The Rtvik Conception of Guru Parampara

[Guest guest]

 

Thanks lowborn for mentioning Prabhupada and trying to please him. Since there seems to be a nebulosity even within ISKCON (read below) about who is a bonafide spiritual master and who is not, raises this question, is according your understanding for example Danurdhara Swami a bonafide guru who makes Prabhupada very happy or as published today at chakra.org, rather not?

 

Dhanurdhara is a criminal who belongs in jail. If he ever went to jail the criminals there would teach him a lesson about how it feels to be abused.

 

The fact that some of Iskcon gurus were a huge disappointment does not mean that you turn Iskcon into an apasampradaya by adopting the ritvik concoction.

[Guest guest]

Prabhu with no disrespect please have the honesty and integrity to admitt your previous two blunders, then we can move on.

 

1. You made this false claim, which I proved to be againced Prabhupada's instructions.

 

"AFTER DISAPPEARANCE OF A GURU ANY OF HIS QUALIFIED DISCIPLES MAY ACCEPT DISCIPLES AND GIVE THEM DIKSA MANTRAS"

 

Prabhupada has clearly said that authorisation must be given, so your statement was proven false. The correct thing to have said would have been;

 

"AFTER DISAPPEARANCE OF A GURU *THOSE DISCIPLES WHO ARE AUTHORISED AND QUALIFIED* MAY ACCEPT DISCIPLES AND GIVE THEM DIKSA MANTRAS"

 

2. You used the following quote as evidence that Prabhupada had already given the order;

 

"I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy."

 

However I proved that this COULD NOT have been the authorisation as Prabhupada had mentioned in 1977 that he was STILL WAITING to give authorisation.

 

ROOM CONVERSATION - APRIL 22, 1977, BOMBAY

Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. I shall produce some gurus. I shall say who is guru, 'Now you become acarya. You become authorised.' I AM WAITING FOR THAT.You become, all, acarya. I retire completely. But the training must be complete."

 

You have therefore made two serious boo boo's so far, but instead of admitting defeat you have avaded this with a new smokescreen by avoiding the points we were discussing and moving on to a new one.

 

I would avoid this dishonest twisting and turning as many devotees are viewing this and will be able to see this clear as day.

 

I am not afraid of discussing this Bombay quote as I posted it myself and that it simply confirms the fact that Prabhupada had not given anyone authorisation as he thought no one was qualified as late as 1977.

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both of these quotes PROVE WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that Srila Prabhupada wanted to continue a traditional Vaishnava system of disciplic succession, and not some concocted ritvik arrangement.

 

Why did he NOT say here: "Everybody in the future will be my disciple for 10,000 years?" Because that would be completely bogus. He never said anything like that in his entire life.

 

When he says "You become, all, acarya. I retire completely" - he is obviously talking about retiring while still with us, and allowing his disciples to initiate while he is still physically present.That is what the word "retire" indicates.

[Guest guest]

 

Prabhu with no disrespect please have the honesty and integrity to admitt your previous two blunders, then we can move on.

 

 

Ritviks claim Prabhupada concocted an unauthorized post-humous ritvik initiation system thus turning a part of the Saraswata sampradaya into a Sikh-like apa-sampradaya.

 

Let me repeat:

 

1. "AFTER DISAPPEARANCE OF A GURU ANY OF HIS QUALIFIED DISCIPLES MAY ACCEPT DISCIPLES AND GIVE THEM DIKSA MANTRAS"

 

yes, this is the system all Vaishnava sampradayas have been following since time immemorial, and the above Prabhupada quotes prove he also desired to follow that system.

 

2. Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. I shall produce some gurus. I shall say who is guru, 'Now you become acarya. You become authorised.' I AM WAITING FOR THAT.You become, all, acarya. I retire completely. But the training must be complete."

 

In other words: The ONLY thing SP wanted to ensure, was that his disciples are properly trained to be gurus while he was still present here on earth - NOT that he will be accepting disciples for the next 10,000 years through the ritvik system.

 

Are you saying that Prabhupada did not manage to train up even a single disciple to be qualified for the guruship? If so, you are essentially saying that he FAILED as a teacher.

 

As you can see from the above examples, ritvikvada is actually very offensive to Srila Prabhupada.

[Devarsirat]

 

 

There is one thing about the ritvic theory I don't understand:

 

 

 

If we can be initiated by a non-physically present guru, then why Srila Prabhupada? Why not Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati or Rupa Goswami or even Lord Chaitanya himself? Why does the guru-parampara stops at Prabhupada after all these years?

 

 

 

Very good thinking, if that was the case Srila Prabhupada would have simply made everyone Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharajas disciple or not dicriminated at all.

 

 

My advice is that you should be open to finding a highly qualified siksa guru to help you in your practice--one in whom you have natural affection and faith. The help of a siksa guru is highly recommended in scripture, and I know that after Srila Prabhupada's departure I was benefited immensely by the siksa and kindness of Pujyapada B.R. Sridhara Deva Goswami. By your candor regarding the state of your practice, you have underscored my point. It is spiritual practice that is all-important--discipline combined with the grace of Sri Guru makes one a disciple.

[Further information on this subject can be found in the following Sanga: Sri Guru and His Grace

<!--JOM COMMENT START-->

 

<!--JOM COMMENT START--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="71%"></TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: right" align=right width="29%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Thats right, I found this with Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, I have met and experienced Srila Prabhupadas presence several times and when I met Srila Narayana Maharaja, it was like meeting Srila Prabhupada again, different looks, different voice eg, but His self effulgence was obvious and as bright as Srila Prabhupadas. His siksa is pure and according to all standards of the disciplic sucession and vaisnava philosophy He is a true manifestation of the pure devotee.

 

Now Srila Prabhupada is closer then ever, I read more and hear more and everything is as clear as sunshine.

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

I think when the personal presence and effulgence of the pure devotee is experienced by the aspiering sadhaka, it is as importand as the spoken word. You can bathe in the light, sweetness and love of that effulgence and get a very good understanding of the meaning of what is a pure devotee, and how does it feel in the presence of such an amazing person?

 

Without that, you are missing out on a lot.

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Guest guest]

Prabhuji you have done exactly as I thought;

 

Evade the fact that I have PROVEN that you have made two grave errors. I will not let you squirm your way out of this.

 

If you dont have the honesty to just admitt your blunders then we can move on otherwise what is the point of carrying on with this discussion.

 

1. Your statement;

 

"AFTER DISAPPEARANCE OF A GURU ANY OF HIS QUALIFIED DISCIPLES MAY ACCEPT DISCIPLES AND GIVE THEM DIKSA MANTRAS"

 

Does not mention 'AUTHORISATION' therefore it is bogus. Prabhupada says 'authorisation' must be given;

 

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master."

(S.B. 4.8.54, purport)

 

2. You used the following quote as evidence that Prabhupada had already given the order;

 

"I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy."

 

However I proved that this COULD NOT have been the authorisation as Prabhupada had mentioned in 1977 that he was STILL WAITING to give authorisation.

 

ROOM CONVERSATION - APRIL 22, 1977, BOMBAY

Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. I shall produce some gurus. I shall say who is guru, 'Now you become acarya. You become authorised.' I AM WAITING FOR THAT.You become, all, acarya. I retire completely. But the training must be complete."

 

No doupt you will again avoid your two blunders and evade this with another smokescreen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ritviks claim Prabhupada concocted an unauthorized post-humous ritvik initiation system thus turning a part of the Saraswata sampradaya into a Sikh-like apa-sampradaya.

 

Let me repeat:

 

1. "AFTER DISAPPEARANCE OF A GURU ANY OF HIS QUALIFIED DISCIPLES MAY ACCEPT DISCIPLES AND GIVE THEM DIKSA MANTRAS"

 

yes, this is the system all Vaishnava sampradayas have been following since time immemorial, and the above Prabhupada quotes prove he also desired to follow that system.

 

2. Srila Prabhupada: "Yes. I shall produce some gurus. I shall say who is guru, 'Now you become acarya. You become authorised.' I AM WAITING FOR THAT.You become, all, acarya. I retire completely. But the training must be complete."

 

In other words: The ONLY thing SP wanted to ensure, was that his disciples are properly trained to be gurus while he was still present here on earth - NOT that he will be accepting disciples for the next 10,000 years through the ritvik system.

 

Are you saying that Prabhupada did not manage to train up even a single disciple to be qualified for the guruship? If so, you are essentially saying that he FAILED as a teacher.

 

As you can see from the above examples, ritvikvada is actually very offensive to Srila Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhaktaTom

We do not say that SP is physically present.

 

 

 

YES YOU DO!

 

You just switch from one twisted quoted to another, lying your way around in circles. You cant even consistently defend your own twisted interpretations.

 

NO, we don't:

 

"It is accepted that many thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are still benefiting from the process of diksa (even though their guru has been PHYSICALLY ABSENT for nearly two decades)."

(The Final Order, page 54)

 

YOU need to stop twisting the truth.

[Guest guest]

 

1. Your statement;

 

"AFTER DISAPPEARANCE OF A GURU ANY OF HIS QUALIFIED DISCIPLES MAY ACCEPT DISCIPLES AND GIVE THEM DIKSA MANTRAS"

 

Does not mention 'AUTHORISATION' therefore it is bogus. Prabhupada says 'authorisation' must be given;

 

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master."

(S.B. 4.8.54, purport)

 

OK, you want to talk about authorisation from predecessor guru.

 

Precisely what type of authorization to initiate did Srila Prabhupada receive from his guru? Was it a signed statement? Was it a recorded conversation with a specific and direct instruction to initiate? No such record exists and we are simply taking Srila Prabhupada's word at face value. Are you willing to except the same type of evidence of authorisation in the case of new gurus?

 

Actually, in both cases this authorisation is self evident from the preaching mood and the collective writings of both Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Several of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's sannyasi disciples became gurus even as BST was still present - he even sometimes participated in the initiation ceremonies for the discioples of the new gurus! He was HAPPY to see his mission grow and continue - just like in the above Prabhupada's quote:

 

"I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy."

 

 

Ritviks try to prevent Prabhupada's disciples from becoming gurus by inventing all sorts of technicalities, such as a direct and recorded authorization to initiate for each person desiring to become a guru, even as there has never been such a requirement in the history of Vaishnavism, and even as Srila Prabhupada himself does not meet that requirement! Such hypocrisy...

 

Beat it into your head, baba: Prabhupada did NOT want ritviks, he said:

 

"I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy."

 

THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF HIS DESIRE and the crux of our discussion.

[Guest guest]

 

Precisely what type of authorization to initiate did Srila Prabhupada receive from his guru? Was it a signed statement? Was it a recorded conversation with a specific and direct instruction to initiate? No such record exists and we are simply taking Srila Prabhupada's word at face value..

 

Indian man: When did you become spiritual the leader of Krsna Consciousness?

 

Srila Prabhupada: What is that?

 

Brahmananda: He is asking when did you become the spiritual leader of Krsna Consciousness?

Srila Prabhupada: When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru parampara.

 

Indian man: Did it...

 

Srila Prabhupada: Try to understand. Don't go very speedily. A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.

[...]

 

Indian man: When did he tell you to...?

 

Prabhupada: What is the business, when did he tell me? And why shall I disclose to you? It is so very insignificant thing that I have to explain to you?

 

Indian man: No, I am just curious when...

 

Prabhupada: You should be curious within your limit. You should know that one can become guru when he is ordered by his guru, this much.

(SP Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)

 

 

Several of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's sannyasi disciples became gurus even as BST was still present - he even sometimes participated in the initiation ceremonies for the discioples of the new gurus!

 

 

"In the latter days of my Guru Maharaja he was very disgusted [...] He never recommended anyone to be acarya of the Gaudiya Math."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter, 28/4/74)

 

"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next acarya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of acarya, and they split into two factions over who the next acarya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master."

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adilila, 12.8, purport)

 

"Why this Gaudiya Matha failed? Because they tried to become more than Guru. […] They declared some unfit person to become acarya. Then another man came, then another acarya, another acarya."

(Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation, 16/8/76)

 

 

Ritviks try to prevent Prabhupada's disciples from becoming gurus by inventing all sorts of technicalities, such as a direct and recorded authorization to initiate for each person desiring to become a guru

 

 

"Guru cannot be self made. No. There is no such single instance throughout the whole Vedic literature. And nowadays, so many rascals, they are becoming Guru without any authority. That is not Guru. You must be authorised. Evam parampara praptam imam ra... As soon as the parampara is...kalena yogo nasta parantapa, immediately finished. The spiritual potency finished. You can dress like a Guru, you can talk big, big words, but it will never be effective."

(SP Lecture, February 27th 1977, Mayapur)

 

"Vallabha Bhatta wanted to be initiated by Gadadhara Pandita, but Gadadhara Pandita refused, saying, "The work of acting as a spiritual master is not possible for me. "I am completely dependent. My Lord is Gauracandra, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. I cannot do anything independently, without His order."

(CC, Antya 7:150-151)

 

"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa vidhana."

(SB 4.8.54, purport)

 

 

 

Beat it into your head, baba: Prabhupada did NOT want ritviks

 

 

Satsvarupa: Then our next question concerns initiations in the future,

particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.

 

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.

 

Tamal Krsna Goswami: Is that called ritvik acarya?

 

Srila Prabhupada: Ritvik. Yes.

(May 28, 1977)

 

 

"Recently when all of the GBC members were with His Divine Grace in Vrndavana, Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as "rittik"-representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation."

(July 9th, 1977 letter - signed bY Srila Prabhupada)

 

Srila Prabhupada: "And nobody is going to disturb you there. Make your own field and continue to become ritvik and act on my charge. People are becoming sympathetic there. The place is very nice."

(SP Room Conv., July 19, 1977)

 

 

 

"I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy."

THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF HIS DESIRE and the crux of our discussion.

 

Again, you cite a letter to a disciple (Tusta Krsna) who:

 

1) NEVER took up this alleged diksa guru order from SP to become a diksa guru himself.

 

2) Srila Prabhupada was repeatedly trying to stop from *deviating*:

 

"I have heard that you are having some difficulties [...] Of course, our serving Krishna is voluntary affair, so what can I say? If you think that is the best choice, I must agree, otherwise you might go away altogether."

(SPL to Tusta Krsna, 72-12-14)

 

"News has come to me that you want to sell our temple to somebody else which I cannot believe. Even that you have been in charge of the New Zealand centre, now you have taken it as your personal property and you have demanded from Madhudvisa Swami the price of the temple. This is all amazing to me. I do not know what is your decision. Tusta Krsna has already left and is in Hawaii with Siddha Svarupananda Maharaja. I never believed that again you would go back to your old habits, giving up the Krishna Consciousness Movement in a whimsical way. Please do not do this mistake [...] Now all of a sudden you have changed that program and taken to your original ways? I am so much aggrieved to receive all this news. For Krsna's sake, do not do these things. I request Tusta Krsna to go back to New Zealand and take charge of your duties. Please do not leave Krsna. You will not be happy. That is my request."

(SPL to Tusta Krsna and Beharilal, 73-10-15)

 

"I may inform you that I have today sent the following cable to Tusta Krsna Maharaja:

 

'DO NOT SELL NEW ZEALAND TEMPLE TO OTHERS. IF YOU WANT MONEY I SHALL PAY TO YOU. REST ASSURED - BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI.' " (SPL to Madhudvisa, 73-10-22)

 

"I have not heard from Tusta Krsna or Siddha-Svarupa Goswamis nor do I know anything of their plans to return to New Zealand. Try to convince them to return to our Society and work co-operatively. That they have gone away is not good thing and it is a deviation from our line of parampara. Rather, avoiding faultfinding and anarchy, they should keep our standard and work maturely and not cause factions and splitting. I am not at all pleased at what they have done." (SPL to Madhudvisa, 73-12-15)

 

Yes, Srila Prabhupada wanted many gurus - of the siksa/preacher type. But they would NOT accept disciples (since only SP is authorised to do this in ISKCON). THIS is the mission of Caitanya Mahaprabhu:

 

“This is the sublime mission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness [...] The Krsna consciousness movement is trying to elevate human society to the perfection of life by pursuing the method described by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu in His advice to the brahmana Kurma. That is, one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krsna mantra and preach the instructions of Krsna as they are given in the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. […] The cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is explained here very nicely. One who surrenders to Him and is ready to follow Him with heart and soul does not need to change his location. Nor is it necessary for one to change status. One may remain a householder, a medical practitioner, an engineer or whatever. It doesn't matter. One only has to follow the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra and instruct relatives and friends in the teachings of the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. One has to learn humility and meekness at home, following the instructions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and in that way one's life will be spiritually successful. One should not try to be an artificially advanced devotee, thinking, "I am a first-class devotee." Such thinking should be avoided. IT IS BEST NOT TO ACCEPT **ANY** DISCIPLES. One has to become purified at home by chanting the Hare Krsna maha-mantra and preaching the principles enunciated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. THUS one can become a spiritual master and be freed from the contamination of material life.”

(CC, Madhya, 7:128 -130)

[Guest guest]

 

Again, you cite a letter to a disciple (Tusta Krsna) who:

 

1) NEVER took up this alleged diksa guru order from SP to become a diksa guru himself.

 

2) Srila Prabhupada was repeatedly trying to stop from *deviating*:

 

 

You keep going in circles. I asked you before: Which part of Prabhupada's quote from that letter is a lie?

 

You have not provided a single answer to my questions. Are you afraid to think for yourself? Apply exactly the same standards to your own guru that you demand from others.

 

As to the issue of acarya and guru in Gaudiya Matha:

 

"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next acarya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of acarya, and they split into two factions over who the next acarya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master."

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adilila, 12.8, purport)

 

Seems like you dont even understand the meaning of the word "acharya" here... Do you think Prabhupada is questioning the authority of his Godbrothers to initiate their own disciples? If so, you are more ignorant than I thought. "Acharya" here means "Head of the Mission" and that has nothing to do with our discussion, or the guru issue. Like I said earlier, some of BST's disciples became initiating gurus while Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was still present, with his full approval and blessing.

[Guest guest]

 

You keep going in circles. I asked you before: Which part of Prabhupada's quote from that letter is a lie?

 

 

None of it is a lie - it simply states the TIME PERIOD when one can in principle become a diksa guru, i.e. not in the physical presence of the guru. And even then, as SP REPEATEDLY states, you need to be AUTHORISED by the guru.

 

Yet despite this letter, Jayadvaita Swami (and others) allow their disciples to initiate in their PRESENCE. So much for the law of disciplic succession!

 

 

 

As to the issue of acarya and guru in Gaudiya Matha:

 

"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next acarya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of acarya, and they split into two factions over who the next acarya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master."

(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adilila, 12.8, purport)

 

Seems like you dont even understand the meaning of the word "acharya" here... Do you think Prabhupada is questioning the authority of his Godbrothers to initiate their own disciples? If so, you are more ignorant than I thought. "Acharya" here means "Head of the Mission" and that has nothing to do with our discussion, or the guru issue. Like I said earlier, some of BST's disciples became initiating gurus while Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was still present, with his full approval and blessing.

 

1) You speculate that the word "Acarya" here does not refer to a diksa guru. According to Srila Prabhupada, the terms "Guru" and "acarya" are the same:

 

" A guru is called also an acarya..." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.43, purport)

 

2) You speculate that SP agrees that his Godbrothers have the authority to initiate their own disciples.

 

"[...]Therefore we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp. Actually amongst my Godbrothers NO ONE is qualified to become acarya. So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately because instead of inspiring our students and disciples they may sometimes pollute them."

(SPL 28 April 1974)

 

Which part of "NO ONE" do you not understand?

[Guest guest]

 

1) You speculate that the word "Acarya" here does not refer to a diksa guru. According to Srila Prabhupada, the terms "Guru" and "acarya" are the same:

 

" A guru is called also an acarya..." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.43, purport)

 

2) You speculate that SP agrees that his Godbrothers have the authority to initiate their own disciples.

 

"[...]Therefore we may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp. Actually amongst my Godbrothers NO ONE is qualified to become acarya. So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very intimately because instead of inspiring our students and disciples they may sometimes pollute them."

(SPL 28 April 1974)

 

Which part of "NO ONE" do you not understand?

 

The terms guru and acarya may be sometimes synonymous, but not in this context.

 

In your opinion Prabhupada criticizes his own guru for explicitly authorizing his disciples to initiate even in his presence? You think he disputes his guru's decissions? You are indeed mad... Prabhupada himself received sannyasa from his Godbrother, Srila Keshava Maharaja, which means he accepted him as his sannyasa guru. You think Prabhupada doubted his qualifications as a guru?

 

Please study some of the historical context of these issues before you come up with such idiotic theories. You can find lots of apparently contradictory quotes from Prabhupada, and you will need some knowledge of the tradition to understand them properly.

[Guest guest]

Beautiful post prabhu!

 

Though I have never met him or seen him, just reading about him is joyful ... All glories to that pure devotee & effulgent personality, Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja.

 

 

Very good thinking, if that was the case Srila Prabhupada would have simply made everyone Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharajas disciple or not dicriminated at all.

 

<!--JOM COMMENT START--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="71%"></TD><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: right" align=right width="29%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Thats right, I found this with Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, I have met and experienced Srila Prabhupadas presence several times and when I met Srila Narayana Maharaja, it was like meeting Srila Prabhupada again, different looks, different voice eg, but His self effulgence was obvious and as bright as Srila Prabhupadas. His siksa is pure and according to all standards of the disciplic sucession and vaisnava philosophy He is a true manifestation of the pure devotee.

 

Now Srila Prabhupada is closer then ever, I read more and hear more and everything is as clear as sunshine.

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

I think when the personal presence and effulgence of the pure devotee is experienced by the aspiering sadhaka, it is as importand as the spoken word. You can bathe in the light, sweetness and love of that effulgence and get a very good understanding of the meaning of what is a pure devotee, and how does it feel in the presence of such an amazing person?

 

Without that, you are missing out on a lot.

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Guest guest]

Prabhu,

 

PAMHO. While you have posted several posts complaining about ISKCON, you have not provided any solutions. What is your solution to the general problems facing ISKCON today?

 

 

 

Thanks lowborn for mentioning Prabhupada and trying to please him. Since there seems to be a nebulosity even within ISKCON (read below) about who is a bonafide spiritual master and who is not, raises this question, is according your understanding for example Danurdhara Swami a bonafide guru who makes Prabhupada very happy or as published today at chakra.org, rather not?

 

GBC Behaviors Unclear

 

by Name withheld by request

Posted April 28, 2007 at chakra.org

 

It has been 12 years since the GBC have been asked to resolve this Dhanurdhara issue, but they still have not. Ironically, they could have taken care of this in 1996 and avoided the lawsuit.

Most disturbing was the letter of apology to Dhanurdhara -- the abuser. Why did the GBC codify ["]the apology to Dhanurdhara and his abuse victims simultaneously in a public resolution? Has this ever been done in the history of mankind? Does this qualify as normal behavior? Does the Catholic Church or any other religion behave this way? Didn't any of the GBC leaders realize how bad and how out-of-touch it would make them look?

Is it true that Dhanurdhara is initiating in Israel "under the radar" and that he leads large parikrams in Vrndavana? And why does Jayadvaita Swami have this in his biography that he sends to the temples:

"In 1985 and 1986, he spent a year and a half traveling with a party of pilgrims on pada-yatra, a journey on foot, through various states of India, stopping in a different town or village every night. In 1987, along with Dhanurdhara Swami and Bhurijana Dasa, he co-founded the Vrindaban Institute for Higher Education. Since 1988 he has served as a director of Srila Prabhupada's publishing house, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

"From 1991 through most of 1998 he served as editor-in-chief of Back to Godhead magazine, for which he had been an assistant editor for several years. Recently he served as editor for a three-volume translation and commentary for </I>Sri Brhad-bhagavatamrta</I>, a sixteenth-century Sanskrit philosophical and devotional work."

The only people mentioned in this bio, besides Srila Prabhupada, are both child abusers. I am assuming that this is an oversight. Another Maharaja, during his lecture, talked about the nice preaching Dhanurdhara was doing. My congregation is confused about Dhanurdhara.On the one hand the GBC likes and respects him. On the other hand, the gurukulis would like him out of his position (officially and unofficially).

The GBC seems to have written the gurukulis off, hoping perhaps that the "new blood" will not have the same issues with Dhanurdhara. In fact many new bhaktas have no idea what Dhanurdhara has done and think that the gurukulis are troublemakers who are in maya.

To recap, this is what Dhanurdhara has done in the past, according to the [.com/PDF/complaint0606.pdf"]Turley lawsuit testimony:

 

1. He broke a child's nose and repeatedly administered beating for years; unfortunately, the victim ended up committing suicide.
   
2. He broke a child's ribs.
   
3. He repeatedly beat children -- sometimes until they passed out.
   
4. He threw children into marble walls and, when they hit the ground, repeatedly kicked them.
   
5. He lifted children up by the ears -- sometimes causing physical trauma.
   
6. He boxed children's ears with closed fists, making his students' ears bleed.
   
7. He repeatedly hired sexual child molesters.
   
8. He ignored pleas from the older children to get rid of the child molesters.
   
9. He allowed the ex-guru Bhavananda to inappropriately go into the shower with children and "clean" them.
   
10. He would ignore the screams of children being raped by their teachers.
    
11. He refused to terminate a teacher who knocked a child's front teeth out.
    
12. He exhibited sadistic, antisocial behavior with the students.

In most of the world, they might describe this type of behavior as torture, but in ISKCON it is described as karma. While I am sure Bhanu prabhu is a nice devotee, I would request that the chairman revise and extend his remarks to clarify the situation.

What is Dhanurdhara's official and unofficial role in ISKCON? Is he still a guru? Does he still have disciples? Will he have a Samadhi? What is his punishment for not adhering to the restrictions? Who is the GBC contact person, if devotees observe Dhanurdhara trolling for disciples?

Who will protect the new devotees unaware of this violent past from Dhanurdhara's advances? If he is initiating, has disciples and is welcome in ISKCON (per the GBC resolution), it means that he is an initiating guru in good standing in ISKCON.

Finally, why is he encouraging this man to contact his abuse victims? Did he ask them if that is what they wanted? The last time Dhanurdhara and his abuse victim met in Mayapura, it ended up badly for both parties. I look forward to a response.

[Guest guest]

O dear Prabhuji, you have again done what I predicted you was going to do.

 

Instead of admitting the two errors you made like a gentleman, you have again put up another smokescreen.

 

Just come clean and lets move on. Otherwise why should I engage in a debate with a trickster where even when proven to have made a mistake will not come clean. How can we come to a conclusion with such dishonesty?

 

You can twist and turn about HOW authorisation is given, WHEN it is given, WHO it is given to until the cows come home. But the point is IT MUST BE GIVEN. That is my point, and your concocted statement did not say anything about authorisation.

 

Therefore I put it to you,

 

Do you believe authorisation is required? (Remember I am not saying how it is given, only the principle that it must be given.)

 

1. If you say YES it is required, then that proves your statement was bogus as it did not mention authorisation must be given.

 

2. If you say NO then you are going againced Prabhupada's instructions.

 

I will not address any of your points and move on until you come clean on this with out any wriggling and squirming.

 

So which is it?

 

Yes or no will be fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, you want to talk about authorisation from predecessor guru.

 

Precisely what type of authorization to initiate did Srila Prabhupada receive from his guru? Was it a signed statement? Was it a recorded conversation with a specific and direct instruction to initiate? No such record exists and we are simply taking Srila Prabhupada's word at face value. Are you willing to except the same type of evidence of authorisation in the case of new gurus?

 

Actually, in both cases this authorisation is self evident from the preaching mood and the collective writings of both Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Several of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's sannyasi disciples became gurus even as BST was still present - he even sometimes participated in the initiation ceremonies for the discioples of the new gurus! He was HAPPY to see his mission grow and continue - just like in the above Prabhupada's quote:

 

"I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy."

 

 

Ritviks try to prevent Prabhupada's disciples from becoming gurus by inventing all sorts of technicalities, such as a direct and recorded authorization to initiate for each person desiring to become a guru, even as there has never been such a requirement in the history of Vaishnavism, and even as Srila Prabhupada himself does not meet that requirement! Such hypocrisy...

 

Beat it into your head, baba: Prabhupada did NOT want ritviks, he said:

 

"I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy."

 

THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF HIS DESIRE and the crux of our discussion.

[suchandra]

 

Prabhu,

 

PAMHO. While you have posted several posts complaining about ISKCON, you have not provided any solutions. What is your solution to the general problems facing ISKCON today?

 

Dear Ms. Pitts, thank you for taking interest in Gaudiya-Vaishnavism and having studied all of Srila Prabhupada's books. The very word "to complain" is surely a term in need of an explanation since calling a thief a thief can also be qualified as complaining about a thief to be a thief. It is stated,

 

"Apaisunam means that one should not find fault with others or correct them unnecessarily. Of course to call a thief a thief is not faultfinding, but to call an honest person a thief is very much offensive for one who is making advancement in spiritual life." (BG 16.1-3)

 

Also the solution in this regard is quite plain: a thief should just stop stealing.

Please kindly let me know which posts exactly you consider as complaint of such kind not comprehensible what could be the solution?

Again thank you for taking interest in Krishna Consciousness and pointing out texts which you consider as lacking of clarity.

Interesting article by Dharmaraj das today:

 

 

 

Why Do We Criticize?

 

BY: DHARMARAJ DAS

 

 

May 1, NEW YORK (SUN) —

It is a few months now that I have been reading articles on different devotee websites. One thing that strikes me is the bitterness and resentment that is apparent in some of the writers. There seem to be trends, in the past few months I have read articles criticizing very strongly Indradyumna Swami, Hrydayananda Maharaja, Satsvarupa Maharaj, Narayana Maharaj, Radhanatha Maharaj, Jayapataka Swami, Kavicandra Swami, Bhaktividyapurna Swami, Dhira Govinda Prabhu, Gauri Prabhu and more recently Braja Bihari Prabhu.

 

 

I am not suggesting that we should be naïve and blind to mistakes that have been committed; I am not trying to discount the gravity of mistakes that have been committed perhaps by misquoting yet again BG. 9.30. I believe that there is a desperate need for a more efficient way to deal with differences between devotees in ISKCON.

 

 

I simply do not believe this form of criticism to be beneficial for anybody involved nor for the Society at large. Such articles make it extremely difficult for the criticized devotees to trust in the Vaisnava community. I would not respond well to this kind of attack/destructive criticism.

 

 

If anyone of them was to be so unbelievably brave and virtuous to come forward to confess and own up to their mistakes in front of the Vaisnava community, my feeling is that there would be a riot: we would be onto this devotee with no more compassion than a pack of ravenous wolves.

 

 

I sense a tremendous lack of the mercy and compassion that should be quintessential to Vaisnavas. We have failed to create a safe space to support devotees who make mistakes and have falldowns. Especially our leaders.

 

 

In my humble opinion/judgment, I sense that many of the writers have not perfected the art of constructive criticism. Many of the articles seem to be written by people out on personal vendettas with the specific aim/hope to bring the devotee criticized down; preferably drag them in the mud while they are at it.

 

 

It is important that when I speak or write I take full responsibility for the consequences that may come from my actions. I am curious to know how many of the people that have written to criticize another devotee in the last year, did so with love, concern and the intent to facilitate the spiritual growth of the devotee that was being criticized. I am curious to know how many of the devotees recently criticized on the Internet have found it valuable and have benefited in any way from the criticism received.

 

 

If we want to concentrate on mistakes why don’t we start criticizing Bhismadeva? He is one of the Mahajans, one of the leaders of mankind. Yet he failed to protect Draupadi when she was helpless and being insulted by the kauravas. He fought to support irreligion and the immorality of Dhuryodan. Shall we start a forum dedicated to criticizing him? Then what are we going to do, start fault-finding Srila Prabhupada? Would that benefit our spiritual life?

 

At the moment we have Braja Bihari Prabhu on the line of fire, I like what Jesus says, “Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to what the editor of the "Sampradaya Sun" posted this reply, "To address this issue Dharmaraj das has to criticize the criticizers, and in the process he even has to criticize ISKCON. It's a dilemma we're all familiar with.":

 

 

 

 

The Essence of Criticism

 

BY: ROCANA DASA

 

 

May 1, CANADA (SUN) —

 

 

In his article of today entitled "

Why Do We Criticize?

", Dharmaraj das is having a difficult time understanding why there are critical articles found on the Net, and presumably on this website, about our ISKCON leaders. To address this issue he has to criticize the criticizers, and in the process he even has to criticize ISKCON. It's a dilemma we're all familiar with.

 

 

Dharmaraj das obviously believes that ISKCON leaders have made some grave mistakes. Presumably he would agree that those mistakes have been committed by some of those he lists as having been criticized. He also criticizes ISKCON for not having "

a more efficient way to deal with differences between devotees in ISKCON

." And, he mentions in his list of those that he feels shouldn't be publicly criticized two personalities who ISKCON leaders themselves love to criticize, namely Dhira Govinda prabhu and B.V. Narayana Maharaja. So the very thing that he is critical of in others, he himself can't help but express in what could be perceived as a critical manner.

 

 

It's interesting to note that three of the individuals on Dharmaraj's list are ex-Zonal Acaryas (Hridayananda, Satsvarupa and Jayapataka), and three others are the lieutenants of ex-Zonal Acaryas (Radhanath, Indrayumna, and Kavicandra). Another three are related to the gurukula situation (Bhaktividyapurna, Gauri das and Braja Bihari das).

 

 

According to our author, absolutely nothing good has been gained whatsoever by the critical writers he's referring to. Whatever these writers have said about such personalities, Dharmaraj apparently believes it should not be aired publicly, regardless of the essential content.

 

 

We have to wonder who Dharmaraj feels is qualified to be on the 'hands-off' list? Obviously people he likes, and personalities that have not seriously, negatively impacted his own personal service. Unfortunately, these individuals have impacted many other devotees in highly negative ways.

 

 

Each of the writers Dharmaraj refers to represents a whole group of maligned constituents. What Dharmaraj considers criticism, many other devotees greatly appreciate as much needed truth-telling. They see the writers as being brave enough to speak out on behalf of all those who feel the same way, but don't feel safe or comfortable stating their position publicly, for reasons well known to us all.

 

 

And how should we characterize the individuals on Dharmaraj's list? These people are leaders. It's their choice to be leaders, swamis, and gurus. It's also their choice to be political figures. They can't have it both ways. If they were exclusively gurus, just dealing with their disciples, then who could cry foul when a problem arises. The disgruntled disciple might speak up, but a whole segment of the devotee community at large wouldn't likely be drawn into the fray. But in the case of our ISKCON leaders, these personalities have thoroughly mixed it up, being spiritual leaders, direct managers, heads of state, and ultimate managing authorities of the entire society.

 

 

Isn't it fair to think that if they're such great leaders (which in our society means preachers), then surely they can step up and address their critics? One would assume that such spiritually advanced personalities could easily defeat the critics. But for the last thirty years, there has been an eerie silence coming from the direction of the leaders. Rarely have they publicly defended themselves, and many devotees see this as a sign that the criticisms leveled against them have squarely hit the target. They don't reply because they have no defense.

 

 

As for the criticizers, many just want to be heard. They state their position and invite the persons they're addressing to respond to them. Others, myself included, have taken a more formal, systematic approach to offering constructive criticism to the leaders. But no matter who offers the criticism, it’s the

duty of the leaders to respond

.

 

 

I won't repeat here the many excellent arguments about our Vaisnava tradition of debate, and the importance of being able to justify one's actions based on guru, sadhu and sastra. In fact, our sastra is full of criticism. Not only for all those who are non-devotees, but for Godless scientists, politicians, and Mayavadis. Sastra even criticizes the jnanis and yogis. Many of the pastimes related in Srimad Bhagavatam are actually critiques of great personalities who erred, and whose wrong actions were pointed out in great detail by other personalities. Those who are criticized in sastra are much greater personalities than the ones on Dharmaraj's list.

 

 

In the pastime accounts found in sastra, the criticized personalities generally appear in a very humble way. Even Lord Brahma and Indra are held up to critical analysis. We recall the brahmana who criticized the king because his children had died, one after another. Arjuna had to go in and assist, but even he couldn't protect the children from dying. Dharmaraj uses the example of Bhismadeva, who is a mahajana, asking if we should start criticizing him? But as sastra tells us, he made a mistake and found himself on the wrong side of the battlefield of Kurukshetra. In the same way I think that Dharmaraj das has found himself on the wrong side of this particular situation. Not to be critical of Dharmaraj das….

 

 

So criticism can be used in Krsna's service to teach lessons. If the devotees who are criticized become a little humbler as a result, that's a great benefit. But even if they don't, all those who hear the critical analysis stand to learn their own lessons.

 

 

Every progressive society has a mechanism whereby people who feel wronged by authorities are given an outlet, whether it be free speech or freedom of assembly. What Dharmaraj das is proposing is that we do away with these things, discouraging the critics from speaking publicly because it's supposedly not beneficial for the individual or the public at large. But I say that Dharmaraj prabhu's position in this regard is very un-Vedic.

 

 

Surprisingly, Dharmaraj also feels that it's up to the Vaisnava community not to discourage the leaders, in case the leaders won't trust the devotee community anymore. I think Dharmaraj has this completely backwards. This is actually the opposite of where the responsibility lies. The leaders being criticized, and those who support them, always try to shift the onus onto the aggrieved party, making them responsible for the end result of the situation. Those like Dharmaraj always seems to point to the critics, expecting them to be more advanced than the leaders. But by definition, the leaders are supposed to be far more advanced than the general members of the society. That's why they have titles like Swami, Guru, and GBC. They're the ones who are supposed to see that its Krsna who's working, sending them a message.

 

 

What we're dealing with today is thirty years of suppressed anxiety on the part of thousands of people who have never had their voices heard. The Internet is now giving them an opportunity to do that. As in all things, the pendulum is swinging in the worldwide devotee community. What began as a few disenfranchised voices has slowly grown into a larger, louder collection of voices. And while I can't predict the future, my guess is that we have a considerable way to go before the crescendo is reached, and the voices again become subdued. As I've said before, what we're seeing today is the growing sophistication of the devotees (the critics), who are becoming bolder and smarter about how to get their voices heard in a society that is no longer able to shut them down with simply a stern glance and backroom threat.

 

 

In a progressive society, the leaders would actually think this is a good thing. That's why in developed societies around the world, leaders allow non-violent protests and encourage people to speak out. They see this as a good thing, because it allows the disgruntled and disenfranchised to vent their unavoidable frustration.

 

 

At the end of the day, we all have to accept that where there's politics, there's going to be fighting. Srila Prabhupada himself said that. The only solution is for the gurus and the swamis to stay out of politics. They seem completely unwilling to do so, and we can only conclude that they're willing to pay the price of being publicly taken to task when their political maneuverings cast them into the spotlight.

 

 

Dharmaraj says that he is not suggesting we be naïve and blind to mistakes. He admits that grave errors have been made, and there is not yet an efficient way to deal with problems in the society. At the same time, he doesn't believe that public criticism is beneficial. Of course, he avoids telling the reader what solution he

does

recommend. What is the alternative to public challenge?

 

After nearly 20 years of nothing else working, the critics became publicly vocal, in growing numbers. Clearly, they will not accept reverting back to silence as a workable alternative. If we are to take Dharmaraj's plea for "love and compassion" seriously, I think he should propose concrete solutions to the very significant problems before us - the abject lack of accountability and full disclosure on the part of the leaders, the impunity with which they consistently engage in wrong activities, and the inexcusable lack of a functional justice system within the society. Let us hear about a system for change coming from the top down - a system that is imbued with their love and compassion for the thousands of devotees who have been hurt and cast off by the actions of the leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Therefore I put it to you,

 

Do you believe authorisation is required? (Remember I am not saying how it is given, only the principle that it must be given.)

 

1. If you say YES it is required, then that proves your statement was bogus as it did not mention authorisation must be given.

 

2. If you say NO then you are going againced Prabhupada's instructions.

 

I will not address any of your points and move on until you come clean on this with out any wriggling and squirming.

 

 

Does Prabhupada mention authorisation in this statement?

 

'Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy.'

(Letter to Tusta Krsna, 2 Dec 75)

 

NO, HE DOES NOT. Does that mean his statement is therefore bogus, because in other statements he does mention it?

 

How come then you consider my statement as bogus if it simply follows the above listed Prabhupada's quote which also does not mention authorisation?

 

Do I believe that authorization from a previous guru is required? Yes, I do, but I also believe such authorization can take many different forms, some of which may be completely unverifiable to outside world, just like in case of Srila Prabhupada himself. I asked you to apply exactly the same requirements to Srila Prabhupada, as you are applying to his successors - that is called a parampara.

 

 

Ultimately, you can believe in anything you like, but do expect to be challenged by other devotees when you make a claim that your beliefs are based on the siddhanta of our Saraswata sampradaya.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Prabhu.

 

Again you have done exactly as I predicted, throw another smoke bomb to cover your clear mistake.

 

You made the statement;

 

"AFTER DISAPPEARANCE OF A GURU ANY OF HIS QUALIFIED DISCIPLES MAY ACCEPT DISCIPLES AND GIVE THEM DIKSA MANTRAS"

 

In other words you are saying that as long as a disciple is qualified he can initiate, no authorisation necessary. Just automatically when the Guru leaves the planet, if qualified can initiate.

 

Is that in line with many clear quotes from Prabhupada......no. But to cover yourself you cleverly say that Prabhupada never mentioned authorisation in the Tusta Krsna letter, therefore that makes it OK. No it doesnt. You cannot select and chop and change to what quote suits you and neglect others. The clear general instructions by Prabhupada on this matter is two proviso's are necessary, a) They must be an uttama adhikari, b) They must be given authorisation by the predecessor Guru.

 

Your statement is therefore bogus, which indirectly you admitted by saying 'yes' although trying to cleverly hide the fact.

 

Prabhu, you are continuously making blunder after blunder. I also noticed another boo boo to add to your list which was pointed out by Bhakta Tom Prabhu.

 

To a statement originally Posted by BhaktaTom, which was 'We do not say that SP is physically present.'

 

You answered;

 

"YES YOU DO!"

 

This is a straw man created by yourself as we never claim that. Indeed Bhakta Tom proved this by quoting TFO which was written back in 1997;

 

"It is accepted that many thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are still benefiting from the process of diksa (even though their guru has been PHYSICALLY ABSENT for nearly two decades)."

(The Final Order, page 54)

 

So no we dont think that Prabhupada is 'Physically present' as you have wrongly assumed.

 

There we have it so far;

 

1. Bogus statements not in line with Prabhupada's clear orders.

 

2. Claiming authorisation was given when I proved it could not have been.

 

3. Straw man arguements which do not represent our position.

 

Many devotees are observing this, so I would suggest you think long and hard before you post as your blunders are not helping your cause.

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Prabhupada mention authorisation in this statement?

 

'Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy.'

(Letter to Tusta Krsna, 2 Dec 75)

 

NO, HE DOES NOT. Does that mean his statement is therefore bogus, because in other statements he does mention it?

 

How come then you consider my statement as bogus if it simply follows the above listed Prabhupada's quote which also does not mention authorisation?

 

Do I believe that authorization from a previous guru is required? Yes, I do, but I also believe such authorization can take many different forms, some of which may be completely unverifiable to outside world, just like in case of Srila Prabhupada himself. I asked you to apply exactly the same requirements to Srila Prabhupada, as you are applying to his successors - that is called a parampara.

 

 

Ultimately, you can believe in anything you like, but do expect to be challenged by other devotees when you make a claim that your beliefs are based on the siddhanta of our Saraswata sampradaya.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakta prabhu,

 

I read some of your posts and I'm puzzled by all the word jugglery you are using. I fail to understand why you have taken one simple instruction from Srila Prabhupada and blown it out of proportion.

 

I have seen both sides of the argument and I prefer to go with the conventional approach (elucidated here by Sriman Lowborn prabhu) ... the parampara system of descending spiritual masters rather than a new system <B><I>supposedly invented</B></I> by Srila Prabhupada.

 

I wish you luck though in your chosen ritvik path but it's a dangerous and uncertain path and <B><I>has never been recommended by any of the predecessor Acaryas. </B></I>

 

 

 

Hare Krishna Prabhu.

 

Again you have done exactly as I predicted, throw another smoke bomb to cover your clear mistake.

 

You made the statement;

 

"AFTER DISAPPEARANCE OF A GURU ANY OF HIS QUALIFIED DISCIPLES MAY ACCEPT DISCIPLES AND GIVE THEM DIKSA MANTRAS"

 

In other words you are saying that as long as a disciple is qualified he can initiate, no authorisation necessary. Just automatically when the Guru leaves the planet, if qualified can initiate.

 

Is that in line with many clear quotes from Prabhupada......no. But to cover yourself you cleverly say that Prabhupada never mentioned authorisation in the Tusta Krsna letter, therefore that makes it OK. No it doesnt. You cannot select and chop and change to what quote suits you and neglect others. The clear general instructions by Prabhupada on this matter is two proviso's are necessary, a) They must be an uttama adhikari, b) They must be given authorisation by the predecessor Guru.

 

Your statement is therefore bogus, which indirectly you admitted by saying 'yes' although trying to cleverly hide the fact.

 

Prabhu, you are continuously making blunder after blunder. I also noticed another boo boo to add to your list which was pointed out by Bhakta Tom Prabhu.

 

To a statement originally Posted by BhaktaTom, which was 'We do not say that SP is physically present.'

 

You answered;

 

"YES YOU DO!"

 

This is a straw man created by yourself as we never claim that. Indeed Bhakta Tom proved this by quoting TFO which was written back in 1997;

 

"It is accepted that many thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are still benefiting from the process of diksa (even though their guru has been PHYSICALLY ABSENT for nearly two decades)."

(The Final Order, page 54)

 

So no we dont think that Prabhupada is 'Physically present' as you have wrongly assumed.

 

There we have it so far;

 

1. Bogus statements not in line with Prabhupada's clear orders.

 

2. Claiming authorisation was given when I proved it could not have been.

 

3. Straw man arguements which do not represent our position.

 

Many devotees are observing this, so I would suggest you think long and hard before you post as your blunders are not helping your cause.

 

Hare Krishna

[Guest guest]

 

To a statement originally Posted by BhaktaTom, which was 'We do not say that SP is physically present.'

 

You answered;

 

"YES YOU DO!"

 

This is a straw man created by yourself as we never claim that. Indeed Bhakta Tom proved this by quoting TFO which was written back in 1997;

 

Did you miss the rest of my post:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhaktaTom

We do not say that SP is physically present.

 

Lowborn:

YES YOU DO!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhaktaTom

You have to go to a physical spiritual master, as opposed to Paramatma. Srila Prabhupada is such a physical spiritual master.

 

His statement: "Srila Prabhupada is such a physical spiritual master" in reference to time period after Prabhupada's dissappearance indicates that he does indeed claim that SP is physically present. Does that look like a strawman argument? You keep inventing new meanings to common words in order to obscure reality. Like I said: if SP acts as a physical spiritual master today, get him to sign a letter proving that he indeed intended to continue giving diksa for the next 10,000 years. If you cant, stop referring to him as being a physical spiritual master here and now.

 

 

 

As to whether you "proved" anything on this theread is for the readers to decide.

 

To me, the only thing you proved is that you are a person who cherry picks Prabhupada's quotes and interprets them to suit his pet theory of ritvikvada.

 

You ritviks avoid all quotes that obviously show Prahupada intended to follow the sampradaya like ALL the gurus before him when it comes to his successors, as shown in the letter to Tusta Krsna. Your only response to that quote is to smear Tusta's character, a typical ritvik recourse as evident from your BTP gutter journalism. Now you try to do the same with me. Yet, neither mine, not Tusta Krsna's (who was a hundred times better devotee than me) character is relevant in this discussion, so please quit bringing it up. The discussion is about SP's intentions in regards to the continuation of our Saraswata parampara.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Deborah,

 

Please allow me to make some comments on what you have said;

 

 

I read some of your posts and I'm puzzled by all the word jugglery you are using. I fail to understand why you have taken one simple instruction from Srila Prabhupada and blown it out of proportion.

 

If you could please let me know where I have 'juggled' anything. It would be appreciated if you could give some evidence to that claim.

 

 

I have seen both sides of the argument and I prefer to go with the conventional approach (elucidated here by Sriman Lowborn prabhu) ... the parampara system of descending spiritual masters rather than a new system <B><I>supposedly invented</B></I> by Srila Prabhupada.

 

I wish you luck though in your chosen ritvik path but it's a dangerous and uncertain path and <B><I>has never been recommended by any of the predecessor Acaryas. </B></I>

 

I disagree totally. The real danger of accepting a Guru who is has not been properly authorised, who may at any moment fall down into illicit activity, that is playing russian roulette with your soul, as Prabhupada describes;

 

“As for your next question, can only a few pure devotees deliver others, anyone, if he is a pure devotee he can deliver others, he can become spiritual master. But unless he is on that platform he should not attempt it. THEN BOTH OF THEM WILL GO TO HELL, like blind men leading the blind.”

(Letter to Tusta Krsna, 14/12/72)

 

You can never go wrong accepting Prabhupada as your Diksa guru, not in any way shape or form.

[Guest guest]

 

His statement: "Srila Prabhupada is such a physical spiritual master" in reference to time period after Prabhupada's dissappearance indicates that he does indeed claim that SP is physically present. Does that look like a strawman argument?

 

Yes. Its is totally a straw man. Our position, (please check for yourself in TFO written back in 1997) is that Prabhupada is a PHYSICAL GURU, but not PHYSICALLY PRESENT. Just like Prabhupada may not be on planet earth, but is a physical guru somehwhere else in the universe.

 

 

 

 

Our position is clear, Prabhupada is a Physical Guru, but he is not physically present. Prabhupada is not physically present before us any more, but remains a physical guru.

 

Your position is somewhat obscure, if you think that Prabhupada is NOT a physical Guru then what is he?

 

 

 

Cherry picks? Like the way you cherry pick letters to Tusta Krishna but not quotes of Prabhupada saying authorisation is required?

 

 

 

Avoid them? Sorry but your wrong AGAIN. We cover all of them in TFO. No avoiding anything. Here are the quotes as shown in TFO, please show how we avoid them?

 

"The first thing, I warn Acyutananda, do not try to initiate. You are not in a proper position now to initiate anyone. [...] Don't be allured by such maya. I am training you all to become future spiritual masters, but do not be in a hurry."

(SP Letter to Acyutananda and Jaya Govinda, 21/8/68)

 

"Sometime ago you asked my permission for accepting some disciples, now the time is approaching very soon when you will have many disciples by your strong preaching work."

(SP Letter to Acyutananda,16/5/72)

 

"I have heard that there is some worship of yourself by the other devotees. Of course it is proper to offer obeisances to a Vaisnava, but not in the presence of the spiritual master. After the departure of the spiritual master, it will come to that stage, but now wait. Otherwise it will create factions."

(SP Letter to Hansadutta, 1/10/74)

 

"Keep trained up very rigidly and then you are bonafide Guru, and you can accept disciples on the same principle. But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bonafide spiritual master and spread Krsna Consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krsna very happy."

(SP Letter to Tusta Krsna, 2/12/75)

 

We dont avoid these quotes, we are not afraid to present them. Our position is that PRIVATE UNPUBLISHED letters sent to deviant disciples cannot be used to modify the clear July 9th Directive which was an official document on initiations sent to every Temple President.

 

Hare Krishna

[Mahadyuti]

The hoax has been confessed by Tamal and Hansadutta. They all new it was the system for when Prabhupada left the planet.

 

 

Hansadhutta, one of the original 11 Ritviks (Self appointed gurus)

"Hansadhutta:...I distinctly remember when I received the July 9, l977 letter in Śrī Lanka, that it was clear that that letter was Srila Prabhupada's arrangement for INITIATIONS FOR THE FUTURE.

 

I also remember feeling some dissappoinment with obvious conditional authority that the Rittvik representative of the Acharya designation implied, because I actually had a great desire to be a guru like Srila Prabhupada, and I think many of the leaders did have similiar desires."

 

TKG made this shocking confession back in 1980 when he was banned from initiating by the GBC for his involvement in the sahajya Gopi Bhava Club.

 

Come on guys, wake up. Would have fallen for the bogus Zonal Acharya nonsense as well and be defending it with your last breath back in the 80's? Probably.

 

PYRAMID HOUSE CONFESSIONS December 3rd 1980 Topanga Canyon

Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus.

[Guest guest]

 

Our position is clear, Prabhupada is a Physical Guru, but he is not physically present. Prabhupada is not physically present before us any more, but remains a physical guru.

 

Your position is somewhat obscure, if you think that Prabhupada is NOT a physical Guru then what is he?

 

How on earth do you know where Srila Prabhupada is now? You say he IS (as in PRESENTLY) a physical guru. Lets say he is now in Goloka. Is he still a physical guru? What is the definition of the word "physical"? Lets look at a typical answer:

 

phys·i·cal (fĭz'ĭ-kəl) adj. - Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See synonyms at bodily.

from answers.com/topic/physical

 

Based on this standard definition, is Prabhupada a physical guru right now? NO, HE IS NOT! That is why I said you ritviks invent bogus meanings to common and well defined words to delude naive people.

 

Prabhupada WAS a physical guru. Now he IS a departed guru. His presence here now is in sound vibration only.

[Guest guest]

 

[

Our position is that PRIVATE UNPUBLISHED letters sent to deviant disciples cannot be used to modify the clear July 9th Directive which was an official document on initiations sent to every Temple President.

 

 

You can BELIEVE in whatever you like. But in order to actually UNDERSTAND this directive you MUST understand our tradition and the overall approach Prabhupada had in this area as evident from his earlier writings, including his letters.

 

I asked you before: WHICH PART OF THE QUOTE FROM LETTER TO TUSTA IS A LIE? You said: none of it. That means you agree that this quote truly represents both the tradition and Prabhupada's intent with regards to the succession.

 

The July 9th directive understood in the light of our tradition and this quote simply means that ritvik initiations continue only in Prabhupada's presence and after his passing all new initiates become disciples of the initiating gurus and Prabhupada's GRAND-DISCIPLES.

[Guest guest]

 

PYRAMID HOUSE CONFESSIONS December 3rd 1980 Topanga Canyon

"Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus."

 

In 1980 both Gunsadutta and Tamal were just as clueless and manipulative as 3 years earlier. You manipulate this quote further to pretend they said here that Prabhupada intended to keep initiating his own disciples through the ritvik system for the next 10,000 years. That is not what they said, and even if they did, why all of a sudden believe them NOW? Only because it fits your pet theory? A dubious source is always a dubious source.