Meeting with Bhati Caru Swami & Bhatimarga swami

[Nimai]

Dear Guest,

 

I have been away for more than a week, but I see that you have responded my plea to make yourself more clear. Thank you so much, prabhu.

 

You said:

 

master (guru) is a person who accepts questions, gives answers and when there's the need, chasizes... to recognise a master we have to learn what a master is from books and tradition

 

book (shastra) is where we can read general principles but it can be somewhat difficult to apply them in time, place and circumstance... so we need a master to do this

 

tradition (sadhu) supports the right interpretation of the scriptures and gives the example of what a master has to be

 

one or two only is not enough

 

I agree with you, prabhu, we must not step out of the knowledge given by guru, shastra and sadhu.

That is why the Prominent Link never says that one must not worship his initiating guru. If a granddisciple worships Srila Prabhupada instead of his own guru, it is not because the guru is not qualified. It has nothing to do with qualification. And of course it is not because he shouldn't worship his initiating guru. If a granddisciple chooses to worship Srila Prabhupada only it is because his initiating guru, out of humility directs his disciple to worship Srila Prabhupada instead. It is done for the sake of the movement. For an initiating guru to deferred his worship to Srila Prabhupada is not against guru, shastra and sadhu. It has nothing to do with not having faith in the initiating guru or doubting his qualifications.

Guest prabhu, no one said that the initiating spiritual master does not link his disciple to the parampara. Yes, there should be initiating gurus, who said there shouldn't? Initiating spiritual masters should keep on asking questions, giving answers and chastising us. Who says they shouldn't? Spiritual masters should keep explaining books to us. Who says they shouldn't? Where in the world is the Prominent Link saying that there is no need for a physically present initiating spiritual master? So, the Prominent Link is not going against tradition.

All that is saying is what Srila Prabhupada taught us and told us many times. That is, that the most essential aspect of the process of initiation is the transmission of transcendental knowledge. Srila Prabhupada is the main source, the main direct source of transcendental knowledge. When one comes to the movement, he is requested to meditate on Srila Prabhupada as his guru. The role of the initiating spiritual master is to strengthen the connection that one has with Srila Prabhupada.

It is not that when one comes to the movement, he is meditating on Srila Prabhupada as his guru and then at the moment of initiation, he no longer feels that connection with Srila Prabhupada. All of the sudden, at the moment of initiation he looses that direct connection with Srila Prabhupada and then becomes connected to him only indirectly. No, that connection with Srila Prabhupada is still there at the moment of initiation. It is a connection of instructor and student, but it is still there, it does not stop being direct and becomes indirect. That direct connection is there before the initiation and still there after the initiation. It is a trasncendental connection. Transcendental in the sense of reception of diyva-jaña.

Perhaps Dhira Govinda prabhu's writings in the Prominent Link makes more sense than mine when he says ( I am copying from the book exactly as it is written):

"Can someone be called 'Srila Prabhupada's disciple if he didn't receive formal initiation from Srila Prabhupada?' The GBC response to this, based on its policy that Srila Prabhupada is the preeminent siksa guru for every member of the institution (GBC resolutions, 1999), would seem to be "yes". As far as I understand GBC position statements, the GBC would qualify this "yes" by stating that everyone is Srila Prabhupada's siksa disciple, but not his diksa disciple. Still, the GBC would agree that all members are meant to be Srila Prabhupupada's direct disciple, in some sense, (a siksa sense), of the term. In the above-mentioned section of PL, the essay presents a "this and that" perspective, rather than a "this or that" perspective, regarding this issue of terminlogy. We suggest that such a perspective as described in PL can synthesize diverse views in the movement and thus contribute towards harmonious understanding amongst Srila Prabhupada's followers. If we focus on delivery of transcendental knowledge from guru to disciple, then all members of the movement may be considered direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada, and if we focus on the formal initiation ceremony, then perhaps the terminology "disciple of the disciple" is applicable.

 

 

 

 

[yasodanandana]

hare krishna.... if possible i'd want to give a contribute.. please forgive my "italenglish"

 

" If a granddisciple worships Srila Prabhupada instead of his own guru, it is not because the guru is not qualified."

 

technically speaking.. "qualified" means "pure devotee".. we say in the prayer "vancha kalpa tarubyas" that a vaishnava can fulfill all our devotional wishes. So my guru is a vaishnava, he's omnipotent, i see all the parampara in him, adore all the parampara through him.

Of course in any math there's a special respect for the "founder", in the math, at the end of kirtan everyone, direct disciple or not, has to say "jay om vishnupada paramahamsa.." referring to the founder for first.

 

But the guru is the one who brings me to krsna, obviously my guru says that he can do this for the mercy of his guru, but he brings me to krsna, not to the previous acharya who will bring me to krsna...

 

This, in my opinion, is a deviation, and creates de facto a "semi- ritvik" situation... : prabhupad is THE guru, obviously other gurus are not only officiants, but indeed they are like "half gurus", "supporting gurus"... or they are not "janme janme prabhu" like we say in guru vandanam! They give me a kind of "legitimation", i am now into Iskcon, i have all the required stamps and autorizations, let me link to the "real thing" Prabhupada

 

 

 

"The role of the initiating spiritual master is to strengthen the connection that one has with Srila Prabhupada"

 

this is somewhat lessening the value of parampara.. we do not see as a problem if we muste serve krsna indirectly, or if we cannot have him directly as a guru like arjuna did.. As the opposite we do love to have krsna's mercy through all the disciplic succession, in scriptures there's the famous example of the fruit, that being tasted by a particular bird, increases his sweetness.... so the message of bhaktisiddhanta is sweet, interpretated by srila prabhupada is sweeter, applied in my time, place and circumstance by my spiritual master is sweetest!!

 

so... if we think that connecting to prabhupada through our spiritual master is different from connecting directly, this is due to a material concept of the parampara... disciplic succession is not a series of layers each one adding blur or fog to the vision of krsna and previous acharyas

 

 

"It is not that when one comes to the movement, he is meditating on Srila Prabhupada as his guru and then at the moment of initiation, he no longer feels that connection with Srila Prabhupada"

 

yes but we have to learn, that we are in the spiritual realm, it is not like in our world, if i put another ring (the guru) in the chain between me and prabhupada, the connection becames closer because now i am linked in the right way, before i was studying, training, preparing to the real commitment!!

