Amoghalila prabhu unjustly discredited

[no_back_stabber]

Prabhu is it true what Bhrahma dasa says about you?:

 

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,,,,,,>>>

 

 

Why didn't Brahma just ask me instead of saying "I have been told that Amoghalila dasa considers himself a 'channeler' "? No, I do not consider myself a "channeler." There was, however, a similar indirect

accusation made some years ago when I responded according to sastra to an article in BTG Suhotra Swami had written about channeling. My letter was printed (though with a significant error in it), and then Suhotra wrote a nasty and non-scriptural reply. However, BTG refused

to print my response to that reply. It is clear, though, that I am very different from the channelers referred to in that article, and that what I am doing is quite different than what they do.

 

As I recall, those channelers, at least some of them, would go into some sort of unconscious state, and according to Suhotra Maharaja they were promoting mayavada philosophy, were not following regulative principles, (they would smoke, drink, gamble, etc., and of course eat meat, and especially, Suhotra stressed, they would have various illicit sexual desires or relations), etc. They were

channeling what Suhotra called "hungry ghosts," who themselves seemed to be anxious for some kind of gross or subtle sense gratification.

 

On the other hand, I am perfectly conscious while I am having these "conversations," and fervent prayer, purity and following sastra are the basis of my efforts to hear correctly the messages being given by Supersoul (or Srila Prabhupada, or other exalted devotional personalities--not at all "hungry ghosts"!). It is common knowledge

that I attend mangal arti and chant at least sixteen rounds every day, distribute Srila Prabhupada's books (at least 2000 per month is my quota), and have followed all the regulative priniciples very strictly ever since I became a devotee in 1971. The only exception to this is that (like almost all ISKCON devotees), I have sometimes not been able to follow the very high standard of sexual morality Srila Prabhupada inculcated, where "no illicit sex" means not only no sex outside of marriage, but also no sex, even in

marriage, except once a month for procreation. As I understand it, very few Western devotees, including sannyasis, have been able to strictly follow this high standard of absolutely no kind of sexual activity other than for procreation within marriage. However, since

I became a devotee I have followed very strictly the principle of no sex outside of marriage, not even kissing or sexually touching anyone except my wife, and I am well known for (and have even been criticized for) not even talking to women except as required for Krsna's service. I am saying all this just to be honest, and to establish clearly that I am very different from the channelers Suhotra Swami was describing in that BTG article (the only thing about channeling I have ever read).

 

I do recall--on only one occasion--having a conversation with the departed wife of a devotee, namely Tribhuvanesvari devi dasi, who was an extremely exalted Vaisnavi and, in my opinion, went back to Godhead when she left her body in a very Krsna conscious atmosphere. Many sincere and serious devotees, including Srila Prabhupada himself, have had such conversations with departed Vaisnavas, but this is very different than the impure "channeling" that goes on so

frequently in new age groups like Suhotra Maharaja was describing.

 

I hope this clarifies everything. May this meet you in the best of health and Krsna consciousness.

 

Your servant,

Amoghalila das

 

 

 

 

[no_back_stabber]

Copied from Vaisnava Council with Vishoka prabhu's permission:

 

Is the dream reasonable to believe?

 

It's arrogant to immediately disbelieve something like

Amoghalila's dream. That is what everyone in history

has done to other people who has had something

extraordinary happen to them, like some revelation

from God, and they are immediately discredited and

denounced, and often worse things happen, like being

stoned or burned to death. It isn't Vaisnava to

immediately say another Vaisnava is not credible when

there isn't a reasonable amount of evidence to make

such a claim. So, here are several points to

consider.

 

1. Is it reasonable for Krishna and His pure devotees

to come to disciples, in their dreams, and make

communication?

 

Ans- Yes, we find this very much in our Vaisnava

history. It happens all the time. Srila Prabhupada

said that such dreams are not to be taken as being

ordinary. When the spiritual master comes to our

dreams, that is our guru directly instructing us. Many

of us has had Srila Prabhupada come to us in our

dreams, and we get some instruction from the dream.

 

2. Is it reasonable for Srila Prabhupada to want to

communicate with some disciple via a dream?

 

Ans- Yes, because Srila Prabhupada knows that his

movement is in such a mess, it's very reasonable to

believe that he would do this, to try to set things

straight. Yes, very reasonable.

 

3. Is it reasonable to believe that Srila Prabhupada

would come to Amoghalila, via dreams, to say how he

[srila Prabhupada] is very concerned about the guru

issue? And give some instruction?

 

Ans- Of course it's very reasonable that Srila

Prabhupada would do this. Srila Prabhupada would not

come to any devotees on the far left or far right for

dream instruction. In other words, Srila Prabhupada

wouldn't come to the radical gurus, nor the radical

ritviks for such communication, because they would be

harder to believe. It is very reasonable that Srila

Prabhupada would come to a more neutral devotee, for

such instructions. To say that Srila Prabhupada would

not come to Amogalila's dream, is just envy that he

didn't come to ours. Or, it's like saying that

Amogalila is lying to us, which is a very wrong

insinuation to make.

 

4. Is it reasonable that Srila Prabhupada would say

what was said in the dream?

 

Ans- Yes, Srila Prabhupada would say that the gurus

are so-called, and that the temple presidents should

recommend, like it was done in the past. That any guru

who canvases for disciples isn't a guru. That they are

monitor gurus. That he [srila Prabhupada] is not dead,

and he can initiate, and who can stop him? He is there

in his murti form, his murti form is non-different

than him. We can talk to Srila Prabhupada in his murti

form, and he hears us, and we could hear him in

return, if we were pure enough.

 

 

5. Does the dream instructions follow guru, sastra and

sadhu?

 

Ans- Of course they do, if Srila Prabhupada says it,

then it's kosher. The guru [srila Prabhupada as our

guru] part of the guru-sastra-sadhu formula, is much

more important than the other two. Why? Because we

aren't qualified to understand sastra, we only

understand sastra through Srila Prabhupada, and if he

wants a ritvik system, then it automatically clears

with guru-sastra-sadhu. Srila Prabhupada's order makes

it clear with sastra and sadhu. When we go to sadhus,

we really don't know if they are full sadhus. It's

like going to Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers, and

saying they are like sadhus in the formula of

guru-sastra-sadhu. But Srila Prabhupada has said they

are envious, so they aren't the proper sadhus. So who

are the proper sadhus? Srila Prabhupada is the main

fool-proof sadhu part of the formula. Same with Iskcon

devotees who are not following Srila Prabhupada and

his orders, they cannot be known as sadhus in this

formula. They will say that Srila Prabhupada's ritvik

system is heretical. What kind of sadhu is that?

 

6. Is it reasonable that ritviks are 90% right?

 

Ans- Ritviks should be happy that Srila Prabhupada

says they are right even 90%, but they complain about

10% being wrong. Well, the way that ritviks fight with

each other like cats and dogs, makes it reasonable

that they are 10% off, so this isn't a very big deal.

Srila Prabhupada wants us to follow the gbc, but not a

corrupt gbc of course, but the principle of following

gbc is there. So the goal is to follow Srila

Prabhupada and hope the gbc also follows, and if they

don't, then we go ahead with Srila Prabhupada's orders

and try to rectify the gbc also. Practically all of

the contents of the dream are very reasonable, and

there are no reasons to immediately disbelieve it.

 

Ys visoka dasa

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Here is the rest of Amoghalila prabhu's letter to Brahma Prabhu that was not posted in Audarya Felowship:

 

In 1979, Srila Prabhupada's main concern was to get the "zonal acaryas" off their huge vyasasanas and to get them to accept their actual position, mostly as second class devotees (at best). Srila Prabhupada did not want to disturb the situation too much by pointing out that some of them were not even qualified to be "monitor gurus" (a term he uses in Easy Journey to Other Planets), what to speak of regular gurus, for doing so would have made even a partial guru reform much more difficult.

 

Now, however, is the time to take this further step. Such, at least, is Srila Prabhupada's repeated statement to me over the past few years, revealed to me, for the most part, in just the same way as those 1979 conversations.

 

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."

 

No, Brahma Prabhu, there is no contradiction. It is simply a matter of time and place. His Divine Grace has all along maintained that there are two types of gurus: the first-class devotee who is perfectly situated in Krsna conscious, and whose every word and activity is perfectly directed by Krsna (and thus he really is "as good as God"), and the second- (or even third-) class devotee who is not perfect in Krsna consciousness, but who honestly understands his or her actual position and does not try to present things any differently than this. Apart from these two types of genuine gurus, there are bogus gurus (quite apart form bhogis, mystic yogis, mayavadis, etc.) who are bona fide Vaisnavas in terms of their overall presentation of the philosophy of Krsna consciousness, but who claim a position greater than their actual one. There have all along been many such bogus gurus in ISKCON.

 

In 1979, to again repeat myself for clarity, Srila Prabhupada's main concern was just that the non-first-class position of the devotees who were initiating should be accepted by all for what they were--they were second class, or third class, devotees, not first class (or, even if there were one or two or more first class devotees among them, Srila Prabhupada did not want this to be stated by the GBC, for the rascals would never have accepted it, but rather--if the GBC had taken this position, some of them would have tried to destroy the GBC). Srila Prabhupada had no intention at that time, as far as I can understand, and as far as Srila Prabhupada has ever specifically revealed me (in my heart), of initiating disciples himself. Certainly he did not want me to announce this to ISKCON. Maybe Srila Prabhupada did, at that time, know that one day he would be doing this, but he did not want to say so then because no one would have accepted it. I do not know. In any case, however, now the situation is different. Although it will be hard, gradually this idea will become accepted.

 

Now the most important thing to do is to remove from the position of "guru" the rascals in ISKCON who are posing themselves (to their disciples, at least, if not to others) as greater than they really are, and even "as good as God." This, as I understand Srila Prabhupada's statements, means about 90% of the "authorizedgurus" in ISKCON. The conclusion I have come to, again acording to my understanding although Srila Prabhupada has never specifically told me this, is that 10% of the gurus in ISKCON are actually qualified for the position. As far as I can understand, other disciples of Srila Prabhupada like Tripurari Maharaja are also qualified to be gurus, as long as they don't artificially claim a position greater than where they are really at.

However, there is a big problem. The 90% bogus "gurus" do not want to give up their position. Above all, they will never be willing to admit that they are not bona fide gurus while a number of other devotees in ISKCON are. They will only be willing to admit that they are not really gurus if three things happen:

 

(1) It is stated by the GBC that all the gurus in ISKCON are basically equal, and if any of them are required to, all of them should step down from their position of being qualified initiating spiritual masters, able to initiate (and give expert guidance to) disciples on their own.

 

(2) It is admitted by the GBC that they (the rascals) are as good as the bona fide gurus in ISKCON (assuming there are some), and therefore if they (the rascals) are not allowed to initiate their own disciples, no one should be allowed to, except on Srila Prabhupada's behalf as his ritvik representatives.

 

(3) The GBC therefore accepts that Srila Prabhupada can give initiations, and that all devotees who are initiated in ISKCON are really Srila Prabhupada's disciples, and that all the gurus in ISKCON are just "ritviks" initiating for Srila Prabhupada, and even if there are some devotees in ISKCON who are qualified to act as "monitor gurus" initiating their own disciples, they must do this on Srila Prabhupada's behalf as if they were only qualified to be his ritviks. (Just see what rascals they are! Because they have so much false ego, they will never give up their bogus position unless they can get the GBC to insist that the really qualified ones are no better than them! So, Srila Prabhupada has decided to go along with this, at least apparently.)

 

Therefore, Srila Prabhupada now has definitely and clearly decided to accept disicples on his own--and he had made this decision at least by 1999, when he revealed it to me externally (for I would never have accepted it as an internal revelation). This decision, Srila Prabhupada has repeatedly told me over the years since 1999, is a very unusual one. Ordinarily, a spiritual master does not accept disciples after leaving his body. However, there are examples of it. Srila Prabhupada has explained clearly to me that Lord Caitanya initiated his great Maharashtrian disciple Tukaram this way, appearing to Tukaram either in a vision or externally long after His physical disappearance. Similarly, we all know that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada was initiated as a sannyasi by Srila Gaura-kisora Dasa Baba-ji Maharaja after Srila Gaura-kisora had left his body.

 

So, although this is very unusual, it is not without precedent. And, if we understand the emergency nature of the present situation, we will be able to understand why Srila Prabhupada has taken this unusual step. Whether or not Srila Prabhupada had foreseen earlier that he would be taking this step, I do not know, but in 1979 he certainly did not want it to be announced, if that indeed was his eventual plan. I hope I have made it clear why this apparent contradiction is not really so.

 

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.

 

I was well aware that other devotees were making some of the same points as Srila Prabhupada was making in the dreams of His Divine Grace and the "conversations" I was having with him in 1979. However, as far as I can recall, I never read Pradyumna Prabhu's letter (until many years later), nor had I read any transcripts of Srila Sridhar Maharaja's talks with the GBC or Pradyumna Prabhu, or anyone else, except perhaps for quotations from him presented in official GBC publications. Yes, I am sure that I had heard indirectly many of Sridhar Maharaja's points, for the GBC was also talking about the absolute and relative conceptions based on what they heard from him. I had great respect for Sridhara Maharaja, and I knew that he was saying basically the same thing as I was hearing from Srila Prabhupada. However, I think your implication that my points therefore were coming from Sridhara Maharaja or Pradyumna Prabhu, rather than from Srila Prabhupada, does not necessarily follow.

 

On the contrary, as I think about it now, what I was hearing from Srila Prabhupada on at least one essential point was different from what Srila Sridhara Maharaja was saying, at least as far as I knew at that time as well as until today. I believed then, and I still believe now, that Sridhara Maharaja was saying that the gurus must present themselves, for the sake of their disciples' faith, as absolute representatives of Krsna. The supremacy of the absolute conception of the guru, in which the disciple cannot question the guru, was Sridhar Maharaja's point, as far as I have ever known. Of course, sastra also says that the guru is absolute, and the disciple cannot question him. But it applies to the actual 100% Krsna conscious guru, and Sridhar Maharaja said that the gurus in ISKCON must also be like this, at least for their disicples, even if they weren't so qualified in fact. Srila Prabhupada, on the contrary, was telling me in 1979, and has been all along, that he did not want the gurus in ISKCON to pose themselves as anything different than what they actually are, even to their disciples. Srila Prabhupada never approved of this idea, but I am quite certain that Sridhara Maharaja was promoting it. Yes, Srila Prabhupada was well aware, as Sridhara Maharaja was, that the disciples' faith needs to be protected and that the weaknesses or the failings of their gurus should not be pointed out to them, nor should they be broadcast publicly. However, Srila Prabhupada never wanted the non-absolute, not fully Krsna conscious, guru to pose as such, even to the disciples. I believe Sridhara Maharaja did, however.

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."

