Amoghalila's revelations

[Guest guest]

Actually when Amoga Prabhu told us He had seen Srila Prabhupada other devottees in Hare Krishna Land also said they had been there at the same time and saw Srila Prabhupada too?

 

We took it as kinda of a joke then most of the devotttees

but what they were saying was important for them to say.

 

Afterward no one saw Amogaleela any more as he went into Paksistain to preach.

Last year Amoga Lella finish Srila Prabhupadas Bhagavat Gita as it is in Arabic and has been distrubiting this Gita there .

SatyaNaranya Prabhu has donated a good amount of his personal money for these printings.

 

Srila Prabhupada once made the statement about preaching in Pakestain .

"I take the dust from the feet of these devottee preachers and place it on my head"

Jaya Goura Niati

YS

Pita das

 

[BDas]

I spoke to Amogalila about his “ letters” when he came to Hare Krishna Land in 1979 as well as a number of other times. Never did he represent those letters to me as anything other than his own thoughts-revelations-realizations or whatever you want to call them. Writing those “realizations” in the form of a dialogue with Prabhupada was his way of preaching and never has anyone come forward and claimed himself as a witness to an appearance by Prabhupada to Amogalila.

 

In the introduction to the original letters Amogalila writes,” I was praying very intensely to Srila Prabhupada and I felt I could hear him answer.”

 

Then he goes on to write on a number of controversial topics (at the time) in the form of a dialogue between himself and Prabhupada. The letter discusses what he calls the guru con game that he felt was going on in Iskcon at the time. This con game involved the new gurus pretending to be on the same level as Prabhupada and this was shown by the way they accepted or demanded worship from godbrothers and disciples alike. Practices Amogalila found objectionable were mentioned such as the new gurus big Vyasasanas and simultaneous guru puja with Prabhupada in the temple room. Another point made was that a guru can make mistakes but does not cheat so the new gurus should not present themselves as perfect.

 

In his letter Amogalila attributes Prabhupada as saying: “I never said the guru cannot make mistakes. I never said the guru is always right. That is the guru’s position. He is not perfect but he does not cheat. That is his qualification.”

 

Comparing the original 1978 letter with the new 2003 letter one will find contradictions between the rivik philosophy promoted now by Amogalila compared to the guru reform philosophy promoted by him previously. Here Amogalila in the name of Prabhupada allows for imperfection in the guru something the new ritvik philosophy does not accept.

 

Attributed to Prabhupada by Amogalila: “The guru should not try to present the picture that he is perfect. He should not spend his time maintaining a show. He should spend his time qualifying himself for the position. Otherwise it will become another Catholic Church.”

 

Although Amogalilas realizations were considered revolutionary at the time he was not the first to present the points made in his letter. Sridhar Maharaja made many of these points in his talks to the GBC as well as to Pradyumna dasa and others. Indeed Pradyumna dasa made the same points in his letter to Satsvarupa August 7th 1978 which was written before Amogalila had his "revelations".

 

The influence of Sridhara Maharaja talks on Amogalila is apparent in the sections of his letter about the absolute and relative conceptions of guru. Again attributed to Prabhupada Amogalila writes:

 

“But to consider Krishna as the absolute and the guru as relative, the absolute consideration is supreme. The disciple must judge the guru according to Krishna not that the godbrother must judge Krishna according to the guru. This is foolishness. The disciple accepts the guru as long as the guru is acting as representative of God. The disciple cannot judge the guru except in extreme circumstances.”

 

AND: “The gurus should not be reluctant to take help of the godbrothers nor should they feel their position is threatened by the godbrothers. The godbrothers must be convinced by the character of the gurus that they are factually non different from Krishna otherwise they will feel they are being required to go along in the con game. In conclusion everything depends on the gurus being bonafide gurus and the godbrothers all help each other come to and maintain this position. In that way everything is adjusted.”

 

Here again Amogalilas “revelations” of 1979 on the relative and absolute position of guru are different from the ritvik position of 2003. Thus I believe after a careful study of Amogalila’s letters one will find that his “revelations” written as discussions with Prabhupada were taken from transcripts of Sridhara Maharaja’s conversations and Pradyumna’s letter either consciously or subconsciously.

