What will Gaudiya Vaisnavism be like in 2000 years?

October 26, 2004

"You may not be puru and these may not be your views, my apologies if that is the case, with a guest username i can not tell"

my apologies are not important, simply that objections are not for me... (if you have this way to behave, yes, do not mix freely.. much better)

October 26, 2004

<a href="http://And I also wont listen to anyone who brands all devotees in iskcon as bogus and cheaters if they do not go to your guru.

End of discussion, we are just going round and round." target="_blank">And I also wont listen to anyone who brands all devotees in iskcon as bogus and cheaters if they do not go to your guru.

End of discussion, we are just going round and round.</a>

Hang the dog and then say it barked. Typical but unfortunate way to approach Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta vijay. I never said this. There is no need to put words in my mouth. I certainly agree with you that categorical statements are not fair and generalizations are useless.It doesn't help anyone's sadhana/bhajana to criticise, and we should think that all are more advanced than we are personally. Please forgive any offenses I may have committed wittingly or unwittingly in the heat of posting responces, in an effort to show the validity of siksa from qualified Vaisnavas, despite their matha affiliation.

The real effort should be to control our rascal mind and not others.

However His Divine Grace did write in Bg. 10.4-5:

Satyam, truthfulness, means that facts should be presented as they are for the benefit of others. Facts should not be misrepresented. According to social conventions, it is said that one can speak the truth only when it is palatable to others. But that is not truthfulness. The truth should be spoken in a straight and forward way, so that others will understand actually what the facts are. If a man is a thief and if people are warned that he is a thief, that is truth. Although sometimes the truth is unpalatable, one should not refrain from speaking it. Truthfulness demands that the facts be presented as they are for the benefit of others. That is the definition of truth.

I asked you how can anyone be accepted as a guru in our gaudiya line when he rejects the statements of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in the 15th chapter of Jaiva Dharma with regard to the origin of the jiva in favor of a resolution to the contrary, written by an ecclesiastical board. You never answered me. I also said that genuine guru cannot be rubber stamped, but is self effulgent.

I pointed out that there are many discrepancies between gbc law and what is taught by Srila Rupa Gosvami and what we read very clearly in His Divine Grace's books. One example I pointed out was that His Divine Grace clearly instructed who is fit to accept disciples and give sufficient guidance to them in the 5th purport to Nectar of Instruction. You then said that I was assuming there were no pure devotees in iskcon. I never said that either, though I haven't perceived anyone since l977 except Srila Gour Govinda Maharja.

Sorry if my understanding of what a mahabhagavata is and yours' differ. I had the good fortune to meet and hear from His Divine Grace directly many times between l970 and l976 and have personally met several other pure devotees who are followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura since. What is your basis for comparison? Of course we all have to take additional guidance from shastra, what is pure and what is something else.

Doubt 9 is simple proof that ecclesiastical appointments of guru do not necessarily make for qualified preceptors. Is our guru parampara a matter of hit or miss? I think not.

Siva Rama Maharaja's responce still works on the false assumption that the gbc can succesfully appoint anyone by its political process for chosing gurus. Some may fall and others may not and some may still be qualified. Seems to me a rather nebulous concept of guru,and not what we read in His Divine Grace's books at all. What are the poor disciples who chose incorrectly from the list supposed to do?

I never said that anyone is bhogus because he won't hear from Srila Narayana Maharaj. He is bhogus if he discourages sincere souls from taking the association and hearing the harikatha of self realized souls. He is bhogus if his disciple approaches him with a request to hear from such a soul and he falsely advises that disciple he should not take association of Vaisnavas who are higher than himself. Then he is cheating that disciple.

The question is worth considering why any sincere Vaisnava would reject the association of Vaisnavas more advanced than himself ? Of course the gbc will try to say that the siksa from Srila Narayana Maharaja, is either different or opposed to that of His Divine Grace. This is simply false propaganda. Such old and tired arguments have been made many times, answered sufficiently in many other articles over the years. The gbc, despite its many efforts, cannot stop anyone who thinks for himself from seeking out the snghda and sajatiya association of advanced Vaisnavas.

Similarly no one can convinve anyone who thinks he finds that kind of association in iskcon from going there. As you wish vijay. As Rambo said, "but colonel he drew first blood!!! You brought up Siva Rama Maharja's pamphlet and let the stool hit the fan. Did you expect us to just roll over and accept his evaluations?

October 26, 2004

Vijaya,

Two years ago Srila Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Goswami Maharaja was invited to speak at the Krsna Balarama Mandira on the occasion of His Divine Graces' disappearance mahotsava. Guru Krpa prabhu arranged his participation. At that time I went there from our sanga in Govardhan, to take darshan at His Divine Grace's samadhi. I heard Srila Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Goswami Maharaja say very clearly, "You cannot go back to Godhead unless you have the association of a sad-guru."

I don't know if he was ever invited back.

Also two years ago Sripad Svarupa Damodar Maharaja came to visit Srila B.V. Narayana Maharaja at the Devananda Gaudiya Matha in Nabadwipa, during the Nabadwipa Dhama parikrama. During their meeting Svarupa Damodar Maharaja expressed some desire to "mend sounds" and expressed the thought that the gbc would like to better relations between iskcon and the GVS (Gaudiya Vedanta Samhiti). Srila Narayana Maharaja told him that there was actually no problem from his end. He visits other mathas and their members visit his with no problem. The problem, was coming from duplicitous behavior of some iskcon gbc members, saying one thing and doing another. Svarupa Damodar Maharja had no reply. What could he say?

I also attended a meeting at Sridham Mayapura, hosted by Sripad Jayapataka Maharaja around the same time,in the auditorium in the bottom of His Divine Grace's puspa samadhi. He invited members of all the other gaudiya mathas on Mayapura and in particular Srila Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Maharaja, the president-acarya of Sri Caitanya Gaudiya Matha was invited as the keynote final speaker. Srila Maharaja said something very interesting. He said that in the higher realms all apparant discrepancies can be easily resolved. But in this place, since we are all conditioned souls we will detect differences. Therefore our unity can be of one purpose to glorify Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu but we must manage seperately. Otherwise, he pointed out, the 20-30,000 pilgrims there for parikrama would interfere with each other and the management would be a nightmare.

