Guruvani

The appointing of more gurus in ISKCON had nothing to do with outside pressure from ritviks. The ritvik voices have never had any affect on the GBC. The GBC expanded the guru class in ISKCON to include all the shaker and movers for political purposes and it had NOTHING to do with any sqwauking from ritvik proponents. None of them were advocating ritvik. It was about consolidating their political alliance. Fear of ritvikism has never been a factor in the policies of the GBC. It was about silencing the insiders who would all end up turning on each other with insider information if the BIG GUNS didn't get their rubber stamp from the GBC. Every sannyasi in ISKCON wanted to play guru. None of them had the least interest in promoting ritvikism.

It is not I that consider the Vedas as incomplete. Vyasadeva himself felt that way and so his Gurudeva Narada Muni instructed him to complile the Bhagavat Purana and compile the knowledge of Bhagavat Dharma to completely explain the highest and purest form of Dharma. you can find the original Sanskrit version here: http://www.granthamandira.org/categories.php?cat_id=29&sessionid=c17db9f36bd021f8ea661ddfce5bc813

Well, to tell you the truth, I am a well known person around this town. I know hundreds of people in my home town. I am just another local fixture. I relate with the common folk probably more than you ever do. I don't treat people like demons. Some of my best friends are "karmimeat-eatersChristians" and "non-devotees". I am sure I have hundreds more "karmi" friends than you will ever have, so to accuse me of treating non-devotees as demons is just your imagination. I treat everyone with respect, whether they are old black men hanging out at the corner market or wealthy and prominent businessmen. I know hundreds of people in this town and hundreds of people know me and like me. This town is like my hometown now and I can't drive down the road or go to the supermarket without running into several locals that respect me and treat me like family. Demons? Man you need to look at your own situation. I have very friendly and sociable dealings with hundreds of these "demons" that you refer to.

It's obvious that you didn't study the information I have already provided, otherwise you would not be asking this question. I have already addressed your question in a previous post, but you obviously are refusing to open your eyes and see the truth. Aside from the Bhagavatam, Radharani is described elaborately in Brahma-vaivarta, Padma, and Narada Puranas as well as Garga Samhita. In the 4th chapter of Ujjvala-nilamani, "Sri Radha-prakaranam" texts 3 and 4, Rupapada cites the Gopala-tapani Upanisad (of Atharva Veda), Uttara-khanda, where Radha is called Gandharvi and the Rg Veda-parisista where Her name Radha is mentioned. There She is described as the consort of Madhava. There is not much more than can be done for one as you who already has a prejudice against the Gaudiya sampradaya.

It's not my job, but it's my hobby. I don't get paid to do it. I do it for fun.

Srila Sridhar Maharaja very deliberately, decisively and directly used ritvik terminology in regards to passing on his succession in his official and formal declaration of spiritual succession. It was no accident. It was no blip. It was no slip. It was no blunder. It was a very deliberate and decisive pronouncement that I am sure he had years to ponder. It's not up to you or me or anyone else to say that the ritvik concept is the death of ISKCON or the parampara. That is just mental mushrooms popping-up in your head. The wisdom and forethought of Sridhar Maharaja are far beyond your miniscule rational thinking process and decisive factor. Your determination of the danger and destructive result of a ritvik system is just speculations and imagination. One thing we don't have to speculate about or imagine in our minds is the final instructions of Sridhar Maharaja regarding his spiritual succession and his appointing Govinda Maharaja as ritvik. This instruction of Sridhar Maharaja has more wisdom, power and beauty to it than all our imaginative thoughts about how bad it would be if we just followed the acharyas instead of trying to second-guess them. If ritvik was the death of ISKCON and SCSMatha, Srila Prabhupada and Sridhar Maharaja would not have implemented such measures. Claims of the death and destruction of ISKCON and SCSMatha if the instructions of the acharyas were actually followed is just our little minds refusing to accept that inconceivability is always an issue we have to deal with when approaching the infinite. The infinite can't be caged-up or bottled-up with stereotypes. But, our nature is to try to do that anyway.

What is going on at the Matha and what is the authorized instructions of Sridhar Maharaja don't appear to in compliance. So, I know well the concept that Sridhar Maharaja gave in his final "declaration of spiritual succession" and I know well about the psycophants and Matha dwellers that stripped Govinda Maharaja of ritvik status and his "SEVAITE" acharya status to make him master of SCSMATH.

Well, what is going on at the Matha since the passing of Sridhar Maharaja and what he clearly instructed in his "declaration of spiritual succession" might not be in sync. I don't live in a cave. I know what has been going on since the passing of Sridhar Maharaja. That doesn't change what Sridhar Maharaja ordered in his "declaration of spiritual succession" and his appointing Govinda Maharaja as his successor in a ritvik capacity. As I explained already, Govinda Maharaja was appointed as ritvik by his master and stripped of that status by his followers. For me, I accept the orders of Sridhar Maharaja as being valid. What the neophytes at the Matha decided after the passing of Sridhar Maharaja doesn't change the orders that Sridhar Maharaja left in his "declaration of spiritual succession" upon his retiring from the world. The orders of Sridhar Maharaja are what is the power and authority. The neophyte crowd stripped Govinda Maharaja of his ritvik status in disobediance to the final orders of Sridhar Maharaja. What the crowd of neophytes decided and what Sridhar Maharaja ordered are two different things. I don't follow the crowd of neophytes. I accept the orders of Sridhar Maharaja as final.

Vyasadeva compiled Bhagavat Purana because he was unsatisfied with the incomplete knowledge he gave in the Vedas. Therefore, he extracted the essence of Vedanta and presented that essence in an easily understandable form - the Bhagavat Purana. In the tenth canto of Bhagavat Purana you will find the narration of the appearance and pastimes of Lord Krishna. If you really want to know what Vyasadeva revealed about Radha, then you must understand the 10th Canto of Bhagavat Purana. You can find an English translation of 10th canto of Bhagavat Purana to read here for no cost or money. http://vedabase.net/sb/10/en

Full-fledged diksha gurus? Sridhar Maharaja appointed him SEVAITE ACHARYA. (servitor acharya) I think that falls a little short of full-fledged. Everything hinges on the SERVITOR principle. Sevaite Acharya........... servitor of the acharya......RITVIK. His appointment to more than ritvik was by his followers not by his master.

This episode of Jayapataka Maharaja lying to Sridhar Maharaja is also a very telling incident. After the passing of Srila Prabhupada, at that very time, it was accepted by one and all that Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 men as something before he left. Jayapataka and the gang twisted the fact a little bit and told Sridhar Maharaja that Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 successor gurus. Even today it is universally accepted that he appointed 11 ritviks and that there is no evidence that he appointed 11 successor gurus. So, this history proves that everyone at the time considered the appointment of the BIG 11 as the final arrangements of Srila Prabhupada for the future of ISKCON after his passing. It eventually became known that Srila Prabhupada didn't appoint 11 successor gurus, that he appointed 11 ritviks. So, then really, if we rewind the mess back to the time when the BIG 11 went to Sridhar Maharaja and told the lie and think about what would have been the instructions of Sridhar Maharaja based upon the actual facts, then maybe ISKCON could have been spared untold chaos and disruption? If they hadn't lied to Sridhar Maharaja, then maybe today ISKCON would actually be a very vibrant and cohesive movement with a ritvik system of initiation?

Despite your disqualification for understanding due to your insufficient knoweldge of sruti, smrti and Purana, I will try to help you. Radha - meaning of the name: aradhyati krsnah anaya iti radha - one who devoutly worships is Radha - sruti references: Radha is mentioned in Sama Veda and Atharva Veda. Sama Veda contains the etymological derivation of the word 'Radha': radha sabdasya vyutpattih samaveda. Nirupita is the word for Radha in Sama Veda. The word Raadhaa is a combination of four root letters: Ra, aa, Dha, aa, each having its own significance. Ra: rephohi koti janmagham karma bhogam subhasubham (dispels the sins of a million births and liberates one from the consequences of evil deeds) AA: akara garbha basanca, mrtyunca rogam ucchrudet (emancipates one from the cycle of birth and death and terminates diseases and death) Dha: dhakara ayusahan ucchrudet (prevents loss of longevity) AA: akaro bhava bhandhanah ucchrudet (frees one from the earthly bondage) Chandogya Upanisad (of Sama Veda) 8.13.1 states: 'syamac chavalam prapadye, savalac chyamam prapadye, syamac.' 'By the help of black (syama), we shall be introduced to the service of white (savala); by the help of white (savala), we shall be introduced to the service of black (syama).' Here black indicates Krsna and white indicates the fair complected Radha. - smriti and tantra references: SB 10.30.28 - anayaradhitah, "by her the Lord is worshiped"; Brahma-vaivarta, Garuda, Bhavisya, Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Mahabhagavata (ch. 49), Naradiya, Padma (Adi/Svarga khanda, ch. 7, Patala khanda 2.69-99), Varaha, Vayu (ch. 104), Harivamsa, Narada Pancaratra, Gita Govinda...) 'Radha' has not been mentioned in Mahabharata or even Harivamsa Purana but there is a mention of her name in Uttara and Patala Khanda of Padma Purana and in tantric treatise Pancatantra Samhita. 'Radha', however, finds a detailed analysis in Brahmavaivarta Purana, Part II, Sri Krsnajanma Khanda ('the Krsna birth episode'): krsnasyardhanga sambhuta nathasya sadrsi sati goloka vasina sreyam atra krsnajna adhuna ajoni sambhava devi mula prakrti isvari "The best of Goloka's residents appeared here by Krsna's command. She (Radha) is born of no mother and She (Radha) who is the fundamental Prakrti (the female energy) is a goddess and emerged from the better half of Krsna's being and molded after His image." sri krsnasya tejasardhena sa ca murtimati sati eka murtihi dvidha bhuva bhedo vedanirupita "Radha embodies half the divine effulgence of Sri Krsna. They are both one body divided into two beings - such is the irrefutable decree of the Veda." iyam stri sa puman kimva sa va kanta puman ayam dvirupe tejas tulye rupenanca gunena ca parakramenaca budhya va, jnanen sampadapica purate gamane naiva kintu sa vayasadhika... "In Their looks, in Their radiance, in Their attributes, in Their prowess, in Their wisdom, in Their intelligence and in Their riches, They are so identical to each other that it is difficult to tell Radha from Krsna or Krsna from Radha and that She precedes Krsna and is the older of the two." Ahirbudhnya Samhita explains that in order to create the universe the Supreme God divided himself as sakti and saktiman. Thus the Supreme Being embodied Himself as Purusa (male energy) and Prakrti (female energy). Skanda Purana corroborates the fact that Radhika is a part of the Supreme Soul: atmatu radhika tasya taiva ramanat asau "Radhika is part of thy Supreme Soul (atma) and You dally with her (atma saha ramati iti atmarama). He, therefore, is called Atmarama." Radha, a part and parcel of the same Supreme Soul, is the 'principle of ecstasy'. She is not anybody else's wife, dallying with Krsna in an extramarital situation. She is His Atma. Ekanath Das: The Urdhvamnaya-tantra, also known as Urdhvamnaya-maha-tantra, differs from the Urdhvamnaya-samhita. Reference to the Urdhvamnaya-tantra is supposedly made in the Sadhana-dipika, a book by Narayana-bhatta. I could not find these references. The Urdhvamnayana-tantra is said to deal with various mantras unto Srimati Radharani, astaksara-vidhi (esoteric explanations of the Gopala-mantra) and Gopesvari-vidhana (procedure of initiation into Radha-mantra). It is said that parts of the work are scattered here and there. There doesn't seem to be a complete manuscript. - appearance: Puranas give different versions about Her birth, according to different kalpas. 1. She was born in Gokula as a daughter of Vrsabhanu and Kalavati. (Brahmavaivarta Purana 2.49.35-42, Narada Purana 2.81, Raghunatha dasa Gosvami's Vraja-vilasa-stava) 2. When King Vrsabhanu was preparing the ground to conduct a yajna, he found Her in the earth, as Bhumi-kanya ("earth-girl", similarly to Sitadevi who was found in the wooden box buried in the earth, similar to black Madonnas). (Padma Purana, Brahma Purana 7) 3. She was born from the left side of Krsna. (Brahmavaivarta Purana) 4. At Krsna's birth Visnu asked His attendants to be born on earth. Radha took Her birth in Gokula under the star Jyestha in the morning of Suklastami day in Bhadrapada month. (Mahabharata Adi Parva 11) In another kalpa she is found in Yamuna river on a golden lotus by Maharaja Vrsabhanu. - marriage (CC Adi 10.85p. - Jiva G., Brahmanda Purana, Canto 15 - Sri Krsnajanma khanda) - separated from Krsna for 100 years (during His Dvaraka stay) due to Sridama's curse (Brahma-vaivarta Purana): 6.243 O beautiful one, I will go to Mathura and because of Sridama's curse, We will be separated. 6.252 Beloved, during the hundred years We are separated We will meet in Our dreams again and again. 6.253 In My Narayana form I will go to Dvaraka for those hundred years. In that way I will enjoy My pastimes there. - as "Haraa": (Narada-pancaratra 5.5.59) "sri-haraa" listed as one of the names of Srimati Radharani. This is actually a verse from the famous Radha-sahasra-nama-stotra (verse 59): sri-rupa sri-hara sri-da sri-kama sri-svarupini sridamananda-datri ca sridamesvara-vallabha (The last "a" in "sri-hara" is of course long.) Radha-Krsna Deities worship - origin: CC Madhya 9.289 p.: "Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura remarks that up to the advent of His Holiness Sripada Laksmipati Tirtha, it was the system in the disciplic succession of Madhvacarya to worship Lord Krsna alone. After Srila Madhavendra Puri, worship of both Radha and Krsna was established. For this reason Sri Madhavendra Puri is accepted as the root of worship in ecstatic love." Astaratha Das: Started by Caitanya Mahaprabhu; philosophical basis is Gosvami-grantha, before that Radha was worshiped only in the form of yantra; to prove genuineness of it was the reason of writing Govinda-bhasya (Baladeva Vidyabhusana). Goloka - references: Goloka is the supreme spiritual abode, where Sri Krsna lives with Sri Radha and Their innumerable devotees. It is elaborately described in Srimad Bhagavatam 10, Brahma-samhita, Brahma-vaivarta Purana (e.g. Tulasi story), etc. It is also mentioned in scriptures like Narada Pancaratra (tat sarvopari oloke), Gopala-tapani Upanisad, Garga-samhita 6.15.22, Harivamsa (Visnu Parva 19 - gavam eva tu goloko) or Rig Veda samhita 1.154.6 (devanagari, transcription, and translation): ta vam vastuny usmasi gamadhyai yatra gavo bhuri-srnga ayasah atraha tad urugayasya krsnah paramam padam avabhati bhuri "We wish to go to Your [Radha's and Krsna's] beautiful houses, about which cows with large, excellent horns are wandering. Yet distinctly shining on this earth is that supreme abode of Yours that showers joy on all, O Urugaya [Krsna, who is much praised]." <hr size="1"> Sri Radha's name in the SB Although Radharani's name does not appear directly in the Bhagavatam Sukadeva Gosvami has given it in many places in an indirect way. I have heard from my Guru Maharaja that Sukadeva Gosvami did not mention Radharani's name directly because he was the parrot of Radha and if he had mentioned Her name directly he would have gone into ecstatic trance for six months. As Maharaja Pariksit had only seven days to hear Srimad Bhagavatam he gave Radha's name in an indirect, hidden way. He cited the writings of Srila Sanatana Gosvami and Jiva Gosvami who have described the Bhagavatam phrase "sri suka uvaca" to mean "suka" - the parrot, of "Sri" - Radha. As this is a very big topic I will present only a few items here. Perhaps some other Vaishnavas may want to append to this. Srila Prabhupada has addresses the subject of Radha's name in the Bhagavatam in several places. In CC Madhya 8.100 Ramananda Raya cites SB 10.30.28: anayaradhito nunam bhagavan harir isvarah yan no vihaya govindah prito yam anayad rahah "[When the gopis began to talk among themselves, they said:] 'Dear friends, the gopi who has been taken away by Krsna to a secluded place must have worshiped the Lord more than anyone else.'" In his purport Srila Prabhupada writes: "The name Radha is derived from this verse (SB 10.30.28), from the words anayaradhitah, meaning "by Her the Lord is worshiped." Sometimes the critics of Srimad-Bhagavatam find it difficult to find Radharani's holy name in that book, but the secret is disclosed here in the word aradhita, from which the name Radha has come. Of course, the name of Radharani is directly mentioned in other Puranas. This gopi's worship of Krsna is topmost, and therefore Her name is Radha, or 'the topmost worshiper.'" Although Radharani's name is only given in an indirect way in the Bhagavatam, rasika Vaishnavas see Her presence in each and every verse. Sanatana Gosvami, Jiva Gosvami and Vishvanatha Chakravarti have given many purports showing how Sukadeva Gosvami has given Radharani's name in an indirect way. In his commentary on the first verse of the Bhagavatam Jiva gives a long explanation of how the verse is referring to Radha. A few other examples of Sukadeva's indirect references to Radha follow: In SB 10.32.4 Sukadeva has said, "kacit karambujam saurer jagrhe 'njalina - one of them seized Krsna's hand in her folded palms." Kacit refers to "*one* of them". That one is Radharani. SB 10.30.38 describes: evam uktah priyam aha skandha aruhyatam iti tatas cantardadhe krsnah sa vadhur anvatapyata "After being addressed by a particular gopi, Krsna told Her, "Climb up on My shoulder." Saying this He suddenly disappeared. Sa vadhur anvatapyata - His beloved consort (Radharani) then immediately felt great remorse." SB 10.30.26 describes how after Krsna left the rasa dance with one special gopi the other gopis went searching for "vadhvah"- that special gopi (Radharani). In the Bhramara-gita, SB 10.47.11, Sukadeva describes: kacin madhukaram drstva dhyayanti krsna-sangamam priya-prasthapitam dutam kalpayitvedam abravit "*One* of the gopis, while meditating on Her previous association with Krsna, saw a honeybee before Her and imagined it to be a messenger sent by Her beloved. Thus She spoke as follows." The word "kacin" in this verse, meaning "one of the gopis" refers to Radha. Aside from the Bhagavatam, Radharani is described elaborately in Brahma-vaivarta, Padma, and Narada Puranas as well as Garga Samhita. In the 4th chapter of Ujjvala-nilamani, "Sri Radha-prakaranam" texts 3 and 4, Rupapada cites the Gopala-tapani Upanisad (of Atharva Veda), Uttara-khanda, where Radha is called Gandharvi and the Rg Veda-parisista where Her name Radha is mentioned. There She is described as the consort of Madhava. A note of interest: Although this verse was quoted by Rupa, the original texts for this part of the Gopal-tapani Upanisad were unknown to scholars for many, many years. In 1966 one Vaishnava scholar here in Orissa named Fakir Mohan Das discovered original palm leaf copies of this rare literature in the Balasore district of northern Orissa. After finding it he quickly reprinted it to preserve it. The following is an excerpt from an article written by Dr Fakir Mohan entitled "The History of Sri Sri Radha Krsna Worship in Orissan Culture": "In Ujjvala Nilamani Srila Rupa Goswami cites the Gopala Tapani Upanisad and the Rg Parisista to show the authenticity of the worship of Srimati Radharani: gopalottaratapinyam yad gandharveti visrutah radhet rk parisiste ca, etc. 'From the Vedic literature we come to know that Sri Radharani is referred to as 'Gandharvi' in the second part of the Gopal Tapani, and as 'Radha' in the Rg Parishistha.' "Srila Vishvanath Cakravarti Thakur and Baladev Vidyabhushan have stated in their commentaries on Gopala Tapani Upanisad that this tapani of the Atharva Veda, Paippalada branch, was previously being recited by the brahmanas of Gujarat and Orissa. Although presently there are no brahmanas of the Atharva Veda Paippalada branch found in Gujarat, thousands of this lineage are still living in the vicinity of the village Remuna, the birth place of Srila Baladev Vidyabhushan, and in other places of Orissa. In the absence of any help from ancient manuscripts, the original text of the Paippalada Samhita can be reconstructed even today from the tradition, which the village reciters still carry with them unimpaired. In this area some rare Paippalada Samhita manuscripts have been found along with a number of hitherto unknown manuals of special Paippalada rites which give an insight into the social, religious and cultural traditions of Paippaladiyans found in the tapani literature. "In the 18th century, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushan has quoted the Purusa-bodhini Sruti, Purusottama Tapini, in his Prameya Ratnavali in connection with the worship of Sri Sri Radha Krsna in the Vedic period. Vaishnava poets like Anandi of Nilachala Dhama and Narahari Cakravarti of Sri Khanda, Bengal, have quoted from the Purusa-bodhini Sruti to establish the authentic nature of the worship of Sri Sri Radha Krsna and Gauranga Mahaprabhu. "Later in the 18th century, Srila Radha Krsna Goswami, the disciple of Haridas Pandit (who was the grand-disciple of Gadadhar Pandit Goswami of Puri), published four prapathakas (chapters) of the Purusa-bodhini sruti in his Sadhana-dipika. Thakur Bhaktivinode of village Chotimangalpur in Kendrapara District, Orissa, also collected the Sri Caitanya Upanisad of the Paippalada branch from Pandit Madhusudan Das of Sambalpur, Orissa, publishing it in 1887. In 1901 Mahamahopadhyaya Sadashiva Kavyakantha of Puri published some additional chapters of this Sruti. In 1966 we collected all twelve prapathakas of this Purusa-bodhini Sruti from different parts of Orissa and published them from our Sri Bhaktivinode Library in Baripada." Sometimes people cannot understand why Rādhikā's name is not mentioned in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Actually, however, Rādhikā can be understood from the word ārādhana, which indicates that She enjoys the highest loving affairs with Kṛṣṇa.

It's quite obvious you are ignorant of the supplementary Vedic literature, especially Vyasadeva's own commentary on Vedanta-sutra the Bhagavat Purana and how it was spoken the the incarnation of Siva - Sukadeva Goswami. You are obviously ignorant of Sri Caitanya Avatar, his teachings, the Yuga Dharma, Vishnu-tattva, Siva-tattva and the Vaishnava siddhanta. So, it would be fruitless and useless to try and discuss spiritual topics with anyone who is so ignorant of all the important subjects that you would need to be familiar with in order to have any sort of intelligible conversation on the purpose of the Vedas and the message of the Vedas. If you weren't so ignorant of the Dharma shastras you would know which Purana has been endorsed by Vyasadeva himself as the essence of Vedic knowledge and the fruit of the Vedic desire tree. I can't discuss spiritual topics with you because your knowledge base is incomplete and you have only a small sectarian view of the Sanatan Dharma. You don't have any proper understanding about Vaikuntha, Viraja, Brahmanda etc etc., so really it's impossible to have any kind of intelligent conversation with you.

But, I have to point out that Sridhar Maharaja gave certain instructions and words of guidance based upon misinformation that was the bold face lie of Jayapataka Maharaja setting in front of Sridhar Maharaja and telling a lie that Srila Prabhupada appointed 11 men to be successor gurus. Sridhar Maharaja responded to a number of their questions based upon his acceptance of this lie as being the truth. Considering that, we have to be very careful with those instructions that were given on the basis of false information about the final intructions of Srila Prabhupada. In other words, most all the specific instructions he gave about these being official ISKCON gurus must have to be rejected as it was based on a false premise and false information. Jayapataka Maharaja lied and he never apologized to Sridhar Maharaja or the ISKCON devotees for a lie that has resulted in untold damage to ISKCON and the movement of Srila Prabhupada.

some good thoughts there. I have long felt that Sridhar Maharaja left Govinda Maharaja the buildings, the deity worship and the official stamp of approval, but in his instructions during the crisis period after the passing of Srila Prabhupada he gave some precious jewels to the whole movement and devotees for all time to come. As you said, he did share with the devotees some window into his absolute side and gave many important and valuable concepts to the rank and file devotees of the world, even though in the end he gave the brick and morter establishment to Govinda Maharaja, which surpised nobody and was predictable. Sridhar Maharaja spilled out many precious jewels for all the devotees of the world to have, even though he gave the institution over to Govinda Maharaja. When it is all said and done, Sridhar Maharaja gave as much to the Vaishnava world as he ever left to Govinda Maharaja. The jewels he gave to the Krishna consciousness movement are more valuable than any building or property could ever be. The official Sridhar Maharaja is not the complete Sridhar Maharaja. I am personally much more concerned with the UNOFFICIAL Sridhar Maharaja than the Sridhar Maharaja of property, buildings and official successors. I am sure he has unofficial successors apart from the official successor.

Lord Shiva explains in Bhagavat Purana that even Lord Krishna is not to be known. Lord Krishna is a hidden treasure of the Vedas that only his devotees can find. Shaivas ignore the most prevalent God of the Puranas and bury their head in the sand of a couple of Tamasic Puranas and think they know everything. An unbiased study of the Puranic conclusions clearly establishes Lord Vishnu as the Supreme Godhead and the origin of Siva-tattva.

You are obviously unfit to understand or discuss Srimati Radharani or understand suddha-shakti, and I am as well unwilling to make her an object of debate on this public forum. Suffice it is to say that that every Shaiva story told in so-called Shaiva sects are not authenticated or validated with proper shastric reference. There are plenty of pseudo-Shaivas running around India and the rest of the world as well. Every tall tale that some so-called Shaiva pops in and spouts off cannot be accepted as authentic. There are genuine Shaivites and there are bogus Shaivites, just as there are genuine Vaishnavas and bogus Vaishnavas. Don't get me wrong. I don't claim to be anything. I am just a bewildered jivatma caught in the clutches of Mayadevi. I am not a religious person. I just enjoy reading Puranic texts. Probably, I am an asura. That is my own best calculation.

Not that it's really any of my business or affecting me, but that scenario there appears to me to have the makings of a major meltdown of Sri Chaitanya Saraswata Matha as an international organization founded on the spiritual power of Srila Sridhar Maharaja. When it's all said and done, I think it will be quite evident that ISKCON was not the only international Gaudiya institution to meet with cataclysmic difficulties. I foresee that SCSM as well as the following of Narayana Maharaja will as well have their fare share of kali-yuga interference. Then, the only serious alternatives to ISKCON will become less attractive an alternative to ISKCON. In the future, I think ISKCON will always be the most formidable Gaudiya preaching mission on the planet. I think the legacy of Srila Prabhupada will simply grow and grow in almost a Pauline Christianity fashion. Srila Prabhupada will be something like the Jesus of Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the western world. The western world has such an orientation to the idea of ONE savior religiousity that the Gaudiya Vaishnava faith will probably evolve in that direction, especially as the list of fallen gurus grows and grows. Eventually, the big Gaudiya institutions will realize that the only way to revive the faith in the Gaudiya mission will be to resurrect some sort of ritvik concept similar to the Christian tradition. When "change or die" confronts the institutions, they might very well change.

Thats a little confusing. If Sridhar Maharaja said that only Govinda Maharaja is his authorized successor in the Matha, then that seems to mean that when Srila Govinda Maharaja is gone that the successor will have to be a disciple of Govinda Maharaja because Srila Sridhar Maharaja explicitly stated that ONLY Govinda Maharaja will be his successor. As well, it seems that a blanket prohibition against any disciple aside from Govinda Maharaja being an acharya at the Matha excludes the possibility that any other disciple will ever become uttama-adhikari and qualified to accept disciples. It seems that Srila Sridhar Maharaja only has ONE successor and that really none of his other disciples can ever claim to be successor acharya to Srila Sridhar Maharaja. If a disciple of Sridhar Maharaja other than Govinda Maharaja becomes qualified even to the perfection of svarupa-siddhi, he can still never become acharya or guru because Sridhar Maharaja only approved Govinda Maharaja. The only way any other disciple of Sridhar Maharaja can ever become acharya now is if they break away and start their own mission which doesn't have any approval or authority from Sridhar Maharaja and would surely be frowned upon by the SCSM authorities. It seems almost as if Sridhar Maharaja restricted any disciple other than Govinda Maharaja from ever becoming acharya and accepting disciples? It almost appears that there can never be more than one successor acharya to Srila Sridhar Maharaja? Unlike Srila Prabhupada, I don't recall Srila Sridhar Maharaja instructing that all his disciples would have to become spiritual masters. Srila Prabhupada said things like "you, all my disciples, you will also have to become spiritual master". Sridhar Maharaja made it clear that Govinda Maharaja was the only successor he authorized. Saving the mission or saving the world. Two very different conceptions.

Srila Prabhupada didn't speak in terms of living spiritual master or physical spiritual master etc. etc. Srila Prabhupada's most common instruction was that, if someone was serious about spiritual life, liberation and devotional service, the person should JOIN ISKCON. Thus, Srila Prabhupada summed-up all the shastric instructions about taking shelter of a bon-fide spiritual master, inquiring submissively and rendering service unto him in his consistent instruction that serious persons should JOIN ISKCON. This instruction "join ISKCON" expresses Srila Prabhupada's idea that ISKCON is a spiritual society of devotees following the directions of the acharya. Srila Prabhupada gave the advice to "join ISKCON" many times in his books and instructions. This idea of joining and becoming a "member" of a society of devotees under the guidance of the acharya, most certainly is somewhat of a departure from the more traditional concept of searching out a guru and becoming a direct disciple of the spiritual master. Srila Prabhupada used this terminology over and over again in his books. So, the message he gave in his books was usually more oriented to "joining the society of devotees" under the acharya than in searching around for a guru to take diksha from. In the books of Srila Prabhupada we certainly see a departure from the traditional concept of making an individual effort to search out a spiritual master and become a direct disciple. By joining ISKCON one is entering into a society of Vaishnavas where there are many, many trained and experienced devotees who will in essence be siksha guru to the new members. For those who were in ISKCON during the days of Srila Prabhupada it was quite obvious that all the senior devotees helped to teach and train the new devotees and there was certainly no shortage of more advanced Vaishnavas willing to teach and train new members. So, ISKCON was a society of Vaishnavas where essentially there were siksha gurus everywhere you looked. Srila Prabhupada was the acharya of the society and as such the diksha guru. He even arranged for his delegated representatives to initiate new devotees on his behalf as "members of the society". As siksha gurus and representatives of the acharya, all the senior devotees shared in the purification process of new devotees. As a delegated representative one also assumes the task of dealing with the karma and sinful mentality of new devotees. Really, if we take the teachings of Srila Prabhupada that he gave in his books, we have to see that his idea was about joining the society of devotees following the acharya and not really about individual guruship or individual discipleship apart from the guruship of Srila Prabhupada and the discipleship of all the members of ISKCON. Here is just one of the many examples of Srila Prabhupada emphasizing the society as a whole and not individual guruship of any ISKCON member.

No doubt there are lots of really mixed-up and confused "Hindus" in India and India's history of bogus gurus, bogus avatars, bogus yogis have made finding the genuine Sanatan Dharma practically impossible. For the followers of Vedic religions to call themselves "Hindu" is like Americans calling themselves "gringos". In Latin American they refer to Americans as "gringos", but Americans don't refer to themselves as "gringos". So, for Indians who follow the Vedic scriptures to refer to themselves as "Hindu" is just like if here in America we all start referring to Americans as "gringos".

A ploy? A ruse? Wouldn't that be duplistic? If Narayana Maharaja would have just presented himself an an acharya from another institution with no interest or even willingness to become the "successor to Srila Prabhupada" there would have been a lot less uproar over his getting involved with ISKCON affairs and a lot more interest in him from the ISKCON congregationals. Thats a cheap shot and very, very far from truth. Sridhar Maharaja was practically a babaji by the time ISKCON met with disaster. Anybody that knows anything about him at all knows that he could never have even been dragged into ISKCON leadership by any means.