 

 

 

reading also the words of dhira govinda prabhu, i humby think that we have forgotten that "direct" has an opposite meaning and effect in the spiritual world than in the material world

 

i have read recently in another thread, some words by GauraGovindaMaharaja, he was saying that if we do not have a present living spiritual master, who will give a slap in our face when we will need it? So let us be honest, we are now in a different dimension, we cannot feel his slaps, he's in antoher lila

 

obviously we can read about the slaps given to the other devotees in lilamrita or conversation, but there is not that big, cutting, tremendous surprise of the spiritual master who comes to chastize us even when we are sure to have done all the things perfectly, like arjuna who was sure to having done everything good and vedic, planning to take sannyasi and leave the battle of kuruksetra

 

perhaps, or very often, our attachment to not to be disturbed by other masters in our devotion to prabhupada, hides the fact that WE want to be OUR guru: load the folio.. today i choose an instruction given to janavi, tomorrow to hayagriva, after tomorrow to harikesha etc. and i build my personal prabhupada that give me siksa in the way i feel more safe...

 

my conclusion: we are not pure, we do not live in the spiritual world, prabhupada is in the spiritual world, we need a pure person to transfer the slaps from the lotus hands of prabhupada to our materialist face

 

 

i love srila prabhupada, from 20 years within the core of my heart.... and many people in this forum knows who is my guru maharaja, he's a pure devotee, a very exalted person... frankly i do not understand what could be, to have a separate devotion to srila prabhupada without his sanction or his constant inspiration.

 

Spiritual master contains everything, there's nothing missing that we have to reach with a separate effort.

 

All this things for me are hiding a lack of faith in the spiritual master due to the facts and falldowns that everyone knows, surely if i want a "not so strong" and "not so exclusive" guru, krsna will give to me a guru like that, who beeing not completely fit for this role, he will leave space to separately worship to the previous acharya

 

so let us search for a pure devotee, as pure as srila prabhupada... maybe he will not have the same epocal and historical impact of srila prabhupada, but ha has to have the same purity, the same detachment and humbleness to be able to transfer krsna message without adding selfish interests and speculations

 

and if we have a strong desire, we will find vaishnavas like this in any math.... surely in iskcon math, that is big, ethernal and protected by krsna and prabhupada

.

.

.

 

i make a tremendous effort to write in english, so forgive me... the sense of this message reflects my thoughts, the style is much more harsh and direct than i really want to...

 

my obeisances to you all

 

 

 

[Nimai]

Dear Yasodananda prabhu,

 

You have misunderstood my post and you have certainly misunderstood the book "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link." No one is saying that the initiating gurus are not qualified or that they are not pure. It has nothing to do with their pureness or qualification. No one is saying that the initiating gurus cannot link us to the parampara. And no one is saying that the initiating guru cannot bring one to Krsna. As an intelligent person, you do realize that "qualified, pure and to bring one to Krsna" is a subjective topic. How can anyone say that our gurus are not qualified, pure or that they cannot bring one to Krsna! The Prominent Link is certainly not saying that. So, please stop accusing it of something that is not saying!

You say: ...."so the message of bhaktisiddhanta is sweet, interpretated by srila prabhupada is sweeter, applied in my time, place and circumstance by my spiritual master is sweetest!!" Prabhu, who is arguing with that?

 

You say:....."disciplic succession is not a series of layers each one adding blur or fog to the vision of krsna and previous acharyas." Prabhu, disciplic succession is not a series of bodies. There are many gurus in the disciplic succession that were not initiating spiritual masters. So, you are right, disciplic succession is NOT a material conception.

 

Prabhu, this statement does not make sense to me: "yes but we have to learn, that we are in the spiritual realm, it is not like in our world, if i put another ring (the guru) in the chain between me and prabhupada, the connection becames closer because now i am linked in the right way, before i was studying, training, preparing to the real commitment!!"

 

If you are saying that the Prominent Link does not consider the initiation ceremony as a real commitment, then you are misinterpreting it's message. What the Prominent Link is saying is that we have a real and direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada by reading his books and hearing his tapes. That real and direct connection (receving divya-jñana) with Srila Prabhupada does not change at the time of the initiation ceremony. That relationship with Srila Prabhupada is still there, we are still getting our primary divya-jñana from him. So, that connection does not become indirect at the moment of the initiation ceremony. It is still direct before and after the initiation ceremony.

 

Prabhu, can you explain this statement: "reading also the words of dhira govinda prabhu, i humby think that we have forgotten that "direct" has an opposite meaning and effect in the spiritual world than in the material world."

 

Prabhu, who is saying that we do not need a physically present initiating guru to give us slaps in the face?

 

Prabhu, who is saying that we do not want a physically present guru to instruct us.

 

Prabhu, who is arguing with your conclusions when you say: "my conclusion: we are not pure, we do not live in the spiritual world, prabhupada is in the spiritual world, we need a pure person to transfer the slaps from the lotus hands of prabhupada to our materialist face."

 

I am grateful that you took the time to respond to my post. But, frankly I find it offensive that you are accusing the Prominent Link book of saying things that it does not say.

Give me an honest answer, prabhu, did you even bothered to read the Prominent Link book. It looks as though you haven't. Then, how can you argue against something that you have no knowledge of?

What the Prominent Link is saying is that the most relevant connection to the parampara comes through the reception of transcendental knowledge and that Srila Prabhupada is therefore fulfilling that role by virtue of being the primary giver of transcendental knowledge. That the most essential aspect of the process of initiation is the transmission of transcendental knowledge. That Srila Prabhupada is the main source, and even the main direct source, of transcendental knowledge, for many, perhaps most, members of his movement. That one is connected to the parampara through transcendental knowledge. Anyone who gives one transcendental knowledge is connecting us to the parampara. That Srila Prabhupada is the main giver of transcendental knowledge. That the purpose of the formal initiation ceremony is an acknowledgement of the

initiate's connection to the parampara. The role of the initiating spiritual master in the ceremony is to encourage and help the devotee to strengthen that connection.

So, as you can see, Yasodanandana prabhu, the Prominent Link does not talk about gurus not being pure or qualified or that we do not need to take initiation, or that we do not need an initiating spiritual master or anything of the like.

If you want to discuss the Prominent Link then let's discuss what it is really saying (what I listed above). Let's discuss what the Prominent Link is really saying, not what others (or the GBC) are saying what it says, or what you think it is saying. Let's discuss the real content of the Prominent Link.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yasodanandana]

"Nevertheless, some grand disciples would prefer to make things more simple and just have Srila Prabhupada's picture in their altars and offer him their bhoga and their pranam mantras and such worship him alone."

