Guruvani

Sorry, Akshayananda Swami changed his name to Bhakti Ananda Sagar Maharaja when he took raga-marga diksha from Sridhar Maharaja. Also, we are not talking about what Govinda Maharaja interpreted this to mean. WE are talking about the ORDERS of Sridhar Maharaja, not the alternative to them.

Srila Sridhar Maharaja also apoointed his successor to act as rtvik. His own words to everybody on this issue are given on a public declaration of his spiritual succession: "Public Declaration by Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaj [from a recording on Gaura Purnima, 26th March, 1986] According to the desire of my Divine Master, I have been maintaining this Disciplic Succession but it is no longer possible for me, as I am now too old and an invalid. You all know from long ago I have chosen Sriman Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaj and I have given him sannyasa. All my Vaishnava Godbrothers are very affectionate towards him and it is also their desire to give him this position. I have previously given to him the charge of the Math and now I am giving him the full responsibility of giving Harinam, diksha, sannyasa, etc., as an Acharya of this Math on behalf of myself. Those who have any regard for me should give this respect and position to Govinda Maharaj as my successor. As much as you have faith in my sincerity, then with all sincerity I believe that he has got the capacity of rendering service in this way. With this I transfer these beads and from now he will initiate on my behalf as ritvik. The ritvik system is already involved both here and also in the foreign land. The ritvik is the representative. So if you want to take from me, and you take by his hands, then it will be as well and as good as taking from me. In the Mahamandala, Sagar Maharaj and many others are also ritvik of Swami Maharaj and also myself. They may do so, but in this Math and in any Math under this Math, he will be the representative. If anyone cannot accept this, he may leave the Math rather than stay here and disturb the peace of the Math. With all my sincerity and good feelings to Guru-Gauranga, to the Vaishnavas and the Acharyas, Mahaprabhu, Pancha-Tattva, Radha-Govinda and Their Parshadas, with all my sincere prayers to Them, henceforth he will represent me in this affair beginning from today's function. Now I shall go from here and he will do the necessary. On my behalf, he will give Harinama, diksha, sannyasa, and everything. then end. We will notice in this declaration by Sridhar Maharaja that he referred to Akshayananda Swami and others as "rtvik" of Swami Maharaja (Srila Prabhupada) some 9 years after the passing of Srila Prabhupada. If he did not endorse a post-samadhi rtvik system then why was he referring to the sannyasis as "rtvik" of Srila Prabhupada some 9 years after his passing?

rtvik proponents do not say that there are not living gurus or other gurus besides Prabhupada. That is just your imagination running away with you. What rtvik proponents do say is that Prabhupada establised a rtvik order in ISKCON and all your other allegations of what we say are false propaganda. We are only concerned with what Prabhupada wanted for ISKCON. The Gaudiya Math leaders can do as the choose and they can be guru. We are just making the point about what Prabhupada established in ISKCON. Other than that there might be other gurus in the world and we have never said that there is not. It is just a smear comapaign to make rtvik proponents look stupid and narrow. You are very mistaken about this matter.

"Physical presence is immaterial" (S.P. Lecture 19.1.67) "...one has to associate with liberated persons not directly, physically, but by understanding, through philosophy and logic..." (S.B. 3.31.48) "So we should associate by vibration, and not the physical presence. That is real association." (S.P.L. 19.1.67)

"If Mohammed as the servant of God and Lord Jesus Christ is the son of God, then where is the break of the disciplic succession? After all the disciplic succession is beginning from God, so how do you find that there is no disciplic succession?" (SPL to Vrndavana Candra, 19/7/70).

Srila Prabhupada: "....Or the Christians are following Christ, a great personality. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. You follow some mahajana, great personality..You follow one acarya, like Christians, they follow Christ, acarya. The Mohammedans, they follow acarya, Mohammed. That is good. You must follow some acarya..Evam parampara-praptam." (Conv. Melbourne, May 20, 1975)

Tamal Krsna: These men (the 9 named). They can also do second initiation. So there's no need for devotees to write to you for first and second initiation. They can write to the man nearest them. But all these persons are still your disciples. Anybody who would give initiation is doing so on your behalf. Srila Prabhupada: Yes. S.P. Conversation July 8th 1977.