Hopefully one day there can be true collaboration and everyone will learn how to deal with vaishnavas in the best possible way.

So this is certainly a noble aspiration, but may not manifest in our life time. One other major setback I see to positive relations between iskcon and other missions are the philosophcial deviations established by gbc law concerning guru and jiva tattvas. You cannot expect Vaisnavas to bindly accept gbc political statements as shastric injunctions. They will be bound to speak out aginst apasiddhanta, no matter where it rears its ugly head.

You should know also, that Srila Narayana Maharaja told me personally on a morning walk in Berkeley several years back, one interesting fact. He told me that the gbc had offered him a world tour, all expenses paid,full facility to visit all the important iskcon centers. However they put one condition, and that was that he would have to preach in agreement with their resolution that the jiva fell from goloka vrndavana. Srila Narayana Maharaja quoted a verse from the SB to me and then said, "I couldn't preach that! Never compromise."

When the iskcon gbc rejoins our sampradaya philosophically, then other missions may consider some kind of affiliation. In the meantime they may decline as have many of His Divine Grace's initiated disciples. The gbc flip flopped with regard to Srila Sridhar Maharaja, and offered an apology, but only years after offences had been committed. Too little too late for the thinking of many of Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Maharaja's sincere sisyas. One doubts if they will reverse their already flip flopped position with regard to Srila Narayana Maharja during his manifested nara lila. He was not vilified or made unwelcome until l995. I tried to explain to you why that happened, but you don't beleive me. No matter. It is actually up the the iskcon gbc to repair the rift they have caused not anyone else.

vijay · October 26, 2004

"I asked you how can anyone be accepted as a guru in our gaudiya line when he rejects the statements of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in the 15th chapter of Jaiva Dharma with regard to the origin of the jiva in favor of a resolution to the contrary, written by an ecclesiastical board. You never answered me. I also said that genuine guru cannot be rubber stamped, but is self effulgent. "

Prabhu if you read drutakarma prabhus paper on the issue which i have read and I have also read papers against and then for, i concluded it is beyond me and acrayas can have their differences, prabhupada many times said it is not important where you came from the main thing is where you are going, I will not take something which i will not understand fully until liberated to judge gurus.

"I also said that genuine guru cannot be rubber stamped, but is self effulgent. "

Thakuras’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.

Again the gbc system is not perfect and you can not rubber stamp a guru, however the society needs to athorise or whatever the word is, if the diciples see someone as self effulgent and the vaishnava gets approval to initate and later that guru grossly deviates he's athorisation form the society as a guru is revoked (diciples may continue to still regard him as guru in case of kirtananda). Think of that as rubber stamping which it isnt. Please understand that it is still the diciples responsibility to try and find a pure guru not anyone elses. If he sees no one in iskcon he is free to go else where.

"Sorry if my understanding of what a mahabhagavata is and yours' differ. I had the good fortune to meet and hear from His Divine Grace directly many times between l970 and l976 and have personally met several other pure devotees who are followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura since. What is your basis for comparison? Of course we all have to take additional guidance from shastra, what is pure and what is something else. "

So far personal association with the Guru is concerned, I was only with my Guru Maharaja four or five times, but I have never left his association, not even for a moment. Because I am following his instructions, I have never felt any separation. There are some of my Godbrothers here in India who had constant personal association with Guru Maharaja, but who are neglecting his orders. This is just like the bug who is sitting on the lap of the king. He may be very puffed-up by his position, but all he can succeed in doing is biting the king. Personal association is not so important as association through service.

HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

Prabhu I have no basis for comparison, I once briefly got chastised by puri maharaj on a train to jaganatha puri, we gave him our space so him and his diciples can be together, I then spoke to his personal secretary asking him about maharaj he seemed very fixed even in his old age. His secertary for the next 20 minutes was telling me how srila prabupada didnt give everything he gave only basics for the rest come to us. He went trhough it all, anyway thats another story.

I myself believe that according to my purity and sincerity Krsna will arrange that guru for me, in turn guru gives krishna. My intelligence is limited and it is impossible for us to judge someones purity with out ourselves having purity. Else we will judge with our polluted intelligence. (not saying we shouldnt use intelligence but out desire and sencirity is what krsna sees and thus arranges a guru).

"Siva Rama Maharaja's responce still works on the false assumption that the gbc can succesfully appoint anyone by its political process for chosing gurus"

As I said its not an appointment. And its also a system that was worked out by senior vaishnavas before the wars and offences started.

"The question is worth considering why any sincere Vaisnava would reject the association of Vaisnavas more advanced than himself ? "

Ive already posted a reply to this, twice i think.

"Did you expect us to just roll over and accept his evaluations? "

I have never said this, I have actually been asking for specific points against his logic not general dismisals.

"He is bhogus if he discourages sincere souls from taking the association and hearing the harikatha of self realized souls. He is bhogus if his disciple approaches him with a request to hear from such a soul and he falsely advises that disciple he should not take association of Vaisnavas who are higher than himself. "

I have also given a post on this so if you re read and find a flaw in mine or sivarama swamis logic then say so, no point coming out with the same things over and over again.

Hare Krsna.

stonehearted · October 26, 2004

I agree with you, Vijay, that generalization is not sufficient, especially in such a case as we're discussing. I don't accept gneral assertions from my students without specific support. So I'll provide a couple of examples of problems I had with Sivaram Maharaja's booklet.

On p. 25, he writes, "Some instruction is merely educational; other goes beyond this world, having been secured for eternity by service and surrender." He footnotes this assertion. When I went to the footnote, I expected a citation of something from Srila Prabhupada or one of our other previous acharyas for some support. But he cites his own book! That comes off as circular logic, begging the question: it's so because I said so in another book." Perhaps the passage he refers to explains the point further. This would lead me to suspect that the booklet is nothing more than an elaborate advertizement for the book. But if I find glaring faults in the ad, why would I enrich him by buying the book? If you don't like what the trailer for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 shows, why would you spend $8 to see his flick? He's already rich, and he has admitted it's a cinematic op-ed. I get the same feeling from this book: it's not a lucid exploration of how to apply Gaudiya-vaishnava siddanta but an op-ed book mandated by the GBC to atone for his perceived error in preferring Narayana Maharaja's company to Ravidndra Svarupa's. (I know--they characterize it differently. This, however, is what I see in these cases. 20 years ago, Narasingha Maharaja,Tripurari Maharaja, and many others were told to leave ISKCON because they found Sridhar Maharaja's company more inspiring than Bhagavan's, Handsaduta's, and Hridayananda Maharaja's.)

On p. 49, he claims that, although in the early days of his preaching outside India, Prabhupada entertained the idea of working conjointly with his Godbrothers; in footnote 14 Sivaram Maharaja claims, "In time Prabhupada became indifferent to sorking co-operatively." That's a pretty big leap, and it ignores Srila Prabhupada's "earnest" invitation to Sridhar Maharaja in March 1977 (clearly later on, I think) and his assertion that "We want cooperation" in November '77.

On p. 60, Sivaram Maharaja answers an objection that "these gurus may fall down" with a quotation given in a drastically different context. In the cited quotation, Srila Prabhupada was referring to students, some rather new, who were at the time abstaining from intoxication, not to those whose own students were to accept them as good as God.

On p. 62, footnote 50 is supposed to support his assertion that any siksa different from Prabhupada's creates havoc. But the footnote refers not to approaching a point of siddhanta from a differnt angle, as in the case of the jiva's origin, but a sannyasi disciple who had left ISKCON, reportedly so he and his followers (he had been a guru befor e coming to ISKCON and brought about 100 disciples and several valuable pieces of Hawaii real estate) could have sex and smoke ganja. I know, because I was there. And I also know the disciple in question and can say that the rumors--at least those about him--were without foundation in fact. So as evidence, this quotation is, as lawyers would say, not on point.

There are many others. If I can find the time and energy, I may write something. It may be more effective to write a review of his Siksa-guru book, but I know I don't have money to buy it, and since there's no ISKCON center on this island, there's little chance that anyone has a copy I could borrow. Even if that were not the case, theres the small matter of the constant flow of lessons to prepare, papers to grade, committee work, sadhana, and domestic duties. So I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting. However, if I get some sign that this is important enough, I may be able to reorganize my priorities for a little while, as I did for the article I wrote last year.

October 26, 2004

I've read Drutakarma's paper. I;ve also read Kundali Prabhu's book, and I've read SBT's Jaiva Dharma.

IN VAIKUNTHA NOT EVEN HE LEAVES FALL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There is no denying our debt to Drutakarma Däsa. Without his inspiration we would never have undertaken the task of researching and writing this book. He so inspired us that researching, writing, editing, proofreading, and, layout was all done in the space of four months. Since we are doubly satisfied with the results we must be doubly indebted to him. We thank him and his supporters. . . .

. .

INTRODUCTION

This book is the result of controversy. In writing it we were advised to downplay the controversial aspect “because a book on siddhänta should not explicitly bring out controversy.” Another reason given is that we must be careful not to date the book. Upon consideration, however, we could not agree with either view. Without the controversy we would not have written the book. Why should this historical fact be hidden?

Further, we also have the example of our previous äcäryas. In their writings they

often dealt openly with controversy. We find that there is wisdom in this, for by making it open there is less chance that the same circumstances that caused the controversy will recur.

In the ISKCON community this particular controversy—where did the conditioned jéva come from or “the jéva-issue”—has been smoldering for many years. Now, with the publication of this book, we hope to end the confusion. In the ISKCON community this particular controversy—where did the conditioned jiva come from or “the jiva-issue”—has been smoldering for many years. Now, with the publication of this book, we hope to end the confusion. But the confusion may not end. In the Préti-sandarbha, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé explains why. He says there are three types of discussions—väda, jalpa, and vitaëòä. In a väda discussion the motive of all concerned is to find out the truth. This is the ideal kind of discussion. It is for persons who are sober and impartial about the outcome; they simply want to know what is the truth of the matter. They are in the mode of goodness. Jalpa is a discussion wherein one is not interested in what is said by others, whether it has some truth or all of the truth, because one simply wants to be heard. Any other view or contribution is of no interest. This is the way for a person in the mode of passion. A vitaëòä discussion is in the mode of ignorance. In this version the truth is of no value. One simply wants to win at all costs. We believe that this book will clear the confusion for those persons interested in väda.

Our committment to writing a book on the jiva-issue began when the following letter was posted to the GBC conference on COM:

Text 31415: 27-Aug-94 18:16 EDT /167 lines/ LINK: Drutakarma (Dasa) ACBSP (Alachua)

Drutakarma. ACBSP@iskcon.com

Receiver: GBC Body <20>

once we were with Krsna

Dear GBC members,

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

Lately I have been receiving inquiries from GBC members, BBT Trustees, and temple presidents about my forthcoming book “Once We Were With Krsna”, which shows conclusively that Srila Prabhupada’s teaching was just as the title says, and that this is in complete harmony with “Srimad-Bhagavatam” and the teachings of our previous acharyas going back to Lord Caitanya. One controversial feature of this book is that I am directly naming those who hold opposing views and answering them point by point. Since copies of the drafts of some chapters are floating around, by Xerox and computer, I thought it best to make sure all of you, and not just some of you, have an opportunity to see what is coming. The second chapter, on Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, is attached to this message. I am attaching the first chapter, on evidence from “Srimad-Bhagavatam” to another message. The third and final chapter, on the teachings of the previous acharyas, is still being written, but as soon as it is finished I will send it to you. I am also including below the text of a letter to one of the GBC members. It explains why I am taking the step of bringing out this book. Originally, I intended to send it to just that one member, but since interest in the whole issue seems to be widening, I am sending it to all the members.

Dear————— Prabhu,

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

Like you, I share an interest that Srila Prabhupada’s teachings remain the central focus of ISKCON, and that they be passed down to the next generation unchanged. I fear, however, that all of this is now endangered.