 

in my opinion all the debate started from this phrase written by you, that, for me, sounds "ritvik" and deviant even if it seems so sweet

 

(of course i surely assume that you are not some sort of pervert and deviant, you are surely a nice and faithful devotee od sri chaitanya mahaprabhu!!)

 

so i am sorry, but i have understood that the debate was about the subjects (enough controversial and important) born in the thread, not specifically about that book

 

i never cited it and i never said that it is is saying something or something else

[Nimai]

You said:

"Nevertheless, some grand disciples would prefer to make things more simple and just have Srila Prabhupada's picture in their altars and offer him their bhoga and their pranam mantras and such worship him alone."

 

in my opinion all the debate started from this phrase written by you, that, for me, sounds "ritvik" and deviant even if it seems so sweet.

 

Prabhu, I am always suspicious of people who throw negative labels at someone. Can't two people talk to each other in a civilized manner without one trying to scratch the other's eyes?

When you say that my words sound "ritvik" and deviant, I honestly do not know what you mean. Your statement certainly does not enhance communication. The only thing that I get out of your statement is that you are jeering at what I say. Now, I don't think that is too nice!

I am not an expert at "ritvik" philosophy, in fact, I know very little about it. But from my understanding, the ritviks think that the only initiating guru is Srila Prabhupada. They also believe that all gurus that initiate are performing the initiation ceremony on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. How can this philosophy be compared to what I am saying, which by the way comes from the Prominent Link book. What I am saying is that some initiating gurus who do initiate on their own behalf and who are the diksa gurus for their disciples, out of humility they should defer the worship that they rightly deserve for themselves to Srila Prabhupada. Now some gurus might not want to defer their worship to anyone else, and that is OK too. How can this be called "ritvik philosophy"? Please, ask any ritvik if they agree with your assertion.

As far as your assertion that what I am saying is "deviant." You have a right to your opinion, it is deviant for you and I don't argue with it. But, for many devotees it is not deviant. Why do I say this? Because it is not deviant to say that Srila Prabhupada is qualified to be worship as the prime deliverer of divya-jñana. He is the main spiritual guide and the guru from whom many are directly receiving most of their transcendental knowledge regardless of whom gave them initiation; therefore, he is the primary link. Yes, he is the main guru because transmission of transcendental knowledge is the essence of being a guru. Srila Prabhupada by being the prime deliverer of transcendental knowledge is everyone's main guru.

If someone says that Srila Prabhupada is not their main guru because he is not giving the main transcendental knowledge, that it OK too. Just as it is OK to say that Srila Prabhupada is the main guru for those who are receiving the main transcendental knowledge from him. Both are OK and both should be accepted in his movement.

So, the Prominent Link is not saying that all devotees should worhip Srila Prabhupada only. What is saying is that granddisciples are direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada and they are also disciples of the disciples of Srila Prabhupada. All of our initiating gurus could be pure devotees, still it does not change the fact that granddisciples are also direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada and that if some choose to worship him exclusively, that should be accepted also.

Please do not get hang up with the worship issue. You are saying that to worship Srila Prabhupada instead of your initiating guru is deviant. But that is not so, there are many examples in the parampara where a Vaisnava who did not conduct the initiation ceremony is the main guru and the main link to the disciplic succession. For example, Srila Vyasadeva did not conduct the initiation ceremony for Srila Madhvacarya; Srila Narottama dasa Thakura did not perform an initiation ceremony for Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura; Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji did not formally initiate Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura; Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura did not officially initiate

Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, and so on and so forth. Are you calling all of these exalted Vaisnavas deviant because they did not worship their initiating gurus as their main gurus?

Not to formally worship someone doesn't mean that we think he is not pure or qualified. Neither does it mean that we are disrespectful of him.

Again, no one is saying that all initiating gurus should not be worshipped. And no one is saying that the parampara ends with Srila Prabhupada. All that we are saying is that Srila Prabhupada is the main giver of transcendental knowledge for all members of his movement. He is the primary guru. He is qualified to be the sole receiver of worship if and only if the initiating guru defers his own worship to Srila Prabhupada. As we saw in the example of the exalted personalities above, an initiating guru is not always the point of your absolute surrender.

I don't have Dhira Govinda prabhu's sharp mind and so I can understand why my words can be easily misunderstood. I am just explaining things to the best of my capacity. I am really a very simple person.

Maybe this excerpt from the Prominet Link might help (but it is best to read the book to really understand it):

I will post this in my next post because I'll run out of room.

[Nimai]

Excerpt from Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link by Dhira Govinda prabhu, page 124

An assumption of the Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that Srila Prabhupada would use the words "direct link,primary link,prominent link," and "current link" to describe the relationships of the Vaisnavas listed consecutively at the end of the Introcuction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is, Srila Prabhupada would describe Narottama dasa Thakur as the direct, primary, current, and prominent link to the disciplic succession for Visvanatha Cakravarti, who i s the direct, primary, current, and prominent link for Jagannatha dasa Babaji, etc. if someone asserts that, even though Srila Prabhupada lists those names successively in his list of the disciplic succession, he would not use terms such as "direct" and "current" to describe those relationships, then the usage of terminology in The Prominent Link is questioned. Natural issues to pursue would be the determination of who Srila Prabhupada would describe as the prominent , direct, current, and primary link to the parampara for Visvanatha Cakravarti, for Bhaktivinode Thakur, for Gaurakisore dasa Babaji, etc., if not the Vaisnava acarya listed in the BG Intro.

I am making the assumption that Srila Prabhupada would describe the Vaisnava listed in the preceding number of that list as the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara for the Vaisnava listed in the following number on the list. Based on that assumption I then ask "What is the criteria for appearing on this list?" We can understand through historical fact related to the personalities on that list that the criteria isn't the performance of a formal initiation ceremony, and it isn't even simultaneous physical existence on the same planet. So what is the criteria? The criterion, as best I can perceive, and I'm open to alternative suggestions, is that the Vaisnava in the precedding number is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge to the Vaisnava in the following number. With that criterion understood as being the determiant of who is the direct and prominent link to the parampara, we can then assess Srila Prabhupada's position in relation to the members o fhis movement. For those members of his movement for whom he is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, Srila Prabhupada is the current and primary link to the parampara. (But Srila Prabhupada didn't perform the formal initiation ceremony for that person. But Srila Prabhupada isn't physically present on the planet Earth.) Neither of those attributes are criteria for determining who is the prominent and current link to the parampara, based on the rationale described above.

You asked "Does one necessarily lead to the other?" It does, if the teterminological assumptions of The Prominent Link are accepted. If they're not accepted, then one would need to present alternative terminology as to who Srila Prabhupada would describe as "direct", "prominent", and "current" , if not the Vaisnava listed in the preceding numbers in the list at the end of the BG Intro. Or, one could try to refute the essay's asserted criteria for being listed in that list-namely, being the Vaisnava who gives the most direct transcendental knowledge. If there is some criteria that fit better than that one, then let's hear it and discuss it, and apply it to our current situation.

[gHari]

Has anyone ever clarified that this thread and that meeting have anything to do with this book? I didn't hear it mentioned on the recording. Who is Nimai and why does he care about the meeting? Nimai's attitude seems much more honest than the site webmaster's who is extolling the meeting.

 

On the recording I thought the loud talkers had a much wider agenda than the sannyasis had. Who knows what they appeared to agree upon; that Prabhupada is the major siska guru in ISKCON - no surprise there? I could not help trying to shut the loud talkers up as I listened, chastising them aloud left and right. They'll have to become more rational and burn off some of that ego and hatred before they can speak to any civil devotee audience.

[yasodanandana]

"Prabhu, I am always suspicious of people who throw negative labels at someone"

 

so do not be suspicious with me, i am answering messages not judging people.....

 

 

please accept my obeisances, and please i beg you to forgive me for my behaviour

 

i have said my opinion (that the true way to follow srila prabhupada is to follow a proper spiritual master and go back to krsna..... more than to speculate a guru-disciple relationship that now could not be real because we cannot freely communicate with prabhupada), let other much more expert devotees give their ones

 

 

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

 

That is the problema

 

how to overcome this dastardly ego

 

and viscious hate

 

How can "devotees"have such wicked qualities?

 

[Nimai]

Dear Yasodanandana prabhu,

You said:

so do not be suspicious with me, i am answering messages not judging people.....

 

But, prabhu, you were the one who used the words "deviant" and "ritvik" in your comment about one of my statements. Still, even though I do not know you, I think that you are a nice person and a good devotee. That is just my gut feeling. So, I don't hold any animosity towards you.

 

Someone asked who is Nimai. Well, I am just a person who has read the PL book with an open mind and without preconceive notions (a really, really hard thing to do).

Yasodanandana prabhu, from your postings, I sense that you think that the concepts in the Prominent Link are not in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings. But, I assure you, they really are. Please read the PL book for yourself and see what I mean.

One thing that people do not understand is that the PL book has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the GBC-ritvik debate. It is a whole other thing. The PL concepts do not talk about initiations or the initiation ceremony. It does not talk about diksa gurus, siksa gurus, ritviks or anything at all connected with the initiation ceremony. The GBC-ritvik thing is a totally different thing.

It doesn't matter where one stands in the understanding of the May 28 or the July 9th letter when it comes to the PL concepts. Whatever your understanding of the conversation or the letter, the PL concepts still stand, separate and on its own.

What Dhira Govinda prabhu is saying is, to please first and foremost let's define the role of Srila Prabhupada, then and only then can we talk about other matters such as diksa and siksa gurus. That is why, all that the PL book talks about is Srila Prabhupada and his position in ISKCON and his relationship with all of ISKCON members. The book certainly is not against diksa gurus (of course not, that is what Srila Prabhupada wanted).

For those who read the Prominent Link book, they can attest that the book is talking about the tranmission of transcendental knowledge. That is the focus of the book. Transmission of transcendental knowledge is the most essential aspect of the process of initiation (noticed, I didn't say intiation ceremony). One important aspect of initiation is the initiation ceremony, but that is one thing that is outside the scope of the Prominent Link book.

The GBC-ritvik debate focuses primarily on the formal aspect of the intiation process (an important aspect). But, the PL does not talk about that aspect, it's main focus is (almost entirely) on the essential aspect of the initiation process (noticed I didn't say the formal initiation ceremony), which is the delivery of transcendental knowledge. According to the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, the most important aspect of the initiation process is the transmission of transcendental knowledge. Since Srila Prabhupada is the prime deliverer of transcendental knowledge, he is the main guru. No one should eclipsed his greatness. He is the primary guru for everyone in ISKCON. The PL book is making this very important point. Now, some might say that the most important deliverer of transcendental knowledge is not Srila Prabhupada, fine, then, you are entitled to your opinion. But, for many, their main divya-jñana comes from Srila Prabhupada. So, based on the transmission of transcendental knowledge, Srila Prabhupada is the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara (link in the sense that he links us to the parampara via divya-jñana). Still, no one is saying that Srila Prabhupada is the only link (only the ritviks say that) or that the link stops with Srila Prabhupada. He is the main link, that is all. He is the main link because he is the Vaisnava who directly gives transcendental knowledge more than any other devotee. So, prabhu Yasodanandana, how can you say that this is "diviant", "ritvik" and "concotion?" It all comes from Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

Now, how is all of this have to do with "officiating acaryas." Nothing, really.

Still, since I am not a "ritvik" phobic (like most devotees), I cannot deny Srila Prabhupada's clear response to Satvarupa Maharaja when he (Satvarupa Maharaja) asked a clear, open-ended, non-leading question to Srila Prabhupada about how initiations were to be conducted after his physical departure. Srila Prabhupada responded that he would appoint some of his followers to act as Officiating Acaryas. Now Srila Prabhupada's response was very clear. I don't think those in the Toronto meeting with Bhakti Caru Maharaja and and Bhakti Marga Swami were ritviks (at least most of them weren't-I know that Locanananda prabhu is not a ritvik). These devotees are simply non ritvik-phobics.

Now, what does all that mean, I don't really know, I am not well verse in this "initiation ceremony" debate, I cannot make any further comment. All I know is what Srila Prabhupada said concerning how initiations were to be conducted after his departure. Since this is a "hot" topic, most likely, there has to be some kind of agreement (probably adjustments, I don't know).

