Whether Devotees of ISKON are the best devotees

[dattaswami]

 

You are so very, very confused. The universe is one giant contradiction.

 

The "rules of nature" are being violated continuously. Even science can demonstrate this (quantum behavior violates Newtonian mechanics).

 

"God's will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven."

 

Presuming to know the Sweet will of the Lord reveals you for the fool that you are.

 

Ravana fooled Rama by sending the golden deer and stole away Sita. But this fooling finally resulted in the end of Ravana only. This fooling is a mini drama in the big divine drama, which was designed by the Lord Himself. <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> and Arjuna were taken away from the war by a part of the army. Abhimanyu was killed in their absence and Duryodhana thought that he fooled <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>.

But finally it resulted in killing of Saindhava, the brother-in-law of Duryodhana and also it resulted in killing of Karna who was the main hope of Duryodhana. <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> asked Arjuna to kill Karna even though Karna was without bow and arrows. Killing of Abhimanyu became the reason for <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> to kill Karna. Somakasura stole away Vedas from Brahma, when Brahma was in meditation. He thought that he fooled Brahma. But finally it resulted in killing of that demon only. Hiranyakasipu asked Brahma for immortality by asking boons from all sides. He thought that he became immortal by his over intelligence. But God came as Narasimha and created the loopholes for all the boons and killed the demon.

Thus, the extra intelligence of the demon resulted in his killing only. Karthaverya’s sons killed Jamadagni when Parasurama was absent. They thought that they fooled Parasurama. But finally Parasurama killed all of them. Judas fooled Jesus in getting Him arrested. But finally Jesus went to God and Judas committed suicide. Jesus told about Judas to His devotees in the beginning itself. The soldiers insulted Jesus asking Him to save Himself if He is God. This does not mean that Jesus was impotent to save Himself. Rama was fooled by Ravana and this does not mean that Rama was ignorant. Neither Jesus was impotent nor Rama was ignorant.

All this was will of God and every thing was the divine play. Such incidents act as the tests of the faith of the devotees. If the devotee of Rama doubts Rama as ignorant, his faith is crumbled. If the devotee of the Jesus doubts Jesus as impotent, his faith is also crumbled. Rama wept for Sita without knowing that Ravana stole her. Jesus also cried on cross asking God that why God left Him. All these stand as tests of the faith of their devotees. Moreover, God who came down to the earth also enjoys in such ignorant roles and forgets Himself for some time to fully immerse in the role and enjoy. A producer and director of a film, acting in the role of servant in the film forgets his status and enjoys the role for some time.

[dattaswami]

The generation and propagation of the divine knowledge is not a waste. Certainly, all will not change. A few will partially change. One or two in this minority will change completely (Manushyanam…Gita). Majority remains as it is. They are always concentrating on the worldly bonds only. Their goal is money, family, comforts, fame etc., only. At the maximum they may attend some work shops to get relief from the stress because they are tired with the stress by the problems to attain their goals. For them work is worship. Their ultimate and utmost spiritual effort is only the participation in a work shop on stress relief so that they can be reactivated for fresh efforts to achieve the worldly goals by improving their professional skills. It is just a commercial advertisement!

The spiritual preachers also changed according to the public because the tendency of today is that the ruler should go according to the needs of public in democracy. A king may do like that who is a politician aspiring for position, power and wealth. But a spiritual preacher should not come down to such level. He should guide the people to the right path without any compromise of the truth. The people should follow the knowledge. But today the knowledge is following people. The people need only fresh strength in the worldly work.

The spiritual preacher limited himself to that particular lowest level only which is needed for the public. All the other higher levels are just mentioned as a formality. Here the spiritual preacher should impress on the life after death. He should preach about the unimaginable stress which is to be faced by the people after death in the hell. Islam and Christianity speak about the permanent hell. There is only one enquiry at the end of this only one human life. After that enquiry, either permanent place in the abode of God or permanent hell will be the result of the divine judgment. Such concept is absolutely correct and is also universal. The law of God is one and the same in any religion.

God uses His special power in the case of exceptionally deserving devotees to grant the human rebirth and this cannot be generalized. In Hinduism this exceptional facility is extended to every human being and this caused a careless lenient view about the spiritual effort to concentrate on God. The president of the country can cancel the death punishment in the case of a deserving candidate using his special power. If this is generalized and if every human being is granted this facility, there is no fear for any one to do a murder! Due to this reason only, we can find most of the Christians and Muslims in Churches and mosques to worship God and they are not found in the stress relief- work shops. We can find mainly Hindus in these work shops. Hindus feel that a number of chances of human birth will be available in future and going to hell is only a temporary visit.