The specific point of my concern is Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on the origin of the jiva. Srila Prabhupada addressed this issue many times, and said we have come “from Vaikuntha planet,” we were “with Krsna in His lila,” etc. It has been said that Srila Prabhupada’s views are not supported by shastra and previous acharyas. But my rather extensive investigation of these accusations reveals that they are unfounded. I can produce dozens of statements from Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati that are exactly in line with Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. Support for the idea that the jiva was originally with Krishna can also be found in the Bhagavatam and other works. There is nothing in the Sandarbhas of Jiva Goswami that contradicts Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, despite the claims of Satyanarayana and Kundali, and others such as Bhanu Swami. I say this on the basis of my own study and on the authority of Gopiparanadhana Prabhu, who has closely examined the relevant passages. One might say, well, perhaps we are just dealing with a case of a transcendental disagreement among acharyas. The problem is that one of the acharyas is our founder-acharya. So even if one wants to accept that, then it is clear that in ISKCON we have to take sides, the side of Srila Prabhupada. But I am convinced there is no difference between Srila Prabhupada and any of the major acharyas in our line going back to Lord Caitanya. Some of Srila Prabhupada’s God brothers or disciples of his God brothers may have different opinions, but in one hundred years none of them will be recognized as a great acharya, whereas Srila Prabhupada’s place in history as one of the greatest acharyas ever is already assured.

You have asked if there is any role that the GBC could play in resolving this issue. I am not at all hopeful that the GBC can actually do what needs to be done, because so many of the members are doubtful about what Srila Prabhupada said. Some of them, I suspect, actually agree with the position taken by Kundali and Satyanarayana that Srila Prabhupada spoke untruths to his disciples because they were too neophyte to understand the real siddhanta. That is so out of character for Srila Prabhupada that it is hard for me to see how any ISKCON devotee could accept it, unless they are ill-motivated or influenced by someone who is ill-motivated.

Basically, I think this issue will be settled, if at all, in the marketplace of ideas, where I am accustomed to function in a direct and confrontational manner. Nevertheless, I will outline a series of actions that I think the GBC could take to deal with the issue, if it so desired.

1. Pass the following resolution:

Srila Prabhupada’s clear teaching is that the jivas in the material world originally existed with Kåñëa in one of His spiritual planets directly engaged in His service. Their falldown into this material world is due to misuse of their free will. When they go back to Godhead, they regain their original positions as Krsna’s loving servants. This view is in harmony with both “Srimad-Bhagavatam" and the previous acharyas in our line going back to Lord Caitanya. No other view shall be presented as conclusive in any BBT or ISKCON publications, courses, or classes. Any ISKCON member actively promoting an opposing view among ISKCON members shall be subject to sanctions, including removal from positions of authority (sannyasa, GBC, guru, temple president) and ultimately expulsion. The BBT is requested to publish Drutakarma’s book Once We Were With Krsna [names and exceptionally polemical statements removed] with adequate advertising and distribution to the devotee community. [This resolution would supersede any previous resolutions establishing study groups, etc. to research this question.]

2. Once the idea that Srila Prabhupada said that the conditioned souls were once with Krishna has been adopted as ISKCON’s official policy, then the GBC could take further steps to insure our doctrinal purity. I will offer some suggestions.

3. I am absolutely convinced that Satyanarayana and Kundali must be removed from the BBT project of publishing Jiva Gosvami’s Sat-sandarbhas and that the entire thing should be handed over to a loyal Prabhupada follower. It is true that, at present, Dravida and Gopiparanadhana have been given authority to filter out the nonsense views that Satyanarayana has introduced in his commentaries, but that is a very precarious situation. It is like having a cook, but you have to check every offering to make sure he isn’t putting meat on the Deity plates. Satyanarayana is very fixed in his views, and he is expert in propagating them among those many devotees who regard him as an authority in shastric matter. I have reports that in Vrndavana lectures and seminars he is directly saying that Srila Prabhupada is wrong on the question of the origin of the jiva. The issue is, however, much larger than the Sandarbha question or even the jiva question. The larger matter at stake is the integrity of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. If Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on the origin of the jiva, found everywhere in his books, letters, lectures, and conversations, can be relativized by word juggling Sanskrit experts influenced by outside figures, then what next? It seems to me that the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust should only publish authors whose views are totally in line with those of the Bhaktivedanta—His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. To publish someone’s work is to give them prestige inside and outside of ISKCON. And giving Satyanarayana this position is going to give him a better platform for pushing his erroneous views. Also, the BBT is setting him up with a whole institute for translating Vaishnava literature in Vrndavana. Right now there are a few strong-minded individuals who are acting to prevent him from getting his contradicting of Srila Prabhupada into print. But at any time in the future this could change, We might find that Srila Prabhupada’s books get edited to bring them in line with Satyanarayana’s views. Or instead we might find that footnotes and other explanatory materials are added to let people know what Srila Prabhupada really meant on this question (Satyanarayana has already written such things for exactly this purpose—it’s just a question of printing them in the books). And we could see this translation institute in Vrndavana become an avenue for the infiltration of all kinds of wrong ideas and attitudes into ISKCON. What about the fear that if Satyanarayana is confronted he will just go and publish his books anyway? Let him. If the steps I recommend are taken, it will be clear to ISKCON members that he is just doing his own thing—just one more Sanskrit scholar who has gone off the deep end. As Srila Prabhupada said, “I am also practically finding that if any of our students artificially try to become scholars by associating with unwanted persons [specifically in India] they become victimized, for a little learning is dangerous, especially for the Westerners. I am practically seeing that as soon as they begin to learn a little Sanskrit then immediately they feel that they have become more than their guru and then the policy is kill guru and be killed himself.” That is the road Satyanarayana has embarked upon. To kill Srila Prabhupada’s teachings (by whimsically explaining them away) is to kill Srila Prabhupada. So let him go and publish his nonsense interpretations elsewhere. At least we will know that we have preserved Srila Prabhupada’s teachings intact and insured against that thing Srila Prabhupada most feared—that we would change or relativize what he taught us.

4. In general, the BBT should not publish books by authors with views contrary to those of Srila Prabhupada on this question.

5. Narayana Maharaja’s views on the origin of the jiva question should come under scrutiny, and that this should be taken into consideration in the GBC’s evaluation of Narayana Maharaja followers among the GBC and other senior ISKCON devotees.

I think a lot of this will automatically happen once the GBC takes the correct step of affirming that Srila Prabhupada’s statements that the jivas were once with Krishna is ISKCON’s position on this matter.

If the above steps were taken, I would feel satisfied that ISKCON had acted properly to safeguard the integrity of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, not just on the jiva question, but in general.

Please feel free to circulate copies of this letter to whomever you like.

Your servant,

Drutakarma Dasa

(Text 1415)

The above letter sets the stage. We want our readers to note some of the salient features of this letter. One thing is the confidence of the author. The reader is lead to believe that he has the final conclusion on this matter. His tone of confidence alone is enough to intimidate the average reader who will then be overwhelmed by the “facts” that he presents by way of analysis and so on in his book. Nevertheless, we maintain that after reading just a few chapters of this book, our readers will agree that the confidence exhibited by our accuser is unfounded. Indeed, his confidence will be found to be along the lines of what Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarté Öhäkura describes in Mädhurya Kädambiné as false confidence:

A brähmaëa child, having just begun the study of the scriptures, thinks he has become immediately a learned scholar worthy of everyone’s praise. Similarly, a person just beginning devotional service may have the audacity to think that he has mastered everything. This is called utsäha-mayé, filled (puffed-up) with enthusiasm.

Another thing worthy of note is the way in which the author of the above letter has cleverly wrapped himself in the name of Çréla Prabhupäda so that to disagree with him is to prove oneself a “Prabhupäda killer” and to remain silent is a virtual admission of guilt. Thus, the only way to prove one’s loyalty to Çréla Prabhupäda is to agree with him. His approach is to cut off all possibility of a dialogue over a philosophical difference of opinion. In fact, the writer seeks no dialogue. He knows all the answers and though we may have a different opinion he is not the least bit interested to know how or why we hold such an opinion. Even if he was right about the jéva issue, we wonder if his approach was the way to handle the matter, what to speak of the fact that he is wrong?

We hope our readers will appreciate by the end of this book how important it is to see through the sort of unjust tactic our accuser has employed; otherwise much harm can be inflicted on our community by those who lack the integrity to deal justly with such differences of opinion. Unless we learn to discriminate in such matters, the devotee community will always be victims of those willing to resort to such conduct—seeking to create a state of panic and prejudice by whipping devotees into an emotional state in the name of Çréla Prabhupäda. His singular purpose is to destroy all credibility of the accused. Indeed, in the eyes of those swayed by this writer’s rhetoric, for us to make any utterance in our defense will only appear to confirm their worse suspicions.

Despite the risk to us, however, we feel obliged to respond to the charges against us, not so much for the sake of saving face, but for preserving the paramparä siddhänta and preserving Çréla Prabhupäda’s place in the disciplic succession. Otherwise, as will be shown in the course of this book, to accept Drutakarma Däsa’s understanding of Çréla Prabhupäda’s teachings on the origin of the jéva is to remove him from being a link in the chain of disciplic succession. We find no evidence anywhere in Prabhupäda’s life or teachings that he wanted to be seen as anything but standing shoulder to shoulder with the disciplic succession. The fall-väda theory (that the spirit soul falls from Vaikuëöha) does, however, isolate him from the paramparä. This is entirely unacceptable to us.

Besides that there are many other unsavory implications of the fall-väda theory, which we reveal and refute in the course of the book.

Before closing we think it is important to briefly outline the background of our working relation with the BBT. In March 1992 we began on our own translating and commenting on the Ñaö-sandarbhas. In late May of the same year we were asked to do the work for the BBT. The condition was that we would agree to working with the BBT’s English and Sanskrit editors, Draviòa Däsa and Gopiparäëadhana Däsa respectively. We agreed. In the next two years we encountered a number of problems, none of which were of our own making. In every instance we showed ourselves to be flexible and solution-oriented and were able to come to satisfactory compromises between us and our two editors and the BBT Trustees.

We proposed a policy that in such circumstances where there was a real or apparent difference of opinion between Çréla Prabhupäda and the author of the work being translated, we would state both views and if possible reconcile them. This met with solid approval from the BBT Trustees. In the specific case of the jéva issue, we knew that Prabhupäda said both things—that we fell from Vaikuëöha and that no one falls from Vaikuëöha—and were quite pleased to follow in his footsteps and say both things. Our work was progressing. The Tattva-sandarbha was completed and scheduled for the printer. While it was in production in Sweden, we were working on Bhagavat-sandarbha.

Now the whole BBT project to bring to the devotees worldwide the greatest philosophical work in our line has stopped. We think that the devotee community should know that this is a direct result of Drutakarma Däsa’s method of expressing his concern that Çréla Prabhupäda’s teachings are being “relativized by word-juggling Sanskrit experts.” In reality the Tattva-sandarbha met the approval of both BBT editors, Draviòa prabhu and Gopiparäëadhana prabhu, solid BBT men for the last 20 years.

Not only did the entire Sandarbha translation project grind to a stop, but the BBT project to construct a facility in Våndävana for translation work was also stopped. All of this stoppage, even if reversed, was done at great expense and inconvenience to the society. At the time of this writing, the fate of these services to Çréla Prabhupäda is still uncertain. In this instance a great disservice was done to the society of devotees, to Çréla Prabhupäda, and to our predecessor äcäryas, for, as will be shown, our accuser is completely mistaken. Indeed, we hope that this book proves the value of studying the writings of our previous äcäryas for properly understanding the philosophy. Çréla Prabhupäda said he gave us the framework and it is up to us to fill in the details. With respect to the siddhänta of our paramparä, we show in this book that there is no better approach than to draw on the works of our äcäryas.

Our fervent hope is that whatever lessons can be extracted from this event will be helpful to avoid such disasters to our society in the future. Unless we learn from these experiences, then, as conventional wisdom has it, history will be doomed to repeat itself. In the world of duality, certainly conflict or controversy can arise at any moment. That is no cause for dismay. What makes a big difference is how the problem is handled. Drutakarma Däsa’s handling of the jéva issue is an example of how not to do it.

Finally, we hope that by presenting this book in response to the above letter and the book Once We Were With Kåñna, the charges against us will be cleared and the controversy over the jéva issue will be resolved forever. Our approach has been to go back up the line of paramparä and see which of the two versions by Çréla Prabhupäda is consistent with our previous äcäryas. We are confident that readers interested in väda will be pleased with the result. If we have made any error or offense in our attempt to present the siddhänta, we pray for the kindness of the Vaiñëavas that they rain their mercy down on us and guide us rightly on this razor-edged path. Hare Kåñna.

All glory to Çré Guru and Gauräìga.

Kundali Das

October 26, 2004

wow...Puru to vijay.... the truth what a breath of fresh air without bias....trinad api... and all that ...

One thing in commen ..respect for all types of Vaisnavas, repect to Guru none the less....Madhya 8.128. "The spiritual master who fist gives information about spiritual life is called vartma-pradarsaka guru," (does any one remember everyone whom you gave one of Our Srila Prabhupadas books to on sankirtan or who gave you yours ?)

"the spiritual master who initiates according to regulations of sastra is called diksa-guru" (does any one remember being initiated by His divine Grace Srila Prabhupada ?)

"and the spiritual master who gives instructions for elevation is called siksa-guru." ( can anyone say other advanced Vaisnavas, devotees on the planet, in the last 20 years; ie. HH Sridara Maharaja, HH.Puri Pramode Maharaja, HH.Gaura-Govinda Maharaja, HH Narayana Maharaja and even you others of my godbrothers strictly following the Acarya with out envy malice or prestige. You know who you are by your sincere humility dealing with me nonsense over the years..

"What I mean to say lads , if yer a doing it to a tee, then I with ye.. keep on chanting and dancin" Glories to Srila Prabhupada and his abhaya "fearlessness"

"may Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga keep you in their sights..Prabhus....

ever felicitate in the dust...

gopijana das...

vijay · October 26, 2004

"On p. 25, he writes, "Some instruction is merely educational; other goes beyond this world, having been secured for eternity by service and surrender." He footnotes this assertion. When I went to the footnote, I expected a citation of something from Srila Prabhupada or one of our other previous acharyas for some support. But he cites his own book!"

Yes he does, this is one of the only places he does that, simply because he deals with it in his book the siksa guru.

You may consider it advertisement, but he is making a simple point and if you want clarification he deals with it in another book. I dont see how that becomes advertising? warped minds...

"On p. 49, he claims that, although in the early days of his preaching outside India, Prabhupada entertained the idea of working conjointly with his Godbrothers; in footnote 14 Sivaram Maharaja claims, "In time Prabhupada became indifferent to sorking co-operatively." That's a pretty big leap, and it ignores Srila Prabhupada's "earnest" invitation to Sridhar Maharaja in March 1977 (clearly later on, I think) and his assertion that "We want cooperation" in November '77."

You missed out the whole of footnote 14

“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)

It is clear he stopped seeing as it as a major priorty and we can see his indifference, you cant see it?

as for

"ignores Srila Prabhupada's "earnest" invitation to Sridhar Maharaja in March 1977 (clearly later on, I think) and his assertion that "We want cooperation" in November '77."

the below 2 deal with it well doubt 8 does anyway.

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.

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.

"On p. 60, Sivaram Maharaja answers an objection that "these gurus may fall down" with a quotation given in a drastically different context. In the cited quotation, Srila Prabhupada was referring to students, some rather new, who were at the time abstaining from intoxication, not to those whose own students were to accept them as good as God."

I dont know where you got the "these gurus may fall down" quote from he never says that. But I agree the example he uses doesnt refer to same context, but heres all of it for those that are interested.

Doubt 9: Considering the fall-down of so many

ISKCON gurus and the disorganised state of the Society,

can it really be said that members of ISKCON can give sufficient guidance?

Answer: This doubt argues “the logic of the remainder,”

(Parisesya-nyaya, means “the logic of the remainder,” or by elimination of unsatisfactory evidence, what is left is proof.) which translates as follows: ISKCON is in trouble,

and since there are no qualified gurus in the Society, out of necessity devotees must take Siksa (and diksa) from

Vaishnavas outside.

This doubt is built on two wobbly fundamentals. The first is the misconception that disarray in certain areas of

ISKCON is a sign of spiritual failure. The second extrapolates that because some ISKCON gurus have proven themselves disqualified, all ISKCON gurus are disqualified.

To argue that problems in the Society are a sign of its

failure is naïve.(Srila Prabhupada scoffed at the idea of perfection even in ISKCON: “So we shall not expect that anywhere there is any Utopia. Rather, that is impersonalism. People should not expect that even in the Krishna Consciousness Society there will be Utopia. Because devotees are persons, therefore there will always be some lacking. …” (Letter, Bombay, February 4, 1972)) For example, Srila Prabhupada writes that even the disorder that customarily accompanies the passing of the acarya can be rectified by the efforts of his sincere followers.(Commenting in the Bhagavatam, Prabhupada writes, “The acarya, the authorized representative of the Supreme Lord, establishes these principles (religion), but when he disappears, things once again become disordered. The perfect disciples of the acarya try to relieve the situation by sincerely following the instructions of the spiritual master.” (Bhag. 4.28.48, purport))

It is paradoxical that some Vaishavas condemn

ISKCON’s struggles, their own societies having transited

through similar problems in the past, nay, even experiencing

such problems at present. And if these same Vaishnavas,

who, in srila Prabhupada’s estimation, were responsible

for chaos in their own organisation(Speaking about the turmoil caused in another Society, Prabhupada

wrote, “So S and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure.” (Letter, Tirupati, April 28, 1974) Prabhupada writes, “Despite the spiritual master’s order to form a governing body and execute the missionary activities … the two unauthorized factions began litigation that is still going on after forty years with no decision.” (Cc. adi 12.8, purport) Prabhupada says, “That T, unnecessarily he was envious, whole life fighting, fighting, fighting in the court and died. Simply planning.” (Conversation, Bombay,January 8, 1977)) are now qualified to

be gurus, then why not value the devotees of ISKCON by

the same standard?

"On p. 62, footnote 50 is supposed to support his assertion that any siksa different from Prabhupada's creates havoc. But the footnote refers not to approaching a point of siddhanta from a differnt angle, as in the case of the jiva's origin, but a sannyasi disciple who had left ISKCON, reportedly so he and his followers (he had been a guru befor e coming to ISKCON and brought about 100 disciples and several valuable pieces of Hawaii real estate) could have sex and smoke ganja. I know, because I was there. And I also know the disciple in question and can say that the rumors--at least those about him--were without foundation in fact. So as evidence, this quotation is, as lawyers would say, not on point."

Prabhup§da said, “A ªik¢§-guru who instructs against the instruction

of spiritual [master], he is not a ªik¢§-guru. He is a demon. … ¼ik¢§-

guru does not mean he is speaking something against the teachings of

the d¦k¢§-guru. He is not a ªik¢§-guru. He is a rascal.” (Bg. lecture,

Honolulu, July 4, 1974

The point of the foot note stands, im sure there are other places where prabhupada makes that simple point especially when he says that if they say one word different it will create havoc

Thank you stone hearted, I thought you would of picked out major flaws, any way you better get back to your marking.

Ive actually realised that this is not gona get us anywhere except waste each others time.

vijay · October 26, 2004

Fogive me for any offences puru prabhu i did get annoyed at some of your words toward all of iskcon but i guess i must of said a few things also, i guess we will be divided in opinion for the forseeable future.

I am not going to be posting in the month of kartik which i believe starts tommorow, i am going to try and remain engaged in krsna katha with out any political distractions.

Hare krishna

vijay · October 26, 2004

Okay prabhuji,

It has been ineresting and im going to call it a day, please forgive me for any offences, I may speak to you soon if i post at work but it will be only on a thread which is discussing krishna nectar. I have resolved to not do anything thats a distraction from the purpose of life this month which is chanting, reading krishna katha, and waking up early which has always been a bummer.

Best of luck in the month of kaartik

Hari Hari

stonehearted · October 26, 2004

Vijay:

You may consider it advertisement, but he is making a simple point and if you want clarification he deals with it in another book. I dont see how that becomes advertising? warped minds...

If the point is important enough for him to mention here, he should discuss it at least a little. Otherwise, his argument depends on our reading (buying) his siksa guru book. That might make some folks wonder whether the booklet isn't a way to sell the larger book.

You missed out the whole of footnote 14

“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)

It is clear he stopped seeing as it as a major priorty and we can see his indifference, you cant see it?/

What I have pointed out on many occasions is that Srila Prabhupada said many different things on different occasions. My point in bringing up the different elements of rhetoric is that we need, among other things, to consider each statement in context. Otherwise, we may indeed wreak havoc.

No, I didn't miss footnote 14; I pointed out, in fact, that he said something very different on at least two occasions in 1977. You seem to have missed that.

This doubt (doubt 9) is built on two wobbly fundamentals. The first is the misconception that disarray in certain areas of ISKCON is a sign of spiritual failure. The second extrapolates that because some ISKCON gurus have proven themselves disqualified, all ISKCON gurus are disqualified.

I would submit that this is a straw-man argument. Perhaps some devotees have expressed their doubt in this way, but I haven't heard it.It seems to me as though it's an overstatement of what doubts I've heard expressed. What I have heard is that the problems are symptoms of problems in their understanding of the Gaudiya philosophy, as well as symptoms of the culture of Vaishnava aparadha supported by ISKCON's leadership. (Please don't infer from that that I think this is a problem limited to or caused only by ISKCON; I don't at all.)

Thank you stone hearted, I thought you would of picked out major flaws, any way you better get back to your marking.

Ive actually realised that this is not gona get us anywhere except waste each others time.

I just grabbed a couple of places where I wrote notes on my first reading. I'm not out to make a case against Maharaja or his book. I just want to point out that it should be read for what it is: a statement of ISKCON policy expressed as though it were his personal opinion. No one should accept his conclusions without question, and neither Maharaja nor the GBC should expect that it would not raise questions among thoughtful, experienced devotees.

Anyway, please call me Babhru.

stonehearted · October 26, 2004

Vijay:

I may speak to you soon if i post at work but it will be only on a thread which is discussing krishna nectar.

I would consider that a great favor for which I would owe you a big debt. And I don't see that there are any offenses for me to forgive. We've been having a lively exchange, but I don't think you or I (I hope) said anything in a disrespectful way.

Thanks for the good Karttik wishes. Mine to you as well.

October 26, 2004

Puru prabhu and Vijay prabhu...God good on you lads, so nice to see begging of forgiveness from offences for both sides....its been a spiritual pleasure to see the banter and conclusion before kartik...

sensitive issues but we all must follow the last instuctions our srila Prabhupada gave... to co-operate....

thanks ......G hope you guys stay in touch with each other as it seems two camps could work for the general good of Krsna consciousness in the world by this example you present today.... again heartfelt thanks ....

October 27, 2004

Prabhuji, i've been following this thread and id like to thank you for going through some of the points in Siva rama Swami's book, i for one would love to see a 'book review' by yourself on the various, mis-quotes in the book etc. similar to Jadurani didi's review of his book 'Na Paraye 'Ham'

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0301/ET09-7711.html

I for one would see this as a service to Srila Prabhupada as it seems that the book (although representing todays gbc Iskcon) mis-represents Srila Prabhupada in many ways. To have a paper showing the devotees this mis-representation, is much needed and will benefit the community as a whole.

I know that you are short of time etc. so for now I'd like to thank you for showing us the points you discussed earlier.

YS Md

October 27, 2004

The following references were sent to me by one godbrother who has been following this thread, so I am passing them on to you all.

Several salient points regarding guru tattva are in this verse from SB:

tasmad gurum prapadyeta

jijnasuh sreya uttamam

sabde pare ca nisnatam

brahmany upasamasrayam

Any person who is seriously desirous of achieving real happiness must seek out a bona fide spiritual master and take shelter of him by initiation. The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions. Such great personalities, who have taken complete shelter of the Supreme Godhead, leaving aside all material considerations, are to be understood as bona fide spiritual masters. [bhag. 11.3.21]

Here is something that His Divine Grace said about such matters in a room conversation:

" Mix with such sadhu who are actually executing Krsna-bhajana"

This is the symptom of mahatma, one who has surrendered to Krsna fully. Sa mahatma sudurlabhah. So that is guru, mahatma, who knows vasudevah sarvam iti [bg.7.19]. Such mahatma is guru. Mahatmanas tu mam partha daivim prakrtim asritah, bhajanty ananya-manasah [bg.9.13]. The guru has no other business than Krsna-bhajana. So that you have to see.You have to learn. You have to appreciate with persons who are actually engaged in Krsna-bhajana. Then you'll understand. Adau sraddha tatah sadhu-sangah[Cc.Madhya23.14-15]. Sadhu means bhajate mam ananya-bhak sadhur eva sa mantavyah[bg.9.30]. He's sadhu. Who? Who has no other business than Krsna. Mix with such sadhu who are actually executing Krsna-bhajana. Adau sraddha tatah sadhu-sangah. This is the description of the sadhu. Bhajate mam Anaya-bhak sadhur eva sa mantavayah [bg.9.30]. These things are there. There is no question of being misled. But if you purposefully mislead yourself, who can check? In the beginning you may commit some mistake, but when you study Bhagavad-gita- who is sadhu, who is mahatma, who is guru- then why shall we make, commit mistake again? If you have done mistake-you have gone to a rascal who is not Krsna conscious- then when you read Bhagavad-gita, you can understand. Why you are misled? Why you should be misled? If it is written on the road, " Keep to the left," why should you be misled and go to the right? Go to the left. Then you are not misled. So here it is said, mahatmanas tu mam partha daivim prakrtim asritah [bg.9.13]. A mahatma means who is always engaged in Krsna consciousness. Why do you accept somebody as mahatma who does not speak about Krsna? Then you are misleading yourself. Sa mahatma sudurlabhah. Vasudeva sarvam iti [bg.7.19]. Everything, direction, is there. Why you create your own mahatma? If you want to be cheated, who can check you? That is your fault. In Bhagavad-gita, it is clearly said,

bahunam janmanam ante

jnanavan mam prapadyate

vasudevah sarvam iti

sa mahatma sudurlabhah

[bg.7.19]

That is mahatma. Mahatmanas tu mam partha daivim prakritim asritah, bhajanty ananya-manasah[bg.9.13]. Sadhur… Api cet suduracaro bhajate mam ananya-bhak [bg.9.30]. He's mahatma. He's sadhu. We shall go to him. Why shall we go to a rascal? Simple directions. So if you are mislead, if you are cheated, whose fault it is? But if you want to be cheated, who can check? Even though somebody by mistake has gone to a rascal, the book is there. As soon as you find out, " Here is a rascal who does not know anything about Krsna, and I have come to him," reject him. That is stated in the sastra.

Gurur apy avaliptasya karyakaryam ajanantah parityago vidhiyate. (?) Even by mistake

You have come to a rascal who does does not know how to become guru, you can reject him. Why you should stick to him? Reject him. And by mistake I have come to rascal. Why shall I continue to accept him as guru? Canakya Pandita said, tyaja durjana-samsargam bhaj sadhu-samagamam: " Give up all rascals. Associate with sadhus." If you do not do that, that is your fault. Tyaja durjana-samsargam bhaj sadhu-samagamam. We have to mix with sadhu. Sadhu means who are twenty-four-hours engaged in Krsna's service: Things are there. Why you should mix with asadhu? Then how can you understand? Adau sraddha tatah sadhu-sangah[Cc. Madhya 23.14-15]. If you have got little faith, then next business is to associate with sadhus.

Srila Prabhupada Room conversation- January 31,1977, Bhubaneshwar

***************************

Here is a very telling offerings from Srila Gour Govinda Maharja:

Sheep Logic

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0203/ET14-7216.html

Here is a very telling offering from Srila B.V. Narayana Maharaja:

The Glories of Sadhu Sanga

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9903/ET08-3272.html

October 27, 2004

Prabhu if you read drutakarma prabhus paper on the issue which i have read and I have also read papers against and then for, i concluded it is beyond me and acrayas can have their differences, prabhupada many times said it is not important where you came from the main thing is where you are going, I will not take something which i will not understand fully until liberated to judge gurus.

Because our origin is less significant than our destination does not mean that His Divine Grace wanted us to ignore the gaudiya siddhanta in this matter, or be a blind follower.

Questions & Answers with Srila Bhakti Bibudha Bodhayan Maharaj on Jiva Tattva & Guru Tattva

http://bvml.org/SBBBM/qa.html

"I also said that genuine guru cannot be rubber stamped, but is self effulgent. "(Puru)

Thakuras’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.(vijay)

Auotmatically selected does not mean elected, or the current approval-disapproval system utilized by the iskcon gbc. The position of acarya is not necessarily the same as the position of a guru either. Acarya was explained nicely by Pradyumna in his l977 letter to the gbc,

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0111/ET21-6977.html

His points were was mostly ignored and then later used in l979 in a gbc kangaroo court, (I have a tape of the meeting) as an excuse to take away his translating service, to give that task to Hrydayananda M.

Not everyone ignores Pradyumna Prabhu

The Headless Society

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0111/ET21-6977.html

Again the gbc system is not perfect and you can not rubber stamp a guru, however the society needs to athorise or whatever the word is, if the diciples see someone as self effulgent and the vaishnava gets approval to initate and later that guru grossly deviates he's athorisation form the society as a guru is revoked (diciples may continue to still regard him as guru in case of kirtananda). Think of that as rubber stamping which it isnt. Please understand that it is still the diciples responsibility to try and find a pure guru not anyone elses. If he sees no one in iskcon he is free to go else where.

The responsibility to understand if a guru is qualified rests on the prospective disciple even though we are endorsing any candidate! We take no responsibility if you chose incorrectly and a fall down takes place in future

Then for such authorization system there should be a warning lable on such recommendation like the small lable on cigaretts about health.

Chose from one of these but:

No guarantee of this product.

Authorization subject to revocation

What will Gaudiya Vaisnavism be like in 2000 years?

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads