Guruvani

It's quite obvious that Srila Saraswati Thakur was an empowered acharya who established a parivar that broke from orthodox, traditional patterns and established a new precedent and a new standard for the parampara system that ultimately culimated in the ritvik system of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhar Maharaja.

We also know that Srila Saraswati Thakur took sannyasa and the sannyasa mantra from a picture of his gurudeva. So, some will argue that it was not "diksha", but it was in fact the taking of a mantra and sannyasa order from a picture of a deceased Vaishnava. The taking of a mantra from the purvacharya was first shown by Srila Saraswati Thakur.

Srila Prabhupada authorized for ISKCON that disciples could be intiated by the representative of the spritual master. He has every right and authority to do that and the opinion of some little sadhaka devotee cannot challenge the authority of Srila Prabhupada in ISKCON. Why do people want to keep trying to tell the acharya what he can and cannot do? Srila Prabhupada established quite soundly that he was accepting disciples through representatives in ISKCON. Nobody can undo that with the opinion of some neophtye sadhaka who does know what he is talking about. The orders of Srila Prabhupada are shastra as much as any sruti or smriti is shastra. There is absolutely no difference. What Srila Prabhupada gave in his instructions are no less than anything given by the previous rishis and acharyas.

Lately, there has been some debate and discussion showing up on some tabloid websites on the issue of worshiping Vishnu and installing Vishnu deities in ISKCON temples. The arguments are going for and against the practice. I wanted to present a reference from the instructions of Srila Prabhupada and discuss whether or not this is in fact Vishnu worship that Srila Prabhupada wanted for ISKCON. Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Adi 7.45 purport: Isn't Salagram-sila a form of Lord Vishnu? If so, then isn't this an instruction from Srila Prabhupada that he actually wanted this form of Vishnu worship in the ISKCON temples?

As far as I know, we don't have a single statement from Srila Prabhupada that says that his system of representative authority had to terminate with his passing. So, until I see proof that he did say it must terminate at his passing, then as far as I am concerned his instructions still stand. In 30 years since the passing of Srila Prabhupada, nobody has shown any evidence in the orders of Srila Prabhupada that the representative system of authority that Srila Prabhupada set up in ISKCON had to terminate at his passing, so I don't think anyone can produce such orders now.

Tripurari Maharaja's opinion..... Srila Prabhupada's instructions..... So, Srila Prabhupada writes in his books his permanent instructions that an aspiring devotee must follow the guidance of the spiritual master OR his representative. Srila Prabhupada says that "In our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement" that is the ways things are done. So, I would have to strongly disagree with the conclusion of Tripurari Maharaja that one cannot get diksha via the representative as Srila Prabhupada says in his books that one can get diksha from the representative of the spiritual master. The purport above clearly gives a picture of a disciple getting Harinama and diksha through the representative of the spiritual master. As far as ISKCON goes, any opinion contrary to this is apa-siddhanta from what Srila Prabhupada taught for the guidance of ISKCON devotees. I am very diappointed that Tripurari Maharaja is speaking against what is clearly written in the books of Srila Prabhupada. There was also no time line ever given by Srila Prabhupada when this representative system he put in place had to be terminated. The time line was drawn by others, not by Srila Prabhupada.

Do we have any other examples, apart from this one supposed example in Brihat Bhagavatmritam, of a devotee going into ecstacy or trance or realizing his siddha-deha simply by the touching of the guru or the Lord? I know that Mahaprabhu embraced the leper Vasudeva and transformed him into a beautiful aprakrita body, but I am looking for more examples of this kind of magical touching. Reminds me of a dream I had a long time ago. I was setting in posture in front of a guru and listening to him speak Hari-katha (kinda looked like Srila Saraswati Thakur during Chaturmasya). (yes, he had whiskers) As I listened very attentively I was looking him in the eyes. Then, as I locked in to his eyes, his eyes rolled back into his head and he went into samadhi trance and also took me with him. Then, I remember seeing something like a Sankirtan party of devotees chanting and dancing around a central figure. I never actually saw the central figure that the devotees were chanting and dancing around. Then I woke up or something. That is all I remember of the dream. But, at the time, years ago, when I had the dream it was a very powerful experience and I was in tears when I woke up. So, I am not totally unreceptive to the concept of magical touching, but I don't think we have many examples of it even in the life of Mahaprabhu or his most intimate disciples. There was some magic back then, but not really that much that I can see in the books. As far as disciples getting siddha-deha at the touch of the guru, that seems to be practically non-existant in any stories about the life and teachings of Mahaprabhu. Anybody now something on this topic?

If Babhru holds back anymore after this he will be guilty of heinous offenses of hoarding nectar from the Vaishnavas. Here we are stuggling with issues and he is keeping all this nectar to himself. God will punish you if keep hoarding all the nectar like you have been doing.

I hate to be the one to break the news, but heaven is not Goloka or Vaikuntha. Heaven is the planet of Lord Indra. it's just a material planet in the universe. Nobody there is in "rasa vigrah". They are all in maya. That planet will be turned into dust by Lord Shiva someday along with all the other material planets. heaven? huh...... not really. Heaven is just a wil-o-the-wisp.

http://www.mandala.com.au/brhad/index.html you owe me one....

Ask Muralidhar, he has a copy of the book.

nope, that is all it takes....jut a tap on the head. no sacrifice, no surrender, no penance or austerity. If Narayana Maharaja taps you on the head then bas.... you are good to go!!

don't forget: prestige position disciples and last but not least "GBC approval"

let me explain. I still have a 13 year old daughter to raise. I have no wife. My best friend is a brahmachary named Nitai Prasada (my son) Why should I worry about sannaysa? I don't even have a wife. I have been without wife for over ten years now. Sannaysis have it easy compared to me. Taking sannyasa would be a step down on the ladder of austerity for me. Why would I want to go from being a sacrificer to being an enjoyer in the name of sannyasa? Besides that, sannyasa has almost NO importance or effect in the USA. Why would I want to become a sannyasi and become despised by the community of devotees? Do you think people respect sannyasa nowadays? Nowadays sannyasa is just seen as a front for some of the most vicious and selfish people in the movement. I don't want anything to do with that situation.

well, I am searching for some answers. We know that Ravana was performing severe penances to achieve material perfection. I am thinking that somehow this "stairway to heaven" must be some sort of metaphysical contraption or mystic process with which seemingly ordinary human beings could use to transport themselves to Indraloka where all the hot heavenly babes are.(Star Trek anyone?) Certainly, it must be something more than a ladder or a tower that Ravana was working on. He obviously had great mystical powers. Maybe he was about to crack the code on some asuric method of interplanetary travel and the devas in heaven were starting to freak-out? The "stairway to heaven" of Ravana was surely something other than a ladder system. He was into mysticism and mystic powers. I really don't know anything about the Ramayana, but I would suspect that there might be some clues to this mystery in that book. I was hoping that somebody here was familiar with Ramayana and could shed some light on this mystery of Ravana's stairway to heaven. Heck, if I could crack the code, I might even consider trying to take that stairway to heaven myself. But, if a great asura like Ravana couldn't pull it off, then what are my chances?

I don't have a problem with T. Swami being diksha guru. I think it is quite ok. But, when he comes out and speaks against the system or representative authority that Srila Prabhupada clearly set-up in ISKCON, then I would have to say that T. Swami is going too far. Srila Prabhupada set in place a system of representative authority in his acharya sampradaya and never drew any line in the sand to separate one point from another. Srila Prabhupada never gave even a hint that the ISKCON system of representative authority had to terminate with his passing. Nobody else has the right to draw that line as far as I am concerned. So, in defending his own choices T. Swami is stepping on the toes of Srila Prabhupada as far as I am concerned.

Srila Prabhupada instructs in Bhagavad-gita As it Is: So, the disciplic succession of Arjuna does not have any diksha line. Its just a siksha sampradaya. Nonetheless, Srila Prabhupada advises to follow in the disciplic succession of Arjuna and get the benefit of learning Bhagavad-gita. It's obvious from this statement by Srila Prabhupada that there is a parampara other than the formal diksha parampara that we hear so much propaganda about.

It's interesting that preachers like Tripurari Maharaja never actually come forward to debate issues in a public forum and actually defeat other arguments openly. They sit behind a business desk surrounded by a handful of supporters dictating some pronouncement with absolute certainty, though they would never dare meet anyone in a public debate over these issues. They sit on their big cushions and pontificate to their groupies, but never coming out to actually answer challenges and questions publicly and show how flimsy their positition actually is.

Where did Tripurari Maharaja get the authority to say that the representative system that Srila Prabhupada set-up in ISKCON had to end with his passing away? Srila Prabhupada most certainly used representatives in ISKCON and left ISKCON with that same system in place and never authorized Tripurari Maharaja or anyone to dismantle that representative system. Srila Prabhupada says in his books that one can accept the acharya or his representatives, so Tripurari Maharaja seems to be challenging the instructions of Srila Prabhupada in this matter. Who has the authority to say that the representative system cannot work after the acharya is gone? Srila Prabhupada certainly never said that. That is the propaganda of career gurus who accept disciples for a living.

Did Haridas Thakur give formal diksha to the prostitute that he turned into a Maha-Bhagavat? I have never read anything about the prostitute that Haridas Thakur delivered as getting formal diksha. She was instructed to chant the Maha-mantra and serve Tulasi Devi. If she ever took formal diksha I would like to hear when and where. I don't think there is any doubt that she was delivered. Why do these professional gurus keep reducing diksha down to a formal ceremony. We all know that diksha is vital. What we all don't agree on is that diksha is a formal ceremony or some sort of contract between the guru and the disciple. In the whole of the books of Srila Prabhupada I don't see anything about diksha being some kind of contract or mutual acceptance. What we do hear is that one should be initiated by a Vaishnava. What exactly that diksha actually is seems to be quite misunderstood, especially by men who initiate disciples as a means of livelyhood and subsistance. When you don't depend on an influx of "disciples" for your livelyhood, it is a lot easier to be honest about what spiritual diksha actually is.

And people like you have got the "sidhanta" all figured out ? Maybe you could learn how to spell "siddhanta", then learn the "siddhanta" and then come back when you know what you are talking about? The "siddhanta" is not about formalities. It's about spiritual knowledge and the science of Krishna consciousness. This formal diksha cult is turning out some real doozies nowadays. Sadly, it appears that many of them are just so uniformed and ignorant of the "siddhanta" that they are falling for this formal diksha cult and forgetting to learn the philosophy of Krishna consciousness.

Most often you see this quote from NOD "There are many societies and associations of pure devotees" used for the purpose of defending those ISKCON devotees who have left ISKCON to join the party of Narayana Maharaja or some other Matha or association of devotees in India. However, I have tried to show with a reference from the actual books of Srila Prabhupada that Srila Prabhupada did in fact endorse some other parivars in India as being "bona fide spiritual masters". who knows? Maybe someday one or more of these other traditional Gaudiya parivars might become a very prominent and powerful parivar with an international following? I think it is likely. The options aren't limited to ISKCON, Gaudiya Matha, the babajis of Vrindavan etc. There are other bona fide lineages in the Gaudiya sampradaya and it's very possible that some other parivar aside from western franchises we have today might rise to prominence in the decades and centuries to come. If someone wants formal diksha from a recognized Gaudiya parivar other than what is currently available in the western world, then there are apparently other parivars there if someone can make that connection. I don't know how that could be done, as I have not spent much time in India to research these things.

well said Theist. You are living proof that formal diksha is not the pre-requisite for acquiring transcendental knowledge and surpassing the limits of sabdha-brahma. It appears that there are basically two kinds of seekers on the spiritual path; the form worshipers and the substance worshipers. We hear this endless rant from the form worshipers about how vital is the need for a "living guru" and formal diksha, when it is quite obvious that the persons who follow that path are no better and in many cases less realized than the substance worshipers who are not very concerned with formalities.

You are asking a question that can't be answered without a rather involved dissertation. If you do a simple Google search on these 4 different sects you can find considerable information. The Wikipedia will have some reasonably good descriptions. However, the term "Hindu" became an unpopular term during the political independence movement, especially amongst Bengali political leaders and some religious leaders as well. The term is widely used, but some of the most prominent religious and political leaders of the Bengali intelligentisia have rejected the use of the term since the days of Mahatma Gandhi and the move towards Indian independence from the British.

When it comes to sannyasa, those who enter that order of life in the Krishna consciousness movement should remember to follow the intructions of Srila Prabhupada in this regard and not try to imitate him. Srila Prabhupada had to accept a lot of things for the purpose of spreading the Krishna consciousness movement all over the world, but that should not be imitated. Nowadays we have too much imitation and not enough following of instructions. That mode of life was adopted immediatly after the passing of Srila Prabhupada the chosen ones the "big 11" and has been perpetuated down to the present day. If there are going to be sannyasis around the movement, then this imitating the Maha-Bhagavat has to stop and sannyasis should be required to live the austere and sacrificing lives they should live to fulfill the mission of sannyasa. Spoiled and pampered sadhakas who take sannyasa for position and social status in the movement will never make the kind of spiritual advancement they need to actually be spiritual leaders of society. The movement needs to create situations where men can live the kind of austere and devoted lives they need to live to actually be spiritual leaders of society and this prototype of the silken-robed jet-set Swami has to reserved exclusively for the Maha-Bhagavat who founded ISKCON. Why would any sincere spiritual person want to join the ranks of the fraud renunciants of today's ISKCON?