As far back as 1968 we have evidence that Tamal opposed Prabhupada's rtvik system and tried to discredit the idea with Srila Prabhupada but Prabhupada shot him down and continued to do so until he finally passed at which time Tamal was able to lead the conspiracy to deviate the GBC from the rtvik doctrine so that he and a few others could take over the movement and become gurus, eat off gold plates and be worshipped as good as God. quote: -- Tamal Krishna: Can a Christian in this age, without a Spiritual Master, but by reading the Bible, and following Jesus's words, reach the... Srila Prabhupada: When you read the Bible, you follow the Spiritual Master. How can you say without. As soon as you read the Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ. That means that you are following the Spiritual Master. Tamal Krsna: I was referring to a living Spiritual Master. Srila Prabhupada: Spiritual Master is not question of...Spiritual Master is eternal...[...] As you say that "by reading bible", when you read Bible that means you are following the Spiritual Master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ. (Morning Walk, Seattle, 2.10.68.) -- In this excerpt from 1968 we can see Tamal trying to discredit the rtvik conception, but we are seeing quite plainly that Prabhupada was trying to correct him as he did so many times to no avail as Tamal finally got his way after Prabhupada was gone.

Another instruction in Srila Prabhupada's will which indicates the intended longevity of the ritvik system, is where it states that the executive directors for his permanent properties in India could only be selected from amongst Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples: "...a successor director or directors may be appointed by the remaining directors, provided the new director is my initiated disciple,..." (Srila Prabhupada 's Declaration of Will, June 4th, 1977) This is something that could only occur if a ritvik system of initiation remained in place after Srila Prabhupada's departure, since otherwise the pool of potential directors would eventually dry up.