One must note an important point here. By concentrating on God through devotion, you will get the stress relief also which is included in the devotion. Then why to spend time for mere stress relief from this temporary worldly problems? In the school all the subjects are taught. If you go to a single teacher, you can learn one subject only. Which is better? School or tuition teacher? By the divine knowledge and devotion, you are getting stress relief in this world as well as in the upper world. In the work shop you can get stress relief from the problems in this world only. I am not criticizing these work shops because I am not in the competition with those preachers for fame or wealth. I am also not jealous with those preachers for their fame. I am only pained by the fate of the followers and those preachers also in the future. Veda says that blind lead blind and fall in the well (Andhenaiva……..). Some preachers say that they know the truth, but they are doing like this for initial attraction. But the initial attraction is always continuing through out the human life. What is the difference between such work shops and cinema theaters, since both give stress relief? What is the difference between these work shops and hospitals since both give relief from illness?

[Murali_Mohan_das]

So are you here on this forum to learn as well as to join the blind in leading the blind?

 

If you're here to teach, you would be well-advised to learn some manners.

 

 

You're a fool, I'm a fool--let's have some foolish fun!

 

 

The generation and propagation of the divine knowledge is not a waste. Certainly, all will not change. A few will partially change. One or two in this minority will change completely (Manushyanam…Gita). Majority remains as it is. They are always concentrating on the worldly bonds only. Their goal is money, family, comforts, fame etc., only. At the maximum they may attend some work shops to get relief from the stress because they are tired with the stress by the problems to attain their goals. For them work is worship. Their ultimate and utmost spiritual effort is only the participation in a work shop on stress relief so that they can be reactivated for fresh efforts to achieve the worldly goals by improving their professional skills. It is just a commercial advertisement!

The spiritual preachers also changed according to the public because the tendency of today is that the ruler should go according to the needs of public in democracy. A king may do like that who is a politician aspiring for position, power and wealth. But a spiritual preacher should not come down to such level. He should guide the people to the right path without any compromise of the truth. The people should follow the knowledge. But today the knowledge is following people. The people need only fresh strength in the worldly work.

The spiritual preacher limited himself to that particular lowest level only which is needed for the public. All the other higher levels are just mentioned as a formality. Here the spiritual preacher should impress on the life after death. He should preach about the unimaginable stress which is to be faced by the people after death in the hell. Islam and Christianity speak about the permanent hell. There is only one enquiry at the end of this only one human life. After that enquiry, either permanent place in the abode of God or permanent hell will be the result of the divine judgment. Such concept is absolutely correct and is also universal. The law of God is one and the same in any religion.

God uses His special power in the case of exceptionally deserving devotees to grant the human rebirth and this cannot be generalized. In Hinduism this exceptional facility is extended to every human being and this caused a careless lenient view about the spiritual effort to concentrate on God. The president of the country can cancel the death punishment in the case of a deserving candidate using his special power. If this is generalized and if every human being is granted this facility, there is no fear for any one to do a murder! Due to this reason only, we can find most of the Christians and Muslims in Churches and mosques to worship God and they are not found in the stress relief- work shops. We can find mainly Hindus in these work shops. Hindus feel that a number of chances of human birth will be available in future and going to hell is only a temporary visit.

One must note an important point here. By concentrating on God through devotion, you will get the stress relief also which is included in the devotion. Then why to spend time for mere stress relief from this temporary worldly problems? In the school all the subjects are taught. If you go to a single teacher, you can learn one subject only. Which is better? School or tuition teacher? By the divine knowledge and devotion, you are getting stress relief in this world as well as in the upper world. In the work shop you can get stress relief from the problems in this world only. I am not criticizing these work shops because I am not in the competition with those preachers for fame or wealth. I am also not jealous with those preachers for their fame. I am only pained by the fate of the followers and those preachers also in the future. Veda says that blind lead blind and fall in the well (Andhenaiva……..). Some preachers say that they know the truth, but they are doing like this for initial attraction. But the initial attraction is always continuing through out the human life. What is the difference between such work shops and cinema theaters, since both give stress relief? What is the difference between these work shops and hospitals since both give relief from illness?

