had recently arrived in Māyāpur.

“It is not a free hotel for love-making,” Prabhupāda began, even before Gopāla Kṛṣṇa entered the room. “Vṛndāvana is not a joking place. They must be serious for Kṛṣṇa, and I shall give them everything. Don’t worry about money, but manage. There is not scarcity of money. There is scarcity of management. Why so many children in the temple? It is not simply a place for husbandless women. Children should always be engaged, so they shouldn’t create a disturbance all over.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda said that if the mothers were irresponsible and only wanted to take care of their own children, then they should be sent away from Vṛndāvana. Two women could run a nursery and take care of many children, and the other women could work. “Not go to the roof and lovemaking,” said Prabhupāda, “and make a plan and go away.” He stressed that since all India came to Vṛndāvana, ISKCON’s center should be ideal in every respect. Otherwise, people would think that his disciples were hippies, and no one would come. A good example of responsible care for children was in Māyāpur, where a gurukula had already been organized.

“Children are welcome,” said Prabhupāda, “but make them jewels. Not spoiled children, varṇa-saṅkara hippies.”

For the sannyāsīs in Māyāpur, Prabhupāda’s heavy words about irresponsible gṛhastha life fueled their own arguments. A few of them felt that gṛhasthas should not even live in the temples. That evening, when the sannyāsīs gathered in Prabhupāda’s room, they discussed with him the position of families and children in ISKCON.

One sannyāsī reported not being allowed to preach in certain temples, because he was against marriage and favored brahmacārī life. Others complained that expensive properties were being purchased to be used mostly as residences. The preaching was suffering, they said, and brahmacārīs were being told to get married if they felt sexually agitated.

Prabhupāda felt the heavy force of the sannyāsīs’ protest, and he could perceive the antagonism between the āśramas. These things must be decided by the G.B.C., he said, and no one could go against their decisions. But he also expressed sympathy for what the sannyāsīs were saying. Families, he suggested, could serve in farm communities and live self-sufficiently in Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

“Our whole preaching program is detachment from material life,” said Prabhupāda, “to stop sex life altogether. Gṛhastha is a concession for those who cannot give it up immediately. Otherwise marriage is not required. It is simply burdensome. Legal or illegal, the after-effects of sex simply mean difficulty.”

March 7
The G.B.C. members assembled. The process was to make an agenda, discuss each issue, and then pass resolutions by voting. At the end of the day they would go to Śrīla Prabhupāda in his room and read the day’s resolutions for his approval or amendment. The first day they spent mostly in assigning zones and duties for each G.B.C. member. They reported these results to Śrīla Prabhupāda, and he approved them.

Prabhupāda also addressed the issue of gṛhastha and sannyāsa life, saying that all the devotees should become attached to Kṛṣṇa’s family, not to the “stool” family or “pig” family. Sannyāsa life meant rejection of the false family, but not the family of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness society was based on renunciation, said Prabhupāda, and therefore all sincere devotees were as good as sannyāsīs. The actual dress didn’t matter, whether white or saffron,* although an ideal gṛhastha should eventually come to the stage of formal sannyāsa. He said that all his disciples should become gurus and each make thousands of disciples, just as he had, thus spreading Kṛṣṇa consciousness everywhere.

* Gṛhastha men traditionally wear white. Brahmacārīs and sannyāsīs wear saffron.

“Discuss in the G.B.C.,” he said, “and make a decision. Question and put to vote. But if you make brahmacārī party, gṛhastha party, sannyāsī party, it will be finished. Everything should be done very openly. We have to work for Kṛṣṇa. Why this pss-pss whispering? It is not very good.”

The next morning while Śrīla Prabhupāda was on his walk around the Māyāpur fields, the G.B.C. vice-chairman, Madhudviṣa Swami, asked for guidance in preparation for the G.B.C. meeting that day.

Madhudviṣa: “The subjects that we are going to be discussing today in the G.B.C. meeting are about the role of sannyāsīs and brahmacārīs and gṛhasthas in ISKCON. In the Eighteenth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā, in one of your purports, you say that a sannyāsī should never discourage a young man from getting married. But on the other hand, we understand that a sannyāsī should encourage young men to remain brahmacārī. So it seems to me like there’s some kind of contradiction.”

Prabhupāda: “According to time and circumstance. Just like Kṛṣṇa says, niyataṁ kuru karma tvam: ‘Always be engaged in your prescribed work.’ And at last He says, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekam śaraṇaṁ vraja.* So now you adjust. That is not a contradiction. It is just suitable to the time and circumstance.”

* “Give up all prescribed duty [dharma] and surrender unto Me.” (Bhagavad-gītā 18.66)

Madhudviṣa: “But is there some conclusion?”

Prabhupāda: “The real aim is that you have to become the eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. Either you go through karma or jñāna or yoga, it doesn’t matter. The ultimate aim is how to reach Kṛṣṇa. Arjuna achieved the favor of Kṛṣṇa by fighting and killing. Hare Kṛṣṇa.”

Prabhupāda said no more. He had created the G.B.C. to deal with just such problems, and he had instructed his G.B.C. men personally, in letters and in his books. Now they would have to apply those instructions according to time and place.

The G.B.C. met, discussed all day, and by evening had a list of resolutions pertaining to the divisions of āśrama in ISKCON: Husbandless women with children could not live in ISKCON temples. Husband and wife could not live in ISKCON temples, even if separately. Before entering marriage, devotees should have a means of supporting themselves and not expect to “live off” ISKCON. Upon getting married, a householder would be financially responsible for his wife until such time as he took sannyāsa.

Reading the resolutions to Prabhupāda in his room usually evoked little verbal response from him. His practice was generally to nod in approval, or occasionally to comment. But when he heard the resolution that husbandless women with children could not stay in the temples, he uttered a thoughtful “Hmmm.” Then he said, “As for me, my only concern is that they shall not waste their valuable human life.” He was speaking not in the tone of the official head of the society, who could veto resolutions, but in a very personal, humble way, as a pure devotee. “After so much struggle,” he said, “they have got this human form, and I do not want that they should miss the opportunity. As for me, I cannot discriminate – man, woman, child, rich, poor, educated, or foolish. Let them all come, and let them take Kṛṣṇa consciousness, so that they will not waste their human life.”

Although the G.B.C. members usually had plenty to say, after these remarks from Prabhupāda they remained silent.

Finally, Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami, the elected G.B.C. chairman for the year, spoke. “Yes, Śrīla Prabhupāda,” he said. “So we will strike that resolution.”

Prabhupāda also disapproved the resolution that a householder would have to give financial support for his wife for the rest of his life until he took sannyāsa.

“You each be guru,” he said. “As I have five thousand disciples or ten thousand, so you have ten thousand each. In this way, create branches and branches of the Caitanya tree. But you have to be spiritually strong. This means chanting your rounds and following the four rules. It is not an artificial show. It is not a material thing. Chant and follow the four rules and pray to Kṛṣṇa in helplessness. We have to have enthusiasm. If we lose our enthusiasm, everything will become slack. In old age I came out from Vṛndāvana. I had no money, nothing. But I thought, ‘Let me try.’ ”

Bhagavān spoke out spontaneously: “You’re still enthusiastic, Śrīla Prabhupāda.”

“Yes.” Prabhupāda smiled. “I am enthusiastic. I don’t think I am an old man.”

“Sometimes we think we are old,” said Bhagavān.

“No one is old,” said Prabhupāda. “Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre.* Sometimes in old age one is pushed down. But I am enthusiastic.”

* “The soul is not destroyed with the destruction of the body.” (Bhagavad-gītā 2.20)

Prabhupāda said he was pleased at most of the resolutions, because they indicated that a strong G.B.C. was now ready to relieve him so he could concentrate on his translation work. He said that the devotees would have to strictly follow for the entire year what the G.B.C. had agreed on. There should be no changes unless he approved, and at the next annual meeting they could make any changes necessary.

The G.B.C. chairman then called for a vote on an unresolved topic from the day’s meeting. The topic had been discussed, but since it had not been approved, the chairman called for a vote. Everyone voted yes by raising their right hand. Then Śrīla Prabhupāda raised his hand also. His disciples immediately laughed at this endearing gesture.

“Yes,” Prabhupāda said, “I am simply following the G.B.C. Whatever you say, I have to follow.”

When the temple presidents heard about the G.B.C. resolutions, many objected. They knew Prabhupāda had approved them, but they thought that the actual spirit and interpretation some of the sannyāsīs might give to the resolutions would cause a split in the Society. Many of the temple presidents, being gṛhasthas, felt discriminated against. They wanted a chance to present their side.

Prabhupāda knew of the presidents’ discontent, and he brought up the subject on his next morning walk. Surrounded by sannyāsīs, G.B.C. men, temple presidents, and others, he brought out the issues, attempting to bring his spiritual family into harmony.

“I have heard,” he said, “that too much stricture on the gṛhasthas may cause some disturbance. Hmmm?”

“Yes,” admitted Madhudviṣa.

“So,” said Prabhupāda, “I think the gṛhasthas themselves should form a small committee and define what they will do, instead of forcing something on them. Because in this age, nobody can follow strictly all the strictures in the śāstras.”

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa objected to the idea of gṛhasthas revising the G.B.C. resolutions. “In none of our resolutions,” he argued, “do we say anything about how the gṛhasthas should live. The resolutions simply say how our Society should be run. It doesn’t say how gṛhasthas should live. And on points of objection, Prabhupāda has already corrected us.”

“I think it may be further decided,” Prabhupāda continued. “Make a small committee of three or four gṛhasthas. Then you define how you live.”

Changing the subject, Prabhupāda asked when the paṇḍāl was going to be built. Today 350 devotees were expected to arrive from the West. The paṇḍāl stage was supposed to have been erected, and festivities, including theater, would begin in the evening. But the devotees, irrepressibly absorbed in the gṛhastha-sannyāsī issue, could not refrain from pursuing it further.

“That is the distinction between the enjoying spirit and the renouncing spirit?” asked Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa Swami, returning to the theme.

“Hmmm?” Prabhupāda asked. Although the question was pointed, he remained poised, and detached from their party divisions. His idea of what to do was definite, but his method of teaching it was careful and gradual. He already knew well the difficult task of satisfying divergent views among his strong-minded disciples. For years he had been making the ultimate decisions and teaching his disciples how to go forward in a united way. Once again, an issue was building that only he could solve – if they would listen.

Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: “For example, as we have been discussing, there are different tendencies between the brahmacārīs and the gṛhasthas. The attitude of the brahmacārīs is toward renunciation. If a brahmacārī gives up his brahmacārī life to become a gṛhastha, that means he is more inclined to the enjoying spirit. At least to some extent. So how to deal with this situation?”

Prabhupāda: “If you want to enjoy, who can stop you?”

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: “But we cannot support it. We cannot support his enjoyment. That he should take on himself.”

Prabhupāda: “According to different positions and attitudes, the four āśramas are there – brahmacārī, gṛhastha, vānaprastha, sannyāsa. This means that everyone is not on the equal platform. There are different platforms. But the whole idea is how to give up the propensity of enjoyment. That is wanted.”

Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: “We find in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that Śukadeva Gosvāmī would approach the householders in the morning just so long as to give them a little bit of spiritual knowledge, and he would accept the offering of some milk. So the sannyāsīs and renunciants, generally they wouldn’t very much relish the association of householders because of this enjoying spirit and the association that it entails. So we are finding also within our Society that those who are inclined to remaining celibate, they are finding the association of persons even within our movement who have this enjoying spirit to be somewhat detrimental to their own spiritual life.”

Prabhupāda: “Then what is your proposal? You should drive them away?”

