Interpretation is at the heart of the ritvik controversy.

September 20, 1999

> What impresses me the most about New Rama Reti is how so many

> devotees can find common ground, celebrate the beautiful

> aspects of KC together as a community, and not get all bogged

> down in policing everyone else's attitudes. But if that's what

> you want, I would think there'd be no shortage of ISKCON

> communities that would operate much more closely to your ideal

> model.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

Here in England we had the most successful Rathyatra ever at

Trafalgar square. We don't mind even if the Ritviks come and

glorify Lord Jagannatha and participate in the festival fully.

But when they use the event for their material gain to convert

devotees to their unacceptable cause they have to be policed. If

we don't where does it end?

Just like we welcome atheists and all others to our temples but

they all have to abide by OUR rules, not theirs. This is fair.

The Ritviks always play 'unfairly' and so we have to remove them

accordingly. This is an acceptable practise in any sane society.

So even though we policed the Ritviks at the hugely successful

London Yathratra -- more than twelve gurus honoured the occasion

-- the policing of the Ritviks was insignificant and had no

effect on the festival. But policing was there because it was

necessary. In fact all our devotees appreciated that the ISKCON

administration was actually 'doing something' to remove these

unwanted nuisances who always flaunt the rules.

I share your concern for the unpleasantries of unnecessary

policing but when required it must be applied.

Not properly policing the Ritviks to date has cost ISKCON a

fortune in damages. ISKCON must come first.

Hope you are well. Hare Krishna!!!

ys

ada

September 20, 1999

> Interestingly, some ex-ISKCON neo-GM followers say that ®r…la

> Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhup€da never said that and that there is no evidence

> of such a statement.

Our evidence is Srila Prabhupada who said that his Guru Maharaj did instruct

them to form a GBC.

September 20, 1999

> So even though we policed the Ritviks at the hugely successful

> London Yathratra -- more than twelve gurus honoured the occasion

> -- the policing of the Ritviks was insignificant and had no

> effect on the festival. But policing was there because it was

> necessary. In fact all our devotees appreciated that the ISKCON

> administration was actually 'doing something' to remove these

> unwanted nuisances who always flaunt the rules.

I agree with this. If any centre is not vigilant, the ritviks make full use

of the slackness, and try to infect the innocent devotees.

September 20, 1999

All glories to ISKCON england,fortunally you are doing something about it

,unfortunally in RAMANA RETI not,if you said something last answer I got was

what to do??so is nice to know that at least somewere in ISKCON devottes are

monitoring the unfortunate rvtiks,because like you said they havent been

honest,and they lack of respect to our GBC,temple

president,boards,comunity,and most important to SRILA PRABHUPADA.

yours

prema

September 20, 1999

So every board should make an anti rvtik plan, with some caring devotees that

are willing to make sure nobody spread poison inside ISKCON propierty,is

funny its like if some devotees don't care, but im very happy to know that

there is a lots of devotees who are in the same mood to don't allow mayavady

to spread inside of ISKCON,I remember last year in L A festival actually I

realized like never before, when SRILA PRABHUPADA said that there are demons

in the dress of devotees, we were in front of LORD BALADEVA when suddenly I

saw two evil living entities, their face actually have like a greenish

colour,full of envy, dress as vaisnavas with a beautiful PRABHUPADAS picture

and a big letter head I WAS POISON, my heart stop, my body froze, I was ready

to jump and stop that horrible scene, when a group of gurukulis jump ahead

and destroy the evil writing and held SRILA PRABHUPADAS picture high in the

sky and every body around cheer HARI BOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the festival

went on with the beautiful feeling in my heart, that even if sometimes some

devotees look the other way, or like with the soft glove some communities are

dealing with this rvtik virus, there is always gonna be grandisciples and

gurukulis ,and SRILA PRABHUPADA disciples ready to give figth to

speculation,nonsense,and mayavadirivtiks

yours

prema

September 21, 1999

>

>I share your concern for the unpleasantries of unnecessary

>policing but when required it must be applied.

>

>Not properly policing the Ritviks to date has cost ISKCON a

>fortune in damages. ISKCON must come first.

>

I would also like to add the view that sometimes it is not worth writing a

traffic ticket if it has the potential to start of riot. Now that's an

extreme example, but we write traffic tickets to administer order, not to

undermine order, like that.

In any event, discretion remains the better part of valor.

ys,

Sthita

September 21, 1999

> An unspoken assumption here is that if one has not (grossly) fallen down,

> one is properly situated. Not true. For example, in India there are many

> sampradayas and religious sects that also strictly adhere to the 4

> regulative principles. Examples of this would be Jains and Mayavadis in

> the line of Sankaracarya. The 4 regulative principles are a starting

> point, but they are insufficient to determine whether one's understanding

> is proper, because we can see that there are many who follow the 4 regs

> but whose understanding is improper.

>

> Therefore, in light of the reference you have cited (wherever it may

> exist), your interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's statement cannot be

> taken as proof of "group purity". Shakaracarya's sampradaya is continuing

> by the group efforts of his descendents, does that mean their

> understanding is, therefore, correct?

This is an intresting point. It is an unspoken assumption among many in

ISKCON that the members of ISKCON have understood everything properly. But

are we sure that not some basic things have been misunderstood? I think it

should be a natural consequence of what is going on in ISKCON of today to

become even more introspective and try to consider that maybe some serious

misunderstandings have taken root in the movement. I would say that it is

very well possible that this have happend. So much time and energy have been

spend to preach but at the moment more energy and time should be spend to

try to understand the philosophy (therefore it is good that all these

discussions are taking place in those forums).

If we preach something very vigoriusly which is not a fact and not

representing Krsna's desire then what is the use? It is not that the most

important thing is that we preach. I would say that the most important thing

is what we preach. For some it maybe sounds like a ridiculus point. But why?

Is it not possible that the members of ISKCON can also have gone of the

track? To boldy claim that this is not possible is a dangerous position. To

have such an attitude could in itself be a gateway towards deviation. To

keep a pure understanding is not easy.

If one doesn't continue to be introspective and listen to different ideas

how one can be wrong then the situation can become very risky. This

introspectiveness should never stop. Of course this doesn't mean that we

should accept anything and everything. For me it is clear that the ritviks

are deviating but I have a feeling that there is quite some philosophical

deviations flourishing within the walls of ISKCON also. To just close one's

eyes and try to not see this is not a solution.

"Humility; pridelessness; nonviolence; . . . philosophical search for the

Absolute Truth-all these I declare to be knowledge, and besides this

whatever there may be is ignorance."

(Bhagavad-gita 13.8-12)

Ys

Svarupa das

September 22, 1999

> It's a little more complicated than that. The GBC did initially vote to

> expell them, but then withdrew that decision. Now, a Calcutta judge has

> prohibited the GBC from expelling anyone until a decision has been made in

> the court case. For more information, you can contact someone on the GBC

> defense team.

I beg your pardon, but how is it that Indian court odrders anything to GBC?

ys dvd

September 22, 1999

>

I beg your pardon, but how is it that Indian court odrders anything to GBC?

Well, we still have to follow the laws of the countries in which we live.

Actually, I think the GBC tried to argue that this was an internal spiritual

matter, but the judge disagreed and said that he will hear the case, so it's

moving forward. Once a decision is rendered 9which I udnerstand can take a

very long time), I guess the GBC has a choice of whether to follow or not to

follow. However, if they don't, they will be considered criminals by the

court and this may have other negative consequences for ISKCON.

But this is way outside of my area of expertise. I wish that someone from teh

Mayapur defense team or with a law degree could answer this question.

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

September 22, 1999

> >

> >I share your concern for the unpleasantries of unnecessary

> >policing but when required it must be applied.

> >

> >Not properly policing the Ritviks to date has cost ISKCON a

> >fortune in damages. ISKCON must come first.

> >

>

> I would also like to add the view that sometimes it is not

> worth writing a traffic ticket if it has the potential to

> start of riot. Now that's an extreme example, but we write

> traffic tickets to administer order, not to undermine order,

> like that.

That example would be relevant if we were dealing with people

who were honest and orderly, not with people whose agenda is to

dishonestly hijack control of ISKCON and cause as much damage as

possible. Yaduraja, the so-called devotee who was the main

author of the faked final order paper says that their agenda is

to destroy ISKCON and start again with ritvikism!!!! This is

what we are dealing with. And give them an inch and they'll take

a mile.

I can say with all certainty that Srila Prabhupada would not

give the nonsense Ritviks an inch. He would simply banish them

from ISKCON. Bas. Suspend their license indefinitely.

> In any event, discretion remains the better part of valor.

>

> ys,

>

> Sthita

ys

ada

September 22, 1999

> > It's a little more complicated than that. The GBC did

> > initially vote to expell them, but then withdrew that

> > decision. Now, a Calcutta judge has prohibited the GBC from

> > expelling anyone until a decision has been made in the court

> > case. For more information, you can contact someone on the

> > GBC defense team.

>

> I beg your pardon, but how is it that Indian court odrders

> anything to GBC?

>

> ys dvd

If I could just add somehting here, since the Ritviks can't

persuade anyone with their philosophical concoction they have

resorted to LEGALISTIC measures to force their nonsense on

ISKCON. This way of persuasion is totally against Srila

Prabhupada's direct instructions not to do so.

The Ritviks have deviously found some LEGAL loop holes in the

way ISKCON is set up which could enable them to temporarily get

some limited control.

For the Ritviks it is no longer a philosohical issue (was it

ever?), it is a political issue about getting power and control

of ISKCON.

Srila Prabhupada is no doubt very, very displeased with these

Ritviks and we hope that they are completely removed from ISKCON

sooner rather than later. We have so many better things to do.

Like chanting Hare Krishna!!!

ys

ada

September 22, 1999

>

>That example would be relevant if we were dealing with people

>who were honest and orderly, not with people whose agenda is to

>dishonestly hijack control of ISKCON and cause as much damage as

>possible.

Generally, people who might 'start a riot' are not honest and orderly.

>Yaduraja, the so-called devotee who was the main

>author of the faked final order paper says that their agenda is

>to destroy ISKCON and start again with ritvikism!!!! This is

>what we are dealing with. And give them an inch and they'll take

>a mile.

>

Yes, every situation has to be judged individually so as to deal with it

most effectively. Based on your reports, there seems to be some good

progress in maintaining the established siddhanta and managerial policy as

the standard for ISKCON's activities in England, etc.

>I can say with all certainty that Srila Prabhupada would not

>give the nonsense Ritviks an inch. He would simply banish them

>from ISKCON. Bas. Suspend their license indefinitely.

>

With regards to certain communities, 'banish from ISKCON' takes on a

different meaning. For instance, older devotees do not generally live in

the temple. Further, simply visiting a temple doesn't preclude one is a

member of ISKCON. And then to completely alienate certain malcontents could

inspire greater problems, ie, give them some juvenile inspiration that they

have been unjustly wronged and thus feel they can now self-righteously

compete within the larger community in an even more destructive manner.

Anyway, just some thoughts on strategy, according to time and place.

ys,

Sthita

September 22, 1999

> All glories to ISKCON england,fortunally you are doing something about it

> ,unfortunally in RAMANA RETI not,if you said something last answer I got

> was what to do??so is nice to know that at least somewere in ISKCON

> devottes are monitoring the unfortunate rvtiks

Fortunately they have not arrived yet to Poland. But first polish devotee

became disciple of Narayan Maharaj, already declaring himself sadhu,

criticizing ISKCON, etc. and started to write confidential letters to our

Namahatis, so poison is coming.

One thing which strucks me is that both ritviks and NMs, they come to Iskcon

properties to gain followers. Comparing to them, Siddhasvarupas group are

angels, because they do their hard preaching efforts, and do not come to

just collect frustrated people which Iskcon dissapointed. Or maybe it is

good job, which ritviks and NMs do, because those dissapointed devots can at

least continue chanting with another group, because somehow they cant find a

place within Iskcon, although Iskcon made huge effort to safe them from

clutches of maya? So what do you think we should do? Any advice for polish

Iskcon? We also have plenty frustrated devotees, but they just embrace money

and women right now.

ys dvd

September 22, 1999

Krsna Kirti Prabhu wrote:

> >> Can you show a precedent for ritvik gurus from scripture?

> >

> >What about the concept of a "monitor guru", Srila Prabhupada does mention

> >that term.

>

> What about it? You still have to furnish evidence from shastra because,

> obviously, Srila Prabhupada's words can be interpreted variously. You

> have to ascertain that your interpretation is correct because you can also

> have an incorrect interpretation.

>

> >> Bottom line: I will NOT accept that Srila Prabhupada is introducing

> >> something unauthorized by scripture.

> >

> >My bottom line is that a perfect person (A Guru as the sastra generally

> >discribed him) can not be created by wishful thinking, appointment, or

> vote,

> >or any other process, except that he has the actual realization or

> >adhikary of a fully surrendered soul. Srila Prabhupada made it very clear

> >to us that this was the defect of the Gaudiya Math, they tried to put

> >forward

> imperfect

> >persons as Acaryas.

>

> As far as surrender is concerned, there are six items of surrender: (1)

> accepting everything favorable for the execution of Krishna consciousness,

> (2) rejecting everything unfavorable, (3) considering onself to be fully

> dependent on the Lord's mercy, (4) being fully confident of the Lord's

> protection, (5) not having any interest separate from the Lord's, and (6)

> always considering oneself meek and humble. (These items can be found in

> the preface of the Caitanya-caritamrita).

>

> The first two items of surrender means accepting everything favorable and

> rejecting everything unfavorable. How is that done? By discriminating on

> the basis of shastra: tasmac chastram pramanam te karyakarya vyavasthitau

> / jnana shastra vidhanoktam karma kartum iharhasi, "One should therefore

> understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the

> scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he

> may be gradually elevated." (Bg 16.24)

>

> Our contention is, therefore, that there cannot be actual surrender unless

> one's understanding and consequent actions are firmly grounded in shastra.

>

> One unspoken assumption in your above remark seems to be that only an

> uttama adhikary is a perfect person. This is not true. Both the kanistha

> adhikaris and madhyama adhikaris can also be perfect persons, provided

> they are fully engaged in the Lord's service.

Agreed, depending on what you mean by "perfect." A lower grade devotee is

also perfect, in one sense, if he or she fully follows the perfect, fully

self-realized soul. That is, this lower grade devotee can also give

substantial and relevant instruction that is perfect. However, this person

(although perfect in this limited sense of not giving imperfect instruction)

will not be able to give the best instruction at every time, and thus is

certainly not perfect in this sense. Since to really be the perfect Guru

one

must be able to give perfect instruction at every time, such a lower class

devotee, although "perfect," still cannot be the perfect Guru.

> Examples of devotees who are pure but not uttama adhikari:

>

> (1) Tapana Misra and Chandrashekhara:

>

> CC Adi 7.51 "The Mayavadi sannyasis are all criticizing Your Holines. We

> cannot tolerate hearing such criticism, for this blasphemy breaks our

> hearts."

> [from the purport]

> "Although a kanistha-adhikari also cannot tolerate such blasphemy, he is

> not competent to stop it by citing sastric evidences. Therefore, Tapana

> Mistra and Candrasekhara are understood to be kanistha-adhikaris because

> they could not refute the arguments of the sannyasis in Benares."

>

> So here, we see that Tapana Misra and Chandrashekhara are regarded as

> kanishta adhikaris, even though they are personal associates of the Lord.

>

> One of the unique differences here between the kanisthas, madhyamas, and

> uttama adhikaris is their ability to present the conclusions of devotional

> service on the basis of shastra. This ability is a unique characteristic

> of an uttama adhikari: tad vijnanartham sa gurum evabigachet / samit pani

> srotrium brahma nistham, "In order to understand the Absolute Truth, one

> must approach a bona fide spiritual master. In doing so, one should carry

> wood for burning in the sacrificial fire. The spiritual master is fully

> engaged in devotional service because he is expert in understanding the

> conclusions of the scriptures."

>

> The inferiority of the kanistha and madhyama gurus are specifically on

> this point of their familiarity with shastra. The kanistha is hardly

> acquainted with it, the madhyam adhikari has more developed knowledge

> (even note the designation 'madhyama', which specifically mean 'middle'),

> and the uttama adhikari's knowledge of shastra is consumate.

A lack of a rather superficial familiarity with the scritures is not the

only

reason for the inferiority of the madhyama and kanistha adhikaris. An

uttama

adhikari may not be so familiar with scripture in this superficial sense,

but

he or she understands perfectly the essence of sastra and ACTS on that

platform. That is, he or she is fully conscious of Krsna so can transmit

Krsna's 100% perfect instruction at every moment. This is the actual Guru.

> Still, since it has been demonstrated that a kanistha and madhyama can

> also be pure devotees, it means that they can also conform to the standard

> of what is a guru as mentioned in the first verse of Nectar of

> Instruction: vaco vegam manasa. . . And in the purport of this verse,

> Srila Prabhupada makes it very clear that controlling all these senses and

> urges means engaging them in Krishna's service. Since it is possible for

> both kanisthas and madhyamas to also do this, they can, therefore, assume

> the duties of a guru, although they certainly would not be as effective as

> an uttama adhikari.

We agree that kanistha and madhyama adhikaris can also assume the duties of

guru, but they certainly cannot be as effective as an utama adhikari. This

is

the whole point. Why is it that they cannot be as effective? Because they

are not in perfect touch with Krsna. Thus we should understand that they

are

not 100% as good as Krsna, and they are not Guru in the sense that Guru is

100% as good as Krsna. Although at some times and in some circumstances it

may be better to emphasize the fact that such madhyama or even kanistha

adhikari gurus are indeed gurus, at other times it is better to emphasize

that they not not really Guru, because they are not 100% as good as Krsna.

And it is exactly this sort of judgement of circumstances that requires the

help of a 100% self-realized soul like Srila Prabhupada. The fact is that

now it is advisable for us to emphasize the difference, because our past

failure to

sufficiently emphasize this difference has led us into a very undesirable

situation. You cannot really quote sastra very easily to make such

time-and-place decisions; you need the guidance of a self-realized soul.

> >> What is wrong with being servant of the servant of Srila Prabhupada? I

> >> will never consider myself directly the servant of Srila Prabhupada,

> >> just as much as I would never consider myself to be directly the

> >> servant of Krishna. That is more in line with Lord Caitanya's

> >> philosophy of gopi bartuh pada kamalayor dasadasa anudasa.

> >

> >This is wanted, but we have to allow the disciples to become

> >independently thoughtful. If we oblidge them to think that their guru is

> >a fully self-realized Guru, who is the perfect and absolute

> >representative of

> Krsna,

> >and whose every act and word is perfectly directed by Krsna, we are

> >asking for trouble.

>

> Respecting one's guru as a representative of the Supreme Lord, and His

> most confidential servitor, is the proper behaviour, even if our guru is

> not an uttama adhikari. Here is the evidence:

>

> *Shastra*

> deva dvija guru prajna pujanam (From Bg Ch 17)

>

> "Austerity of the body consists in worship of the Lord, the brahmanas, the

> spiritual master, and worshipable elders like the father and mother. . ."

>

> First point is that the guru must be worshipped, this is a principle in

> shastra.

>

> *sadhu/acharya*

> Now, Lord Caitanya demonstrates HOW to apply this principle:

>

> aro prabhu tumi guru ami shishya praya

> guru shishye hane namaskara na yuyaya

>

> "You are my guru, and I am your disciple. Because you are My spiritual

> master, it is not fitting that you offer Me obeisances." (This was spoken

> by Lord Caitanya on his first journey to Vrindavan, when in Mathura he met

> a Sanodiya brahamana, and found out that he was a disciple of Madhavendra

> Puri.)

>

> Please note that this was spoken by the Lord on their first meeting, no

> opportunity to "test" his qualifications made.

>

> One may say that because the Lord is omniscient, He automatically knew

> that this brahmana was qualified, so He therefore respected him. This

> argument cannot be maintained becase Lord Caitanya offered the same

> respect to Ramacandra Puri, who was rejected by Madhavendra Puri.

>

> Even though Paramanda Puri, who was also a disciple of Madhvendra Puri,

> told the Lord that He need not follow the advice of Ramacandra Puri

> because he himself is fallen, the Lord replied, "Why are all of you angry

> at Ramacandra Puri? He is expounding the ntural principles of sannyasa

> life. Why are you accusing him?" (Antya 8.84) Lord Caitanya refused to

> take a full meal, even though requested by others who were His seniors.

>

> So, here we see the Lord showing HOW one should apply this principle of

> offering worship. Even if one's guru is NOT perfect, he is nonetheless

> offered that respect.

Of course we offer respect to our guru, even if he is not perfect. We even

offer our respect to an ant. But we will not foolishly insist that our

disciples think we are 100% as good as God, and our every order is 100%

Krsna's order--which is the position of a real Guru, that is one who is 100%

Krsna conscious.

> *Guru*

> "The words sadhur eva, "he is saintly," are very emphatic. They are a

> warning to the nondevotees that because of an accidental falldown a

> devotee should not be derided; he should still be considered saintly even

> if he has accidentally fallen down. And the word mantavyah is still more

> emphatic. If one does not follow this rule, and derides a devotee for his

> accidental falldown, then one is disobeying the order of the Supreme Lord.

> The only qualification of a devotee is to be unflinchingly and

> exclusively engaged in devotional service."

>

> So, here we are given a warning about disrespecting a devotee who, by

> mistake or accident, manifests imperfect behaviour. Furthermore, Srila

> Prabhupada here confirms that if by accident one does make some error, if

> he is exclusively engaged in devotional service, then he is still be

> respected. Of course, if he maintains that behaviour, then that means he

> is not fully engaged in devotional service and is therefore disqualified

> to be a spiritual master. Otherwise, even if there are some faults (i.e.,

> guruji is not a perfect person), they are to be overlooked.

Agreed. And proper training is sastra certainly will enable us to

understand

that the vast majority of the so-called gurus in ISKCON are not acting

properly; that is, they should not allow their disciples to think they are

as

good as God and their every order is the order of God.

> So, we can see from guru, sadhu and shastra, that a guru, no matter what

> his position (kanistha, madhyama, or uttama) is to be regarded and

> respected as the most confidential servitor of the Lord.

>

> You raise the doubt as to how we can offer respect to a guru who is not at

> a very high stage of realization? The answer is that we do so by adhering

> to the injunctions of shastra. Then, even though such respect is offered,

> since this is offered out of respect for shastra, we avoid developing

> personality cults.

No, we never say proper respect should not be offered. Rather, we say

proper

respect requires that different types of guru must be discriminated. If we

offer equal respect to all, then we will think the fully self-realized soul

is

also equal to the monitor guru, which will be a big mistake.

> Srila Prabhupada had one time said that his only ciriticism of his

> disciples was that they did not read his books. So, now you know why we

> have so many personality cults--because people are not reading (at least

> reading carefully) Srila Prabhupada's books. Because they do not know

> shastra, their surrender is exclusively reposed in a person instead of in

> shastra. As such, whenever a guru falls down, the disciples of such a

> fallen guru loose faith in Krishna consciousness.

Agreed.

> So, if you want to do away with personality cults and minimize casualties,

> give people the real thing--train them in shastra. Even if there are so

> many devotees who are unwilling, there are more than enough who are

> willing than we can handle. Train people in shastra, and the primacy of

> shastra, and your ritvik problems are automatically solved--separate

> endeavor is not needed.

>

> >I think that you have to admit that the neglect of this point has fueled

> the

> >rebellion of many to be against Iskcon as it is today. No?

> >

> What has fuelled the rebellion is a faulty understanding of what is duty

> and what is not duty. To close this text, I would like to point out that

> I have cited references from shastra, sadhu, and guru to support the

> thesis that (1) a kanistha and madhyama adhikari can also be a pure

> devotee, and as such, are qualified to be guru;

Agreed.

>(2) whether or not a guru

> is an uttama adhikari, he should be offered all respect as the most

> confidential servitor of the Lord; and

Nonsense! How he can be the MOST confidential servitor? He is NOT the most

confidential, even though he may be confidential. Only the uttama is the

MOST

confidential servitor. This is exactly the point we are making. There must

be dscrimination between different levels of guru, otherwise the actual

value

and position of the real MOST confidential servitor, i.e., Srila Prabhupada,

is lost. This is the main disrespect we need to be careful about at this

point, not the fear of disrespecting the lower level gurus (although this,

of

course, is also something to be kept in mind).

>(3) that the attitude that the guru is somehow inferior is never to be

>maintained.

How you can make such nonsense statement? This is simply sense gratification

and is the entire problem. A madhyama and certainly a kanistha adhikari

acting as guru certainly must be understood to

be inferior to an uttama adhikari guru. WHAT IS THIS RASCALDOM "somehow

inferior is never to be maintained"?

Ys TS

September 22, 1999

> With regards to certain communities, 'banish from ISKCON'

> takes on a different meaning. For instance, older devotees do

> not generally live in the temple. Further, simply visiting a

> temple doesn't preclude one is a member of ISKCON. And then to

> completely alienate certain malcontents could inspire greater

> problems, ie, give them some juvenile inspiration that they

> have been unjustly wronged and thus feel they can now

> self-righteously compete within the larger community in an

> even more destructive manner.

>

> Anyway, just some thoughts on strategy, according to time and

> place.

>

> ys,

>

> Sthita

All of what you have said has been carefully considered but as a

last resort some people just have to be banned so as to

'protect' ISKCON. In some cases, as with the hard-core Ritviks

and child molesters, we are more damned if we don't than if we

do. Therefore we must.

Hope you are well. Hare Krishna!!!

ys

ada

September 22, 1999

> And proper training is sastra certainly will enable us to

> understand that the vast majority of the so-called gurus in ISKCON are not

> acting properly; that is, they should not allow their disciples to think

> they are as good as God and their every order is the order of God.

Excellent! Simply this point defeats all of Krishna Kirti Prabhu's

arguments. We should the understand that the above statement is coming from

a guru himself in ISKCON so it imbued with realization & experience.

Even if they tell the disciples to worship them as good as God and their

every order as the order of God, someday the disciples will find out the

actual situation and that day they will loose all their faith maybe even in

the process of KC. So better to accept one's factual situation from the

beginning and reject all false glorification.

Krishna Kirti Prabhu seems to be ignoring (not discussing) the crystal clear

statements in the Nectar of Instruction when Srila Prabhupada talks about

the uttama, madhyama & kanishtha gurus.

> Of course we offer respect to our guru, even if he is not perfect. We

> even offer our respect to an ant. But we will not foolishly insist that

> our disciples think we are 100% as good as God, and our every order is

> 100% Krsna's order--which is the position of a real Guru, that is one who

> is 100% Krsna conscious.

Well said!

> Nonsense! How he can be the MOST confidential servitor? He is NOT the

> most confidential, even though he may be confidential. Only the uttama is

> the MOST confidential servitor. This is exactly the point we are making.

> There must be dscrimination between different levels of guru, otherwise

> the actual value and position of the real MOST confidential servitor,

> i.e., Srila Prabhupada, is lost. This is the main disrespect we need to

> be careful about at this point, not the fear of disrespecting the lower

> level gurus (although this, of course, is also something to be kept in

> mind).

Perfect!

> How you can make such nonsense statement? This is simply sense

> gratification and is the entire problem. A madhyama and certainly a

> kanistha adhikari acting as guru certainly must be understood to be

> inferior to an uttama adhikari guru. WHAT IS THIS RASCALDOM "somehow

> inferior is never to be maintained"?

On the whole, great reply Maharaj.

Your servant,

Nayana-ranjana das

September 22, 1999

>>(2) whether or not a guru

>> is an uttama adhikari, he should be offered all respect as the most

>> confidential servitor of the Lord; and

>

>Nonsense! How he can be the MOST confidential servitor? He is NOT the

most

>confidential, even though he may be confidential. Only the uttama is the

>MOST

>confidential servitor. This is exactly the point we are making. There

must

>be dscrimination between different levels of guru, otherwise the actual

>value

>and position of the real MOST confidential servitor, i.e., Srila

Prabhupada,

>is lost. This is the main disrespect we need to be careful about at this

>point, not the fear of disrespecting the lower level gurus (although this,

>of

>course, is also something to be kept in mind).

How can he be the most confidential servitor, even though he is not an

uttama adhikari? Because he is giving you Krishna. In other words, the

guru, even though he is a madhyama or a kanistha, if he is properly

situated, is a necessary component in the spiritual advancement of his

disciple. Since the guru is giving Krishna to his faithful disciple, then

how can he not be considered most confidential? Without him, you aren't

getting Krishna, even if he is only 2% confidential. Here is the evidence

for this:

----------

-----------------

cintamanir jayati somagirir gurur me

siksa-gurus ca bhagavan sikhi-pincha-maulih

yat-pada-kalpataru-pallava-shekharesu

lila-svayamvara-rasam labhate jayasri

"All glories to Cintamani and my initiating spiritual master Somagiri. All

glories to my intructing spiritual master, the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, who wears peacock feathers in His crown. Under the shade of his

lotus feet, which are like desire trees, Jayasri [Radharani] enjoys the

transcendental mellow of an eternal consort."

[from the purport] "In the begining of that book [Krishna-karnamrta] he

[bilvamangala Thakura] has offered his obeisances to his different gurus,

and it is to be noted that he has adored them all equally. The first

spiritual master mentioned is Cintamani, who was his instructing spiritual

master because she first showed him the spiritual path. Cintamani was a

prostitute with whom Bilvamangala was intimate earlier in his life. She

gave him the inspiration to begin on the path of devotional service, and

because she convinced him to give up material existence to try for

perfection by loving Krishna, he has first offered his respects to her.

Next he offers his respects to his initiating spiritual master, Somagiri,

and then to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who was also his instructing

spiritual master." (CC. Adi 1.57)

----------

-----------------

So, here we see that Sri Bilvamangala Thakura is not only offering respects

to all his gurus, but he is offering his first respects to Cintamani, the

prostitute. Secondly, Srila Prabhupada here affirms that "it is to be noted

that he has adored them all equally." He wasn't adoring her at 50%, or 25%,

etc. Furthermore, she was a prostitute, not some sort of maha-panditain.

Uttama adhikari she was not. Somagiri is noneother than Vishnuswami, who

was certainly an uttama adhikari.

Then there is the example of Ramacandra Puri and how Lord Caitanya respected

him, inspite of his actual status.

Here, I am talking about the attitude a disciple must have for his guru.

There are different grades of gurus, and there is evidence in scripture for

this, but the ATTITUDE the disciple must have for his guru must be that he

is the most confidential servitor of Krishna. Here is more evidence:

na dharmaM nAdharmam zruti-gaNa-niruktaM kila kuru

vraje rAdh-kRSNa-pracura-paricaryAm iha tanuH

zacI-sUnuM nandIzvara-pati-sutatve guru-varaM

mukunda-presthatve smara padam ajasraM nanu manaH

"Mind, don't do the pious and impious deeds described in the Vedas.

Intently serve Sri Sri Radha-Krishna in Vraja. Always remember that Lord

Caitanya is the son of Maharaj Nanda and my guru is most dear to Lord

Mukunda." (Sri Manah Siksa, verse 2, from Sri Stavavali by Raghunatha das

Goswami, Translation by Kushakratha das)

The relevant words in this verse are "guru-varam" (translated as 'spiritual

master'), and "mukunda-presthatve" (translated as 'as the most dear to Lord

Mukunda').

>>(3) that the attitude that the guru is somehow inferior is never to be

>>maintained.

>

>How you can make such nonsense statement?

See above. Do you think Bilvamangala Thakura's statement, and Srila

Prabhupada's commentary on it was a "nonsense statement"?

>This is simply sense gratification

>and is the entire problem. A madhyama and certainly a kanistha adhikari

>acting as guru certainly must be understood to

>be inferior to an uttama adhikari guru.

Let me remind you that here we are discussing the attitude a disciple must

have for his guru. There is distinction, but again, how do you regard the

person who saved your life? "Oh, you saved my life, but you are a

prostitute." This is ungratefulness. Of course, there may be particular

etiquette observed as per the various gurus (for example, the vyasa puja

ceremony for the diksa guru is not necessarily obligatory for respecting

siksa gurus), but the attitude towards ALL of them must be that they are the

most confidential servitor of Krishna.

A guru is as good as God because he is giving God to his disciples. Please

note that if a properly situated (as per the directives of NOI 1) madhyama

or a kanistha weren't capable of doing that, then they couldn't qualify as a

guru, since they would not be able to perform the functions of a guru (i.e.

delivering his disciples, etc.)

>WHAT IS THIS RASCALDOM "somehow

>inferior is never to be maintained"?

In the course of this discussion, I have provided evidence from shastra,

previous acharyas, and, of course, Srila Prabhupada. But since your

evidence is lacking support from shastra and previous acharyas, how can you

be certain that what I am saying is "rascaldom"? You have quoted Srila

Prabhupada, but since your conclusions, thus far, lack support particularly

from shastra and previous acharyas, even if you are quoting Srila Prabhupada

quoting shastra and previous acharyas, it may well be that your conclusions

are actually that which you are accusing mine of.

So, Maharaj, let's see your cards on the table. Where are your references?

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

September 23, 1999

Unity and the principle of love and trust,before is to late dont become

sentimentalist and allow rivtiks to spread poison en SRILA PRABHUPADAS

ISKCON!!!!!!!!NAMA HATTA,CONGREGATIONAL PREACHING AND CULTIVATION OF THE

COMUNITY BY MORE INTIMATE HOUSE TO HOUSE PREACHING just dont compromise with

any bodyPRABHUPADA ALL THE WAY!!!!!!! ISKCON IS OUR FAMILY PLEASE WE HAVE TO

GIVE OUR LIVES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE FUTURE GENERATIONS,OUT RIVTIKS,.OF

ISKCON,

premananda goura das

September 23, 1999

Hari bol yes unfortunally NM came to Ramana Reti and reinitiated some

devotees,from good standing ISKCON gurus,so yes avoid GM NM rvitks and

actually there are many people we have to avoid,I remember I read Srila

Prabhupada mentions varios deviations en CC is that rigth???

prema

September 23, 1999

Dear Krishna Kirti Prabhu

PAMHO

> > Respecting one's guru as a representative of the Supreme Lord, and His

> > most confidential servitor, is the proper behaviour, even if our guru is

> > not an uttama adhikari. Here is the evidence:

> >

> > *Shastra*

> > deva dvija guru prajna pujanam (From Bg Ch 17)

> >

> > "Austerity of the body consists in worship of the Lord, the brahmanas,

> > the spiritual master,

This verse does not say about way of worship kanistha, madhyama and uttama

> > *sadhu/acharya*

> > Now, Lord Caitanya demonstrates HOW to apply this principle:

> >

> > aro prabhu tumi guru ami shishya praya

> > guru shishye hane namaskara na yuyaya

> >

> > "You are my guru, and I am your disciple. Because you are My spiritual

> > master, it is not fitting that you offer Me obeisances." (This was

> > spoken by Lord Caitanya on his first journey to Vrindavan, when in

> > Mathura he met a Sanodiya brahamana, and found out that he was a

> > disciple of Madhavendra Puri.)

> >

> > Please note that this was spoken by the Lord on their first meeting, no

> > opportunity to "test" his qualifications made.

We offer obeisances to kanistha, madhyama and uttama and not accept

obeisnaces from them because it is just not etiquete that superior pay

obeisances to inferior. But here is nothing more said about worship of guru.

> >

> > Even though Paramanda Puri, who was also a disciple of Madhvendra Puri,

> > told the Lord that He need not follow the advice of Ramacandra Puri

> > because he himself is fallen, the Lord replied, "Why are all of you

> > angry at Ramacandra Puri? He is expounding the ntural principles of

> > sannyasa life. Why are you accusing him?" (Antya 8.84) Lord Caitanya

> > refused to take a full meal, even though requested by others who were

> > His seniors.

First: Ramacandra Puri position was Godbrother of Spiritual Master of

Mahaprabhu. Mahprabhu offered him obeisances asnd listen to his

instructions, which were general rules for sannyasa life, ie regulating

eating habits. Mahaprabhu could not reject them, because other kanistha

would immediately follow and degrad themslves to sahajiya.

Second: All devotees were sponatously atracted to Mahaprabhu and served him

with love. As Nectar of devotion says such persons does not necessary follow

all regulations strioctly. That's why were criticised by Ramacandra, who did

not have mercy of his guru and has no access to ragamarga, but was within

the realm of varnasrama.

Third: Mahaprabhu offered him obeisances and listen even to his instructions

because they did not contradict sastra. But

"If someone is rejected by spiritual master, is so fallen, that as

Ramacandra Puri, offended even The Supreme Personality of Godhead. text

8.99"

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu sometimes accepted Ramacandra Puri asHis Master,

and Himself as servant, but sometimes did not care for him, and treated him

as grass" Antya 8.94

1.Do you have any evidence that Mahaprabhu treated equally Isvara Puri as

Ramacandra Puri?

2.Don't you see that although Ramacandra Puri gave proper instruction about

varnasrama life he had no enter to the realm of devotee life and was not

welcomed by devotees?

3.If kanistha gives relevent instructions about basic rules i will pay

obeisances and listen to and act. But if uttama is preaching i will pay

obeisances, listen to and act AND SACRIFICE MY LIFE FOR HIM.

NEVER THE SAME EQUAL WORSHIP!

So your own quots from sadhu and sastra prove Trivikrama Maharaja

statements. It is just question of reading them as they are. But it requires

mercy of Spiritual Master. Otherwise we remain in the position as Ramacandra

Puri had.

your servant

Dvarkadhis das

September 23, 1999

> Dear Krishna Kirti Prabhu

>

>PAMHO

>> > Respecting one's guru as a representative of the Supreme Lord, and His

>> > most confidential servitor, is the proper behaviour, even if our guru

is

>> > not an uttama adhikari. Here is the evidence:

>> >

>> > *Shastra*

>> > deva dvija guru prajna pujanam (From Bg Ch 17)

>> >

>> > "Austerity of the body consists in worship of the Lord, the brahmanas,

>> > the spiritual master,

>

>This verse does not say about way of worship kanistha, madhyama and uttama

That is because it is a principle. The acaryas show us HOW to apply

principles.

>

>> > *sadhu/acharya*

>> > Now, Lord Caitanya demonstrates HOW to apply this principle:

>> >

>> > aro prabhu tumi guru ami shishya praya

>> > guru shishye hane namaskara na yuyaya

>> >

>> > "You are my guru, and I am your disciple. Because you are My spiritual

>> > master, it is not fitting that you offer Me obeisances." (This was

>> > spoken by Lord Caitanya on his first journey to Vrindavan, when in

>> > Mathura he met a Sanodiya brahamana, and found out that he was a

>> > disciple of Madhavendra Puri.)

>> >

>> > Please note that this was spoken by the Lord on their first meeting, no

>> > opportunity to "test" his qualifications made.

>

>We offer obeisances to kanistha, madhyama and uttama and not accept

>obeisnaces from them because it is just not etiquete that superior pay

>obeisances to inferior. But here is nothing more said about worship of

guru.

>

It is sufficient. We are discussing eitiquette and attitude, and that

covers the worship of the guru.

>> >

>> > Even though Paramanda Puri, who was also a disciple of Madhvendra Puri,

>> > told the Lord that He need not follow the advice of Ramacandra Puri

>> > because he himself is fallen, the Lord replied, "Why are all of you

>> > angry at Ramacandra Puri? He is expounding the ntural principles of

>> > sannyasa life. Why are you accusing him?" (Antya 8.84) Lord Caitanya

>> > refused to take a full meal, even though requested by others who were

>> > His seniors.

>

>First: Ramacandra Puri position was Godbrother of Spiritual Master of

>Mahaprabhu. Mahprabhu offered him obeisances asnd listen to his

>instructions, which were general rules for sannyasa life, ie regulating

>eating habits. Mahaprabhu could not reject them, because other kanistha

>would immediately follow and degrad themslves to sahajiya.

So, Mahaprabhu is also acarya. Why not give at least this much respect to

one's guru, especially since if he is not fallen like Ramacandra Puri.

>Second: All devotees were sponatously atracted to Mahaprabhu and served him

>with love. As Nectar of devotion says such persons does not necessary

follow

>all regulations strioctly. That's why were criticised by Ramacandra, who

did

>not have mercy of his guru and has no access to ragamarga, but was within

>the realm of varnasrama.

We are, all of us within ISKCON, acting within the parameters of varnashram,

including sannyasis. This is, specifically, not an objection to my premise.

>Third: Mahaprabhu offered him obeisances and listen even to his

instructions

>because they did not contradict sastra. But

>

>"If someone is rejected by spiritual master, is so fallen, that as

>Ramacandra Puri, offended even The Supreme Personality of Godhead. text

>8.99"

>

>"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu sometimes accepted Ramacandra Puri asHis Master,

>and Himself as servant, but sometimes did not care for him, and treated him

>as grass" Antya 8.94

Yes, but the conditions under which Ramacandra Puri was treated "like grass"

by Mahaprabhu is also described:

"Because of His full independence, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu sometimes behaved

like a common man and sometimes manifested His godly opulence." (93)

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu sometimes accepted Ramacandra Puri as His master

and considered Himself a servant, and sometimes the Lord, not caring for

him, would see him as being just like straw." (94)

(CC Antya 8.93-94)

So, if you manifest your "godly opulence", you can also regard your "10%

confidential guru" as being 10% confidential. Here the conditions under

which the Lord accepted Ramacandra Puri as His master are when He was

behaving like a common man. Since we are "common men", we must follow this

example of Caitanya Mahaprabhus and not imitate His display of godly

opulence.

>1.Do you have any evidence that Mahaprabhu treated equally Isvara Puri as

>Ramacandra Puri?

As I mentioned previously, there are different etiquette with regard to

respecting individuals. In the Caitanya Bhagavata, it is mentioned that

Caitanya Mahaprabhu had taken some earth from the birth site of Isvara Puri,

and ate a small portion every day. We have no record that He did that with

Ramacandra Puri (who was fallen), or with devotees like Advaitacarya or

Paramanda Puri, who were both godbrothers of Isvara Puri and certainly were

not fallen, and who were respected by Caitanya Mahaprabhu as on the level of

his spiritual master.

Still, I again repeat, that it is the etiquette of a devotee to offer equal

regard to the godbrother of one's guru, what to speak of one's guru:

aro prabhu tumi guru ami sisya praya

guru sisye hane namaskara na yuyaya.

"You are my guru, and I am your disciple, because you are my spiritual

master, it is not fitting that you offer obeisances to Me."

If you disagree with this quote, please just don't be a nay sayer. PRESENT

EVIDENCE.

>2.Don't you see that although Ramacandra Puri gave proper instruction about

>varnasrama life he had no enter to the realm of devotee life and was not

>welcomed by devotees?

That is why Lord Caitanya's example is unprecedented. We do not imitate,

but at the same time, we must follow in his footsteps and also be common

men. The problem is we are too anxious to display our godly opulence and

maintain an offensive mentality.

>3.If kanistha gives relevent instructions about basic rules i will pay

>obeisances and listen to and act. But if uttama is preaching i will pay

>obeisances, listen to and act AND SACRIFICE MY LIFE FOR HIM.

>NEVER THE SAME EQUAL WORSHIP!

Prove it! Refute the below quote by Bilvamangala Thakura and Srila

Prabhupada's subsequent commentary.

>So your own quots from sadhu and sastra prove Trivikrama Maharaja

>statements. It is just question of reading them as they are. But it

requires

>mercy of Spiritual Master. Otherwise we remain in the position as

Ramacandra

>Puri had.

>

Which spiritual master's mercy are you refering to, the kanistha spiritual

master's or the uttama's? Do you think that the words of Narottama das

Thakura, "janme janme prabhu se" refer only to the uttama guru and not the

kanistha guru? Why was Lord Caitanya considering Ramacandra Puri as His

master when He was behaving like a common man? To set an example, of

course. The problem I have with this idea of "de-emphasized gurus" are that

it is contary to Mahaprabhus example.

Again, if you want to differentiate between the respect offered to a

kanistha guru and an uttama guru, then you also have to contradict this

evidence: