Dear GBC Members,
Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. A possible solution has just been found to the long-standing question about what main Deities to install in the Temple of the Vedic Planetarium, and we considered it our duty to get it to you as quickly as possible, since the Grand Opening is projected to but a few years away.
We had been working on some supporting shrines for the Planetarium Temple, and have given a great deal of thought to the main Deities. By Srila Prabhupada’s grace it came to us like a bolt of lightning from the sky, that just really focusing in on the Vedic Cosmos concept was a way to go, getting away from this Earth to other planetary systems, or to flying through the Vedic Cosmos itself. Most of the activities of the Avatāras appear to have happened on this Earth, but the activities of a few Avatāras do factually have to do with Vedic Cosmology per se.
Top of the list is Lord Varāhadeva. He rescued the Earth from another location in Vedic Cosmology, namely the Garbhodaka Ocean, the Causal Ocean, as described in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.18.2. And He then flew through the Vedic Cosmos, through Outer Space, to return the Earth to Her rightful place. Looks very strongly on-concept for the Planetarium Temple.
The second is Lord Kūrma. The Ocean of Milk, where Kūrmāvatāra’s līlā took place, as described in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.7.8, is also a specific non-Earth location in Vedic Cosmology, and therefore on-concept.
The third is Lord Hayagrīva. It is described in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 5.18.6 how this incarnation went to the demon planet of Rasātala to rescue the Vedas. Rasātala is factually a non-Earth planet in Vedic Cosmology. Therefore, this looks very solid as well.
And that is three Deities, for the three main domes, and all three are “Līlā-avatāras,” as stated in Caitanya Caritāmṛta (Madhya 20.244). This Temple of the Vedic Planetarium will be the largest Hindu Temple on Earth, and we are sure that the GBC Members and all the devotees would agree that Līlā-avatāras would be the best Deities to install in the three main domes. There is just the small issue of choosing amongst so many.
The GBC should know that none other than Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself is said to have visited the Srī Varāha Lakṣmī Narasiṁha Temple in Simhachalam. Therefore, we have reason to believe that the installation of Lord Varāhadeva would be particularly pleasing to Lord Caitanya. The footprints of Sri Caitanya Mahāprabhu remain there in Simhachalam, installed in stone by none other than His Divine Grace Oṁ Viṣṇupāda Srīla Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati Thakur.
Also, as is the customary practice, Lord Varāha’s consort should probably be included in the plan, the Goddess Bhūmi Devī, the Personified Earth Goddess. We are certain that Lord Varāha’s consort would receive a very, very warm welcome from the GBC and all the devotees.
There is also an argument for including Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva in the same dome as Lord Varāha. There does not appear to be anything in particular to do with Vedic Cosmology and Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva, but the two incarnations are brother incarnations, so to speak, having descended to slay demon brothers. Also, the aforementioned Srī Varāha Lakṣmī Narasiṁha Temple has the two incarnations merged into one Deity form. Therefore, having the two incarnations under the same dome would appear to be bona fide.
Lastly, if the most demoniac of all the demoniac planets somehow ends up on your shortlist, you know you must be on the right track. In fact, it has been reported that with the Nṛsiṁhadeva Dome, unlike the other two domes, the artists made it a point to include a fair amount of black marble in the artistic design, presumably representing the Demon King, Hiraṇyakaśipu. Since, with the plan described here, Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva would most likely end up under the central dome, with Lord Varāhadeva, the current Nṛsiṁhadeva Dome with all the black marble would probably make a fine home for Lord Hayagrīva, and represent the demon planet of Rasātala very, very superbly.
It is perhaps worth noting that the Hayagrīva incarnation also visited another planet within the Vedic Cosmos, Brahmaloka, to return the Vedas to Lord Brahmā. But we naturally assume that practically every devotee, faced with a choice between Rasātala and Brahmaloka, would say: “Seize the opportunity! Base the artistic design on the demon planet!” The other two domes would probably feature much more white marble, especially for the Ocean of Milk, which we understand was the existing plan anyway.
A Place for All the Deities
With respect to the current Māyāpura Deities, it seems to us that Srī Srī Rādha-Mādhava and the Gopis should remain where they are. They are the presiding Deities of Śrīdhāma Māyāpura, and they have their own temple. “Where is the difficulty?” We think that Pañca Tattva should remain with Rādha-Mādhava as well. Māyāpura Dhāma is supposed to be a very important place of pilgrimage. There is more than one large temple. There are two (or more depending how one counts them).
As far the proposed plan to install 15 of the past Ācāryas alongside the deities in one of the domes, if we may humbly suggest that the installations of the Glorious Past Ācāryas continue as planned, but to spread their vyāsāsanas throughout the three main domes, like they are taking darśana of the aforementioned Līlā-avatāras. High vyāsāsanas, so that the devotees don’t have to worry about blocking the Ācāryas’ view.
Non-standard Deity Installations
On the issue of non-standard deity installations, Śrīla Prabhupada’s purport to Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.3.22 appears to address the matter succinctly:
“As far as possible, every householder, by the direction of the spiritual master, must install the Deity of Viṣṇu, forms like Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa or Sītā-Rāma especially, or any other form of the Lord, like Nṛsiṁha, Varāha, Gaura-Nitāi, Matsya, Kūrma, śālagrāma-śilā and many other forms of Viṣṇu.”
Therefore, if every householder can install these Deities, then the GBC can as well… with sufficient justification. Being on-concept for the largest Hindu Temple on Earth does appear to us to provide sufficient justification.
It is like when there were discussions about installing a Deity of Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva. Those discussions were presumably about whether there was sufficient justification, and not about whether it was allowed. Since there had been a horrific abduction of Śrīmatī Rādharani by violent and heavily-armed dacoits, it appears that sufficient justification was found… unsurprisingly perhaps.
The Placeholder Plan
Regarding the plan to move Rādha-Mādhava and Pañca Tattva into the Planetarium Temple, we always viewed it as a “placeholder plan,” so to speak. Srīla Prabhupada appeared to clearly indicate that he was displeased with that plan, saying that the Planetarium Temple “is not going to be Kṛṣṇa’s temple” (Conversation — April 19, 1977, Bombay). However, Srīla Prabhupada himself appeared to be undecided in that conversation about what deities to install. Therefore, having some kind of placeholder plan seems understandable to a certain extent. We are not criticizing having a placeholder plan. However, we do not support moving Rādha-Mādhava and Pañca Tattva into the Planetarium Temple, and we believe that Srīla Prabhupada is pleased that a reasonable and perhaps even exciting alternative has finally come to light. We have faith that the GBC will feel similarly and would be very excited about welcoming three Līlā-avatāras to Māyāpura Dhāma. We are sure that there would be even more visitors, fundraising would go through the roof, and those hotels would be kept at maximum capacity. Even more hotels may be needed!
With respect to the evidence that Srila Prabhupada wanted to install Radha Madhava and Pañca Tattva, there does not appear to be any direct evidence to support that, such as in letters or conversations. The only evidence we have seen is indirect evidence, from Hari Sauri Prabhu’s Transcendental Diary, where he writes:
“In another discussion later in the day with Bhavānanda Mahārāja, Srila Prabhupada decided that the Deities for the proposed new temple in Mayapur should be life-size, like the Hyderabad Deities. He wants to install Pañca-tattva —Lord Caitanya, and His personal associates — with at least five predecessor gurus, Radha-Krishna, and the eight principal gopis.” (February 2, 1976, Māyāpura)
So let us of course accept what Hari Sauri Prabhu has written, since we have great faith in his account, and it does seem rather a logical plan, since those are the main Deities worshipped throughout ISKCON. However, how do we then get to Srila Prabhupada stating a year and two months later: “it is not going to be Kṛṣṇa’s temple” (Conversation — April 19, 1977, Bombay), and also appearing to dismiss the idea of having Pañca Tattva in the Planetarium Temple? And this is direct evidence. To us the answer appears clear: Srila Prabhupada changed his mind on this matter. We understand. And we believe the GBC and all the devotees will say, “Srila Prabhupada changed his mind on this, and we are going to change our minds as well.”
In fact, we can prove that the GBC has already changed its mind, so to speak, insofar as not simply going by Hari Sauri or Bhavānanda Prabhus’ account of what Srila Prabhupada wanted. The one part of the Planetarium Temple that is more-or-less complete and has been opened is the Nṛsiṁhadeva Wing, anticipated to house Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva of course. Well, a Deity of Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva, as a factual matter, is not Radha-Kṛṣṇa, or Gopis, or Pañca Tattva, or any of the past Ācāryas, the Deities which have been mentioned by Hari Sauri or Bhavānanda Prabhus. As we said, it can already be proven that the GBC has changed its mind about what main Deities to install in the Planetarium Temple. The GBC is definitely not thus far simply going by Hari Sauri or Bhavānanda Prabhus’ accounts.
So all that’s left is for the GBC to take the next step, and fully open up the subject for discussion amongst themselves, and amongst all the devotees. We believe all the devotees would praise the GBC for doing so. The Planetarium Temple is ISKCON’s most important project, and will be the largest Hindu Temple on this Earth. The main Deities surely merit some serious contemplation and discussion, especially considering the direct evidence that Srila Prabhupada changed his mind about the Deities.
In this regard, the GBC should also know that Hari Sauri Prabhu was appointed to the GBC in March of 1977, a month or so before the conversation on April 19. So he departed his service as Srila Prabhupada’s Personal Servant, and was no longer privy to all the conversations going on. Therefore, it appears that Hari Sauri Prabhu was absent right around the time when Srila Prabhupada changed his mind, and cannot be expected to know about it. Nor can we see any obvious reason why Bhavānanda Prabhu would know about it, except for him being a Co-Director of Māyāpura Dhāma of course. No one appears to know anything about it, probably because there was not much to know, because the only thing that Srila Prabhupada said was that there would not be regular Kṛṣṇa Deities. Presumably Tamal Krishna Goswami knew about it, since he was in the conversation. But there is the recording itself, apparently the only piece of direct evidence on the subject of the main Deities (besides any secret recordings and letters carefully guarded by the Bhaktivedanta Archives of course).
Having regular ISKCON Deities in the Planetarium Temple seems to be one of those plans which is very safe and logical, but once the plan sinks in, it appears to be dissatisfying for some reason. That reason is probably that special temples tend to have special deities, with Kṛṣṇa Balarāma Mandir being the best example of this in ISKCON. Sītā-Rāma installed in Washington DC is another example. The Temple of the Vedic Planetarium, we are sure all would agree, is a very special temple, and arguably the most special and unusual temple in all of ISKCON. Only Kṛṣṇa- Balarāma Mandir is perhaps more special, while the Planetarium Temple is certainly the most unusual temple. So it stands to reason, in a sense, that the Deities should be unusual as well. That is the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada appears to have reached as well, with his statement about not having regular Kṛṣṇa Deities.
We believe our method and outcome will be pleasing to Srīla Prabhupada, the GBC Members, and all the devotees. It seems clear from Srīla Prabhupada’s conversations that he did not wish to install any regular Kṛṣṇa Deities in the Planetarium Temple. In other words, no Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, no Jagannātha Deities, and no Pañca Tattva. ISKCON has installed hundreds of those Deities already. Rather, we believe that Srīla Prabhupada saw the Planetarium Temple as an opportunity to install some bona fide Deities that are not yet to be found in ISKCON. And what could be more bona fide than Līlā-avatāras? There is just the problem of picking between so many of them.
The GBC Members are also doubtless aware that many of the devotees that live in Māyāpura Dhāma apparently do not feel that the current Deities should be moved from their existing temple. It seems a confirmation that there is this groundswell of resistance to moving the Deities. It seems those devotees might well approve of the plans described here.
No Disrespect
We want to make it clear that we intend no disrespect to Hari Sauri or Bhavānanda Prabhus and their accounts of what Srila Prabhupada wanted. We do not support having regular Kṛṣṇa Deities installed in the Temple of the Vedic Planetarium, that is a fact. So one could say that we disagree with them about what Deities to install. But it is a respectful disagreement, just like Bhavānanda Prabhu himself has respectfully disagreed with some things, such as the final design of the Planetarium Temple. Bhavānanda Prabhu has publicly spoken about how he did not support the architecture and thought the dome should be bigger. So it is the same thing, unless we want to say that Bhavānanda Prabhu was disrespecting everyone who supported the current design.
In truth, we doubt that Hari Sauri or Bhavānanda Prabhus even truly support having regular ISKCON Deities in the Planetarium Temple. They just support whatever Srila Prabhupada wanted. In fact, we would be surprised if there was even a single Prabhupada disciple or ISKCON Member who genuinely supports having regular ISKCON Deities in this most special and unusual temple.
Having regular Kṛṣṇa Deities is the obvious first possibility. “Certainly! This greatest of all the ISKCON Temples will have the same Deities that are in all ISKCON Temples! But bigger! And with bigger altars! And with more Gopis! And more past Ācāryas as well! Certainly!” What is there to disagree with?
So, the evidence shows that Srila Prabhupada also initially went with the obvious first option, and discussed it at that time with Bhavānanda and Hari Sauri Prabhus, as related by Hari Sauriji in his Transcendental Diary. But later, we cannot be certain exactly when, but by April 19, 1977, Srila Prabhupada had changed his mind, and said on that date, “it is not going to be Kṛṣṇa’s temple.” Srila Prabhupada had not yet decided what Deities should be installed, so there was not yet much for anyone to know, which we suspect is why no one apparently knows anything about it. There was only a negative, a negation, “not” regular Kṛṣṇa or ISKCON Deities. So there was not much to know yet. Actually identifying the Deities to be installed would be positive, and there would be something worth telling people about. If Srila Prabhupada was talking to his disciples about how there would not be regular Kṛṣṇa Deities, all the disciples would do, we expect, is ask what Deities should be installed then. And Srila Prabhupada did not have an answer yet. So why talk about it? And then Srila Prabhupada left his body before ever coming to a final decision about the Deities. From the documented indirect and direct evidence, this is what appears to have happened.
Again, no disrespect or offense whatsoever intended towards Hari Sauri and Bhavānanda Prabhus. We respectfully disagree with them about what Deities to install, in much the same way that Bhavānanda Prabhu respectfully previously disagreed about the architectural design. And in truth, we wonder if there is any real disagreement, because we would be greatly surprised if they truly support regular ISKCON Deities in this most special and unusual temple. But if they think that is what Srila Prabhupada wants, then they support that, which seems quite understandable. With any luck, they will review the evidence we have given here that Srila Prabhupada changed his mind, consider the three Līlā-avatāras we have proposed here, and quickly jump onboard a new vision and plan.
Pearls from the Head of an Elephant
Of course these ideas will be discussed further, but we wanted to get the basic vision to the GBC as quickly as possible, because we know that construction and preparation for moving the existing Deities continue apace. If any of the GBC Members, or Hari Sauri and Bhavānanda Prabhus, wish to respond or discuss at all, of course they are very welcome to do so at our official website, oceanofmilk.org, or privately by email.
There are certainly a few other possibilities with the combination of Līlā-Avatāras, there being 25 of them. For example, we think a respectable argument can be made for the Yajña incarnation, who filled King Indra’s post at one point, as described in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.3.12. Indraloka is a well-known non-Earth location in Vedic Cosmology, and since Indra’s Palace is reputedly so large and opulent, one could argue we have the perfect location for it. Additionally, it is written that this incarnation does in fact represent “yajña” itself, like the saṅkīrtana yajña. So this appears strongly on-concept, and there appears to be a reasonable argument here. But then this incarnation seems not so well-known, and other objections can be given. Similar arguments can also be made with a few of the other Avatāras.
A thousand apologies for writing something. Chanakya Pandita advises: “By going to the den of a lion, pearls from the head of an elephant may be obtained;”
And he asks, “What fault of the sun if the owl cannot see during the daytime?”
On this Day of the Total Eclipse of the Sun,
In service to Srīla Prabhupada, Varāha-avatāra and Goddess Bhūmi Devi, Kūrma-avatāra, and Lord Hayagrīva,
Your worthless dog-like servant,
Aniruddha dās.
_ __ ___
P.S. Please note that a second part of this proposal has been submitted to the GBC, entitled, “Incorporating the Existing Māyāpura Deities into the Temple of the Vedic Planetarium.”