 

Brahma Das

 

[BDas]

Pradyumna's letter of 7 August, Sri Sri Guru Gauranga Vayatah 7 August, l978

 

Dear Satsvarupa Maharaj,

Please accept my most humble obeisance. Maharaj, I am writing you this letter with GREAT anxiety in my heart and after days and days and long nights of thought and careful consideration.

I have been staying in Vrndavana for some time and have not visited any other center recently except Delhi. Therefore, my information I have about what is happening at our other centers comes only from devotees visiting here, occasional letters, newsletters and our society's magazine and other publications. But the news I hear from these sources is very alarming and therefore I am writing you in some anxiety.

The matter concerns the Godbrother who were selected by Srila Prabhupada to accept disciples. At the time of Srila Prabhupada's disappearance, it was most clearly understood by all of us present that Srila Prabhupada MADE NO SUCCESSOR. Everyone admitted that fact and understood it clearly. Instead, the GBC was to jointly manage ALL affairs of ISKCON just had been the case previously. This was the same solution as desired by Om Visnupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, who also had not made any successor, although his wishes were NOT followed. In addition to the GBC management, Srila Prabhupada also selected 11 somewhat advanced disciples to grant initiation to newcomers. However it was never mentioned at any time by His Divine Grace that these 11 were to be known as ACARYAS. He simply instructed that they may now accept disciples. Otherwise, as it was understood and practiced at that time, there was NO SPECIAL POSITION given to these 11, either in the society as a whole or in relation to their Godbrothers. Management would depend on the joint GBC, and among Godbrothers and sisters all are on the same level, with the exception of some special regard and respect shown to older (senior) disciples by these Godbrothers and Godsisters who are junior.

 

Now at present, I understand that the 11 GURUS are all 1)adopting the title of ACARYA, 2)sitting on high Vyasasanas in front of Srila Prabhupada's Vyasasana and their own Godbrothers, 3)accepting worship and great respect normally reserved for a GURU from the rest of their Godbrothers and 4)that the previous GBC zones have all been given by mutual agreement or by invitation among the different acaryas.

 

First of all, the word ACARYA may be taken in 3 senses. Etymologically the word means "one who practices" or "one who practices what he preaches." This is the general meaning and may be used in relation to any pure devotee period. Secondly. The word means "one who grants initiation to a disciples." This is specifically indicating one who is a GURU. Anyone who grants initiation or is a guru may be called as "acaryadeva," etc.-by his disciples only! Whoever has accepted him as guru must give all respects to him in every way, but this does not apply to those who are not his disciples.

 

Thirdly, the word Acharya indicates "the spiritual head of an institution or pitha." This meaning is very specific. It does not mean just anyone. It means only one who has been specifically declared by the previous Acharya to be his successor above all others to the seat of the spiritual institution which he heads. He alone, among all of his Godbrothers, is given a raised set and special honor. No other Godbrother may receive such respect and he is the authority in all spiritual and material matters. This is the strict tradition in all of the Gaudiya Sampradayas. Now Srila Prabhupada, it is clear, did not appoint any such successor because no one of his disciples at present is advanced to the level of Krishna Consciousness necessary to assume such a position. Nor did Srila Prabhupada make 11 such ACARYAS. This was never mentioned by Him. They were only given permission to make disciples and the GBC was to jointly mange, materially and SPIRITUALLY. There was never any distinctions made by Srila Prabhupada between material management and spiritual management. Both are the concern of the GBC. The 11 gurus may be known as acaryas only in the second sense of the word-to their disciples as mantra-giving gurus, not in the third sense, as "the" spiritual successors of Srila Prabhupada. That was never meant to be by His Divine Grace.

Secondly, among Godbrothers it is not correct that any one of them sit above the others, especially in the presence of Gurudeva. If Gurudeva is not present, sometimes the sannyasi Godbrothers may be given an asana, but that asana does not mean a huge gigantic seat. It simply means a square piece of cloth or wool not more than 1/8" or 1/4" thick. This is asana. If any one Godbrother or many Godbrothers sit above the others it is not at all proper.

 

Sometimes in an assembly there may be raised platform or table on which the sannyasi speakers sit, but ALL SANNYASI Godbrothers must be invited to sit in an equal place on the speaker's platform. Sometimes a grhastha or brahmachari Godbrothers may also be invited to sit there if they deserve by their advancement. If there is an appointed acarya as mentioned before (third sense of the word) then he alone may sit higher than the other Godbrothers. Indeed in the different Gaudiya Mathas, even if one Godbrother is in the position of acarya, he usually, out of humility, takes only a thin cloth asana, not anything higher. It is the symptom of a Vaisnava to be extremely humble. He MUST always be extremely careful of putting himself in a position where he may become conceited. A guru may take a higher seat than his disciple--that is bonafide. But he cannot illegally take a higher seat than his Godbrothers. The relation between the guru and his Godbrothers and a guru and his disciples is entirely different. He should not sit higher than Godbrothers other than if he is a sannyasi, on a thin cloth as already mentioned if offered by his Godbrothers, or accept respect from them without offering respect in return. This is the general niti or etiquette. Besides this, there are, among Godbrothers, some further rules to be observed between those who are senior and those who are junior. Seniority is calculated according to the time of receiving 1st (Harinam) initiation or by his ability to perform bhajana.

 

If one Godbrother has disciples, the guru-puja and Vyasa-puja of that Godbrother should be conducted in a separate place or his private room--not in from of all his other Godbrothers. In an assembly of Vaisnavas, all sit on the same level together, Godbrothers along with their sisyas. No one is permitted to accept separate respect from disciples in any gathering of other Godbrothers. In Gaudiya Math, the Vyasa-puja of one Godbrother who has disciples is usually performed in the following manner. The guru takes his raised seat in his private place and invites all his Godbrothers to come to the function also. If his Godbrothers come to offer him some flowers, that Godbrother guru immediately first worships his other Godbrothers and offers them garland, candana, etc., and in some cases presents like cloth, umbrella, etc. They honor each other and are seated properly, then that guru's disciples may come forward and offer their worship. This is the system being observed. Incidentally, the words of Om Visnupada Srila Bhakktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura found in the English book Sri Caitanya's Teachings regarding the sitting above everyone else are from a speech delivered in response to the offerings of his disciples on the occasion of his Vyasa-puja. Those words are in relation tohis disciples --not to his Godbrothers, of which there weren't any. The niti in regard to Godbrothers is completely different from that to disciples.

 

One who is actually guru may make disciples anywhere he finds someone who is worthy. The connection between guru and disciple is arranged by Krsna directly--and it is not subject to legislation. All the world-wide temples of ISKCON are controlled by the GBC. The temples are managed by them jointly and they decide each year which member of the GBC will manage in which place. The GBC who is appointed to be responsible for a certain zone somewhere on this planet, if a guru, will naturally make many disciples in that place--but how can he be illicitly restricted from accepting a disciple from someplace else. That is material consideration. It has another to do with transcendental order, by which guru and disciple make their meeting. It is not geographical.

 

Secondly, no GBC who is guru may make that zone of which he is temporarily in charge by appointment of the joint GBC, into his own private place. If some other guru visits there and some newcomer wishes to accept him as spiritual preceptor, how can he be prohibited? Furthermore, all the temples of ISKCON are to be run by the GBC. No one GBC who is a guru may use the title acarya of such and such a zone. Srila Prabhupada never appointed one acarya of the whole ISKCON nor did he appoint several acaryas for parts of ISKCON. This will only lead to an ultimate division of the one ISKCON into many different fragments and destroy our united preaching work.

If someone sets up his personal seat as acarya in different temples, how can it be removed? Who else can sit in it? Then does that temple belong to that guru or does it belong to the GBC? That means the power or control is switched from joint GBC to the 11 gurus. Srila Prabhupada never intended this arrangement. Moreover, in the future, in accordance with His Divine Grace's instructions, other qualified Godbrothers may also become gurus. Where will they go? In Srila Prabhupada's temples no raised seat should be given to any but Srila Prabhupada--all Godbrothers should sit on the same level. One exception may be made in the case of one speaking from the sastras like Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-gita, Caitanya-caritamrta, etc. during the class. But that seat is very special. It is not for the reader--it is meant for the book. After paying obeisances to that seat, he who is to read, may, after taking permission from his senior Godbrothers and sannyasis, ascend to read from Bhagavatam. After finishing, he may again pay his obeisances.