The Prominent Link book has nothing to do with the GBC-rivik debate. I sometimes feel that that debate can and will continue forever. That is why, I have no interest in talking about it. Better to talk about the Prominent Link conceptswhich has nothing to do with that ugly debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gHari]

Nimai,

 

Prabhupada explained the word 'officiating' a few seconds later as a 'formality' in the presence of the guru. One must not labour on a half-truth. Several times in the next minute Srila Prabhupada explains in a number of ways that these are regular gurus he is appointing. But because of protocol, in his presence, they should be called 'officiating'. 'Officiating' has no meaning after 1977.

 

Two half-truths can never make one whole truth; they are simply confusing and meaningless.

 

Nimai, from what you've related about the Link book it would seem that the May 28th 'officiating' discussion is not necessary nor is the book contrary to Prabhupada's complete words and intentions revealed therein.

 

gHari

[Nimai]

Dear GHari prabhu,

 

I am not that familiar with that term "Officiating Acarya." I would have to research the whole conversation several times to get the gist of it; therefore, right now, I am not at liberty to make comments on that lablel. So, I apologize for speaking without so much knowledge. I'll be more careful next time around. One thing, prabhu,, I am not really attached to it. I know for a fact, that Dhira Govinda prabhu does not care for that label that much either.

You are right, Prabhu, that label has nothing to do with the Prominent Link concepts. And those concepts really, truly are not in contradiction with Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

Did you read the GBCs response to the book? And did you read the SAC response? They are really very scary.

[gHari]

Nice to see you got the capital "H" in my name; the 'g' is actually lower case because Hari is the prominent link. [A little political humour and a little Hari nama, please excuse]

 

The May 28th conversation you mentioned so often is in the second post in this thread. You were making pretty good sense up to the May 28th point, with the siksa line and all.

 

I heard there was a new book. I didn't read it, nor its rebuttals. I can't even imagine a 124+ page book on the subject.

 

gHari

 

[Guest guest]

Tamal Krsna Goswami Confesses

 

 

'Actually Srila Prabhupada never appointed any gurus he appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed any gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years (1977-1980) because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus..[...]..You cannot show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says: 'I appoint these eleven as gurus.' It does not exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth." (From Topanga Talks, December 3, 1980)

[Guest guest]

Ameyatma Dasa

I also have gradually come to the same conclusions you have regarding

rtvik. I have also written on the topic a number of times. Srila Prabhupada set up a GBC/Rtvik system side-by-side. As far as I understand (I joined in 73 in

LA) Srila Prabhupada started the GBC system and rtvik initiations hand-in-hand.

Karandhar, who left his GBC post in ISKCON in 74 had told me (mid 73) that

he had performed entire initiations totally on his own, approved the person, "selected their name", did get Srila Prabhupada's approval, chanted on the beads, performed the yajna, etc. He told me that for my initiation he had

selected most of the devotee's names - but that Srila Prabhupada selected a few, including mine. Anyway, Srila Prabhupada set up, and fully tested out the Rtvik-GBC system. That is what was in place, what was tested and up and running when Srila Prabhupada disappeared from this world, and it was this system of GBC that he ordered not to change anything but to continue to manage in that same way.

Logically a GBC system and rtvik are 100% complementary. The two work

together to allow the society to go on unchanged with Srila Prabhupada forever staying in the center. Yet, a GBC system with many gurus is contradictory and full of conflict.

For instance: Guru means authority. Guru has full spiritual authority over

his disciple. Yet, Srila Prabhupada said in his absence that the GBC as a whole is to have been ISKCON's ultimate authority. Then how does a Guru fit-in to the GBC system? In Srila Prabhupada's case he was the Ultimate Authority over and above the GBC. But, in his absence all others are subordinate to the GBC. So, the new gurus are NOT in the same position of authority, nor hold the same absolute authority as Srila Prabhupada did. The GBC could not function properly with other authorities (which has been the whole problem for 25 yrs).

If there were to be new diksha gurus then where are Srila Prabhupada's explicit and detailed instructions as to exactly how the new diksha's were to integrate with the authority of the GBC system? Where and how does the diksha

guru "fit in" to the GBC system? Srila Prabhupada was the ultimate authority above the GBC, none of the new gurus are (although many wanted and many tried) and as the GBC has now become weak and useless, so have all the gurus, and no one has risen above the whole GBC. What is most obvious by it's absence is any instructions whatsoever in which Srila Prabhupada explains how the new gurus authority over his disciples is to be shared or integrate with the ultimate authority of the GBC. Nothing; not one single indirect hint, what to

speak of clear, direct and explicit detailed description.

So, either Srila Prabhupada was asleep at the wheel and just totally forgot, or didn't think, or....... he never wanted there to be any other gurus in ISKCON and

the existing GBC/Rtvik system that he had spend many years setting up and

testing out was THE system that was to carry on in his physical absence.

 

 

---- got to go --- will the tide ever change ? Will 'ISKCON' finally

come to it's senses, OR will there become 2 branches from now on????

 

 

ys ameyatma das

 

[Guest guest]

Pradyumna Prabhu's Prediction

 

 

* * * * *

Sri Sri Guru Gauranga Jayatah

 

 

7 August, 1978

 

 

Dear Satsvarupa Maharaja,

 

 

Please accept my most humble obeisances. Maharaja, 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 Vrindavan now for some time and have not visited any other center recently except Delhi. Therefore, the information I have of what is happening at our other centers comes only from devotees visiting here, occasional letters, newsletters and our society's magazines and other publications. But what news I hear from these sources is very alarming and therefore I am writing to you in some anxiety. The matter concerns the Godbrothers 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 had made no successor. Everyone admitted that fact and understood it clearly. Instead the GBCs were to jointly manage all affairs of ISKCON just as 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 eleven somewhat advanced disciples to grant initiation to newcomers. However it was never mentioned at any time by His Divine Grace that these eleven were to be known as acharyas. 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 eleven, either in the society as a whole or in relation to their other 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 eleven gurus are all

 

 

1) adopting the title of acharya,

2) sitting on high Vyasasanas in front of Srila Prabhupada's Vyasasanas 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 acharyas.

 

 

First of all, the word acharya may be taken in three senses. Etymologically the word acharya 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. Secondly, the word means "one who grants initiation to a disciple." This is specifically indicated one who is guru. Anyone who grants initiation or is a guru may be called as "acharyadeva", etc.-by his disciples only! Whoever has accepted him as a 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 that "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 seat 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.q Now Srila Prabhupada, it is clear, did not appoint any such successor because not 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 eleven such acharyas. This was never mentioned by him. They were only given permission to make disciples and the GBC was to jointly manage, materially and spiritually. There was never any distinction made by Srila Prabhupada between material management and spiritual management. Both are the concern of the GBC. The eleven gurus may be only known as acharyas 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 one Godbrother or many Godbrothers sit above the others it is not at all proper.

 

 

Sometimes in an assembly there may be a 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 grihasta or brahmacari godbrother may also be invited to sit there if they are deserving by their advancement. If there is an appointed acharya as mentioned before (third sense of the word) than he alone may sit higher than the other godbrothers. Indeed in the different Gaudiya Mathas, even if one godbrother is in the position of acharya, 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 not putting himself in a position to 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 godbrother. 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 among those who are senior and those who are junior. Seniority is calculated according to the time of receiving first (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 front 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 their 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 guru godbrother 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 can come forward and offer their worship. This is the system being observed. Incidentally, the words of Om Visnupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura found in the English book Sri Chaitanya'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 to his 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 made by Krishna 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 members of the GBC will manage in which place. The GBC, who is appointed to be responsible for a certain zone somewhere on the planet, if a guru, will naturally make many disciples in that place-but how can he be illicitly restricted from accepting a disciple from somewhere else? That is a material consideration. It has nothing 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 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 acharya of such and such a zone. Srila Prabhupada never appointed one acharya of the whole ISKCON nor did he appoint several acharyas 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 acharya 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 eleven 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 temple no raised seat should be given to anyone 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, Chaitanya 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 sastras, but is called sistacara--that which has been taught by the conduct of the past guru parampara. It has not been specifically mentioned in the sastras, but still it is accepted as authoritative because of being seen to be the conduct of previous acharyas and their disciples.

 

 

Maharaja, after 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 eleven gurus not having been appointed to the position of acharya and for which they are unqualified both by a) the insufficient knowledge of sastra and b) the incomplete realization of Krishna 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 build up of pride and subsequent falldown, and

 

 

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

 

 

P.S. These are not good signs for our society. Older godbrothers and sannyasis here are very concerned that if the present trend is not checked immediately, it will have passed beyond that point and ISKCON will be in chaos in the near future.

 

 

I hereby formally request that all these points be immediately brought to the attention of the GBC so that a very tactful solution for all concerned may be decided and amicably implemented in our society. Please note that there is nothing personal in this letter. It is some pertinent spiritual knowledge meant for the good of all. If anyone takes offense, I very humbly beg pardon at hls feet. Hoping that this meets you in the best of health.

 

 

In the service of Srila Prabhupada

 

 

Pradyumna das Adhikari

 

[Guest guest]

TEXT 8

prathame ta' eka-mata acaryera gana

pache dui-mata haila daivera karana

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

At first all the followers of Advaita Acarya shared a single opinion. But later they followed two different opinions, as ordained by providence.

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

The words daivera karana indicate that by dint of providence, or by God's will, the followers of Advaita Acarya divided into two parties. Such disagreement among the disciples of one acarya is also found among the members of the Gaudiya Matha. In the beginning, during the presence of Om Visnupada Paramahamsa Parivrajakacarya Astottara-sata Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada, all the disciples worked in agreement; but just after his disappearance, they disagreed. One party strictly followed the instructions of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, but another group created their own concoction about executing his desires. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next acarya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of acarya, and they split in two factions over who the next acarya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master. Despite the spiritual master's order to form a governing body and execute the missionary activities of the Gaudiya Matha, the two unauthorized factions began litigation that is still going on after forty years with no decision.

Therefore, we do not belong to any faction. But because the two parties, busy dividing the material assets of the Gaudiya Matha institution, stopped the preaching work, we took up the mission of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and Bhaktivinoda Thakura to preach the cult of Caitanya Mahaprabhu all over the world, under the protection of all the predecessor acaryas, and we find that our humble attempt has been successful. We followed the principles especially explained by Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura in his commentary on the Bhagavad-gita verse vyavasayatmika buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana. According to this instruction of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, it is the duty of a disciple to follow strictly the orders of his spiritual master. The secret of success in advancement in spiritual life is the firm faith of the disciple in the orders of his spiritual master. The Vedas confirm this:

yasya deve para bhaktir

yatha deve tatha gurau

tasyaite kathita hy arthah

prakasante mahatmanah

"To one who has staunch faith in the words of the spiritual master and the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead the secret of success in Vedic knowledge is revealed." The Krsna consciousness movement is being propagated according to this principle, and therefore our preaching work is going on successfully, in spite of the many impediments offered by antagonistic demons, because we are getting positive help from our previous acaryas. One must judge every action by its result. The members of the self-appointed acarya's party who occupied the property of the Gaudiya Matha are satisfied, but they could make no progress in preaching. Therefore by the result of their actions one should know that they are asara, or useless, whereas the success of the ISKCON party, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, which strictly follows guru and Gauranga, is increasing daily all over the world. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura wanted to print as many books as possible and distribute them all over the world. We have tried our best in this connection, and we are getting results beyond our expectations.

 

 

TEXT 9

 

 

keha ta' acarya ainaya, keha ta' svatantra

sva-mata kalpana kare daiva-paratantra

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

Some of the disciples strictly accepted the orders of the acarya, and others deviated, independently concocting their own opinions under the spell of daivi maya.

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

This verse describes the beginning of a schism. When disciples do not stick to the principle of accepting the order of their spiritual master, immediately there are two opinions. Any opinion different from the opinion of the spiritual master is useless. One cannot infiltrate materially concocted ideas into spiritual advancement. That is deviation. There is no scope for adjusting spiritual advancement to material ideas.

 

 

TEXT 10

 

 

acaryera mata yei, sei mata sara

tanra ajna langhi' cale, sei ta' asara

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

The order of the spiritual master is the active principle in spiritual life. Anyone who disobeys the order of the spiritual master immediately becomes useless.

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

Here is the opinion of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami. Persons who strictly follow the orders of the spiritual master are useful in executing the will of the Supreme, whereas persons who deviate from the strict order of the spiritual master are useless.

 

 

TEXT 11

 

 

asarera name ihan nahi prayoiana

bheda janibare kari ekatra ganana

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

There is no need to name those who are useless. I have mentioned them only to distinguish them from the useful devotees.

 

 

 

TEXT 12

 

 

dhanya-rasi mape yaiche patna sahite

pascate patna udana samskara karite

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

Paddy is mixed with straw at first, and one must fan it to separate the paddy from the straw.