 

I can remember for a fact, Brahma Prabhu, that at least some of the "zonal acaryas" were saying that they were absolute, and that this was the supreme consideration, and that they were claiming that Sridhar Maharaja had made such a statement. Otherwise, they were saying, their disciples' faith would be disturbed. Now whether Sridhar Maharaja really ever said this or not, I am not completely sure, but I am 100% certain that they were claiming that he said this, and that I believed what they were saying. Therefore, this quote which you think proves that my ideas were coming from Sridhara Maharaja in fact proves just the opposite. I thought Sridhara Maharaja's position was that the supreme consideration is that the guru is absolute, for the disciples, at least--although some of the "zonal acaryas" were saying this applied even for their godbrothers! (Maybe you can correct me if what I thought about Sridhara Maharaja's position was wrong, but that is definitely what I thought he was saying, based on what the "zonal acaryas" were claiming he had said.) So, when I heard what you quoted above from Srila Prabhupada, he was contradicting what I believed, and what I was being told, Sridhara Maharaja was saying. Therefore, I don't see how I could have gotten this from him. Even at that time, as I recall, I was well aware that Srila Prabhupada was contradicting what I believed was Sridhara Maharaja's postion. So I don't know how you can say this quotation is really based on his teachings, though it certainly is using the terminology he had popularized in ISKCON.

 

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 1978 "revelations" written as discussions with Prabhupada were taken from transcripts of Sridhara Maharaja's conversations and Pradyumna's letter either consciously or subconsciously.

I don't see any fundamental difference between the 1979 position Srila Prabhupada took and the 1999-03 one. There may be a difference between Srila Sridhara Maharja's 1978-79 position and what Srila Prabhupada has been saying all along. But there is no difference in Srila Prabhupada's positions. Yes, the practical application is different, as I have explained above. However, in both cases Srila Prabhupada's position is the same:

the disciple must judge the guru according to Krsna, but this applies only in the extreme circumstance when the guru is not acting as the representative of God. Now it is clearly an extreme circumstance in ISKCON, with havoc having been wreaked in literally thousands and thousands of sincere devotees' spiritual lives due to a number of gurus in ISKCON acting more for promoting their personal agendas than Krsna's or Srila Prabhupada's. Most of the so-called gurus in ISKCON have not really been acting properly as the representatives of God. This has been the case all along. In 1978-79, however, Srila Prabhupada was simply trying to lower their position from acarya to guru. This was all he could reasonably hope to accomplish then. (Even that took almost ten years!) Now is the proper time to lower it further to "monitor guru." (Again, although some of the gurus in ISKCON may not need to be lowered like this, it is necessary to do this in order that the rascals who must be so lowered will accept this demotion. As I understand it, if this plan works then the really qualified gurus will remain firmly esconced as such in their loving disciples' hearts, while the rascals' position will be properly demoted both externally and internally--except perhaps in rascal disciples' hearts!)

 

I hope this is all clear to you. As I said above, if you have any further questions I will try to answer them.

 

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

 

Your servant,

Amoghalila das

[Guest guest]

Here is an article that is very relevant to this discussion. Although written more than a month ago, it was posted in April 30, 2003 in Chakra. When Vishoka prabhu wrote this article, he had no knowlege of Amoghalila Prabhu's conversations with Srila Prabhupada. Coincidence?

 

What Would Jayananda Do?

by Vishoka das

Posted April 30, 2003

Respect ­ listen ­ stop the abuse

 

This post is in pursuance of the early article, "Deconstruction of Barriers" where we were pointing out that offenses made to devotees cause reactions, no matter what the reason. Krishna is adamant in His displeasure when any of His devotees are offended, and He punishes those who do. We are trying to prevent the devotees from falling into this tangled quagmire of offense and counter offense, like in the Daksa and Siva pastime. When devotees get caught up a scenario like the Daksa and Siva pastime of cursing and counter cursing, then we find whole sections of devotees rejecting and kicking away of whole other sections of devotees. This is almost like the pastime of Ravana kicking out his brother, Vibhisana, over what Ravana considered to be a deviation, which in reality was the kicking away of a saintly devotee of God.

 

Christians have their WWJD, we also have our WWJD, or "what would Jayananda do." We need his perpetual guidance to help solve our issues of strife. The non-devotees have a great slogan - respect, listen, stop. This is about how to stop abuse, like domestic violence and rape, etc. We need to borrow this slogan. Devotees need to realize that sometimes they tend to abuse other devotees. We are supposed to be the acharyas of non-abuse [give all respect to others] and yet sometimes it seems that we are behind the non-devotees in this regard. Often we don't respect, or listen, and we are quick to abuse and ostracize devotees for having an open mind.

 

What would Jayananda do? He would never think to abuse another devotee, to ostracize him from the society of devotees, over some difference of perception of what Srila Prabhupada had said. Jayananda would work the slogan: respect - listen ­ stop abuse. Jayananda would say that maybe there are different opinions, but by istaghosthi and discussion, then we will come closer to the truth. If we still have some differences, then Jayananda would opt for unity within diversity. Jayananda would not make the foolish choice of burning down the barn for a few rats of a few different opinions. The pure devotee follower of Srila Prabhupada always places the welfare of the movement above his personal happiness. It's the divisive nature of fanatics who don't respect or listen, and who are quick to abuse devotees, which divides and destroys our movement.

 

About 33 years ago, I began to order some things from the BBT, and read the Gita. This was in Kansas. I had a grand-father who was a hell-fire brimstone preacher for a fundamentalist church. He got wind of this, and asked me over to his house, and . me down, and said, "Tommy, we hear you are interested in Hinduism. We don't like this." You can imagine the awkwardness of the situation. You can imagine what I was going through, trying to explain to this hell-fire preacher, what KC was. He was thinking I was going to hell, but in reality I was going to Vaikuntha.

 

This was a situation where I knew that I was right, and knew the difficulty of penetrating a thick wall of prejudice that a fundamental Christian has. He doesn't even know that it's evil for Christians to eat meat. He's not about to understand the higher truths of KC. So, sometimes we find the same situation when we try to explain to devotees the bare facts of what Srila Prabhupada said on guru-tattva. We find they are almost like the fundamental Christian, with their prejudice, due to their indoctrinations. I say almost, because we are much more intelligent than a hell-fire preacher who has no intention of listening. So the formula- respect, listen, and stop. Stop that tendency to abuse other devotees. By the freedom of discussion, or Istaghosthi, all devotees can settle these differences and not abuse other devotees. We have open minds, don't we? We can discuss these things. If we think that we need a committee to dictate what we believe or not believe, then we are following a dictator, not our open minds.

 

The following is a conversation between myself and Bhaktin Miriam.

 

The background of the conversation -- It stems from a few essays written by myself, one titled "I was a disciple of a disciple." In summary, I quoted from Lokanatha Maharaja, who said "some or maybe all of the problems that arose in our movement after Srila Prabhupada left have their origin in our not properly understanding this position of founder-acharya." He goes on to describe the scripture of the Sri Sampradaya, called Prappanamrta Tapana, which explains how the founder-acharya is the continuous savior, the udharika, of the coming generations, the current spiritual masters are his helpers, his upakarikas, and never equated to him even after hundreds of generations. I went on to explain how Srila Prabhupada spoke of a certain level of spiritual masters, in his book "Easy Journey" where he explains the monitor guru. And I heard Tamal Krishna say in class, 1986, that he was like a monitor guru. And other gurus have said similar realizations. I gave the suggestion, following Lokanatha Maharaja's lead, that we could be more honest to the new devotees coming to the movement, by explaining this concept of monitor or upakarika guru, as option for some of the gurus. This gives credence to the concept of the model of the Sri Sampradaya, and the Madhva line, where the founder acharya is known as the udharika, or the perpetual savior of his movement, and the subsequent spiritual masters are his helper spiritual masters, or his upakarikas.

 

First question by Miriam -- 1. When Srila Prabhupada was talking about "the disciple of my disciple" in the 5/28 conversation, he was talking about initiating gurus.

 

My reply -- I want to assert that I mean no disrespect to the Iskcon gurus or devotees. I'm just observing the issues from an objective viewpoint. I'm not trying to negate gurus in Iskcon or demote them or disrespect them. I'm only studying what Srila Prabhupada said about guru-tattva. I'm only following the lead of Lokanatha Maharaja, and his understanding the position of the founder-acharya, and suggesting the concept of monitor or upakarika gurus.

 

When we examine the former acharyas in disciplic succession, we find permanent acharyas who are eternally liberated. All such acharyas were ordered to be acharya by their predecessor guru. If we are to set up a permanent guru-tattva system for Iskcon, then we must be honest in our guru-tattva, and honest to the new bhaktas and bhaktins. Our present system isn't honest, because we are telling new devotees that all the gurus are eternal gurus, linking them to Srila Prabhupada and the disciplic succession and to Lord Sri Krishna, when some prove to be temporary situations. We are telling them that they are entering into a permanent spiritual relationship with the pure devotee of Lord Krishna, when the relationship is not always permanent. This is not in line with our guru-tattva as given by the previous acharyas, or Srila Prabhupada.

 

The name "officiating acharya" is not a common name for diksa guru. This is Srila Prabhupada's term on 5/28/77. The term "regular" guru, could mean either monitor or diksa guru. "Regular" means the following: "customary, usual, or normal," as found in the dictionary. There is room for a dual meaning of guru here, either upakarika monitor gurus, or perhaps a diksa guru, if the candidate is solidly situated in permanent liberation, [say 30 year trial period] or if he is showing unmistakable symptoms of bhava and prema, which leaves no doubt, showing self-effulgence. If you study the points made in "Easy Journey," you will see that Srila Prabhupada is talking about his disciples being "spiritual master" and having "disciples" and yet he's not talking about them being full diksa gurus in the parampara. A close study of all the points may bring you to this conclusion.

 

From the essay- You cannot tell me that there was ever a time in history or sastra, where a parampara diksa guru got into a temporary situation with Krishna and guru, after they were ordered gurus in parampara. There is no history of any previous gurus in the parampara who were in full permanent status, and later temporary spiritual status with the Lord and their guru. No situation of being spiritual one year and not spiritual the next year, or falling into a low status for years afterwards.

 

Miriam's reply: All of ISKCON ignores this fact. They say, OK, just because some were not qualified does not mean that the rest can't be diksa.

 

My reply to her reply --

 

The issue isn't primarily whether others can be diksa, which is by qualification, and being ordered. The primary issue is that a great number of disciples have been disillusioned to the point of blooping or going to other camps. I have witnessed this personally, many, many times, and if anyone thinks this is not true, they are greatly deluded. Our system should not cause this to happen to even ONE person!, what to speak of hundreds and thousands of people! The betrayal of trust and faith is a very heavy blow to the spiritual lives of so many new devotees. I've witnessed the aftermath of several epicenters of these disasters, and the fallout and aftershocks continue for decades. This kind of system sets the stage for the same thing to happen over and over again, for all future generations. The positive alternative is the concept of monitor guru, or upakarikas, for some gurus, as found in Srila Prabhupada's "Easy Journey." The position of Lokanatha Maharaja's suggestion, and monitor gurus, let's the water find it's own level, instead of saying that all gurus are on the uttama platform. This is to the advantage of gurus and all devotees.

 

To make this point of water finding it's natural level, one guru was seen in an inappropriate situation with a female devotee, and he begged the devotee not to tell his disciples. Another guru was seen through a window, early morning, with female devotee, no need for details. Another guru reads cheap sci-fi novels all the time. How many have a problem? Not to condemn, but we see a temporary status in these situations, and therefore an upakarika guru status. The GBC says something similar with the term "downsized gurus." Being monitor or upakarika guru is glorious. The option of being monitor guru is to their advantage. If they see themselves begin to slip, they can save face and not have to bloop or walk away in shame. The aftermath of loss of trust and faith will not be a cataclysmic disaster, as it was in the past. It's a chance for the real water level of advancement to find it's natural level.

 

Ramesvara was saying at the end, how he was so sick and tired of always pretending to be a pure devotee, putting on a facade. A system of monitor or upakarika guru would take the pressure off, let them be more real in their actual advancement. And if they are really qualified, and if Srila Prabhupada really ordered them to be diksa guru, then fine, we give all honor to them. But this cannot be the case for everyone, nor for all of the future candidates in coming generations. It is better for everyone to realize the monitor upakarika guru level reality, to give the new people an honest assessment of the guru situation, before they find out by experience or learning the history. They will be grateful for the honesty, instead of being dismayed by finding a shocking truth, which will jeopardize their faith. Let the water of advancement find it's natural level.

 

I hope my words have not offended any devotees of the Lord,

your servant,

Visoka dasa

 

[gHari]

Why would Prabhupada not come to all his disciples in a dream - a mass awakening? Appearing to this one devotee will likely have absolutely no affect at all.

 

Srila Prabhupada's leaving has been a trauma for everyone. We all deal with it as best we can, a bit at a time. The schisms and their schisms' schisms very likely have their source in this sorrow.

 

What we need is to abandon our faith in debate, in words, in infrastructures, in personalities, in bricks and mortar, and humbly rest our faith finally in Sri Krsna. Then Prabhupada's desires will unfold. Not another word about this or that or that and this; just Sri Krsna: "Remember Me. Do not forget Me." This is Prabhupada's desire for you.

[Guest guest]

You asked why Amoghalila prabhu and not the whole ISKCON world?

No one can answer that question, except Lord Krsna and Prabhupada.

Why did Srila Prabhupada chose Amoghalila prabhu and not you or me or anyone else? I think you know the answer.

Your real questions are:Do you believe that Amoghalila prabhu is being sincere or not? Do you believe that he is just imagining the whole thing? Do you believe that this whole thing is a hoax?

The passing of time will give you these answers.

Meanwhile, here is a copy of Amoghalila prabhu's letter to about a dozen devotees at the end of February. They were the only ones given a copy of the conversations. But someone decided to send it to Krishan.org.

I hope his letter will shed some light.

 

Dear Maharajas, Matajis and Prabhus,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

At this crucial time in both ISKCON and world history, I would like to share an urgent message with you. Some of you know that, in 1979, I sent hundreds of photocopies of some "conversations with Srila Prabhupada" to senior devotees around the world, including all GBC members, temple presidents, and sannyasis. In these "conversations," Srila Prabhupada told me that he never intended that the eleven of his disciples who had become "zonal acaryas" should be given this big position. His Divine Grace denounced the new gurus' "vyasasanas" in the temples and particularly the "simultaneous guru puja" practice. The GBC excommunicated me from ISKCON shortly after I distributed these "conversations" and could not in good conscience comply with their demand that I reject them as false. I was also told that anyone who accepted that Srila Prabhupada had really given me these instructions would also be excommunicated.

 

Later, however, I became convinced that Srila Prabhupada wanted me to follow the GBC, and I accepted that these conversations had been simply a product of my imagination. Trivikram Swami, however, promoted them as bona fide instructions of our eternal Spiritual Master, and because of this for many years he was unwelcome and not allowed to give classes in almost all ISKCON temples. By about 1987, however, the instructions Srila Prabhupada had given me were implemented by the GBC (induced by the "Guru Reform Movement"), largely because Trivikram Swami so consistently promoted those "conversations with Srila Prabhupada" as factual. Many years later Trivikram Maharaja told me that the reason he was so convinced of them was that Srila Prabhupada had personally confirmed to him in a dream that these were indeed his own words.