 

Much of the knowledge written here is not found in sastra, but is called sistacara--that which has been taught by the conduct of the past guru parampara. It has not been specifically mentioned in any sastra, but still it is accepted as authoritative because of being seen to be the conduct of previous acaryas and their disciples.

Maharaja, after very much consideration and consultation and also confirmation by older members of our sampradaya, I am writing to you to see if you can rectify the present situation.

 

Many of us here, older Godbrothers, are very concerned in two ways.

 

1) that the 11 gurus not having been appointed to the position of Acharya and for which they are unqualified both by an insufficient knowledge of sastra and b. the incomplete realization of Krsna consciousness, are accepting worship on that level--and this may lead to anomalies in the society and personally, because of lack of complete detachment in atma jnana, to a buildup of pride and subsequent falldown.

2) 2) That the united society ISKCON, because of illegal division and control by a few members instead of the joint GBC will become broken up in separate societies and the unified preaching effort very much hindered.

 

Hoping for your immediate attention and kind reply,

Pradyumna das Adhikari

 

[stonehearted]

Thanks, Brahma prabhu. Srila Sridhar Maharaja's advice is clearly reflected in Pradyumna's and Amogha's letters. I remember now more clearly that time. I was quite isolated from much of what was going on. There were no WWW or email then, and most devotees (the "gurus" excepted) didn't even use long-distance much because of the expense. Most of the information we did get, especially in Hawaii, was filtered through ISKCON officers. I remember hearing stories of the "gurus'" triumph over the heretics Pradyumna and Yashodanandana Swami, driving them out of the Vrindavan gurukula to cheers by the gurukula boys.

 

Those were not the good old days.

[gHari]

The following seemed very encouraging for me and likely appropriate for this discussion. It is an excerpt from the sample on-line chapter of a book called The Worship of Sri Guru by Srila Goura Govinda Swami Maharaja:<blockquote>This is our prayer. This weeping or crying is required. Unless the child cries the mother will not run and the child cannot get the mother’s breast. Similarly, unless you cry how can you get the darsana of Sri Guru? When the child cries the mother runs to him. Similarly, although the guru may be in some other part of the world, when the disciple cries the guru runs there. Sri Guru is karuna-maya, he is causelessly merciful. Thus whether he is manifest or unmanifest he gives darsana to his disciple. He may also come in a dream to give his darsana. This guru-tattva is nitya-tattva — an eternal transcendental tattva. It is eternally prakata, manifest. It is not aprakata, unmanifest. There is no question of guru-tattva becoming unmanifest. This sri-guru-carana is inconceivable. It cannot be understood through one’s material knowledge, intelligence, or merit.

</blockquote>

gHari

[theist]

 

Thus whether he is manifest or unmanifest he gives darsana to his disciple. He may also come in a dream to give his darsana. This guru-tattva is nitya-tattva &#8212; an eternal transcendental tattva. It is eternally prakata, manifest. It is not aprakata, unmanifest. There is no question of guru-tattva becoming unmanifest. This sri-guru-carana is inconceivable. It cannot be understood through one&#8217;s material knowledge, intelligence, or merit.

 

 

I have often heard that the ritvik sytem has to continue indefinetly because Prabhupada never gave this order to become regular guru. But isn't the above one way the guru can come and give his order?

 

I am thinking that any of Srila Prabhupada's disciples that qualify themselves are still eligible to receive his instruction(order) to take on disciples becoming "regular guru".

 

 

[stonehearted]

I think you were responding to one of Pita das' posts. He usually signs them or puts his name in the subject line, but not always. This reads like one of his.

 

And yes, from what I understand, Pita daa was in a position to have been in Srila Prabhupada's room in the fall of '77.

