By: GEORGE A. SMITH (CALIFORNIA, USA ) On the side of the enemy. asac-chastresu sajjeta nopajiveta jivikam vada-vadams tyajet tarkan paksam kamca na samsrayet
TRANSLATION
Literature that is a useless waste of time — in other words, literature without spiritual benefit — should be rejected. One should not become a professional teacher as a means of earning one's livelihood, nor should one indulge in arguments and counter-arguments. Nor should one take shelter of any cause or faction.
Radhanatha's wonderful story strikes me as falling into this category of being a useless waste of time. It is simply an attempt at self glorification, motivated by a desire to fool people into thinking him spiritually advanced so that they will continue to support him. He is simply trying to maintain himself as a professional teacher and through his association with Kirtanananda and even ISKCON, he certainly fits himself into this last category of "should nots" that he has done and is still doing.
I never met Kirtanananda, never met the murderer of Sulocana, but I doubt that anyone of any actual spiritual advancement would have formed such a close association with these two individuals. It would simply be intolerable, for both the spiritually advanced person and the murderer and pedophile, simply for the fact that a spiritually advanced person would have no choice but to oppose such men by speaking the truth to them. na sabham praviset prajnah sabhya-dosan anusmaran abruvan vibruvann ajno narah kilbisam asnute "A wise person should not enter an assembly if he knows the participants there are committing acts of impropriety, and if, having entered such an assembly, he fails to speak the truth, speaks falsely, or pleads ignorance, he will certainly incur sin." (Srimad Bhagavatam 10.44.10)
Had Radhanatha actually been spiritually advanced while under the shelter of these demons, he would most likely now be dead from their reactions to his having to speak the truth to them.
"Hiranyakasipu, being a demon, would always consider Lord Vishnu and His devotees to be his enemies. Therefore the word para-paksha ("on the side of the enemy") is used here.
Hiranyakasipu never agreed with the words of Vishnu, or Krishna. Rather, he was angered by the intelligence of a Vaishnava." (Srimad Bhagavatam 7.5.6 Purport)) Instead of offering Kirtanananda and Tirtha the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of a Vaisnava and the truth that one must speak in such an assembly or certainly incur sin – Radhanatha remained silent, or even supportive, and even perhaps complicit. He became para- paksha; on the side of the enemy.
Instead of offering Kirtanananda and Tirtha the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of a Vaisnava and the truth that one must speak in such an assembly or certainly incur sin – Radhanatha remained silent, or even supportive, and even perhaps complicit. He became para- paksha; on the side of the enemy.
According to verse 10.44.10 from Srimad Bhagavatam, Radhanatha became implicated in their sins. And what were those sins? Common men, husbands and fathers, cannot but weep when they hear of them, and these things were done to Krsna's devotees. Radhanatha has incurred the sin of the worst Vaisnava aparada many times over. He is not spiritually advanced, just the opposite, for such sins as these one is damned.
Whatever spiritual advancement Radhanatha once may have had was vanquished by his association with a molester and murderer of a devotee, and nothing except their forgiveness will save him from lifetimes in Hell with them.
That Radhanatha says he did not "like" Kirtanananda is just a feeble attempt to throw us off the scent. Many of Adolph Hitler's generals didn't like him either, but that did not save them from judgment at Nuremberg, and this will not save Radhanatha. Radhanatha did not oppose Hitler… I mean Kirtanananda, instead he at least went along with him. How far he went along with him may be behind his continued association with Sulocana's murderer. One wonders what he is continuing to support? Probably just his own skin, for if he doesn't continue to support Tirtha das, who can say what Tirtha das might know about him and choose to reveal, if he thinks that his old buddy has deserted him?