Madhudviṣa: “Unless there is association, then they will never become purified.”

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: “No, that is not the problem, because everyone comes together for association. They come together in the temple for kīrtana, for lectures, for prasādam … These things are common activities. There’s no question that we should not have common activities between all the āśramas. But for living there must be separate arrangement.”

Prabhupāda: “Now, even in the temple, you are complaining that a husband and wife are talking.”

Prabhupāda seemed almost coy in the way he gradually led and manipulated the issue. He was also hearing more clearly the minds and hearts of his divided disciples.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: “Yes, they are not talking Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.”

Prabhupāda: “That you will find everywhere.”

Bhāgavata: “There’s a complaint that sometimes is made that there’s too much aversion on the part of the brahmacārīs. But isn’t that a quality of a brahmacārī, that he should have a healthy contempt for sense gratification?”

Prabhupāda: “I do not follow.”

The devotees crowded around as closely as possible. This was an important point.

Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: “He’s saying that sometimes the brahmacārīs and even the sannyāsīs may have a strong aversion to association with women and householder life. But sometimes the gṛhasthas will criticize the sannyāsīs and brahmacārīs and say, ‘This is fanaticism.’ The gṛhasthas say that this is just as bad as the enjoying spirit, because a sannyāsī is meditating on the same thing, except that he’s averse to it. So Bhāgavata dāsa’s question is, ‘Is it better to be neutral or to be averse?’ ”

Prabhupāda: “These are all fanaticism. Real unity is in advancing Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva … . In the Kali-yuga you cannot strictly follow, neither I can strictly follow. If I criticize you, if you criticize me, then we go far away from our real life of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.”

Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: “So is it correct to say that if we are not Kṛṣṇa conscious, then if it’s not the gṛhastha problem it would be some other problem?”

Prabhupāda: “Yes. We should always remember that either gṛhastha or brahmacārī or sannyāsī, nobody can strictly follow all the rules and regulations. In the Kali-yuga it is not possible. If I simply find fault with you, and if you find fault with me, then it will be factional, and our real business will be hampered. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu has recommended that hari-nāma, chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, should be very rigidly performed, which is common for everyone – gṛhastha, vānaprastha, and sannyāsa. They should always chant Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, then everything will be adjusted. Otherwise, it is impossible to advance. We shall be complicated with the details only. This is called niyamāgraha. I think I have explained it.”

Madhudviṣa: “Yes, in The Nectar of Instruction.”

Prabhupāda: “Niyamāgraha is not good. Niyama means ‘regulative principles,’ and āgraha means ‘not to accept.’ Agraha means the opposite – too eager to accept the regulative principles, but no advancement spiritually. Both of them are called niyamāgraha. So the basic principle is that niyamāgraha is not recommended. If we advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness by the simple method of chanting twenty-four hours – kīrtanīyaḥ sadā hariḥ – then things will be automatically adjusted.

“You cannot find in Kali-yuga that everything is being done very correctly to the point; that is very difficult. Just like our poet Allen Ginsberg, he was always accusing me, ‘Swamiji, you are very conservative and strict.’ Actually I told him, ‘I am never strict. Neither I am conservative. If I become conservative, then I cannot live here for a moment.’ So I am not at all conservative. I was living with one boy, Carl Yeargens. I was cooking, and I saw in the refrigerator some pieces of meat for his cat. So still I kept my food in that refrigerator. What can be done?”

They had been talking for over an hour, and Prabhupāda had given definitive instructions. But it was not over yet. It was clear, however, who was in control.

Later that morning, 350 devotees approached the precincts of Māyāpur in a caravan of buses from the Calcutta airport. For most of the arriving devotees, this would be their first visit to Māyāpur, and their excitement countered the fatigue of the long journey from the West. Free of worldly concerns, they had come to India to visit Śrīdhāma Māyāpur and to see Śrīla Prabhupāda again.

After three hours on the road, the buses had entered Māyāpur, and soon the devotees were seeing the Gaudiya Math temples, the Śrīvāsa Aṅgana, the samādhi of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, and the birthsite of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, all appearing one after the other, as the buses, horns blaring almost incessantly, veered around the winding turns of Bhaktisiddhānta Road. Villagers on foot and in rickshas, buffalo, goats, and cows moved hurriedly aside. Local residents looked up with curiosity and surprise at the sight of hundreds of Western bhaktas arriving to celebrate Gaura-pūrṇimā.

Then the arriving devotees saw, on the flat Māyāpur landscape, the pinkish hue and beautiful features of ISKCON’s Mayapur Chandrodaya Mandir, the place Śrīla Prabhupāda had prepared for them, the home of which they had heard so much. As the buses arrived at the gate to the ISKCON property, the devotees cheered to see the new domes and fields of flowers. And their eagerness to see Śrīla Prabhupāda increased. There would be formalities of registering and receiving a room, a few complications in locating and settling in, but nothing major. They were home now among fellow devotees. Soon they would be able to bathe in the Ganges and to hear the schedule for parikramas to the holy places.

Some devotees rested, while others met with friends from various places in the world. They shared the latest news and received experienced advice about the Ganges’ swift current and about avoiding dysentery and mosquitoes. By early evening they had all moved into their rooms and taken prasādam. The śāhnāi musicians, in a small room above the entrance gate, began playing an evening rāga. The sky darkened, and devotees began gathering in the brightly-lit temple room for a gigantic kīrtana.

These devotees had been working very hard in various cities throughout the world, and coming to Māyāpur was like a reward for their austerities and patient service. Now they could relax and enjoy spiritual life, with no responsibilities other than to worship the Deities, to see and hear Śrīla Prabhupāda, to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, and to simply be Kṛṣṇa conscious in the eternal abode of Lord Caitanya.

When Prabhupāda heard that now almost six hundred devotees were gathered in his Māyāpur place of worship, he was very pleased. He inquired whether the prasādam and accommodations were sufficient and whether there would be a full schedule of engagements for everyone. Otherwise, he said, if the devotees remained idle, they would get sick or would gossip. He said everyone should simply chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, go on parikrama and engage in kṛṣṇa-kathā.

Some of the new arrivals, especially temple presidents, were drawn into the schism regarding gṛhasthas and sannyāsīs. Now that all the temple presidents were together, they called for a special meeting, rallying together in their discontent. They disliked the resolutions restricting the place of gṛhasthas in ISKCON, and as they spoke and compared opinions, they found a particular focus for their grievances. Most of the objections were coming from the North American temple presidents and were aimed at the Rādhā-Dāmodara traveling saṅkīrtana party, led by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami. The conflict had been building for at least a year, ever since Tamāla Kṛṣṇa had formed the Rādhā-Dāmodara party. Within that year, the party had grown to about 150 men traveling all over North America and distributing Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books.

Prabhupāda had praised the party, which was responsible for thirty to forty percent of the total remittances to the American BBT. Men on the Rādhā-Dāmodara party lived with spiritually advanced sannyāsīs; they developed traits of austerity and detachment and had an enthusiasm for remaining celibate, without a need for marriage.

The Rādhā-Dāmodara party broke all records for book distribution and outdid all other zones and temples. An elite army of saṅkīrtana soldiers, they were the recognized world leaders of book distribution. More than eighty members of the party had arrived at the Māyāpur festival, and they were given a special reserved section in the best building for their residence.

But in their zealousness for renunciation and saṅkīrtana leadership, some of the Rādhā-Dāmodara brahmacārīs had developed a condescending attitude toward temple life and householders. This materialistic conception had reached the point where some men were judging the worth of a devotee on the basis of whether he wore white cloth (as a gṛhastha) or saffron (as a sannyāsī or brahmacārī). Anyone in white could not be a spiritually advanced devotee. At least, this was the misconception that the temple presidents felt had developed among some of the more immature members of the Rādhā-Dāmodara party.