[theist]

At first I thought there was a person on the other end named dattaswami who was posting this. Now I see there is a person named Anil who is just copy and pasting various section of someone else named dattaswami.

 

Some good points mixed with speculation is like sand mixed in the sweetrice.

[suchandra]

 

 

Why the hell did Srila Prabhupada initiate so many sannyasis if he wasn't trying to create spiritual masters for the future of the Krishna consciousness movement?

 

 

Hell seems somehow the right term to detail the disciples situation when his so called spiritual master leaves for good. When Prabhupada, the current link of the BRAHMA MADHVA GAUDIYA SAMPRADAYA, refers to becoming a guru it is almost always in the sense of becoming a 'siksa' or instructing guru. See the purport to the 'amara ajnaya guru haya tara ei desa' verse in CC. When carefully studying your posts the vision of an united global Gaudiya Vaishnava network working cooperatively with full efficiency by well educated siksa-gurus seems for you something like hell? What could be the cause of this condemning spirit?

[cbrahma]

ISKCON is not a Church, sect, corporation or institution. It is a society which is what the S stands for. A society of devotees cannot be delimited by the material boundaries just mentioned.

[Guruvani]

 

. When Prabhupada, the current link of the BRAHMA MADHVA GAUDIYA SAMPRADAYA, refers to becoming a guru it is almost always in the sense of becoming a 'siksa' or instructing guru.

 

When Srila Prabhupada instructs his disciples that they too must become guru it means guru in all aspects not just siksha.

 

If Srila Prabhupada would have meant only to become siksha guru then he would have specified siksha guru. But, he said become guru. That means in all aspects of siksha and diksha.

Since the Saraswata sampradaya is actually a siksha guru sampradaya the formal diksha is not the all-in-all and has been described by Srila Prabhupada numerous times as mostly just a formality.

 

As long as devotees have access to the books and the teachings of the Gaudiya acharyas then they have as much opportunity as anyone else no matter who their formal diksha guru is.

 

The formal diksha guru is not as important as the siksha guru.

With access to the proper siksha then devotees have no limits as to how far they can go.

Bilvamangal Thakur recieved diksha by a Vaidic brahmana yet he advanced to the topmost level of Vaishnavism.

 

The diksha guru is highly overrated in these days.

 

The real initiation is to recieve proper siksha about the ways of devotional servive.

This over-emphasis on diksha guru is not in accord with the Saraswata siddhanta.

[ksbh]

First of all prabhu, I'm disappointed to see this 'my guru is the only way' mentality in you. Srila Prabhupada is the current link to you, not to everyone. To disciples of H.H. Bhakti Sundar Govinda maharaja, he is the current link and to disciples of Srila Narayana maharaja, he is the current link.

 

To make a statment such as "Prabhupada, the current link of the BRAHMA MADHVA GAUDIYA SAMPRADAYA" is not only factually incorrect, it is offensive as well.

 

And also, I agree with H.G. Guruvani prabhu. Who one chooses to accept as Spiritual master is not your business. It is strictly between that person and his chosen Guru. We should not stick our nose into it.

 

 

Hell seems somehow the right term to detail the disciples situation when his so called spiritual master leaves for good. When Prabhupada, the current link of the BRAHMA MADHVA GAUDIYA SAMPRADAYA, refers to becoming a guru it is almost always in the sense of becoming a 'siksa' or instructing guru. See the purport to the 'amara ajnaya guru haya tara ei desa' verse in CC. When carefully studying your posts the vision of an united global Gaudiya Vaishnava network working cooperatively with full efficiency by well educated siksa-gurus seems for you something like hell? What could be the cause of this condemning spirit?

[Kulapavana]

 

When Srila Prabhupada instructs his disciples that they too must become guru it means guru in all aspects not just siksha.

 

If Srila Prabhupada would have meant only to become siksha guru then he would have specified siksha guru. But, he said become guru. That means in all aspects of siksha and diksha.

 

I think I see evolution in your thinking, prabhu I'm very impressed.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Dattaswami, you are reposting articles you have written more than a year ago, pretending that they are replies to a discussion here. Either discuss as a person, or your posts will all disappear shortly. These forums are for active discussions, not for posting prewritten articles.

[suchandra]

 

First of all prabhu, I'm disappointed to see this 'my guru is the only way' mentality in you. Srila Prabhupada is the current link to you, not to everyone. To disciples of H.H. Bhakti Sundar Govinda maharaja, he is the current link and to disciples of Srila Narayana maharaja, he is the current link.

 

To make a statment such as "Prabhupada, the current link of the BRAHMA MADHVA GAUDIYA SAMPRADAYA" is not only factually incorrect, it is offensive as well.

 

And also, I agree with H.G. Guruvani prabhu. Who one chooses to accept as Spiritual master is not your business. It is strictly between that person and his chosen Guru. We should not stick our nose into it.

Thanks ksbh for stopping by, this is of course what you also would tell Krishna Himself, dont stick Your nose into it? The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku.

 

In this sloka Krishna refers to diksa-gurus but with huge gaps in between.

Prabhupada: "Regarding parampara system: there is nothing to wonder for big gaps. Just like we belong to the Brahma Sampradaya, so we accept it from Krishna to Brahma, Brahma to Narada, Narada to Vyasadeva, Vyasadeva to Madhva, and between Vyasadeva and Madhva there is a big gap."

 

In sum we shouldnt wonder too much if there's a gap after Prabhupada's physical departure - this kind of gap is not like a hole in a levee, as scarcy as it gets, it is rather something normal what Krishna Himself sees with serenity.

[suchandra]

 

I think I see evolution in your thinking, prabhu I'm very impressed.

Well spoken, Kula prabhu - evolution pronto rapido. I even thought about a quote by Prabhupada describing his GBC men as flickering.

[Guruvani]

 

I think I see evolution in your thinking, prabhu I'm very impressed.

 

Actually, I have had this same thinking all along, but mostly I have advocated for the GBC to conduct a ritvik system for those newcoming devotees that want it.

 

I have never been opposed to disciples of Srila Prabhupada becoming gurus.

As a matter of fact I wrote an article for Sampradayasun.com several months ago where I made it clear that the ritvik system was only for the GBC to conduct and was not something that Srila Prabhupada wanted all his disciples to practice.

 

If you have read my previous writings you would see that I have never been an exclusivist ritvik fanatic like some ritvik proponents.

 

I simply advocated that the GBC had the right and the responsibility to conduct a GBC system for new devotees that preferred that form of formal diksha.

 

However, I am always evolving, hopefully, but there is nothing new about my acceptance of senior disciples of Srila Prabhupada acting as diksha gurus.

 

I don't think it was the best policy immediatly after the passing of Srila Prabhupada when his seniormost disciples had only been devotees for 10 or 12 years.

No doubt, at the time of the passing of Srila Prabhupada these novice devotees were not ready for such great responsibility.

 

Now, it is 30 years later and some disciples have managed to hang in there and show some steadiness and conviction.

 

Sooner or later even the ritviks are going to have to recognize that senior sannyasis with 35 or 45 years of steady service have passed beyond the passions of youth and are becoming eligible to give shelter to new devotees.

[ksbh]

I fail to understand what this has to do with Srila Prabhupada being the 'current link'.

 

I simply corrected you that Srila Prabhupada is the current link only to his followers, just as other bonafide Gurus are the current links to their followers. The bottomline being ... the 'current link' is not limited to one Guru. There are many.

 

 

Thanks ksbh for stopping by, this is of course what you also would tell Krishna Himself, dont stick Your nose into it? The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku.

 

In this sloka Krishna refers to diksa-gurus but with huge gaps in between.

Prabhupada: "Regarding parampara system: there is nothing to wonder for big gaps. Just like we belong to the Brahma Sampradaya, so we accept it from Krishna to Brahma, Brahma to Narada, Narada to Vyasadeva, Vyasadeva to Madhva, and between Vyasadeva and Madhva there is a big gap."

 

In sum we shouldnt wonder too much if there's a gap after Prabhupada's physical departure - this kind of gap is not like a hole in a levee, as scarcy as it gets, it is rather something normal what Krishna Himself sees with serenity.

[Kulapavana]

 

Sooner or later even the ritviks are going to have to recognize that senior sannyasis with 35 or 45 years of steady service have passed beyond the passions of youth and are becoming eligible to give shelter to new devotees.

 

sadhu! sadhu!

[suchandra]

 

I fail to understand what this has to do with Srila Prabhupada being the 'current link'.

 

Without Srila Prabhupada's endeavour none of us till today would have heard about Krishna's pastimes or the chanting of Hare Krishna. We all would be fully immerged in fruitive karmic activity.

Additionally, Prabhupada enabled all these Vaishnavas who're presently in prominent position to clear their path to become successful in the West.