 

I don't remember that Amogha's 1979 letters favored the zonal guru system; they mostly criticized the way those gurus were carrying on, especially the opulent way they lived and were treated by devotees. Brahma seems to still have those; mine have probably disappeared in one of our moves.

[stonehearted]

theist: I have often heard that the ritvik sytem has to continue indefinetly because Prabhupada never gave this order to become regular guru. But isn't the above one way the guru can come and give his order?

 

Of course, but we have the same problem of subjectivity to deal with. (I don't have a problem with individuals acting on subjective realizations, sicne krishna consciousness is ultimately quite subjective, but bureaucrats may obejct that it makes managing a large institution very difficult. That's the only reason I mentined it here.) Moreover, Srila Prabhupada gave the order generally to all his disciples many times over the years--that we should become qualified to deliver others to Krishna. Several devotees have documented this over the years.

[theist]

Babhru, It does seem like the whole problem comes down to trying to make the parampara fit into the institutonal structure.

 

I thought Pradyumnya's letter really nailed even that.

 

I don't see why some of the ritvik( I am coming to hate that word) conceptions couldn't co-exist with ISKCON basically as described in that letter.

 

Prabhuapda's disciples would accept disciples apart from the ISKCON premises. But they could still all gather at the established ISKCON temples keeping Prabhupada in the center, working cooperatively in preaching. Everyone accepting Prabhupada as siksa guru. Some would have been directly intiated by Prabhupada and some new comers who may not be individually inclined to any of Prabhupada's disciples for that relationship but who just want to worship Prabhupada.

 

Drop the ritvik offical ceremonies and their rejection of Prabhupada's disciples who feel directed to accept their own disciples. And drop the artifical pressure that someone has to pledge allegance and accept formally someone in a body that happens to be existing in the same time and space as you. Let caitya-guru quietly direct the guru-disciple relationship without interference.

 

We like to make the simple very comlicated.

[stonehearted]

There's a wonderful line in Bhaktivinoda's poem, "Saragrahi Vaishnava":

"Man's glory is in common sense."

 

We may have to discuss the details of your idea some day, but I agree with the spirit. I don't know about new folks being initiated directly by Srila Prabhupada, but I'd imagine some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples would initiate disciples on his behalf (there may be a subtle difference). I know of one sannyasi who does this within ISKCON. A woman who lived in Grass Valley wrote me about the possibility of her moving to San Diego. When she mentioned that she aspired to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada through this one devotee, I warned her that she may have trouble with SD's GBC representative, since that sounds a lot like an idea considered heretical. She never showed up in San Diego.

 

I have maintained for over 20 years that this is the business of the heart and that it cannot be successfully legislated. The best we can do is educate our communities regarding the need for taking shelter of a spiritual master (following the Lord's example) and of the qualities of a spiritual master, according to shastra.

 

This same GBC I mentioned earlier likes to analogize ISKCON with Baskin-Robbins. Whenever you walk into one of their stores, you know just what to expect with regard to cleanliness, service, and quality of the product. However, I think our product is a little different from a scoop of Chocolate Fudge on a sugar cone. Our business is to help each other revive our intrinsic relationship with Sri Sri Radha-Giridhari. The institutions we create should serve that end. Witness the seven purposes Srila Prabhupada gave for forming ISKCON.

[theist]

>>We may have to discuss the details of your idea some day, but I agree with the spirit. I don't know about new folks being initiated directly by Srila Prabhupada, but I'd imagine some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples would initiate disciples on his behalf (there may be a subtle difference).<<

 

No I would drop the ritvik idea of formaly intiating people as direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada. I would keep the knowledge that they like to emphasis of Prabhupada being accessable through his books.

 

I would like to see the whole "whose your guru prabhu"? subject dropped and left up to the Lord in the heart. Some would be satisfied reading the books chanting ,worshipping the Deity etc and bowing primarily to Prabhupada. Some may be drawn to approach one of Prabhupada's disciples. For that they should have their own scene, you know a house or even start their own matha. That shouldn't be a disqualifier for working with ISKCON.

 

But as long as they keep arguing over this guru issue and offending each others choices, the advancement will be kept to a minimum. Kinda like everyone learns to mind their own business on the subject.

 

Not my ideas. It just seems rather simple.

[BDas]

I sent my post to Amogha-lila dasa asking for comments "for the record". . Below is posted some of what he replied ". It should be noted by readers that I have been told that Amoghalila dasa considers himself a "channeler" and claims to communicate with the dear departed. In one instance he claimed to have channeled and talked to the spirit of the wife of a devotee friend of mine. My friend just varified this by email. So buyer beware,,,,,,

 

 

 

Dear Brahma Prabhu, Yes, I am happy to help clarify things as much as I can. This guru issue is

definitely one of the most important things for Srila Prabhupada's followers

to get straightened out. lf you have any further questions, too, I will be

happy to try and answer them.

 

 

I didn't know these conversations had been posted on the internet. Thanks

for letting me know! Are the 1979 ones there too? I haven't seen them for

many, many years, and it might be good for me to review them. Otherwise, you

seem to have a copy--if you have it online, could you e-mail it to me? If

you don't, I wouldn't want you to take the trouble to type it out, but I

would appreciate it if you could send a photocopy to me.

 

 

I never said that I had seen Srila Prabhupada (externally) in 1978, nor

had I ever before heard that anyone was saying I had! This is the way rumors

spread, so it's good you asked me about it.

 

 

 

Brahma Das: [i spoke to Amogalila about his " letters" when he came to Hare Krishna

Land in 1979 as well as a number of other times. Never did he represent those

letters to me as anything other than his own thoughts-revelations-

realizations or whatever you want to call them. Writing those

"realizations" in the form of a dialogue with Prabhupada was his way of preaching and

never has anyone come forward and claimed himself as a witness to an appearance

by Prabhupada to Amogalila.]

 

Amogha-lila: This is not quite correct, Brahma Prabhu. What happened was the following.

Either you forgot what I had told you in 1979, or I never had explained to

you in more detail exactly how I got these messages. It is not that I was

just "writing those realizations in the form of a dialogue with Prabhupada."

Rather, these were actual conversations that I had with Srila Prabhupada, or

at least so it appeared to me at the time I was having them. But Srila

Prabhupada was not externally present before me, nor did I hear his voice

externally (not on those occasions, at least).

 

Once I was having a dream of Srila Prabhupada, a real, sleeping dream. In

this bona fide dream, Srila Prabhupada started saying something about the

so-called zonal acarya system that had taken over ISKCON. He then told me

that he wanted me to write down what he was saying. At that point, I woke

up, and I felt like Srila Prabhupada was still speaking to me, that is, that

my same dream was continuing except that I was awake. And I wrote down

everything that Srila Prabhupada said, at the same time as it seemed to me

Srila Prabhupada was speaking it.

 

So, all those "dreams" or "conversations" came to me just as if Srila

Prabhupada was really speaking to me in my heart--not externally. I don't

know what the source of this idea is that I or anyone else actually saw Srila

Prabhupada externally. As far as I ever knew before reading your email

today, these experiences I had were referred to as "dreams" by some devotees,

or as "conversations with Srila Prabhupada" by others, while still others (as

you are thinking) described them as my own realizations. I am amazed that

anyone ever thought or said or believed that I had claimed I saw Srila

Prabhupada externally. No.

 

However, it is also just as wrong to say that these conversations were just

my realizations. Actually, I myself was surprised by some of the things that

were stated in them as they came to me, for they either were ideas I had not

thought of before, or they were presented in striking ways that I didn't feel

I could have come up with myself.

 

So, to repeat myself for clarity, I definitely did not create these

conversations as a preaching device for presenting my realizations as if they

were coming from Srila Prabhupada. (At the very least, if I did do

this--which I don't think I did--I was not myself aware that I was doing

this.) Rather, as these "conversations with Srila Prabhupada" were happening

and I was writing them down, I was experiencing them, in real time, just as

they occurred, as actual conversations with Srila Prabhupada (in my heart,

not externally).

 

I hope this is all clear to you.

May this meet you in the best of health and Krsna consciousness.

 

Your servant,

Amoghalila das