A Heartfelt Apology

[raga]

= A HEARTFELT APOLOGY =

 

Dear Vaishnavas and Everyone Else,

 

My respects are out to you all. I feel a heart's need to write the following to clear accounts of the past, to make amends for everyone, to place myself in a situation for smooth progress in a life of bhajan. For the past four years, I have participated in a number of online discussion groups. I have at times contributed material, god willing, that some have found useful. At other times, I have made comments that may have disturbed or hurt someone.

 

I have associated with people who have warped and watered down some aspects of our Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta. I have been influenced, and may have spoken incorrectly at times. If I have written something that has been unbefitting, I heartily apologize. (If someone has concerns over something I have written in the past and on my current views on the said matters, please feel free to contact me and ask.)

 

I have associated with people who have employed anger and slander as mediums of defending the orthodoxy. I have been influenced, I have at times expressed myself accordingly without due respect to Vaishnavas and all living entities. For everyone involved, I heartily apologize. I have associated with people who have concealed their true nature and heart's inclinations. Deceived myself, I may have caused others to be deceived. I offer my heartfelt apology to everyone afflicted.

 

I have not been as exemplary in my practice as I should have been. On account of this, clearing of heart has not taken place as much as it should have, and many unworthy character traits have remained, leading me to act in ways that have brought sorrow and anxiety to others. For all of this, I bear the responsibility in the end, and call for forgiveness. Fortune has not been kind upon me. I have not been the good Vaishnava I would have wanted to be, that some have perhaps thought of me as.

 

It is a time for change, it is a time of repentance. It is a time I dissociate myself from the past and re-commit myself to the beautiful pursuit called bhakti-sadhana like never before. The months following my arrival to India have been a time of tremendous change, a time of heart's growth. I am at a juncture, at a point where I feel I must come to terms with the past, clear my accounts and embrace a new life of sincere devotion. Today is the day I must come forward and fall at the feet of everyone, the lid no longer stays on. I must call an end to an era bygone, once and for all.

 

I am then calling out to everyone, asking them to kindly forgive whatever ill feeling may have arisen on account of my past activities. Please bless me to be able to progress towards my cherished goal, free from obstacles caused by unbefitting exchanges with others, gravest among which is offending a Vaishnava.

 

February 4th, 2005,

On the eve of Advaita Saptami at Radha-kunda,

I remain in your service.

 

// Madhavananda Das //

[Guest guest]

 

I have associated with people who have employed anger and slander as mediums of defending the orthodoxy.

 

 

That's an implied insult.

 

Here is the standard definition of orthodox:

 

- Adhering to or conforming to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

 

 

Madhava you want to call your views "orthodox" or sometimes "traditional" when you make a distinction between your views and the views of the line coming from Srila Sarasvati Thakura. In doing so you relegate those who accept him and the more recent acaryas in his line as against the traditional and orthodox, and indeed espousing a philosophical position of deviation from the teachings of Sri Gaura Hari and the Sad Goswamis.

 

In other words by making such statements you are claiming that those whom you claim to respect are in effect not what they claim to be i.e not representatives of the aforementioned sampradaya acarya's actual teachings.

 

In effect by your use of your version of the dichotomy between your so-called "orthodox traditional" standard bearers and Srila Sarasvati Thakura, you are essentially calling the Thakura a deviant charlatan and his followers as the blind following the blind.

 

Surely you can see the insult inherent within such claims. Of course I disagree with your assessment of who or what is orthodox and or traditional, and I know that you expect that. Are you so confused that you think your division of these sundry groups of vaisnavas into the traditional gaudiya vaisnavas and neo-gaudiya vaisnavas is anything less then a direct insult that goes to the core of the most important aspect of gaudiya theology i.e the bonafide's of the guru?

 

You come here and elsewhere and apologize for the offensive statements of various people on your forums, how ironic that you do so while making an offensive statement yourself.

 

If you really believe this division between the orthodox traditional and neo-gaudiyas exists within your stated basal paradigm, then you must be incredibly naive to think that the so called neo-gaudiya vaisnavas would not see that division as a deliberate attempt at denigration, an attempt to smash peoples faith in their guru, an attempt to claim yourself as the representative of the "authentic" and the "neo-gaudiyas" as all inauthentic.

 

Don't waste your time with such self aggrandizing and offensive ridiculous speech. If your belief is as you state, then there is no need to try and pretend it's anything other then what it is. Your apology is vacuous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Get over it, Shiva (das?) -- if you claim to adhere, as you seem to be, to the principles of Vaishnavism.

 

Madhavananda das has already honoured you, at your lotus feet, with his heartfelt apology.

 

We shouldn't begrudge him for his faith/understanding of the Gaudiya history/siddhanta. We all should follow our hearts and I am sure our Guru will confirm what is in our hearts.

 

I spent more than an hour, last night looking at the old posts about those topics. He seemed to be civil and showed some Vaishnava etiquette despite the vigorous and sometimes heated exchanges in those threads.

 

I very rarely post in any forums, but I just can't help it.

 

Jaya Radha-Vallabha

 

Myrla

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Posted by Advaitadas on another forum, after Madhavananda das also posted this apology there

 

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

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

 

Dear Madhava, thank you for your apology which also landed in my inbox today.

It is a good sign that you have realised that your attitude has caused displeasure in the Vaishava community.

I am willing to forgive you if I am sure that you know where your offense lies, so I would like to ask you to apologise in earnest for the following particular offenses -

 

1. Comparing brahmins with fascists, including a picture of Hitler, in the

thread "On the definition and division of varna"/ History and traditions

June 2005

2. Challenging the Bhagavata cosmology, June 2004.

3. Supporting Jagat in his challenge of the Bhagavata and his insulting Srila Rupa Gosvamipada (which makes your present glorification of Rupa Gosvami hollow and meaningless), June 2004.

4. Getting rid of the one devotee who had the courage to support me in my defense of the Bhagavata and Rupa Gosvami against your and Jagat's assaults, by slyly changing the board rules in the middle of the debate, June 2004.

5. Trying to change the very boardrules of GD as a whole, by holding a poll (which you and Jagat lost) trying to 'tweak' the boardrule of the shastras being the ultimate arbiter, in the middle of the debate in which you and Jagat were revealing yourselves as challengers of shastra, June 2004.

6. Stealthily deleting your public disagreement with your Guru and Narottama

Das Thakura's statement that Mahaprabhu's associates (which include Rupa Gosvami) are nitya siddha and using my revelation of that as a pretext to try to ban me from the forum.

7. Trying to duck admission of your real reason for closing down GD by

insinuating that there is 'interesting feedback' on my personal past, as if any past wrongdoing of mine on the material level is comparible with Jagat's grave offenses to the shastras and the Acaryas (GR, January 2006), and as if that justifies you canvassing your Guru for Jagat to represent him on the international stage

by editing his books.

8. Misleading your Guru about the extent of Jagat's apostasies, January 2005.

9. Totally forgetting that you are the very youngest member of the Vaishnava community by lording it over devotees that were chanting the holy name before your mother was born, while Mahaprabhu has forbidden (materially and spiritually) junior followers to instruct the elders (CC Antya 4).

 

If you publicly and earnestly apologise for the above 9 offenses we are on the road of restoring friendly relations, and I will forgive you.

 

 

[muralidhar_das]

Like Advaitadas, I also received this apology in my email inbox yesterday.

 

Like Shiva, I feel this apology by Madhavananda has little value since he didn't apologize to the senior Vaishnavas who he and his friends have abused the most on his internet forums: Srila Bhaktivionde Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

 

Indeed I read Madhavananda's apology just as Shiva reads it - he is trumpeting the greatness of his so-called "orthodoxy" who he thinks are bonafide while completely ignoring our predecessor Gurus, Srila Bhaktivionde Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, who he has spent so many years of his short lifetime abusing.

 

Shiva, I feel your assessment of his apology was perfectly right.

 

Like Advaitadas, I have personal experience of Madhavananda's dishonesty. Madhavananda actually spends a lot of time in his "apology" putting down the person who he says was misleading him (Jagat). But in my dealings with them I have found Jagat to be more honest, honourable and truthful than Madhavananda. At least Jagat is honest. Jagat openly says he appreciates sahajiya sex practices. A man who is truthful is more advanced in spiritual life than a dishonest man who hides and obfuscates things.

 

Two months ago I wrote to Madhavananda das with some serious questions in regard to the (Siddha-pranali) philsophy his current Guru teaches (Ananta das Babaji). I pointed out to him that this "guru-given-siddha-deha" or "siddha-pranali" doctrine being preached by his Guru at Radha-kunda is contrary to the teachings of Sri Sanatana Goswami and Baladeva Vidyabhusana . Yesterday, I received that apology in my email box, but that apology letter isn't what I want from him. I want him to tell me what explanation the Radha-kunda babajis have to give in response to the fact that their philosophy of "guru-given-siddha-deha" is contrary to the teachings of Sri Sanatana Goswami and Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

[Guest guest]

I have found Madhavananda to be very open and honest over the years. I don't agree with him that Jagat is a bad person or dishonest, or whatever, due to his problems. To say that Jagat should have been more open and candid about his practices and beliefs is easy for anyone but the reality is that each one of us has our own struggles and issues to deal with - we are all human and we all have skeletons in our closets. I never felt that Jagat came of as presenting himself as anything other than what he is. Can anyone simply offer him understanding rather than condemnation? Afterall, we are all standing in the mercy line - shall we call for justice and see where we stand ourselves?

 

Madhavananda is a disciple of Ananta dasa babaji. He is following his heart in relation to bhakti. I didn't see anything in his post that was denigrating the lineage of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. On his GD forum there were posts that were denigrating of his lineage, but Madhavananda always kept an open mind and refused to personally speak ill of the lineage he left. Do I think he could have done more to stop others from speaking the way they did - absolutely. I think that by his apology he is acknowleding that as well.

 

Trnad api sunicena.....

[Guest guest]

 

I didn't see anything in his post that was denigrating the lineage of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

 

So you accept his charge that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, Srila Sridhara Maharaja, etc, are all deviants from the traditional gaudiya marga? You don't find that denigrating? What would you call it? He is saying and has been saying for years that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta deviated from the authentic orthodox tradition and created a new inauthentic, unorthodox, neo-gaudiyaism.

 

If you don't see that as denigrating then it shows how his strategy of undermining peoples faith by claiming our line is deviant actually works on some types of people. I see through him and have seen through him from the very first time I encountered him and his childish antics.

[raga]

I take the dust from the feet of Srila Saraswati Thakur and Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj on my head. They were both maha-purushas who contributed in a grand style to the cause of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

Yet, when their teachings do not sit in harmony with those of my respected guru-varga, I must opt in favor of the path I follow, and present my conclusions accordingly. I cannot possibly agree with everyone from every lineage.

 

Are Bhatisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta Gaudiya Vaishnavas? Yes, undoubtedly so. Are they "traditional" Gaudiyas? "Traditional" in the sense I define and use the word -- no, they aren't. Is that a shortcoming on their behalf? That isn't for me to decide, they have chosen their desired path and I have chosen mine. Our paths differ, somewhat.

 

Is "traditional" necessarily synonynmous with "orthodox"? No, not necessarily. That is subject to evaluation. In which sense did I use the word "orthodox" in my letter? I referred to people who feel they are orthodox and defend that with anger and blasphemy.

 

Have I spoken unfairly of the two? Yes, I undoubtedly have, in the more remote past. Have I attempted to make up for it by trying to guide related discussions to maintaining a civil and respectful tone in the recent past, year or two? Yes, I have, my level best. Have there been shortcomings? Certainly, yes there have. Do I regret that? Yes, I do, while I feel I have done my level best. I am a small person, unworthy of the greatness of heart and might of action of the great souls who are perfect in their ways.

 

Why were they not mentioned Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta in my e-mail? I do not have their e-mail addresses on record, and I believe they aren't surfing around the internet forums either. I have therefore chosen to leave amending whatever wrongdoings have taken place a matter between the three of us, leaving a specific mention of this out of an open letter along with a host of other specific cases I could have narrated.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

Muralidhar, regarding your letter: I did not feel the mode of dialogue you had initiated with your letter and your follow-up before I even had the time to reply was conducive to a discussion that would have been devotionally uplifting for anyone involved. There was -- and evidently, reading your posts here, currently is -- far too much tension in the air to allow for an atmosphere in which a fruitful discussion could take place.

 

[Guest guest]

So you accept his charge that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, Srila Sridhara Maharaja, etc, are all deviants from the traditional gaudiya marga?****

 

ACBSSP considered Jesus and Mohammed as Vaishnavas. Is that not a deviation from the traditional gaudiya marga? Since when did cow-killers become genuine Vaishnvas when even the likes of Tulsidas and Meera are rejected by traditional gaudiyas? Evidently, ACBSSP was more interested in diplomacy in foreign (christian) nations than he was in saying the truth as it is. Again, when did diplomacy (which stone-hearted would call duplicity, quite correctly) become part of gaudiya tradition?

 

Gaudiyas never compromised on principles, which was why they debated even fellow vaishnavas. Apparently, ACBSSP never cared to follow gaudiya principles and his compromise made real gaudiyas put their heads down in shame whenever they had to hear ridiculous statements about Jesus/mohammed on the same level as their acharyas and goswamis. IT was nothing short of blasphemy and no wonder, ISKCON is paying the price for it now. You can cheat mortals, you can't cheat Krishna by including fraudulent practices within the gaudiya fold.

 

ACBSSP did great service alright, but his service was tinged with a desire to become famous and successful, which was why he compromised on gaudiya principles and 'christianzed' Krishna and Vaishnavism. ACBSSP would go down in history as the first (and prolly the last) person to have successfully christianized such a beautiful gaudiya tradition with an overdose of Mleccha principles, all in the name of appealing to a larger audience. But we know better. His desire to become famous outweighed his desire to preach (pure and unadulterated) gaudiya vaishnavism. Thanks to his desire, most people who follow GV (even in India) are actually followers of a new and improved version of Christianity rather than genuine worshippers of Bhagavan Krishna.

 

All this may sound unsettling for SP fans but that isn't my motive. I have great respect for this man, but we must recognize facts as they are. Some people might even come close to calling him a sellout but I wouldn't. He made mistakes but he just wasn't aware of the repercussions. It is time we learned from SP's mistakes, rather than attack genuine Vaishnvas like Madhavananda (Raga) who only desire that we follow the traditional gaudiya path instead of the watered-down version made popular by SP and co.

[gHari]

 

Or we'll have more of these dogs here.

 

[muralidhar_das]

Madhava,

 

I had an attitude of live and let live towards you and your friends for a long time and I even encouraged you to re-make your forums after an earlier meltdown you had - your forums had become a cesspool and like now you decided to close it down.

 

I said that I believe in free speech and that your group should have a forum; my desire however was that on your forums you people should not attack "IGM" Acharyas (IGM being YOUR jargon for "ISKCON/Gaudiya Math"). Over time I had developed some familiarity with you and you invited me to join your forums (more than once you suggested it). So for the purpose of trying to bring about some peace with people who were spreading very heavy AND UNTRUE stories about my Gurus, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Saraswati Thakur, I entered those forums for a while. But after a period of involvement I left that behind -- quite a long time ago.

 

You say to me now that the sort of issues I brought up in my email to you two months ago were not "devotionally uplifting". I wrote private emails to Jagat and you asking you to carefully check what Srila Sanatan Goswami and Baladeva Vidyabhusana say in certain places in the scriptures, and to contrast that with your guru's ideas about 'guru-given-siddha-deha'. What happened then? You didn't answer for a long time. In fact you only answered after Jagat (without asking me) published my private email to him on your site. In fact Jagat (the scholar) said that the scriptural conclusions I presented did seem to be right (with the implication being that the Radhakunda babaji pandits are wrong).

 

And what did you do then? You remember what happened, don't you? I remember it. It was the way you acted then that made me agree with Advaitadas, in my opinion of you.

 

 

[muralidhar_das]

Moderator

 

Please do not delete that abusive posting addressed to Shiva that is above. Leave it there for everyone to see, so devotees everywhere will see just what sort of people we are dealing with, when we deal with these "orthodox" or "traditional" men.

[Guest guest]

about that post except that it states facts as they are? Ghari calls someone a dog and that isn't abusive....boy, the hypocrisy of it all!

[Guest guest]

???

[Guest guest]

where advaitadas posted and madhava responded? gaudiya discussions?

[Guest guest]

Madhava:

 

If a group of people who follow various forms of a religion want to make up rules about who or what is respectable as being authentic or "traditional", fine, good luck with that.

 

I really don't care if you and whomever else thinks like you believes what you believe on this subject matter. But at the same time I am going to tell you what I believe, and what I believe is that "spiritual truth" is not something which is voted upon. If a bunch of people want to pretend that they are God's closest companions above everyone else, and that their way of practicing and teaching gaudiya vaisnavism is the orthodox traditional authentic way, and believe that anyone who sees things differently from them is inauthentic and unorthodox and non traditional, fine. I disagree with them, I believe they are nowhere near as high and mighty as they think they are. There are billions of people on earth with similar unqualified self important thoughts. Such is the way of the illusory energy. So it comes as no surprise that people who try to make a living out of religion also fall prey to illlusions about their actual qualifications for being respected as gurus.

 

 

My complaint was that I think it's hypocritical to apologize about insults and be insulting at the same time...and then try and present some kind of "10 commandments" on how you are being perfectly inoffensive in your "traditional gaudiya" versus "neo-gaudiya" paradigm.

 

You can preach all you want about how people need to be "properly initiated" with the proper this or that in order for them to be considered authentic or traditional. Overly complicated formal structures may be what some people need in order to feel some connection to God. But for me the message of Sri Gauranga and of the 6 Goswamis is of a different type from what I see coming from the ideology which you present and which may be accepted by various people here or there.

 

I feel no need to apologize to you for that, nor to claim that I respect your philosophy. How can I respect a philosophy which denies Radha's position as Isvari, yet inexplicably claims to be the message of Sri Caitanya? How can I respect a "traditional gaudiya" philosophy which denies the most basic truth about Sri Radha?

 

[sundarananda]

Muralidhar das,

 

Are you aware of the paddhati of Gopal Guru Goswami? If you are, why are you using the expression "guru-given siddha deha"? Even your own guru, Bhaktivinod Thakur, gave siddha pranali to his disciples, and he received it from his diksha guru! If you or your gurus don´t accept it, fine. But it is not so clever to criticise it and at the same time praise people who practised it. It is not reasonable at all.

 

 

[sundarananda]

Bhaktisiddhanta went against the whole Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition by ignoring guru parampara and siddha pranali. The former is essential, in all sampradayas, and the latter has been a part of the GV religion since the very beginning.

 

The only reason people criticise it is that they haven´t understood what siddha pranali really is. A little knowledge can be more dangerous than none.

 

It doesn´t take a genius to understand that Bhaktisiddhanta isn´t a traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava, with all that includes. It would give a more intelligent impression if the followers of that Sarasvata path acknowledged that it is a form of neo-Gaudiyaism instead of imagining themselves to be preservers of the original faith.

[muralidhar_das]

Om ajnana timirandasya...

 

Saraswati is the giver of light.

 

Babajis who have deviated from the teachings of Srila Sanatan Goswami are the perpetuators of darkness.

[Guest guest]

Siddha pranali does not go back to "the very beginning". And anyways it is not an essential practice as many so called experts like to proclaim. As far as guru parampara being ignored by Srila Sarasvati Thakura; his father was Bhaktivinoda Thakura, whether or not you accept his initiation into the parampara as being done properly or not, how can anyone who understands the essence of Vedanta claim that a direct diksa ceremony is of essential value without which divya jnana cannot become manifest in the heart of the sadhaka?

 

I cannot accept it when I see people rail about how the ability of a sadhaka to gain the mercy of the Lord is dependent on an external ritual of some sort or another. That ideology was what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta wanted to smash. Those who claim that God will not reveal truth to someone unless they have been in the proper ritual controlled by the proper person do not understand that God's mercy is given to anyone who is destined for it regardless of their ritual initiation or lack of it. The Lord uses different ways to reveal truth; through the guru, through other vaisnavas, and directly to the person. Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura confirms this. From the Raga Vartma Candrika 1.8

 

sa ca lobho raga-vartma-vartinam bhaktanam guru-padasraya-

lakshanam arabhya svabhishta-vastu sakshat-prapti-samayam abhivyapya

 

yatha yathatma parimrijyate sau mat-punya-gatha-sravanabhidhanaih |

tatha tatha pasyati vastu sukshmam cakshur yathaivanjana-samprayuktam || [bha.pu. 11.14.25]

iti bhagavad-ukter bhakti-hetukantah-karana-suddhi-taratamyat prati dinam adhikadhiko bhavati ||8||

 

 

"When the eye is smeared with medicinal ointment, it's ability of reception becomes more and more refined, and accordingly it is able to perceive more and more subtle objects; similarly according to the degree of the mind's having become purified by hearing and chanting of My purifying pastimes, all the subtle truths of reality become manifest in the heart of the sadhaka."

 

And then from 1.9 he states:

 

udbhute tadrise lobhe sastra darsiteshu tat tad bhava prapty upayeshu, acaryya caitya vapusha svagatim vyanakti ity uddhavokteh, keshucid guru-mukhat keshucid abhijna mahodayanuragi bhakta mukhat abhijnateshu keshucid bhakti mrishta citta-vrittishu svata eva sphuriteshu, sollasam evatisayena pravrittih syat. yatha kamarthinam kamopayeshu. || 1.9 ||

 

"Uddhava says in Srimad Bhagavatam 11.29.6: Krishna reveals Himself through the acarya or through the agency of the caitya guru. Thus some devotee attains knowledge about the moods of Krishna and His Vraja associates from the mouth of a guru, some from the mouth of a learned raganuga devotee, and some, whose hearts have been purified by the practise of devotional service, will have this knowledge directly revealed to them from within their hearts."

 

Madhava, Murlidhara, myself and others went through a long discussion on these points almost a year ago on this forum. You can read it at: Siddha-pranali: Request for Info

[Kulapavana]

look guys, Madhava is trying his best to reconcile his own heart with beliefs of other parivars and he is showing humility in his public apology. that is quite commendable.

 

I dont think all this wrangling is helping anybody become more Krishna conscious. when somebody shows humility and apologizes, the vaishnava thing is to show compassion and magnanimity, not beat him over the head with a shoe.

 

you can find faults everywhere, that is the easy part, and anybody can do that. living in harmony with others while executing Lord Caitanya's mission - now, that is hard.

 

Vaishnavas are rare, so... why do we need to fight like cats and dogs when we get together? we can show compassion to lowlifes on the street, but not to a Vaishnava from a different camp? LOL! some vaishnavas we are...

[Guest guest]

The one thing I could never figure out is how, on one hand, Madhavananda can argue that there are many differences of opinion even among "orthodox" or "traditional" Gaudiya Vaishnavas, and yet argue that the differences which Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati had make he and his followers "unorthodox" and "non-traditional." So, it's ok that there are differences, but some differences mean that you are not among the orthodoxy. And then of course, there was the Harimohan/Tinkadi Babaji story with the guru who smoked tobacco and lived in luxury. He is "orthodox," it seems.

 

IMHO, the only reason I can explain someone taking such untenable positions is a lot of anger and rage against the BSST parampara. In all fairness, Madhavananda was probably mistreated by several members of that paramapara, but then he wrongly takes it out on the entire parampara. ISKCON is not the first religious organization to have fanatics, and it certainly will not be the last.

 

Sometimes I see that members of these "traditional" parivars argue that immaturity and social deviation within ISKCON parampara is evidence that it is not bona fide. This is a silly argument. If the "traditional" parivars also created international organizations that did preaching on a grand scale to all sorts of mlecchas, then they would experience the exact same problems. The problems are social in nature, not related to the presence or absence of a type of initiation. IMHO, the inability of some "traditionalists" to understand this is indicative of serious denial on their part.

 

Anyway, I really don't believe in knocking a guy when he is down. Perhaps Madhvananda's apology is sincere. I'm really not in a position to say, though I note that his casting of BSST once again into the "non-traditional" category seems like a dig to casually justify his earlier resentment. In any case, if he really wants to apologize for his years of abusing others, he will have a lot of apologizing to do in the days ahead, and to a lot of people given the way his previous insults have been distributed over the internet... that is no small feat.

 

But Muralidhar was definitely right about one thing too... now that Madhvananda has apologized, look at what happens when the other "traditionalists" come crawling out of the woodwork. Already we're seeing them bearing their fangs and blatantly attacking BSST. Yes, let's not delete those postings, so we need make no mistake with the type of people we are dealing with, "traditional" though they claim themselves to be.

[Guest guest]

It is not particularly insightful for a follower of Bhaktisiddhanta to speak about anger and rage of traditionalists. This is just a projection of their own attitude.

 

And regarding siddha pranali. Bhaktivinode, whom you say is your guru (?!) practised and taught siddha pranali. If you are in his siksa/bhagavataparampara/whatever, why aren´t you following his siksa?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Please simply let this thread die off. Madhavananda dasa posted a sincere apology for any misdeeds his has involved himself in. Leave it at that. He is a sincere vaishnava. Why should this apology degenerate into who follows what sadhana and who is right or wrong. Each person will follow their own heart in the matter of siksha and sadhana. It's foolish to expect any less from anyone.

 

It is a fact that the lineage of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati does not reveal the 'siddha-pranali' nor does it engage it's members in lila smaranam. There are reasons for this and those who are in the lineage find them to be very good reasons. Those who aren't in the lineage don't see the same way. So what? No one is going to change that by wranging over the internet.

 

I don't agree with the assessment that Madhavananda's apology is insincere, or worse even, a jab at the lineage of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

I have a different take on Jagadananda than he does as well. That's what being an individual is all about.

 

Maybe he shouldn't have bothered with posting an apology here since many devotees seem to be so adversely affected by it.

 

To Shiva - I don't see where Madhavananda has called the lineage of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta 'bogus' or any other derogatory name. I don't find his categorization of traditional or orthodox/ neo-gaudiya or whatever to be offensive. He said he considers both Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and A.C. Bhaktivedanta to be Mahapurushas. He is following the calling of his own heart and he is doing so, for the most part, in a very dignified way. I had an issue with people who posted on his GD website slandering acharyas in the lineage of Bhaktivinoda Thakura as we have received it through Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and I told him that many times. I feel that his apology here is addressing that issue and others.

 

Move on....

[raga]

I am sad to see that so much ill feeling has risen even from an attempt to apologize.

 

For some, it seems, repudiating my lineage of gurus is the only thing I could do to amend my misdeeds. That is something I am willing to do.

 

I do not currently have the time or the interest to debate back and forth philosophical issues on which pandits have debated for the better part of a century without an end in sight, particularly not so in an atmosphere of heated feelings. I wish to focus on the positive siddhanta I have encountered, embrace that, and share that with those so inclined.