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

This example given by Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami is very appropriate. In the case of the Gaudiya Matha members, one can apply a similar process. There are many disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, but to judge who is actually his disciple, to divide the useful from the useless, one must measure the activities of such disciples in executing the will of the spiritual master. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura tried his best to spread the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to countries outside India. When he was present he patronized the disciples to go outside India to preach the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, but they were unsuccessful because within their minds they were not actually serious about preaching His cult in foreign countries; they simply wanted to take credit for having gone to foreign lands and utilize this recognition in India by advertising themselves as repatriated preachers. Many svamis have adopted this hypocritical means of preaching for the last eighty years or more, but no one could preach the real cult of Krsna consciousness all over the world. They merely came back to India falsely advertising that they had converted all the foreigners to the ideas of Vedanta or Krsna consciousness, and then they collected funds in India and lived satisfied lives of materiai comfort. As one fans paddy to separate the real paddy from useless straw, by accepting the criterion recommended by Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami one can very easily understand who is a genuine world-preacher and who is useless.

 

[Guest guest]

Incongruence of GBC/Guru Configuration

 

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

Another logical observation is the incongruence of the GBC/Guru configuration in current day ISKCON. According to Srila Prabhupada, a true spiritual master or guru is never subservient to any committee, disciple, God brother or group of God brothers.

 

 

"Everyone should therefore be very careful not to be jealous of an empowered Vaisnava, or a suddha-vaisnava. It is also an offense to consider an empowered Vaisnava an object of disciplinary action. It is offensive to try to give him advice or to correct him. One can distinguish between a neophyte Vaisnava and an advanced Vaisnava by their activities. The advanced Vaisnava is always situated as the spiritual master, and the neophyte is always considered his disciple. The spiritual master must not be subjected to the advice of a disciple, nor should a spiritual master be obliged to take instructions from those who are not his disciples".

 

 

Nectar of Instruction verse 6, purport

 

 

So, here in this verse and purport we learn that a guru is never subjected to the rule of any GBC, God brother or disciple. However, according to the current configuration in ISKCON it is actually possible that a disciple of a guru could become a GBC member and in essence be in a position to legislate rules and regulations that his guru will be bound to abide by and follow.

The system of authority in ISKCON is set up as such that any and all members of the society are under it's jurisdiction and authority. Srila Prabhupada never instructed that someday there would be a class of gurus who would be under the authority of the GBC. If Srila Prabhupada was foreseeing such an occurrence in ISKCON, he surely could have given some guidance and instructions on how the gurus were to integrate into the GBC structure in a sort of power sharing arrangement. This verse and purport under study here clearly states in clear terms that a guru is never bound to the authority of anyone except his own spiritual master and the predecessor acharyas. Therefore, a configuration of a class of gurus being subordinate to the GBC is clearly rejected by Srila Prabhupada here. A real guru is not accountable to any committee of God brothers. The current "gurus" in ISKCON are unquestionably bound by the restrictions and authority of the GBC. The GBC has a whole host of rules and regulations governing the behavior of gurus and their disciples, and all ISKCON gurus must consent to be under the control of the GBC in order to get the "stamp of approval" from the GBC.

So, what we have now in current day ISKCON is a class of "lame duck" gurus whose disciples are not allowed to worship them in the same fashion and manner as is Srila Prabhpada's disciples. The GBC has legislated so many rules and regulations like: No T-shirts of any guru except Prabhupada, no buttons or bumper stickers of any guru except Prabhupada, no guru-puja in the temple room, no setting on the Vyasasana etc., etc. The disciples of these gurus are being told that " your guru is not as worthy as Srila Prabhupada" or " your guru is a guru of a lesser order". In this way the ISKCON authority is saying "Well, they are gurus, but not real gurus". "They are gurus but they aren't worthy of absolute worship and surrender".

What kind of gurus are they? Are they real gurus or just make-believe gurus? Is it right to require someone to accept them as guru and then tell them that he cannot respect and worship him as the disciples of Prabhupada worship him? According to the way Prabhupada set up the GBC there are no provisions for any other diksha guru in ISKCON besides himself. If Prabhupada was expecting that someday there would be dozens, if not hundreds of diksha gurus in ISKCON wouldn't he have made some mention as to how they were to integrate into the ISKCON framework? There is not one statement from Prabhupada explaining how a multiplicity of gurus would integrate into the GBC authority of ISKCON. Was he so careless that he forgot to mention that part, or did he not cover the issue because he was not setting up ISKCON to accommodate a plurality of gurus?

The current ISKCON structure has a class of gurus under the authority of a GBC. This clearly goes against the teachings of Srila Prabhupada on the absolute position of the spiritual master.

A real guru is not bound to the legislative mandates of any committee, but ISKCON is clearly set up with the GBC being the ultimate managing authority. Under the current configuration, even the guru class of devotees are subject to the control and sanction of the GBC. These gurus are clearly treated as "second class" or "third class" gurus and are not afforded the genuine authority and respect as a true guru is supposed to command.

Either one is guru or he is not guru. Srila Prabhupada clearly advised against accepting second class or third class devotees are gurus.

[Guest guest]

Bhakti Caru Swami's Disappearance Day offering to Srila Prabhupada

Search

 

Krishna Store

Introduction

RealAudio

Prabhupada

Sri Krishna

Science

Society

Yoga

India

Religion

Temples

Letters

The Guru

Devotees

Chanting

Books

Preaching

Lord Caitanya

Web Links

ISKCON

Krishna.org

 

 

 

SUBMIT AN ARTICLE

 

EMAIL US

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Prabhupada MP3 Audio Archive

--

Please Support Krishna.org

 

Please enter the amount you would like to donate

$

 

 

 

--

 

 

Krishna Store

 

 

 

--

 

 

His Divine Grace

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Prabhupada

Founder-Acarya of the

Hare Krishna Movement

 

 

 

--

 

Why do we hesitate to tell a new comer who is searching for a guru that Srila Prabhupada, the best guru the world has ever seen, is still here, and one can surrender unto him and go back to Godhead very easily? When we have such a great good fortune, why do we not take full advantage of it? Bhakti Caru Swami (06-13-03)

 

 

...Prabhupada did not say anything and then in a very soft voice he told me, "Didn't I teach you that the spirit soul is eternal and he never dies?"

 

That one statement gave me a profound realization: how could the person who taught me that the spirit soul never dies ever die himself? He will always be with us, although some day he may disappear from our mundane vision.

 

But today, when I look back, I can see that soon after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance we took it for granted that Srila Prabhupada is not here any more - like any other mortal, as he left his body, he is no more. I very strongly feel that this is the greatest mistake we have made. And as a result, ISKCON today is in such a critical condition. Now that we assembled here to celebrate Srila Prabhupada's disappearance pastime, once and for all let us recognize that Srila Prabhupada has not gone away.

 

Rather, he has simply disappeared from our vision. Although we are not able to see him any more with our mundane vision, he is very much there, watching us from the spiritual sky. He will always be there to guide us, provided we remain fixed up at his lotus feet. He will reward us when we please him and he will chastise us if we make mistake.

 

It is due to the mistake of considering that Srila Prabhupada is gone we are facing all these difficulties. During his last days on this planet, Srila Prabhupada told his leading disciples many times, "Just maintain what I have given you." At that time we thought it would be such an easy thing to do. However, today we see how miserably we failed to fulfill that instruction. Srila Prabhupada's greatest asset was his devotees, and that asset we started to lose first. Now we are about to lose everything else that His Divine Grace gave us to maintain.

 

I do not want to blame anyone for all the mistakes that were made, but we must nonetheless recognize them and learn our lesson from them. Therefore, with all sincerity, I say that we are losing everything because we had been thinking that Srila Prabhupada is now dead and gone, and we started to claim our shares of our inheritance. This morning, during her speech, mother Daivisakti pointed out how natural it is to see that Srila Prabhupada is 'the guru' of ISKCON, still today. It occurred to me how clear a fact that is. Still, how seldom we act according to that understanding! Or do we ever act at all with that understanding?

 

Nevertheless, everyday, in all the temples of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada is worshipped by everyone. Then why do we hesitate to tell a new comer who is searching for a guru that Srila Prabhupada, the best guru the world has ever seen, is still here, and one can surrender unto him and go back to Godhead very easily? When we have such a great good fortune, why do we not take full advantage of it? It is only when we do so that the glorious days of ISKCON will come back again and we will witness Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's sankirtan movement starting to spread in leaps and bounds all over the world.

 

If we really love ISKCON and if we sincerely want the Krsna Consciousness movement to spread all over the world in every town and village, then let us broadcast all over the world that Srila Prabhupada is still with us and that anyone who wants to receive his mercy can approach him and establish his eternal relationship with him.

 

On this day when Srila Prabhupada has apparently left this planet, let us take up the solemn responsibility to recognize the fact that Srila Prabhupada is always present in his ISKCON, and that whoever wants to can come and meet him here, still today. As his humble servants, let us help them to establish their relationship with His Divine Grace.

 

Bhakti Caru Swami

 

 

 

[gHari]

He made it quite plain. There is nothing more to be said by any self-respecting devotee. All the jealousy and wishful thinking in the world cannot juggle his words enough to change what he clearly said many times in many ways that day. Is this how we interpret his words in the Bhagavatam? Maybe that will be the punishment - absolute delusion.

[yasodanandana]

" Since Srila Prabhupada is the prime deliverer of transcendental knowledge, he is the main guru. No one should eclipsed his greatness. He is the primary guru for everyone in ISKCON. "

 

if we want we can call prabhupada guru, param guru, jagat guru etc... but , now, technically speaking, his way to be a guru, is to have given initiation and siksa to other disciples who now can act as gurus

 

guru means that i can make private and personal questions

 

guru means that he, interactively, answers my questions and solves my doubts in a personal and exclusive way, maybe good only for me and not for others

 

guru means that he, citing gaura govinda maharaja, slaps my face when i am wrong

 

guru means that judges and interpretes the siddhanta accordind time, place and circumstance, and guna / karma of the people who is asking for shelter

 

we study a book, named bhagavad gita who speaks of arjuna, that, judging only with shastric knowledge and general principles, was thinking that his duty was the one of a sannyasi

 

krsna, as the spiritual master, teaches consodering the specific position of arjuna giving an answer, at first sight, absolutely against moral and religious rules

 

 

so, the prominent link, is the present guru (pro... in latin means : NEAR..), and this is the only way to properly link to Srila Prabhupada..

 

His prominent Greatness is in having given to us parampara system,

 

i remember Prabhupada chastizing a devotee who said that Bhaktisiddhanta was his favourite writer...

prabhupada answered : "mmh.....your second favourite !"

[Guest guest]

 

BY LOCANANANDA DASA

 

TORONTO, CANADA, Aug 17 (VNN) — On July 20th, at the Toronto Rathayatra, a group of senior devotees met with His Holiness Bhakti Charu Swami to discuss the steps that need to be taken by the leaders of ISKCON to reunite the family of Srila Prabhupada's followers. This was in pursuance of a seminar presented by His Holiness in Mayapura dealing with the role of Srila Prabhupada as Founder-Acarya.

 

The meeting was hosted by His Holiness Bhaktimarga Swami who also acted as moderator. The interaction among the participants was very positive and gave devotees hope that if similar meetings with ISKCON leaders were organized everywhere, and if the leaders agreed to work together to re-institute Srila Prabhupada's basic programs, the former glory of the Hare Krishna movement could be restored.

 

A recording of the two hour session can be heard in its entirety at www.prabhupadavani.org. Just click on Toronto Meeting. Comments can also be submitted to the webmaster.

 

The conclusion of the meeting showed that through ., or by open discussion of the instructions of the spiritual master, a consensus can be reached and the will of the Founder-Acarya can be understood. We encourage everyone to take the time to listen to the recording. It will rejuvenate your faith in the future of Srila Prabhupada's movement.

 

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

Dear gH, Is this the beginning of the second coming ?

[gHari]

Gopala dasa,

 

The loud ones just revealed their arrogance: "We've been saying this all the along. Blah, blah, blah" I wasn't impressed at all. I don't think we are any closer.

 

The second coming will not be politically inspired. When the politics and egos die, then there will just be Krsna. Krsna Caitanya. Then we'll all be on the same page.

 

gHari

[stonehearted]

Neither was I. I wasn't all that impressed either with Bhakti Charu Maharaja's presentation or the points made by the committee (or whatever it was). Maharaja was too diplomatic (indicating that little or nothing would result from the conversation) and the committee was too sure of its rectitude (little or no humility).

 

I agree with gHari; real change will not be driven by political expedience but by a change of heart--yours and mine.

[livingentity]

I have not listened to the meeting yet - is it worth my time or is it just a waste?