 

Many years later, in 1999, the threatening Hansaduta vs. BBT court case was miraculously resolved before going to court, although almost everyone who knew anything about it thought this was impossible. The ISKCON side was willing to spend millions of more dollars (already at least half a million had been spent, I was informed). Srila Prabhupada, however, evidently had intervened, partly through me. When I shared something like my earlier "conversations with Srila Prabhupada" with the lawyers involved as direct instructions from His Divine Grace, one of them totally changed his plans after accepting that these were indeed genuine orders of our eternal Spiritual Master.

 

Last year I had three similar "conversations with Srila Prabhupada" about initiations in ISKCON. His Divine Grace gave simple and clear directions how to resolve this "most important issue facing our Society." In these conversations, Srila Prabhupada plainly and directly condemns the GBC: "I am most disturbed my so-called representative, the GBC, cannot understand." Srila Prabhupada's words were very plainly audible to me in my heart: "Alright, Amoghalila, I am telling you clearly now, it is time the temple presidents and senior devotees take this in their own hands again. They did in 1986. Now again they must do. The GBC cannot implement my clear desires in this regard. They will need some assistance from who is less committed to a position that is untenable."

 

Srila Prabhupada further instructed me, "So now you must take it is your solemn duty to explain clearly, and you publicize widely, my desires in this regard, even as you did in 1979" (actually, I first heard and wrote this date as "1986" but later, unable to understand this, I changed it to "1979"--now, however, I wonder if what I originally wrote was correct, since Srila Prabhupada may have meant that others should publicize this more than myself--which is what happened in 1986, as opposed to 1979). In any case, I have not carried out this order for many months. After the GBC meetings this month, however, I felt Srila Prabhupada urgently telling me that now I had to do it. So, in a sincere attempt to fulfill this clear order of my Spiritual Master, I have attached those three "conversations with Srila Prabhupada" for you to read. Although I obviously am convinced they really are His Divine Grace's instructions (otherwise I would not dare to publicize them widely), I do not ask you to believe this, but simply to study them carefully and prayerfully, and do the needful. Thank you very much.

 

I hope this meets you in the best of health and Krsna consciousness.

 

Your servant,

Amoghalila das

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

One day while in Srila Prabhupadas room in Vrindaban the last 2 weeks of His Divine Graces time pshyically with us

with many devottees around were the bed and as new devottees comming for the first time then to see Srila Prabhupada

these new devottees would all cry at seeing His Divine Grace.And we would all also cry.The happened afew times

 

Then Srila Prabhupada would console us saying "for a old person death is natural it is only sad when a young persons dies,that is unnatural,they should be able to haver lived as long as I have"

 

Still tho the devottes were not consoled then expressing

to Srila Prabhupada.

 

"But Srila Prabhupada after your gone phsyically how will we be able to communicate with you.?"

 

At once Srila Prabhupada told us "I will come in dreams"

Chatra Guru within the heart , i will give you direction."

 

Even its been now almost 26 years sence hearing Srila Prabhupada declair this to the devottees within his room then ,

 

I still can clearly remeber His Divine Graces words as if they were spoken yesterday.

 

Sence then I personally have had many dreams with Srila Prabhupada appearing in them.

 

Dreams were His Divine Grace was expressing his unhappiness with the leaders in ISKCON.

 

For many many years I had a reocurring dream Of an Istagoshi in the New Dwarka temple room where one leading god brother informed all the devottees that Srila Prahupada

did want to see us personally any more.

 

This god brother told the Istagoshi that His Divine Grace would never again leave his rooms above the temple.And that they were the Guru

 

THis dream came to me as I say many many times and other dreams with Srila Prabhupada also .

 

This dream in the istagoshi was often repeated .

 

Then once again I had this istagoshi dream and the same annoucements were made but as this leading god brother

said ,"Srila Prabhupada would never leave his rooms again "

 

this time Srila Prabhupada walked into the temple room and . on His Vyasana .

 

"You have forgotten how to recive me I am not dead" was all Srila Prabhupada said in the dream.

 

I never have had this dream again afew few weeks latter one of our godbrother s from Hong Kong visited me in China and gave me this redvict paper they have produced .

 

They were very pressing that I read it as soon as possible and tell me my feelings on it.

 

I just told them that it was 90% correct

 

In my opinion no one ever has been as truthful as Amogaleela as to what Srila Prabhupadas plans were /are

 

I am not a very eleiquant writer I also was"nt listening all to carefully when Srila Prabhupada was speaking to Tamal Krishna Maharaja and others about how they were to acceapt new devottees into ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada departed,

 

I was thinking this is the service Srila Prabhupada had given them not me.

 

I heard the word ridvict spoken many times everyday and I didnt understand then what ridvict was?

 

I never heard Srila Prabhupada once use the term guru refering to the disclips he was asking to acceapt disclips on his behalf for.

 

Srila Prabhupada Prabhuji was so sick and weak it was amazeing for all of us that His Divine Grace was able to live with the body at that time but when Srtila Prabhupada refered to these disclips His Divine Grace called them "ridvict acaryas transperent to the pervious acarya"

 

Every time Srila Prabhupada spoke of them as a whole he refered to them thusly.

 

I was very clear Srila Prabhupada was stressing thier postions to them each day many times and never refering to any one them with the term Guru.

 

Srila Prabhupada also told us one day that only His Divine Grace had followed Srila Bhaktisiddanta,.

 

And then in the following sentence told us That even his god brothers had deviated so much from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta they after himself are the most bonified preachers of Lord Chaitanya on the planet.

 

It is so nice to hear from Amgalaleela again and also to read the words of Brahma Prabhu

Dunndavatts to you all

Jai Goura Nitai

ys

Pita das

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Several devotees have reported that they had dreams with Srila Prabhupada. That is very nice, but Amoghalila prabhu's conversations with Srila Prabhupada were not dreams. Please take a look at what he recently said:

 

"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

 

 

 

 

[stonehearted]

I think many devotees refer to these as dreams for want of a better term. I think I've called them "visits" out of deference to Amoghalila. I also know there are other devotees who have had similar visits that were not dreams; however, in those cases the conversations focused on more personal issues of practice. Even those encounters the happen when we are asleep are quite different from ordinary dreams. Quite often there are physical symptoms and changes in the devotee's life.

 

On the other hand, even Amogha has admitted the problematic nature of applying such subjective, personal experiences which are so hard to verify in any empirical way to a wider social setting. He has simply requested that we carefully consider the instructions themselves and act according to our conscience.

[livingentity]

Very very true.

 

Quite often there are physical symptoms and changes in the devotee's life.

 

 

[Guest guest]

How is Jita Rati prabhu doing?

[Guest guest]

I spoke with Jitarati about 2 weeks back ,I think Jita has seen happier days in Krishna consciousness

If you would like to email me so I know who you are I can give you Jitas eadd

avery_g@bellsouth.net

[Guest guest]

What I understand from Amoghalila prabhu's conversations with Srila Prabhupada is that there is a real concern with the institution of diksa gurus in ISKCON. Yet, nobody is doing anything substantial to change things.

There is food for thought from the Prominent Link book. It says the following:

"Clearly there are members of the GBC body who are competent, sincere, and attuned to the goals of Srila Prabhupada's mission and the needs of a diverse contingent of devotees. Still, the overriding disposition of devotees towards the GBC as a whole is one of mistrust and cynicism. This attitude amongst devotees may at least partly be due to continued misunderstanding amongst the leadership of the role of the diksa guru relative to the GBC. This of course was the crux of the reform attempts of the 1980s, with the result being not so much a change in the conception of diksa guru, but an expanded inclusion of diksa guru on the GBC body. This is not inherently deleterious, but has prevented genuine change in the ISKCON culture. In essence, the culture is the same, though the perceived and perhaps real hypocrisy has increased.

Previously ISKCON had a zonal acarya system and admitted it. Now there are zonal acaryas who are impervious to the dictates of the GBC, and the instituion pretends that there aren't. Though the GBC is often not willing to monitor, evaluate or discipline gurus, ISKCON advertises that the diksa gurus are fully accountable to the GBC. Fifteen years ago ISKCON perhaps didn't talk much about accountability and responsiveness in its leaders. Now the organization bandies about such buzzwords, with leaders often assuming that they manifest such atributes, and increasing numbers of devotees feel appalled by the hypocrisy and lack of integrity they perceive in the leadership, with no real avenue of redress for iniquities. Much of the effort spent in reforms is used to convince others that reform has happened, with little actual progress."

 

Of course the GBC has came down with a ton of bricks on the author and are trying to discredit him, while all along they pretend that they are trying to be open minded and are trying to be fair with him.

So, one way to combat the book was to accuse it of being "ritvik." I guess, it is easier to label the book and dismiss it, rather than having others read it and discuss it. So, every avenue is being taken so that the book will not be read by the ISKCON constituents. Too bad, that ISKCON devotees fall for those false "ritvik" accusations.

 

[stonehearted]

Guest: There is food for thought from the Prominent Link book.

 

Yes there is, and there's also something to your assertion that the GBC too easily dismisses it by painting it as disguised ritvik propaganda. But we will make a similar mistake by to facilely dismissing the ritvik connection. In fact, the "ritvik movement" is not monlithic; it has several versions and several gradations. Not to recognize that is another mischaracterization, potentially as dangerous as too easily accepting the GBC's easy dismissal of the booklet. Any discussion should be carried out carefully and critically. Moreover, if there's any intention of approaching the GBC for further discussion of Dhira Govinda's book, you should be aware that, somehow or other, Hridayananda Maharaj has resumed active participation on the GBC. He thinks fast on his feet and is a very talented debater.

[Guest guest]

Dear Stonehearted,

 

I know Dhira Govinda prabhu personally and I know for a fact that he is not a ritvik. But you'll never, ever hear him say that he is or is not a ritvik, he hates labels.

You are right, there is probably many gradations of ritviks. Maybe that label is not adaquate or outdated?

I know Dhira Govinda prabhus views have been evolving over the years because he is in search for the truth. He is not affiliated with any group. He just speaks the truth as he sees it. He is so open minded that he speaks with anyone and everyone and he listen carefully to all.

The Prominent Link book are not really his ideas, but the ideas of many. He has taken all of this and compiled them. There are prominent devotees behind the book, but are afraid to support it publicly. But he is willing to risk all to stand up for what is right.

Since I don't know much about the ritvik movement, I must say that Dhira Govinda prabhu is not a ritvik in the sense that he does believe that Prabhupada wanted initiating gurus and that their disciples are grand disciples of Prabhupada. But what he is certain of is that Prabhupada never intended for the initiating gurus to be worshiped.

To be asked to worship these type of gurus is only cheating!

We should stand up for what is right, instead of arguing about semantics (I am not talking about you, prabhu).

The SAC has made 17 (I counted) false accusations against the Prominent Link book. I think they are doing that because of politics and not because they don't agree with the PL concepts.

 

[stonehearted]

Dear guest,

 

I haven't read the more recent version of the book, and I don't know who those are you say are behind it. All I'm saying is to be careful. The others may have to come out of the closet if the books backers take on the GBC more directly, since they've dusted Hridayananda Maharaj off.

[Guest guest]

Dear Stonehearted Prabhu,

 

I have been hoping to God that those backers would speak up, but so far they haven't. And after two years of waiting, I have written them off.

Although he feels frustrated, Dhira Govinda prabhu is a gentlemen, so he does not push anyone.

Hridayananda dasa Goswami and Dhira Govinda prabhu had extensive convesations about the Prominent Link concepts. Even in a three hour phone conversation, Maharaja told Dhira Govinda prabhu that Srila Prabhupada is the "most important link to the parampara." Then shortly afterwards, he took part in the Preliminary Response against the Prominent Link book.

Also last year (I think it was in the summer), while giving a lecture in Alachua (I am not so sure, maybe it was during an initiation ceremony) Radhanatha Swami said that Srila Prabhupada is "The Prominent Link to the Parampara." But later, Maharaja was very upset with the Prominent Link book. So, I don't know what is their understanding of words, "prominent link." Apparently is not the same as the Prominent Link book.

Anyway, Prabhu, Dhira Govinda Prabhu will have to stand up and defend the Prominent Link book all by himself, since others don't have the courage to show their faces.

Also some of his backers got convinced by others that his book is dangerous. There is a lot of activity going on against that book.

[Guest guest]

this following talk by Sridhar Maharaja gives insight

into what is guru tattva, in promoting such concepts as "prominent link" one should know that it is without

merit when guru tattva is properly understood.

 

acharya mam vijaniyam

 

"I am the acharya"

 

--------------

Shri Uddhava says, "acharya caityavapusha svagati vyanakti". The Lord in the form of the acharya shows His way to His devotee. That is why these four sampradayas of Vaishnavism became famous as Ramanuja sampradaya, Madhav sampradaya, Vallabha sampradaya and Nimbarka sampradaya. Within these sampradayas there are distinctions.

---------

 

Devotee: I don't know if this is correct, but I have heard it said that if the disciple is not spiritually successful, then the Guru may not return back to Godhead but may remain in this brahmanda (universe). He may not return to Krsna until the disciple can also go.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: If that is the case, then no Guru can ever return to Krsna at any time, because the continuation of the disciples will go on, so he will have no final result at any time in his life. But we cannot think that it is so. Sometimes he may be deputed himself, or others also may be deputed in that case. But the inner instruction and inner feeling and paraphernalia will be such that in any case the disciples will have no trouble. The officer may change, but the function will go on smoothly. So the Guru may return - the nama-guru, mantra-guru, sannyasa-guru - they are all Gurus, but we must recognize something similar in them, and hence we are given the statement about the ontological aspect of Guru: saksadd haritvena samasta- "I Myself appear as the Guru, who is simultaneously and inconceivably one with and different from Myself."

 

Krsna says, acaryam mam vijaniyat: "You should look there for Me. I am there. I am your Guru. With My different types of sakti, by the jivas' recruitment or by any other way, it is My function to take you up to a different place. In every case I am there. I am there in My Madhura-rasa sakti, or Sakhya-rasa sakti, My Vatsalya-rasa sakti, Dasya-rasa sakti, and in a general way also." Sometimes one may be recruited by the Ramanuja Sampradaya and then be converted to join the Krsna Sampradaya, the Gaudiya Sampradaya. That is also possible. We are to remember the eternal link.

 

Devotee: So if someone says that the Guru himself will personally come back - that is a mundane conception, a wrong conception?

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: Yes. The main thread is there, but it will not always appear in the same form. Although to the beginners one may say that "he will come back," ultimately we find that a disciple may even be transferred into another section, and then another section, so that he may gradually reach his destination. According to the unfolding of his inner necessity, the departmental change may occur. And he will always perceive his own Guru in newer and newer ways. At first sight he perceived his Guru to be of one type; then again with progress he will see the same Guru in another way, and thereafter another new characteristic will be found in his Gurudeva. The disciple will feel, "I could not detect so much in my Guru in the beginning. I saw him in one particular way, but now I find that he is something more, and then he is still more." In this way there is divine unfoldment.

