Siksa guru as personal spiritual guide

[Guest guest]

> Why not cooperate with other

> branches too in order to please our Lord, what could be wrong with such a

> proposel?

 

 

 

As far as the proposal for cooperation is concerned, you got the

evaluate it a bit more closely.

 

Let's us first look what is the objective of NM. He wants to "remove

the walls":

 

> First we should know that we are all in the Gaura

> family not from this section or that section. We want to remove these

> walls and to realize that we are all in one family, Gaura's family. We are

> in the line coming from Srila Svarupa Damodara, Srila Ramananda Raya and

> especially the Rupanuga vaisnava line, and we have brought something from

> them to distribute here....

>

 

 

And how that is going to be realized? Well, by dissolving ISCKON

as the *institution* as **set up by Srila Prabhupada**. In this

purpose, NM's approach is:

 

 

1. To give no credit to Srila Prabhupada for doing anything

unique when it comes to the phenomena called ISCKON, but

to say it's just the same "wine". Prabhupada is credited

for "changing the name in English", only.

 

> I also told that, "Swamiji has never established a new

> thing, a new ISKCON, but it is old one from Brahma, Narada, Vyasa,

> Sukadeva Gosvami, from there, only he has changed the name in English.

> Same wine in new bottle. Same doctrines and theories, everything is same,

> only he has changed some name. So he has not established a new thing, it

> is old one from Brahma, from Krsna."

> ISKCON is not separate thing from Gaudiya Vaisnava, from Caitanya

> Mahaprabhu.

 

While we all know and agree that Prabhupada did not change anything

in term of KC philosophy neither he concocted some new process,

nor ISCKON is something separate from our Sampradaya, the attempt

to merge a distinct branch of a tree back into the tree, is there.

 

 

2. To deprive Srila Prabhupada from the position of a Founder-Acarya

of ISCKON (the quote was supplied).

 

No institution, no founder. Logical step.

 

 

3. To present Srila Prabhupada as but a one in the acarya line

holding no special position in ISCKON (quote supplied).

 

Thus any other acarya from any other Math (like NM) may occupy

just the same kind of a position as Srila Prabhupada, in ISCKON.

After all, there is no really ISCKON but simply "Sampradaya".

 

 

4. To compare Srila Prabhupada with the other co-temporary Gaudiya

Math acaryas as being less qualified than any of them (quote

supplied).

 

The followers of NM are promoting him as the next acarya of ISCKON.

 

 

5. To present GBC (ISCKON leaders) and gurus as all falling down.

ISCKON as the place of all insincere devotees. (quotes supplied)

 

 

 

After all these, one may only wonder: Since ISCKON is all the

same "old wine" with only the name changed into English by

Srila Prabhupada, nothing new there, then what is the need for

NM to go trying to secure the same ISCKON as his preaching

field: It's only an English name there in front of him.

 

I mean, all he really would have to do (if at al) is -- to give

some another English name to the same "wine" that he himself got

the access to. Just as Srila Prabhupada did. Or?

 

 

 

----------

 

You said "why not cooperate". Cooperation requires two sides,

not only one. There is also something indicative in this regard,

from the same Caracas morning class:

 

 

> We know that, "Oh, these are disciples of Advaita Acarya, disciples of

> Nityananda Prabhu, disciples of Gadadhara Pandita, disciples of

> Syamananda,

> Narottama Thakura." There were so many lines, but they were all one in

> Caitanya Mahaprabhu group.[Ramesh]:Like in Kheturi festival.

> [bVNM]:All were one, not in division. All used to honor all. And if you

> are not following that line, oh, we are bound to go to hell.

 

 

NM wants to be honored by ISCKON and the ISCKON leaders.

But how does NM himself honor ISCKON and ISCKON leaders and gurus?

 

"All used to honor all", he said.

 

---

 

NM also stated, in the same class, how he personally is not

interested at all in comming to ISCKON to have there disciples

nor to preach there. But because "they" (the ISCKON ledares)

"forced" him to come.

 

 

> I've not come to make disciples or making money. Never I came [for this].

> I told ISKCON persons that, "I don't want to make any disciples, not go to

> preaching," but they made, they bounded me to come, they forced me. I told

> them that, "If you are in one group all, giving proper honor to all, I

> will not go to any place and I will not make a single disciple. If you are

> giving proper respect to all."

 

 

So, what is the question of some "cooperation"? NM told "them"

how to behave, and if they don't then he got no choice but to

come and do what needed to be done. He has taken for himself

the position of a superior ISCKON authority -- an acarya.

For that he needs to first dissolve ISCKON as the institution

with the GBC as the highest authority, as laid down by Srila

Prabhupada. How one can possibly call this a "cooperation"?

 

 

 

ys mnd