Answer to Allegations Made Against H.H. Narayana Maharaja

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Dear Harsi Prabhu,

>

> Guessing that your first language is (probably) not English, I suggest you

may

> have misunderstood Madhava Ghosh. He was not comparing the two (Harikesa and

> Kirtanananda), nor slighting Harikesa Prabhu, but to the contrary, proposing

> that this "macho sannyasi syndrome" (as I call it) that had infected Harikesa

> was more or less propounded and sponsored by Kirtanananda, ISKCON's original

> model of a Western sannyasi.

>

> Do I have it right, Ghosh?

>

> Dasanudasa,

>

> Srila dasa

 

Right. I personally believe that Harikesa has wonderful ksatriya tendencies.

Ksatriyas are by nature hetro and married. Kirtanananda also was a natural

leader, but being gay, couldn't do the marriage thing, so he took sannyasa,

and then used the natural admiration we have for sannyasis as a platform to

leverage his own desire to be king. That set a bad precedent, wherein someone

like Harikesa, probably sincerely trying to be a good devotee, followed a

flawed model to have the outlet for his own ksatriya tendencies.

 

My own term for this is "guru as king". Which has caused a lot of trouble in

ISKCON.

[Guest guest]

> > As for the disciples of other gurus, there were many instances when

> > devotees asked their diksa-guru for permission to take siksa from or

> > simply association of NM or other advanced senior vaisnavas, and the

> > diksa-guru said "no" without giving any proper philosophical

> > explanation. In such a case, as stated in Jaiva Dharma, the disciple may

> > reject his diksa guru and take shelter of that advanced vaisnava because

> > his diksa guru is envious of the vaisnavas and has the false ego. So the

> > devotees did it and NM had to give them shelter. Why should he be blamed

> > for that?

>

> Could you please write an exact quote from Jaiva Dharma? This what you

> have writen sounds quite heavy. As far as I know one can reject spiritual

> master only if he is hopelessly fallen or becomes a mayavadi. Otherwise it

> is recommended that if a spiritual master has a temporary falldown

> disciples should wait for him to come back. What to speak if a spiritual

> master is in a good standing!

 

The quote you requested is given below. I have JD only in translation of

Kusakratha Prabhu. I would like to also see other translations of this

passage. But still it's clear here that the guru who is a "hater of

Vaisnavas" may be rejected, because by being envious towards the Vaisnavas

he loses his "good standing". The same point is given in the

Bhakti-sandarbha of Srila Jiva Gosvami (Annucheda 238):

 

"A guru who is envious of pure devotees, who blasphemes them, or behaves

maliciously towards them should certainly be abandoned remembering the verse

'guror api avaliptasya' (Mahabharata, Udyoga-parva, 179.25). Such an envious

guru lacks the mood and character of a Vaisnava. The sastras enjoin that one

should not accept initiation from a non-devotee (avaisnavopadistena...

Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.366). Knowing these injunctions of the scriptures, a

sincere devotee abandons a false guru who is envious of devotees. After

leaving one who lacks the true qualities of a guru, if a devotee is without

a spiritual guide, his only hope is to seek out a maha-bhagavata vaisnava

and serve him. By constantly rendering service to such a pure devotee, one

will certainly attain the highest goal of life".

 

If a guru without a good reason forbids his disciple to have a sadhu-sanga

or siksa, which the disciple desires, the guru may be classified as a

Vaisnava hater.

 

Srila Prabhupada confirms that one should not be forced to search both diksa

and

siksa guru in the boundaries of an institution:

 

"A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master because in the

scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden. There is no

limit, however, to the number of instructing spiritual masters one may

accept. ... It is imperative that a serious person accept a bona fide

spiritual master in terms of the sastric injunctions. Sri Jiva Gosvami

advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or

customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should simply try to

find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in

spiritual understanding." (CC Adi 1.35 purp.)

 

Here is the quote from the Jaiva Dharma.

 

Vijaya-kumara: The disciple is not allowed to reject his diksa-guru. But if

the diksa-guru is not qualified to teach, how can he instruct the disciple?

 

Babaji: At the time of choosing the spiritual master, the prospective

disciple should test to see whether the spiritual master has traveled to the

farther shore of the Vedic scriptures and the science of the Supreme Lord.

The spiritual master must be qualified to teach all aspects of the spiritual

science. The disciple is not allowed to reject his diksa-guru.

 

However, there are two circumstances where the disciple must reject his

diksa-guru. If at the time of choosing a spiritual master the disciple did

not test to see whether the spiritual master was a Vaisnava or learned in

the spiritual science, the disciple may reject the spiritual master. Or, if

it is seen that in the course of his activities the spiritual master does

what he should not do, then the disciple may also reject the spiritual

master. Again and again the scriptures give testimony to prove these points.

In the Narada-pacanratra (quoted in Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.101) it is said: "A

spiritual master who speaks wrongly, without logic, and a disciple who hears

wrongly, without logic, both go to a terrible hell for a long time that

seems not to end." It is also said (Mahabharata, Udyoga-parva, Asvopakhyana

179.25): "A spiritual master who is materialistic, who does not know what

should and should not be done, and who follows the wrong path should be

rejected." It is also said (quoted in Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.144): "A person

who accepts mantra initiation from a non Vaisnava goes to hell. A person

initiated in this way should accept initiation again, this time from a

Vaisnava spiritual master."

A second reason for rejecting the spiritual master is this: If at the time

of choosing the spiritual master, the spiritual master was a Vaisnava and

learned in the spiritual science, but by bad association the spiritual

master became an impersonalist and a hater of Vaisnavas, then that spiritual

master should be rejected. If one accepts a spiritual master who is neither

an impersonalist, nor a hater of Vaisnavas, nor sinful, but is not very

learned, then that spiritual master should not be rejected. One should honor

that spiritual master. However, with the spiritual master's permission, one

should approach another Vaisnava, serve him, and learn from him the

spiritual science.

 

end of quote

 

I would like to see the proper explanation of the following passage from

this quote:

 

"If at the time of choosing a spiritual master the disciple did not test to

see whether the spiritual master was a Vaisnava or learned in the spiritual

science, the disciple may reject the spiritual master."

 

Can any experienced devotee comment?

[Guest guest]

It is unfortunate that the Gaudiya Math also made gigantic mistakes.

They however were not able to correct or have reformation. Their

mistakes finished any hope of having a "GBC" as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

had requested. Maybe, just maybe, we are doing a little better than

that. History will tell.

 

> The GBC is not infallible -- individually or collectively. At one point,

> Prabhupada even disbanded the entire GBC when they got out of hand. The Zonal

> Acarya phenomenon happened as soon as Prabhupada disappeared and continued

for

> 10 years, courtesy of GBC resolutions. So this would not the first or even

> second time the GBC has committed grand faux-pas's on a scale that requires

> extensive correction if not reformation, as transpired in 1987.

 

It should also be clearly understood that for better or worse, Both

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada asked their followers to

run their preaching movements via a GBC. That remains a dominant

requirement for governing their societies. The goal is how to do

that and how to follow the GBC. Some devotees decide in their own

judgment that the GBC, and ISKCON are deviated and withdraw to their

own worlds whether it is Narayan Maharaja or something or someone

else on the growing list.

 

This was never the request of Srila Prabhupada to us. If we wish to

create an atmosphere where the GBC individually and collectively are

disrespected and ignored, nothing is solved. The GBC is a post, a

body and a vehicle which was selected by both Srila Prabhupada and

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta to guide and govern their societies.

 

So just like a person may feel the President of the country is a

rogue or criminal. He may be rightly or wrongly opinionated, but

either way, if he attempts to disrespect the President, it is taken

as a serious matter by the legal and governing structure of the

country. There is the office or position and there is the individual

and both are protected by the law.

 

We are not free to take the conclusions of our opinions into our own

hands and enact a solution of our own fertile mind's choosing. There

are procedures either in place or which can be put into place by the

right means to deal with problems and problem individuals. If we

refuse to work in that way, we become anarchists and may even be

viewed as enemies of the state which has created these procedures.

 

This is how societies work. They do not work well under anarchy,

they usually self-destruct. In a simplistic view, that is what

happened to the Gaudiya Math. So let us remember to try to not

recreate the same demise in ISKCON.

 

We need to work together and build ISKCON according to Srila

Prabhupada's guidelines and desires. Seek cooperative solutions that

fit under those guidelines and desires. We must abandon the desire

to attack and overturn what we do not like or do not understand.

We must also start to see the good work and dedication are leaders

are showing, just as much as we want them to trust our good

intentions and see our sincere service.

 

 

Your servant,

Ramiya dasa

[Guest guest]

In text 2678601 Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

>As far as I'm concerned, whatever proves to be an inspiration to practice

>Krsna consciousness is beneficial. But these sort of dealings seem curious

to

>me on various levels.

 

It doesn't seem so curious to me. The disciple of Srila Prabhupada that I

am refering to never considered that he was being "practically"

reinitiated. He was simply given a caring push by someone that he respected

and thus his commitment to his sadhana became more serious.

 

This differs from cases like the one of a devotee here, a disciple of an

ISKCON classic "acarya," who discarded his brahmin thread and started

smoking pot and getting into illicit sex. Later he was given a job in the

temple and so he simply put on again his brahmin thread as if nothing had

ever happened. Because he didn't feel much respect for his own guru anymore

he didn't approach him for any type of "confirmation." And because of all

the criticism that he had heard about everyone else within and outside of

ISKCON he didn't approach them either. As expected, as soon as his service

ended he went back to his old ways.

 

So, some sort of commited confirmation to our practice upon starting it

again seems appropiate, and as far as I understand it is within the

vaisnava tradition. Nothing curious about it. This reminds me that one of

the sacraments or samskaras of Catholicism is precisely one known as

"Confirmation" by which a person reafirms the Baptism received in the past.

 

Your servant

Radha Krsna dasa

Mexico City

[Guest guest]

On 5 Oct 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

 

>

> Consequently, if a guru is a 2nd class (or lower), then how can he

discourage

> or deny his disciples the opportunity to associate with a more advanced

> Vaisnava simply for ecclesiastical reasons (ie, GBC resolutions), no less?

It

> is against the "basic" principles of devotional service and the examples

from

> our previous acaryas.

 

I think than you are ignoring (or that you are disagreeing with) the fact that

there are legitimate reasons to respectfully distance oneself from Narayana

Maharaja. A 2nd class guru may discourage association with another vaisnava

out of envy or for ecclesiastic reasons. Does that mean that all who

discourage association

with Narayana Maharaja are second class (or lower?). Do first class gurus

always encourage association with all vaisnavas with no discrimination?

 

The critical issue is that there are genuine reasons to avoid Maharaja's

association. This doesn't justify the blasphemy that I've heard towards him.

Neophytes will act like neophytes. Some ISKCON devotees and some GBC's have

made unfortunate comments concerning Maharaja, however, this doesn't

obliterate the facts.

 

It isn't that Narayana Maharaja's camp (this is when you include his

followers) are just innocent victims of a GBC smear campaign. There has been

and still is (Payonidhi) shrill, offensive rhetoric out his camp. ISKCON has

no monopoly on neophytes, there are plenty to go around.

 

Your servant

 

Jiva Goswami dasa

[Guest guest]

On 06 Oct 1999, Ramon Estrada wrote:

 

>

> It doesn't seem so curious to me. The disciple of Srila Prabhupada that

I am refering to never considered that he was being "practically"

> reinitiated. He was simply given a caring push by someone that he

respected and thus his commitment to his sadhana became more serious.

>

 

 

Well, for me, one of the most notable parts of the brahman initiation

ceremony was the receiving of the gayatri mantra from the spiritual

master. That this prabhu has somehow found a way to become re-enlivened

is great, as far as I'm concerned. Still, to find oneself needing to

'hear' the mantra again after having received it as a proper Prabhupada

disciple, this time whether from a devotee working within or without of

ISKCON, remains very curious. There are many examples of Prabhupada

offering the mantra to his disciples via cassette tape, something that I

am sure is still available.

 

But as you so rightly pointed out, our Gaudiya brethren do not own a

monoply concering devotional curiosities.

[Guest guest]

> never did it. He only gave diksa mantras to some of Prabhupada's disciples

> who have deviated from their devotional practices for some time and,

> according to sastra, must receive diksa mantras again.

 

Where is this stated in shaastra, please? I would really like to know for my

own education.

 

 

yours,

 

Krishna

[Guest guest]

> Where is this stated in shaastra, please? I would really like to know for

> my own education.

 

Perhaps it's not in the shruti itself but in some of the acaryas' writings,

like Hari-bhakti-vilasa. I'll try to find out the exact source of this

tradition and tell you later. Sorry for not being specific.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/5/99 10:50:22 PM Central Daylight Time,

cirvin (AT) uclink4 (DOT) berkeley.edu writes:

 

<< Prabhupada's giving of gayatri via tape recorder or rtvik was

extraordinary,

not to be imitated. Additionally, it is essential that the mantra be given

with some explanation, sambandha-jnana, otherwise, the mantra will not be so

effective. What Prabhupada did in "Big ISKCON" days was due only to time,

place and circumstances. It was highly unusual and an emergency siutation.

>>

So are you saying that we "emergency" cases are now handicapped because the

gayatri mantra we received without some explanation of sambandha jnana is not

so effective? Is it eternally doomed to be ineffective?

[Guest guest]

> A 2nd class guru may discourage association with

> another vaisnava out of envy or for ecclesiastic reasons. Does that mean

> that all who discourage association

> with Narayana Maharaja are second class (or lower?). Do first class gurus

> always encourage association with all vaisnavas with no discrimination?

 

It is not only NM, association with whom is being discouraged. It also

applies to practically all Gaudiya vaisnavas outside of ISKCON, including

very senior and respectable ones, although we are all belong to the same

gaura parivara, the family of Lord Caitanya. Isn't that strange? It looks as

if either all Gaudiya Math members are teaching something different from the

teachings of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or ISKCON devotees are

being taught something different.

 

> The critical issue is that there are genuine reasons to avoid Maharaja's

> association.

 

These are all political reasons, nothing more. For a devotee who appreciates

this Vaisnava and wants to have his sanga such reasons do not appear

genuine. It is Krishna who decides to which guru, diksa and siksa, one

should be brought, and He guides one from within. BTW, your Guru Maharaja

also took extensive association of NM, even regarded him as siksa-guru. I

have his Vrindavana diary describing that association, where he is

expressing his great appreciation of NM. Have you read it?

 

Your servant

[Guest guest]

>

> > The critical issue is that there are genuine reasons to avoid Maharaja's

> > association.

>

> These are all political reasons, nothing more. For a devotee who

> appreciates this Vaisnava and wants to have his sanga such reasons do not

> appear genuine. It is Krishna who decides to which guru, diksa and siksa,

> one should be brought, and He guides one from within.

 

Well, nowadays, not so many appear to actually trust to Krsna on

this one. Thus some try to prevent people going to NM, yes. And

the other ones fight the war back, trying to "convert" as many "ISCKONiates"

as possible into "GMaties", accusing ISCKON for

politics against GM. As you said it, "all political reasons".

Both sides. ISCKON and GM. Politics and quarrel.

 

 

> BTW, your Guru

> Maharaja also took extensive association of NM, even regarded him as

> siksa-guru. I have his Vrindavana diary describing that association, where

> he is expressing his great appreciation of NM. Have you read it?

 

However, it is quite publicly known that HH SDG has rejected his

association with HH NM. If you are already so eager to patronize

a disciple of SDG to look upon the example of his Guru Maharaja,

then be a fair player at least. Or get yourself updated, in the

case of your being ignorant of the current position of SDG, in

regard to associating with NM. Ask his disciples.

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

> Well, nowadays, not so many appear to actually trust to Krsna on

> this one. Thus some try to prevent people going to NM, yes. And

> the other ones fight the war back, trying to "convert" as many

> "ISCKONiates" as possible into "GMaties", accusing ISCKON for

> politics against GM. As you said it, "all political reasons".

> Both sides. ISCKON and GM. Politics and quarrel.

 

You admitted that it was started by ISKCON leaders. Why they not rectify it

and stop the quarrel? If someone do not like to hear from this or that

maharaja, fine. That's his heart's choice. But why discourage others?

 

> However, it is quite publicly known that HH SDG has rejected his

> association with HH NM.

 

He may have stopped it, but how can one reject the past? I can't believe

what he wrote in his diary was insincere or mistake.

 

> If you are already so eager to patronize

> a disciple of SDG to look upon the example of his Guru Maharaja,

 

Come on, prabhu, we are simply talking.

 

ys

[Guest guest]

On 8 Oct 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote:

 

> > Where is this stated in shaastra, please? I would really like to know for

> > my own education.

>

> Perhaps it's not in the shruti itself but in some of the acaryas' writings,

> like Hari-bhakti-vilasa. I'll try to find out the exact source of this

> tradition and tell you later. Sorry for not being specific.

 

 

 

Of course, it would always be nice to find it in our Srila Prabhupada's

writings, being he is the founder/acarya of ISKCON. Others may follow whatever

standard they may feel inspired by, that is their perogative.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 9 Oct 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote:

 

>

> It is not only NM, association with whom is being discouraged. It also

> applies to practically all Gaudiya vaisnavas outside of ISKCON, including

very senior and respectable ones, although we are all belong to the same gaura

parivara, the family of Lord Caitanya. Isn't that strange? It looks as if

either all Gaudiya Math members are teaching something different from the

teachings of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or ISKCON devotees are

being taught something different.

>

 

 

 

Perhaps some wish to hear both Lord Caitanya's and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's

message as transmitted by Srila Prabhupada. But that is a sentiment apparently

considered neophyte by certain camps of uttama-adhikari-wannabes.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

>

> However, it is quite publicly known that HH SDG has rejected his

> association with HH NM. If you are already so eager to patronize

> a disciple of SDG to look upon the example of his Guru Maharaja,

> then be a fair player at least. Or get yourself updated, in the

> case of your being ignorant of the current position of SDG, in

> regard to associating with NM. Ask his disciples.

>

>

 

 

 

While wishing to offer all respect to all the Vaisnavas, SDG has written

extensively about also wishing to remain exclusively loyal to Srila Prabhupada

and his perspective on KC. A plethoria of statement to that regard can be

found in numerous publications distributed publically over the last 5-6 years

or so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 10 Oct 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote:

 

 

>

> > However, it is quite publicly known that HH SDG has rejected his

> > association with HH NM.

>

> He may have stopped it, but how can one reject the past? I can't believe

what he wrote in his diary was insincere or mistake.

>

 

 

 

I believe he finds if innapropraite to follow another Vaisnava is he finds it

begins to interfere with his exclusive devotion to his own Guru Maharaja,

Srila Prabhupada. So it appears he wishes to avoid engaging in activities that

he feels minimizes his devotional sentiments in this area.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

> > > It is essential that the mantra be given with some explanation,

sambandha-jnana, otherwise, the mantra will not be so effective.

 

On 07 Oct 1999, Mahatma das wrote:

> So are you saying that we "emergency" cases are now handicapped because the

gayatri mantra we received without some explanation of sambandha jnana is not

so effective? Is it eternally doomed to be ineffective?

 

Thank you for your question. I am always honored to get the opportunity for

your (Mahatma Prabhu's) association. By such senior association, I am forced

to become more grave and serious.

 

But I think you may be misreading me. There is a big diffence between "not so

effective" (my phrase) and "eternally doomed to be ineffective." (your

paraphrase). I apologize for being unclear however. I don't want to create

any more false dilemmas than we already have to deal with! Taking your hint, I

should have presented it more positively:

 

"The mantra's effect becomes enhanced the more we understand what we are

chanting and we feel some personal relationship with it. Sambandha-jnana is

therefore essential."

 

How's that?

 

Then again, I was retorting to a "cynical" posting. My emotions must have

been tainted by the negativity from that. Sorry. I generate enough negativity

myself without passing it on from others. Better to be positive. There won't

be so much complaint or misunderstanding then.

 

Let's face it, though, the vast majority of Prabhupada's disciples didn't

receive gayatri personally from Srila Prabhupada (myself included), but

instead heard it once through one ear using an early model tape recorder and a

cheap earplug, with no instruction as to its significance and meaning and

little chance to even get the pronounciation right.

 

Personal connection and strength of impression mean a lot. We receive the

mantra from the guru personally, thus we feel obliged to keep it more

carefully. Furthermore, if we have fallen from our vows, then it is

recommended that the mantra be *re-instated* -- NOT *re-initiated* -- by a

qualified Vaisnava or siksa-guru. That is our Gaudiya Vaisnava process --

personalism, compassion and understanding.

 

But I guess the cynics will never appreciate these finer sentiments. Sigh!

 

Srila dasa

 

 

Sthita-dhi Muni wrote:

> > I have to wonder, cynic that I am, why this devotee had to be,

practically, reinitiated to simply chant his gayatri mantra? Seems to me one

of the basic traditions of recieving the gayatri mantra is to hear it from

your spiritual master. I assume this devotee originally heard the gayatri

mantra from Srila Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

>

> You admitted that it was started by ISKCON leaders.

 

Don't imitate a good KGB investigator. I even "admitted" nothing

of a kind. I simply noticed that the politics are being done by

both side, both ISCKON and GM leaders. But if you are fired up

to nail up "who_started_it_" culprit, then it all started

in the early years of Srila Prabhupada's leading ISCKON. At the

very moment when Srila Prabhupada and his ISCKON started becoming

successful, his position in ISCKON and his realtionship with his

disciples had been attacked. It's all there, recorded and in the

files. Open them, if you are still into playing "they_started_

first".

 

> Why they not rectify it

> and stop the quarrel? If someone do not like to hear from this or that

> maharaja, fine. That's his heart's choice. But why discourage others?

 

Why discourage others to follow their spiritual masters and

leaders in ISCKON, but to go to GM leaders instead???

If someone do not like to follow, fine, that's his heart's choice,

isn' it?

 

"It is you who started first, so you got to stop the quarrel

first" is quite a funny way (to say at least) to pull out from

the quarrel. Kinderegarten playground.

(BTW, what happend with Krisna "who decides to which guru, diksa

and siksa, one should be brought, and He guides one from within"?)

 

 

>

> He may have stopped it, but how can one reject the past? I can't believe

> what he wrote in his diary was insincere or mistake.

>

 

It is not an issue wether HH SDG "rejected the past" or

not. That's something you can speculate about.

 

The relevant point for us, here and in this moment, is that

HH SDG *stopped* (as you might noticed it yourself) the

relationship. After he had closely associated with NM! Now, what

you might belive or not belive to be "insincere or mistake" in the

life of HH SDG, I would suggest it to be of nobody's concern here.

 

 

> > If you are already so eager to patronize

> > a disciple of SDG to look upon the example of his Guru Maharaja,

>

> Come on, prabhu, we are simply talking.

 

Yes. Simply talking. Maybe a cup of tee?

 

The whole "NM" issue is hitting right there, into

existing guru-disciple relationships. Ignoring the same.

Well, yes, we are simply talking. How about changing the

topic for a while? Do you think Bill Clinton will whin

the next presidential campaign as well, or this time All

Gore will make it? I mean, even after Monica Lewinski case?

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

> Perhaps some wish to hear both Lord Caitanya's and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's

> message as transmitted by Srila Prabhupada.

 

That's fine. But why is it that everyone in the institution should be forced

to hear *only* as it's transmitted by Srila Prabhupada? Why one cannot hear

other bona-fide vaisnavas and remain faithful to Srila Prabhupada at the

same time?

[Guest guest]

> Of course, it would always be nice to find it in our Srila Prabhupada's

> writings, being he is the founder/acarya of ISKCON. Others may follow

> whatever standard they may feel inspired by, that is their perogative.

 

I hope you do not mean to say that all other writings besides those of Srila

Prabhupada aren't considered bona-fide by the true followers of Srila

Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/10/99 1:20:30 AM Central Daylight Time,

cirvin (AT) uclink4 (DOT) berkeley.edu writes:

 

<<

"The mantra's effect becomes enhanced the more we understand what we are

chanting and we feel some personal relationship with it. Sambandha-jnana is

therefore essential."

 

How's that?

>>

Better

 

But regarding a brahmin's fall down and getting gayatri mantra again, I

brought this point up to Nitai Chand Swami and he said tht Bon Maharaja was

never reinitiated by Bhaktisiddhanta.

[Guest guest]

On 10 Oct 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote:

 

> > Perhaps some wish to hear both Lord Caitanya's and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's

message as transmitted by Srila Prabhupada.

>

> That's fine. But why is it that everyone in the institution should be forced

to hear *only* as it's transmitted by Srila Prabhupada? Why one cannot hear

other bona-fide vaisnavas and remain faithful to Srila Prabhupada at the same

time?

>

 

 

I think such things might require some maturity and tact, something some have

claimed is sorely missing. And then there is the sad point that to some

Gaudiya born agains, a devotee remains lacking in his relationship with Krsna

until he enters a relationship with his new found guru.

 

In any event, ISKCON may have certain institutional policys, but individuals

retain propriety over their own convictions. I personally never had difficulty

making up my own mind on a variety of topics, with or without ISKCON's help.

 

I don't believe it to be offensive to make a request that we try to refrain

from whining how ISKCON and the GBC are impeding certain Gaudiyas and their

followers from canvasing for more disciples within the ranks of other camps.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 10 Oct 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote:

 

> > Of course, it would always be nice to find it in our Srila Prabhupada's

writings, being he is the founder/acarya of ISKCON. Others may follow whatever

standard they may feel inspired by, that is their perogative.

> >

 

>

> I hope you do not mean to say that all other writings besides those of Srila

Prabhupada aren't considered bona-fide by the true followers of Srila

Prabhupada.

>

 

 

 

 

I hope so too!

 

 

ys,

 

Sthita

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

>

> Let's face it, though, the vast majority of Prabhupada's disciples didn't

receive gayatri personally from Srila Prabhupada (myself included), but

instead heard it once through one ear using an early model tape recorder and a

cheap earplug, with no instruction as to its significance and meaning and

little chance to even get the pronounciation right.

>

> Personal connection and strength of impression mean a lot. We receive the

mantra from the guru personally, thus we feel obliged to keep it more

> carefully. Furthermore, if we have fallen from our vows, then it is

> recommended that the mantra be *re-instated* -- NOT *re-initiated* -- by a

qualified Vaisnava or siksa-guru. That is our Gaudiya Vaisnava process --

personalism, compassion and understanding.

>

> But I guess the cynics will never appreciate these finer sentiments. Sigh!

>

> Srila dasa

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, personal connection means alot. I can see how some may feel they are not

sufficiently connected with their spiritual master, while others may feel

strong in their disciplic relationship -- it is certainly an individual

relationship. There is more to recieving gayatri than the quality of an

electronic appliance, that is another point we find ourselves in agreement.

 

yc,

(your cycnic),

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 9 Oct 1999, Mundita Mastaka wrote:

 

>

> > The critical issue is that there are genuine reasons to avoid Maharaja's

> > association.

>

> These are all political reasons, nothing more.

 

Actually no. None of the reasons I had in mind were political. The term

"political" and "ecclesiastic" are roughly equivalent in this context. It is

none of my business to give an analysis of Narayana Maharaja's philosophic

perspective and history in this public setting. Why would I want to, even if I

could? Clear-headed, non-offensive presentations are already out there for

those who are interested.

 

>BTW, your Guru Maharaja

> also took extensive association of NM, even regarded him as siksa-guru. I

> have his Vrindavana diary describing that association, where he is

> expressing his great appreciation of NM. Have you read it?

 

Do not fool yourself and presume to understand the mind of my GuruMaharaja. If

you have appreciated his writing, that is very nice.

 

Your servant

 

Jiva Goswami