 

In this world there is unfoldment, and in the higher domain also there is unfoldment. So avesa, the Guru is something like saktyavesa. There is the "chance contingency" saktyavesa who is deputed according to a particular time, place, or circumstance, and there is also the permanent saktyavesa; but in all cases, according to the necessity of the situation and by the divine dispensation of the Lord, the disciple will be connected, and he won't feel any distrust, it is the presence within. He will quench the thirst for the full progress of his heart, there will be divine unfoldment within his heart, and again he will begin a new thirst. And that new thirst will be quenched by whom? His Guru. It will be quenched by his Guru and he won't have any feeling of unscrupulousness or anything else. As his internal thirst is being satisfied, he will feel, "There is my Gurudeva."

Wherever there is unfoldment - gradual unfoldment and full attention given to that - then we can understand that from the upper side there is Guru. Gurudeva is my guide; and as I progress, guidance of different types will be necessary for me. Always new guidance, and my progress will take me into different places, and there a new type of guidance, a new life, will again come. In this way dynamic life is going on, and the main thread is there: raso vai sah - the pure rasa, pure ecstasy. And my inner heart will approve: "Yes, I want this. This is my fate; this is my fortune." Otherwise, if any madhyama-adhikari is appointed as Guru and has so many disciples, and if he is to come back again and again, then he could never enter into nitya-lila. But that cannot be so. In any case, whoever is connected with a genuine Guru will be satisfied, because the Lord is present there.

 

acaryam mam vijaniyan, navamanyeta karhicit

na martya buddhyasuyeta, sarva deva-mayo guruh

 

(Bha: 11.17.27)

 

Krsna says, "Don't try to limit the Acarya! You may have come up to a high position, but will you then think that you have surpassed that Acarya through whom you received your initial instruction in spiritual life? No, navamanyeta don't think that there is less in him, don't consider him to be of lower position. Navamanyeta - I Myself was there! I was there in your primary teacher, in your 'college-level' teacher, and I am there in your 'post-graduate professor' also! So navamanyeta, don't look at only the outside. I Myself am your guide in different forms. It is I."

 

Sarva deva-mayo guruh: the Acarya has got more spacious characteristics than that of the ordinary, general Vaisnava. Krsna says, "For you, I am there. And mayanukulena nabhasvateritam - I am backing so many Acaryas. There are so many Acaryas, and I am working through them. The Acaryas are like helmsmen in so many different boats, and I am the favorable wind helping those boats to make progress. So don't limit the Acarya - try to see him on the same level as Me."

 

 

 

 

[theist]

I haven't read the book and am not fit to analyize it anyway. But how is he using the term prominent link? Are there not some acaryas in a parampara that are more prominent than others? That doesn't mean they are the only links.

 

He didn't title his book the last link afterall.

 

What are the main points that he makes?

[Guest guest]

i haven't read it either, but at another site they posted

a bunch of outakes, and the gist of the concept.

 

that Srila Prabhupada is the main conection to god for Iskcon,and any other person who initiates should refer

to Srila Prabhupada as the real connection.

 

it is basically an offshoot of ritvikism, and is as usual conccoted by people without realization or proper eductation on guru tattva, any attempt to institutionalize

the guru concept, misses the point.

 

the guru is god, the devotee who initiates or instructs

is a medium for god.

 

the concept that you are connecting to the devotee

is misplaced, the devotee is like a live wire, the electricity is god, God is the energy that makes the machine go, the wire is just a medium , those who are ignorant of how eletric appliances work may think at first glance that the wire is the power source, after being educated he realizes his mistake.

 

so to say this or that devotee is a better connection

misses the point, a wire is a wire is a wire.

 

the connection is flowing through the wire,the neophyte sees the connection maybe only in one place, the more advanced will see the connection everywhere.

 

so guru is god, as the student gains knowledge the guru

becomes more evident to him, not as the devotee,

but as the flow of divinity through the devotee,

that connection is realized according to the ability

of the student.

 

so to place Srila Prabhupada as the vehicle and all others

as some lesser vehicle is not our decision, that is

a case by case reality, dependent on the student.

 

god can fully give connection through whomever and wherever, to institutionalize that, to limit god's

choice of how and when the guru is appearing and to what degree, is not the capability of the jiva.

k

[Guest guest]

Thanks Shiva Prabhu for sending the text concerning guru-tattva. It sounds very interesting and with full of wisdom. I should send it to Dhira Govinda prabhu who will appreciate it very much.

I once sent him an article by Brahma prabhu (who is a Sridhara Maharaja's disciple) and he loved it! He sent me back a thank you note saying that he found it very helpful and useful.

Dhira Govinda prabhu is not concern with what camp you belong to. He hears devotees from all camps and appreciates their input. And if what they say makes sense, he acknowledges that and learns from them. He even helps Narayan Maharaja's disciples. They respect him and appreciate his caring and concern (that is what one of Narayan Maharaja's disciple told me).

The Prominent Link book says that anyone that gives you transcendental knowledge is liking you to the parampara. So Srila Prabhupada is not the only link to the Parampara.

Shiva Prabhu, it would be more fruitful for you to stop putting label on things. That kind of talk just tends to cloud the issues. It is best to just talk (although it is a lot harder to do) about the actual concepts without being judgemental.

There are numerous quotes from Srila Prabhupada in the Prominent Link. For instance in the Madhya-lila 4:112, Srila Prabhupada writes. "Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination." In a lecture on July 29, 1968, Srila Prabhupada said, "This is called initiation. Or initiation from the very beginning. This is called diksa. The Sanskirt term is called diksa. Diksa means...Di, divya-jnanam, transcendental knowledge, and ksa, iksa." Now, Shiva prabhu, are you going to call Srila Prabhupada a "ritvik" for saying the above?

The above sayings from Srila Prabhupada is confirmed over and over again in many of his lectures. For example, June 17, 1976 initiation lecture; July 11, 1976 lecture; February 22, 1973 lecture; December 29, 1973 lecture; January 27, 1977 conversation. The list goes on and on.

So, it is obvious from the many, many lectures, conversations and purports from Srila Prabhupada that he was referring to "initiation" as the "transmission of transcendental knowledge." Of course, Dhira Govinda prabhu does acknowledge that in the formal sense, initiation is when your guru performs the intiation ceremony and gives you your spiritual name. So, in the formal sense, initiation is Harinam initiation. But in the transcendental sense, initiation is the transmission of divya-jnana. The person who gives the most divya-jnana is Srila Prabhupada. In that sense he is the Prominent Link (like I mentioned, anyone that gives you spiritual knowledge is a link).

So, the Prominent Link book is not saying that one should not take initiation or that one should not serve his initiating guru or that one is not the disciple of his initiating guru, or that one is not a grand disciple of Srila Prabhupada, or that Srila Prabhupada is the formal diksa guru. What is saying is that Srila Prabhupada is the main guru.

Does anyone doubt that Srila Prabhupada can give one guidance? If gurus are falling left and right, is it wrong to ask the remaining initiating gurus to please let their disciples put only Srila Prabhupada in their altars? A humble guru would deferred that worship to Srila Prabhupada. Does anyone doubt that Srila Prabhupada has the potency to take one back to Godhead (even the ones that he did not formally initiate)?

Saying all these things about Srila Prabhupada does not by default mean that the initating guru does not have the potency to do those things. The Prominent Link is not taking anything away from the initiating gurus. It is just confirming that Srila Prabhupada is alive in his books, that he can give guidance even to his grand disciples, he can accept worship, that he is present in his murti form, that he can take one back to Godhead, that he is the main imparter of transcental knowledge, and the main link (in the trancendental sense) to the parampara. If you want to call that "ritvik," go ahead, be my guest.

One thing we know for sure is that Srila Prabhupada did not make such great distintion between diksa and siksa guru. I don't think there is anyone that remebers Srila Prabhupada making such clear cut distinctions as we do now in ISKCON. In fact, Srila Prabhupada said that Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji initiated Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. He specifically used the word "initiated" for that connection, but we know that Srila Jagannatha das Babaji was the siksa guru of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

So, all that the Prominent Link book is saying is that we should come closer to Srila Prabhupada's teachings in this regard.

It is not at all helpful to have the attitude that "my camp" has monopoly over the truth; therefore, if you belong to another camp, then it must be that everything and whatever you say must be wrong.

 

[theist]

shiva, your example of guru as the wire and God as the electrical current I don't think conveys the real understanding.Guru IS also the current along with being the conduit.

 

The way I see it is the guru IS also God, but servitor God. Krsna is there and the devotee is there in and as the same person simultaneously.

 

This allows for variations in guru's potency and mood while still remaining on the transendental plane.

 

I am not sure if I conveyed that idea very clearly. Basic oneness and difference.

 

Thanks for the 'link'. I'll check it out.

[theist]

 

Does anyone doubt that Srila Prabhupada can give one guidance? If gurus are falling left and right, is it wrong to ask the remaining initiating gurus to please let their disciples put only Srila Prabhupada in their altars? A humble guru would deferred that worship to Srila Prabhupada. Does anyone doubt that Srila Prabhupada has the potency to take one back to Godhead (even the ones that he did not formally initiate)?

 

 

It makes sense that Srila Prabhupada's picture be on the altar inside his ISKCON temples. If someone(pujari) is uncomfortable with that then let them make their own altar outside of an ISKCON temple. No problem.

 

But if they desire to place their guru's picture on their own altars why should that be discouraged? It may be that Krsna is revealing Himself more through Prabhupada's disciple than directly through Prabhupada. Why not? That would please Prabhupada very much to see his disciple has become empowered to that degree. Truth is, that was the point of his preaching.

 

Now the implication is that if the guru allows this then he must not be humble. Like when Prabhupada allowed himself to be called Prabhupada his godbrothers took that as arrogance against Bhaktisiddhanta. Should we all make the same mistake? Have we learned nothing about this after so many years?

 

The problem is when they try to merge their disciples in with ISKCON these conflicts arise.

 

To me the answer looks very simple. If the new disciple lives in ISKCON when worshiping at the main altar or for public guru puja the focus is exclusively Srila Prabhupada. He should not be hassaled however if he makes some simple personal arrangement on his own for offering directly to his other or even main guru.

 

If he doesn't like this then he can live outside in his own arrangement and should be allowed to work with ISKCON on their preaching functions etc.

 

To cooperate doesn't mean to give up individuality or one's independence entirely. It means we make allowance for and tolerate those differences.

 

People have to learn to mind their own business on this guru issue and trust that Supersoul has it under His control. I mean if you don't believe that Supersoul is in control then you shouldn't be getting initiated or especially giving so-called initiation in the first place.

 

Don't preach your individual guru, preach universal guru, Krsna. Leave all further details to Him. Anything else smacks of faithlessness. This quarrel is going on now decade after decade because people don't really believe that Supersoul exists or that He will act.

 

Sorry to say this but it is a sign of atheism. Irrespective of all the theistic philosophical concepts being brandied about.

 

Just trust Krsna. By His grace one gets guru.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

Several years ago I attended a Rtbik presentation at the Masonic Hall on Venice Blvd. just around the corner to New Dwarka. At this meeting, one of the speakers was presenting that Srila Prabhupada had appeared to him in dreams and had informed him of this or that. I am assuming that it was the same devotee that this thread is primarily concerned about. What I did not like about this part of the presentation was that it was presented without any question as to objectivity and subjectivity of the speakers experiences, in such a manner as it seemed that we were expected to accept it as fact.

New Age Channeling is a continuation of the practice of Spiritualism that gained wide popularity in N. America in the 19th century. Neither the Channeling practiced by New Agers nor its antecedent are or were very much concerned with the origins of their dream or psychic experiences, only that they had them.

Considering that there may be something other then just a psychological basis for this phenomenum brings to bear the question of determining the actual nature of the entity that the channeler has come into contact with, of whether it is indeed the person that it is claiming itself to be or something else. The lack of any practice to make such a determination of the actual identity of the channeled entity by the spiritualists or New Age Channelers by their human contacts led the 20th centuries formost magician Alistair Crowley to refer to the as 'Black Magicians'.

The devotee in question seems to think that his practice of almost perfect Sadhana is sufficient to protect him from any bamboozlement from any entity masquerading as Srila Prabhupada and thus he seems to feel free in making the assumption that it is indeed Srila Prabhupada who is contacting him in his dreams. However the devotee that I witnessed was clearly caught up in the egoism that most New Age channelers develop, compromising his intellectual integrity out of an emotional need. If it was indeed the same person, and even if it isn't, while Western Spirituual traditions (including Christianity) are based upon inner plane contacts, I would not feel comfortable about taking their word that it was actually Srila Prabhupada (or Jesus, as in the case of Pauls' inner plane or 'heavenly' contact unless they showed themselves to be free from any desire for the subtle sense gratification that false pretige awards to one.

I saw Srila Prabhupada in New Dwarka in the temple room in 1999, as live as you and me, but even though I accept that I saw him, and that he expressed pleasure to see me and invited me to participate in gloryfying the deities, I sure aand heck would not expect anyone else to view my subjective experience as anything else, or to see me aas anything other than an ass if I got up on stage and presented it aas if it were an objective fact that no one should be doubtful of, as this devotee and the rtviks did upon that occaision.

Hari bol

[Guest guest]

i think you miss the point of Sridhar Maharajas words.

 

the knowledge in Prabhupadas books are not his doing,

they are God's doing, you read god's words,not Prabhupada's.

 

that is the point, to say that Prabhupada is the main

connection to the parampara is not helpfull,just

confusing.

 

whatabout Bhaktisiddhanta ? Bhaktivinode ? Rupa,Sanatana,etc. ?

 

Prabhupada would have rejected that concept .

 

in His 100 warnings against mundane mellows Bhaktisiddhanta

writes that the real acharya does not consider his disciples to be his, why ?

 

Because the real guru knows that he is a medium, the disciples may consider Him to be their guru, but the real guru sees the situation differently, He is only a medium for

the real guru,god.

 

So to say that Prabhupada is the main connection misses

the point, Prabhupada is one of many conduits of divine

knowledge, qualitatively they are all the same, quantitatively they may be different.

 

What would you say if Prabhupadas godbrothers have the same attitude Dhira govinda has ?

what if they were to have insisted to Prabhupada that

Bhaktisiddhanta was the "prominent link" ?

and that He was of a lesser type ?

 

that is not gaudiya philosophy, it is a concoction.

 

The real acharya is non different in quality then any other acharya, the disciple must see the acharya as a medium for god, not as worshipable himself.

 

Prabhupada used to say that the cheater gurus come to the west to promote themselves and set up their societies with

themselves as the center of worship.

 

Whereas He said that what He was doing was putting Krishna

at the center,not Himself.

 

if you try and create a diety out of Prabhupada instead

of seeing him as one in a long line of acharyas, putting emphasis of him as being more relevant, that obscures

the true message of Prabhupada, that the bona fide spiritual master should be seen as God's representative,

as good as god, if you try to diminish that be insisting that one acharya is special and more as good as god then any other, it can only cause confusion and mis understanding

of the nature of guru tattva.

 

the acharya is as good as myself,Krishna says, not one

special acharya is that, but any bona fide acharya

is fully Krishna's representative and has the full

ability to connect one to God on the highest platform.