Guruvani

We often hear warnings and cautions about Vaishnava aparadha, about how dangerous and destructive it is to the devotional creeper, but is not Vaishnava aparadha a two way street? Do only rank and file devotees have to fear Vaishnava aparadha? Or, do "gurus" also have to be careful about offending even rank-and-file devotees who are not "gurus"? Why is it that only non-gurus are accused of Vaishnava aparadha, whilst gurus seem to be free to discourage and insult lesser devotees and in fact discourage them in pursuing Krishna consciousness as being out of reach and impossible for them? Should "gurus" also be careful about offending even insignificant devotees who don't have position, influence and prestige in Vaishnava society? Or, is aparadha a one way street that only small devotees of no significance have to he cautious of? What if a guru is guilty of discouraging neophytes who are sincere but unfortunate? Can "gurus" commit aparadha, or is that only something that only little devotees have to worry about? If a "guru" insults and discourages a neophyte, is that an offense? How careful should "gurus" be in talking harshly about neophytes who are interested in Krishna consciousness but are not strong enough to keep up the standard of regulative principles. If a neophyte is not pretending to be guru or a leader in Vaishnava society and is just a humble soul struggling to make ends meet, how harsh and critical can "gurus" be before that harsh talk actually becomes offensive to the small devotees of the Lord? Is being "guru" not the most dangerous and delicate situation of all when it comes to dealings with small neophyte devotees of the Lord?

For the last two days I have been getting an error message that says the file can't be found when I try to access vedabase.net. Is anybody else having that problem and does anybody know what is up? It's been at least two days now, so it seems more than just some service time for the server.

Good comparison. But, I don't think there is any comparison because I have never had any political agenda like the GBC has. Politics don't sway me. It's something more genuine than that. I gave Narayana Maharaja a listen with an open heart. He turned me off and there is nothing I can do about that.

I think the person who posted this letter has invaded the privacy of Srila Saraswati Goswami. I think he has taken liberties he had no right to take. I am speaking for myself as I can't speak for anybody else. That is why I use the word I when I say what I feel like I want to say. I think that says enough.

I think personal letters should stay exactly that. This was a personal and private letter. I don't think anyone has the right to make these kinds of personal letters for public display. I also question the motives of the anonymous guest who has posted this letter. Could be some enemy of the Saraswata sampradaya as far as that goes. I don't think that anyone should be allowed to anonymously post such private and personal letters as this. the anonymous posting is immediate grounds for suspicion as far as I am concerned. I don't think this person is a friend of the Saraswata camp. I think he is a trouble-maker.

for me, I don't really have to find Srila Prabhupada in another great Vaishnava to appreciate him. I didn't see Srila Prabhupada coming through Sridhar Maharaja, but I felt a lot of regard for him because he was sweet in his own way. I don't have to find Prabhupada in another Vaishnava to appreciate them, because really every devotee is unique and relishable in their own way. I certainly don't see Srila Prabhupada coming through Narayana Maharaja. I didn't see Srila Prabhupada coming through Sridhar Maharaja either. I don't think in that way. I appreciate a devotee for his own unique sweetness. I don't need to trace Srila Prabhupada in them to appreciate them. Mainly, we need to trace genuine bhakti and devotion in a person to appreciate them. They don't have to be of the same flavor or the same vein. I taste two very different kinds of sweetness in Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhar Maharaja. They are both sweet, but with their own unique flavor and mood. For me it is not a matter of seeing Prabhupada in someone to appreciate them. If I can detect a very high kind of devotion and a high level of realization in them then I appreciate them. Unfortunately for me I guess, I have always found too much bitterness and sadhaka fanaticism in Narayana Maharaja to really relish his nature. He has said many things that totally turned me off. Srila Prabhupada said many things that turned-off some of his own disciples. Some people find Prabhupada as rude and outragious - I don't feel that. So, like Sridhar Maharaja has said, there is the tasting machine inside our hearts and each of us taste different devotees, gurus and acharyas differently according to some unknown inner nature that none of us can fully ever understand. For me, Prabhupada could be coming from the group of Subal Sakha and Sridhar Maharaja could be coming from the camp of Rupa Manajari, but I relish them both. I don't experience the same feeling in hearing from Sridhar Maharaja as I do hearing from Srila Prabhupada. They don't have to be the same as far as I am concerned - they just both have to be naturally relishable. Narayana Maharaja has always left a bad taste in my "tasting machine" but apparently there are many others who relish him very much. I don't think I will ever be one of them, because I have read enough of his lectures to know that his words rub me the wrong way. It's probably more my fault than his. But, its just the nature of my own "tasting machine". I am sure it has it's limitations and is not the perfect tasting machine. But, it's not anything unique to Narayan Maharaja. I am not a big fan of Govinda Maharaja either, though I do have to respect him and admire him for being the pet disciple of Sridhar Maharaja.

Well, Narayana Maharaja was not in the disciplic succession of Srila Prabhupada which follows from Saraswata Thakur to Srila Prabhupada to the disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Personally, I think it is impossible for someone who is not in the picture of Srila Prabhupada's succession to become his successor. To propose that Srila Prabhupada would reject all his own disciples who helped him accomplish his mission, and appoint someone who refused numerous appeals to help him, is laughable if you ask me. I think the traditional way is that a disciple become the successor to the acharya. How can you be successor if you are not in his succession? Narayana Maharaja can be an acharya in his own right without being a successor to Srila Prabhupada. Drawing mantras on a corpse with clay hardly makes anyone the successor of an acharya. It's obvious that none of the disciples of Srila Prabhupada knew how to perform the funeral ceremony. Being the funeral director for the funeral ceremony of Srila Prabhupada does not make one a successor to Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada never breathed a word about him being successor. If Srila Prabhupada wanted Narayana Maharaja to be his successor he would have said so. Otherwise, it's just a joke for the people to be trying to convince the leaders of ISKCON that Narayana Maharaja is the successor to Srila Prabhupada. Narayana Maharaja was not even a ritvik for Srila Prabhupada. So, I don't see how he is going then jump over all the empowered and appointed representatives of Srila Prabhupada that had been representing him for several years in ISKCON. This idea of the funeral director becoming the successor is one of the most ridiculous propositions that have ever come from the camp of Narayana Maharaja. You can't be a successor if you aren't a disciple first. I am not even sure that Narayana Maharaja was considered the successor to his own guru, much less Srila Prabhupada. I have not seen anything in the tradition where a sannyasi has been the successor to his own guru and then an acharya of an institution that he never had any affiilation with. It's kinda bizarre that anyone could say that Narayana Maharaja would be brought in out of nowhere to be the acharya of ISKCON when during the Prabhupada era in ISKCON Narayana Maharaja was nowhere to be found and for the most part amongst the class of Gaudiya Math people that Srila Prabhupada forbade his disciples to associate with. Until it came time for the funeral, Narayana Maharaja was a zero as far as ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada's guidance was concerned. This is not denigrating him, as I see him as very great in his own right. It's just that I don't see how anyone could propose with a straight face that he is the successor to Srila Prabhupada. He can be an acharya in his own right without being the successor to Srila Prabhupada. He doesn't have to be the successor to Srila Prabhupada to be an acharya or a guru. I don't see why the two have to be linked. I think it is stupid.

According to Srila Prabhupada, the siksha guru comes first and then generally becomes the diksha guru later on. First, just try find out what Vaishnava actually inspires you either by his example or by his writings and then try to learn as much as you can about the science of Krishna consciousness. If you learn more about the science of Krishna consciousness from the books of a bygone acharya, then just take advantage of what he has left for posterity and learn all you can about the science of Krishna consciousness primarily from Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Nectar of Devotion and Teachings of Lord Chaitanya. Don't go shopping for a diksha guru. When Krishna arranges the diksha guru will come to you and be as obvious as the light of day. Don't be guru shopping. Try to find your natural guru who is teaching you Krishna consciousness. If learning the science of Krishna consciousness for you is based primarily on books, then just stick to the books until a guru who you absolutely admire and revere becomes available to you. Don't worry about formal diksha. Formal diksha is not as important as learning the Science of Krishna consciousness. The movement is plagued with a horde of superficial devotees who put too mcuh emphasis on formal gurus and not enough emphasis on actually learning Srimad Bhagavatam. In the camp of Lord Chaitanya, learning Srimad Bhagavatam was always given the premiere importance above and beyond accepting some formal diksha guru. Svarupa Damodar sent the masses of devotees back home with instructions to study Srimad Bhagavatam. He didn't stress very much this formal diksha which is the latest fad around the Hare Krishna movement. The diksha guru will be as plain as the nose on your face. You don't need to go guru shopping. Don't get sucked into that fraud deception that can rob you of the chance to learn Srimad Bhagavatam from a self-realized acharya. If any diskha guru minimizes the importance of learning the Bhagavatam of Srila Prabhupada, then run in the other direction as fast as you can.

The problem I have with accepting for example the demons of Krishna-lila as allegorical figures is that you are only a small baby step away from Krishna thus being an allegorical figure, Nanda Maharaja being an allegorical figure and the Vrindavan pastimes as being allegorical stories and fables. The next thing you know Dhruva Maharaja is allegorical, Prahlad Maharaja is allegorical and ultimately Arjuna is allegorical as well as Maharaja Parikshit, Sukadeva Goswami etc. etc. ad infinitum. As I stated already the is an allegorical aspect to everything and everyone in the Vedic texts, yet at the same time these aspects of God and of the world all ultimately take form and shape in the minds and hearts of living beings. Sure, Nanda Maharaja is an allegorical figure in one sense, yet at the same time the "principle" of "Nanda Maharaja" or could we say the character of Nanda Maharaja became personified in the pastimes of the Lord as he descended 5000 years ago by his internal potency in the land of India. I think there is an allegorical aspect to most everything in the Bhagavat, yet at the same time these characters, qualities and principles become personified in many ways and at many times in the history of the world. Narada Muni could also be seen as allegorical, but are we going to write off Narada Muni as an actual person who actually performed the deeds and acts that he has been attributed in the Bhagavat? The first time I read Krishna Book I understood that Jarasandha was actually a description of my own sinful material existence, yet at the same time I think that there actually was a character of Jarasandha that was personified in Krishna's pastimes on Earth. As Krishna was tearing in half Jarasandha I understood that Krishna was tearing in half my own false ego and false identity with this body. But, I never wrote off Jarasandha as being an actual character that was personified in the pastimes of Krishna. Go back to Krishna Book and read about the killing of Jarasandha with the understanding that Jarasandha is none other than your own false ego and false identity that has been put together by the witch called Maya.

And it is this kind of ridiculous propaganda that has driven an eternal wedge between ISKCON and the camp of Narayana Maharaja. He will never be the successor to Srila Prabhupada and to even advocate such an idea is totally futile and counter-productive to the ambitions of his followers to be somehow accomodated in the greater-ISKCON society.

Anyway, this topic is about the natural spiritual master. It's not about formal diksha gurus that have become a fad around the Hare Krishna movement. We are trying to focus on how to recognize the natural spiritual master, and not get caught up in guru shopping for some formal diksha guru to stroke one's false prestige. If we really follow the instructions of Mahaprabhu, all this guru shopping would stop and devotees would be allowed accept the natural spiritual master and stop all this guru shopping. Guru shoppers are by default going to get cheated. The guru should be as plain as day. If you need to shop around for a guru, then you have already missed him.

But, if he can dedicate himself selflessly to the will of the Lord with less emphasis on his inner necessity, then he might be better off, because in the neophyte stages our "inner necessity" can be very much affected by our politics, our limited knowledge, our distorted concepts and our personal prejudices. Inner necessity would more than likely come at a higher stage where attachment, affection and spiritual emotion start to awaken in a genuine form. In the present day Krishna consciousness movement many neophytes are being more moved by politics and prejudice than by a genuine awakening of "inner necessity". New devotees want their own "Prabhupada" to fasten on to, but can this fad be perpetuated forever with each new generation manufacturing their own "Prabhupada" by the vote a horde of neophytes? I guess I was fortunate that my spiritual master came to be naturally and I didn't have to go through the shopping around for a guru process that devotees coming to the movement nowadays are going through. I don't like this shopping around for a guru business, because I believe that Krishna sends the guru to you that he wants you to have. If you have to shop around for a guru, then I think you will most often end up making the wrong choice because there should be no question of who the guru is and no need of shopping around. If you are shopping for a guru, most often that means that you have already overlooked the guru that Krishna sent to save you. shopping around for the guru most often results in disrespecting the guru that brought you Krishna consciousness in favor of some formal guru that satisifies the mind and the ego and maybe some conception of prestige in devotee society. Guru shoppers are a strange breed. I don't relate very well with the guru shopper club.

I will have to check it out, but I think I remember reading in Krishna Book that these demons in Krishna lila were many times mystic yogis from siddha-loka. They personified certain evils and vices of the world and came down to participate in the pastimes of the Lord as demons and enemies. So, allegorically they did reprsent these things that Bhaktivinode mentioned, yet at the same time they were actual beings coming to do their part in the pastimes of the Lord, either out of devotion or out of envy and hatred for the Lord Krishna. Bhaktivinode probably had a particular audience in mind when he wrote of these allegorical meanings and so he emphasised that aspect in that circumstance. That is not to say that Bhaktivinode did not understand that these demons of Krishna lila were actual personifications of these vices and sins and had actual forms and functions in Krishna lila. According to his audience and his intentions he would emphasize a particular aspect of these characters in his writings. Bhaktivinode did come from a section of society that had serious prejudice against the Bhagavtam and thought it to be full of crazy ideas. Maybe in his preaching mission he tried to extend a hand to these people and show them a way to think of Srimad Bhagavatam aside from a literal understanding which is not possible for sections of Hindu society that had embraced Chrisitanity and Brahmoism as did Bhaktivinode before his conversion to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Bhaktivinode admits that earlier in his life he had a bad opinion of the Bhagavatam and thought it to be full of crazy ideas that had no place in modern society. After his conversion, maybe he tried to reach out to some of his fellow citizens who were suffering from the same prejudices that he had also been a victim of before finding Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his teachings. so, he tried to show some allegorical meanings to Bhagavatam in that spirit.

NO, I am saying that as far as Srila Prabhupada was concerned he stated in his latter days that other than himself Sridhar Maharaja was the only person that he recognized as qualified to translate the Gaudiya texts into English. Maybe Narayana Maharaja is qualified, but he never got the stamp of approval from Srila Prabhupada and that has to be taken into consideration by all the devotees of greater ISKCON. Narayana Maharaja never got authorized by Srila Saraswati Thakur - the founder of the Saraswata Gaudiya sect, nor Srila Prabhupada - the founder of the international society for Krishna consciousness. So, considering that Narayana Maharaja is self-authorized or authorized by his sycophants, there are many people of greater ISKCON who will never accept Narayana Maharaja as having proper authorization to preach in the western world. Srila Prabhupada gave him the decisive instruction to "help my disciples". That is a far cry from instructing him to become guru and accept his own disciples from out of the ISKCON society and the devotees that he made with his books. "Help my disciples" is an indirect way of saying "don't accept disciples from out of ISKCON". That is my humble opinion.

generic instructions referenced from an unauthorized book is hardly a valid authority to prove that all the disciples of Saraswati Thakur were empowered to preach to the western world in English. Many and most of the disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur did not have the language skills to even begin to translate the Gaudiya canon into English. As a matter of fact, I think I remember that Srila Prabhupada stated that other than himself that Sridhar Maharaja was the only other person who was qualified to translate the Gaudiya shastra into English.

I am not denigrating anyone. I am pointing out facts that Srila Prabhupada is the authorized agent of the Saraswata sampradaya to translate books and preach to the English speaking world. As a matter of fact, I think I remember that Srila Saraswati Thakur mentioned that instruction in either the first or second time Srila Prabhupada saw him. I don't know of any similar kind of profound calling assigned to any of the other disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur. Srila Prabhupada has been authorized through the parampara system for his particular mission in sevice to the Lord. I know that Srila Saraswati Thakur also wanted Sridhar Maharaja to preach in the western world and eventually Sridhar Maharaja was blessed to fulfill that instruction in a very profound way. I don't know of any occasion or condition in which Narayana Maharaja was empowered through the disciplic succession to preach in the western world. Srila Prabhupada asked him to "help my disciples". It is quite obvious that Srila Prabhupada was asking him not to harm his mission and the assist ISKCON in being disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada never requested him to become a guru in ISKCON or any such thing. He asked him to "help my disciples". I don't see any instruction or authority in that request that Narayana Maharaja take for himself disciples from out of the ISKCON paradigm. If anyone can show anywhere or anytime Srila Prabhupada requested Narayana Maharaja to do anything aside from "help my disciples", then I would be glad to see it. I would like to see any authority from Srila Prabhupada for Narayana Maharaja to accept disciples from out of the ISKCON society. any takers? I am waiting.......................................................

Faith and freedom are all good and well, but I see that there is a class of devotee around the movement nowadays who have not given proper regard and proper recognition to the contribution of Srila Prabhupada to their spiritual life and who are artificially give more credit than is due to the formal diksha guru. Faith cannot be legislated that is true, but at the same time there are obvious cases of neophyte devotees who are not giving proper respect and regard to Srila Prabhupada for his contribution to their own status in Krishna consciousness and have allowed their own politics and prejudices push Srila Prabhupada back into a corner where he doesn't belong. Faith is not always so free and freelance. We have a duty and an obligation to give proper respect to our natural spiritual master who teaches us Srimad Bhagavatam. Last account I had neither Narayana Maharaja or Sridhar Maharaja has given the English speaking world Srimad Bhagavatam. So, the natural spiritual master for the whole English speaking world is Srila Prabhupada as he is was authorized by Srila Saraswati Goswami to translate and publish books for the English speaking world. I don't know of any other acharya in the Saraswata line that has been specifically authorized and empowered by Srila Saraswati Thakur to translate the Gaudiya scriptures for the western world. Srila Prabhupada was specifically singled out amongst the disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur for that mission. I don't know of any acharya authorizing Narayan Maharaja to translate the Gaudiya canon for the English speaking world. It's obvious that he appointed himself to do that, so that does not really make him authorized or the natural spiritual master for the western world. Freedom and choice is all good, but not if it is founded on artificial and external considerations at the expense of insulting and disrespecting the natural spiritual master and father of the Krishna consciousness movement in the western world. It's obvious there is a lot of contempt and negligence on the part of many devotees who have artificially accepted an unauthorized agent in place of the authorized agent and natural spiritual master of the Krishna conscioueness movement - Srila Prabhupada. We don't authorize the agents of the parampara. They have to have authority coming from above. That authority is obviously missing in a number of so-called gurus who have become the latest fad in the Krishna consciousness movement. Prabhupada is not a fad guru that bitter and disgruntled devotees accept in definace of the GBC out of spite and revenge. Prabhupada is the natural spiritual master of the entire western world, because he is the authorized agent that Srila Saraswati Thakur empowered to lead the Krishna consciousness movement in the western world by translating the Gaudiya canon into English. Srila Prabhupada was authorized by the founder of the Saraswata Gaudiya Sampradaya. Narayana Maharaja was not.

The Bhagavatam is hailed as sufficient in itself for God realization. It's more important to just study the Bhagavatam very seriously and then we should find that all the important questions that need to be answered are asked by more qualified persons than us in the Bhagavat and answered by the greatest authorities on self-realization. Because we are immature, childish and impatient we have so many foolish and childish questions that we sometimes aren't patient enough to learn from the lessons of the Bhagavatam. However, if we are so impatient, childish and immature that we cannot give the Bhagavatam the proper chance to enlighten and educate us in self-realization, then we aren't going to become self-realized by asking unqualified questions to unqualified gurus who are themselves not self-realized. The Bhagavatam is sufficient. All our childish and foolish questions to unqualified gurus won't really help us. Sure, we can learn many things from the Vaishnavas. We need to learn practical things from them. Nobody disputes that. But, when it comes to the Gaudiya theology, there is no better and more complete education than comes from the study of Srimad Bhagavatam. If you will remember, in the pastimes of Mahaprabhu many devotees came to see the Lord and get some mercy. All of them were instructed by Svarupa Damodar Goswami to go and make a complete and thorough study of Srimad Bhagavatam as Sri Gadadhar Pandit was so enraptured with. The principle instruction coming from the camp of Mahaprabhu was to go back home and study Srimad Bhagavatam. For the rank and file devotees of Mahaprabhu, this was the consistant and relentless instruction that came from the leading disciples of Mahaprabhu.

when it comes to the pastimes of Lord Krishna I think we have to be very careful with this allegorical thinking, because it is my view that these characters that Bhaktivinode describe here as allegorical are both allegorical in one sense and factual in the sense that these things became personified in the pastimes of the Lord. I have always known and felt that these characters, demons and spirits of Krishna's pastimes represented certain evils and sins of the world, yet these sins and these vices became personified in the pastimes of the Lord and these pastimes actually occured. Another thing we need to remember is that if we go to searching for archaeological evidence about the Krishna pastimes and Dwaraka, Mathura etc, we are going to be frustrated because all these pastimes are manifested by the internal potency of the Lord and they do not leave archaeological evidence behind. I firmly believe that there is an allegorical and literal aspect to the demons and pastimes of Lord Krishna. For those who presume to present them as purely allegorical all I can say is woe unto you and offer them respects from a distance.

aha! finally someone has seen through me!! Next thing you know they will be asking me to make commercials for yellowbook.com !!!!!

traditionally, only the parts of the Bhagavat where it is explicitly explained to be allorgorical, is it accepted as allegorical. So, before anyone goes to portray something as allegorical they need to show proof in the shastra itself where the story is acclaimed as allegorical. so, unless you can find and show evidence that a story or depiction is allegorical, then you should not be describing it in an allegorical way. We cannot invent our own allegorical explanations. If the shastra does not explain how it is allegorical then we should accept it as factual. So, nobody has any license to go and manufacture some allegorical meaning to anything in the scriptures. The scriptures clearly explain which stories are fables and allegories. I have shown that there is an explanation and a statement in the Bhagavatam that the story of King Puranjana is an allegorical story or fable as Srila Prabhupada states. So, before you clowns go getting all out of line and getting confused about what is allegory and what is fact, you have to show proof somewhere in an authorized text that the story or the instructions are admitted to be allegorical. There is no shastric support for the fall from Goloka theory, so in light of that we must necessarily come to understand that Srila Prabhupada's alluding to a fall from Goloka as the origin of the jiva as nothing more than an allegorical story intended to appease the minds of beginners who weren't up to hearing a tedious explanation that might make them confused and going away with some impersonalist misunderstanding because they failed to grasp the fundamental truth that Krishna is the source of the brahmajyoti and that the brahmajyoti is simultaneously one with yet different from Lord Krishna.

And I would have to reply that many devotees whose natural spiritual master was Srila Prabhupada, who became devotees on the basis of reading the books of Srila Prabhupada, have accepted formal initiation from Narayana Maharaja and other "gurus" and not given proper credit to their natural spiritual master and given too much credit to their formal initiating spiritual master. I am one who believes that those devotees who failed to give proper acknowledgment and honor to Srila Prabhupada after having become devotees on the basis of his books and who then give too much position and authority to their formal diksha guru Narayan Maharaja or someone else are making a mistake and are committing offense to their natural spritual master because of giving too much credit to their formal spiritual master. Then, these ungrateful persons want to move their natural spiritual master to the background and give all credit and gratitude to some formal diksha guru at the expense of the natural and original spiritual master. I think there are many ingrates among the "disciples" of Narayana Maharaja who failed to give proper honor and position to their real saviour and their natural spiritual master Srila Prabhupada. I think they have deprived and denied Srila Prabhupada the proper position, respect and honor he commands as their natural spiritual master who was there for them when these formal gurus were just scratching their butts and trying to figure out a way to gather some followers to support his lifestyle as an unemployed person living off the hard work of others. There is a lot of this dishonoring of the natural spiritual master of the Krishna consciousness movement going on as these ingrates in turn give way too much credit and recognition to some formal diksha guru who came around giving formal diksha to the natural disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Natural disciples are not always formal disciples, as was the case with Sukadeva and Vyasadeva. A natural spiritual master means that there is a natural disciple. When a natural disciples dishonors his natural spiritual master and gives too much credit to his formal spiritual master you have an offense. Sukadeva never took formal diksha. He didn't need diksha because by the mercy of Vyasadeva he had already been elevated to the Vaishnava platform beyond the superficial formalities of formal diksha. Sukadeva got spiritual diksha. He didn't need formal diksha. Sukadeva got spiritual diksha by hearing Srimad Bhagavatam from Vyasadeva. That process is what moved him beyond formal diksha and made Vyasadeva his natural spiritual master. The Krishna consciousenss movement needs a natural spiritual master and not so many formal spiritual masters creating fractures and division within the Krishna consciousness movement. If the Krishna consciousness movement follows the natural spiritual master there will be peace and harmony. If the Krishna consciousness movement adopts so many formal spiritual masters at the expense of the natural spiritual master we will have choas and confusion which is the history of the Krishna consciousness movement since the passing away of the natural spiritual master of the international society of Krishna consciousness devotees.

Ok, to know everything about what is allegory and what is history or factual is certainly beyond my knowledge at this point. I certainly have not mastered the Bhagavatam to be able to say what is allegorical and what is factual. What we can do is look for places in the Bhagavatam where it is openly explained and admitted that some part is allegorical. One portion of the Bhagavatam that is openly admitted to be allegorical is the story or fable of King Puranjana. This fable is a story that was narrated by Narada Muni to King Pracinabarhisat. If you want to read this allegorical lesson, then turn to Canto 4 Ch. 25 and proceed through to ch. 28. In these chapters the allgorical fable of King Puranjana is fully described in the lessons of Narada Muni to King Pracinabarhisat. I am going through these chapters myself and will be posting relevant references that shed some light on this paroksa method of instruction which uses fables, fiction stories and allegorical characters in the lessons of the Bhagavat and the great Vedic rishis of yore. Everyone is invited to research this paroksa method in the scriptures and share with the rest of us anything they can find that sheds some light on how and why this paroksa method is employed in the teachings of great rishis, gurus and acharyas.

This topic is going to deal with the paroksa method of instruction and give examples of the paroksa (indirect) method of enlightening the conditioned souls of the world through use of fables, fairytales and stories that are allegorical in nature but serving the purpose of higher knowledge. Lets begin this topic with a statement from Srila Prabhupada from Srimad Bhagavatam Canot 4, ch. 28, verse 65 - purport. So, lets begin this topic with this instruction from Srila Prabhupada that admits and explains that there are certain stories and "fables" in the Bhagavatam and the other Puranas that serve a purpose of teaching through allegory certain concepts and principles of spiritual knowledge that are useful for the conditioned souls in helping them understand the lessons of Srimad Bhagavatam. Srila Prabhupada points out in the purport that: "those who are not interested in hearing directly about the activities of the Lord, or who cannot understand them, can very effectively hear such stories and fables as this one narrated by Nārada Muni" It's with this kind of principle that the preaching of the Bhagavatam and the great acharyas sometimes lead the student to certain allegorical concepts of the origins of the jiva as being with Krishna in his lila or that we have fallen from Goloka to be born in the material world. So, we have to admit that the teachings and preaching of Srila Prabhupada did in some ways mislead neophyte devotees into accepting a fictional understanding, that is more conducive to accepting and adopting devotional service, about the origins of the jiva being in Goloka as a pure servant of Krishna before falling to the material existance. What we will discuss in this topic is how this concept is allegorical and usefull, but ultimately is one of the fables that is used in Bhagavat siksha to help along the neophytes who would otherwise have difficulty in grasping the more detailed and tedious siddhanta concering the origins of the jiva and truth about his eternally conditioned status. Fables are fictional, but they are supposed to serve a higher purpose by making complicated concepts more easily available to the conditioned souls through a remedial course of instruction that helps along the less intelligent and the less educated. The fall from Goloka idea that many of us accepted in ISKCON was actually a remedial instruction in the line of paroksa which is indirect instruction in the form of fables and fairytales. It is not an actual fact as will be established through a more detailed and instructive study of the Gaudiya canon. The fall from Goloka idea is a fable. It is not a fact. It is a device that Srila Prabhupada and the Bhagavatam both use in nurturing along neophytes to a stage where they can realize the difference between a fable and an actual fact and be at a level where higher instruction will not confuse them.

There is not one verse in the Gaudiya canon that supports the fall-from-goloka theory, but there are numerous verses that explain that the jivas in the maha-tattva fall down from the brahmajyoti. The author of the thesis has not presented one single verse from shastra to support his theory, only a couple of statements of Srila Prabhupada that have been misunderstood and abused to arrive at a wrong conclusion. Not one verse from shastra. The fall-from-goloka thesis is a fraud and a forgery. It has nothing to do with actual Gaudiya siddhanta.