ACBVS's Commentaries / Subjectivity of Shastra - Split from the "Association of the ..." thread

Yet there are a lot of people, Anand, who want to find faults in ACBVS commentaries. And this is sorrowful situation.

Nobody here wants to find any faults in his commentaries.

It is, however, sorrowful that still sometimes we do find something to complain about. That does not, of course, outweigh the joy we experience in discovering all the good things discussed in his commentaries.

It is not that anyone here searches for faults. After studying the shastras under different Vaishnava Acaryas we have come across some points in ACBS writings that are incompatible with standard GV doctrine. This is not deliberate, active fault finding.

You have, Advaitadas, stated somewhere that ACBS "deliberatedly" presented twisted conclusions. That seems to be a judgment of his character.

Yes but that is another issue. This is my personal conclusion after duly studying the shastras. That is not deliberate fault finding in his writings.

Your personal conclusion on Bhaktivedanta Swami's character was reached after duly studying Shastra?

We must separate criticising someone's character, finding fault with his philosophy and coming to conclusions of incompatibility with standard GV philosophy after duly studying shastra. It is the last point we are discussing here. It seems you are wanting to shift the topic of discussion here. If ACBS deliberately changed the philosophy that can be for different reasons, in his case mostly to facilitate his mission and organisation. But it is better if you come out in the open and tell me exactly what you want to say and which statement I made in the past you refer to.

Duly study of shastra is not a monopoly of anyone. Conclusions, or interpretations of what is found in shastra is of value to others than one self only if there is interaction between the parties. You can't expect to point out that your conclusion on Shastra is superior than someone else's without putting the two issues together: that you are right and he is wrong. So there is no separation, all is connected. And you are bound to interpret the individual along with his views. Your view of Bhaktivedanta Swami as an individual comes from your study of the same issues he studied and interpreted. Why are you right and he wrong?

Many things can be objectively studied. The direct literal interpretation of a scriptural passage is taken as superior to an indirect, and possibly contradictory interpretation. We may also study the context and the commentaries of the earlier acaryas. Most scriptural issues are very clear. Confusion is born out of a lack of meticulous study.

Confusion can also occur when one studies meticulously with the intent to derive a preordained interpretation from a text even if the text does not support it.

The differences between the foundational acaryas on the one hand and Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers on the other hand have been elaborately and comprehensively discussed and proven in the 2 years plus that these forums exist. Just to avoid unnecessary rehashing, Anand, have you studied our archives? If there is any new point you wish to make or prove then feel free to do so. As Vamsidas points out, it seems that your wish for ACBS to be right is the father of your thought that he is right. This seems extremely subjective to me and not able to stand the test of shastra, yukti, itihasa and sadhu.

Interpretation of scripture is subjective, it cannot be separated from the individual. One would be naive if assumed he has fully undestood the meaning of shastra without undergoing its practical aplication. Study of shastra is not an exercise of the intellect. Not only.

No one here claims that this is the case. Naturally there is the heart and the brain and practical application. We are not just speaking about chanting, we are also chanting.



Again, no one here has said that. However, we should have both the brain and the heart do their work, not only the heart. But better then that you come with examples in which you think we are really wrong in disagreeing with ACBS (although this is tiresome as it has been discussed over and over in the past and it seems you are unwilling to study our archives).

My point is that you have admited that besides the fact (according to you) that Bhaktivedanta Swami has made some faulty estimations of shastra, he did so because of possible flaws of character. And this conclusion is yours, and yours only. Some may have adopted this from you, others coincidentaly happen to have the same opinion, but the interpretation of it all is yours, based on your judgement of BS's character. Yours is a point of view with basis in relativity. Failing the test of shastra, but shastra according to whom?

There is a limit to how far we can subjectivize the interpretation of shastra. Shastra is not a piece of wax everyone can mold as he pleases, there are words with direct meanings there, and that tends to limit the boundaries of interpretation considerably.

I don't have time to study the archives. I apologize.

I am sure you have a very big number of mistakes that you can point out that Bhaktivedanta Swami made. To attribute these mistakes to flaws in his character, that is where I think you are making a mistake of your own.

We have heard that when the guru says a snake is a rope, the disciple must accept that the snake is indeed a rope.

However, if a disciple keeps receiving poisonous rope-bites, one would be well-advised to question the "practical application" of his guru's instructions.

Bhaktivedanta Swami must have showed more positive traits in his personal character than negative ones, must have. To think otherwise would be dishonest. Why would some shotcoming in his interpretations be of such magnitude as to warrant him no place in a progressive spiritual scenario? There is no need to dismiss his contirbution entirely. Such conclusion is in fact no less anti-progressive as the oposite extreme of claiming him to be the sole access to spirituality.

I think we can all agree on that. Has anyone proposed otherwise?

End of discussion, I suppose. Talk about being creative with a piece of wax...

About subjective visions or interpretations, ACBS has strongly rejected such thinking himself, and has vociferously defended the existence of an Absolute, Objective Truth. He used to quote annAd bhavanti bhUtAni (3.14) of the Gita - 'Living beings subsist on grains' to make that point. Water is wet and the sun is yellow, it is not my or your opinion, it is an absolute fact. Whoever moulds or rejects the shastras is left with only his/her speculative mind, pea-brain or imperfect senses to rely on for realising the truth. And this too is quoted from ACBS. No one here has ever said that ACBS is all-black, or even that he is predominantly black.

I am sorry Advaitadas, but I have literally no time to look for your statement and bring it up here. It was post on one recent discussion, possibly the one about the sannyasa names in GM. In any case, there is a possibility that I simply misunderstood your meaning. I do remember reacting immediately on reading your words that you meant that ACBS manipulated information from sastra deliberatedly as in being fully aware of his action but disregarding the consequences. This would characterize him as a dishonest individual. I feel that this (if indeed it is what you think) is a judgement that goes beyond your jurisdiction to make. The motives of a person are a very complex thing to judge if you don't have a personal involvement with that person.

My understanding is that interpretation of shastra, no matter how acurate it may turn out, is incomplete if there is no support from guru or sadhu or both. So even the most objective analisys of shastra will bare no consequence if it is solely yours, without the participation of Guru. Is that correct?

Yes it is correct if you speak about shastrik teachings, not about the motives of a person when he is alledged to twist the shastras. As far as shastra is concerned, Narottam das Thakur has pleaded for a triangle of authority - sadhu shastra guru vakya hrdoye koriya aikya. The Guru cannot just say things that are not confirmed by (any other) sadhu or shastra. That is the case with for instance the origin of the jiva, in which ACBS stands alone against all other sadhus, including his own godbrothers, and all the shastras.
Again, regarding ACBS motives for twisting the shastra. you must prove your accusations and your claims about me insinuating anything about them, since you are the prosecutor here and I am the defendant. The burden of proof is on you and not on me. I can tell you from my memory though that I have not said anything about Sannyas names in the GM because I was never a member of that sect and know little about the subject (other than that this practise is described nowhere in Haribhakti Vilasa). Generally, shastras are discussed, as Madhava has pointed out earlier, in consultation with the tikas or commentaries by the foundational acaryas, particularly Jiva Gosvami and Visvanatha Cakravartipad; surely it should not be too difficult to understand them, if there is no less than 2, and sometimes even 4 commentaries available. Your case for subjective visions of the shastra still lacks any example. I will be happy to react if you could quote me some examples in which I or anyone else on this forum has incorrectly understood ACBS' shastrik presentation due to subjective vision. You are welcome.

No, no, you don't understand, I am not making any acusation. Not yet. I am telling you about the impression you cause when you cast suspcion on the personal motives of someone who takes the position of representing shastra. I already apologized for not quoting your words exactly but you indeed have said those words, or more precisely, the word "deliberatedly". This you have admited already, so no need for proof. It is just anti-progressive argumentation at this point to ask for proof. Also I have conceded already that I might have misunderstood your meaning. If you don't think ACBS was moved by crooked motives to do what he did, than there is no problem.

As far as understanding shastra, I suspect that something more than this intellectual process has to take place between shastra and us. It must be realized. Correct?

I cannot confirm or deny this. I am not sitting in the man's heart. However, in my opinion a person must always present the tradition he claims to represent properly. If he doesnt do that he is at fault. If it is deliberately then he is a cheat and if he does it out of ignorance he is a fool and does not qualify to be a Guru - srotriyam brahma nistha.



I don't agree with that. You cannot charge someone without proof. The prosecutor must prepare the case properly before charging, otherwise I demand immediate release.



Correct. That is why I quoted Narottama's sadhu shastra guru vakya hrdoye koriya aikya.
Allow me to quote Sri Ananta das Baba's comment on this -

"Previously, in the fourth tripadi it is written— guru mukha padma vakya, hrdi kori mahasakya. Through this couplet it is learned that Sri Guru's words about rules and prohibitions must be firmly kept within the heart. Here one may ask: "What if Sri Gurudeva gives an unjust order, which is not in accordance with the teachings of the saints and scriptures or which is not favorable to bhajana? Are such orders also to be followed without consideration?" To erase such doubts the blessed author says: sadhu sastra guru vakya, hrdaye koriya aikya, When the words of Sri Guru are compatible with the scriptures that help one to attain the Personality of Godhead and the words of the virtuous sadacari sadhus, then they must be followed without consideration. When one has taken shelter of a bonafide Guru who follows the scriptures and the sadacara then his orders can never be contrary to the words of the scriptures and the saints. Therefore scriptures like Srimad Bhagavata have advised to take shelter of the lotus feet of a Sri Guru who is sabda brahma nisnata, learned in the Vedic scriptures and para brahme nisnata, or devoted to the Personality of Godhead, so that such dilemmas can never take place in the spiritual life of a sadhaka.

Anyway, if Sri Gurudeva gives some unfair order which is contrary to the words of the sadhus and the sastras, the sadhaka should think he is testing him, wanting to know how loyal the sadhaka is to the sadhus and the sastras. Thus he will discard that order and anxiously pray to the lotus feet of Sri Guru. If Sri Gurudeva still insists in his unfair order to the disciple, the disciple should know it as a hard test of Sri Guru and, considering himself to be unable to understand such a test, should keep a distance and do bhajana in allegiance to the sadhus and the sastras. He should still not act according to the Guru's instructions if they transgress the words of the scriptures and the saints, nor should he show disbelief or disrespect towards Sri Guru.

There are many Vedic scriptures, some of them mainly describe fruitive activities or non-dualistic philosphies, and even in the devotional branches of the scriptures many different means are described to attain the Lord. It is impossible for a sadhaka to practise all these different ways, therefore whatever the saints of one's own tradition, who follow the scriptures of one's own tradition, say, must be accepted by a sadhaka who aspires for his own welfare, provided they are compatible with the words of the scriptures and the Guru. The purport of this is that whatever Sri Gurudeva orders is to be accepted when it is in congruence with the scriptures and saints of one's own tradition. Again those scriptural injunctions are to be accepted that are in congruence with Sri Gurudeva and the saints of one's own tradition. And again, the words of the saints are to accepted when they are in congruence with the words of Sri Guru and the scriptures. If the words of one of them, either Guru, sastra or sadhu, are not in line with the words of the other two, then they can not be accepted. When the three are inter-compatible they are to be accepted, hence the blessed author has said: sadhu sastra guru vakya, hrdaye koriya aikya, satata bhasibo prema majhe—"All bhajana-instructions that are favorable to attaining love for Krsna, should be firmly kept within the heart and will thus swiftly remove all obstacles to bhajana and cause prema to appear. When prema appears this essential ingredient of the Lord's existence- and pleasure-potency will become indescribably relishable. prema will then bless the loving devotee by making him relish the Lord's sweetness and always keep him floating in an ocean of relishing sweet bhagavad rasa — satata bhasibo prema majhe.

Strange thing is, though, that in the introduction of Bhagavad Gita As It Is ACBS presents a parampara - a what? Yes, a true parampara, be it a Greatest Hits collection. What kind of parampara? ALL GAUDIYAS! Yes, they're all there, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's Greatest Hits - Rupa, Sanatan, Jiva, Kaviraja, Narottam, Visvanatha - and yet Hot_Sparky claims ACBS does not represent a tradition? He'd better, for all these abovementioned acaryas say: sampradaya vihina ye mantras te nisphala matah - If there is no sampradaya (tradition) the mantra is fruitless. But ACBS does claim to represent a sampradaya. In the introduction to Sri Isopanisad he says he represents the Gaudiya Sampradaya. And if he does not represent a Sampradaya, whom does he represent then? Only himself? The blessed author then closes off his rant with the classical Vaishnava blasphemy to only aggravate his already deep troubles, to be witnessed on his website, http://www.saraswata.net..

.

One who is ignorant of some aspect of the Absolute is not necessarily a fool. Vyasadeva Himself had to be corrected, or receive further illumination, from His teacher.

Response to Ksamabuddhi, saraswata.net:

First of all I did not say that ACBS is a fool and a cheat. I made a general statement about people misrepresenting their sampradaya.

Sparky: Srila Prabhupada represented a spiritual line of Gaudiya masters. He did not represent some "tradition". Since when does "parampara" get translated as tradition? A tradition is a cultural custom relevant to certain families or societies. It is foolishness to think that the "traditions" of the caste Goswamis should be transplanted to the western societies.

Advaita: Monier Williams on sampradAya:

• m. a bestower , presenter.
• tradition
  
• tradition , established doctrine transmitted from one teacher to another , traditional belief or usage GrihyaS. &c. &c.
• any peculiar or sectarian system of religious teaching , sect RTL. 61 ; 62
• -candrik‚ f. N. of wk.
• -tas ind. according to tradition MW.
• -nir˜pa²a n. -paddhati f. -parizuddhi f. -prak‚½in‹ , f. -prad‹pa m. -prad‹pa-paddhati f. N. of wks.
• -pradyotaka m. a revealer of the tradition of the Veda , Kusum.
• -prApta mfn. obtained through tradition MW.
• -vigama m. want or loss of tradition
• -vid m. one versed in traditional doctrines or usages.

Sparky: This LIE that a parampara is a "tradition" and not a line of spiritual knowledge is standard fair at the raganuga camp as they attempt to represent the bhakti cult of Sri Chaitanya as limited to a certain tradition or set of cultural practices.

Advaita: Baladeva Vidyabhusan established the Gaudiya Sampradaya as a separate tradition in Galta by writing Govinda Bhasya. And he is included in Bhaktisiddhanta's Greatest Hits collection. Bhaktisiddhanta himself called his collection 'Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya' adding even two adjectives to his tradition. Each Sampradaya has so many different paramparas. If Sparky had a diksa and siksa parampara he would know this, but alas……..

Sparky: Parampara is a line of unbroken spiritual knowledge. It is NOT a "tradition" of rituals and cultural features of caste Goswamis.

Advaita: That is siksa parampara. There is also diksa parampara. At least with some….

Sparky: Advaita das writes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and yet Hot_Sparky claims ACBS does not represent a tradition?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never saw the word "tradition" anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's list of the parampara.

Advaita: You mix the two up, as most of you misled losers do.

Sparky: He calls the parampara a "disciplic succession".
Tradition is never mentioned anywhere in the Bhagavad-gita.
He refers to "disciplic succession".

To say that he claimed to represent a "tradition" is a lie.

Advaita: Blame the Sanskrit dictionary.

Sparky: That seems to be Advaita das's best card to play. He ascribes statements and claims to Srila Prabhupada that he never made and then condemns him as a liar.

Advaita: I never said that he is a liar. Where did I do that?

Sparky: I think Advaita das is the liar here.

Advaita: Plus Monier Williams?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no sampradaya (tradition) the mantra is fruitless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entry sampradAya

Meaning m. a bestower , presenter S3a1rn3gP. ; tradition , established doctrine transmitted from one teacher to another , traditional belief or usage Gr2S3rS. &c. &c. ; any peculiar or sectarian system of religious teaching , sect RTL. 61 ; 62 ; %{-candrikA} f. N. of wk. ; %{-tas} ind. according to tradition MW. ; %{-nirUpaNa} n. %{-paddhati} f. %{-parizuddhi} f. %{-prakAzinI} , f. %{-pradIpa} m. %{-pradIpa-paddhati} f. N. of wks. ; %{-pradyotaka} m. a revealer of the tradition of the Veda , Kusum. ; %{-prA7pta} mfn. obtained through tradition MW. ; %{-vigama} m. want or loss of tradition S3is3. ; %{-vid} m. one versed in traditional doctrines or usages Sa1y.

Sampradaya is not exclusively defined as tradition.

As we see here in the Sanskrit dictionary it also means:
"bestower, presenter or ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE transmitted from one teacher to the next".

Advaita: From whom to Bhaktisiddhanta?

Sampradaya is actually more about the doctrine than the rituals (tradition).
It's about spiritual knowledge and NOT about formalities and traditional cultural practices.

Advaita: Where did I mention any rituals?

Granted. But then it was better that ACBS had just honestly said that he did not know some things instead of misinforming his students. There is no disgrace for a Guru in admitting he does not know something.

Advaita said



Purport from Śrī Īśopanisad 16

"The all-pervading feature of the Lord — which exists in all circumstances of waking and sleeping as well as in potential states and from which the jīva-śakti (living force) is generated as both conditioned and liberated souls — is known as Brahman."

Purport from 17

"As we have learned from previous mantras, the brahmajyoti emanating from the transcendental body of the Lord is full of spiritual sparks that are individual entities with the full sense of existence. Sometimes these living entities want to enjoy their senses, and therefore they are placed in the material world to become false lords under the dictation of the senses."

This is the standard Gaudiya version of the origin of the jiva, so you would be incorrect in stating that Prabhupada differs from that.

Rather you take his statements about the possibility of falling from previous aquaintance of Krsna or existence in Krsna lila as being the same as saying the origins of the jiva are there, this is not what Prabhupada meant, He simply meant that the jiva in the past may have had an existence with Krsna, not that the origin is in Goloka, so you may disagree with that, but as far as origins goes Prabhupada gives the standard Vedic siddhanta i.e jivas have their origin in Brahman and are Brahman, these are two different issues. My guess is that because Prabhupada wanted to defeat and challenge the mayavadis that he purposefully spoke as He did, and while He may be unique in stating the possibility of previous Krsna association we cannot judge that to be absolutely a deviation, for example during the time of Krsna's lila on earth there were many who were against dharma and Krsna and it is not impossible that they took rebirth in this world to work out their issues, ultimately we shouldn't judge Prabhupada to be deviant on such a topic as there are to many variables to discount what He has said.

Apparently he did that, at least in one instance.

There is an account that circulates around (Narasingha Swami tells this) that ACBS left out two parts of the song his disciples were instructed to sing in the mornings during Mangalarotik. On visiting some GM places in India, some of his disciples noticed the two additional parts and asked ACBS why they did not have that. To that, it is said, Bhaktivedanta Swami replied "I did not know they existed."

I hope you read the book 'From Vaikuntha even the leaves dont fall' by Satyanarayan. Suppose you did. The evidence from Vedanta, Upanishads and the Bhagavat is comprehensive there that the jiva's conditioning is beginningless. Only when we merge in Mahavishnu during the pralay we spend some time with God. Never we were with Krishna, either in Golok or anywhere else.

The following is a paragraph from the Nectar of Instructions commentary by ACBS on text 8, pg. 76 -77 on the 1975 edition.

“Caitanya caritamrita advises those who are neophytes to give up all kinds of motivated desires and simply engage in the regulative devotional service of the Lord according to the directions of scripture. In this way a neophyte can gradually develop attachment for Krishna’s name, fame, form, qualities and so forth. When one has developed such attachment, he can spontaneously serve the lotus feet of Krishna even without following the regulative principles. This stage is called raga-bhakti, or devotional service in spontaneous love. At that stage the devotee can follow in the footsteps of one of the eternal associates of Krishna in Vrindavana. This is called Raganuga-bhakti. Raganuga-bhakti or spontaneous devotional service, can be executed in the shanta rasa when one aspires to be like Krishna’s cows or the stick or flute in the hand of Krishna, or the flowers around Krishna neck. In the däsya rasa one follows in the footsteps of servants like Citraka, Patraka or Raktaka. In the friendly sakhya rasa one can become a friend like Baladeva, Sridama, or sudama. In the vätsalya rasa, characterized by parental affection, one can become like Nanda Maharaja and Yashoda, , and in the mädhurya rasa, characterized by conjugal love, one c an become like Srimati Radharani, or Her lady friends such as Lalita and her serving maids (maïjaris) like Rupa and Rati.
This is the essence of all instruction in the matter of devotional service.”

Is this paragraph 100% correct?

There are a number of flaws in here:
1. As usual, Swamiji insinuates, against the teachings of all the foundational acaryas, that raga bhakti is a postgraduate study of vaidhi bhakti, for the more purified devotees.
2. He suggests, in contradiction to BRS 1.2.296, that raga bhakti has no regulations.
3. He suggests that there is shanta rasa in Vraja, which is not true. Mahaprabhu came to bring 4 rasas, not 5. cari bhava diya nacaimu tribhuvana, CC Adi lila. The lowest rasa is dasya rasa. The flute is in madhura rasa, see SB 10.21.9 and Brahma Samhita's vamsi priya sakhi, the cows are in vatsalya rasa, see SB 10.14, Govardhana is in dasya rasa SB 10.21.18 etc.

Thank You, Advaita.

My love for ACBVS hasn't changed even when I refused to cover up his philosophical mistakes. Unfortunately, some believes that they're not mutually exclusive.

Personally, I try not to comment or keeping myself away from his commentary inside the Varna Ashrama rhetoric, because of the relativity of the same and because such varna Ashrama rhetoric is full of details instructions, that is beyond anyone objectivity. Unless, the instruction was given to you personally or you were a witness of such instructions. Therefore, ACBVS has my full confidence on those topics. However, their discussion I leave it to the Saraswata school, (bureaucracy, woman, brahmana, black, white, war, etc.)

His love for Krishna will always remain greater than mine.

For me this is a very important point. AC. Prabhupada repeatedly asserted that he had transmitted the message unchanged and that everything to know is in his books. That one should understand even the books of the previous acharyas through his books, meaning that in case of differences, his version is the last word.

I have read very few books by other acharyas and that was some time ago. I am aware of some controversial issues re: Prabhupada's books but have not studied them myself (nor do I have the same interest in philosophy as some years ago). But as far as social and institutional development in ISKCON is concerned, Prabhupada was winging it. Yet I have never come across the slightest hint that he didn't know or wasn't sure of what he was doing. All problems in ISKCON are, without exception, presented as caused by not following well enough the respective Prabhupada instruction and not due to some fault or incompleteness of the instruction itself.

I will check your archives about the philosophical differences between KC according to Prabhupada and traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism because such differences do influence the application of the philosophy, with far-reaching consequences. And I like the neutral tone of discussion on this board.


Blue Sapphire

Would you consider an instruction incomplete or faulty if it were not practically applicable, though theoretically correct? To formulate a perfect instruction is one thing, while to give a practical instruction is another matter. We may have fascinating views and insights, but whether they are in tune with reality is another matter.

I find the following contradictions in regards to ACBVS personal life and his instructions to his followers:

ACBVS instructed his followers in general to give up school and working carears in order to join his institution and work for it. On the otherhand, he himself attended schools and worked as a businessman for many years independently from the Gaudiya Math. By the same token he asked his disciples to cooperate with one another after his demise while he himself never surrendered to a Gaudiya Math center and tried working together with God-brothers. He always remained independent

He emphasised again and again that sex life in marriage is soley for the purpose of producing Krishna conscious children--pure devotees. Yet he produced 10 children (according to Hari Sauri, as told to me by Mahanidhi Swami--5 died early) and none became devotees, what to speak of joining his movement. In the same way he gave sannyas to so many young men who never had the opportunity to experience family life, yet he took sannyas at almost the age of 60 after some 40 or so years of family life.

Thus, there are certain things Bhaktivedanta Swami did not go through what he demanded from his followers.

To say that his institution is troubled because of them not following his instruction is blown out of proportion. He is not God. I say the troubles are due to other things, such as the followers bewilderment in piecing together the sastra, his good spiritual advice and his contradictory, unethical, offensive statements and instructions. Many people can't make out heads or tails in this institution. Some of them sit around in armchairs debating what was 'Prabhupada's desire', sometimes spending millions of dollars trying to fulfill those 'desires' as though that is the breakthrough answer to the problems. It won't work.

I understand your point, though it will be easier to discuss it with specific examples. I have a problem with Prabhupada's practical instructions about the application of his fascinating ideas. KC is being marketed not just as a beautiful idea, but as an idea that can be put into practice and that one can quickly achieve tangible results (higher taste) by integrating this practice in one's life. Sounds great as an advertisement, but unfortunately there isn't enough substance behind it.


Blue Sapphire

Life does not just consist of following instructions. Life in its wholeness is the food you eat, the house you take shelter in, the social contacts you entertain, the growth you experience through your actions, the way you project yourself into the world in the form social interaction, profession, the family you belong to and the one you create by going into the world. Most of these aspects are not well taken care of by these orgs. Food is eaten that is paid for by money taken by improper means, shelter is being enjoyed through such unclean money also, values of the surrounding society are ridiculed, the social projection is one of superior-inferior (devotees versus karmis), social responsibility is avoided etc.

Any sound, wise instruction would aim at promoting virtues like truthfulness, non-violence in thought, words, and deeds etc. How on earth can anyone expect fruition of such divine promises as happiness through the Holy Name on such unhealthy basis, if at the same time life is maintained by other than completely truthful, non-violent means?

Prabhupada had to do what Krishna had to do through him.And mostly it was a lot of cheating of alot of people who wanted power,position ,money and followers -but not Krishna.

He set the institution in motion for mass sankirtana.The institution simply as a vehicle for people to be given a chance(1 in a billion) to come in contact withe the Holy Name,Sadhu and Bhagavat.

Don't you think he knew of the horrors of the Gaudiya Math would be repeated again in his ISKCON.It is all expected that institutions run amok in Kali-yuga;but for the chance to spread the Holy Name,the wicked evils of institutional religion seemed a small price to pay for one sincere soul to achieve perfection
'manusysanam sahasresu'

A lot of of are here now trying to do bhajan after going through the hell of the 'wicked' ISKCON'.

I don't believe ACBVS knew where his institutions was going to lead to. I think he was just swept away with the ecstacy of preaching, seeing so many people joining, temple constructions, farm communities, schools, book publications, etc. that he thought he was really empowered to do all this and as a result Krsna was going to see things through. As far as the human needs of the institutional members were concerned, it's obvious he did not place much consideration into it. His approach was 'cure the spiritual needs and the material needs will automatically be satisfied'. As I've mentioned before, he was not an example of this, having been materially educated, having had his own indepedent business and a long time family life. Moreover, there is no flow of bhakti coming through the channel of disciplic succession because ISKCON doesn't have one. The members are laboring hard in their 'devotional service' but it is not real sadhana bhakti because initiations in ISKCON are a fake and therefore the progressive stages mentioned by Sri Rupa Goswami in BRS from faith, sadhu sanga, bhajan, anartha nivrtti, nistha--to bhava, then prema, do not unfold.

Well, Radhapada, the only question I have for you here is how can you SEE whether shraddha to prem is unfolding in an individual or not?

Obviously, the externals of that mission speak for themselves. What I'm referring to is various individuals tucked away in various corners of the globe doing their practice. Can you honestly say that NOBODY inititated in Iskcon has attained to the levels of nistha or ruchi?

I have met a lot of people in ISKCON who have appeared steady and enjoying their 'devotional service'. I also meet a lot of non-devotees and religious people who enjoy their work. However, I don't equate that with being steady and enjoying doing bhajan, especially in the ISKCON person because it is a transient situation for most of them. They enjoy doing their 'service' as long as they have the facility and institutional backing for it. When it is no longer there their 'devotion' wanes and many times 'fall out of it'. I have seen big fired up preachers becoming unenthused congregation members going to a Sunday feast to sway back and forth a bit in the kirtan and look for hand outs in the free feast. ACBVS assured his followers that if they remained in ISKCON that they were going to the spiritual world in one lifetime. He would also say that what he has given them was the highest process. So, where are the bhava bhaktas?

Radhapada wrote:



I remember a read a few years ago an article on VNN which showed that Prabhupada didn't know about standard practices in the Gaudiya Math which were introduced by Bhaktisiddhanta himself. There was a long list in it about Deity worship practices and temple songs in ISKCON which do not make much sense, e.g. putting together different sets of Deities in one temple, while in the GM the standard is Mahaprabhu + Radha Krishna.

I could not find the URL to it because I don't remember the name of the author anymore (he was not a direct disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta). In any case, one may argue that such things are not most important, even though I think that they are not insignificant and show that even before Bhaktisiddhanta's death Prabhupada was quite aloof from his organization, much more than one would expect considering the extent of commitment he demanded from his own disciples.

However, there is another article which I find much more significant. It is about the great Temple of Mayapur which was predicted by Lord Nityananda and for which ISKCON is trying to collect millions of dollars. Harikesha was very involved in the project because it was Prabhupada's greatest desire, and he described many times how Prabhupada was so enthusiastic about this temple that he performed the foundation laying ceremony even though ISKCON didn't own that piece of land yet. When ISKCON builds this temple, the mercy of Bhaktivinoda will pour down on everybody and KC will spread from Mayapur all over the world like a tidal wave.

However, the Adbhuta Mandira of Lord Nityananda is already built in Mayapur and is the Yoga-pitha temple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Hrishikeshananda, the author of the article, describes the lavish celebrations for the 50-th anniversary of this temple in 1968 and writes that all disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta were there except for Prabhupada. I was amazed at how little Prabhupada knew about his guru's vision and pet project, and if he knew, how little respect he had for it.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9912/ET13-5071.html



Blue Sapphire

This is of course correct, and it remains a mystery how ACBS could muster so much courage to claim his inventions to be in line with his guru's wishes. The inventions are cemented by the fairy-tale how he, ACBS, was specifically selected by his guru to go to the West to preach there. There are these propagandist paintings depicting ACBS at the feet of his guru, and the stalwart sannyasis respectfully listening in on the important instruction that Prabhupad I is giving to Prabhupad II. It reminds one of Soviet lie propaganda, but these distortions continue to have their effect even today.

Another form of lying is done through architecture. That is a general feature of imposing dogmatic systems, how they speak through the buildings, the monuments they create for themselves. The gullible Indians are impressed and easily seduced by the show of dollar and marble and domes. Where has building a temple anything to do with Bhakti? Why not get 99 Rolls Royces instead as Osho did to provoque the interest of the people?

Bhakti visits the small places where humble bhaktas live, where a Tulasi grows and is cared for with tender love every day, where japa and seva is done, not to show off and make big noise to attract the masses.

Thats exactly the same what I often felt. I broke school with 17 to join the "Prabhupada wants it like that" mission. After 15 years serving in "the temple" I find it irresponsible to act like that and wouldnt do the same again. But, wait!
Isnt this pretty close to also blame Krishna? Why He sent all these great devotees when He Himself incarnated and now when His Sankirtan mission starts to spread globally we find so many internal problems? Thats obviously the wrong direction. Krishna wanted it all happen like it has happened! He very easily could have sent 2,3 or dozen Nitya-Siddhas to take care of the situation to turn out everything successful according our estimation of whats successful. No, He wanted it like that and therefore we have to surrender to His way how things happened and will happen.

Well, then Krishna also wanted him to tell wrong stories? Establish a paramapara that has no guru-pranali and all? That he plagiarizes texts from other vaishnavas while at the same time vilifying anything not from his own hand?

It is a different thing to accept in your heart your responsibility for what you did and see in that Krishna's hand, than to say: everything that happened was wanted like that by Krishna in the first place.

To say that this is Krsna's desire would seem to imply that it (ISKCON) was part of a divine lila. Are you part of Krsna's lila? Would you dare tell a Gurukuli alumni who was sexually abused, "Son, try to understand that this was Krsna's plan." How about telling an ISKCON women devotee who was a victim of domestic violence that it is Krsna's plan because ACBVS said that women get better when they are beaten up.

Krsna's plan is to meet Radharani with the help of the sakhis and sakhas without letting Radha's in-laws find out. I do not believe He is activly making plans for the ISKCON movement. Why would Krsna want to send a nitya siddha to start an ISKCON, an organization which has created a platform to blaspheme saints engaged in intense bhajan in the holy dhama and perpetually lie about so many things? What nitya siddha or siddhas would volunteer for such a job?

I agree to everything you say. But consider there are many, many devotees right now who feel so badly humiliated, embarrased, deeply devastated and traumatized in their hope to be ever a dasa dasa anu dasa and feel accepted and not constantly rejected left and right. We know Krishna in His dealings with the gopis is sometimes cruel, very cruel. Sometimes He says, I'm gonna visit Duryodhana and ask him if he wants Kuruksetra yes or no. Another time He says, absolutely nothing happens without Me giving the green light. So, you can never know, who is the cause of all causes. Sometimes Him, sometimes a "bad devotee". He just does what He likes and thats also what the gopis strongly blamed Him for: He's whimsical, very whimsical.

It is best to assume it is your own fault first of all, your own responsibility of having erred in your choice of guru. Maybe this becomes a bit clearer if you take the case of the people who choose Sai Baba; they also could say, it could have been Krishna who arranged him for them. (They chant Krishna's names too).

I don't see there being any mystery whatsoever over A.C. Bhaktivedanta's mission and his connection to his Guru Maharaja. The fact that he changed some of the details is to be expected as he was preaching according to time and circumstances. I think it is fairly well known that the off hand comment that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta made to A.C. Bhaktivedanta that he should preach in the west was taken up by him as an order - that is a testament to his faith and devotion to his Guru, not something to accuse him or his followers of being liars over.

Building temples for Krsna seva is definitely part of the bhakti process - why do you feel it is appropriate to compare such activities to what Osho did? Will you also fault Rupa Goswami for having large temples built in Vrndavana for Krsna's seva? Everything has it's proper connection in service to Krsna, why do you wish to fault someone who tried to engage the general populace and spread Mahaprabhu's mercy world wide? Do you think Mahaprabhu was happier with the simple bhajana kutir of Haridasa Thakur and he found the efforts of the Goswami's to be so much unnecessary burden, or simply ostentatious show? So many books, buildings etc. why not just worship simply? I don't think so.

You don't have to villify others to justify your personal choices in life. Move on. For those such as Radhapada who spout off about there being no diksha lineage in GM and for real bhakti they must find a real Guru - this is simply just so much propaganda based on your own personal faith - these types of statements have no basis in any verifiable facts, so why posture them as if they did? It would be far more honest to say something like 'I believe that GM has no proper connection to parampara.' This would be the honest thing to do because you base your opinion on heresay, not verifiable facts.

When the fox found he couldn't reach the grapes up in the tree he decided they must be sour anyway. This is faulty logic. They may be sour, they may be sweet - in all honesty he can't know because he didn't taste them. For those who decided to leave the GM or Iskcon - fine - I hope you are happily engaged in devotional service in a lineage you are happier with. But your subjective experience certainly cannot be applied universally, nor should you expect that in order to validate your choice that there is a necessity to make such an attempt.

If you could be a bit open minded an hearted about it you might find that you would have to admit that every lineage has it's faults and it's virtues and that any lineage that encourages it's practicioners to develop selflessness and a genuine serving tendency and diposition toward Mahaprahbu is a good one, even if we have some differences of opinion over details.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Comparing the gopis or any eternal associate of the Lord who have spiritual senses, mind, ego, bodies, emotions and dress to that of conditioned souls like us in the material world is not a good comparison. Krsna's dealings with the gopis and material nature's dealings with us is like gold and iron. Conditioned souls developing attraction to bhakti is also nothing like Krsna's dealing with gopis. Krsna's lila with the gopis and other eternal associates is divine pleasure pastimes. There is nothing mundane about it including the places where they are taking place. The conditioned souls becoming attracted to the path of bhakti and taking to that path is connecting with the internal potency, but not on the level of rasa as with the case of Krsna and the eternal associates. Rasa is attained after some births of performing devotion, according to Sri Rupa Goswami. Krsna's cruel dealing with the gopis is ujwala nila mani, the brighest jewel. Krsna doesn't just act cruel with the gopis, the gopis act even more cruel than Him. The gopis love for Krsna is so powerful (maha bhava) that Krsna submits to chastisements, being sent away, or even made to cry for His misbehavior. However, this is only possible with eternal associates who are eternally perfect, or those who have attained perfection through bhajan. Try to understand, this is another world we are talking about.

Indranila, you should really think more carefully about the information you recieve and where it is coming from. Hrishikeshananda was a disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta's and he took shelter of Bon Maharaja. For whatever reasons he has an axe to grind against A.C. Bhaktivedanta and his disciples and his writings reflect that personal issue.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Mahaprabhu was happy with the simple bhajan of the Haridas Thakur and the simple bhajan of the Goswamis. He was also happy with establishment of the seva of Sri Govinda, Sri Madana Mohan, Sri Gopinath and other archa manifestations of the Lord who are eternally present in Sri Vrndavan dhama.

However, I do not think Mahaprabhu would be happy with New Vrndavan's temples by which finances generated for that project was through prostitution, mail fraud, drug selling, and just plain old ripping people off. Nor do I think the temples in India constructed out drug money, stealing gold pens from Japanese business persons, and just cheating people out on the streets is would I call a manifestation of divine mercy for the conditioned souls. Unlike the temples of the Goswamis which came about from donations from pious men, many temples of ISKCON came about or constructed from unethical activities.

Take the ISKCON temple in Puerto Rico for instance. The owner of the property was offered a certain amount of money. Part of it was to be paid apart from the contract agreement. The owner who sold the property to ISKCON did not receive the money that was verbally agreed upon. He was ripped off.

This one, I believe, by BV Bhagavat:

http://www.bvml.org/contemporary/tsps.htm

Here is a response from Swami BG Narasingha:

http://www.vnn.org/world/WD9811/WD08-2474.html

And from BP Puri, BV Bhagavat's guru:

http://www.hare-krishna.org/showflat/cat/H...collapsed/5/o/1

It is an interesting compilation of peculiar facts, pointing out how the roots of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami are spread at many different soils in various practical matters despite the fact that his main inspiration certainly is derived from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.

I think it's a bit over simplistic to think that all those who donated and the money that was used to built the main temples in Vrndavana under the direction of the Goswami's was spotless and pure. Remember, these were kings and they certainly had some side of them that was less than tasteful I am quite sure. Here's an intersting question for you, or any other sadhaka who cares to take it up. What do you suppose became of money from people such as Jagai and Madhai who collected in in dishonest ways? Granted, once they came under the shelter of Mahaprabhu they stopped their nonsense, but what of the money they had? Was it used for seva or not? Was the fact that it was tainted an impediment to using it in Krsna's seva?

But now of course the argument has changed from the idea of simple service versus the building of big temples to where the money came from to engage in such temple building activities.

I do not buy into the logic that the end justifies the means and as such I find it quite unfortunate that so many people have engaged in so many questionable activities and justified them in such a manner. However, that does not take away from the fact that A.C. Bhaktivedanta wanted to establish centers of worship for Radha Krsna.

There is no small amount of irony in the fact that Iskcon, which was inspired by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, has so much history of nefarious activities and shameless behavior. The very thing that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta sought to distance the lineage from - a lack of decency and morality - should manifest itself so dramatically in his lineage. I have said this many times - he would be the first to speak out against such things.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

hare krishna,
Pardon me for budding in but I don't see how you can claim it a special feature of siddha pranali advocates to make statements that have no basis in verifiable facts. I could say the same of those Iskconites that claim it a true story that BSST was properly intiated. It seems the story is hazy either way and their are supports plenty for both versions of the story. It is up to folks to sift through the information and decide where they feel inspired.
There are many pranali type threads for you to read on several forums so maybe you should educate yourself with the facts. You may be misinformed and don't realize the basis for Radhapada's conclusion is well justified.
Why is it wrong for Radhapada or anyone else to claim that the bhagavat parampara is baseless when your guru and param guru preaches heavily against the siddha lines which are authentic lines stemming from Mahaprabhu's associates. If anyones gurus are preaching against anyone, I would say it came first from the bhagavat parampara advocates first and now the diciples of the authentic siddha lines are defending themselves.
By the way, aren't the forum moderators siddha pranali intiates and sympathizers? Are you surprised that you are on a forum with such talk? Are you here to uncover the hidden facts or just to save some souls from burning in the siddha pranali hell realms?
It seems most of the posts I have read by you are just chastising people and condescending people telling them not to be rude or something.
Sorry, I don't mean to jump on you, cause I don't think we have met, but I am just trying to give some third party feedback.
I think it would be easier for you to accept that anti BSST parampara will be made, or start a thread to defeat the siddha pranali philosophy. It won't work though because that horse has been beaten dead silly and it is time to move on and just read the commentaries of the great mahants like Ananta das Babaji and others and purify our minds. And not worry so much about your neighbor's mind.

Okay, I think I have spent my two cents worth...

I don't think spotless and pure was the claim. I think the claim was:
meaning these were men with primarily virtuous motives unlike some of the scragglers that served in Iskcon were more like the thugs and rip-off artists of society. Some of the hoodlum types in Iskcon are more like the Jagai and Madhai prototype.

So I think they probably spent all there money on beer before they met Lord Nityananda. Have you read somewhere that they had a dough roll in there dhoti when they were shwilley and met Lord Nityananda who almost clobbered them and they were so subdued by the mercy that they handed over the cash? I never heard that so why assume or superimpose the idea? And in Iskcon, it is not a matter of dirty money going to Krishna's seva before the individual receives diksha and transforms their life, it is about devotees already having diksha and being encouraged or allowed to run rackets actively in order to meet the needs of a huge temple project for the holy dham. Something is wrong about the motivation of the activity even if it is for seva.





Does this mean you are for or against the nefarious activities? I am confused.

I'd have to disagree with that assertion, especially considering that Audarya Lila wrote:



It seems he is quite broadminded in his approach. I think the wider issue Audarya Lila is commenting upon is also interesting--it seems that some who have left ISKCON/GM wish to adopt a new fundamentalism, having now found the real, real truth. Many important issues have been raised, but personally, I find the manner of delivery to often be lacking. Isn't the lack of broadmindness, the absolute certainty (despite the absence of long practice or thorough investigation), the failure to gauge the audience, etc., all reminiscent of an organization and means of communication that we'd rather move beyond? If you have a higher truth, live it, prove it, represent it in all your dealings.

Zealotry of any brand is going to typically disturb intelligent and soft-hearted visitors--and I think it is worthwhile remembering that there are many more readers than participants here, and many more have been coming lately and will hopefully continue to come. Considering the background they come from, it might be wiser strategically to drop the war mode and tone down the rhetoric. If Western Gaudiyas cannot move out of the shadow of ISKCON/GM and stand freely on their own merit, without recourse to the typical modes of discussion, that does not augur well nor represent the richness and depth we'd expect from someone who has adopted a traditional approach.

Kalki,

I am against any activity that is obviously criminal or immoral that is justified by those engaging in it by claiming devotion to their deity.

I think anyone on this board who has been posting for any length of time knows who I am and has some idea of what I stand for and where my faith is. I don't believe in attacking others and their faith with rhetoric that is based on unverifiable information. In fact, I don't see how it does anyone any good to go about in the 'attack' mode at all.

If someone seeks to explain why they have made certain choices in their life - fine - that is healthy. But it is unhealthy, in my opinion at least, to feel the need to destroy and denigrate one's past in order to move into the future. For instance, if I were a christian who had converted to vaishnavism and I constantly voiced opinions seeking to invalidate the christian experience I believe that would be an unhealthy sign that I was stuck in the past and desperately seeking to validate my current choice by invalidating my previous one. I believe that it is much healthier to simply move on and seek to enrich myself by dedicating my mind and heart in the deity who has captured my heart. Furthermore christianity does fill others hearts and minds and for them that is proper. It is not a path that warrants denigration or invalidation, on the contrary, it is a valid path - just not for me.

You asked me why I visit this board. First off, I am a devotee and since there are topics of concern to Krsna devotees discussed here I find it useful. Second, I have regard for the depth and breadth of experience of the diverse devotees who post on this board. I am not an evangelist and I don't have a black and white view of the world. I try my best to represent the lineage that I am a part of while appreciating the diverse lineages of others as well.

I obviously have my own subjective experience and I also have my faith and gratefulness to those who have helped me and ocntinue to help me in my progress as a sadhaka. A person cannot be seperated from their faith. As such, when I see what I consider to be unfair and unjust attacks against my revered guides I will speak up. I always try to do so in a considerate manner.

If I have offended anyone please forgive me.

I think that Braja understood my intentions quite well.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Thanks for your honest advice. Gladfully I'm not alone.

See HERE.

No, I wasn't asking why you visit. I said:


Just I am surprised that you find the siddha pranali reasoning to have no verifable fact and so I was wondering why you would be surprised to hear this information posed as factual. I agree with what Braja is saying and perhaps this is what you are trying to point out:


I am not sure I agree with that totally, because like I said, this site seems to be a place where a large concentration of people who question Iskcon/GM though all are welcome I am sure, so it seems obvious to me people might be processing what they fled from. I wouldn't compare it to someone who is still mulling over how Christianity sucks after becoming a devotee. It is obvious that there are a number of paths to take and a devotee can see a higher taste in Krishna and leave Jesus to who he can help. A person may still reel from a bad Catholic school experience where he was whipped by the teacher and it was backed up somehow in scripture. I think that might be intelligent for a person to identify where deviation exists. The only way it would be unintelligent is to run through the Iskcon temple and denounce all the leaders as bogus because babaji said so. I didn't know that was happening and I don't think it is much. This is just the internet where people show up willingly, so I can't see any reason for someone to change there tune.

But I would like to point out that there is such a diversity of appraoches. In Jagat's many articles and posts, you will see support being given to vaishnavas in a universal way. And maybe others are bent more in another direction. There doesn't seem to be a GBC banning on broadmindedness as there seems to be in Iskcon.

But overall, I am sure you are right that everyone can learn more sensitivity.

But what about my other comments? And so if you don't justify nefarious activities, then how do you harmonize the nefarious activities orchestrated or alowed by ACBS?

Where did I mention siddha pranali reasoning? I said that saying that GM has no parampara and that only by taking diksha from a REAL guru with a REAL lineage can one truly come to know Krsna is only so much rhetorical propaganda and has no basis in verifiable facts. I am well aware of the 'evidence' - he said, such and such. We can infer.... things of that nature. On the other hand Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had thousands of disciples who heard from him first hand. So what is the point? It is a matter of faith, not fact. To make a presentation where you make statements and represent them as factual when in fact they are statements of one's own faith is dishonest.

I would be very surprised if there was any type of consensus about these issues amongst those who are members of different lineages. I doubt that even members of the same lineage have come to the same conclusions on these types of controverial issues.

But honestly, like I tell my children - whose immediate response during controversy is 'he started it, she started it....' I tell them it takes a bigger person to stop it. Also, I tell them that if they were the victim of an injustice it will not help them to become a victimizer themselves in response to such abuse.

I am not aware of any nefarious activities that A.C. Bhaktivedanta engaged in. When he heard of wrong doings by his disciples he corrected them. But you have to recognize the fact that Iskcon was a very large organization and many people joined who had various types of backgrounds. It is not surprising at all to see that people fell short of the ideal they adopted. All people, in all organizations and from all walks of life who are involved in so many different affiliations, clubs, movements, causes etc. are fallible and bring with them considerable conditioning. That is why what has happened to the Catholic church is not surprising, but rather I think it is inevitable. I work in an organization with over 1,400 employees. They are all 'representatives' of the company. Of course, there are some who will show themselves to be functioning below the company standard and who will bring dishonor to the good name of the company.

Some of the things that A.C. Bhaktivedanta started turned out to be the wrong direction to go in. I feel he was too naive about his disciples and didn't understand just how fallen they were or how much their conditioning would continue to affect them. He also suffered from not being familiar enough with western culture to make all the necessary ajustments. But he had faith in his disciples and in Krsna and he believed that what was started would continue and develop naturally as his disciples moved from an external and superficial intellectual orientation to an internal experiential orientation to KC. This is happening, albeit slowly, but nevertheless it is happening.

BTW, I have never heard my Guru Maharaja speak negatively about any bona fide spiritual lineage.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

I have read many of his articles and also came across his website, http://www.richardshawbrown.com/. He is an interesting person. I never found him to be disrespectful to ACBVS Prabhupada and he always acknowledges him as his guru.

Just for the record, he didn't leave Prabhupada because Bon Maharaja "poisoned his mind," as you may read in the Prabhupada Lilamrita. He got first initiation by Prabhupada after barely a month in ISKCON, then Prabhupada told him to go to India because he was on the run from the US army. But when he got there, Prabhupada had already left back for America and he was left in India all alone, without money, papers, or any other contacts. Somehow somebody directed to Bon Maharaja's temple, and this is how they met. Bon Maharaja gave him diksha, by his request, and later sanyas.

I think after two years or so Prabhupada wrote to Hrishikeshananda and asked him to come back to him, but Bon Maharaja didn't show him this letter. Later he told Hrishikeshananda that it would not have been good for his spiritual life because Prabhupada allows both men and women to live in the temples. (I am writing all this from memory, so the details may not be 100 percent correct, but I have the basic facts right. I don't have time at the moment to browse through his website.)

And even if you find his commitment to Prabhupada lacking, this is not a reason to reject what he is writing about the significance of the Yoga-pitha temple of Bhaktisiddhanta. He spent seven years in the Gaudiya Math in the late sixties and early seventies and his testimony deserves consideration.

I don't mind ISCKON building 10 Adbhuta Mandiras in Mayapur if this will make them happy. But I find Prabhupada's not acknowledging the Adbhuta Mandira of his own guru, for whatever reasons, very telling. I don't know to what extent you are familiar with ISKCON and the Mayapur project; if you have spent any significant amount of time in the ex-zone of Harikesha and with Jayapataka Swami (director of the Mayapur project), you will know why I think so. We are not speaking just about any grand temple in India, we are speaking about the Temple predicted by Lord Nityananda.

ISKCON presents the future Temple of the Vedic Planetarium (the Adbhuta Mandira) as Prabhupada's unique and revolutionary vision, as something that the world has not seen so far and something which only Prabhupada due his special empowerment could make happen. Prabhupada promised to his disciples that Bhaktivinoda personally will drag them back to Godhead if they complete this temple.

How come that Prabhupada didn't know or didn't care that his own guru has already fulfilled the vision of Bhaktivinoda?


Blue Sapphire

Is it Indranila or Blue Saphire?

I agree with you that Hrisikeshananda is not to be dimissed out of hand - but his history and his animosity should be taken into consideration as well. I am not so much speaking about toward A.C. Bhaktivedanta personally as much as I am toward his movement and his disciples. He obviously takes exception to the derogatory remarks made about Bon Maharaja by A.C. Bhaktivedanta which are part of the historical record - something that I certainly don't blame him for.

I have not spent anytime in Harikesha's 'zone' or in Mayapura. So your knowledge in regard to what Iskcon is doing and what people in Iskcon are saying is certainly much better than mine in that regard. I do know that Iskcon has gone astray in terms of the project and the planetary exhibit. A.C. Bhaktivedanta wanted Sridhara Maharaja's ideas of depicting Brhad Bhagavatmrita and the progressive evolution of consciousness depicted there. This is not what is being done. I don't really have a comment about the knowledge or lack thereof of A.C. Bhaktivedanta regarding his spiritual master's temple at the yoga pitha. I have my doubts that he was unaware of it nor do I think he would ever minimize his Guru's contributions. It is that insinuation that I can't agree with. The only evidence of this lack of knowledge or disrespect that you have offered is the article by Hrishiskeshananda and as I said I don't find him to be an unbiased source of information.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

What we have been hearing (the rhetoric) for decades was that the most tangible verification that there is a pranali or disciplic lineage in ISKCON/GM to Lord Caitanya was the acheivements of ACBVS who was empowered by Krsna. After careful scrutiny, however, one can see that he was not empowered on a level of comparison to Mahaprabhu or His associates. Moreover, I doubt that he had the exalted and exclusive faith in Krsna as propaged by his followers given the fact that he eventually depended on money generated from unethical means to fulfill his ambitous projects, rather on really depending on the Lord through acquiring money and resources by honest means. If the Lord really desired palaces, skyscaper temples, zoos, ect. then ACBVS could have just sat somewhere and do bhajan and someone would offer the resources for that facility for preaching as in the case of Raghunath Das Goswami, who sat in Radha Kunda doing intense bhajan to Swamini Sri Radhika and a pious man came from Badrinatha under the order of Sri Nara-Narayana to donate money to Das Goswamo to have Radha and Syama Kunda enlarged. Or in the example of Sri Sanatan who was blissfully worshipping Sri Madan Mohan in a tree and a pious Hindu offered to build a majestic mandir to Sanatan's God after having prayed to Him for his boat to become free from a sandbar in the Yamuna in order to sell salt for profit.

I don't believe I have ever heard anyone try to argue for the validity of the disciplic succession based on any external acheivements. I have heard, and it is validated by scripture, that in order to spread Krsna nama one must be empowered by Mahaprabhu. But that is a different issue altogether. There are shining lights in most lineages, or individuals who the Lord chooses to use for specific purposes that seem quite grand in comparison to the acheivements of most sadhakas.

The only empirical 'proof' of the diksha lineage that I am aware of is the word of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta regarding his relationship with Gaura Kishora dasa babaji. Some people have questioned that connection. This is where the controversy lies. The other proof is subjective in nature - are there any sadhakas in the lineage who are advancing to high stages of bhakti? Are there individuals in the lineage who are being enthused in their service and who are developing genuine feelings for Krsna and his devotees? From my perspective the answer to these questions is yes. In my own life as a sadhaka I am making progress and feeling more encouraged on a daily basis - that is my own personal subjective experience. It differs from the subjective experience of others who left whatever affiliation they had with GM or Iskcon - but that doesn't invalidate my own experience.

You obviously have your doubts about the lineage. That's fine. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by casting dispersions on A.C. Bhaktivedanta's dedication to Krsna and his dependence on him. Why must a devotee be empowered on the level of the goswami's who are eternal parshads of the Lord for you to appreciate their contribution or dedication?

The argument that if the Lord wanted something to happen he would arrange it and the empowered devotee would have to just sit and do bhajana is not very well thought out. First off, Krsna does work through his devotees. He likes to see them glorified and he likes to give them credit for accomplishments. A devotee doesn't want Krsna to serve him, it is the other way around - a devotee seeks to be of some service in the mission to glorify him and help others to come under his shelter by giving them the Holy name.

I personally am very happy that there are many lineages and I appreciate our unity even though within it there is much diversity. My connection to Mahaprabhu though the lineage I am in doesn't not need validating by trying to invalidate the connection others have with him through their lineages. It also doesn't require that I only acknowledge the contribution of those within my lineage. I really appreciate the contributions of all the devotees who are working so hard to collect and preserve the writings of our acharyas and to bring those writings to the general public by doing their best to make translations available.

Even though you aren't in the lineage of GM I would think at the very least you would appreciate the hard work and dedication exhibited by devotees in that lineage to propagate KC throughout the globe. Most sadhakas who post here owe them a great debt of gratitude for their tireless seva since it is mostly through their efforts that Krsna nama has spread world wide and that Mahaprabhu's message of love has been distributed.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Well spoken Audarya-lila dasa!
Siddha-pranali is very much misused nowadays in certain places in Vraja-mandala, Gauda-mandala and Ksetra-mandala. Although they are bereft of tattva-jnana and unaware of vaidhi-bhakti-sadhana, they have their heads shaved in the middle of the night, put on kaupina and quickly take siddha-pranali before sunrise. These days siddha-pranali can be obtained very easily by giving a rupee or two. Just before giving the mantra a financial contract takes place. Many people think, there can be no auspiciousness for sadhakas until they acquire siddha-pranali. There is no necessity for vaidhi-bhakti sadhana, tattva-jnana or anartha-nivrtti. The raganuga-bhakta should obtain siddha-pranali before he goes through anartha-nivrtti. In that way he can avoid getting caught in the inconvenience of vaidhi-bhakti. This conception is exactly like thinking that a fruit like mango will grow from a leaf before the appearance of the flower. What a mistake!

You tell me whether you have first hand experience of any of this.



Again, your first hand experiences? Please do not gossip. You present this as if it were factual information. So, is this first hand information? If not, please document your sources before posting any further.



May I ask for names of the individuals or groups who preach in such ways? You should provide some. We do not really look kindly upon unsubstantiated gossip.

I think Audarya has put it well. No one here has any doubts that Radhapada and Advaita don't accept the authenticity of our line. We know of the reports that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was supposed to have received Gaura-kishora's mercy only in a dream. On the other hand, we have others who have witnessed guru-disiple dealings between Bhaktisiddhanta and Gaura-kishora, as well as fisrt-hand accounts of at least one initiation authorized and attended by Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Some of us find one body of evidence more credible, and others prefer the other story. I don't think that it's necessary to cast aspersions on everyone who accepts the other account in order to shore up our own faith. We can go back and forth on this until the cows come home and make no real progress in any arena. We should have accomplished something a little more transcendental by go-dhuli time, don't you think?

As for the claims that our lineage feels validated by the big buildings goes, there may be some in ISKCON who point to those accomplishments as the evidence. Srila Prabhupada very much wanted to establish a couple of nice temples in India--Mumbai (aer the Congress folks going to change it back?), Vrindavan, and Mayapur. He was aware that things like this impress some people. But that was not his perspective. When he visited the place we had here on the Big Island in 1975, the temple was beyond funky. We built on to a one-room hunting shack on the slopes of Mauna Kea, using nothing but materials recycled from old plantation houses. Goursundar made us use the old nails, too. One of the window casements in the temple room (not next to the Dieties) didn't have a window yet. Srila Prabhupada loved the place the way it was and declined to even look at plans for a big Indian-style temple to be built on the property. He wanted the place organized so the residents could dedicate, as he put it, "minimum time for maintaining the property and maximum time for hearing and chanting." His public remarks opened with, "You are very humbly maintaining this Gaura-Nityananda temple, and it is very nice. Kindly do not leave this place." His real desire for us was that we live a simple life dedicated to Krishna's service. Although I think that some of the big temples are pretty cool, they're not exactly my style. I'm more attracted by simple, intimate settings. The temple we have at Godruma Gardens in Hilo, by the grace of Gopavrindapal and Mulaprakriti, is more my style than the big temple Badrinarayan wants to build near San Diego. Nevertheless, I'm not shy about expressing my appreciation for what Badri hopes to establish. I know that his motive is at least partly to glorify our spiritual master and the beautiful Sri Sri Radha-Giridhari, and I prefer to focus my attention on that.

As far as wholesale criticism of other lines goes, I think this has certainly never been absolute. I know we have long had a good relationship with the Radha-Raman goswamis. Visvambhara Goswami told of how his grandfather spent time with Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati in preparation for the Midnapur meeting. I know that Srila Prabhupada spent considerable time at Radha Raman, and it's probably true that his style of worship was largely influenced by his association there. I don't know what the line is in ISKCON these days, since I'm somewhat isolated. However, I know that many devotees appreciate the efforts of the many sincere devotees in traditional lines who work to preserve the traditions and, as Audarya has pointed out, the literatures of this wonderful movement. There just isn't anything like the tree cultivated by Mahaprabhu, with its many branches. Like Audarya, I don't feel that my faith in my guru-varga necessitates the denigration of any other devotees or line. And like Audarya, I don't feel a need for my own experience over the last 35 years to be validated by those who don't share our appreciation for the work of the line coming from Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. I hope that any real progress I've made will be shown in my character and my progressive commitment to bhajan and sankirtan. Audarya has shared some of his subjective experience that supports his faith, and so have I. I think he and I have both decried the sort of hearsay about the practice of siddha-pranali that you-all often complain of. We understand how your faith in ISKCON and Gaudiya Math has been challenged, and we appreciate the faith you have now. We probably just find it a little puzzling that some of you insist on asserting your superiority (or, perhaps more accurately and fairly, the superiority of your parivars) as you sometimes do.

Well, a devotee never posts content received through imperfect senses what is surely to be called "gossip". Rather a devotee recites what is revealed by superior Vaishnavas. This is an excerpt from "Acarya Kesari Sri Srimad Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Gosvami - His Life and Teachings". I'm sorry that you consider his writings as gossip and I will in future avoid such posts. Again, dandavats, pranams, this will not happen again. Here is the url:
http://www.bvml.org/SBNM/bdasp.htm

Well, that is written by Narayan Maharaja. His ramblings are hardly credible, given his record of twisting facts rather consistently throughout his writings. Good that you referred me to this actually, I needed some inspiration to get back to my review of his Prabandha Panchakam.

At the risk of bringing this thread even closer to being the longest thread on the board, I want to offer a couple of suggestions. Jatayu, if the assertion you posted was a quotation from Narayan Maharaja's book, you should have introduced it as such. If you had paraphrased, it would have been more honest to say, "I have heard from my gurudeva. . . . " These are standard practices used in serious writing. (I hate to sound teacherly here, but I have taught writing in college for 15 years.) One should always acknowledge the source of any information one gives; otherwise, readers naturally assume that the words you speak or write are your own, and they'll hold you accountable for them. When we make any general assertion, especially assertions as strong as those in your post, we should readily support them with specific evidence of some sort. The question that naturally arises in thoughtful readers will be something like "Who says?" or "How do you know that?" or "What's the basis for your claim?" Thoughtful writers anticipate as many questions and objections as possible.

Jatayu,

According to your source, we can buy siddha pranali practically over E Bay.Great, i didn't realize that.Obviously, your source thinks that you can get it cheap nowadays.Seems like author also doesn't research some resources very well.
Other author you have mentioned, isn't that the same one which was in some coup d'etat of one Gaudiya Matha temple, and he was previously also member of Subashcandra Boses Hindu Nationalist movement ,which supported that insane guy which called himself Adolf in Germany?
I will think twice before writing or posting those excerpts.
Yours,

The honest position for everyone is to :

(a) Give the benefit of the doubt to others, at least in terms of their fundamental sincerity, no matter how weak or compromised they may be or have become,
(b) Honestly admit that the powers of Maya are all-pervading and do not recognize any boundaries.

Hypocrisy is possible everywhere, but it is our own hypocrisy that we are primarily responsible for.

Here is a letter I just wrote to Krishnakant, after receiving the IRM's Back to Prabhupada magazine.

Dear Krishnakant Prabhu,

I received a free copy of Back to Prabhupada and read it through. Though for many reasons I am not and never will be a Ritvik follower, I was very pleased by your effort. First of all, I am pleased by the fact that your endeavors seem to be meeting with some success. I am a great fan of success, because I recognize it as the result of sincere work and Krishna's mercy. So this alone has much to commend it.

But more than this, I appreciate that the IRM is functioning as a strong voice of opposition to the Iskcon status quo. By calling for openness,
transparency and accountability in Iskcon’s leadership, you are the de facto opposition in a one party state. I have always appreciated that the IRM is the voice of democracy in Iskcon, and this latest article on the personal financial statements of Iskcon’s leaders is a perfect example of you doing a job that is absolutely necessary.

Though « The Final Order » is the IRM’s founding document, the spirit of Protestantism and Democracy pervades your movement. These are significant developments for the future of Krishna consciousness,
and I hope that you will do them honor through loyal adherence to your values. Your servant, etc.

A variety of voices is absolutely essential for a tradition to remain living. It allows different ultimate values to come to the fore or to recede in accordance with changing time and circumstance. If it exists, it is probably necessary.

And once again, to repeat to the point of excruciating boredom: The point about Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati is not that he did or did not take initiation from Gaur Kishor Das Babaji, it is that he deliberately rejected the preexisting system of taking initiations.

What sounds like a better deal: for a few paisa one gets siddha pranali in the holy dhama and an opportunity to serve Sri Radha-Madhava in the kunjas of Vrndavan in a manjari svarupa, or having to complete a daily quoto of selling 20 big books and collecting $100 dollars a day in a hot or freezing parking lot while often encountering people who detest you pestering them in order to go back home back to an unknown region in the spiritual world to perform an unspecified service there.

But clearly, some have put forth arguments about dead mantras and the like. They seem to not just be objecting to changes in the preexisting system but proposing that as the mantras were not received, GM and ISKCON were without true potency and this, coupled with the "culture of aparadha," have lead to the conditions we have seen. Have I misunderstood their arguments or yours?

I think it does make a crucial difference from the perspective of a traditionalist whether BSST received diksa from Gaurakisora das Babaji. Without that key event, the connection is not there. And for an ISKCON/GM follower, it is also crucial, if not for the manner of receiving mantra, at least in terms of having faith in what has been taught.

In terms of changes in the system, I take that to mean the "bhagavat/siksa parampara" and the self-administration of sannyasa and brahman, and perhaps also the the devaluing/rejection of siddha pranali. Are you saying that from the perspective of BSST, it would not have mattered whether he took diksa from GKDB? If that was part of his system, why would he have not presented that as such--too radical?

I'll concede this for the sake of discussion, but not without reservation. After all, much of the discussion of the GM/ISKCON's ills boils down, for a couple of our interlocutors, to something like, "What do you expect, since they have no real initiation?" Nevertheless, I'll accept my lashes for having inspired your gag reflex.

My understanding is that what Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati rejected was the primacy of such formal lines, which he and, at least to some extent, Bhaktivinoda believed to have an many cases degenerated into not much more than a means of livelihood for the gurus in those lines. His issue was those lines' claim of exclusivity in the matter of transmitting the mercy and spiritual heritage of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. (I can't claim to have researched this myself, since I've been too locked into my little work life the last too-many years. My understanding is based on what I've heard over the decades from Sridhar Maharaja, B.P. Puri Maharaja, Tripurari Maharaja, and probably Narasingha Maharaja. I understand this limits the acceptability of my assertions in some quarters.)

Even among those who accept that some orthodox lines may not have been what they should have been may claim that Saraswati painted with too broad a brush, including een those who were following properly. I believe Tripurari Maharaja suggested in his booklet on the subject that this may have been because he felt they were implicated in the anomalous practice by their reluctance to join him in reform efforts. I can understand how some may object to that.

I think the actual point of contention may be whether a mantra or practice is given life by transmission through a documented line, or through realized souls. As Tripurari Maharaj points out, the idea of a siksa parampara could well be inspired by Brihat-Bhagavatamrita aned Srimad-Bhagavatam. I understand that either side will offer strong support for its position. I wonder whether this is something that can be discussed fruitfully. If it could, perhaps this may be a good forum for doing so. I don't honestly know.

What you say regarding quoting is absolutely correct, Babhru prabhu (er, and I was replying to page 5, not page 6! Drat!). However, given Madhava's repsonse, we can see why jayatu may have been wary of citing his source.

Leading on from that, I would ask why it is necessary to immediately call of his Narayana Maharaja's writing "ramblings", "hardly credible". Fine, you may have had dealings with him, or know certain of his writings to be in error. However, I would note that you cannot judge every statement by personalities on the basis of your opinion of them. Surely, some evidence needs to be employed too? For example, no one will deny that Hitler was a racist, power-hungry megalomaniac, however certain economic policies of his were strokes of genius. Again, we ought not to judge those policies on the basis of our opinions of the man, but rather what those policies were themselves.

So, let's examine the statement:




I myself have not been to the Vraja-mandala. However, even in popular culture, people report "fake gurus" and such when going off on the "Quest for Enlightenment" in India. In modern times Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati argued against so-called sahajiyas - but I know there are a certain number in this forum who will not accept their arguments.

However, take the quote from Kesava Maharaja literally. He is saying that siddha-pranali is being misused, ie that a bonafide spiritual practice has been perverted. Reading the rest of the quote, he is warning against the premature rushing in, that overzealous neophytes so easily do (been there, done that!).

The idea makes me think of when so many people get uptight by Bhaktisiddhanta's criticism of 'sahajiyas'. If they really understood what he was criticising (ie cheating mentality, materialism in the guise of spirituality), they'd realise he wasn't crticising the true sahajiya tradition, but rather the culture of immitation, falsehood, and pretend bhava.

I believe this is what all modern preachers are doing when they say that siddha-pranali, etc., is being misused. Hence Bhaktisiddhanta did not formally include such a notion in his lineage, preferring to let the heart of the practitioner, melted by Nama prabhu, guide the sadhaka to his siddha-deha. However, that does not mean that siddha-pranali is not valid for those who go and seek it out - rather it just means that due to the huge danger of such a powerful concept being misused it has not been used in Gaudiya Matha (though I hasten to add there are tinges of it here and there ).

Do I make any sense? I'm not trying to criticise anyone; I just wish people would understand when they and their group are not actually being criticised either!

Ys., Rama Kesava dasa

The reason behind this is that the article Jatayu refers to us is the fourth chapter of the book Prabandha Pancakam, of which I have reviewed two of the first chapters, which are frankly speaking a disaster as far as honest presentation is concerned. You may not have seen those reviews, you can find them from here. Please read them. Aside that, I have reviewed his lecture discussing the subject matter he talks about here, I have researched the facts to a great extent, and found that he often speaks outright lies or just makes up stories, such as his legends about Western babajis. I will post that up in a couple of days, too.

Judging by the degree of rhetoric in the essay we are now faced with, I would tend to think that his statements here are not well founded, given that he has displayed consistent behavior in earlier incidents surrounding similar issues.



It is not a quote from BP Kesava, it is written by BV Narayana. He is not talking about premature acceptance of siddha-pranali, he is talking about purchasing siddha-pranali for a couple of rupees. I would like to see the evidence for this. Certainly the mere words of Narayan Maharaja cannot be evidence; he, like everyone else, is obliged to document his sources.

Er, whoops. I meant Narayana Maharaja's book on Kesava Maharaja.

Still, how can you say people don't buy siddha-pranali for a couple of ruppees? If not in India, then it's certainly done in the West. People buy all sorts of "esoteric" knowledge, without actually having an clue of what it's about. Without a proper giver, or recipient, then what value is the gift?

Anyway, my point is, fine you won't accept what Narayan Maharaja says, but do you have any means of disproving it either? Can you disprove that there is corruption, and that people quite literally sell things, degrading spiritual gifts into material wolves in sheeps clothing?

Dear Ramakesava Das,(i am sorry i was lazy to correctly quote, so i wrote in this way),

You wrote:
For example, no one will deny that Hitler was a racist, power-hungry megalomaniac, however certain economic policies of his were strokes of genius. Again, we ought not to judge those policies on the basis of our opinions of the man, but rather what those policies were themselves.


I am sorry to disappoint you, but Hitler is not genius.His policies in a long term have destroyed German people and German economy.Part of his economical success was based on stolen Jewish money, mainly from rich Jewish families. Even germans were not free to say nothing against the government in those times. If they did, they will disappear forever.I hope you don't have basis of your opinion in movies of Leni Riefenstahl.
If you are trying to give us here a lesson in political economy,please don't.I have graduated in that subject at the university, it is boring.

You wrote:
Anyway, my point is, fine you won't accept what Narayan Maharaja says, but do you have any means of disproving it either? Can you disprove that there is corruption, and that people quite literally sell things, degrading spiritual gifts into material wolves in sheeps clothing?

Yes we certainly do, people on this forum travel to India and have met people(not gossip people), who certainly know why Narayan Maharaja have said, what he have said about Babajis.Very sad and not very nice, i will say for a person which calls himself Bhaktivedanta Swamis Priya bandhu. Also, i very much see constant and unfortunate blasphemy against Babajis from Radhakunda,Vrindavan and other holy places. Why is that so constant? Why people like Narayan Maharaja, Bhakti Sudhir Goswami and Narasingha Maharaja, and as well some in Iskcon do that? Are they doing that to get more followers, and say that their way is only possible way?Is that not Vaishnava Aparadha? Are they saviours of the world?Only real people to represent Sri Sri Radha Krishna? How do you view that?
Could you please write who are those who are degrading spiritual gifts? Be precise, please.

Well, do you know any place in the West where siddha-pranali is available for sale for a couple of bucks? I really don't see a connection of how the "all sorts of esoteric knowledge" market is related, unless you want to equate that with siddha-pranali, of course.

As far as it's concerned in India, hasn't anyone ever heard of the practice of giving guru-dakshina? I mean, it is no problem for Narayan Maharaja to initiate rich businessmen who give them a couple of thousand bucks for the joy of being initiated, but then he has the nerve to criticize some baba who accepts two rupees as a donation from an initiate. Jeesh!



Do I have means for disproving what Narayan Maharaja claims? Well, the burden of the proof lies with the one who makes the accusation, and people are innocent unless proven guilty. That's the way it goes in the West, anyway.

If someone comes up with something substantial, I'd be glad to research it further, but as it stands we just keep hearing these very generic, and often awfully inclusive accusations. As far as I am concerned, people are innocent until proven otherwise.

I have to agree with Madhava on this issue - the burden of proof is with the accuser and the one being accused is definitely innocent unless proven guilty. The problem with statements like this is that they get bandied about to the point where people start believing them merely because they are repeated so often. On top of that, because they are almost never tempered with the caveat that there are genuine lineages that are practicing and giving this type of information to their sisyas according to their own understanding of it and with consideration of who they are giving it to and what their level of commitment and advancement is.

I don't believe there is truly a universal standard in terms of who to give such knowledge to and what makes them qualified. That is left to the judgement of the acharya and there is a diversity of opinion and practice on the matter. It is best to be generous and recognize the fact that advanced sadhakas appear in various lineages and at least to some level of objectivity bring validation and dignity to the lineage. Suddha bhakti is very rarely acheived so we should expect to find plenty of examples of sadhakas who are struggling with their conditioning and having trouble with their minds demands and the dictates of their senses. I just don't see how criticizing others and engaging in adversarial rhetoric with devotees in different lineages is helpful in any way to any one.

Kalki asked me if my intention was to 'save some unsuspecting souls from falling prey to the siddha pranali deviants' (I am paraphrasing his question here). The reality is that I merely react to those who criticize the lineage I am in and denigrate those who I have affection for. That is something that any genuine person would do if they found those they have affection for coming under attack. I hope that all sadhakas will find inspiration to practice KC and that while doing so they see that they are becoming better individuals - kinder, gentler, more respectful of others etc.

At the end of the day we have to be honest with ourselves and others as well. If we see dishonesty we should speak up about it even if we find it in our own family. But at the same time we should be generous with others and we should be very cautious about open criticism which is not firmly based on verifiable facts and unrefutable proof. Even then we should be careful. Sridhara Maharaja pointed out something that should be a little obvious, but I feel it is often overlooked - he said we should strive to be faith makers not faith breakers. How difficult a task is it for one to pick themselves up from their material predicament and conditioning and make an honest step toward Krsna? In the beginning faith is very tender and if we are compassionate we will recognize that and be kind and gentle and help others to progress rather than trying to stiffle their development in order to promote our sectarian agenda.

Your servant,
Audaraya-lila dasa

Audarya said:


Jagat made a good point lately that the real issue is not whether or not BSST was properly initated, but really that he eliminated the pre-existing system of initations.

So what is the use of being properly initiated and not making the glory of your diksha lineage known. So that people gripe about BSST's initation or concept of lineage is not surprising. My only point is that you should not be surprised. I don't see point in wanting to police people in saying that BSST's lineage is crapola because it is not like the same people will reject any realizations coming from your posts in matters of philosophy based on who your guru is. Am I wrong? Has someone shot you down becasue they think your lineage is bogus.

Being that you want to be a faith maker and not breaker, you could probably ignore any posts that are anti BSST and continue happily making hari katha even with people who have spoken that way. If your goal is to correct people from sleighting someone's lineage, then who is going to correct your param guru and his guru for all the sleighting they had done. I think the reactions from BVS's disciples are natural. Like father like son.

And I think I have read or heard of your guru sleighting the siddha stuff somewhere, maybe in a book he wrote. I guess I don't have exact quotes but why would he be different than his guru and param guru? And if he and you are, then how do you account for the change in spiel. If the spiel has changed becasuse the bad siddha lines have been exposed, and that was the only purpose, then maybe your guru, you and any other gurus you are friends with should make it clear which diksha lines they recognize and it might decrease the animosity. You can be a regular peacemaker!

I was thinking of his autobahn building, and how that, and the armaments manufacturing, brought unemployment down. Of course the motivation for that was ultimately, lebensraum, and war. And yes, in the long run, it all broke. I ought to have chosen a different person. You're the expert.

But can you see my point? That even "bad" people may have "good" ideas?

As regards, the selling of siddha-pranali. No, I don't have specific examples for India; I haven't been there. In the West, people can buy all sorts of books and CDs with bogus interpretations of the diksa-mantras; they do this, and then they pick and choose, calling themselves expert, and deciding they have found their svarupa.

I admit I can't prove what Narayan Maharaja has said, and some of what I have heard about him leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I know some of his disciples, and have a great deal of affection for them, so I cannot start fault-finding when I cannot see those faults (whether by not looking hard enough, or by not being able to recognise them). I'm not very good at making my points these days anyway!

One thought: Narayan Maharaja's character aside, and the facts of the matter aside, his statement still has some value. Whether it is true or not, and even if it isn't (!), we ought to take the good from it, and take it as a warning against cheating irreligiousity in the guise of religion. Like they say, even bad people say good things unwittingly! ...therefore even if he's wrong, there is some warning we can take from it.

Babhru, Braj, my point was that for both sides it is important to recognize that for the GM the battle is not to be conducted there, but elsewhere.

Saraswati Thakur says the following:

1. Harinam brings siddhi. Real initiation comes from Harinam, or rather real initiation is in the impetus to engage in devotional service, which comes through Harinam. No formal initiation is really necessary.
2. Pancharatra diksha is not the fundamental sadhana, but peripheral. It is there for some external purification, but is not the actual carrier of the initiatory process.
3. Pancharatrika initiation in a line of ordinary humans without spiritual power is not helpful at all.

This is an essentially modern way of thinking. Traditional lines have a "magical" perspective that exists to some extent in Gaudiya Math rhetoric, but less so practice, at least as Siddhanta Saraswati conceived it. For the GM this is the cause of confusion; the only people who have taken it to the logical conclusion are the Ritviks. As the Ritviks correctly say, the GM has reverted to a traditional model, just changing the sampradaya "base point" to Siddhanta Saraswati.

The traditional lines' "magical thinking" is as follows:

(1) Mahaprabhu is the Supreme Lord. and all his associates were divine, residents of both eternal Nabadwip and Vraja.

gaurAGgera saGgi-gaNe, nitya-siddha kori’ mAne,
se jAy brajendra-suta-pAz

One who accepts the associates of Lord Gauranga as eternally perfected personalities, certainly attains the association of Krishna, the son of King of Vraja. A person who knows the abode of Sri Gaura Mandala to be made of transcendental touchstone, obtains his residence in Vraja.

(2) Those connected to Mahaprabhu's associates physically carry that divine power. It can be activated or disactivated, but in either case is there. Again like Narottam Das Thakur says,

se-saba saGgIra saGge je koilo bilAs
se-saGga nA pAiyA kAnde narottama dAs

Narottam Das cries because he has not had the association of those who associated with Mahaprabhu and his companions."

This kind of thinking is a bit foreign to us Westerners. And certainly Saraswati Thakur and his followers have mocked it. But think about Vaishnava philosophy itself for a minute: Mahaprabhu, Nityananda, Advaita Prabhu were all physically present in the world. The guru is present in the world, but according to our doctrine, they are all completely spiritual. Gaura Mandala bhumi, the deities, prasad, all spiritual. Do we mock those who hold these views? Well, of course, when they are not in keeping with our particular values.

para-dAra-vitta-hAriSu
saty apadeze mahA-prahAriSu ca |
nahi vRndAvana-vAsiSu
doSaM pazyanti cid-ghaneSu dhIrAH ||

A wise person does not find fault in Vrajavasis, even if they are thieves, adulterers, violent, but sees them as "cid-ghana." (Vrindavana-mahimamrita 2.71)

Now, admittedly there are limitations to this mentality in practical terms. But I have seen Ananta Das Pandit pay prostrated dandavats to a member of the Nityananda family whose spiritual practice was minimal. Madan Gopal Goswami told me that when he was a boy, Ramdas Babaji paid his obeisances to him. Madan Gopal's father said, "He's just a boy, you'll ruin him." But Ramdas replied that "A rasgolla is sweet whether it is big or small." In other words, the divine connection to Nityananda is there.

This connection is what is transmitted in initiation. What Saraswati Thakur did was to break this connection.

As I say, this is a foreign concept to Westerners, and so we don't quite appreciate the mentality. It is connected to same ideas that are the foundation of the Varnashram system, which accords far more importance to birth than we do in the West. This is why the criticism of traditional social approaches is a part of the GM approach and connected to the initiation question.

I personally respect the Gaudiya Math position in theory, because we all have the same ideals to live up to in real terms. A kanishtha adhikari is a kanishtha adhikari, whether Christian, Muslim, Gaudiya Math or traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava. Transcending the sectarian mentality is a universal principle of religious progress.

I'll stop here for time reasons.

This is what made ACBS so successful in the west. His Protestant way of thinking - qualification instead of birth - was corn on the mill of the westerners. That is why westerners, if you tell them about actual varnashram, are either nonplussed or dismissive.

Thanks Jagat, that is very helpful.

I'm probably veering off topic for this thread so if a moderator wants to split it, please do, but the diksa magic and siddha-pranali/ekadasa bhava are two elements of extreme importance and extreme misunderstanding and contention. Your explanation puts the diksa/vamsa issue in perspective.

Connecting diksa and varnasrama in that way at least makes it clearer for me where my own understanding lies: I think samskara is the essence and birth is an incredibly powerful component of VA. Your example elsewhere of the Navadwipa Goswami family whose son had no interest in spirituality but then took to giving discourses is a good example. It was in his blood.

Ancestry is something that is rejected in an attempt to create a system based on merit, and this despite all of Krsna's addresses to Arjuna invoking his family and tradition. In terms of practical results, I think ISKCON has seriously become a huge question mark over the philosophy. (It is worth noting though, that there are obviously exponents of the "by qualification" argument outside GM and several quotes in sastra to support the argument, e.g. this site)

I'd even be willing to suggest that in terms of varnasrama, and despite ISKCON's results, time will bring both these different points of view into prominence. As consumerism and liberalism rise in India and traditions diminish, a situation may well arise where birth has very little impact on forming ones nature. There will be more homogenaiety.

But that aside, where does samskara fit in terms of the magic of the vamsas?

The idea of corruption in traditions is also somewhat widespread--from Krishnadas Kaviraja's speaking of the asAra followers of Advaita to Haridas Sastriji saying that within one or two generations of Mahaprabhu corruption entered. Couple those type of statements with the plethora of analysis by the Six Goswamis and all regarding the symptoms of bhakti--from ecstacies to behavioral standards--and it seems that an either-or argument for accepting the vamsas as spiritual simply by birth is a lot to ask. And this is particularly so when there don't seem to be any clear injunctions stating "Henceforward (!) the descendants of my parisads shall be my representatives." Are there such statements?

While seeking more information on these two issues (vamsa/diksa and ekadasa bhava), I have to point out that my general impression is that the orthodox traditions sure seem to gel with sastra. I don't think it is possible to read Cc in an objective manner and not realize that that certain elements seem to be missing or highly adjusted in the ISKCON/GM approach, given that Mahaprabhu's confidential reason for appearing is raga-marga bhakti loke karite pracarana--"He wanted to propagate devotional service in the world on the platform of spontaneous attraction." Another translation: "The purpose of this avatara was to taste the sweetness of the juice of prema-rasa and to propagate among people the bhakti of the raga-marga") Adi 4.15

Yes, times are changing. That is why I feel I can appreciate the "protestant" mentality of the Ritviks, even while feeling that they are the furthest from the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. There is a spirituality there, and certainly there is a potential for spirituality--but it is not this spirituality.

For this particular kind of spirituality, you really have to join the family. It comes down to becoming part of the family. And in this family, you respect your ancestors.

As far as the question about samskara is concerned, it is obviously very important. In most Vaishnava families, the ones that survive are the ones where there is a present-day samskara. Because there are real economic principles at work. If you are not providing the goods, you cannot expect to control the market.

I'm glad you mentioned the word "respect." I was going to amend my post to add that regardless of someone having insufficient faith or a philosophical opposition to family lineages, it still behooves them to offer utmost respect. After all, if an ant is due respect, why wouldn't someone who has a family connection to Mahaprabhu's associates be deserving of so much more! If we actively seek anything that will reminder us of our Lords, why reject them?

Ah, but we are speaking of West Bengal so I don't know how the market analogy plays out there.

To get a better idea of what I am getting at, just meditate for a moment on one phenomenon in the early Gaudiya literature, the "Vaishnava Vandana." Such as this one, ascribed to Jiva Goswami that I posted on GGM recently.

The early Gaudiya Vaishnavas had something of an obsession with lists of names of Chaitanya's associates, what Joseph O'Connell has called the "avatar generation." There are Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, Devakinandana's Vaishava-vandana, and several chapters of the Chaitanya Charitamrita, to name a few.

Then the next generations, you have lists of disciples and associates in Nityananda-vamsa-vistara, Narottama-vilasa, Karnananda, Prema-vilasa, etc., etc.

It's all about the descent of the transcendental world into this one, and the desire to connect with it organically, physically.

Now naturally, the further we are from that historically, the more the need there is for renewal, a different kind of "charisma." After all, blood lines represent a kind of institutional charisma that in the right social circumstances will always be trumped by personal charisma. At the same time, we should not underestimate the resilience of "the nobility" to reinvent itself.

But there is no reason that we cannot be the new nobility. It is a question of coming up to the mark.

If you think that any modern day Indian, besides a small-town/village brahmin who does not want to do hard work to earn his money, supports the caste system then all I got to say is you have not really known India.

What type of spirituality is that?
What makes it different from any other kind?
Which particular "family" are you talking about?

No, you have never met large clusters of great brahmin families like I did. (OK Madhava, you can shift this to TIT 4 TAT)

That was my point Advaita -- your "large clusters of great brahmin families" are small town/village religious folk who don't want to do work.

Granted, I'm sure there are a few sincere hard-workers at bhajan or katha giving amongst them. That's alright.

But the few does not the majority make.

Jagat,

I don't agree with your analysis. If it is as you say, then why did Bhaktisiddhanta initiate ALL of his disciples? Do you have any direct quotes from him to support what you have said?

I think you have totally misunderstood him based on your take on what he represented.

Here's what I will propose to you as an alternate point of view:

1. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta supported the traditional system of parampara, however, the qualifier in this is that the person transmitting bhakti must him/herself be highly advanced. It is not just the external formality and it is also not just that one has a connection with a sat guru - a sat guru may have many disciples, but how many of them will develop to the stage of bhava bhakti? Just because one is 'initiated' into a lineage doesn't mean they have much in terms of genuine spiritual attainment. My guru maharaja says that the initiation isn't complete until one reaches the stage of bhava bhakti. What will a person of little attainment give to his/her disciple? The guru is sharing his/her heart with the disciple. The mystical 'magical' side of this transaction is every bit as much in place in GM as in the traditional or orthodox lineages. The 'magic' is really bhakti proper - he or she who has it can give it. We can only give as much as we have.

2. You are correct that the Holy name is given primacy and this is supported by Mahaprabhu himself - but the lineage of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta does not discount pancharatrika diksha. Nor is it considered unnecessary.

3. The fact that significant siksha is given by someone other than the diksha guru doesn't mean that diksha is irrelevant or unnecessary. Sridhara Maharaja was asked who is the most important guru and his answer was very simple - he or she who helps you the most is most important. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta laid stress on the spiritual transaction and his critique was really that the substance must be carried by the form otherwise it is a false transaction - the form may be there without the proper substance. Also, the substance may be transferred in different forms and we should try to catch up what it is we are after.

This is really a self evident truth if you think about it at all. Anyone can perform a ritual without the proper sentiment or go through external motions devoid of proper attention and devotion. One can simply parrot words without understanding the actual meaning behind those words.

Kalki,

As I said, I have not seen anything in writing nor have I ever heard my guru maharaja criticize other lineages or make disparaging remarks.

That doesn't mean that he is disconnecting himself or his sisyas from his guru or param guru. The mode of presentation may be different but the sum and substance is the same. If you look at the words of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta or A.C. Bhaktivedanta you will find that they criticized based on spiritual principles - not just some sort of generic sectarian attack - rather there were principles being discussed. I agree with those principles. The fact that I believe the presentation should be modified in consideration of the times in which we live doesn't mean that I disagree with the general concepts.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Sometimes I get the feeling, Betal Nut, that you underestimate us, especially when we talk about varnashram. We don't advocate going backward in time, but we do advocate understanding the past on its own terms, and not on ours.


The kind of spirituality I am talking about is identity and relation-based. I can trot out that diksha definition that talks about "sambandha-vizeSa-jJAnam," or "se sambandha nAhi jAra, vRthA janma gela tAra."

It means a strong sense of belonging: astu tAvad-bhajana-prayAsaH kevala-tAdRzatvAbhimAnenApi siddhir bhavatIty abhipretyaivottaratra nirdezaz ca tasya... tad etad-dAsya-sambandhenaiva sarvam api bhajanaM mahattaraM bhavati... tarhi dAso’smIty abhimAnena samyag eva bhajatAM sarvatra sAdhane sAdhye ca kim avaziSyate ? tad-adhikam anyat kim api nAstIty arthaH |

So even without making any specific effort to engage in the various practices of devotional service (bhajan), simply by identifying yourself as "His" [or Her's] you can attain all perfection... Simply through this identification as a servant, all one's devotional practices become enhanced... Therefore what else does one who engages in devotional practices in the full consciousness that "I am a servant" have left in the way of sadhana or siddhi? In other words, there is nothing more to do or achieve. (from BhaktiS 304-305)

I understand what Saraswati Thakur was criticizing here, and I take it to heart. Saraswati Thakur said Mahaprabhu's mood was viraha, and that this kind of attitude leads one to think that the goal has been reached without any effort. It is cheap and therefore worthless. You have your relation and your membership in the club and you think your business is finished. It's a bit too close to the "born again" type of religion that absolves you from all other duties.

So I don't say that--but nevertheless, this is a fundamentally different attitude toward spirituality. Even so, without bhajan, sambandha is meaningless. Separation is much more painful when this kind of identification is present. In short, what Jiva is saying above is that bhakti is all about cultivating an identity. When you join the family, your identity is given you. This is why diksha is also kripa.

Audaryaji,

My take is based on Brahmana o Vaishnava, which I see as Saraswati Thakur's "Manifesto." I have quoted the relevant portions in Charismatic Renewal in Gaudiya Vaishnavism (Part II). If you haven't already read it, please look there.

Thank you.

With regards to the question of "who is the most important guru", the question itself is objectionable. There is only one guru, who manifests sometimes as diksha guru and sometimes as siksha guru.

The diksha guru establishes the sambandha, i.e, the identity. He is like the father or mother. Even an orphan who never sees his progenitors again still has an unshakeable relation with them. One may say, my teachers are more important than my birth parents; this is no doubt true. But your birth parents have given you your genetic code. So how can you renounce or marginalize them?

Naturally, as one progresses, one needs siksha gurus, but as long as one stays true to one's spiritual identity, one should keep the same diksha guru. I am not a big fan of guru-jumping, even in this traditional/Gaudiya Math rift.

In other words, when one takes diksa they join the "family". Is that what you are referring to here?
How does it relate then to the ritviks whom you were first referring to when using this term? They also have a spiritual family.

Ritviks don't have spiritual family.

When a mother says to her child, "This man is your father" - the child has to accept. If the information of that mother is wrong, it is not the business of the child to ask for evidence, it has to live with it. This is vedic culture. When a spiritual master speaks lies, a sincere disciples will not argue, "Can you prove what you just said?" Why? Because Krishna personally will take care and correct the situation. This happened many times and we have to develop faith in this system.

By the way Adolf H. was not a German but the reincarnation of a Roman emperor who took revenge against the Germans having destroyed the Roman empire. He did not only kill millions of Jews but also sent millions of young soldiers into certain death.

Here we go with the "vedic culture" thing again.
Does anyone really even know what vedic culture is? Does anyone care?

They would take you to task on that.
According to them Prabhupada is their father and they are all brothers and sisters.

Whatever it is, it sure makes a fancy buzzword.

Of course they do. It's just that it is a rather different family from ours.

Question on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Vedas split into a separate thread.

[quote=jatayu,May 20 2004, 06:50 AM] [/QUOTE]
When a mother says to her child, "This man is your father" - the child has to accept. If the information of that mother is wrong, it is not the business of the child to ask for evidence, it has to live with it. This is vedic culture. When a spiritual master speaks lies, a sincere disciples will not argue, "Can you prove what you just said?" Why? Because Krishna personally will take care and correct the situation. This happened many times and we have to develop faith in this system.

By the way Adolf H. was not a German but the reincarnation of a Roman emperor who took revenge against the Germans having destroyed the Roman empire. He did not only kill millions of Jews but also sent millions of young soldiers into certain death. [/quote]
Jatayu,

Have you been reading Savitri Devi or Miguel Serrano, or perhaps some conspiracy theory books lately? They had all those incarnation/reincarnation illusions too.

I agree that you have to believe and trust your Guru, but first you have to seek and find a Guru which is not liar and cheater, and it is authorized Guru.Then ask Guru to take you under His/Her shelter if He /She wants to.
Sorry i am not blind follower and my Guru is not magic helper.What my Sri Guru means to me is virtually impossible to explain in words or any other way, but He doesn't educate blind followers.
I train Brazilian Jiu Jitsu too, and in that style of martial art, you don't wait for opponent to kick you first.You have to be quick and assess situation ASAP.If you help yourself,Krishna will help you.
Try reading Kundali Das books for some blind follower education.He is very good with that stuff.


"Victory is not about first place; we are victorious when we learn from the experience and improve ourselves
for the next challenge."-Rickson Gracie Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Master

Hi Jagat,

I had to go off-site today to another company to talk about implementing an ERP system at work. I have noted your article and will give it a thorough read over the next couple of days.

I'm not sure why you took the quote from Sridhara Maharaja I cited the way you did. He was not saying to leave your diksha guru or to disrespect him/her or anything of the kind. His comment was in response to a query from someone who asked him who the most important guru is. He made a very common sense response to the query. While I agree with the philosophy that guru is one - still - Krsna does come in a variety of forms and some are more endearing to us. I saw nothing in the comment that would lead one to the conclusion that one should abandon or disrepect one's diksha guru in any way. The quote does leave room for the concept that one will feel more indebted and closer to a guru other than one's diksha guru.

Speaking of context - just a quick note to point out the obvious regarding the words you cited in your article from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta - they were spoken with a specific purpose in mind. The over riding context of the entire text is that the vaishnava is in a superior position to the brahmana, or that vaishnavism includes all that is within brahmanism - something like that. Given that I would think it fairly obvious that his citing the example of Haridas Thakur was to show that even one born outside the varnashrama system could attain the highest position. I would have to look at the entire text and not just the small quote you gave, but I have a feeling that your use of the quote is a stretch in terms of the context of the orignal text.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Well, thanks for kicking me first. Unfortunately I dont know the art of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu - so may be you kick me once more that I'm gradually able to learn.
I'm sorry that you think reincarnation is an illusion, but why dont you read Bhagavad-Gita for better understanding the science of life?
You say I'm a blind follower? If you say so it must be correct. I am trying to get copies of Kundali Das books for some blind follower education.
Again, dandavats, pranamas and good luck for Your next challenge: -Rickson Gracie Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Master.

No disrespect meant to Sridhar Maharaj. Another way of looking at it is that the most important guru is the one you have right now.