6th open letter – sannyasi girlfriend diversity

6th open letter – sannyasi girlfriend diversity

Message-ID: <CAHEdfkFTEF56A4uj=Af9wDLjJJcFcoqy+W6EGB9W3vnN2VgXEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 07:39:12 +0000
Subject: 6th open letter - sannyasi girlfriend diversity
From: Hanuman das
To: sacinandana.swami@pamho.net
Cc: Basu Ghosh Das <basughoshdas@gmail.com>,
"Badrinarayan Swami (San Diego - US)" <Badrinarayan.Swami@pamho.net>,
Bhakti-bhusana Swami <Bhakti-bhusana.Swami@pamho.net>,
"Bhanu.Swami@pamho.net" <Bhanu.Swami@pamho.net>,
"prahladananda.swami@pamho.net" <prahladananda.swami@pamho.net>, "sun@harekrsna.com" <sun@harekrsna.com>,
"virabahu.acbsp@pamho.net" <virabahu.acbsp@pamho.net>,
"bhakti.raghava.swami@pamho.net" <bhakti.raghava.swami@pamho.net>

Dear Sacinandana Swami,

since you are not replying to me directly, rather you are comforting your disciples with nonsense, I obtained your recent email to “sns disciples” conference, you might find my reply amusing.

If any other sannyasis want to share their view on sannyas asrama, you are welcome. I want to point out that I still didn’t receive confirmation from Sacinandana Swami that is not living with his girlfriend Bhanu-Nandini. If I were accused of secretly living with Lady Gaga, I would refute that immediately by public statement.

The reasons I am going public with all my emails is because sannyasi minister didn’t do anything about, he says he “doesn’t have proof”. Well, Sacinandana Swami is not denying that he is living with his girlfriend, what other proof do I need?

your servant, Hanuman das

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Sacinandana Swami" <Sacinandana.Swami@pamho.net>
> Date: 19 May 2016 13:22
> Subject: [sns-disciples] The End of Misunderstandings
> To: "SNS Disciples" <sns-disciples@googlegroups.com>
> Cc:


This world is a place where there are often misunderstandings among people
because of their different natures, which give birth to different views,
perspectives, standpoints, etc. This is natural and unavoidable.

Different views, exactly, my view is that, you, as a sannyasi can’t live with your girlfriend.

Queen Kunti saw in her time that dissension among living beings is bound to
happen because of social interactions. If everyone lived alone in a cage and
never left it – there would be no problems. But this is not an option.

Queen Kunti had a proper husband, she will not living as girlfriend of some sannyasi, so, why are we quoting her here?

What about people who live in a spiritual society – like the Krishna
consciousness movement? Should they not be unified in their beliefs? One
movement, one perspective?
Yes and no. Yes, they have the same focus – Krishna – but no, they don’t
have the same personalities. Srila Prabhupada wrote in this regard:
“Because we are all individuals sometimes there is disagreement between
devotees. When non-devotees quarrel they cannot stop and end up killing each
other. But the devotees’ disagreement does not last long because they patch
it up for Krishna’s sake, because they are all working for the same end –
Krishna’s service.”
(Letter to Bhumata, Calcutta 10 March, 1973)
The art is to step back before there is friction, which often results in
unnecessary conflict. Unless there is a cause worth fighting for (this is
rarely the case), one who is trying to develop Krishna consciousness
withdraws from the fire of dissension before it is too late.

I am not familiar with art of stepping back. You step back and say good bye to your girlfriend. Or say goodbye to your sannyas asrama.

Once my spiritual master remarked about two of his disciples who were
quarreling with each other, “They are like little puppies fighting in the

This puppy is going to finish off your fake sannyas theatre.

From a perspective of reason such fights appear childish, and from the
perspective of Vaisnavism they are dangerous because of the grave
consequences of Vaisnava aparadha.

Really? What about aparadha to Srila Prabhupada of being fake sannyasi with girlfriend in the middle of the movement which he tried so hard to establish. Srila Prabhupada gave his life’s hopes for this movement, and now you are destroying all that by behaving like sahajiya? Isn’t that aparadha?

What about aparadha of presenting yourself as renounced guru and teacher to your disciples and promising them to take them back to Godhead, while you are not taking them anywhere?
What is the solution in a Vaisnava community?

During his time with us, Srila Prabhupada had to sometimes address his
disciples to help them overcome their differences of opinion. In one of his
letters, which was often quoted during the 1970s, he gave a solution:
discuss amongst each other how to serve Krishna with unity in diversity.
The letter:

“Material nature means dissension and disagreement, especially in this Kali
yuga. But, for this Krishna consciousness movement its success will depend
on agreement, even though there are varieties of engagements.
In the material world there are varieties, but there is no agreement.
In the spiritual world there are varieties, but there is agreement. That is
the difference.

The materialist without being able to adjust the varieties and disagreements
makes everything zero. They cannot come into agreements with varieties, but
if we keep Krishna in the center, then there will be agreement in varieties.
This is called unity in diversity.

I am therefore suggesting that all our men meet in Mayapur every year during
the birth anniversary of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. With all GBC and senior
men present we should discuss how to make unity in diversity.

But if we fight on account of diversity, then it is simply the material

Please try to maintain the philosophy of unity in diversity. That will make
our movement successful. One section of men have already gone out, therefore
we must be very careful to maintain unity in diversity, and remember the
story of Aesop’s Fables of the father of many children with the bundle of
sticks. When the father asked his children to break the bundle of sticks
wrapped in a bag, none of them could do it. But, when they removed the
sticks from the bag, and tried one by one, the sticks were easily broken. So
this is the strength of unity in diversity. If we are bunched up, we can
never be broken, but when divided, then we can become broken very easily.

I hope this meets you in good health.
Your ever well wishes,
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

(Letter to Kirtananda, 18 October, 1973)

REALLY? DIVERSITY? Some sannyasis have girlfriends and some don’t? That is really weird definition of diversity.

What to do if there is dissension amongst Vaisnavas?
The following steps might help:

  1. Take a step back
  2. See things from your position. What is your need?
  3. See things from the other’s perspective. What is their need?
  4. Try to see things from a third perspective – best is the position of the Lord (1)
  5. If you have found a third way (not your way, not his/her way but a way that is more likely to satisfy both sides) wait and > pray and if it still continues to make sense after some time, go for it.

What to do when there is a sannyasi living with girlfriend:

  1. She takes a step back, packs her bags and goes to live to a land far away from Berlin.
  2. See things from your position. Do you want to be sannyasi or not?
  3. See things from others perspective: “Sannyasi living with girlfriend is disgrace for everybody in the movement.”
  4. Position of the Lord is that sannyasi can’t live with a girlfriend.
  5. Third way, the honest way, all other sannyasis in ISKCON find themselves a girlfriend.


As I write this, I am conscious that we live in a time which is astrologically said to be very conducive to conflict and misunderstanding, but I am certain that the spiritual solution to material problems will work nevertheless, at all places and all times. I am aware that there may be situations which require a careful and sensitive analysis and then a well-considered process of conflict resolution – but in the meantime it is always good to apply the timeless principles of Krishna consciousness for we > may find that all of a sudden the conflicts have evaporated.

REALLY? Are you serious? Sannyasi living with girlfriend is ISKCON’s astrological problem? Sweet Jesus, this is unreal.

By all means possible try to overcome negative emotions towards those who
have surrendered everything in order to serve Krishna. Srila Prabhupada once
“Because the devotees have given up everything to serve Krishna – money,
jobs, reputation, wealth, big educations, everything – their lackings have
become transcendental because, despite everything they may do, their topmost
intention is to serve Krishna. ‘One who is engaged in devotional service,
despite the most abominable action, is to be considered saintly because he
is rightly situated.’
The devotees of Krishna are the most exalted persons on this planet, better
than kings, all of them, so we should always remember that, and like the
bumblebee, always look for the nectar or the best of qualities of a person.”
(Letter to Atrya Rishi, Bombay, 4th of February, 1973)
(1) “Krishna consciousness means constantly associating with the Supreme
Personality of Godhead in such a mental state that the devotee can observe
the cosmic manifestation exactly as the Supreme Personality of Godhead
does.” (SB 4.29.69)

Dear Sacinandana prabhu, your living with girlfriend is deviation, not negative emotion. Let’s get real, you need to marry her.

You are not exalted devotee of Krishna, you are cheater who is posing as sannyasi while at the same time living with a girlfriend. Real devotee of the Lord is like open book, no secrets, no girlfriends.

And for the fun’s sake, let’s just quote from sannyasi ministry website.

The Lord maintained that it was dangerous for a sannyasi to be in intimate touch with worldly money-conscious men and women. The Lord was an ideal sannyasi. No woman could approach the Lord even to offer respects. Women’s seats were accommodated far away from the Lord. As an ideal teacher and acarya, He was very strict in the routine work of a sannyasi. Apart from being a divine incarnation, the Lord was an ideal character as a human being. His behavior with other persons was also above suspicion. In His dealings as acarya, He was harder than the thunderbolt and softer than the rose.
(Bhag. Intro., page 31 )
A transcendentalist has nothing to do with women or money. He must always refrain from such intimate relations.
(Bhag. Intro., page 31 )

And now really dangerous stuff:


Most important of all, a sannyasi is strictly forbidden to have any intimate relationship with a woman. He is even forbidden to talk with a woman in a secluded place. Lord Caitanya was an ideal sannyasi, and when He was at Puri His feminine devotees could not even come near to offer their respects. They were advised to bow down from a distant place. This is not a sign of hatred for women as a class, but it is a stricture imposed on the sannyasi not to have close connections with women. One has to follow the rules and regulations of a particular status of life in order to purify his existence. For a sannyasi intimate relations with women and possessions of wealth for sense gratification are strictly forbidden. The ideal sannyasi was Lord Caitanya Himself, and we can learn from His life that He was very strict in regards to women. Although He is considered to be the most liberal incarnation of Godhead, accepting the most fallen conditioned souls, He strictly followed the rules and regulations of the sannyasa order of life in connection with association with women. One of His personal associates, namely Chota Haridasa, was personally associated with Lord Caitanya along with His other confidential personal associates, but somehow or other this Chota Haridas looked lustily on a young woman, and Lord Caitanya was so strict that He at once rejected him from the society of His personal associates. Lord Caitanya said, “For a sannyasi or anyone who is aspiring to get out of the clutches of material nature and trying to elevate himself to the spiritual nature and go back to home, back to Godhead, for him,looking toward material possessions and women for sense gratification-not even enjoying them, but just looking toward them with such a propensity- is so condemned that he had better commit suicide before experiencing such illicit desires.”
(B.g. 16.1-3, purp.)