What will Gaudiya Vaisnavism be like in 2000 years?

[Guest guest]

Poster: Tarun

Re: Srila Sridhardev authorized junior gurus

 

HDG was present for 11 yrs after PrabhupAd's departure 1977-88. He preferred others initiated.

He did state: "only send me the 'difficult cases'. Those who insisted upon nothing less than.

<hr>

I have been listening to the tapes of Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj talking with the GBC (up to 1981) and with the devotees who left ISKCON and stayed forever more with Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj after 1981.

 

The ones from ISKCON who began initiating their own disciples but who had a siksa guru in Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj were encouraged to carry on the line of Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. But there were others, me included, who were 108% committed to Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj and who brought other friends to Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj to receive diksa. We were told, "in Haribhaktivilasa it says that it is an offence for a less qualified person to initiate when a more qualified person is available to give diksa". So we tried to bring everyone to Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj.

 

The junior guru can help a disciple, but there is a limit to how much help he can give. He needs the backing of a senior Guru who can advise and nourish him. This is the function Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj took, in relation to those people such as Narasingha Maharaj who wanted to continue the lineage of Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami, with Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj as their siksa guru. But Narasingha Maharaj and Visnu Maharaj themselves will tell you that they are not "direct disciples" of Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj. The direct disciples are servants of Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj's direct, chosen successor. And Srila Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj made a distinction between his own line, his parampara, and other lines of succession. He said, "Accept my chosen successor, or leave my Math, for I won't have you here in the Math creating a disturbance". Some stayed, some left. The jiva has free will.

 

 

[Guest guest]

On another thread on this forum it was said that Srila Sridhara-dev Gosvami Maharaja said that we don't even need diksa... so why where devotees encouraged to take diksa from him, if this isn't needed. Wasn't harinama from Srila Prabhupada enough?

[Guest guest]

http://www.purebhakti.com/lectures/lecture20030113a.shtml

 

What is not clear in this lecture? What in this lecture is not backed by guru, sadhu and shastra? What is the problem?

 

 

If you are liberated or a ragatmika bhakti,or a parishad of the Supreme Lord, then perhaps you don't need diska. Srila Haridas Thakura did not need it. When you can chant like he did then you don't either. When you can chant suddha-nama then you can stop chanting the gayatri mantras,otherwise not.

[Guest guest]

Thank you prabhuji, i understand about the importance of diksa but always nice to be heard again and again. I was just curious to see some sort of contradiction in two posts put on here at around the same time. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

 

So it was okay to have a board allowing other gurus to initiate which sridhara maharaj originally suggested and help develop. Narayan maharaj still offered guidance to these gurus 'established by ecclesiastical appointment', saying nothing to them or rejecting them instead encouraging them, until they stopped going to him.

 

 

SBRSM and SBVNM certainly gave them the benefit of the doubt and tried to encourage them. We can read what SBRSM said to them here:

 

First Two Official Meetings of Srila Sridhara Maharaja

with the ISKCON GBC March 1978

http://www.guardian-of-devotion../articles/meeting.htm

 

 

Don't confuse his encouragement as an endorsement of their adhikara. Try to understand that they were hell bent on taking over the mission, had ambitions to do that prior to His Divine Grace's samadhi, and some are even suspected of hastening that event with arsenic.

 

 

So I dont think the problem was guru nominations it was the fact that they stopped recieving siksa from them.

 

Which is justified by srila prabhupadas instructions regarding his god brothers, which i have already quoted from previously.

 

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now ask yourself why they rejected their siksa gurus? They rejected SBRSM because they could not fool him or manipulate him. They strongly objected when several iskcon members accepted third initiation from SBRSM. SBRSM was actually shocked that they would have any objection, and then started to see the scope of the underlying envy that permeated their institutional mentality. He then had to advise his sannyasa disciples, and sadly, that they might have to leave the iskcon mission to follow his siksa.

 

SBRSM stated clearly that the iskcon gurus were not yet full professors, but still students. He tried his level best to enlighten them and instead of embracing his darshan, when his clear presentations of tattva and siddhanta did not suit their "managmeent" or ambition they embarked on their compaign to prevent Jayatirtha and anyone else from taking siksa from such an elevated personality, who Srila Prabhupada accepted himself as a siksa guru. You can read a discussion to that effect which took place later in l982 here:

 

http://bvml.org/SBRSM/cwjm.html

 

In l995 TKG misrepresented what SBVNM was teaching to him and tried to make his siksa an exclusive commmodity that only he and giriraj M and Bhurijan and a select few were "advanced" enough to hear. This elitist mentality of TKG and others distorted Srila Naryana Maharaja's harikatha about the Gopi Gita, Ujjvala Nilamani and Rasa lila tattva so that other iskcon members misinterpreted that anyone hearing from him was the member of a gopi bhava, sahajiya group. Then the gbc conctinued its offensive campaign to vilify higher Vaisnavas and make their association "illegal." They continue doing that at present. Such Vaisnava aparada is not justified by Srila Prabhupada's instructions relative to those of his godbrothers that were envious of his preaching. SBVNM recently explained that TKG and the others were coming to him to gather "ammunition" to fire at Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja. He kindly gave them freely of his time and energy

 

Listen to many of those clases here:

http://gbcsiksa.com/sp/gbc/

 

From l990-l996 SBVNM explained so many points on Jaiva Dharma, Madhurya Kadambini, RAG VARTMA CANDRIKA etc. In the same way they rejected SBRSM,, when hearing from SBVNM interfered with their attachment to a position in iskcon they became guru tyagis, and rejected his siksa. They made a vain attempt in l994 to explain the principle of siksa to the other iskcon members,

 

 

Vrindavana . Addressing Gopi-bhava and Narayana Maharaja

http://bvml.org/ref/hist/PDA_viagbanm.html

 

but lacked the real conviction to substain their position when the gbc threatened them with expulsion from ISKCON if they continued to hear from their siksa guru. I asked TKG in NY what the whole thing was about. His reply to me was that he had a long relationship with SBVNM.

 

[some years earlier when Srila Prabhupada's oldest son was trying to sue iskcon for all of its assets, SBVNM gave tstimony concerning HDG's sannyasa status and helped save iskcon from financial destruction. He and Tamal used to go to court together daily for some time]

 

TKg told me he was asking SBVNM pertinent questions about NOD and other shastras so he could give better classes. He then "realized" that he was setting a "bad example" and stopped taking his association. That was how he rationalized his guru tyagi mentality. He convinced himself he was acting to save the institution, instead of acquiessing to Vaisnava aparadha, in the name of institutional loyalty.

 

Vijay, why do you put so much stress on the external institution? Why not accept substance over form? One of the qualifications for any bona fide guru is that what he preaches is in line with guru sadhu and shastra, and that he is fully versed in Vedic literature and understands tattva, siddhanta and also has full realization of his sambhanda(relationship) with Sri Krsna. How can anyone who accepts, the current iskcon gbc,it's law book and apasiddhantic resolution concerning jiva tattva be a bona fide anything except a bona fide cheater?

[Guest guest]

First Two Official Meetings of Srila Sridhara Maharaja with the ISKCON GBC

March 1978

 

http://bvml.org/SBRSM/ssm-gbc78.html

 

or

 

http://www.guardian-of-devotion../articles/meeting.htm

[vijay]

"...and anyone else from taking siksa from such an elevated personality, who Srila Prabhupada accepted himself as a siksa guru."

 

Siksa-gurus outside ISKCON

As liberally as srila Prabhup§da shared his authority

within ISKCON, equally reserved was he in sharing it with

anyone outside ISKCON — especially with those who

could, or would, exercise spiritual authority over his disciples.

 

Though the history is a little convoluted, those who

were close to Prabhup§da remember, without exception,

his strong feelings against devotees taking instruction outside.

As early as 1967, before his first return to India, srila

Prabhupada indicated that he was not in favour of

Vaishnavas outside ISKCON either replacing him or acting

as his proxy. Why? His Divine Grace did not feel others

could or would suitably represent him. He said clearly,(The following statement reiterates that the siksa-guru must be a transparent and knowledgeable representative of both the founder-acarya and the diksa guru)

“If this person speaks just one word different from what I

am speaking, there will be great confusion among you.”(11 Prabhupada lilaamrta 26.)

 

By the following year, ISKCON devotees had begun travelling to India with no place to stay other than the

mathas of Prabhupada’s Godbrothers. In 1969, when a disciple wanted to take siksa from one of Prabhupada’s

Vrndavana Godbrothers, srila Prabhupada disapproved.(Srila Prabhupada considered him unqualified to be guru, being an offender to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. He writes, “I suspect that you have interest in taking instruction from some siksa guru, but … it is my duty to refer you to someone who is competent to act as siksa guru.

This B perhaps you do not know, has been rejected by Guru Maharaja. So I cannot recommend him as siksa guru.” (Letter, Los Angeles, January

31, 1969))

Considering the circumstances,(The circumstances were: while in India, his disciple required lodging;

being impetuous, were he not given senior association, he would seek it anyway. Therefore Prabhupada felt obliged to direct him.) Srila Prabhupada recommended another Godbrother, one he deemed more qualified.(In the same letter as above, Prabhupada writes, “So if you are actually

serious to take instructions from a siksa guru, I can refer you to one who is most highly competent of all my Godbrothers. This is S, whom I consider to be even my siksa guru, so what to speak of the benefit that you can have from his association.” (Letter, Los Angeles, January 31, 1969)) Though at the time Srila Prabhupada wrote of this preferred Godbrother in glowing terms, later, in 1974, he wrote the contrary,(See Letter, Tirupati, April 28, 1974.) indicating that the previous instruction

had been circumstantial.

 

It is undeniable that the above instruction of 1969 was

specific, while the later instruction of 1974 was general

(“… my instruction to you all …”) and included extensive

background explanation. I reproduce relevant portions of

the 1974 letter below:

“So it is better not to mix with my Godbrothers very

intimately because instead of inspiring our students

and disciples they may sometimes pollute them. …

This attempt was made previously by them, especially

M and T and B but somehow or other I saved

the situation. This is going on. We shall be very

careful about them and not mix with them. This is

my instruction to you all. They cannot help us in

our movement, but they are very competent to harm

our natural progress. So we must be very careful

about them.”(Sr¦la Prabhup§da warns his followers to keep their distance from his Godbrothers. Since his Godbrothers’ disciples are faithful to and influenced

by their diksa-gurus, “we must be [also] very careful” about associating with them, as well as with subsequent generations of their followers.)(Letter, April 28, 1974)

(The preface to Prabhup§da’s instruction is, “You are right about S’s genuineness. But in my opinion he is the best of the lot. He is my old friend, at least he executes the regulative principles of devotional service.

… But S is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja … he and others … thought that there must be one acarya. … Guru)

 

The conclusion from the letter above is that, except

within the context of institutional formalities, devotees

should not ‘mix’ with members of other Vaishnava

groups-which clearly excludes taking Siksa from them.

This is supported by other instructions from letters,(See Letter, Bombay, November 9, 1975.) conversations,

(Conversation, Los Angeles, July 13, 1974.) purports,(See Cc. adi 12.9, 12.)—and by a lack of any later directive

to the contrary.(While Prabhup§da instructed disciples to seek outside guidance on Deity worship, cosmology, performance of his samadhi ceremony, etc.such guidance was specific and isolated and solicited by him. However,

Prabhupada never gave any blanket instruction to take siksa from outside

Vaishnavas.)

 

Summary

ISKCON’s policy in regard to accepting siksa gurus was

universally understood in Prabhupada’s time. For siksa,

ISKCON devotees could approach their senior Godbrothers

and Godsisters as Prabhupada’s representatives,

but they could not approach Vaishnavas outside the Society’s membership.

Why?

Because Srila Prabhupada had concluded that one not

dedicated to his mission, and not trained by him, would

not and could not properly represent him. Thus, great

Vaishnavas outside ISKCON, despite their erudition, could

not be siksa-gurus for Srila Prabhupada’s followers.

 

" Vijay, why do you put so much stress on the external institution? Why not accept substance over form? One of the qualifications for any bona fide guru is that what he preaches is in line with guru sadhu and shastra, and that he is fully versed in Vedic literature and understands tattva, siddhanta and also has full realization of his sambhanda(relationship) with Sri Krsna. "

 

I do not put stress on the external institution, I put stress on what srila prabhupada said in regard to siksa outside ISKCON especially from his god brothers.

 

Siksa outside Iskcon-cont

Differences between ISKCON and the Gaudiya Matha

have been both philosophical and institutional. Philosophical differences have included the hotly contested origin of the jiva; institutional differences, the question of leadership by a GBC.

Perhaps such differences could be excused in the name

of institutional diversity. But the Gaudiy matha’s unforgivable and unforgettable transgression has been the systematic minimisation of srila Prabhup§da’s pre-eminence

as a fully realised, self-effulgent acarya.(This was already a phenomenon during Srila Prabhupada’s time, as

Prabhupada writes, “Perhaps you are my only Godbrother who has appreciated my humble service to the cause of Guru Gauranga. All my other Godbrothers are very much envious, as I can understand from their behaviour.” (Letter, Bombay, December 2, 1970) And in his last

year he said, “Just like our Godbrothers. They are envious. What I have done to them? I am doing my business, trying to serve my Guru Maharaja. But they are envious because I am so opulent.” (Conversation,

Bombay, January 8, 1977)) Some charge that Prabhupada’s teachings are incomplete; others, that his Society lacks substance; and still others, that his knowledge

of rasa-tattva is immature. And that is just part of it.

If the Gaudiya Matha’s critique sounds brutal, the accusations of some Vaishnavas outside the Gaudiya Matha are even more scathing. They condemn both ISKCON and

the Gau¨¦ya Ma±ha as deviant sects, incapable of delivering

Caitanya Mah§prabhu’s message. In view of such absolute

condemnation, there is little value in my pointing to

differences between their teachings and ISKCON’s.

 

59 Prabhup§da writes, “… this must be decided by the GBC and not myself. If they cannot solve this problem, then what is the meaning of GBC?” (Letter, Bombay, November 1, 1974) And in an official letter,

“I have appointed 12 direct representatives to manage different sectors of the world, and they are known as Governing Board Commissioners … M is my sole agent, my official representative, and he has supreme authority there in all matters.” (Letter, Bombay, November 26, 1974)

60 In a letter Prabhup§da writes, “… please try to follow my instructions

& you shall never be unhappy.” (Letter, Navadvipa, October 29,

1967)

 

Doubt 13: How can we depend on ISKCON’s gurus to

properly represent ¼r¦la Prabhup§da when we see, for example,that they radically diverge from one another on principles of tattva?

Answer: In his instructions to Uddhava, Lord Krsna explains

that, under shelter of the internal potency, Vaishnavas

can come to different conclusions about the truth. (“Lord Krsna replied: Because all material elements are present everywhere, it is reasonable that different learned brahmanas have analysed them in different ways. All such philosophers spoke under the shelter of My mystic potency, and thus they could say anything without contradicting

the truth.”(Bh§g. 11.22.4) See also J¦va Gosv§m¦’s commentary on the word mayam.)

Such differences of perception disappear, however, and the very cause for argument is removed,(See Bh§g. 11.22.6.) when devotees control their senses and fix their intelligence on Krsna.

Srila Prabhup§da gave the means to do this: serving in

an institution unified under a GBC, and dynamically

spreading Lord Caitanya’s mission worldwide — two factors that distinguish ISKCON from other Vai¢£ava organisations.

 

Together, these two provide a unique shelter under

which devotees can work in harmony, accepting one another’s

difference (srila Prabhupada says, “Now if you want to unite the whole world again under one banner, then this Krsna consciousness movement is theonly …” (Conversation, Delhi, November 25, 1971) )and ultimately resolving them. This is what Srila Prabhupada called “unity in diversity,” (In the Bhagavatam, Prabhupada writes, “The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the living entities, the material energy, the spiritual energy and the entire creation are all individual substances. In the ultimate analysis, however, together they constitute the supreme one, the Personality of Godhead. Therefore those who are advanced in spiritual knowledge see unity in diversity.” (Bhag. 6.8.32–33) And in a letter: “The materialist without being able to adjust the varieties and the disagreements

makes everything zero. … if we keep Krsna in the center,

then there will be agreement in varieties. This is called unity in diversity.

… if we fight on account of diversity, then it is simply the material

platform.” (Letter, Bombay, October 18, 1973))

an ethos unknown to Vai¢£avas outside ISKCON. They accommodate individual diversity at the expense of unity,

while completely missing the wonder of unity in diversity.

Such Vaishnavas, when diverging on points of philosophy

(which they do), stand only on the strength of their individuality, failing to see answers that unify, seeing only answers that divide. They identify and criticise each other’s (and ISKCON’s) philosophical differences, further straining relationships already strained.

Yes, ISKCON’s gurus have differences of opinion

among themselves; but they are united in the service of

widely spreading Lord Caitanya’s mission under the direction of Srila Prabhupada’s representative, the GBC.

Through such allegiance and by Krsna’s mercy, they will

find the intelligence to resolve differences and achieve perfection as agents of His Divine Grace.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--"so you cite gaura govinda maharaja "do not leave iskcon?" ok.... bring him there and i will be sure to see the real iskcon. Now my opinion is neutral, it's up to you the decision.. if you enter in the iskcon building and you find someone like prabhupada or gaura govinda maharaja this is still their iskcon, and if you, outside the iskcon building, find a guru who has the same purity of GGM and SP you have found iskcon "

I agree if you find a genuine guru who follows the founder acarya he is a guru in Iskcon which srila prabhupada intended to be and instrument which follows his books as the final law as he is the pre-eminent siksa guru of the intitution he founded. Those who are pure who may be outside the 'Institution' of 'ISKCON' that sril prabhupada founded may regard them selves in ISKCON but its not the 'Instituition' which srila prabhupada set up and inteneded to be the final athority and founder. They have no need to follow him as the final athority---

 

the problem is your concern for being a part or not of an organization...

 

prabhupada's main instruction is "take shelter from a pure devotee and chant hare krsna"

 

so

 

are you inititated?

 

do you think that your guru is uttama adhikari?

 

do you listen to vaishnavas not belonging to iskcon?

 

if you are not initiated.. are you ready to take shelter of any pure guru without discrimination?

 

if you are initiated ... are you ready to take siksa from a pure devotee even if he' s not belonging to the organization called iskcon?

 

can you answer and give reasons?

[Guest guest]

"But who that self realised devotee I follow is someone who i accept is serving in iskcon, and trying to follow srila prabhupada's mood, principles and aims he established for ISKCON."

 

if this "self realized" does not teach to you that any discrimination of vaishnavas based on organization's appartenence or doctrinal external details is sinful... what is his realization?

 

why he does not teach to you that prabhupada (in iskcon's lilamrita and conversations) gave the reason of his discriminations before his disappearance so it is sinful to cite what he said in the previous years without to consider these last instructions?

 

so if he is realized and he is teaching that you must learn to follow any exalted vaishnava and to look for collaboration and love with vaishnavas of any family why are you bothering with all this difference's hunt?

 

[stonehearted]

Sivarama Maharaja's tract ignore a couple of things Srila Prabhupada said as late as 1977. In march, he had a conversation with Srila Sridhar Maharaja in which he implored Sridhar Maharaja to come live at Mayapura so everyone from around the world could more easily come to hear Maharaja's siksa. He offered to build an elevator so Sridhar Maharaja wouldn't have to use the stairs. This was not Srila Prabhupada just being polite. He said, "This is my earnest desire." In November, when discussing the Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity Trist, he said plainly, "We want cooperation."

 

Contrary to some of the claims Sivarama Maharaja makes in his booklet, in none of the letters or conversations he cites did Srila Prabhupada say, or even imply, that any of his Godbrothers (or their disciples) who came to help him would have to be subordinate to the GBC. The GBC likes to say that cooperation means they make laws and dole out service, and the rest of us submit. Srila Prabhupada makes it very clear in his famous letter to Karandhar how mistaken that notion is.

 

It's clear that a considerable amount of time and energy were spent producing this tract. That makes it all the more surprising how poorly it is written. More important than the grammatical errors I found the first time I skimmed the document are the errors in logic.

[vijay]

"if this "self realized" does not teach to you that any discrimination of vaishnavas based on organization's appartenence or doctrinal external details is sinful... what is his realization?"

 

Prabhupada teaches not to take siksa from his god brothers please read my above post. Therefore as a good disciple he does not contridict this direct order which he gave read above posts.

 

 

"why he does not teach to you that prabhupada (in iskcon's lilamrita and conversations) gave the reason of his discriminations before his disappearance so it is sinful to cite what he said in the previous years without to consider these last instructions?"

 

Please read previous posts this issue is already dealt with I will repost it.

"gave the reason of his discriminations before his disappearance " I dont know what reasons prabhupada gave please post them. If your talking about the 'war is over' quote please read below.

 

Doubt 6: In his last days, Srila Prabhupada apologised to other Vaishnavas for having offended them in the course of his preaching. He declared the war with his Godbrothers over. These statements lead one to believe that Prabhupada had finally ended ISKCON’s isolationist policy and anticipated his disciples’ harmonious interaction with senior Vai¢£avas outside ISKCON.

 

Answer: Who could really believe that Srila Prabhupada actually committed offences? Even some of those to

whom he apologised (Prabhupada said, “My life is coming to an end. It is my desire that you all forgive me for my mistakes. … when you are preaching at times there are some disputes, some misunderstandings. Maybe I also committed some offences like that. Please ask them to forgive me.” (Srila Prabhupada-lilamrta, 54)) rejected the idea. (One such Vaishnava told Prabhupada at his bedside, “Maharaja, you didn’t commit any offence.” (Srila Prabhupada-lilamrta, 54)) Prabhupada’s apologies, rather, symptomised the humble spirit of a true Vaishnava, doing what all devotees do before leaving this world; his apologies did not contradict his earlier statements.

(For Prabhupada says, “You can criticize, if you are right. You cannot criticize wrongly.” (Conversation, V¥nd§vana, March 16, 1974))

 

The doubt at hand cites a statement — “The war is over” — interpreting it to mean that Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to take Siksa from other Vaishnavas. However, there are no instructions to support this argument.

“The war is over,” rather, was a ceasefire on the verbal

exchange between Prabhupada and his Godbrothers.

That is my understanding. That war was over.

An informal comment is a far cry from a direct instruction,

such as: “I have said many things about Vaishnavas

outside ISKCON, often exaggerating for the sake of focusing

you on my instructions. Now that I am leaving, you will

need others to guide you. Forget the past. Forget what I

said. The war is over. You may take siksa from others.” And, had srila Prabhupada given the comprehensive instruction above — a directive to contradict years of

training —he would not have left it to the memory of a few

devotees. That was not the way Prabhupada did things.

 

How did Prabhupada communicate on issues of paramount

importance? He would

(1) write instructions in his books; (Prabhup§da considered the history of the Gaudiya Matha sufficiently

important to record it in Caitanya-caritamrta. (See Cc. adi 12.8))

(2) repeat himself many times;(In letters, lectures, conversations, especially on important things, Prabhupada repeated himself, e.g., “I repeat my symptoms so that you can take necessary care.” (Letter, New York, June 1, 1967))

(3) write a general letter to the Society;(When Prabhupada wanted prasadam available to all guests visiting temples, he wrote a letter to all temple presidents. See letter, Calcutta, January 18, 1977.)

(4) call a meeting of the GBC, sanny§s¦s, and

senior devotees.(When, in the summer of 1977, Prabhupada wanted direction whether to stay or leave (die) he instructed the senior devotees and GBC men to discuss. (Srila Prabhupada-lilamrta, 54))

 

This was Srila Prabhupada! He was not someone to leave major issues hanging for lack of information or communication. Had he intended members of ISKCON, after

his departure, to take Siksa from Vaishnavas outside the

movement, he would have made it abundantly clear. There

would now be no argument.

 

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

 

"so if he is realized and he is teaching that you must learn to follow any exalted vaishnava and to look for collaboration and love with vaishnavas of any family why are you bothering with all this difference's hunt?"

 

Doubt 4: Sastra says that the Godbrothers of the guru

should be respected as much as the guru.17 Is this not evidence that, as in the past, members of ISKCON took instructions from Srila Prabhupada, they should now take instructions from his Godbrothers (or other senior

Vaishavas)?

Answer: No. The equal respect offered to the guru’s

Godbrothers must be reconciled with respect for the guru’s

order — in this case, Srila Prabhupada’s: “Do not mix with them.”

Therefore, to the Godbrothers of Srila Prabhup§da,

his followers should offer the respect due senior Vaishnavas and should not speak of them disparagingly.(Prabhupada said, “You cannot criticize superiors …” (Bhag. Lecture, Vrndavana, November 8, 1976)) But

Prabhupadanugas should also not hear from such seniors.

Respect for the guru’s Godbrother cannot mean disrespect for the guru’s order.

 

A guru’s Godbrother is not seen in every way as one’s

own guru.(Srila Prabhupada said, “‘My spiritual master was no ordinary spiritual master.’ Then he paused for some time, and wiping the tears from his cheeks, he said in an even more choked voice, ‘He saved me.’” (Srila Prabhupada -lilamrta 26))

There is difference as well as oneness. Equal

respect does not mean equal importance in the disciple’s

life. Sastra states, “… in all circumstances all Vai¢£avas

are offered respect like one offers respect to one’s spiritual master. However, with body, mind, and words one serves one’s own spiritual master.”(Krsna-bhajanamrta 50.)

 

One may even offer twice the respect to the guru of one’s guru, but still one depends upon the mercy of one’s own guru for progress in spiritual life.(Krsna-bhajanamrta 54.)

Thus, while offering due respect to Srila Prabhupada’s

Godbrothers and other senior Vai¢£avas, one will not hear

from them.

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

 

These quotes have all been posted previosly in thier relevent context if you care to read them but i will post them now just to illustrate some of what he said about his god brothers.

 

Prabhupada writes, “Regarding the poisonous effect in our Society, it is a fact and I know where from this poison tree has sprung up and how it affected practically the whole Society in a very dangerous form.” (Letter, Calcutta, September 2, 1970) “… and on this point they

wanted to poison the whole Society —that is now clear.” (Letter, Calcutta, September 25, 1970)

 

Prabhup§da said, “Just like XX… They are envious. What I have done to them? I am doing my business, trying to serve my Guru Maharaja.” (Conversation, Bombay, January 8, 1977)

 

In time Prabhup§da became indifferent to working co-operatively:“So far as cooperating with my Godbrothers is concerned, that is not very urgent business. So far until now my Godbrothers have regularly not cooperated with me and by the grace of my Spiritual Master, things are still going ahead. So cooperation or non-cooperation …” (Letter,

Gorakhpur, February 23, 1971)

 

23 In a conversation with ¼r¦la Prabhup§da, a devotee recalls, “I remember a letter they wrote you in Los Angeles in 1969. You replied them, ‘Yes, I will join, but since I have preached in eleven-twelfths of the world, eleven of my men will be representatives, and you can put one.’” (Conversation, Bombay, April 22, 1977)

 

(Even if a god brother joins he will on ly be given representation according to how much he preaches That would have given Prabhup§da’s disciples

considerably more authority than those instructing them

on Prabhup§da’s behalf —hardly a relationship one might

expect between ªik¢§-gurus and their disciples. This is irrelevant as none of the god brothers took up the offer to work in or with ISKCON)

 

¼r¦la Prabhup§da said, “So these rascals … they are envious that …What he has written? B. Just see what kind of men they are. They are not even ordinary human being. They are envious of me, and what to speak of make a judgment by estimation? They’re envious. Enviousness is immediately disqualification of Vai¢£ava, immediate. He is not a human being.” (Conversation, Johannesburg, October 16, 1975)

 

"In his books Prabhup§da writes, “Unfortunately we are surrounded by neophyte Godbrothers who do not appreciate the extraordinary activities of spreading K¥¢£a consciousness all over the world. They simply try to bring us to their platform, and they try to criticize us in every

respect.” (The Nectar of Instruction 6, purport)"

 

NOTE he was very serious in regards to his godbrothers as he found it neccesarry to include to include it in his books. (Many such statements)

 

In a letter Prabhup§da wrote, “Actually amongst my Godbrothers, no one is qualified to become acarya.” (Letter, Tirupati, April 28, 1974)

 

“We shall be very careful about them and not mix with them. This is MY INSTRUCTION TO YOU ALL.” (Letter, Tirupati, April 28, 1974)

 

 

 

I have posted more quotes on previous posts. Please point to a place where prabhupada later on contridicts explicitly this instruction.

 

Doubt 8: It appears that Srila Prabhupada instructed at

least some senior Vai¢£avas to help his disciples after his

departure. Does this not indicate that they would be ªik¢§-

gurus for ISKCON’s members?

Also, is it not possible that one of them may be Srila

Prabhupada’s self-effulgent successor, as Prabhupada was

the self-effulgent successor to Bhaktisiddhanta thakura?

 

Answer: First-hand sources testify that Prabhupada requested at least one senior Vaishnava to care for his followers. (Two devotees present heard the discussion.) Those same sources, however, confirm that the request

was brief and clearly not an invitation to be a Siksa-guru, rather, a well-wisher.

 

That explanation is consistent with other evidence;

Srila Prabhup§da gave no instruction that he had empowered

any Vaisnaava from outside ISKCON to be a Siksa-guru —what to speak of his successor.

 

The very idea of a successor is contrary to Prabhupada’s set-up of the Society.(Prabhupada modelled ISKCON according to Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura’s will, which he explained in a letter: “… on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission.

So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self-effulgent acarya would be automatically selected.” (Letter, Tirupati, April 28, 1974) Therefore, if there is to be an acarya, he will not be self-appointed; he will come from members of

the GBC, not elsewhere.)

 

Nor is there any written or verbal instruction indicating a successor; in fact, Srila Prabhupada opined that among the Vaishnavas he knew,none was qualified to be acarya.(In a letter Prabhupada wrote, “Actually amongst my Godbrothers, no one is qualified to become acarya.” (Letter, Tirupati, April 28, 1974)

 

Those suggesting that a Vaishnava from outside ISKCON

could be its acarya are obliged to provide irrefutable evidenceof their claim. And that evidence must be of a superlative quality, as referred to in the previous answer (to Doubt 7). It is not the burden of ISKCON to disprove the successor theory. Until irrefutable evidence is provided in its favour, we will have to assume there is no successor Siksa-guru to Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[vijay]

"Contrary to some of the claims Sivarama Maharaja makes in his booklet, in none of the letters or conversations he cites did Srila Prabhupada say, or even imply, that any of his Godbrothers (or their disciples) who came to help him would have to be subordinate to the GBC. The GBC likes to say that cooperation means they make laws and dole out service, and the rest of us submit. Srila Prabhupada makes it very clear in his famous letter to Karandhar how mistaken that notion is. "

 

In a conversation with Srila Prabhup§da, a devotee recalls, “I remember a letter they wrote you in Los Angeles in 1969. You replied them, ‘Yes, I will join, but since I have preached in eleven-twelfths of the world, eleven of my men will be representatives, and you can put one.’” (Conversation, Bombay, April 22, 1977)

 

(Even if a god brother joins he will only be given representation according to how much he preaches That would have given Prabhupada’s disciples considerably more authority than those instructing them on Prabhupada’s behalf —hardly a relationship one might expect between siksa-gurus and their disciples.)

 

[vijay]

"Sivarama Maharaja's tract ignore a couple of things Srila Prabhupada said as late as 1977. In march, he had a conversation with Srila Sridhar Maharaja in which he implored Sridhar Maharaja to come live at Mayapura so everyone from around the world could more easily come to hear Maharaja's siksa. He offered to build an elevator so Sridhar Maharaja wouldn't have to use the stairs. This was not Srila Prabhupada just being polite. He said, "This is my earnest desire." In November, when discussing the Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity Trist, he said plainly, "We want cooperation.""

 

He does actually mention the Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity Trust in a foot note. Il paste the article.

 

Doubt 11: ISKCON policy not only forbids taking Siksa

outside, it also forbids other Vaishnavas to lecture in its

temples. Surely inviting guest Vaishnavas to address ISKCON’s members is basic Vaishnava hospitality.

Answer: Ideally, if Vaishnava guests follow the etiquette

befitting a guest, the Vaishnava host happily follows the etiquette of a host — receiving visitors as representatives of the Lord. Because a respectful guest never exploits his host, the host offers a place to sit, nice prasadam, darsana of the Deities —and, possibly, an invitation to speak. But guests who do not behave properly,(This refers to the other Vaishnavas cited throughout this paper, whose inability to represent Prabhupada, and whose constant criticizing, direct or indirect, makes them less than well-behaved guests.) even they be Vaishnavas, may not be welcomed without restriction. The host society need not, in the name of etiquette, submit its resources for its own undoing. Such is the practice among Vaishnava societies.(Having passed through their own histories, Vaishnava societies have evolved a system of inter-institutional rapport that avoids compromising the allegiance of their members and the values of their societies. On the other hand, to their own detriment, ISKCON’s members often follow an all-or-nothing policy. In his last days, Prabhupada formed the Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity Trust (see Conversation, Vrindavana,

October 29, 1977) to help unite the Sarasvata family, while at the same time warning his disciples of the risks of close association. He expected ISKCON’s members to learn the balance of association.)Srila Prabhup§da once banned his own senior Godbrother.

(When, by the instigation of a Godbrother, standing orders of Prabhup§da’s books were cancelled, he instructed a letter be circulated in the Society, “Still, he is so envious, black snake. So one circular letter should be issued to all our center(s), that ‘Any B or anyone, his representative, should not be received.‘ They are envious. Yes. Quoting that. We have got several complaints like that. S also complained. Sometimes our order was cancelled by B’s propaganda.” (Conversation,

Johannesburg, October 16, 1975))

 

Later Prabhupada relented, allowing the man to visit the temple, but still not lecture.(Prabhupada instructed, “On the whole, if his motive is to suppress me and that is why he has come here, how we can receive him? He has already given one Professor a wrong impression. He may be treated as a guest, if he comes to our center, give him prasadam, honour him as an elder Vaishnava, but he cannot speak or lecture. If he wants to lecture, you can tell him that there is already another speaker scheduled. That’s

all.” (Letter, Honolulu, June 4, 1975))

 

What to speak of outside Vaishnavas lecturing, Prabhupada was unwilling to even meet one “heinous” Godbrother, should that Godbrother come to visit him.(This is recorded in a letter: “Regarding the matter with P dasa, you

immediately go and take back whatever books of ours that he has in his possession. You may inform him that we do not require his editing, neither should he correspond with our men in Los Angeles. He is a very heinous man. He wants to become more important. … You take them back immediately. If this man comes to see me in Vrndavana, I do not wish to see him.” (Letter, Bombay, November 7, 1975))

 

That is the history. Unfortunately, ISKCON’s members, in general, are untrained in the intricacies of inter-society diplomacy (there is such a thing), and so are easily intimidated by unscrupulous guests, who take advantage for their own purposes — I am sorry to say. Therefore, Prabhupada wanted the Society’s leaders “vigilant”(See Conversation, Vrndavana, May 27, 1977.) to protect the Society and its members.

[Guest guest]

Prabhupada teaches not to take siksa from his god brothers please read my above post. Therefore as a good disciple he does not contridict this direct order which he gave read above posts.

––prabhupada taught to chant 64 rounds then he changed to 16... prabhupada taught to avoid godbrothers then,before his disappearance, said to godbrothers : "if we go together preaching in the west we will fulfill the prophecy: "in all towns and villages..." by sri gauranga"

So what instruction is the valid one?... i think the last one

 

If your talking about the 'war is over' quote please read below.

--"war is over" means "war is over"..... the normal vaishnava behaviour is that there is not discrimination and bhaktas have the right to choose siksa gurus without organizational considerations.. So, Prabhupada, stating the "peace" he's simply bringing back the tradition. If he says to some exalted godbrothers "let us go together in the west..." it is realistic to think that the godbrothers,after the prabhupada's disappearance, would have given no class, no instructions, no initiations?

Prabhupada says: "come with me.......but stay hidden in the closet"?

 

He was not someone to leave major issues hanging for lack of information or communication. Had he intended members of ISKCON, after

his departure, to take Siksa from Vaishnavas outside the

movement, he would have made it abundantly clear. There

would now be no argument.

--the statement is clear:"war is over".. then... "if we go together we'll fulfill the gauranga's prophecy...".Why prabhupada had not written seventy volumes on it it is not my business

 

Sastra says that the Godbrothers of the guru

should be respected as much as the guru.17 Is this not evidence that, as in the past, members of ISKCON took instructions from Srila Prabhupada, they should now take instructions from his Godbrothers

--what is a respect for a vaishnava is not hearing him? Do you think that respect is simply bowing your head and go away? :

"vancha-kalpatarubhyash cha

kripa-sindhubhya eva cha

patitanam pavanebhyo

vaishnavebhyo namo namaha

 

I offer my respectful obeisances unto the Vaishnava devotees of the Lord. They are just like desire trees and can fulfill the desires of everyone, and they are full of compassion for the fallen conditioned souls.

"

You can recite a prayer like that when you meet a vaishnava then you run away?

 

-------

 

A guru’s Godbrother is not seen in every way as one’s own guru

--but it is highly offensive to avoid to hear him.. he's a vaishnava...

 

These quotes have all been posted previosly in thier relevent context if you care to read them but i will post them now just to illustrate some of what he said about his god brothers

--time, place and circumstances... prabhupada when the circumstances changed, when he was near to disappear, he gave different instructions. To resume the previous ones is lack of respect for the valid ones, the last ones.... aparadha

 

-----

 

harekrishna

 

[stonehearted]

He mentions the Trust, in a footnote. Big deal. He does not acknowledge the quotation. And nowhere does he concede that Srila Prabhupada invited Sridhar Maharaja to stay at Mayapura-chandrodaya Mandir. Why did Srila Prabhupada extend such an invitation? See for yourself:

 

Srila Prabhupada: I very much want, Maharaja, that you come and stay at Mayapura. Because Prabhupada always desired that you preach. He told me quite a few times, "Why don't you pull him out?" [They both laugh.] You know, I also tried to some extent before, but somehow or other it did not work out. Now, why don't you come and stay at Mayapura?

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: At last Prabhupada told me: "You are an ease-lover. [Laughter] The qualifications - that you have."

 

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that's true. He told me also, "He is such a qualified person. Sridhara Maharaja is one of the finest preachers." I want to take you everywhere. At least at the place we have in Mayapura, people are coming from all over the world. Why don't you come and stay there? What is your objection to staying in Mayapura? If you just agree, then whatever kind of building you want, I will arrange it for you. They are trying to build a house for me, so both of us will stay there. And whenever you want, you can come here [to his Navadwipa math].

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Yes, as long as I am alive to fulfill Prabhupada's desire.

 

Srila Prabhupada: This is my earnest desire. Since you could not go around the world and preach, at least stay there and people will come to you. I shall make that arrangement. And if you stay there, then it will be very helpful to me also. Sometimes I need to consult with someone but there is no one. There is no one with whom I can consult. I feel this deficiency very greatly.

 

Devotee: If he stays in Mayapura, then all kinds of people will get to hear from him.

 

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that's right.

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Yes, people from all kinds of cultural backgrounds will come there.

 

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they are already coming. And in that house I will make arrangements for an elevator so that you won't have to go through the difficulty of walking up and down the stairs. You won't even have to move a step yourself. I'll make arrangements for a car and a lift. Jayapataka Maharaja is telling me that he will build a house for me. So both of us will stay in that house. Most of the time I am just traveling around, so if you are there, then they can get some guidance. So Maharaja, please-give me the order and I will make all the arrangements for you.

[Guest guest]

But in this time he is not help Prabhupada. He is not desire part, he is desire all. I am may give citation Prabhupada about this.

 

Humble means follow. It is not humble - " I am has own mission". "come and stay at Mayapura" it not means head ISKCON. "some guidance" it in not means siksa for all ISKCON. Any way you may see result his siksa.

 

Therefore Prabhupada speak - "asara". It is obvious.

[vijay]

Prabhupada teaches not to take siksa from his god brothers please read my above post. Therefore as a good disciple he does not contridict this direct order which he gave read above posts.

––prabhupada taught to chant 64 rounds then he changed to 16... prabhupada taught to avoid godbrothers then,before his disappearance, said to godbrothers : "if we go together preaching in the west we will fulfill the prophecy: "in all towns and villages..." by sri gauranga"

So what instruction is the valid one?... i think the last one

 

---The last one but there is no specific instruction for any god brother to become siksa guru for ISKCON 'In that case the specific Instruction to us all still stands 'do not mix with them closely'

 

"war is over" does not equal "you now become siksa guru for ISKCON"

 

--what is a respect for a vaishnava is not hearing him? Do you think that respect is simply bowing your head and go away? :

 

------- Doubt 4: Sastra says that the Godbrothers of the guru

should be respected as much as the guru.17 Is this not evidence that, as in the past, members of ISKCON took instructions from Srila Prabhupada, they should now take instructions from his Godbrothers (or other senior

Vaishavas)?

Answer: No. The equal respect offered to the guru’s

Godbrothers must be reconciled with respect for the guru’s

order — in this case, Srila Prabhupada’s: “Do not mix with them.”

Therefore, to the Godbrothers of Srila Prabhup§da,

his followers should offer the respect due senior Vaishnavas and should not speak of them disparagingly.(Prabhupada said, “You cannot criticize superiors …” (Bhag. Lecture, Vrndavana, November 8, 1976)) But

Prabhupadanugas should also not hear from such seniors.

Respect for the guru’s Godbrother cannot mean disrespect for the guru’s order.

 

A guru’s Godbrother is not seen in every way as one’s

own guru.(Srila Prabhupada said, “‘My spiritual master was no ordinary spiritual master.’ Then he paused for some time, and wiping the tears from his cheeks, he said in an even more choked voice, ‘He saved me.’” (Srila Prabhupada -lilamrta 26))

There is difference as well as oneness. Equal

respect does not mean equal importance in the disciple’s

life. Sastra states, “… in all circumstances all Vai¢£avas

are offered respect like one offers respect to one’s spiritual master. However, with body, mind, and words one serves one’s own spiritual master.”(Krsna-bhajanamrta 50.)

 

One may even offer twice the respect to the guru of one’s guru, but still one depends upon the mercy of one’s own guru for progress in spiritual life.(Krsna-bhajanamrta 54.)

Thus, while offering due respect to Srila Prabhupada’s

Godbrothers and other senior Vai¢£avas, one will not hear

from them.

 

A guru’s Godbrother is not seen in every way as one’s own guru

--but it is highly offensive to avoid to hear him.. he's a vaishnava...

 

--- No it is not if you have been instructed not to hear them

 

----time, place and circumstances... prabhupada when the circumstances changed, when he was near to disappear, he gave different instructions. To resume the previous ones is lack of respect for the valid ones, the last ones.... aparadha

---------What different instructions give me specifics not something you interpret form 'the war is over' prabhupada was specific about not associating with them so give me a specific quote on how that order was changed.

[vijay]

"Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they are already coming. And in that house I will make arrangements for an elevator so that you won't have to go through the difficulty of walking up and down the stairs. You won't even have to move a step yourself. I'll make arrangements for a car and a lift. Jayapataka Maharaja is telling me that he will build a house for me. So both of us will stay in that house. Most of the time I am just traveling around, so if you are there, then they can get some guidance. So Maharaja, please-give me the order and I will make all the arrangements for you. "

 

So did sridhar maharaj take up srila prabhupadas request? Did it mean become siksa guru for iskcon, how much say would he have?

 

Doubt 5: Srila Prabhupada attempted to recruit other

senior Vaishnavas to work in or with ISKCON. How, then,

could they not be qualified as Siksa-gurus?

Answer: The question itself contains the answer.

How? Because in actuality no such Vaishnava came to

Prabhupada’s side. Therefore, none could qualify as Siksa-

guru.

 

Had any senior Vaishnavas accepted Prabhupada’s invitation

to work in ISKCON, they would have had to accept

him as founder-acarya(In response to a letter, Prabhupada writes, “… you write to say, ‘It is clear to me that you are great powerful acarya in the Vaishnava world at present.’ Sometimes S also says like that. So, actually if you are feeling like that let us work conjointly.” (Letter, Vrndavana, November 9, 1976)) and represent him. That would have made them regular members, fully qualified to give Siksa.

 

On the other hand, were such Vaishnavas not to join

ISKCON, yet work with it, Srila Prabhupada envisaged

that they would have authority only in proportion to their

preaching.(In a conversation with Srila Prabhupada, a devotee recalls, “I remember a letter they wrote you in Los Angeles in 1969. You replied them, ‘Yes, I will join, but since I have preached in eleven-twelfths of the

world, eleven of my men will be representatives, and you can put one.’” (Conversation, Bombay, April 22, 1977)) That would have given Prabhupada’s disciples considerably more authority than those instructing them on Prabhupada’s behalf —hardly a relationship one might expect between Siksa-gurus and their disciples.

 

But this doubt is theoretical, for the reality is that, despite Srila Prabhupada’s many kind overtures,(As late as 1976, Srila Prabhupada wrote, “So, actually if you are feeling like that let us work conjointly.” (Letter, Vrndavana, November 9, 1976)) not one senior Vaishnava took up his offer to work in or with ISKCON.

[Guest guest]

***"if we go together preaching in the west we will fulfill the prophecy: "in all towns and villages..." by sri gauranga" So what instruction is the valid one?... i think the last one

 

No. Prabhupada speak - " I am reform GM". He is be reform, not doubts.

 

***"war is over" does not equal "you now become siksa guru for ISKCON"

 

Yes. "War is ower" it is for Prabhupada only, not for all.

 

If they preach nonsence, then ISKCON may point this. "Guru abowe sastra". It is wrong. It is not any disrespect it is pfilosophikal point.

[Guest guest]

The last one but there is no specific instruction for any god brother to become siksa guru for ISKCON

••it is not my goal to demonstrate it... in lilamrita it is simply said "let us go together preaching in the west..". Your way to go together with a godbrother of the master of your master's guru is to take instructions.. siksa

 

A guru’s Godbrother is not seen in every way as one’s own guru

--but it is highly offensive to avoid to hear him.. he's a vaishnava...

--- No it is not if you have been instructed not to hear them

••you have the prabhupada's statement before his disappearance: "let us go together preach...". If you go together preaching you cannot even think to not hearing

 

read from the last pages of lilamrita the famous lila when prabhupada says also "i am a patita..." and BVPuri maharaja says: "i protest, you're patita pavana.. not patita..".. then give your personal interpretation

[vijay]

A guru’s Godbrother is not seen in every way as one’s own guru

--but it is highly offensive to avoid to hear him.. he's a vaishnava...

 

 

doubt 11 posted by me 10/24/04 07:26 PM

[vijay]

Kailash prabhu i think i am having difficulty understanding this point.

 

read from the last pages of lilamrita the famous lila when prabhupada says also "i am a patita..." and BVPuri maharaja says: "i protest, you're patita pavana.. not patita..".. then give your personal interpretation

 

I get the gist from the rest of them

[Guest guest]

Yes. "War is ower" it is for Prabhupada only, not for all.

---funny...

 

If they preach nonsence, then ISKCON may point this

--but it is nonsense to point that the "non iskcon" preach always nonsense

 

 

[vijay]

If they preach nonsence, then ISKCON may point this

--but it is nonsense to point that the "non iskcon" preach always nonsense

-- No one said non-iskcon always preach nonsense.

"If they preach nonsence" !

[stonehearted]

No, he didn't. He told Srila Prabhupada that he would think about it, but since his health was worse than Srila Prabhupada's, and because Srila Prabhupada was still going everywhere and preaching vigorously, he said he didn't imagine that he would outlast Srila Prabhupada.

 

Prabhupada didn't ask him to "have any say" in managing ISKCON, nor would Sridhar Maharaja have had any interest in doing so. Srila Prabhupada said that, after his departure, we could approach Sridhar Maharaja on matters of philosophy. I haven't located that in VedaBase, but that's certainly no indication that he didn't say it. There are a great many things he said that weren't recorded, and somehave extimated that as many as 150 of the tapes that were made are mssing somehow. I had a private conversation with Srila Prabhupada in 1973 which is not recorded, and many of the question-and-answer parts of classes he gave in Hawaii in 1974 were not recorded, perhaps at his instruction. He was responding to a question from Tamal Krishna Maharaja, and Tripurari Maharaja was in the room, massaging Srila Prabhupada's feet.

 

I've gone through the booklet and found that the actual context of many of the quotations Sivarama Maharaja uses are inappropriate to the situations he addresses in the booklet. Many of Prabhupada's comments in conversation, and even sometimes in letters, seem to respond to reports he has gotten from those around him, and those reports were in many cases nothing more than rumor, gossip, even lies. Many of the assertions he makes do not clearly follow from the quotations he uses in support. It's a document with many problems, useful only to provoke discussion, and certainly not conclusive.

 

I am not Sivarama Maharaja's disciple, so I see no reason that I should accept everything he writes as shastra. As far as the things Srila Prabhupada said, he said different things at different times in different situations.

 

When considering or making an argument, there are several things to consider. In terms of classical Western rhetoric, Aristotle suggests ethos, the character of the speaker; pathos, considering the emotinal needs of the audience; logos, the use of language and reason; and kairos, the context, situation, or opportunity. (These are grossly simplified explanations.) In terms of classical Vedic rhetoric, as well as I understand it, the things to consider are adhikaran, the qualifications (of the speaker? audience?); samsaya, doubts that may arise; purva paksha, objections that occur as a result of those doubts; siddhanta, the conclusions arrived at; and sangati, harmonizing the different positions according to the context in which we find them. Using such analysis even briefly, I see no reason for anyone who is not his disciple to accept this document as unquestionably authoritative. As far as I understand, this booklet and the siksa-guru book were written on the order of the GBC as a way to try to undo (or atone for?) his sin of accepting siksa outside ISKCON. So the context may arouse caution in many careful readers. As for others, well, Sivaram Maharaja has in several places referred to ISKCON members as innocent, inexperienced, and many other words that could be synonyms for foolish.

 

Caveat lector.