RE: Prabhupada

[Guest guest]

> It is said that unless one is empowered by Krishna one cannot spread the

> Krishna Consciousness movement.

>

> So Srila Prabhupada is not an ordinary person , He was an empowered

> representative of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who had just come to fulfill the

> Lord’s prophecy ( that His name would be chanted in every town and

> village)

 

Prabhu I fully agree with you, Prabhupada was definitaly an empowered

personality, a pure devotee of the Lord.

 

> It would be very wrong to blame Srila Prabhupada who sacrificed so much by

> coming at an advanced age just to carry out the order of his spiritual

> master without any personal consideration.

 

I think it is moore a matter of understanding Srila Prabhupada and his way

of action and teaching.

 

The following comment by Mahatma prabhu taken from the Topical Discussions

Conference I find a very reasonable approach to this.

What do you think?

 

 

"I think it is important to consider that all of us recognize that certain

things Srila Prabhupada instituted didn't work well. The instructions were

perfect but we were unable to do them perfectly. Thus sometimes we created

problems in trying to follow those instructions. But the argument is made by

some that if we could not execute those instructions, then those

instructions were not perfect. I am referring to things like failures of

gurukula, asrama's, sannyasa, etc. not the regulative principles.

 

>From our point of view, we say it is our fault. From an outsider's point of

view, they will likely say Prabhupada's made a mistake by instituting

something that we were unable to execute that caused problems for

individuals as well as the organization. I think we should expect that

outsiders (who are not necessarily envious) will think this way and I think

we should expect that even some good devotees will think this way. For some

devotees it is something that is not easy to overlook. They will not be

satisfied to be told that everything is just our fault.

 

Of course, most devotees will never entertain the idea that Prabhupada ever

did anything wrong, but as the movement grows we will have to contend with

doubts in some of the things he did or said within our own ranks (again not

necessarily by devotees who are envious). If our only answer is that he did

nothing wrong and we are just in ignorance if we think he did, we will loose

devotees and certainly not develop good communication with the intellectual

community. And dare I say it, but this may not be the best attitude to take

for those who are managers and have to analyze what is going to work in the

preaching field. I think the key point is to understand the principles that

Prabhupada taught and be able to look at the details and say that something

doesn't work.

 

Often we have to look at those instructions that didn't work and find out

what went wrong so we don't create further problems. In some cases we may

see that those instructions are not helpful for us. Leaders naturally do

this without anyone thinking they are offensive to Prabhupada (becasue they

are not).

 

Prabhupada did things, looked at the results, and re-evaluated his strategy.

If something didn't work, he wouldn't necessarily continue with it. Thus, if

one wants to put forward the argument that sometimes Prabhupada made

mistakes, they could.

 

Some disciples would suggest things to Prabhupada when they saw that

something wasn't working or something could be done in a better way. Still,

no one thought that Prabhupada was making mistakes. We just thought that

Prabhupada had the overall plan and adjustments had to be made as the

movement expanded. So many new situations were arising and often Prabhupada

was just responding to suggestions by his GBC in areas where he had no

experience (particularly in western countires).

 

I think an equally serious issue is the question of what Prabhupada would

have changed if he still were alive. That is another discussion that will

probably have to go on for the next 10,000 years, at least in the cirlces of

those who are managing.

 

I hope no once takes what I have said as offensive. It was written in the

mood that we can be critical and faithful at the same time. I think this

type of thinking will help us mature and make the movement more attractive

and easier to live in.

 

Ys, Md

[Guest guest]

> It is said that unless one is empowered by Krishna one cannot spread the

> Krishna Consciousness movement.

>

> So Srila Prabhupada is not an ordinary person , He was an empowered

> representative of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who had just come to fulfill the

> Lord’s prophecy ( that His name would be chanted in every town and

> village)

 

Prabhu I fully agree with you, Prabhupada was definitaly an empowered

personality, a pure devotee of the Lord.

 

> It would be very wrong to blame Srila Prabhupada who sacrificed so much by

> coming at an advanced age just to carry out the order of his spiritual

> master without any personal consideration.

 

I think it is moore a matter of understanding Srila Prabhupada and his way

of action and teaching.

 

The following comment by Mahatma prabhu taken from the Topical Discussions

Conference I find a very reasonable approach to this.

What do you think?

 

 

"I think it is important to consider that all of us recognize that certain

things Srila Prabhupada instituted didn't work well. The instructions were

perfect but we were unable to do them perfectly. Thus sometimes we created

problems in trying to follow those instructions. But the argument is made by

some that if we could not execute those instructions, then those

instructions were not perfect. I am referring to things like failures of

gurukula, asrama's, sannyasa, etc. not the regulative principles.

 

>From our point of view, we say it is our fault. From an outsider's point of

view, they will likely say Prabhupada's made a mistake by instituting

something that we were unable to execute that caused problems for

individuals as well as the organization. I think we should expect that

outsiders (who are not necessarily envious) will think this way and I think

we should expect that even some good devotees will think this way. For some

devotees it is something that is not easy to overlook. They will not be

satisfied to be told that everything is just our fault.

 

Of course, most devotees will never entertain the idea that Prabhupada ever

did anything wrong, but as the movement grows we will have to contend with

doubts in some of the things he did or said within our own ranks (again not

necessarily by devotees who are envious). If our only answer is that he did

nothing wrong and we are just in ignorance if we think he did, we will loose

devotees and certainly not develop good communication with the intellectual

community. And dare I say it, but this may not be the best attitude to take

for those who are managers and have to analyze what is going to work in the

preaching field. I think the key point is to understand the principles that

Prabhupada taught and be able to look at the details and say that something

doesn't work.

 

Often we have to look at those instructions that didn't work and find out

what went wrong so we don't create further problems. In some cases we may

see that those instructions are not helpful for us. Leaders naturally do

this without anyone thinking they are offensive to Prabhupada (becasue they

are not).

 

Prabhupada did things, looked at the results, and re-evaluated his strategy.

If something didn't work, he wouldn't necessarily continue with it. Thus, if

one wants to put forward the argument that sometimes Prabhupada made

mistakes, they could.

 

Some disciples would suggest things to Prabhupada when they saw that

something wasn't working or something could be done in a better way. Still,

no one thought that Prabhupada was making mistakes. We just thought that

Prabhupada had the overall plan and adjustments had to be made as the

movement expanded. So many new situations were arising and often Prabhupada

was just responding to suggestions by his GBC in areas where he had no

experience (particularly in western countires).

 

I think an equally serious issue is the question of what Prabhupada would

have changed if he still were alive. That is another discussion that will

probably have to go on for the next 10,000 years, at least in the cirlces of

those who are managing.

 

I hope no once takes what I have said as offensive. It was written in the

mood that we can be critical and faithful at the same time. I think this

type of thinking will help us mature and make the movement more attractive

and easier to live in.

 

Ys, Md