The Prabhupada Incarnation

[Guest guest]

Most of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers simply saw him as a neophyte householder disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

 

Later, after he took sannyasa their respect and appreciation improved a bit and they saw him as a junior sannyasi of the Gaudiya Math groups.

 

However, I see Srila Prabhupada as an empowered shaktyavesha avatar who follows Mahaprabhu's incarnation each time and fulfills Mahaprabhu's prediction that love of Krishna would flood the whole world.

 

Srila Prabhupada is a confidential associate of Mahaprabhu and is a nitya-siddha who came from Goloka to spread love of Krishna all over the world.

 

He is not a typical sannyasi or Gaudiya Math sadhaka who calculates seniority on the basis of whom came to the Math a few months or a few years before the other.

 

Srila Prabhupada has been preaching the message of Mahaprabhu eternally.

 

He is not just another struggling sadhaka trying to get out of the modes of material nature.

[Guest guest]

Mahaprabhu predicts the incarnation of Srila Prabhupada

 

 

yadi papi chadi dharma dure dese yaya

 

mora senapati-bhakta yaibe tathaya

 

“If some sinful people escape and giving up religious principles go to far off countries, then my Senapati Bhakta will come at that time to give them Krsna consciousness.” (senapati - a military field commander, bhakta - a devotee. Lord Caitanya will empower His own devotee to spread Krsna Consciousness around the world.)

 

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu

 

Sri Caitanya Mangala, Sutra-Khanda

 

by Locana das Thakura

[Guest guest]

Bhaktidevi predicts the Prabhupada incarnation

 

 

idam sthanam parityajya videsam gamyate maya

 

“I will leave this place [Vrndavana] and travel to foreign lands...”

 

Bhakti Devi speaking to Narada, in Srimad Bhagavata Mahatmyam (Padmapurana, Uttarakhanda)

[Guest guest]

Bhaktivinode Thakur predicts the Prabhupada incarnation.

 

 

“Very soon the unparalleled path of hari-nama sankirtana will be propagated all over the world. Oh, for that day when the fortunate English, French, Russian, German, and American people will take up banners, mridangas, and karatalas and raise kirtana through their streets and towns! When will that day come?”

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura

 

Sajjana Tosani 4.3, 'Nityadharma Suryodoy'

 

1885

[Guest guest]

 

Prabhupada: And in my horoscope there was written there, “After seventieth year this man will go outside India and establish so many temples.” I could not understand. "What is this, that I have to go outside India? That is not..." And Guru Maharaja foretold. He told my Godbrothers, Sridhara Maharaja and others, that "He'll do the needful when time comes. Nobody requires to help him." He told in 1935. And after all, this was true. Guru Maharaja told. And in the beginning, first sight, he told, "You have to do this."

 

Room Conversation, Vrndavana, June 17, 1977

[Guest guest]

 

“Sripada Sridhara Maharaja also appreciated my service. He said that Caitanya Mahaprabhu's prediction: prthivite ache yata nagaradi grama/ sarvatra pracara haibe mora nama, would remain a dream only, but he congratulated me that I have done it practically.”

 

Srila Prabhupada letter to Bon Maharaja, Evanston, Illinois, July 7, 1975

[Guest guest]

We can see the lack of vision and respect that some of the Gaudiya Math types when they refer to Srila Prabhupada as "Swamiji".

 

"Swamiji" is no proper way to refer to an incarnation of Godhead.

 

"Swamiji" is just a shallow Hindu way of refering to a Swami.

 

to say "Swamiji" is to say "Oh, I know him well. I am his friend. I am his peer."

 

Refering to Srila Prabhupada as "Swamiji" shows a great lack of honor and respect.

 

It's really just a way to bring Srila Prabhupada down to the level of the sadhakas who don't understand the greatness and glories of Srila Prabhupada.

[stonehearted]

 

Most of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers simply saw him as a neophyte householder disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

This is simply not accurate. Even when Srila Prabhupada was a householder, his godbrothers who knew him had great respect for his preaching. That's why, even in the '30s, they wanted to give him the title "Bhaktisiddhanta." This caused a bit of a stir among some, as they saw it as somewhat awkward to give the guru's name to a disciple. Srila B.R. Sridhar Maharaja suggested that the devotees call him "Bhaktivedanta," which is synonymous with Bhaktisiddhanta. This was apparently so significant an event that Srila Prabhupada's godbrother and sannyasa guru, B. P. Keshava Maharaja, made Bhaktivedanta part of the name of all his tridandi sannyasis. All the sannyasis in his line are called Bhaktivedanta, up to today.

 

 

We can see the lack of vision and respect that some of the Gaudiya Math types when they refer to Srila Prabhupada as "Swamiji".

I've never heard any of them call him that, although his early disciples did for some time. Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers consistently refer to him as "Swami Maharaja," which is perfectly proper and respectful, since that is his sannyasa name. As he explained himself, his sannyasa name, as do those of most tridandi sannyasis in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's line, has two parts. The first part begins with "Bhakti" and has another name, usually with three syllables, it seems. The second part is one of the 108 vaishnava sannyasi names attributed to to the Muktikopanishad and Sattvata-samhita, one of which is "Swami." So Srila Prabhupada's name is Bhaktivedanta Swami, and he's referred to casually by his godbrothers and many of their disciples as "Swami Maharaja," just as Bhakti-vilasa Tirtha Maharaja is referred to as "Tirtha Maharaja," Bhakti-rakshaka Sridhar Maharaja is called "Sridhar Maharaja," and so on.

 

I perfectly understand the sentiments behind this thread, but I have to say that the apparently uninformed fanaticism that characterizes some of the posts is very unbecoming and not pleasing to Srila Prabhupada. He told us clearly and repeatedly what he wanted us to understand as his qualification for carrying out the unprecedented preaching that he did: that he simply followed the instructions of his spiritual master. He wasn't interested in the more speculative theories and often rejected them.

 

Do you expect all of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers, who were accustomed to calling their own guru maharaja "Srila Prabhupada" to call him Prabhupada? He never expected or desired such a thing. All he wanted was for them to appreciate his service and cooperate in whatever ways they could.

[Guest guest]

When Kirtanananda Swami informed Srila Prabhupada that he wanted to build a Palace of Gold on a hilltop dedicated to worshipping the murti of Srila Prabhupada, Srila Prabhupada replied "Yes, this is the proper way to worship the spiritual master".

 

If Srila Prabhupada was just an ordinary sannyasi from the Gaudiya Math, I don't think he would have approved of Kirtanananda's grandiose plans for the Palace of Gold.

 

If you can't worship your spiritual master as good as God, then maybe you shouldn't accept him as your spiritual master.

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada was a profound scholar and was enlightened. If Prabhupada was an incarnation of a perfect being from Golok, then why was he not able to transform his disciples into a spiritual state as great as himself and allow ISKCON to have a line of holy and humble gurus such as Himself?

 

I revere Srila Prabhupada to the point where I owe prostrations to Him for being a true Guru, but there is a clear difference between one who becomes enlightened and one who is born totally liberated from maya.

[stonehearted]

 

When Kirtanananda Swami informed Srila Prabhupada that he wanted to build a Palace of Gold on a hilltop dedicated to worshipping the murti of Srila Prabhupada, Srila Prabhupada replied "Yes, this is the proper way to worship the spiritual master".

 

If Srila Prabhupada was just an ordinary sannyasi from the Gaudiya Math, I don't think he would have approved of Kirtanananda's grandiose plans for the Palace of Gold.

 

If you can't worship your spiritual master as good as God, then maybe you shouldn't accept him as your spiritual master.

I hope you didn't infer from my post that I don't worship my spiritual master as good as God. There isn't anything there that even suggests that. I have, in fact, daily, since 1969. However, it was also at New Vrindavan in 1970 that some new sannyasis were reported to have "glorified" Srila Prabhupada as being an incarnation of Krishna. When Srila Prabhupada was told that, he expelled them from ISKCON. My own temple president was there when that happened, and he was so upset by it that he didn't even talk about it for a couple of months.

 

In fact, I can't think of anyone who asserts that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was "an ordinary sannyasi from the Gaudiya Math." I helped edit a book by my dear friend and godsister Mulaprakriti dasi that has much evidence that, even before he took sannyasa, much less before he left for America, many of his godbrothers, and many outside the Gaudiya Math, saw him as an extraordinary devotee.

[Guest guest]

 

If Prabhupada was an incarnation of a perfect being from Golok, then why was he not able to transform his disciples into a spiritual state as great as himself

 

Prabhupada wasn't a magician or a hypnotist.

 

It's up to each and every soul to develope bhakti out of free will.

 

No avatar forcibly injects bhakti into anyone.

 

Bhakti must be with free will.

 

Srila Prabhupada spread Krishna conciousness farther and wider than any incarnation in this age.

What more do you need to know?

Doesn't that say something to you?

 

Srila Prabhupada introduced Mahaprabhu's Sankirtan movement to the whole world.

do you think that some ordinary scholar or devoted person can do that?

[Guest guest]

 

However, it was also at New Vrindavan in 1970 that some new sannyasis were reported to have "glorified" Srila Prabhupada as being an incarnation of Krishna. When Srila Prabhupada was told that, he expelled them from ISKCON.

 

 

That's a bit sketchy and there has never been any names attached to this story about Prabhupada kicking out disciples for saying he was Krishna.

 

I think it is just one of them ISKCON myths that have been floating around for much too long.

 

There were disciples that did worse things than that and Srila Prabhupada never kicked them out of the movement.

 

Besides that, I am not saying and have never said that Prabhupada is Krishna.

I say he is an empowered incarnation, as Sridhar Maharaja said he was as shaktyavesha avatar of Lord Nityananda.

 

If you have an issue with what Sridhar Maharaja says, then that is not on me.

 

I think it's just plane silly and rude to try and diss me and accuse me of saying that Prabhupada is Krishna.

 

I think it is a cheap shot and you can never prove that I have ever said any such thing.

[stonehearted]

 

That's a bit sketchy and there has never been any names attached to this story about Prabhupada kicking out disciples for saying he was Krishna.

 

I think it is just one of them ISKCON myths that have been floating around for much too long.

 

To say that there have never been any names attached to this story is simply wrong, and, in fact, it's not an ISKCON myth. I was a member of ISKCON at the time, and I've had personal relationships with three of them, and knew the fourth, who is himself an ISKCON legend. The four were Brahmananda. Gargamuni, Vishnujana, and Subal. According to Subal (I haven't directly asked the others about it), the accusations were mistaken, and they were readmitted to ISKCON after everything was straightened out, later in the fall of 1970. I heard about it back then, from devotees who were present.

 

 

I say he is an empowered incarnation, as Sridhar Maharaja said he was as shaktyavesha avatar of Lord Nityananda.

 

If you have an issue with what Sridhar Maharaja says, then that is not on me.

I fully accept Srila Sridhar Mahraaja's assessment and have for a very long time. I have no issue whatsoever with anything Srila Sridhar Maharaja says, especially since Srila Prabhupada himself accepts him as a siksa-guru.

 

Even before I heard that he had said this, I accepted Srila Prabhupada as a manifestation of Nityananda Prabhu based on reading Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita.

 

 

I think it's just plane silly and rude to try and diss me and accuse me of saying that Prabhupada is Krishna.

 

I think it is a cheap shot and you can never prove that I have ever said any such thing.

 

I didn't say that you said Srila Prabhupada is Krishna, so take a breath, please. If you feel I dissed you, I apologize. My only purpose was to point out some inaccuracies in some of the posts. Since no one else in this thread is bold enough to register or sign their own name (anyone who has been here for a while knows who I am), I don't even know who said what. That's one of the problems with this board. Anyone can come here and post anything anonymously, avoiding real responsibility for what they write here.

[Kulapavana]

 

To say that there have never been any names attached to this story is simply wrong, and, in fact, it's not an ISKCON myth. I was a member of ISKCON at the time, and I've had personal relationships with three of them, and knew the fourth, who is himself an ISKCON legend. The four were Brahmananda. Gargamuni, Vishnujana, and Subal. According to Subal (I haven't directly asked the others about it), the accusations were mistaken, and they were readmitted to ISKCON after everything was straightened out, later in the fall of 1970. I heard about it back then, from devotees who were present.

 

The story is very, very real and quite instructive as well. I have talked to several devotees that were around in these days and they all confirm the basic facts. Here is one account that I was not able to fully verify:

 

From VNN 09/22/1998 - 2261:

 

Response To Hansadutta Prabu's Letter by Nara Narayan Vishwakarma das:

 

(excerpt) ..."We must remember that Brahmananda, his brother Gargamuni, Vishnujana, and Subal swamis had held Srila Prabhupada prisoner at New Dwarka without food for two weeks. He was not allowed access to mail or to communicate with anyone in a position to rescue Him. Tamal eventually came there and took Him to India from the clutches of the conspirators.

 

The conspirators then went on to travel all over Iskcon preaching that "Srila Prabhupada is God". This ended in a very phantasmagoric event at New Vrindaban that lasted several weeks and resulted in the four sannyasis being banished from Iskcon on Srila Prabhupada's orders.

 

Srila Prabhupada had declared it to be a "black conspiracy" and a "sinister plot", and stated that the perpetrators should be "beaten with shoes". In a letter at a later date, He said (paraphrased) that He was "retiring from active participation with the movement due to certain DISCOURTESIES that had been extended to Him." (In this case, discourtesy meant attempting to remove him as Acharya)."

 

What I find curious in this story is that these guys on one hand proclaimed Prabhupada to be God (or an incarnation of God), and at the same time tried to seize control over the movement from him. It just seems paradoxical and bizzare.

 

Currently, we have a movement within some circles of our society (mostly ritviks) to deify Prabhupada in a thinly disguised way (some caim him to be omniscient, omnipotent, his books were dictated directly by Lord Krsna, he is fully present in his murti forms, etc.) while trying to grab power from the current Iskcon authorities "in the name of Prabhupada". I have personally heard ritvik devotees include the phrase "Bhagavan Srila Prabhupada ki jaya!" in the pranams after temple kirtana for example.

 

Besides being wrong as a doctrine, stuff like that only drives new people away from our movement and confirms what many think: that HK movement is a cult.

 

Maybe by taking another look at that early deviation we can shed some light on the current one, or at least show the similarities. <!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_31198--><!-- THE POST -->

[Shakti-Fan]

 

Currently, we have a movement within some circles of our society (mostly ritviks) to deify Prabhupada in a thinly disguised way (some caim him to be omniscient, omnipotent, his books were dictated directly by Lord Krsna, he is fully present in his murti forms, etc.) while trying to grab power from the current Iskcon authorities "in the name of Prabhupada". I have personally heard ritvik devotees include the phrase "Bhagavan Srila Prabhupada ki jaya!" in the pranams after temple kirtana for example.

 

Here's an example of a hodge podge of opinions. For instance, would you pray to Prabhupada's murti form if you thought he wasn't present there? SrIla Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaja calls Saraswati Thakur, "Bhagavan Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur" In that sense bhagavan means, according to Srila Jiva Goswami, that person who is so exalted that everyone is drawn to serve him. Most of us also remember the controversy and debates that ensued when Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja said that an uttama bhakta like Prabhupada is omniscient.

[Kulapavana]

 

Here's an example of a hodge podge of opinions. For instance, would you pray to Prabhupada's murti form if you thought he wasn't present there? SrIla Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaja calls Saraswati Thakur, "Bhagavan Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur" In that sense bhagavan means, according to Srila Jiva Goswami, that person who is so exalted that everyone is drawn to serve him. Most of us also remember the controversy and debates that ensued when Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja said that an uttama bhakta like Prabhupada is omniscient.

 

1. there is a difference between seeing the presence of the guru in his murti and claiming that guru is fully manifest in his murti just like Lord Vishnu in His arca-vigraha.

 

2. SP gave us proper pranama to use and we should keep it that way.

 

3. SP never claimed he was omniscient and explained quite clearly that only Krsna is omniscient.

[Shakti-Fan]

 

SP never claimed he was omniscient and explained quite clearly that only Krsna is omniscient.

Anyone who spent time around SP experienced that SP knew things about events in devotees lives that it would be impossible to know under the circumstances. Whether you call it omniscience or whatever, it happened. It took place under the agency of yoga maya by the will of Krsna. Maybe there in lies the confusion. Krsna's will is supreme and no one elses; and of course SP was always quick to point this out.

[Kulapavana]

 

Anyone who spent time around SP experienced that SP knew things about events in devotees lives that it would be impossible to know under the circumstances. Whether you call it omniscience or whatever, it happened. It took place under the agency of yoga maya by the will of Krsna. Maybe there in lies the confusion. Krsna's will is supreme and no one elses; and of course SP was always quick to point this out.

 

I dont doubt that at all. He said (quote from memory): "guru knows what Krsna wants him to know". however, that is not omniscience in the regular understanding of this word.

[Shakti-Fan]

 

I dont doubt that at all. He said (quote from memory): "guru knows what Krsna wants him to know". however, that is not omniscience in the regular understanding of this word.

Yes it would be a kind of omniscience but, "not omniscience in the regular understanding of this word." Just like the Eskimos have 200 words for snow and we only have one. We have to remember that our language is not so good for explaining the subtle qualities of bhakti. So many arguments on this forum are really about semantics and not really substantial. The same can be said about many of the so-called siddhantic disagreements between the different camps. Suppose I wouldn't have clarified and modified the definitions word, "omniscient", as used in this context. And then I said, "No my siksa or diksa guru said omniscient." It would have caused a big fight on the thread and eventually led to some kind of personal attacks by some devotees on others. Anyway what can be done? Many devotees just like to fight.

[Kulapavana]

 

Yes it would be a kind of omniscience but, "not omniscience in the regular understanding of this word." Just like the Eskimos have 200 words for snow and we only have one. We have to remember that our language is not so good for explaining the subtle qualities of bhakti. So many arguments on this forum are really about semantics and not really substantial.

 

agreed. but there is also another important factor at play (actually more than one)

 

1. we westerners are used to very literal and precisely defined terms and language in general. shastric language is often very vague and criptic on purpose. we expect a photograph but instead we get a painting by an impressionist master...

 

2. the same reality can be described in many different ways, and there are many levels of reality as well. that requires a lot of patience and study on behalf of the devotee. the impatient ones see controversy and differences where a patient student simply sees various layers of the same truth.

 

all that being said, language must be used very carefully as it is a powerful tool. wars are often started with disagreable words.

[Shakti-Fan]

 

agreed. but there is also another important factor at play (actually more than one)

 

1. we westerners are used to very literal and precisely defined terms and language in general. shastric language is often very vague and criptic on purpose. we expect a photograph but instead we get a painting by an impressionist master...

 

2. the same reality can be described in many different ways, and there are many levels of reality as well. that requires a lot of patience and study on behalf of the devotee. the impatient ones see controversy and differences where a patient student simply sees various layers of the same truth.

 

all that being said, language must be used very carefully as it is a powerful tool. wars are often started with disagreable words.

Add all this to the fact that since we are not really realized souls, we may not really have much faith at all in the ideas that we zealously push on the Audarya Fellowships. We are really arguing against our own doubts without really following to the process to assuage those doubts. Then we take out our insecurities and fears on others and create an unnecessary "us and them" scenario. I guess I just busted myself.

[Guest guest]

 

2. the same reality can be described in many different ways, and there are many levels of reality as well. that requires a lot of patience and study on behalf of the devotee. the impatient ones see controversy and differences where a patient student simply sees various layers of the same truth.

 

Profound and eloquent, Kulapavana prabhu.

[Guest guest]

 

Add all this to the fact that since we are not really realized souls, we may not really have much faith at all in the ideas that we zealously push on the Audarya Fellowships. We are really arguing against our own doubts without really following to the process to assuage those doubts. Then we take out our insecurities and fears on others and create an unnecessary "us and them" scenario. I guess I just busted myself.

 

it's always amuzing when someone says "we" are not self-realized as if he knows the attainment of every other devotee in the world.

Because I am not self-realized, nobody is self-realized.

Because I am a neophyte, everybody is a neophyte.

 

It's never a good policy to impose our own standing on everyone else.

 

There might be self-realized souls on the forum.

 

Who are we to say that everyone else is not self-realized?

 

Judge not lest ye be judged.

[Guest guest]

 

There might be self-realized souls on the forum.

 

This is a definite possibility; something which we should keep in mind. It's unlikely, IMHO, being that with all the regular aparadhas taking place, a self-realized soul who was present here would surely defeat such aparadhas, or else leave such a place, as recommended by Sastra. Interesting though, I read Shakti-fans' post and came away with quite a different impression; one of humility.

 

 

Who are we to say that everyone else is not self-realized?

 

Before blasting away, why not ask her to clarify what she said? Why not first give her the benefit of the doubt? It is possible that when she said "we", she was referring to herself and the person she was conversing with. Or, that upon hindsight, she would admit she made a mistake and should have qualified her statement by saying "most of us are not self-realized souls."

 

 

Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

True, but it sounds like you're pretty quick to judge. Why not be swan-like and look for the good in a person? You just added to the quarrelsome nature intrinsic within these forums, which was part of the point Shakti-fan was making. (Weak faith requires an enemy.) Congratulations.