The endless debate over the "Rtvik" or "guru" issue has yet to be resolved by debating the "the final order" and all such directives and instructions of Srila Prabhupada. Debating the issue of whether "they are his disciples" means they are the Rtvik disciples or Srila Prabhupada's disciples has yet to be conclusively proven due to the problem of interpretation and jugglery of meaning. In the so-called "appointment tape" Srila Prabhupada's intentions are clearly elucidated in the very beginning where he responds to Satsvarupa Maharaja's question "Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiations would be conducted". Srila Prabhupada replies "Yes, I shall recommend some of you after this is settled up. I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acharyas." Tamal Krsna Goswami asks "is this called Rtvik acharya?" and Srila Prabhupada corrects him and says only "Rtvik, yes". We can see here that Srila Prabhupada left off the "acharya" from the "Rtvik acharya" suggestion of TKG. Now, this is clearly and unquestionably a statement where Srila Prabhupada says that the Rtvik system will continue after his departure. Though Srila Narayana Maharaja adamantly rejects both the term and concept of Rtvik, we have documented evidence that Srila Prabhupada acted quite to the contrary and undoubtedly advocated and established the Rtvik system for ISKCON. The confusion comes with the interpretation and extrapolation of meaning of his subsequent statements as his secretaries attempt to manipulate the conversation to arrive at the conclusion they wanted to hear rather than the clearly definitive conclusion Srila Prabhupada enunciated to them. In an effort to actually pressure Srila Prabhupada into saying what they wanted to hear, despite the fact that he just gave a clear and definitive answer to their inquiry, they pressed the issue further as Satsvarupa Maharaja says "Then, what is the relationship of the person who gives the initiation?" and Srila Prabhupada says "he is guru, he is guru!" Now, this is where the "guru" proponents begin to interpret and construe that the Rtvik will be the guru of the initiate. Though we can look back to the course of the discussion and see that Srila Prabhupada was speaking in terms of a Rtvik officiating on his behalf and easily see that the initiator is Srila Prabhupada and the appointees are Rtvik. The "guru" proponents interpret this as Srila Prabhupada saying that the initiates will be their disciples and not disciples of Srila Prabhupada. However, when Srila Prabhupada answers SDG's question he is speaking in terms of himself being the initiator and the Rtvik being an officiator. So, the answer to the question "What is the relationship of that person who gives the initiation?", is that since Srila Prabhupada is the one actually giving initiation, the answer to the question that "he is guru, he is guru" is referring to Srila Prabhupada and not the officiating person. However, by some wild stretch of the imagination the "guru" proponents interpret this statement by Srila Prabhupada to mean that the initiate will be disciple of the Rtvik. This is clearly a jugglery of meaning and misinterpretation of Srila Prabhupada's direct and concise pronouncement concerning this issue. The course of the conversation then turns to SDG again who says "So, then they may also be considered your disciples?" and Srila Prabhupada replies "Yes, they are disciples".................... "but why consider who?" Srila Prabhupada clearly says again here that the initiates would be his disciples and in essence chastises SDG for even questioning even further whose disciples they would be. Srila Prabhupada just said directly that he would appoint Rtviks who would initiate disciples on his behalf and he is clearly getting disturbed by any further questioning about whose disciples future initiates would be. Now, it seems that Srila Prabhupada's statements are very clear, concise and self-explanatory on this issue, right? Well, it seems so, yet Tamal Krsna Goswami seems to be confused and unable to absorb what Srila Prabhupada is saying so he presses the matter further in pursuance of an extended explanation when he says "NO!" He is asking that these Rtvik-acharyas (even though Srila Prabhupada already corrected him by leaving off the acharya part of Rtvik-acharya), they are officiating, giving diksha, the people they are giving diksha to............. who's disciples are they? Now, wait a minute! Did not Srila Prabhupada just answer that question when SDG posed it? Yes he did! The whole subject of the conversation was Srila Prabhupada appointing Rtvik to initiate on his behalf after his departure, so why is TKG asking Srila Prabhupada whose disciples they would be? Could it be because he was trying to coerce Srila Prabhupada into saying what he wanted him to say (which is that the initiates would be the disciples of the Rtvik)? Srila Prabhupada replies "They are his disciples". TKG again expresses his confusion and dissatisfaction by saying "They are his disciples?" and Srila Prabhupada says "Who is initiating, his grand-disciples". Now, we get to the crucial point here in this conversation (a conversation that TKG is having problems understanding or accepting) with the interpretation of these words of Srila Prabhupada. Even though the whole discussion was about Srila Prabhupada appointing Rtviks to initiate after his departure, TKG has managed to lead the conversation to a point to where he might be able to confuse the issue and get Srila Prabhupada to say what he wanted him to say. However, here again Srila Prabhupada says in clear terms "Who is initiating, his grand-disciple". The meaning of this statement is quite clear. The initiates will be the grand-disciples of "who is initiating". Who is initiating is Srila Prabhupada and that has been well established by the course of the entire discussion which was about Srila Prabhupada appointing Rtviks to initiate on his behalf after his passing away. In an effort to ease the disturbance that TKG is clearly showing towards the whole issue of the post-samadhi Rtvik system, Srila Prabhupada has tried to appease his disciples by referring to future initiates as "grand-disciples", though it is clear from the course of the whole conversation that they will be formally considered disciples of Srila Prabhupada. In this sentence Srila Prabhupada goes to make a distinction that post-samadhi initiates will be considered "grand-disciples" of "who is initiating". This slight compromise that Srila Prabhupada enunciated could very well have been just a measure meant to appease his direct disciples who might feel some sense of dissatisfaction with the idea that future initiates would also be considered his disciples. Under pressure from TKG, who was showing some confusion and dissatisfaction with Srila Prabhupada's Rtvik instructions for the future of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada coined future initiates as "grand-disciples" though it has been conclusively established that the Rtvik system was to continue in the future of ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada ended this topic by saying "When I order you to become guru, he becomes regular guru, that's all. He becomes disciple of my disciple that's it. Just see!" Here Srila Prabhupada is being somewhat sarcastic as says "just see!" He says "he becomes disciple of my disciple, that's it!" What did Srila Prabhupada mean by saying "that's it"? Could he have been seeing that if he becomes disciple of my disciple in ISKCON, that's it................ the end of ISKCON? Where is the evidence that Srila Prabhupada ordered anyone to be guru in ISKCON after his departure? There is not one authoritative statement where Srila Prabhupada authorizes anyone to be diksha guru in ISKCON after his departure. There are however several statements where Srila Prabhupada says that he would appoint Rtviks to officiate on his behalf after his departure. Which system do we have the most evidence for? Clearly, the only indications we have for how Srila Prabhupada wanted ISKCON to continue was the Rtvik system and not one iota of evidence that he wanted the Rtviks to become diksha gurus after his departure. And, to think that Srila Prabhupada gave the GBC authority to appoint diksha gurus in ISKCON goes against everything we have been taught about the true nature of a real acharya, whom is never appointed by committee. No real acharya has ever been appointed by committee, however Srila Prabhupada did authorize the GBC to appoint more Rtviks as necessary from the senior sannyasis of ISKCON.

I will come clean as to my actual source of this supposed statement that Srila Prabhupada. I heard that Srila Prabhupada made this statement from a Godbrother who was temple president in L.A. back in the late 70's and who was privy to all the inside information on these issues. I don't have a tape or transcript of that actual instruction. I would not doubt at all that this order of Srila Prabhupada was one of his instructions that was deleted from the tapes that were made of all of his speaking in his final years. It is a known fact that some tapes of Prabhupada were edited and portions of them erased. Dhira Krishna Maharaja was my original source of this information and he is not even a rtvik advocate and was not one at the time he shared this information with me. He was simply being honest and truthful about what he knew, even though he was a follower of Sridhar Maharaja and not a rtvik advocate, so his motives seemed to be sincere. Other than this I have to honestly admit I don't have any specific statement to post as a reference. I think that Prabhupada has said many times that nothing should be changed from the way he set up ISKCON. Why would he revise the rtvik system just before his passing if it was to become obsolete in a few weeks after his passing? The appointment of the 11 rtviks was his response to the GBC's inquiry as to how ISKCON would go on when he was gone. The GBC deputed Satsvarupa Maharaja to ask him about that and he said that he would appoint some of his disciples to act as rtviks, which he later did. Why is there any confusion as to what Prabhupada wanted? The GBC asked him about it, he said he would appoint rtviks, he appointed rtviks and said "don't change anything after I am gone". What is the confusion? It is very simple to understand unless you have some agenda - you want to be guru, you want Gaudiya Math gurus or whatever.

Beyond the smoke and mirrors of all these quotes that Srila Prabhupada said this or Srila Prabhupada said that, we have to understand that his instructions to the GBC in his finals days are what we must go by to determine how ISKCON movement would go on in his absence. In his last days he modified his rtvik system and made some changes in preparation for his departure. He appointed 11 rtvik officials who would replace the previous system of having only his immediate secretary give final approval for initiations. The rtvik system was in place for over a decade in ISKCON and just before Prabhupada left he made some changes that would go into effect for the post-samadhi era of ISKCON. He appointed 11 men who would have the authority to sanction initiations into ISKCON and he also gave the GBC authority to approve new rtvik officials in the future if the necessity arose. After establishing his post-samadhi version of the rtvik system for ISKCON, Prabhupada ordered the GBC "Don't change anything after I am gone". This is what is relevant to the administration of ISKCON. It is not all these out of context quotes from lectures and walks and other such references. We must look at Prabhupada's exact specific instructions to the GBC and how he had ISKCON set up. The administration of ISKCON is determined by Prabhupada's exact, direct instructions on this matter and all of these other quotes of a philosophical nature are just general comments be made about the philosophy. Beyond the smoke and mirrors, beyond the selfish interest and party spirit, beyond all these out of context quotes and statements we have to look at Prabhupada's exact, specific instructions as to how ISKCON should be administered. That is what we should be concerned with. Not trying to justify rebellion and selfish interest by using Prabhupada words to support our actual defiance of his direct orders to the ISKCON administrataion.

so, some preacher makes big controversy by preaching his own concocted notions about controversial issues, and then proposes to make changes and alterations to the movement and the philosophy and then he wants to accuse those who are offended by that of being offenders because they do not buy into such propaganda? wonders never cease? then some fellow who distributes a whole new version of the gita that has been completely re-written by some Swami is preaching that no changes should be made to Prabhupada's books? wonders never cease!

So now, those that left ISKCON and created a seperate party, who's actions deeds and words have been nothing but separatism for so many years are preaching against party spirit? Did Prabhupada ever say that we should splinter ISKCON and manufacture so many parties out of selfish interest? Can those whose party spirit has caused them to create separate societies from Prabhupada's ISKCON actually be innocent of party spirit?

There is a good chance that your balloon of high hopes will be burst by the actual meeting of this guru as you come to see that he is just a human being like yourself and not the superbeing that you have imagined.

fighting? what fighting? this is my way of showing how much I love all these devotees. I am a lover not a fighter. I just happen to be sincere enough and brave enough to tell them what they don't want to hear. I am not here to bolster their false ego and feed into their illusions. I just speak the truth the way I see it. It has nothing to do with fighting. I am just a lover of truth and i do whatever i can to speak the truth whenever i can. If anyone is offended by some brutal honesty, then they need to look into their own hearts and find some humbleness underneath all that pride and self-importance.

hari nama hari nama hari nama eva kevalam kalau nastyeva nastyeva nastyeva gatir anyata In this age of Kali, there is no other means of self-realization than chanting the Holy Name of Hari... There is no other way, no other way no other way!

Actually, has not many portions of the Vedas dealing with karma-kanda and jnana-kanda been rejected by the Vaishnava acharyas? Is not the Srimad Bhagavatam called the amalam purana because it deals only with pure devotional service? Much shastra has been rejected by the Vaishnava acharyas. Only a few books of shastra has been accepted by the Vaishnava acharyas. The shastras were written by rishis. Much of the Vaishnava scriptural repository are books of the recent acharyas and their books do not technically fall in the classification as shastra but as corollary, supplementary texts. The words of the self-realized acharya are as good as shastra and even more relevant because they deal with current, modern considerations of practically applying spiritual life in the modern age. The ancient books of the ancient rishis are not as relevant as the shastra of modern day written by contemporary self-realized souls who know best how to apply spiritual practices in a modern context. Accepting the spirit and essence of spiritual truth is more important than trying to stick to the letter of the law as given in the ancient books of shastra. Bhaktivinode is known for making this point quite succinctly. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

I remember reading that myself. I cannot argue that. The question thus arises; what is knowledge? Is it knowledge of books? Knowledge of things way beyond our actual level of attainment? If we overlook the natural system of seniority and then go to judge devotees based upon their book knowledge, is that the real calculation? Is book knowledge actual knowledge? Who are we to then judge who has knowledge or not, because knowledge can be a subjective consideration based upon what your idea of what knowledge is. Can knowledge be vijnana or is knowledge the study of books? What is vijnana? Again, we have to then become judge and jury as to who has actually applied vijnana to the greatest degree in their life. Ultimately, the natural system of seniority is the most practical because the qualifications of judging another devotee can be so subjective that there is no absolute standard that can easily be applied. Respecting devotees as senior because they came to the movement before we did is not a dangerous practice. What is dangerous is the judging of devotees based upon our own unqualified speculation as to who has the most knowledge. What is knowledge and who has the most is a very difficult judgement to make. My practical experience in ISKCON was that devotees who joined the movement before we did were given the respect as senior Godbrothers and we were never told to try and judge who had the most knowledge to determine who was senior or junior. It is a very practical system and certainly less complicated and risky than trying to become the judge as to who has the most knowledge. Ultimately, real knowledge is bhakti and not book learning. Who has the qualifications to know who has the most bhakti? If you think you are the judge of that then you are in big trouble spiritually.

A heard from a senior Godbrother that Prabhupada also said that Jesus would not be coming back because there was nobody to come back for except a bunch of hyopcrites. Does anybody know anything about this supposed statement of Srila Prabhupada? Could this be true? Did Prabhupada say this about modern Christians? though shalt not kill? kiling, killing and killing? where is a real Christian?

I am not saying Prabhupada is wrong on this issue. I am saying that according to Christian theologians I know, who are friends of mine, Christ's spiritual form that he is supposed to come back in will be as the form of his transfiguration and not as the Earthly from that most people think of. I have never felt that Christianity needed to be verified by Prabhupada or the Krishna conciousness movement. Christians do not need or even want that Hare Krishna devotees validate their beliefs. I think the best position is to just respect the religion of the Christians but I do not feel that we need to try and validate it according to our acharyas or our beliefs. We should respect their beliefs and their right to believe what they choose to believe, but we should not get into the complicated problem of trying to validate or verify it according to our own beliefs. We respect their faith and they respect ours and there should be no attempt to link the two. I think that is better than trying to artificailly create some inter-religious union of faiths.

Opinions are like rectums; everybody has one but it is best to not make a public display of them. There are so many opinions, but opinions are not the basis of the movement. It is guru and sadhu from the base of shastra. Some people are of the opinion that Hinduism should be more accepting of Gay conduct. Some people are of the opinion that women should be given sannyasa. Some people are of the opinion that women devotees are superior to men. Some people think male devotees superior to women. These are all just opinions and have no shastric base and therefore should be kept to oneself. Krishna consciousness is not about opinions. It is about guru, sadhu and shastra.......not opinions. When you go to advertise your opinion as spiritual truth then you had better be ready for some opposition because everybody has their own opinion. Better yet, let's just leave our opinions out of it and preach what we have heard from our spiritual master without addition or subtraction. That is what he told us to do right?

If someone is preaching manufactured philosophy in the name of Krishna consciousness, adding new perceptions and unvalidated opinions, is it offensive for one devotee to disagree with the other and point out the discrepancy? Is it Maha-aparadha to expose a Godbrother who is preaching concocted theories and viewpoints that create controversey and confusion in the movement? Why would a preacher repeatedly come public with the most controversial opinions on the most controversial subjects? Should he be able to make such propaganda unchallenged? Is expressing a different opinion from his OFFENSIVE? Why is one side of an argument offensive and the other side not? Are sannyasis exempt from criticism when they make public propaganda that is controversial and questionable? Are we all just supposed to shut up and not oppose opinions and viewpoints that are subjective opinions and not absolute truth? Sounds like GBC strongarm tactics. Where did you get your training?

According to Christian theology Christ's spiritual form was different from his Earthly form. After the resurrection, Christ appeared in the transfiguration: (Luke 9:29) tells us that, "As He was praying, the appearance of his face changed," literally it, "was transformed." To use the language of Philippians chapter 2, the form of God shone through the form of a servant. Matthew wrote (Matt 17:2), "His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light." His entire figure seemed bathed in light, even lighting up his garments. The spiritual form of Christ was somewhat different from his Earthly form.

I am the voice in the wilderness holding the leaders of the movement to the highest standard. I am not a guru, a leader, a Swami or a GBC. I am a bruised and battered soul who has lived a hard life that none of you will ever know. I demand the utmost from those who come forward to lead and guide the Krishna consciousness movement. I don't hold myself to that standard because I am not a leader, a guru or a GBC. I live a very secluded and private life away from it all. To all you leaders, gurus and GBC.......... you are under the microscope and your every word, your every movement and your every deed is up for severe scrutiny. Don't advertise yourself as guru and guide of Prabhupada's movement unless you are ready to be in the spotlight. Tripurari Maharaja once asked me if I was his friend or enemey because I was praising him too much. He was remembering the Pandit who said "One who praises you is your enemy, one who criticizes you is your friend". I have decided to become his friend instead of his enemy. I hope you can all understand our peculiar relationship. I love Tripurari Maharaja. I am trying to save him from himself and I am willing to be the fall guy for his gain. Tripurari Maharaja is close to perfection. I am trying to help him get there. However, the confortable life in the temple will never get him where he wants to go. I am giving him some of the hardship he needs to compensate for his cushy temple lifestyle that is blocking his advancement. I knew you wouldn't understand. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif