Two Kinds of Souls

[suchandra]

 

You write and prabably talk so much nonsene. Here you go, ring Melbourne Temple and tell them that 61-03-96995122

 

Actually at the end of Gauragopala's article he explains that the Temple does not perform the nonsense demigod worship you talk about or Kurma not the chef suggests

 

Also kurma (not the chef) has got it very wrong, in the cars they are installing photos of prabhupada, Pancha tattva and Lord Nrsingha FREE OF CHARGE to help them remember the Lord, I have such photos in my car and most devotees do to remind them of Krishna all the time and if there is an accident

 

Anyway Suchandra, your on my ignore list, you can write what ever you want, at least I will not be reading you miss directed mind.

Hari Bol

 

Nothing new, I'm on your and Aswathama's ignore lists since you both started to post here. As soon someone quotes Prabhupada's he's on the ignore list of so many people - a sure sign that I'm on the right path.

I have no problem you offending me, however, calling Kurma prabhu a liar I will not excuse.

 

Monstrous Hoax Continues

 

BY: KURMA DASA

 

 

Sep 08, AUSTRALIA (SUN) — Back in 1984, Ravindra Svarupa das was commissioned by the GBC to reform ISKCON's initiation system, a system which had misled sincere devotees all over the world. We now know this system as the Zonal Acarya system. Ravindra Svarupa's small group of people got together and the GBC said that they would need three signatures to empower Ravindra's new model acarya system. This is the un-authorized system that we have today, in 2008.

 

 

It is most amazing that the three signatures were that of none other than Satsvarupa, Tamal Krishna, and Hridayananda Maharaja, three of the eleven Zonal Acaryas who Ravindra Svarupa was supposedly challenging at the time. Three of the eleven original ritvik representatives who had perpetrated a monstrous hoax upon the whole society for nearly ten years. These three men signed the deal for ISKCON's current, and bogus guru system.

 

 

Coincidently Ravindra Svarupa das himself became an officially approved initiating guru at this time.

 

 

Even though the system for initiations introduced by Srila Prabhupada was part of Srila Prabhupada's system of management, rather than revert back to this process, Ravindra Svarupa invented a system which said the parampara should continue via a nod! Yes, that is correct, a kind of wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more!

 

 

"…because he said I shall select some of you, this is the selection that never was, I shall select some of you, that's what he did was he, he both selected and didn't select, very cleverly or obliquely, and at arms length. He appointed eleven ritvik gurus, and also said you cannot become guru unless you are qualified, now this, this to me, this was a nod, these are my best people. This was a nod in their direction"

(Ravindra Svarupa, San Diego Debate 1990)

 

 

Ravindra Svarupa's reform sought to convince the world that because ISKCON's GBC had made a huge error by un-authorisedly appointing 11 "pure devotee guru successors" to Srila Prabhupada, that now they had the answer, and the answer was that Srila Prabhupada had left a wide open field for any of His disciples to pose themselves within ISKCON as being on the same level as Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

Now in 2008, we have a swag of un-authorized "pure devotee successors" competing for disciples within ISKCON. This is most certainly a disturbing and cheating system.

 

 

Here in Australia devotees who are pujaris, while they do the offering, are allowed to put a small picture of the guru they have accepted upon the altar during the offering, however they must remove the picture after the offering. This is absurd! This bogus system must be removed and Srila Prabhupada must be rightfully worshipped as ISKCON's only Jagad Guru Spiritual Master.

 

 

It is essential that all offerings within ISKCON be made through Srila Prabhupada, so that members are exposed to the proper forms of spiritual items, including prasadam that is within the correct parameters of the disciplic succession. A lot of devotees are unsure about the offerings, whether they are eating bonafide prasadam or not.

 

 

For example let us take two of ISKCON's gurus here in Australia, Jayapataka Maharaja and Devamrita Maharaja. Bhagavad Gita 2.9.43 states that:

 

 

"One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be a bonafide and authorized spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master."

 

 

In the case of Jayapataka Maharaja, he went to Sridhar Maharaja (Srila Prabhupada's godbrother) and told Sridhara Maharaja a lie. When Jayapataka Maharaja went to ask advise from Sridhara about the process for initiations within ISKCON, Jayapataka misled Sridhara Maharaja by saying that Srila Prabhupada had appointed the original 11 Zonal representatives as successor acarya to Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

And in the case of Devamrita Swami, we have personal experience that Devamrita Maharaja was here in Australia as late as 1995, dressed in Franciscan robes and setting up a society that he would be in charge of in this part of the world.

 

 

Both of these voted-in acaryas have not been strictly obedient to Srila Prabhupada, as stated in Bhagavad Gita 2.9.43, and yet offerings are made daily in ISKCON temples via both of these voted-in men.

 

 

Many devotees have expressed concerns and believe that this is outside the parameter of disciplic succession, and maybe they are correct. This is an area not often discussed. Are the devotees within ISKCON temples eating bonafide foodstuffs?

 

 

Kurma das (not the chef)

[bhaktajan]

Bhagavad Gita 2.9.43 ?

 

Come on. Hire an English Major Editor.

Hire a team of part time student Sanskrit Scholars to spell check the cut-n-paste work, like I do.

[HARRY]

 

Bhagavad Gita 2.9.43

 

Nice quote bhaktajan. Actually I enjoy reading your posts, I'm a reader more than a writer. keep up your inspiring posts Hari Krishna

[bhaktajan]

 

I can just imagine it.

 

Imagine this:

500 Million people in Europe

Billion in India

Billion in China

250 Million in America

250 Million in South America

 

How does Krishna bestow his own personal time and attention to countless souls in Vaikuntha? --beyond mental conception? Well, beyond conception approximates the intimacies that are over our heads.

 

Just keep you own nose to the grind stone making trinkets --that is what Arjuna learnt. Work means performing your part.

 

ISKCON has done the un-do-able.

What other monastic entity seeks (succeeded) to spread Krishna's Fame in all the far-flung parts of the world?

 

Here is some small tip:

"Be present when a sadhu has a realization --you will be benefited beyond yourown capacity to bless yourself."

 

Oh yes, please relate to us

The heaven that Sri Chaitanya taught (you) about as much more appealing to you.

 

PS: Iskcon = Krishna Conscious Society, is there some competators out there? Please excuse my ignorance.

[suchandra]

 

Bhagavad Gita 2.9.43 ?

 

Come on. Hire an English Major Editor.

Hire a team part time student Sanskrit Scholars to spell check the cut-n-paste work, like I do.

 

 

Well spoken, but without people making typing mistakes of such kind both you and Harry would have never posted anything on this forum and valuable content would be badly missing. So see it positive.

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.9.43

The great sage Nārada also inquired in detail from his father, Brahmā, the great-grandfather of all the universe, after seeing him well satisfied.

PURPORT

 

The process of understanding spiritual or transcendental knowledge from the realized person is not exactly like asking an ordinary question from the schoolmaster. The schoolmasters in the modern days are paid agents for giving some information, but the spiritual master is not a paid agent. Nor can he impart instruction without being authorized. In the Bhagavad-gītā (4.34), the process of understanding transcendental knowledge is directed as follows:

 

tad viddhi praṇipātena

paripraśnena sevayā

upadekṣyanti te jñānaḿ

jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ

 

Arjuna was advised to receive transcendental knowledge from the realized person by surrender, questions and service. Receiving transcendental knowledge is not like exchanging dollars; such knowledge has to be received by service to the spiritual master. As Brahmājī received the knowledge directly from the Lord by satisfying Him fully, similarly one has to receive the transcendental knowledge from the spiritual master by satisfying him. The spiritual master's satisfaction is the means of assimilating transcendental knowledge. One cannot understand transcendental knowledge simply by becoming a grammarian. The Vedas declare (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.23):

 

yasya deve parā bhaktir

yathā deve tathā gurau

tasyaite kathitā hy arthāḥ

prakāśante mahātmanaḥ

 

[ŚU 6.23]

 

"Only unto one who has unflinching devotion to the Lord and to the spiritual master does transcendental knowledge become automatically revealed." Such relationship between the disciple and the spiritual master is eternal. One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be a bona fide and authorized spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master. Brahmājī, as a disciple of the Supreme Lord, received the real knowledge and imparted it to his dear disciple Nārada, and similarly Nārada, as spiritual master, handed over this knowledge to Vyāsa and so on. Therefore the so-called formal spiritual master and disciple are not facsimiles of Brahmā and Nārada or Nārada and Vyāsa. The relationship between Brahmā and Nārada is reality, while the so-called formality is the relation between the cheater and cheated. It is clearly mentioned herewith that Nārada is not only well behaved, meek and obedient, but also self-controlled. One who is not self-controlled, specifically in sex life, can become neither a disciple nor a spiritual master. One must have disciplinary training in controlling speaking, anger, the tongue, the mind, the belly and the genitals. One who has controlled the particular senses mentioned above is called a gosvāmī. Without becoming a gosvāmī one can become neither a disciple nor a spiritual master. The so-called spiritual master without sense control is certainly the cheater, and the disciple of such a so-called spiritual master is the cheated.

 

One should not think of Brahmājī as a dead great-grandfather, as we have experience on this planet. He is the oldest great-grandfather, and he is still living, and Nārada is also living. The age of the inhabitants of the Brahmaloka planet is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā. The inhabitants of this small planet earth can hardly calculate even the duration of one day of Brahmā.

[HARRY]

 

"Only unto one who has unflinching devotion to the Lord and to the spiritual master does transcendental knowledge become automatically revealed." Such relationship between the disciple and the spiritual master is eternal. One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be a bona fide and authorized spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master. Brahmājī, as a disciple of the Supreme Lord, received the real knowledge and imparted it to his dear disciple Nārada, and similarly Nārada, as spiritual master, handed over this knowledge to Vyāsa and so on. Therefore the so-called formal spiritual master and disciple are not facsimiles of Brahmā and Nārada or Nārada and Vyāsa. The relationship between Brahmā and Nārada is reality, while the so-called formality is the relation between the cheater and cheated. It is clearly mentioned herewith that Nārada is not only well behaved, meek and obedient, but also self-controlled. One who is not self-controlled, specifically in sex life, can become neither a disciple nor a spiritual master. One must have disciplinary training in controlling speaking, anger, the tongue, the mind, the belly and the genitals. One who has controlled the particular senses mentioned above is called a gosvāmī. Without becoming a gosvāmī one can become neither a disciple nor a spiritual master. The so-called spiritual master without sense control is certainly the cheater, and the disciple of such a so-called spiritual master is the cheated..

 

Thank you for that, I recently had the good fortune to hear a class off His Divine Grace Devamrita Maharaj, very inspiring and obviously a great devotee of Krishna. He also spoke on the above text and made things very clear for us to understand

[bija]

 

This quote is from a discussion with Professor Suthers, in which Saraswati Thakura said:

 

Quote:

 

Anthropomorphism i.e., representation of the Deity with human form and attributes, resembles the tenet of the Bauls of Bengal attributing divinity to the head of their sect, professing, as they do, though wrongly, to have perceptorially descended from Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Such tenets are the mental imaginations of atheists like the Bouddhas and of the Bauls as above, running contrary to the teachings of Shri Buddha-Vishnu and Shri Chaitanya-Vishnu respectively. The Mayavadi sect too has adopted similar principles. The really scientific philosophy of the Shrimad Bhagavatam and the preachings of Shri Chaitanya Deva have, of course, accepted the human body [1] as the Divine Manifestation; but that human body is not the creation of anthropomorphism, nor of the Baul doctrine, but it is the eternal, transcendental Sachidananda Body, the Cause of all causes, the highest Sportive Entity. When the human soul can acquire the wealth of all the sciences in perfection, then only is opened the door of the foremost mystery of true science. According to the Vaishnava Philosophy, the Sportive Manifestation of God is of two kinds. One kind is the creation of the material and spiritual universe and its systematization with inviolable rules. The school of intelligent empiricists can to a certain extent experience this type of God's Sportive Manifestation. The second kind is the Descent of God's Transcendental Sport in this created universe. It is the jivas who are the attendants in His Sports. They become attached to matter having deviated from their own essential nature as the result of their desire for enjoyment.

 

 

But when again the soul of a jiva, gains true wisdom of the transcendental region of God at the feet of a representative of His, i.e., a true devotee His, he begins to get back his pure essential nature gradually unfolded, and God's Transcendental Eternal Forms appear as the objects of his worship according to the comprehension of His service in the graded evolution of acceptance of His protection, self-surrender or theism. So in such a case there remains no room, even in the slightest degree, for any form of imaginative doctrines of the so-called civilised or uncivilised human minds, whether apotheosistic, anthropomorphic, henotheistic, theosophic, theriomorphic or therianthropic. The real, eternal and transcendental Divine Forms reveal themselves to the pure souls according to the nature of their serving mood in the evolutionary growth there. The only cause of these Divine Descents is the intense Mercy of God towards jivas. In Europe the theories of physical evolution of Darwin and Lamarck have been considered. But it is in the Vaishnava Philosophy alone that we see the fully scientific and real conception of each eternal and transcendental Divine Form for worship by the freed souls according to their evolutionary growth of serving mood.quoted by Ramana Dasi

 

Ramana Dasi could you please post the weblink to the above article. I would like to study this conversation more deeply ,especially point (1). Thank you.

[HARRY]

 

Ramana Dasi could you please post the weblink to the above article. I would like to study this conversation more deeply ,especially point (1). Thank you.

 

I'n not that mataji but I do have the following saved on favorites

<!-- the main section of the post goes here -->

Prof. Suthers: Your Holiness seems to have taken a biased view in saying that the good moral precepts of Christ come nowhere near “the morality of amorous love of the devotees of Krishna.”

 

Srila Sarasvati Thakura: Certainly not. We claim to be greater and better Christians than Westerners. Our judgement is not restricted only to secular morality.

 

The morality of the object of spiritual love transcends the supra-natural morality, which again surpasses secular morality.

 

If Christian morality is perfected thereby, then it may be said to receive proper nourishment. To a pure soul that remains situated on that transcendentally moral plane of love, the secular moralities appear reduced to the smallness of pygmies.

 

But there is not found any feeling of apathy, nor attachment towards these secular moralities. On the other hand, all moralities wait like maids behind the spiritual moralities to become glorified, being permitted to serve the Lord of transcendental Love. The character of a culturist of spiritual love is never devoid of morality. One hostile to morality or fallen from it can never be a spiritual man.

 

In the blaze of the teaching of Sri Caitanya Deva’s ideal, it has been propagated that dissoluteness is not devotion. Its palpable evidence is found when we reflect on the character of Sri Caitanya Deva or the followers at His Heel.

 

The people of the realm of the secular morality concerned with the worldly enjoyments and their renunciation, will not be able to grasp in their tiniest brains, how fostered by the climax of morality, and how adored in the highest degree by all the morality of the universe are the Amorous Sports of Krishna, so much glorified by the noble clan of such high personages of strictly continent character as the devotees of Sri Caitanya Deva like Sri Rupa, Sri Sanatana, Sri Raghunatha Dasa, Sri Raghunatha Bhatta, Sri Gopala Bhatta, etc.

 

Prof. Suthers: How can your Holiness’s statements be reconciled with the descriptions that are found about Krishna’s amorous sports?

 

Srila Sarasvati Thakura: Krishna’s Amorous Sports are not temporal like the lustful sports of dramatic heroes and heroines like Romeo-Juliet or even ideal spouses. Lust as prevalent in this world is only a mental passion, but the lust of the transcendental region has its own form.

 

Here lust is always goaded by the enemy (one of the six passions); whereas in the transcendental region of Krishna, the loveliness of the spiritual Body of Krishna ever drives the Lust for Krishna, which takes form as sublimated love or the desire to gratify the immaculate senses of Krishna.

 

The conductor of the worldly lust is the enemy (passion), and the conductor of love is Krishna. It is the Amorous Sports of Krishna that have appropriateness; but there is no such consistency in the lust born of the body and mind of jiva (creature).

 

Krishna’s Amorous Sports are not to be called indecency, because it is Krishna Who is the only one unrivalled Enjoyer, Embodiment of the Real Truth and the Spiritual Despot.

 

Prof. Suthers: I cannot fully appreciate this; please let me understand it a little more clearly.

 

Srila Sarasvati Thakura: Suppose there are some angles, two right angles, four right angles, etc. There is the contracted character of a corner in the acute, obtuse or right angle. But in the two right angles called the straight angle, even though called an angle, there is no contractedness or want of straightness, as in the case with angles in general. Such is the case with the Autocrat Krishna.

 

There is no want or contractedness or despicable character or indecency in the perfect Entity Krishna, like the circle of 360 degrees, though the communities of enjoyers or renouncers, championing morality or immorality, may, due to the meagreness of their intellect, wrongly regard the lustfulness of Krishna, the result of His despotism which is only His, as vulgar like that of common men and other creatures.

 

Professor Suthers: The Gita has admitted the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul. What does your Vaisnava philosophy say about this?

 

Srila Sarasvati Thakura: The Gita is not separate from the Vaisnava philosophy. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam has been fully revealed the true import of the doctrine, viz., that of changes of births for the soul. Christianity has disregarded the principle of change of births on the alleged ground that if it is accepted, men will not restrain their sinful propensities.

 

Rather, they will indulge in vices at their sweet will in their present life, on the expectation that they will be able to make good their sins, guilts, and wrong doing of this life in the course of the following ones.

 

But the Srimad-Bhagavatam has crowned the principle with its true significance, by means of a much fuller scientific and philosophical meaning, by giving the instruction about the urgent necessity for ardently taking up and culturing devotion to God even while the human life, not easily available in the after-lives, is at our disposal, without spending a single moment thereof in other useless pursuits.

 

If we do not accept the doctrine of transmigration of the soul and adopt the instruction of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, we shall not be able to get over the all-devouring disaster of regarding matter as the sole object of our concern, which has kept its mouth wide open.

 

Though most of the Christians do not admit transmigration, yet many intellectual giants of the Christian world have shown several instances of their acceptance of the doctrine.

 

Even in the Bible we find “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man who was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying,-’Master, who had committed the sin? This man or his parents, that he was born blind?’” [st. John 9, 1-2] It is seen that even some Christian Fathers clearly gave instructions about transmigration.

 

Origen said: “Is it not more in conformity with reason that every soul for certain mysterious reasons is introduced into a body and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?” [ Origen contra celscea, I xxxii] “I am sure that I, such as you see me here, have lived a thousand times, and I have to come again another thousand times” says Goethe.

What the Greeks called ‘Metempsychosis’ or what is ‘Transmigration’ in the English language, was at one time, more or less, admitted in ancient Greece, Egypt, and many places in the west.

 

Some say that the apostles of Christ the Great, failing to reconcile their previous and subsequent conclusions with the doctrine of transmigration, were compelled to discard it. Yet no rationalist among the Christians has been able to refute the doctrine on the basis of sound reasoning; on the other hand, most of them have had to admit it even. Heredotus, Pindar, Plato, etc. have all accepted it.

 

Huxley, the illustrious scientist of the nineteenth century, has written in his religious work, Evolution and Ethics:

 

“None but very hasty thinkers will reject it on the ground of inherent absurdity, like the doctrine of evolution itself, viz., that of transmigration which has its root in the world of reality, and it may claim such support as the great argument of ‘analogy’ is capable of supplying.”

 

Professor Lutoloski has said, “I cannot give up my conviction of a previous existence on earth before my birth, and I have the certainty to be born again after my death, until I have assimilated all human experiences, having been many times male and female, wealthy and poor, free and enslaved, generally having experienced all conditions of human existence.”

 

But such transmigration theories of the empiricists of the west or those of the western philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries like Franciscus Mercurius Helmont, Leichtenburg, Lessing, Herder, Schopenhauer, etc. or of Jalaluddin Rumi of the Sufi sect of Persia, or of the Theosophists, or of the Indian Nyaya philosophy under the aphorism: ”

 

From the desire for the mother’s breast milk due to the habit of the previous life,” or of the Buddhistic doctrine of annihilation in matter-these are assailable by various hostile reasonings and having their origin in inductive concepts are incomplete and imperfect.

 

But the conclusion in this respect of the Srimad-Bhagavatam is fully flawless and significant.

 

The Vaisnava philosophy having shown the royal road to the acquirement of the highest blessedness even in the present life, there is no need of waiting for future lives. As such, the Vaisnava philosophy is thoroughly aloof from all wrangling full of useless riddles over the doctrine of transmigration.

>>> Ref. VedaBase =>

 

I also like what what Sarva is saying too, its very deep but if we study it, it makes sense as there is no movement of time in Vaikuntha. Just a thought to think about

[HARRY]

Saraswati Thakura and Prof. Albert E. Suthers that tool place in January 1929 in Krishnanagar.)Professor Suthers: Did the worshippers of Krishna ever encourage the obscenity of the engravings we see on many Hindu Temples?

Saraswati Thakur: Those who are actual worshippers of Krishna do not promote obscenity. All decency and morality emanate from the lotus feet of Krishna. The highest sense of morality of the soul, in its pure unadulterated condition, is manifested as love towards the Supreme Soul.The culmination of this pure love is found only in the devotees of Krishna. The highest morality taught by the noble Jesus, does not even come near the principles of amorous love enshrined in the devotees of Krishna.

 

Professor Suthers: Your Holiness seems to have taken a biased view in saying that the good moral precepts of Christ come nowhere near the morality of amorous love of the devotees of Krishna.

Saraswati Thakur: Certainly not. In fact, we claim to be greater, and better Christians than Westerners. Our judgement is not restricted to secular morality. The morality of spiritual love transcends supranatural morality, which again surpasses secular morality. If Christian morality can be nourished with amorous love for Divinity, then it may be perfected.

 

To a pure soul, one who has transcended mundane morality, and entered the plane of divine love, secular morality is dwarfed in comparison. But he feels no apathy or attachment to mundane morality. On the other hand, morality waits like a maidservant to assist spiritual morality in the service of the Lord of Transcendental Love.

 

At the same time we should understand that the character of one culturing spiritual love is never devoid of morality. One hostile to morality of fallen from it can never be a spiritual man. In the blazing core of the teaching of Shri Chaitanya Deva’s ideal—debauchery is not devotion.

 

The evidence is abundant when reflecting on the character of Shri Chaitanya Deva and his followers. Secular moralists concerned with worldly enjoyment, or its renunciation, are unable to grasp in their tiny brains that the pinnacle of morality is realized in the Amorous Sports of Krishna. And it has been adored and glorified by the highest realized souls who are the intimate followers of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, namely Shri Rupa Goswami and his associates and followers.

Professor Suthers: How can your statements be reconciled with the descriptions that are found about Krishna’s amorous sports?

 

Saraswati Thakur: Krishna’s Amorous Sports are not temporal, lustful sports of dramatic heroes and heroines like Romeo and Juliette, or even that of ideal spouses. The lust of this world is a mental passion. But lust as it exists in the transcendental region of Krishna, has a different form.

 

Here, lust is always goaded by the enemy, one of the six passions; whereas in the transcendental region of Krishna, the loveliness of the spiritual body of Krishna ever drives a lust for Krishna, which takes form as sublimated love, or the desire to gratify the immaculate senses of Krishna.

 

The conductor of worldly lust is the enemy (passion), and the conductor of love is Krishna. It is the Amorous Sports of Krishna that are appropriate; but there is no such consistency in the lust born of the body and mind of the Jiva (creature). Krishna’s Amorous Sports should not be considered indecent, because it is Krishna who is the only unrivaled enjoyer, the Embodiment of the Real Truth and the Spiritual Despot.

 

Professor Suthers: What other conception can be better than the Fatherhood of Godhead? It is only Jesus who has taught us to call God as “Father”. No other feeling can there be better in the religious world than the love that arises in the mind when God is called “O God, Thous art the Great Father.”

Saraswati Thakur: Yes, it is true that the Fatherhood of God is a special feature of Christianity. Why in Christianity alone, the Parenthood of God is found in some Indian religious conceptions too. But if we consider with a scrutinizing scientific analysis, we can find that this Parenthood has been attributed to God from the inductive point of view, i.e. out of gratitude to God whose kindly presence we admit on the analogy of the worldly father or from some desire to get some worldly benefit from Him.

 

There is only to be traced the attitude of gratefulness of a being or that of an indifferent spirit of his, when the different religions of India too call Him as the “Creator”, “Sustainer of the Universe”, “Protector of the World”, “Controller of the Universe”, “Great Father”’ etc., from the angle of vision of the attributes of Nature on the one hand, or Brahman, etc., from the angle contrary thereto, on the other.

 

And so such conceptions are only indirect or secondary instead of being the principal or chief ones. But in the indirect conception there is no attachment or love. This point has to be understood carefully.

 

Though there is no connection between the attributes of Nature and the Names of God like “Narayan”, “Vasudeva”, “Hrishikesh”, etc., as prevalent in the Vaishnava Philosophy, yet they are indicative of His Majesty. There is a spirit of regard and reverence behind these.

 

But where there is no such restriction of reverence, rather where, in spite of some reference to His Supreme Majesty, there is a want of the rise of such reverential spirit, the innate loving spirit remains steady and does not become slackened. The conception of Sonship of God has its basis on the feeling of such sweetness of the highest Love.

 

Vasudeva and Devaki were told by Krishna: “I reveal My Majesty before you that you may know Me to be God; or else you would have known Me as a human being.” God told Arjuna too: “Just see My Majestic Form.”

 

Vasudeva told Krishna: “You are not our son, but the Over-Lord of Divine Spirit and nature.” Arjuna in the Gita asked pardon of Krishna for having called Him as his Friend, etc. In both these examples God’s Majesty has been indicated. But such was not the conception of Nanda and the ladies of Braja.

 

They regarded even that God as their Son and Lover, as the case might be, whose Lotus Feet are adored by all the scriptures, by deities like Brahma, Shiva, etc., men, gandharvas, etc., and worshiped with low salutations. Nanda, Yashoda, etc. did not look upon Krishna as the Supreme Father or the Highest God.

 

If a person becomes the overlord or the wealthiest millionaire of the world, his parents do not stand like other people before him with folded palms in awe and reverence, offering prayers and expressing gratitude, nor do his friends hesitate to be jocular as ever in his presence, nor does his wife deal with him with special veneration like the other people of the outside world and stay at a respectable distance.

 

When the cowherd boys, His friends, reported to mother Yashoda, that He had put some earth into His Mouth, she rebuked him. She could not do so if she had the idea that Krishna, the Supreme Father, was the object of her reprimand. She was able to regard the Highest Entity as her own object of so close and affectionate love that due to the depth of that love she could chide or even beat Him and think of the Sole Maintainer of all maintainers as worth maintenance and nourishment at her hands.

 

This is not intelligible to the mere theorists of gratefulness who are foreigners to affectionate love towards God. When chidden by His mother, Krishna, afraid as it were, of her, opened His Mouth to prove His innocence; and she saw the limitless universe within It. Yet her feeling towards Him as her son was not removed, such was the depth of her affectionate love for God.

 

Professor Suthers: So far it has been the effusion of emotionality only. Please convince me rationally how the conception of God’s Sonship is superior to His Fatherhood.

 

Saraswati Thakur: It appears as if you were either inattentive for a while, or unable to closely follow me. I was all this time giving you scientific reasonings. In the Vaishnava Philosophy there is no place for material emotion of any kind. The ephemeral emotionality relating to matter is no devotion: it is only the property of the mind.

 

Our conception is that of the property of the soul. I was so long adducing reasons and examples to convince you how the natural love of the soul for God reached its climax in the conception of His sonship as the Son of Shri Nanda. You will not be able to easily get that idea with the help of reasoning only. You should not think of material emotionality when the actual example is given.

 

With innumerable reasonings I shall show you that the conception of the Fatherhood of God emanates only from a sense of gratefulness. Fatherhood has been attributed to God more or less in accordance with such conceptions as God has created us, He has been sustaining us with the various gifts of nature, and for these He is Father and we should be paying Him reverential homage on that account.

Professor Suthers: Our Jesus Christ has called God as Father not exactly on these grounds; Jesus introduced himself as God’s son for something else.

 

Saraswati Thakur: Yes, about Jesus’ sonhood you say: “The Son is the complete revelation of the Father whose nature he shares, and of whose powers he is the sole heir, the only begotten son, and he is in absolute dependence on the Father. “My Father and I are one. My Father worketh hitherto and I work.” The son can do nothing except what he seeth the Father do. As son, he knows the Father; as God, he can speak for God. As wholly dependent on the Father, and wholly obedient to His will, the message is true.”

 

Now the ideal regard based on the sense of gratitude of the son to the Supreme Father is not absent because of the conception of Jesus’ sonhood of God on account of his being His heir in respect of His nature, power and attributes. I think that you conceive of God as the Supreme Father in imitation of Christ, His son, and read hymns to Him with various praises indicative of gratefulness.

 

In our Gaudiya Philosophy there is no sense of gratitude or any other cause at the root of the love or attachment towards God. Where there is some cause, the Gaudiya Philosophy does not call such love causeless or motiveless.

 

The attribution of Parenthood to God must have some cause behind it. Him or her whom we call father or mother and who are adorable, we cannot worship when, averse to God, we stay in the mother’s womb; even after being born we cannot do so in our infancy or childhood. Rather we being their indulged pets treat them as our servants.

 

There is no devotional piety during those periods when instead of worshipping them, we demand and accept service from them. It is no mean outrage on such adorable parents to convert them to servants. This is the effect of our desires. Thus we see that human or other beings do not acquire fitness for serving parents from the very beginning.

 

Though with the growth of intelligence we show some efforts to serve them, generally this has its origin in a retributive sense of gratitude or dutifulness in return for the benefit received from them.

 

Often we show such efforts in order to inherit the property earned by them with labor and left behind by them. Under the circumstances it is the sense of gratitude or obedience to established order originating from motives, that is at the root of the conception of parenthood; there is absolute want in it of causeless or motiveless love.

 

The offering of service to the master in consideration that if the money paid by him as wages is not discharged, there will be sin committed—amounts to trafficking.

 

The service of God or attribution of Parenthood to Him or calling Him as the Sustainer, Protector, Savior, Affectionate, Gracious, etc., arising out of the sense of awe, hope, dutifulness or gratitude,—all these originate from some motive or cause and as such, are far from His service and worship arising from the natural love of the soul towards Him.

 

Professor Suthers: I have just listened to many subtle truths in the science and philosophy of religion. Please let me have a conception of these intricate matters.

 

Saraswati Thakur: The essential principle of Vaishnavism is that, how-so-ever great a scholar and intellectual giant a man may be, he will not be able to appreciate even the easiest points of the Vaishnava philosophy, until and unless he has entirely surrendered himself to an Acharya whose character is the embodiment of the Vaishnava Philosophy.

 

You must have heard about the Indian scripture named “Gita”, which has been translated into different languages in the civilized world. There is a shloka in it which says that the Vaishnava Philosophy is understandable only with unconditional surrender, honest inquiry, and serving temper.

 

It is only to such an approach the professors of Vaishnava Philosophy with these three as the preceptorial fee, that they may give instructions about the correct philosophical truths. These professors are never to be tempted by any type of worldly fees.

 

Professor Suthers: The Gita has admitted the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul. What does your Vaishnava Philosophy say about this?

[HARRY]

Saraswati Thakur: The “Gita” is not separate from the Vaishnava Philosophy. The Srimad Bhagavatam fully reveals the true import of this doctrine, viz. that of changes of births for the soul.

 

Christianity has disregarded the principle of change of births on the alleged ground that if it is accepted, men will not restrain their sinful propensities, rather they will indulge in vices at their sweet will in their present life, on the expectation that they will be able to make good their sins, guilts, and wrong doing of this life in the course of the following ones.

 

But the Srimad Bhagavatam has crowned the principle with its true significance by means of a much fuller scientific and philosophical meaning, by instructing the urgent necessity for ardently taking up and culturing devotion to God even while the human form of life, not easily available in the after-lives, is at our disposal, without spending a single moment thereof in other useless pursuits.

 

If we do not accept the doctrine of transmigration of the soul and adopt the instruction of the Srimad Bhagavatam, we shall not be able to get over the all-devouring disaster of regarding matter as the sole object of our concern, which has kept its mouth wide open.

 

Though most of the Christians do not admit transmigration, yet many of the intellectual giants of the Christian world have shown several instances of their acceptance of the doctrine. Even in the Bible in St, John 9.1.2, we find, “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man who was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, “Master, who has committed the sin? This man or his parents, that he was born blind from his birth?”

 

It is seen that even some Christian Fathers clearly gave instructions about transmigration. Origen said: “Is it not more in conformity with reason that every soul for certain mysterious reasons is introduced into a body and introduced according to its deserts and former actions.?” And Goethe says, “I am sure that I, such as you see me here, have lived a thousand times and I have to come again another thousand times.”

 

What the Greeks called metempsychosis and is called transmigration in the English language was at one time, more or less, admitted in ancient Greece, Egypt, and many places in the west. Some say that the apostles of Christ the Great, failing to reconcile their previous and subsequent conclusions with the doctrine of transmigration, were compelled to discard it.

 

Yet no rationalist among the Christians has been able to refute the doctrine on the basis of sound reasoning; on the other hand, most of them have had to admit it even.

 

Heredotus, Pindar, Plato etc. have all accepted it. Huxley, the illustrious scientist of the nineteenth century, has written in his religious work, Evolution and Ethics: “None but very hasty thinkers will reject it on the ground of inherent absurdity, like the doctrine of evolution itself, viz., that of transmigration which has its root in the world of reality and it may claim such support as the great argument of “Analogy” is capable of supplying.”

 

Professor Lutoloski has said, “I cannot give up my conviction of a previous existence before my birth, and I have the certainty to be born again after my death, until I have assimilated all human experiences, having been many times male and female, wealthy and poor, free and enslaved, generally having experienced all conditions of human existence.”

 

But such transmigration theories of the empiricists of the west or those of the western philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries like Franciscus Mercurius Helmont, Leichtenbourg, Lessing, Herder, Schopenhauer, etc. or of Jalaluddin Rumi of the Sufi sect of Persia, or of the Theosophists, or of the Indian Nyaya Philosophy under the aphorism:

 

“From the desire for the mother’s breast milk due to the habit of the previous life,” or of the Buddhistic doctrine of annihilation in matter—these are assailable by various hostile reasonings and, having their origin in inductive concepts are incomplete and imperfect.

 

But the conclusion in this respect of the Srimad Bhagavatam is fully flawless and significant. The Vaishnava Philosophy having shown the royal road to the acquirement of the highest blessedness even in the present life, there is no need for waiting for future lives. As such, the Vaishnava Philosophy is thoroughly aloof from all wrangling full of useless riddles over the doctrine of transmigration.

Professor Suthers: I am able to feel the super-excellence of the Vaishnava Philosophy among the Indian Philosophies. But to my mind the acceptance of idolatry in the Vaishnava Philosophy like the other Indian philosophies seems to be a stigma in it.

Saraswati Thakur: Idolatry has never been accepted in the Vaishnava philosophy: on the other hand, it has been more or less accepted in the other philosophies, at least mentally, if not in so many words. In the very word “Bhagavan” (God) have accumulated all the excellences that there are in the human and suprahuman conceptions.

 

The existence of Majesty, viz. the furthermost limits of both vastness and minuteness, is a characteristic of God. The second characteristic is His Omnipotence. If one understands the word “omnipotence” to mean what is conceivable by the human intellect or what is possible for man, one is wrong. God is Omnipotent, because what is impossible according to the human intellect is within the ambit of the inscrutable power of God.

 

Due to His inscrutable power, He is simultaneously both with and without Form. It will be the denial of His inscrutable power, if you say that He cannot have His form, or He has not His Eternal Form, only having a Form for the time being, none in the end. By dint of his inscrutable power, He is with His Eternal Sportive Form before a liberated soul conversant with the service of His potencies.

 

Contemplation only on formlessness is rather unnatural and devoid of differential excellence. God is always All-Good, All-Glory, and All-Beauty. His Beauty is visible only to the transcendental eye. God is the Transcendental Reality, Pure, Full and Sentient in essence and Sentient Essence in His Form.

 

It is true that God has no material body, but He has His sat (eternal) Chit (All-Sentient) Ananda (All-Blissful) Transcendental Body visible only to the eye that is clear (devoid of matter). To the material eye, God is Formless, but to the transcendental eye He is with His Body of Chit or All-Sentience.

 

The Murtis (forms of body) prepared and worshiped by those who have not seen this Chit-Body of God with their true and eternal eye cleansed with the collyrium of the love of God are of course idols and all the worshippers of those idols must be idolaters. The worship of murtis of God prepared from imagination may be called idolatry.

 

Suppose I, who have not seen Jacob make a murti of his out of imagination, this murti is not the replica of his form. Besides, if Jacob is a creature of this world, whose body, mind, and soul are different from one another, his photograph being only the replica of his material body is different from his eternal and intrinsically true form.

 

But God with his sat-chit-ananda Body is not such a thing; His body and Soul are not different from each other; nor are His Name and Soul, His Figure and Soul, His Attribute and Figure. His Attribute and Soul, His Sport and Soul, His Sport and Figure, His Sport and Attribute, different.

 

If a pure entity or unmixed soul sees that eternal Form of God and receives It in his own pure receptacle and then places this Transcendental Form in the world from his heart as illumine the intrinsically and essentially true Form of God, that never deserves to be called an idol.

 

Just as even by coming down to this phenomenal world, God remains untouched by the influence of maya by dint of His inscrutable power, so does His true Form too, as revealed to the unmixed entity of His devotee, remain above it, even though brought down here, For this reason the Vaishnava Philosophy terms Sri Murti as His “Archavatara” (Worshippable Descent).

 

The conception of God without Form in contradistinction to His Essential Form is as calamitous as is the falsely imagined Form of God for one competent to see His True Form. Such insignificant processes occur before attaining to the Real Entity and do only grope in the darkness. The Sri Vigraha of the Vaishnava Philosophy cannot but be the direct indication of the Essential Form of God.

 

By way of an imperfect comparison it may be said to be the proxy of the essential Form of God which is beyond the cognizance of the material eye, just as there are, in art and science, crude representations of invisible matter.

 

How can those, that have not in their heart love of God which is the true function of the soul and is the science of the true knowledge of realities, think of the Sri Murtis (Sri Vigraha) as other than idols? The deliberations of the Vaishnava Philosophy are very fine.

 

These have shown by true scientific analysis that they are all, more or less, idolaters who declare themselves as partisans either of the doctrine of no Form of God or that of His material Form. Just as those who attribute Godship to matter and worship it like the fire worshippers among the uncivilized people or the worshippers of the planets, such as Jupiter, Saturn, etc. of Greece, are crude idolaters,

 

in a similar manner the others, who declare everything beyond matter as formless, and become exponents of the doctrine of non-distinction, are equal or even greater idolaters. The Henotheists or worshippers of one of the Vedic deities or the worshippers of the five deities (called panchopasakas) worship many icons, considering them as God.

 

According to them, God has no sat-chit-ananda-vigraha, and as without some form there can be no subject for contemplation, to make it easy to meditate on Him, some form has got to be imagined.

 

They are all idolaters. So also is the conduct of some of the Yogis and others to be regarded as idolatry, who, for purifying their heart or improving the function of the mind, imagine a God and perform practices of contemplation, etc., of some imaginary form of His. Those who consider jivas as God are the most blasphemous idolaters, because to imagine any worldly thing or form as God is idolatry.

 

There is a world of difference between the worship of Sri Murtis as ordained by the Vaishnava Philosophy and the doctrines of God with Form and without Form of other thinkers. Mahaprabhu Shri Chaitanya Deva has refuted all sorts of idolatry and instructed the service of the Archavatars of the All-merciful God of Inconceivable Potency.

Professor Suthers: I am truly astonished to hear from your Holiness these mysteries of the Vaishnava Philosophy and their scientific analysis with the most reasonable arguments. I never knew that Vaishnava Philosophy provides such excellent solutions, corroboration and elucidation to the problems we in the west perceive in Indian Philosophy.

Saraswati Thakur: The Vaishnava Philosophy speaks about true wisdom. True wisdom is not subject to an attack from any rival camp like the changeable and fluctuating knowledge of the empiricists; this is the special feature of Vaishnava Philosophy.

 

The philosophies that have been, are being will be built on the foundation of empiricism will be enlarged and altered and ultimately abandoned along with the increase and decrease of experience. Before the civilization five-thousand years old, the three-thousand year old civilization is imperfect; and the seven-thousand year old one is more enlarged; and in ten thousand years it will be still further changed and enlarged.

 

The Vaishnava Philosophy built, as it is, upon the strong unalterable foundation, of true and perfect wisdom is not fit for change and reformation through scuffling and disputes like a football being kicked to and fro.

The Srimad Bhagavatam which is the essence of all the Vedas and Vedantas speaks of the real Truth.

 

This scripture describes something which is beyond the regions of human civilization and all the rules and regulations of society, and speaks about the attainment of another spiritual body by the soul. Some empiricists of the inductive school do not recognize this change of body for the soul.

 

There are others who try to prove such a change by various mundane reasonings. Some of them cite the example of the tendency of the newborn monkey to grasp the branch of a tree, or that of a newborn rhinoceros to fly away from the mother, considering which they say, every one must have to admit the previous life of the creatures and cannot disbelieve the transmigration of the souls.

 

As a baby rhinoceros is born, it runs away from the mother lest the mother should lick its skin. Her tongue is so sharp that the bark of a tree licked by her is removed. The baby comes to the mother only when its hide gets hardened in the course of a few days.

 

Seeing these, the empiricists realize that this habit of the baby rhinoceros is indicative of its previous birth.

 

The Vedic scriptures, however, have given a scrutinizing analysis of the mutual difference of the soul, the mind and the body as the atomic sentience, pseudo-sentience, and matter.

 

The soul (atma) is the owner of the body and the mind. These two are the properties of the soul which again is the property of the Suprasoul (paramatma).

 

The Suprasoul is the causal sentience and the soul (jivatma) is the effectual sentience.

 

The soul has two bodies or distinguishing properties; one is the subtle one or mind and the other the crude one i.e., material body.

 

The outer body is the aggregate of atoms of the five elements of matter;

 

The inner or mental body is the conductor of the outer body.

 

The soul in its conditioned or bound state, is connected with foreign properties through the mind.

 

The soul is now asleep and inattentive to the service of the Supra Soul.

 

Seeing the owner asleep, the subordinate workers, mind and body, are busy about their mean self-interest, instead of looking after the interest of their owner.

 

All the universe, animate and inanimate, is included within the SupraSoul; in reality every creation is animate.

 

Our scriptures have proved this since time immemorial.

 

Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose has proved, even by the inductive process, before the empiric school, that there exists animation [spirit, consciousness] even within the grass shrubs, creepers, etc.

.

Professor Suthers: I shall some time soon see Dr. Bose. Is the conception of our difference from the Supra-Soul born of our ignorance?

 

Saraswati Thakur: We shall consider how in our conditioned state we have been enveloped by the two distinguishing properties, and how again we shall be liberated therefrom.

 

These two are non-souls. Even in this conditioned state we are animate, not sentient.

 

The non-souls, viz. the body and the mind, are connected with the outer and mental worlds.

 

We have yet to attain to what is beyond the body and the mind.

 

By “jiva” is meant “soul”, “mind” and “body”. According to Sri Ramanujacharya the Super-Soul is indeed on Sentient Body.

 

He has two bodies; in His mental body there is the aggregate of jivas; the outer Body is the material world.

 

The different parts of the mental Body of the Supra-Soul are the jivatmas or atomic sentience.

 

When the jivatama or atomic sentience feels himself as a protege of the Full Sentience or Supra-Soul and becomes steady in His eternal service, his nescience or ignorance becomes extinct.

 

It is this contact through service between the Supra-Sentience and the atomic sentience as the Asylum and the dependent respectively, that amounts to the absence of the material conception of differentiation.

 

In the all-world philosophical conception, the Sonship to Nanda of the Plenary Gad as found in the Vaishnava Philosophy is entirely a novelty.

 

There is no such highest conception about Godship, so nice in every respect, in any other philosophy.

 

The other philosophies can conceive of only the Fatherhood of Godhead. But the excellence of the Sonhood of Godhead in which has been manifest the climax of love of God, has not found place in the brain of any other philosopher.

 

 

 

This coversation took place in 1929 at Ohio State University. The university was founded in 1870 as a land-grant university and is currently the largest university in the United States.

 

[HARRY]

 

Nothing new, I'm on your and Aswathama's ignore lists since you both started to post here. As soon someone quotes Prabhupada's he's on the ignore list of so many people - a sure sign that I'm on the right path.

I have no problem you offending me, however, calling Kurma prabhu a liar I will not excuse.

 

Monstrous Hoax Continues

 

BY: KURMA DASA

 

Sep 08, AUSTRALIA (SUN) — Back in 1984, Ravindra Svarupa das was commissioned by the GBC to reform ISKCON's initiation system, a system which had misled sincere devotees all over the world. We now know this system as the Zonal Acarya system. Ravindra Svarupa's small group of people got together and the GBC said that they would need three signatures to empower Ravindra's new model acarya system. This is the un-authorized system that we have today, in 2008.

 

It is most amazing that the three signatures were that of none other than Satsvarupa, Tamal Krishna, and Hridayananda Maharaja, three of the eleven Zonal Acaryas who Ravindra Svarupa was supposedly challenging at the time. Three of the eleven original ritvik representatives who had perpetrated a monstrous hoax upon the whole society for nearly ten years. These three men signed the deal for ISKCON's current, and bogus guru system.

 

Coincidently Ravindra Svarupa das himself became an officially approved initiating guru at this time.

 

Even though the system for initiations introduced by Srila Prabhupada was part of Srila Prabhupada's system of management, rather than revert back to this process, Ravindra Svarupa invented a system which said the parampara should continue via a nod! Yes, that is correct, a kind of wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more!

 

"…because he said I shall select some of you, this is the selection that never was, I shall select some of you, that's what he did was he, he both selected and didn't select, very cleverly or obliquely, and at arms length. He appointed eleven ritvik gurus, and also said you cannot become guru unless you are qualified, now this, this to me, this was a nod, these are my best people. This was a nod in their direction"

(Ravindra Svarupa, San Diego Debate 1990)

 

Ravindra Svarupa's reform sought to convince the world that because ISKCON's GBC had made a huge error by un-authorisedly appointing 11 "pure devotee guru successors" to Srila Prabhupada, that now they had the answer, and the answer was that Srila Prabhupada had left a wide open field for any of His disciples to pose themselves within ISKCON as being on the same level as Srila Prabhupada.

 

Now in 2008, we have a swag of un-authorized "pure devotee successors" competing for disciples within ISKCON. This is most certainly a disturbing and cheating system.

 

Here in Australia devotees who are pujaris, while they do the offering, are allowed to put a small picture of the guru they have accepted upon the altar during the offering, however they must remove the picture after the offering. This is absurd! This bogus system must be removed and Srila Prabhupada must be rightfully worshipped as ISKCON's only Jagad Guru Spiritual Master.

 

It is essential that all offerings within ISKCON be made through Srila Prabhupada, so that members are exposed to the proper forms of spiritual items, including prasadam that is within the correct parameters of the disciplic succession. A lot of devotees are unsure about the offerings, whether they are eating bonafide prasadam or not.

 

For example let us take two of ISKCON's gurus here in Australia, Jayapataka Maharaja and Devamrita Maharaja. Bhagavad Gita 2.9.43 states that:

 

"One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master. And one cannot be a bonafide and authorized spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to his spiritual master."

 

In the case of Jayapataka Maharaja, he went to Sridhar Maharaja (Srila Prabhupada's godbrother) and told Sridhara Maharaja a lie. When Jayapataka Maharaja went to ask advise from Sridhara about the process for initiations within ISKCON, Jayapataka misled Sridhara Maharaja by saying that Srila Prabhupada had appointed the original 11 Zonal representatives as successor acarya to Srila Prabhupada.

 

And in the case of Devamrita Swami, we have personal experience that Devamrita Maharaja was here in Australia as late as 1995, dressed in Franciscan robes and setting up a society that he would be in charge of in this part of the world.

 

Both of these voted-in acaryas have not been strictly obedient to Srila Prabhupada, as stated in Bhagavad Gita 2.9.43, and yet offerings are made daily in ISKCON temples via both of these voted-in men.

 

Many devotees have expressed concerns and believe that this is outside the parameter of disciplic succession, and maybe they are correct. This is an area not often discussed. Are the devotees within ISKCON temples eating bonafide foodstuffs?

 

Kurma das (not the chef)

 

 

 

 

 

 

"KURMA DASA'S ARTICLE – “some of the historical facts he presents are incorrect" Rocana dasa

 

Ravindra Svarupa's Role in the Guru Reform Movement

BY: ROCANA DASA

Sep 12, CANADA (SUN) — This is in response to Kurma dasa’s recent article, "Monstrous Hoax Continues". We appreciative of the fact that Kurma dasa has been contributing articles to the Sun for some time now, although we find that in this particular article, some of the historical facts he presents are incorrect, particularly with respect to Ravindra Svarupa dasa.

 

Of course, Ravindra Svarupa has made a great effort over the years to paint his own unique myth, and it's understandable that Kurma dasa has accepted some of that as the truth. Ravindra Svarupa has particularly emphasized his role in the Guru Reform movement, painting himself as a key personality, if not the actual architect responsible for bringing the Zonal Acarya system down.

Those of us who were closely involved with the Guru Reform movement, myself included, know that Ravindra Svarupa did attend the meetings and he was vocal.

 

Because of his academic background he was very adept at writing articles, as were Bahudak dasa and other personalities attending the various meetings that took place at the Towaco NJ temple over a period of about a year. These devotees wrote numerous articles and put pressure on the Zonal Acaryas to consider the errors of their ways.

 

Of course, we didn’t have a concrete idea at that time of what should actually replace the Zonal Acarya system.

We only knew that it was wrong, as evidenced by the results it was getting, and we certainly knew that the many nefarious activities of some of the Zonal Acaryas were wrong.

There were two main groups involved in the Guru Reform effort: those who wanted to genuinely reform ISKCON for the sake of Srila Prabhupada, and those who were there to secure their own opportunity to become gurus.

 

With some of the sannyasis, like Bir Krishna and Ravindra Svarupa, we weren’t sure until well into the process just what their personal motivations were. But time made it clear that Ravindra Svarupa was ambitious to get his own piece of the pie.

The real history of the Guru Reform movement is that there was a big culmination of events which took place at the biggest meeting, held at New Vrindaban in the summer of 1985.

 

I was there in the room when a communiqué, which I recall was a notarized document faxed from Atlanta, wherein a devotee made a formal statement to his Temple President explaining how Bhavananda had seduced him. He happened to be a very handsome black devotee, who explained in detail how in Vrindavan, Bhavananda had engaged him in homosexual activities, practically forcing him to do so.

The arrival of this report was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Zonal Acaryas, primarily Tamal Krishna Goswami, Ramesvara and some of the others, knew the gig was up at that point, and they had to ‘work something out’. From that point on, their mood was, 'OK, we’re going to change, but how are we going to change?'

They then met with Ravindra Svarupa, who was cast in the role of a Benedict Arnold. The Zonal Acaryas figured out that he was the weak link, whereas the others, like Bahudak and myself, were too radical. We wanted changes that they just weren’t willing to accept.

 

For example, we wanted them to adopt the understanding that their disciples, who had been forced to accept as a Spiritual Master whatever Zonal Acarya happened to be nearby, should be told that they weren’t really genuine disciples because that’s not how the process works.

Yes, it works in the case of a Sampradaya Acarya like Srila Prabhupada, who founded and established the movement, and who was the only Spiritual Master to choose from at the time. But we wanted them to essentially inform all their disciples that the whole process had been bogus and they shouldn’t consider themselves disciples of that guru any longer. Instead, they should be free to choose whoever they wanted as a diksa guru.

Of course, the Zonal Acaryas were completely unwilling to take such an action.

 

People like Harikesa and Jayapataka and Bhagavan they threatened to leave the movement if this policy was instituted, and they were very adamant about that. So they went to Ravindra Svarupa and convinced him that he would be cause of dissolving Srila Prabhupada's movement if he don’t go along with an arrangement that suited them.

So Ravindra Svarupa didn’t come up with the successful Reform plan… the Zonal Acaryas themselves came up with the plan. They articulated exactly how it was going to be, and Ravindra Svarupa was their mouthpiece. First and foremost, they would keep their disciples. There would be no announcement for them to change.

They’d also keep their zones, except now the uninitiated devotees would be informed that they didn’t have to get initiated by the Zonal Acarya.

 

Instead, there would other persons authorized to give diksa, like Ravindra Svarupa and Bir Krishna -- the ones who “cooperated” with them, who were not radicals, they would be allowed to initiate first and foremost. And basically, that was the program from there on in.

Of course, it was easy to understand how such a program would work. The Zonal Acaryas had a bunch of fanatical disciples, because that’s how the Zonal Acarya’s did it… they trained and cultivated the devotees to be fanatical disciples. And these disciples had been put in charge of temples and programs.

 

The Zonals knew that they were going to put pressure on the newcomers to get initiated by their gurus, which was the case then just as it is today. So the newcomer gurus got to have some disciples, and as long as they stayed in their own little zones, like Ravindra Svarupa and Bir Krishna did, they could collect disciples without infringing the promotional activities of the big Zonal Gurus.

For the most part, the Zonal Acaryas who survived, who managed not to fall down, such as Jayapataka, are essentially still Zonal Acaryas to this day. Today we have some new Zonal Acaryas who have evolved up the ranks, but they accomplished this not on their own spiritual potency, but as a result of being lieutenants of the other Zonal Acaryas.

They inherited disciples, or there was pressure put on disciples to get re-initiated by them. For example, Radhanath was Kirtanananda's close associate, so he and Bhakti Tirtha Swami got to split the take-over of Kirtanananda's disciples. Sivarama and Indradyumna were close associates of Bhagavan and Jayatirtha, etc. You can go right down the list and identify all the Princes of the Zonal Acarya Kings.

It's a fact, as Kurma dasa writes, that this system of voted-in gurus is nonsense. Of course, Kurma prabhu is trying to make out that Srila Prabhupada’s original program, which he thinks is synonymous with the current Rtvik system, should be put in place now. That’s where he and I have a different understanding. I don’t think you can introduce a system that has no verification in sastra. The diksa guru phenomenon has existed since time immemorial.

Although very few of the millions and millions of diksa gurus throughout time were Sampradaya Acaryas, those who were sufficiently potent, who did proper service and who did not become contaminated as a result of falsely or immaturely taking disciples, they were the ones who closely followed and aligned themselves with the Sampradaya Acaryas in our Disciplic Succession. I’ve explained this in far more detail in my "Sampradaya Acarya" paper.

So while Kurma dasa and I differ on the essential guru issue, when it comes to his conclusions about the bogus systems that ISKCON has put in place, and particular the Zonal Acarya system, he and I are certainly on the same page.

 

However, he is apparently carrying around some misconceptions of the historical realities of the Guru Reform movement of the mid-1980's, and Ravindra Svarupa's involvement in it. Hopefully this will help him to adjust his understanding of this important element of ISKCON history.

 

Kurma das (not the chef) should investigate the true facts before he puts pen to paper

[HARRY]

“Apart from being offensive to many great souls like His Divine Grace Jayapataka Maharaja and Devamrita Maharaja, contains so much impersonalism so prevalent amongst so many kanishta devotees.

Actually, your comments about the Zonal Acarya system and Srila Prabhupada's servants' attempts to continue the parampara system show a distinct lack of spiritual vision and compassion”. Yuga Avatar das

Mayavadi...Impersonal...Demoniac...Kanistha Devotional Service

BY: YUGA AVATAR DAS

Sep 12, USA (SUN) — Please accept my respects, Kurma dasa, not the chef. Reading your recent article, "Monstrous Hoax Continues", I was saddened by the realisation that your letter, apart from being offensive to many great souls like His Divine Grace Jayapataka Maharaja and Devamrita Maharaja, contains so much impersonalism so prevalent amongst so many kanishta devotees.

 

Actually your comments about the Zonal Acarya system and Srila Prabhupada's servants' attempts to continue the parampara system show a distinct lack of spiritual vision and compassion.

Since obviously you are a new devotee or a bewildered soul, please accept this possible alternative perspective. Many years ago I joined and was accepted in the ISKCON family. Being trained by Vrisha dasa - Jayadharma das - Pratapanna das - Citta Hari das, to name a few, all sincere devotees of Srila Prabhupada in Australia at that time.

 

Bhavananda prabhu was my diksa guru, Tamala Krishna Goswami my siksa guru, along with Vrisha das, my Temple Commander, and Temple President, Jaya Dharma prabhu. Hence I was baptised every day by intense classes and association of Srila Prabhupada's servants.

Having been submerged in the fire of a complete Sankirtan movement, I knew no other preaching reality. By definition and practical reality, I was preaching surrounded by siksa gurus.

 

Srila Prabhupada's disciples were my siksa gurus at every moment. Coming from an extended family, we were used to uncles aunts, cousins and family giving personal instruction. However, at that time I was at the bottom of my class of young devotees and was apt to disappoint my authorities at, it seemed, every turn.

In my naive perception, so-called rugged individualism, I mistrusted everyone. However seeing younger devotees progressing many times better than myself apart, from finding a corner of the farm to cry or to attack Vrisha das, I decided to try and be sincere.

 

The supersoul, my siska gurus, my diksa guru and assembled Vaisnavas tolerated me to some degree, hence Krishna reciprocated with me to live and attempt to please Srila Prabhupada through them.

Having been burdened with this loving service, I now see that I am indeed extremely blessed. Presently devotees think they can serve without the mercy off their more senior devotees, as I once thought, without their Temple Commander, Temple President, GBC, and older devotees.

 

Age has eventually forced me to see that devotional service is far more pleasing to Krishna when performed with humility, sincerity and compassion. It is our illusioned, impersonal perception of life, it is our problems, as Kalasamvara prabhu recently told me.

 

You are the problem Yuga... but… but… Srila Prabhupada, please send me more Vaisnavas to bless us with their siksa. After all, there needs to be thousands of gurus to give shelter to the billions of humans.

WE WERE BLESSED, WORKING TOGETHER, SUFFERING TOGETHER, FIGHTING TOGETHER, AND EVENTUALLY RESPECTING TOGETHER

After all, that is what a family is. We are supposed to want brothers and sisters to guide us during the good and the bad times. Did not Srila Prabhupada build a house for the world to live in?

 

yes Kurma, learn to speak and write like a devotee!!

[Svarupa]

Great read -

 

“We have also come down from Vaikuntha some millions and millions of years ago

 

 

Srila Prabhupada – “We have also come down from Vaikuntha some millions and millions of years ago." - Lecture on Bhagavad-gita on August 6, 1973

 

 

 

In the Spiritual Sky exists Krsna’s Supreme Planet Goloka Vrndavana surrounded by the Vaikuntha Planets established in the ‘eternal present’ where there is no past or future that has the side effect of permeance and eternal youth where nothing perishes and reality is permanent

 

 

 

Also existing sometimes in the Spiritual Sky, taking up 25% of ‘eternity’ is the mahat tattva or material creation where there is no ‘present’, only past and future that has the side effect of decay and impermanent where ‘reality’ is only temporary.

 

The following book gives details and the final proof, as clearly explained by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, that all jiva/souls or marginal living entities are originally (Which means eternally when referring to the Kingdom of God), are actually serving Krishna perpetually, as their full devotional bodily form, right at this very moment.

 

However, presently, due to the free will and choice all marginal living entities have, some have chosen to forget their real eternal vigraha (form) svarupa (devotional body) that is always present in Krsnaloka, just like one forgets their present biological body while dreaming.

 

This means all living entities have an imperishable bodily form called ‘svarupa’ which is the full potential and expression of their character eternal present in Goloka even if they are ‘dreaming or thinking’ they are in the material creation (mahat tattva).

 

Many have laughed when told their existence in the material world is just the dream state they have created.

 

However, if they care to read Prabhupada’s books, they will find it is ALL their dream ONLY EXPERIENCED by 'entering' unlimited dream identities or vessels within the dreams of Maha Vishnu –

 

Srila Prabhupada – “This material creation is the spirit soul's dream. Actually all existence in the material world is a dream of Mahā-Viṣṇu, as the Brahma-saḿhitā describes –

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta - “This material world is created by the dreaming of Mahā-Viṣṇu. The real, factual platform is the spiritual world, but when the spirit soul wants to imitate the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is put into this dreamland of material creation”.

4.29.83.http://vedabase.net/sb/4/29/83/en

 

Srila Prabhupada - “Everything happening within time, which consists of past, present and future, is merely a dream. This is the secret in understanding in all the Vedic literature.” SB. 4.29.2b.

 

Srila Prabhupada - “Of course, everyone has a particular relationship with the Lord, and that relationship is evoked by the perfection of devotional service. But in the present status of our life, we have not only forgotten the Supreme Lord, but we have forgotten our eternal relationship with the Lord”. Bhagavad-Gita, Introduction

 

Srila Prabhupada - “Every living being. has a particular relationship with the Lord eternally, That is called svarupa. By the process of devotional service, one can revive that svarupa, and that stage is called svarupa-siddhi—perfection of one’s constitutional position. Bhagavad-Gita, Introduction. .”

 

Srila Prabhupada - “We have an intimate relationship with the Lord, and because we are all qualitatively one . . . the whole purpose of Bhagavad-gita is to revive our sanatana occupation, or sanatana dharma, which is the eternal occupation of the living entity “. Bhagavad-gita, Introduction. .

 

Srila Prabhupada - “The Lord descends to reclaim all of these fallen, conditioned souls to call them back to the sanatana eternal sky so that the sanatana living entities may regain their eternal sanatana positions of eternal association with the Lord.” Bhagavad-gita, Introduction.

Srila Prabhupada – “In his original state, there is no doubt of enjoyment; therefore, that is his real state.” Bhagavad-gita, 13.21, purport.

 

Srila Prabhupada – “Originally everyone (all marginal living entities) is nitya-siddha (eternally liberated)” Srimad-Bhagavatam Class 7.9.4– Mayapur, February 18, 1977

 

Srila Prabhupada - “Originally everyone is nitya-siddha. nitya-siddha krsna-bhakti ’sadhya’ kabhu naya sravanadi-suddha-citte karaye udaya. Every living entity originally nitya-siddha, ". Srimad-Bhagavatam Class 7.9.4– Mayapur, February 18, 1977

 

Srila Prabhupada - "So to go to Krishna means you will have to acquire your original, spiritual body. The spiritual body is already there, but we are now covered by this material body". by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda Germany, June 22, 1974

 

Srila Prabhupada - "As living spiritual souls we are all originally Krsna conscious entities, but due to our association with matter from time immemorial, our consciousness has now become polluted by the material atmosphere." (Original Hare Krsna album)

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Takura - “However, because of contact with matter, the imprisoned soul loses the memory of his original spiritual form in Vaikuntha. . . material rasas are perverted reflections of the soul's original spiritual rasas.” Prema-pradipa, p. 83

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada - “It is the jivas who are the attendants in His Sports. They become attached to matter, having deviated from their own essential nature as the result of their desire for enjoyment. But when again the soul . . . gains true wisdom of the transcendental region of God . . . he begins to get back his pure essential nature” Sri Caitanya's Teachings, p. 323.

 

Srila Prabhupada – “We have also come down from Vaikuntha some millions and millions of years ago." - Lecture on Bhagavad-gita on August 6, 1973

 

Srila Prabhupada – “This material creation is the spirit soul's dream. Actually all existence in the material world is a dream of Mahā-Viṣṇu, as the Brahma-saḿhitā describes –

 

· “This material world is created by the dreaming of Mahā-Viṣṇu. The real, factual platform is the spiritual world, but when the spirit soul wants to imitate the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is put into this dreamland of material creation”. 4.29.83.http://vedabase.net/sb/4/29/83/en

 

Srila Prabhupada – “Existence in the impersonal Brahman is also within the category of non-Krsna consciousness. Those who are in the Brahman effulgence, they are also in the fallen condition. So there is no question of falling down from a fallen condition”. - Letter, June 13, 1970.

 

Srila Prabhupada said to me in the Sydney Temple room in early 1973, when he came in while I was cleaning. Srila Prabhupada had started ecstatically laughing when he saw I had put paintings of the Pancha tattva and Krsna and Balarama on the step of his Vyasa chair – “That’s not where the Lord goes”.

 

Then after a short silence he added,

 

“Soon you will understand, try to understand also YOUR real bodily form is ALWAYS in Vaikuntha” then continued laughing at where I put these paintings while I cleaned the walls. At the time I realized the importance at what he said. It was many, many years later when the ‘origin of the jiva’ debate AGAIN started (Actually that debate started in 1972 and ended with Prabhupada’s words to me, at least as far as I was concerned on this subject, in 1973).

During the 1990s, I wondered what everyone was arguing about because Prabhupada has made it very clear that ALL marginal living entities have come down from Vaikuntha to the material world, not as their Svarupa body, but rather as a jiva baddha dream protrusion. The misleading book ‘Not even the leaves fall from Vaikuntha’ plus the teachings of both Srila Narayana Maharaj and Srila Sridar Maharaj, who I have heard both speak on this subject, are, with all due respect, NOT the teachings that Srila Prabhupada gave us on this subject.