If we compare the success of Prabhupada's global preaching with the success of Lord Jesus Christ's preaching, the followers of Lord Jesus recognize Lord Jesus more adequate than present Vaishnavas recognize Prabhupada's life-work and that hurts. Not only how badly they treated Prabhupada's movement. If we consider Christians sitting together and appointing a new Jesus by vote, because Jesus is dead and gone - one might conclude Christians don't think so materialistic like present Gaudiya-Vaishnavas. It is embarrassing to find out that Vaishnavas treating Prabhupada like dead and gone and has to be replaced by some voting procedure.

[theist]

 

Without Srila Prabhupada's endeavour none of us till today would have heard about Krishna's pastimes or the chanting of Hare Krishna. We all would be fully immerged in fruitive karmic activity.

Additionally, Prabhupada enabled all these Vaishnavas who're presently in prominent position to clear their path to become successful in the West.

If we compare the success of Prabhupada's global preaching with the success of Lord Jesus Christ's preaching, the followers of Lord Jesus recognize Lord Jesus more adequate than present Vaishnavas recognize Prabhupada's life-work and that hurts. Not only how badly they treated Prabhupada's movement. If we consider Christians sitting together and appointing a new Jesus by vote, because Jesus is dead and gone - one might conclude Christians don't think so materialistic like present Gaudiya-Vaishnavas. It is embarrassing to find out that Vaishnavas treating Prabhupada like dead and gone and has to be replaced by some voting procedure.

 

A fully realized disciple is guru in his own right because he doesn't replace the previous link he carries the previous link in his heart. The voting ecclesiastical system cannot do this. The ecclesiastical system is dead even though it appears to be alive.

 

But the point of two people having a different genuine link is also valid.

[Guruvani]

 

It is embarrassing to find out that Vaishnavas treating Prabhupada like dead and gone and has to be replaced by some voting procedure.

 

That is a bit of an exaggeration.

ISKCON gurus aren't really appointed or voted in.

 

The GBC simply gives official approval that the person can act as guru within ISKCON.

They know that only Krishna can appoint his representative.

The GBC simply gives some basic sanction that the person can act as guru within ISKCON due to having maintained a respectable position in ISKCON within the Vaishnava community.

 

The GBC doesn't appoint gurus.

They simply give sanction that the person can act as guru within ISKCON.

 

Srila Prabhupada already empowered and authorized his disciples to become guru.

The GBC simply has the responsibility to make sure that ISKCON gurus meet some minimum standards expected from one who acts a guru.

 

The GBC has openly encouraged all the disciples of Srila Prabhupada to become qualified gurus.

If a member of ISKCON meets GBC approval, then he can act as guru within ISKCON.

They don't appoint gurus.

They only approve whether the person can function as guru within ISKCON.

 

After all, it should not be a free-for-all in ISKCON.

 

The GBC has the responsiblity to oversee that ISKCON does not become a haven for bogus gurus who don't meet the minimum requirements expected from a guru.

 

The allegation that they rubber stamp gurus is actually a false allegation.

They don't rubberstamp gurus.

They simply make a judgement as to whether or not the aspiring guru meets to scrutiny of the Vaishnava committee.

 

It's not really a bad system to have a rather large body of Vaishnavas making sure that a "guru" meets some basic standards of behaviour.

 

Any divinely inspired guru has the option to be guru outside ISKCON if the GBC does not approve of his qualifications.

[cbrahma]

 

When Srila Prabhupada instructs his disciples that they too must become guru it means guru in all aspects not just siksha.

 

If Srila Prabhupada would have meant only to become siksha guru then he would have specified siksha guru. But, he said become guru. That means in all aspects of siksha and diksha.

Since the Saraswata sampradaya is actually a siksha guru sampradaya the formal diksha is not the all-in-all and has been described by Srila Prabhupada numerous times as mostly just a formality.

 

As long as devotees have access to the books and the teachings of the Gaudiya acharyas then they have as much opportunity as anyone else no matter who their formal diksha guru is.

 

The formal diksha guru is not as important as the siksha guru.

With access to the proper siksha then devotees have no limits as to how far they can go.

Bilvamangal Thakur recieved diksha by a Vaidic brahmana yet he advanced to the topmost level of Vaishnavism.

 

The diksha guru is highly overrated in these days.

 

The real initiation is to recieve proper siksha about the ways of devotional servive.

This over-emphasis on diksha guru is not in accord with the Saraswata siddhanta.

Do you have any quotes from guru, sadhu or sastra to support this?

[Guruvani]

 

Do you have any quotes from guru, sadhu or sastra to support this?

 

Support what exactly?

I am not sure I understand what you need shastric evidence for.

 

Be more specific and I can probably supply an answer.

[cbrahma]

 

That is a bit of an exaggeration.

ISKCON gurus aren't really appointed or voted in.

 

The GBC simply gives official approval that the person can act as guru within ISKCON.

They know that only Krishna can appoint his representative.

The GBC simply gives some basic sanction that the person can act as guru within ISKCON due to having maintained a respectable position in ISKCON within the Vaishnava community.

 

The GBC doesn't appoint gurus.

They simply give sanction that the person can act as guru within ISKCON.

 

Srila Prabhupada already empowered and authorized his disciples to become guru.

The GBC simply has the responsibility to make sure that ISKCON gurus meet some minimum standards expected from one who acts a guru.

 

The GBC has openly encouraged all the disciples of Srila Prabhupada to become qualified gurus.

If a member of ISKCON meets GBC approval, then he can act as guru within ISKCON.

They don't appoint gurus.

They only approve whether the person can function as guru within ISKCON.

 

After all, it should not be a free-for-all in ISKCON.

 

The GBC has the responsiblity to oversee that ISKCON does not become a haven for bogus gurus who don't meet the minimum requirements expected from a guru.

 

The allegation that they rubber stamp gurus is actually a false allegation.

They don't rubberstamp gurus.

They simply make a judgement as to whether or not the aspiring guru meets to scrutiny of the Vaishnava committee.

 

It's not really a bad system to have a rather large body of Vaishnavas making sure that a "guru" meets some basic standards of behaviour.

 

Any divinely inspired guru has the option to be guru outside ISKCON if the GBC does not approve of his qualifications.

Giving permission, electing, regulating - these are subtle distinction for a body that claims oversight authority. Did Prabhupada have to answer to an oversight committee? In fact did any acarya? Any body that has authority over acarya other than his spiritual master and Krsna, is acarya.

So the gurus are simply ritviks for the GBC which is the final authority.

[sanatan]

 

That is a bit of an exaggeration.

ISKCON gurus aren't really appointed or voted in....

 

The GBC simply gives official approval that the person can act as guru within ISKCON.

It's not really a bad system to have a rather large body of Vaishnavas making sure that a "guru" meets some basic standards of behaviour.

 

Any divinely inspired guru has the option to be guru outside ISKCON if the GBC does not approve of his qualifications.

 

Yeh...it's really a very practical system and an honest effort to prevent recurrence of past problems...I've never understood why people get so bent out of shape about it.

[Guruvani]

 

Giving permission, electing, regulating - these are subtle distinction for a body that claims oversight authority. Did Prabhupada have to answer to an oversight committee? In fact did any acarya? Any body that has authority over acarya other than his spiritual master and Krsna, is acarya.

So the gurus are simply ritviks for the GBC which is the final authority.

 

ISKCON gurus voluntarily submit to the GBC authority.

Anytime they decide to be self-effulgent outside the GBC jurisdiction, then they can leave anytime they want and create their own following if they are in such demand to be guru.

 

However, it is true that ISKCON gurus who submit to the GBC authority are more-or-less ritviks even if they don't admit it.

 

The GBC is a democratic body created for democratic societies.

That is the way things are done in the western world, so Srila Prabhupada created a system that fits in well with democratic western societies.

 

With the corruption of Kali-yuga, the era of the spiritual autocrat has come to an end and there is now a need for committtee oversight in an institution such as ISKCON.

 

When there is no self-realized Maha-Bhagavat to run the show, then according to time and circumstance there must be adjustments.

 

The GBC is Srila Prabhupada's solution to the corrupution of the spiritual autocrats that have become an extinct species in this age of western civilization.

 

Srila Prabhupada was that last of the true spiritual autocrats.

He set up the GBC so that there wouldn't be imitatators and copycats in the future of ISKCON.

[Guruvani]

 

Did Prabhupada have to answer to an oversight committee? In fact did any acarya?

Have you ever heard of "don't do as I do, do as I say"?

 

Imitating Srila Prabhupada and following his instructions are two different things.

 

Imitating Srila Prabhupada is not what is wanted.

Following his instructions is what is important for the next generation.

[mahak]

your posts are greatly improved, Ksyamabuddhi das, very nice. Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa