Guruvani

Stop thinking? That was never the wish of Srila Prabhupada. don't criticize people for thinking and using their intelligence to find practical solutions to problems. If you aren't thinking then you aren't posting on the forum. So, don't be a bigot and criticize people for not being robots and zombies that don't have mind to think for themselves. Don't drive your car or watch your TV or go to work if you are against thinking. It's obvious that Srila Prabhupada didn't follow the stereotype. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that bending the rules and making adjustments was necessary and Srila Prabhupada did what he had to do to get Krishna consciousness to the masses. If he would have kept with "tradition" you wouldn't be here today criticizing people for having a thought process function in their minds.

As well, I think the parivar of Srila Sridhar Maharaja has suffered a great blow because idiots and fools around the Matha thought that if Govinda Maharaja was a ritvik and not an acharya that it would be an insult. Being a ritvik to Sridhar Maharaja was never an insult or a diminshing of the authority and qualifications of Govinda Maharaja. People with big egos and little minds stripped Govinda Maharaja of his ritvik status and reduced him down to a simple guru. Sridhar Maharaja was not insulting or diminishing Govinda Maharaja by appointing him ritvik. It was the greatest honor and distinction that he could bestow on Govinda Maharaja, but some idiots loitering around the Matha couldn't understand that and thought that stripping Govinda Maharaja of his ritvik position was somehow more flattering than letting him be ritvik of Sridhar Maharaja. When you are considering certain Mathas and institutions that were established by certain acharyas under particular acharyas with specific ontological nuances that distinguish the acharya from the masses, then there can never really be anything EXCEPT ritviks in the succession of the Matha. That is what has preserved the Madhva sampradaya as a pristine sampradaya of Madhvacharya. If the successors are "self-effulgent" acharyas, then the Matha gets hijacked by the successor and the founder-acharya gets moved to a secondary position. That is why as far as ISKCON and SCSM goes there can only really ever be ONE acharya and ritvik successors.

Maybe so, but then again trying to take Gaudiya Vaishnavism global to all the mleccha and yavana people of the world was also no small effort beyond the 500 years of Gaudiya Vaishnavism being a small sect in India. "major change" Sure, maybe there needs to be a "major change" when you take the Gaudiya mission out of India to the far away lands of western cultures? I think the idea that the Gaudiya mission has to remain untouched and unchanged even when taken global is a pipe-dream for fools.

Srila Rupa Goswami mentioned in the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu that the details of how one acharya teaches and how another acharya teaches might be different. so, it is accepted that there is not one generic standard. It varies from acharya to acharya.

Actually, Srila Prabhupada dubbed these 11 representatives as "officiating acharyas". Then Tamal interjected the term ritvik and Srila Prabhupada confirmed that the term ritvik could also be applied. But, "officiating acharyas" denotes acharyas who are acting in an official capacity. They have since been reduced down to simple ritviks by the anti-ritvik sector. The empowering of the sampradaya acharya to initiate disciples on his behalf is beyond the range of a simple ritvik priest. If you take a priest and then empower him with special authority invested in him by the acharya to conduct initiation rites on behalf of the acharya, then you have an ISKCON ritvik. That is much more than a simple ritvik priest. The acharya can empower a brahmana with as much power as the acharya wills. Srila Prabhupada empowered some senior disciples to be these "officiating acharyas" as ritviks with specific authority to perform initiation rites on behalf of the acharya. That is obviously a very great responsibility and not really anything less that being a "self-effulgent" acharya. Foolish people like to label the ritvik function as a put-down or a diminishing of the disciple to a lower status, but that is just a false argument used by self-interested individuals with too much personal ambition.

Since when did being an empowered representative of the shaktyavesha-avatar become the work of neophytes? Excuse me, but being a ritvik of the acharya is an empowered position that only highly advanced devotees can peform. Being empowered by the acharya to initiate on his behalf is not any form of diminishing the position of the disciple, rather a contract to fully back-up his efforts to preach and bring in new devotees to the sampradaya. This propaganda that ritviks are somehow lesser or lower than "living diksha gurus" is a trick of maya to continue to allow her to foil the mission of Mahaprabhu by sending one false acharya after another.

No, not at all. To be a rtivik means that one has to be on at least the madhyama platform. It's not a matter of saying that nobody is advanced or will never make advancement. ISKCON is an "acharya sampradaya" a community of devotees dedicated to the specific teachings of a specific acharya. Each acharya has a right to do things a little differently as he sees fit. In order to insure that ISKCON didn't get tampered with by any future "acharyas" in ISKCON, it was necessary to establish that there is only ONE acharya for ISKCON specific considerations. An acharya can do things as he sees fit, even if it is somewhat different than the way other acharyas do things. In order to insure that ISKCON was not tampered with by so-called acharyas in the future, it is necessary to maintain Srila Prabhupada as the only acharya with a large body of siksha gurus who follow the exclusive acharya of the institution. It absolutely says nothing about the level of advancement of the ritvik priests. It is just prejudice and narrow thinking to say that a ritvik system is based on the premise that no disciple can ever become an advanced devotee. Nobody blasphemes the Madhvas for their ritvik-like sampradaya, but when it comes to ISKCON it is held up to a different scrutiny.

Sometimes the farmer will dangle a carrot in front of the donkey to get him to more forward and pull the cart. Or, in Greyhound races there is an artificial rabbit on a track that leads the Greyhouds around the track. Actually, the donkey never gets the carrot until his job is done. The Greyhounds never catch the rabbit and eat him. It's not a matter of discarded ideas. It's a matter of motivations and inspirations that help to lead us in a particular direction. Times change and minds change. The falling down and falling away of some prominent senior disciples of course caused Srila Prabhupada to rethink his plans. Srila Prabhupada had high hopes for these western devotees. Maybe he was disappointed a few too many times and had to reconsider previous programs and lower his expectations? Who says that an acharya can't change his plans as circumstances around him change?

The fact is that in deity worship in Gaudiya temples is performed under regulative principles of vidhi-marga. As such, the service of deity worship is actually under the aishvarya principles and the service is actually received by the Laxmi-Narayana aspect of their Lordships. You cannot worship Radha-Krishna with regulative principles of deity worship. Deity worship is actually accepted by the Laxmi-Narayana feature of the Lord. In the temples we might see "Radha-Krishna" deities, but actually our service in regulative principles can only be accepted by Laxmi-Narayana. Radha-Krishna can only be worshipped in raga-marga. Deity worship is vidhi-marga. Only the spontaneous love is accepted by Radha-Krishna and that spontaneous love can also be there in deity worship as an underlying principle, but the prominently visible aspect is regulative service in vidhi-marga. So, all deity worship of Radha-Krishna in Gaudiya temples is actually accepted through the Laxmi-Narayana feature of the Lord. Laxmi-Narayana is included in Radha-Krishna, but Radha-Krishna is not included in Laxmi-Narayan, in as much as Laxmi-Narayana cannot be worshipped in raga-marga. Radha-Krishna can be worshipped in vidhi-marga but that worship is accepted by them in their Laxmi-Narayana aspect. so, even though there are Radha-Krishna deities in most all the Gaudiya temples, Laxmi-Narayana is also there to accept the archan-seva offered in the vidhi-marga. Radha-Parthasarathi worship in the temples is Laxmi-Narayana worship really, only with the concept that this Laxmi is actually a form of Radharani in Vrindavan. It's actually a very high concept that a devotee can see that even when Krishna goes to battle at Kurukshetra that Srimati Radharani never leaves his side as his internal pleasure potency. Radha and Krishna can never be seperated even when Krishna goes to war at Kurukshetra. So, Radha-Parthasarathi worship represents a bhava that even when Krishna goes to battle at Kurukshetra his devotees never forgets that his heart is always with Radha in Vrindavan. But, factually, the deity worship in vidhi-marga is acceptable to the Lord only in his form as Laxmi-Narayan.

Srila Prabhupada: Srila Prabhupada made the stipulation that the papers would be sent by him. He never sent the papers and never authorized anyone else to accept authority for sending the papers or awarding the title. Srila Prabhupada said: That was a program that only Srila Prabhupada had authority to implement.

Srila Prabhupada: Srila Prabhupada never awarded any disciple that title, so it appears that he opted for the ritvik system intead. Srila Prabhupada clearly stated that the disciples with the title "Bhaktivedanta" would be allowed to initiate disciples. Since he never awarded any disciple that title, it appears that he didn't wish to continue the parampara through the traditional system. The stipulation was that the successor would have the title "Bhaktivedanta" awarded by the acharya. No disciple was awarded that title.

In an earlier post I stated that the followers of the Vedas were not Hindus and that the proper term was "Varnashram". I got that from the books of Srila Prabhupada and I just happened upon that reference again, so I wanted to post it to show that I was not inventing anything and that the source was from a great authority. Srila Prabhupada :

and when a sudra gets formal diksha from the "living guru" he is still a studra if he doesn't realize that guru is not a bag of stool and urine and that "Vaishnavas DIE TO LIVE and living spread the Holy Name around".

the only magic I have seen is that reading the books of Srila Prabhupada has completly changed the lives of many thousands of people on the inside. formal diksha is part of the Pancharatra process. reading the books is Bhagavat marg of the two, the reading of the books is what brought most devotees to the point of wanting formal initiation. I don't think that some goof that got formal diksha is better than a sincere devotee who didn't get formal diksha. I don't buy into such bigotry and prejudice. When formal diksha becomes the ritual of bigots, the ritual has lost all value.

As far as I am concerned the formal diksha given by ISKCON GBC rubber stamp gurus is as good as any ritvik formal diksha, unless and untill the "guru" falls down so, then there is disturbance to the faith and the mind of the disciples. so, the GBC guru system has an unacceptable failure rate which makes the ritvik formality more suitable for the institution.

Formal initiation is formal initiation is formal initiation, no matter whether it is performed by Srila Prabhupada, Narayana Maharaja or Sridhar Maharaja or a ritvik priest. The idea that formal initiation is some magic moment where some lightening bolt of spiritual shakti comes down from the sky and hits you in the head is for fools and neophytes. So, the ritvik formality is as good as any other formality. There are thousands and millions of examples of formal initiations directly from the guru that didn't amount to diddly squat, so we have plenty of proof that there is no magic in formal diksha - ritvik or traditional. Ritvik initiation is just a formality as is any other formal diksha ceremony. Spiritual diksha is simply receiving the knowledge of Krishna in your heart. Formalities of all types are just formalities and the ritvik formality is as good as any other formality. thats my conclusion, but I am sure others don't agree. I have seen enough idiots with traditional diksha that don't have a clue to convince me that the formal diksha gimmick has lost it's value.

We know that Srila Prabhupada sent Acyutananda and some others to get siksha from Sridhar Maharaja. Acyutananda Swami learned how to play mrdanga and perform bhajans at the Math of Sridhar Maharaja. that is my point. we don't have any such example of Srila Prabhupada ever sending any disciples to Narayana Maharaja for siksha or for sanga. If Srila Prabhupada thought so highly of Narayana Maharaja, then why don't we have any examples like we have in him send some disciples to the Matha of Sridhar Maharaja? Srila Prabhupada never sent any disicples to Narayan Maharaja. Why didn't he instruct his disciples in Navadvip to go take sanga from Narayana Maharaja? He did on occasion send some men to Sridhar Maharaja, but he never sent any disciples to GVS or Narayana Maharaja.

So true. He was very expert at burying opposing arguments with post after post of copy/paste that went on and on and on so that the topic was essentially lost in his BVML library of books, letters and quotes. Basically, he was good at hijacking a topic and ruining the discussion by turning it into parrot sqwuaking competition.

That's a bogus argument. Letters to disciples are different. In the letter to Rupanuga Srila Prabhupada wrote "my instruction to you all is to avoid my Godbrothers". So, that was not a single instruction to a single disciple as Srila Prabhupada said "my instruction to you ALL". It is offensive and abusive for those personal letters to Narayana Maharaja to be pasted-up publicly all over the world. Besides that, we really don't know the inner motives of why Srila Prabhupada invited Narayan Maharaja to join him in preaching in the USA. Prabhupada invited Narayana Maharaja to join him in the west because he wanted to train Narayana Maharaja up in how ISKCON functioned and how it worked so as to try and prevent the kind of misunderstandings and interference that Narayana Maharaja has created for ISKCON because he refused repeated requests from Srila Prabhupada to come to the west and get trained-up in how the movement in west was being conducted. Narayana Maharaja refused repeated requests from Srila Prabhupada to come to the west and see how ISKCON was being conducted, but Narayan Maharaja refused the training and the offer, so when Srila Prabhupada passed away Narayana Maharaja didn't have the experience or training to get involved in ISKCON activities or with ISKCON devotees. He refused the training and therefore was unfit to get involved. He refused to get involved in the way Srila Prabhupada wanted, but he was willing to get involved only after Srila Prabhupada was not around anymore to prevent any trouble. that sort of involvement will never be acceptable by many devotees of ISKCON.

I know about the letters. I have known about the letters for years, probably before you knew about the letters. My point is that if Srila Prabhupada really felt so highly about Narayana Maharaja then why don't we have even ONE letter that would read something like: "Dear Soandso das, If you are in Navadvip then don't neglect to stop in Gaudiya Vedanta Samhiti and offer you respects to a very advanced devotee there Narayana Maharaja. I think he is very advanced and I think my disciples and ISKCON devotess would benefit by his association. Your Ever wel-wisher, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami" It would have been so easy for Srila Prabhupada to have given some instruction in that way. He never did. Basically, he always advised his disciples to avoid the Guadiya Matha and it's spawn. Srila Prabhupada had years and years to say something positive to his disciples about Narayana Maharaja and he never did till the end when he advised the ISKCON leadership to consult Narayana Maharaja on how to perform the funeral ceremony. In all the years of ISKCON Srila Prabhupada never once advised any disciple or ISKCON devotee to take association and guidance from Narayana Maharaja. NEVER........ nothing................zip.............nada.......... It would been easy enough to do if Srila Prabhupada felt that way, then he surely would have said something about it. AVOID and IGNORE....... That was the standard during the time of Srila Prabhupada.

Factually, the example Srila Prabhupada showed ISKCON devotees for over a decade in regards to Gaudiya Vedanta Samhiti was AVOID and IGNORE. This was how Srila Prabhupada taught ISKCON devotees in regards to Narayan Maharaja, despite some personal letters from Srila Prabhupada that are really none of the business of anyone except Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja. Srila Prabhupada never approved of these private letters to Narayan Maharaja ever getting circulated around ISKCON and there is no evidence that he ever would approve of his personal letters being used in that way.

Letters from Srila Prabhupada to Narayana Maharaja are not the concern or business of the disciples of Srila Prabhupada. They are irrelevant in establishing whether or not Srila Prabhupada wanted ISKCON to take siksha from Narayan Maharaja. There is not one letter or instruction from Srila Prabhupada that has ever recommemded his devotees to take association or instruction of Narayan Maharaja. Thousands of ISKCON devotees were within a stones throw to the Matha where Narayana Maharaja stayed for years, but Srila Prabhupada never once instructed any ISKCON devotee to go see Narayana Maharaja for siksha or even to offer obeisances. Such instruction from Srila Prabhupada to ISKCON devotees simply don't exist.

Why didn't you post the whole letter? Why just a snippet that serves your purposes? We also know though that during the time of Srila Prabhupada he never sent any disciples to GVS for association. During the time of Srila Prabhupada none of the ISKCON devotees were encouraged to associate with Narayana Maharaja? Why not? Srila Prabhupada had years to have said something about the value of his disciples associating with Narayana Maharaja but he never did. Why is it that Srila Prabhupada never encouraged his devotees in India to get to GVS for "sadhu sanga" or "siksha guru"? I have never seen any evidence that Srila Prabhupada ever approved of Narayana Maharaja as being siksha-guru for his disciples. Why is it that in over 10 years Srila Prabhupada never once encouraged his devotees to hear from Narayana Maharaja? there were devotees in India for years, but Srila Prabhupada never instructed any of them to go see Narayana Maharaja for any instruction. so, then why after the passing of Srila Prabhupada was that supposed to automatically change? Srila Prabhupada had years and years to say something about taking siksha from Narayana Maharaja but he never breathed a word about it. duh!!!!!! I wonder why?

Bashing Hindus? Nowhere in any Veda or Purana or Tantra is there ever any term "Hindu". there is no such thing as a Hindu. There are Shaivas, Shaktas, Mimamsakas, Vaishnavas, etc. etc, but no such thing as a Hindu. I am not against any of these other people. I am not against Shaivas or Shaktas. I am against their false ideas that are against Dharma. Where I have ever claimed to be "original Guadiya flagbearer?" You make up false claims against me and then attack me for the false claims you accuse me of. There is not such difference between orginal Gaudiya and modern Gaudiya. The message of Mahaprabhu and his direct disciples is there for the whole world to follow. There is no original Gaudiya or modern Gaudiya. There is just ONE Yuga Dharma that Mahaprabhu came to propogate. It's not complicated or sophisticated or the monopoly of scholars or Indians. None of the sattvic Puranas neglect to establish that Siva is coming out of Vishnu-tattva. That is not my half-baked conclusion. Great scholar devotees have studied all the Vedic literatures and proven on shastric authority that Siva is coming from Vishnu-tattva and transcendentally more powerful than Siva tattva. Mahesha Dhama is below Vaikuntha and the lowest strata of the spiritual plane. Higher than Mahesha Dham is Hari Dhama. This is the true conclusion of the most pure Puranas that do not deal in any form of material religious principles that can be found in Rajasic and Tamasic Puranas that are meant for men in lower modes of nature. So, as long as men come around spouting off nonsense that is against the conclusion of the Sattvic Puranas, then I will disagree with them and defend the conclusions of Vyasadeva, Sukadeva, Narada etc. etc.