andy108

In this and other instances, association would mean to express what points that we agree on. But as Kulapavana pointed out, Fundamentalists have no such agenda, such as the Islamic Jihadis. It sounds like an extreme comparison but there is a continuum. There were certain risks that Srila Prabhupada took in his preaching work, that there would be such an outcome amongst, let's face it, the majority of his 'aspiring followers' (aspiring for what, becomes the question?) was that exact risk. If we keep up this kind of behavior in public, then the result will be that those looking for material relief will turn towards monism. So this cacophony of 'As it Isers' will do the anti-preaching and drive people away from Krsna Consciousness as a result. Sounds like a dark era for the preaching work in general. Sounds just as bad as the era when Sahajiya Vaisnavas had the upper hand at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Once the prime factor in an equation is off, the outcome is certain.

One cannot serve two masters. One may pretend. There are others out there who will buy it, because that is what their heart is inclined to. Fence sitting Sahajyism. So be it.

Overlooking the Prime Factor which they cannot agree on, the Sahajiyas form a mutual pat me on the back club and call it good association. Good for them that is.

They rail against those who commit the "Crime" of preaching to the faithless, aka themselves and their swooning soon to be victims, derailed from that pure process they aren't interested in anyway.

They rail against those "Criminals" who disturb their "peace". Whose "fundamentalism" is antithesis to their go along to get along, "you are turning people off with your strictness" club.

They forget a fundamental instruction given by a recent Acarya, that a compassionate devotee approaches the faithless. That devotee speaks out against those who reject the Acarya, and would mislead countless faithless people. If only to save one.

Having forgone the Fundamental Prime factor, the choosing of ONE MASTER (Guru) and being chaste to the instructions He gives, they claim "I see Guru everywhere, after all that it what scripture says!" Yet not being actual advanced realizers of that concept, what their actions say is "Guru is anyone who gives me an instruction that appeals to my heart (read emotions) at any given time."

If they would only keep to themselves and not publicly criticize Bhaktivedanta Swami and his mission, they would have alot "easier" time of things that is for sure.

But some of them just can't. That is a fundamental truth.

I consider Srila Prabhupada, Srila Sridhara Maharaja, and Srila Narayana Maharaja to be great acharyas of our sampradaya.

 

Please read what Sridhara Maharaja writes on guru tattva, especially on the absolute and relative aspects of the guru.

No thanks. My Acarya told me that anything I needed to understand about the absolute vs. relative conceptions of any truth/tattva were in HIS teachings to me.

Knowing his conclusion and judging all things by it helps me stick to one understanding and be consistent with it, applying it to every circumstance, and keeps me from committing the blunder of denying my own tendency to commit mistakes and accusing my Acarya of doing that in order to appear "liberal and broad minded" in order to be more accepted and appealing to others looking to put me on a pedestal for our mutual mundane satisfactions.

I would rather be the most hated person on this forum rather than for my Guru and Krsna to watch me flip flop and prevaricate in order to appear more knowledgable and advanced than I am just so someone will pat me on the back.

And to preempt the predictable knee JERK reaction to what I just said, wherein my words become some kind of "proof" that I am inflexibly narrowminded and bound to ignorance, there were many times when my Acarya, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami said "I don't know" when asked about things. Sometimes he said "I am not expert in that area". Sometimes he was corrected while speaking when he guessed at the name of some person place or thing that was on the tip of his tounge, and did not recall in entirety.

This shows the relativity of Guru tattva working through a Mahatma.

Those with an agenda of Acarya minimization will conflate such relative occurances and claim them to indicate a tendency toward being mistake prone, and then cite examples of actual instructions given to disciples that resulted in results the minimizer "feels were poor", to demonstrate their opinion that the Acarya makes mistakes on the plane where otherwise only Absolute good occurs.

That is if the person was actually an Uttama Adhikari, and Acarya.

Which is obviously not acknowledged by the very posture of the minimizer as he conflates relative "mistakes" with absolute acts of instruction commanding a surrendered disciple to motion for the greater good of all concerned.

How is this possible?

How was it possible that some in the assembly saw the same Krsna as others, yet some saw the Supreme Absolute Truth, and some saw a strong human prince, and some saw a pansy?

The faithful disciple even sees the conversational lapse of memory for names of people places and things as NOT being the mistake of a conditioned soul, but know that the Acarya is directed cent per cent by Krsna, that such apparent "mistakes" are inconceivably ordained by the Lord, and thus will not shake him loose into the arms of the next so called Diksa guru lining up for his Acarya's sloppy seconds.

The minimizer was looking for any reason to doubt the transcendental nature of the Acarya in order to avoid the hard trial of taking his orders which are poison in the beginning, but nectar in the end.

Thus into the arms of someone who fits his taste for sahajisym.

Not that this is a bad thing or a crime mind you. Until that person publicly derides and criticizes his ex-Acarya as being a mistake laden person.

Now THAT IS A MISTAKE.

Giving sannyasa to people like Kirtanananda, Bhavananda, Gurukripa, Harikesa, and others can be seen as a mistake.

The only mistake is that you recently claimed that your opinion was that Bhaktivedanta Swami was indeed an Acarya. Of course you also like to quote Sridhara Maharaja to defend your opinion, reducing the status of Bhaktivedanta Swami to an ''institutional acarya'', presumably one who takes direction and dictation from the Supreme Lord in his heart constantly EXCEPT FOR...

(those times the Lord takes a vacation from his heart to fool around with his favorite Gopi.)

OR

(except for those times when the Lord is confused and directs the institutional acarya to make mistakes, but this is not really a mistake, but just a head fake by Krsna that he implements in order to prove the claims of Acaryadeva Lite Kulapavana that acaryas make mistakes.)

Of course the seeming mistake of Jagat Guru Kulapavana is actually not a mistake, but a transcendental ploy to bait the insincere and unsurrendered into believing that Kulapavana can make mistakes. He does this as Guardian of Devotion, as the last line of defense, so that the insincere and unsurrendered do not personally disturb Sri Krsna's pasttimes.

All glories to Acaryadeva Lite, menial servant of Tripurari Swami.

What Srimad Bhahavatam is saying is that the wives of Lord Balarama and Lord Krsna exited this world through the funeral pyres. Of course they were thinking: "my husband's body is being cremated here. let me follow..."

 

It was all part of the leela.

 

IMO you should go back to reading Gita, Sonic-ji. Your foundations are weak.

Sonic, check that Bhagavatam Verse carefully. Keyword = INTERNAL POTENCY. The wives bodies were spiritual bodies also. Any FORM animated by the SPIRIT of Krsna or the SPIRIT of one of his NITYA eternal associates is purely spiritual although THAT FORM can appear to do ANYTHING Yogamaya wishes it to appear like it is doing, including falling to the ground as if "DEAD", or appearing to burn to ash.

But when Srila Prabhupada's individual spirit appeared to leave his body, we put that body into samadhi so it could continue radiating his spirit for the benefit of others.

And because you want to be right, where you can't, even KULA gets a chance to chastise you with sound basis.

Now that is a bad hair day.

Narayana Maharaja is capable of making minor mistakes just like Srila Prabhupada is... that of course is natural and does not detract from their intrinsic value as Vaishnava acharyas. It is the venomous tirades of their disciples that are a problem. Look at Sampradaya Sun - it is like the sacrificial arena of Daksa, with various groups spitting their venom at each other.

Ah yes, the Pure devotee Acarya is a mistake maker. Minor/Major is subjective and has no bearing on the fact that a mistake is unequivocally due to being of the conditioned nature.

it is very much based on the expositions of Srila Sridhar Maharaja' date=' as he became my siksa guru in the late 80's, a decade before my diksa guru Harikesa fell down.[/quote']

Why reject Acaryadeva Harikesh, he just made some mistakes?

 

Or is it that starting with the moment his so-called Acarya disappeared, he disobeyed orders, lied to his slaves, and consciously collaborated in various criminal conspiracies for 20 years until he was caught red-handed.

 

But hey, he was a Diksa Guru, a personal manifestation of Srila Madana Mohan Vigraha, so it is only YOUR illusion that he made mistakes, so your rejection of him is a grave error, Vaisnava aparadha no less.

 

Sigh.

Is Srimad Bhagavatam authority enough?

Where does that say that when here in the material world, Krsna's personal body was a material one?

I read it 3 times, and can't find it.

There is no contradiction because Krsna never has a material body. What is produced at the end of the pastime - be it a flash of light, a pile of ash, or anything else, is just part of the show.

Very true. It seems that the use of the description "so called material body" leads people to speculate and play with the idea that Krsna can accept a material body yet because he takes it, it is actually spiritual.

Since Krsna himself says that he permeates the Mahat Tattva, but simultaneously remains aloof, that tells me that He Himself, as the Original Visnu Tattva, simply expands his own transcendental body to appear as a dead body. If he was ever in that form, it was never made of material elements, as if he could put a cloak of material stuff around his essence and allow that stuff to remain material until he drops it.

Even though material things are his energy, we are discussing a fine point of philosophy where we must make a distinction. Any bodily form that Krsna animates in a display of pastimes simply cannot be made of his temporary material energy.

I do not believe saying so limits Krsna in any way. There is no conceivable reason why he would NEED to do such a thing. It would serve no purpose. And if there were a purpose to be served by such an act, one of the Goswamis or some Acarya would have delineated this ability in the course of glorifying his opulences.

Until I hear it from some authority like that....

Krsna's body was, and always is, fully spiritual.

His Yogamaya potency arranged that a facsimile or "so-called material body" was left behind for the benefit of those who desired to see Lord Krsna as a material being with a material body.

His Yogamaya potency does things like this.

As soon as Krsna left the scene, there was a body left there. Factually that body is sacidananda vigraha yet appeared by Yogamaya's potency to be cast off and just laying there inert. Thus a "so-called material body" was left behind in the material world.

There is no contradiction. Unless you are looking for an argument.

<center>TEXT 54

 

</center><center>

 

yas tv indragopam athavendram aho sva-karma-

 

bandhanurupa-phala-bhajanam atanoti

 

karmani nirdahati kintu ca bhakti-bhajam

 

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

</center><center>SYNONYMS

 

</center>yah--He who (Govinda); tu--but; indra-gopam--to the small red insect called indragopa; atha va--or even; indram--to Indra, king of heaven; aho--oh; sva-karma--of one's own fruitive activities; bandha--bondage; anurupa--according to; phala--of reactions; bhajanam--enjoying or suffering; atanoti--bestows; karmani--all fruitive activities and their reactions; nirdahati--destroys; kintu--but; ca--also; bhakti-bhajam--of persons engaged in devotional service; govindam--Govinda; adi-purusam--the original person; tam--Him; aham--I; bhajami--worship.

<center>TRANSLATION

 

</center>I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, who burns up to their roots all fruitive activities of those who are imbued with devotion and impartially ordains for each the due enjoyment of the fruits of one's activities, of all those who walk in the path of work, in accordance with the chain of their previously performed works, no less in the case of the tiny insect that bears the name of indragopa than in that of Indra, king of the devas.

Being that Lord Brahma is a past Acarya, and we are to understand the teachings of the past Acaryas through the Acarya the Lord sends to us, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami commented many times on this verse, each time indicating that WE KRSNA BHAKTAS were to understand "karmani nirdahatia"

in the following way.

From Lecture on Bhagavad Gita 4.14, Vrndavana 8/6/1974

 

In the Brahma-sūtra it is said... Brahma-saṁhitā. Yas tv indra-gopam athavendram aho sva-karma... Indra, indra-gopa, and the King Indra, both are named as indra. Yas tu indra-gopam atha mahā-indra sva-karma-phala-bhuk. Everyone is enjoying the resultant action of his karma. Yas tv indra-gopam athavendram aho sva-karma-bandhānurūpa-phala-bhājanam ātanoti [bs. 5.54]. Everyone is enjoying or suffering the resultant action of his karma. Sva-karma-phala-bhuk. But karmāṇi nirdahati kintu ca bhakti-bhājām [bs. 5.54]. But one who is in the devotional service, although he has to suffer the resultant action of his past karma, but that is reduced to the minimum. Karmāṇi nirdahati. Or practically no.

For whom? Bhakti-bhājām, those who are devotees, who are devotees. So who can understand Kṛṣṇa is not under the laws of any material nature? Only the bhaktas. Bhaktas can understand.

As for all the other times ACBSP confirmed this purport to the translation of BS 5.54, interested parties can search the database, there are too many to paste here.

Seven... You have got that list? You have now... Ten kinds offenses? In this, is it written there that you cannot commit offense on the strength of Hare Krsna mantra? Yes, that's... So tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavah. Viplavati. It vanquishes, it nullifies, it neutralizes. That's a fact. Nasayati. Yasmin vag-visarge, vag-visarge abaddha, abaddhavaty api apasabdadi-yukto 'pi prati slokam anantasya yasasah ankitani namani bhavanti.(?) So such kind of Hare Krsna mantra, or sometime... Just like you are chanting, you are, the mantras, because it is not your language. So sometime it appears broken. Just like guru. Sometimes you say "goru.Goru" means cow, and "guru" means spiritual master. So the difference of meaning is vast. (chuckling) The spiritual master is not a cow. Or a bull. (laughs) But sometimes they... Because it is not your language... But that doesn't matter. Because bhavagrahi janardana. Krsna is within you. He knows what you want to chant. Therefore He takes the meaning of guru and not goru, even it is spoken as goru. That doesn't matter. Bhavagrahi janardana. He, Krsna, knows that what you are actually... Just like I know that although you are speaking guru as goru, I, I, I, don't take offense because I know that your desire is something else. I do not protest. (laughter) That "You are addressing me goru. I am not goru." (laughter) So that is not a fault.

 

Lecture, Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.5.11 -- New Vrindaban, June 10, 1969

Jaya

It DID "HAVE TO BE THAT HARD AND THAT CROOKED" because what occured at the time was the measure of the karmic desire of the cheaters and cheated involved, and tempered with the mercy gained due to whatever sincerety was there to please Prabhupada, even if it was just for personal gain. Or did you miss that part of the ABC's of using suffering to our advantage and see that it is Krsna's mercy and whatever level of suffering we endure is actually minimized by him because it was supposed to be 10x worse?

I used the scripturally backed fact of life that when a devotee does actually suffer, and Kulapavana wasn't there to prevent it, that it was supposed to be 10x worse.

I did not see the scriptural backing for that saying, but that is a different matter.

Teachings of Queen Kunti. Ch.8 :

Similarly, we have to suffer for our past deeds. That is a fact, and we cannot avoid it. But karmāṇi nirdahati kintu ca bhakti-bhājām (Brahma-saṁhitā 5.54): the sufferings of those who engage in devotional service in Kṛṣṇa consciousness are minimized. For example, one may have been destined to be killed, but instead of being killed with a knife, he may instead get some little cut on his finger. In this way, for those who engage in devotional service, the reactions of past activities are minimized. Lord Kṛṣṇa assures His devotees, ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi: “I shall give you protection from the reactions of sinful life.” So even if a devotee has a history of very grievous criminal activities behind him, instead of being killed he may only get a little cut on his finger.

BG 10.3 Purport

Therefore if we at all want our activities to he auspicious, then we should work under the directions of the Supreme Lord. Such directions are given in authoritative scriptures such as Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Bhagavad-gītā, or from a bona fide spiritual master. Because the spiritual master is the representative of the Supreme Lord, his direction is directly the direction of the Supreme Lord. The spiritual master, saintly persons and scriptures direct in the same way. There is no contradiction in these three sources.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: I have given you everything to get back to Godhead. Make no changes. There is nothing to add.

Narayana Maharaja: Your Prabhupada sent me to give you what he could not.

He knew this, but he purposely did not give the offering mantra because at that time his disciples were not qualified to receive it.

Speculation. And makes no sense. They were making offerings to Krsna. And making it through their Guru. They knew that much. If the mantra made the difference between an offering that Krsna would accept and one he would reject, does anyone think Bhaktivedanta Swami would have left that out?

That all the disciples he initiated into Spiritual Life, and would after he left by his officiating system, who he promised received complete instructions from him with nothing left to chance, are somehow now bereft of a missing link and would need to seek out Siksa from someone else, even though Swamiji insisted that his disciples DO NOT DO THAT?

Now they are very qualified, even more so than Indians. They can do it now. Now they should make offerings according to the proper procedures, and your Prabhupada has therefore sent me. He told me, "Go and introduce all these principles."

THEY SHOULD DO IT ACCORDING TO PROPER PROCEDURES. (The ones he offers). And if not? What about all those disciples of Bhaktivedanta Swami who will never here this? And will carry on his methods for thousands of years?

If the essence is all that is needed, a little love, Bhaktivedanta Swami could have simply told his disciples : just say Dear Lord Krsna, please accept this humble offering through my Gurudeva". That is simple enough to understand for an English speaker. Does someone have to be advanced and super qualfied? So he gave the Obeisance/Glorification mantras. He considered that in line with Srila Narada's Pancaratrik Viddhi. Now suddenly, those are impotent.

Now the time has come for us to reform and progress.

This is the kicker. Narayana Maharaja is speaking to those who came to him. I agree. So why the ambiguity. He says here "US" as in We as in present company need reform in order to progress. But just before he was saying that "TheyShouldmake" offerings according to PROPER procedure.

They. Not his sanga. They means Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami's hapless bereft disciples. Who were told by their Acarya that he gave them everything, and he lied. No need of change or addition. But he forgot to mention that they needed to seek Narayana Maharaja for proper Bhoga offering mantras.

Narayana Maharaja ought to contemplate on his assessment that Bhaktivedanta Swami assessed his disciples low qualifications and gave them sadhana commensurate to that.

And then take his own advice. He is stirring up more trouble than is worth. His disciples have proven just as neophyte and fanatic as any of Bhaktivedanta Swami's, and now he gives his overzealous disciples more ammunition to fuel their puffed up egos in regard to the Iskcon disciples who have not yet found the "missing link Acarya" to Goloka Vrndavana in Narayana Maharaja.

BG 10.3

Therefore if we at all want our activities to he auspicious, then we should work under the directions of the Supreme Lord. Such directions are given in authoritative scriptures such as Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Bhagavad-gītā, or from a bona fide spiritual master. Because the spiritual master is the representative of the Supreme Lord, his direction is directly the direction of the Supreme Lord. The spiritual master, saintly persons and scriptures direct in the same way. There is no contradiction in these three sources.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: I have given you everything to get back to Godhead. Make no changes. There is nothing to add.

Narayana Maharaja: Your Prabhupada sent me to give you what he could not.

I believe Narayana Maharaja means well. But there was a reason why Lord Krsna sent Bhaktivedanta Swami to set the standard and crisscross the globe. May he understand that reason someday more deeply.

Are AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's disciples bereft of the proper mantras to offer Bhoga to Lord Krsna as Narayana Maharaja suggests?

**snip from full lecture reproduced below**

Srila Swami Maharaja introduced something for his new disciples. Even if they had not received second initiation, he told them, "You can offer bhoga to Krsna by the mantra:

namo maha-vadanyaya krsna-prema-pradaya te / krsnaya krsna-caitanya-namne gaura-tvise namah and namne bramanya jagat"

A question may arise here: "Did Srila Swami Maharaja take initiation from his Gurudeva or not? Did he know all the rules and regulations for offering bhoga? Did he give those mantras [which are not for offering bhoga, but rather for offering obeisances] out of his ignorance, or did he purposely and knowingly give them? What is the reality?" The reality is that Srila Swami Maharaja considered, "Somehow I should gradually introduce all the rules and regulations. For these neophytes, the only rule and regulation is that they should not take meat, eggs, and alcohol. They should not smoke or engage in other abominable activities. They should think that they are devotees." For that purpose your Prabhupada gave initiation into the Hare Krsna mantra, and he told his young disciples, "Now you are devotees. You can now offer bhoga by this mantra: 'Namo brahmanya devaya…'"

This is not an offering mantra. He knew this, but he purposely did not give the offering mantra because at that time his disciples were not qualified to receive it. Proper following was very difficult for them. Now, however, so much water has passed under the bridge. Now they are very qualified, even more so than Indians. They can do it now. Now they should make offerings according to the proper procedures, and your Prabhupada has therefore sent me. He told me, "Go and introduce all these principles."

 

**end snip**

Full Lecture

[srila Narayana Maharaja is sometimes asked why the procedures and standards for offering bhoga to the Deities, as taught by him, appear different from those established by Srila Prabhupada Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja. In the following class, given on Dec. 16, 2001, Srila Maharaja replies:]

[srila Narayana Maharaja:] If you want to ask anything, you can ask. For example, I heard a question regarding a person who is not initiated, or a person who has only received first initiation (harinama). The question was asked, "Has such a person the right to make offerings to Krsna? What should he do?"

Suppose a person is not initiated at all, but he has faith and honor for Krsna and he knows that Krsna is Supreme Personality of Godhead. Or, he believes in Nrsimadeva or Rama or any Visnu-tattva as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He wants to serve, he is engaged in some puja, and he has learned something from his family, his father, mother, or anyone else. He can offer preparations to Krsna. We have heard from sastra:

nanopacara-krta-pujanam arta-bandhoh

premnaiva bhakta-hrdayam sukha-vidrutam syat

yavat ksud asti jathare jaratha pipasa

tavat sukhaya bhavato nanu bhaksya-peye

["As long as there is hunger and thirst within the stomach, varieties of food and drink make one feel very happy. Similarly, when the Lord is worshiped with pure love, the various activities performed in the course of that worship awaken transcendental bliss in the heart of the devotee." (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 8.69)]

If you are fully initiated but you do not have love and affection for Krsna, then even if you offer something by mantra and 16 kinds of paraphernalia, Krsna will not accept your offering. On the other hand, if you have prema, Krsna will have so much hunger for taking whatever you offer. Krsna thinks, "When My devotee offers anything to me, I will take it. I will accept it, because he has prema. If that pure devotee is bringing something to Krsna and he has not yet offered it, Krsna will run after him to take it.

Even if one has not received second initiation, if he offers anything with bhakti, Krsna is bound to accept his offering. It may be that one has devotional impressions from past births, and in this birth he has surrendered to a sad-guru. The abovementioned verse is for him only. It is not meant for kanistha-adhikaris, those who are without such past impressions and who are just beginning to receive impressions in this birth by somehow associating with devotees. If one has some transcendental sraddha, he can make an offering. The kanistha-adhikari Vaisnava does not have very much faith. He is not of that high caliber.

Srila Swami Maharaja introduced something for his new disciples. Even if they had not received second initiation, he told them, "You can offer bhoga to Krsna by the mantra:

namo maha-vadanyaya krsna-prema-pradaya te / krsnaya krsna-caitanya-namne gaura-tvise namah and namne bramanya jagat"

A question may arise here: "Did Srila Swami Maharaja take initiation from his Gurudeva or not? Did he know all the rules and regulations for offering bhoga? Did he give those mantras [which are not for offering bhoga, but rather for offering obeisances] out of his ignorance, or did he purposely and knowingly give them? What is the reality?" The reality is that Srila Swami Maharaja considered, "Somehow I should gradually introduce all the rules and regulations. For these neophytes, the only rule and regulation is that they should not take meat, eggs, and alcohol. They should not smoke or engage in other abominable activities. They should think that they are devotees." For that purpose your Prabhupada gave initiation into the Hare Krsna mantra, and he told his young disciples, "Now you are devotees. You can now offer bhoga by this mantra: 'Namo brahmanya devaya…'"

This is not an offering mantra. He knew this, but he purposely did not give the offering mantra because at that time his disciples were not qualified to receive it. Proper following was very difficult for them. Now, however, so much water has passed under the bridge. Now they are very qualified, even more so than Indians. They can do it now. Now they should make offerings according to the proper procedures, and your Prabhupada has therefore sent me. He told me, "Go and introduce all these principles."

At present, the devotees are offering agarbatti (incense) for much longer than necessary when they perform arati. At that time Krsna is very hungry, thinking, "When will he finish?!" Then, after the incense, they offer a lamp, again for too long. Again Krsna thinks, "I'm so hungry. If he does not stop this arati soon, I will die of hunger. I will definitely die today." Therefore, Krsna runs away as they perform arati. Don't follow this drawn-out procedure. Try to follow what has been written in the scriptures that teach the proper procedures. You can offer agrabatti to Krsna three times, and then to His associates. The lamp may be offered fourteen times, but not more than that. Otherwise, Krsna will be very upset and run away. He especially fears if someone improperly offers the camara. He thinks, "Oh, he came to make an offering, but now he is exercising." Don't discover new things. Follow what is written in the authorized sastras.

Srila Swami Maharaja somehow engaged them. It was very, very difficult for him, as it would have been for any pure guru at that time, to introduce the actual strict procedures. "Jena tena prakarena" He introduced them to the line of bhakti and engaged them. [in his lecture of Dec. 20, 1966, Srila Prabhupada explained, "Rupa Gosvami, one of the big acaryas, says, yena tena prakarena manah krsne nivesayet: 'The first business is that somehow or other people should be Krsna conscious." So far rules and regulations are concerned...

yena tena prakarena

manah krsne nivesayet

sarve vidhi-nisedha syur

etayor eva kinkarah

[if one takes to that line of activities, Krsna consciousness, then all regulations will follow as a servant follows a master. If the master starts, the servant follows. Similarly, the rules and regulations will follow automatically.'"] Now the time has come for us to reform and progress. At the time of offering your preparations, you should utter the correct mantras: "Etat naivedyam sa tulasi paniya jalam, kling gauraya svaha," and so on.

At first you should remember your Gurudeva and think, "Krsna may reject my offering, but He cannot reject my Gurudeva's offering." You should offer the bhoga to Gurudeva, not for his eating it, but for his offering it to Radha-Krsna and Mahaprabhu. Then you should call the Deity. Still now, in Puri, at the Radha-Kanta Matha, the vigraha of Sri Gopal Guru is presented the bhoga, and after that, thinking that Gopal Guru is making the offering, the bhoga is offered to Thakurji. Try to follow all these principles. Those who have not received second initiation, therefore, should take initiation. Otherwise, if the Guru thinks they should wait for some time, they can offer in this way: "Prabhu , I don't know anything. Gurudeva, please offer this." And he can do it. Krsna is 'bhava grahi janardana.' He accepts an offering according to the level of devotional qualification of the devotee making the offering. Such a devotee can offer according to his ability.

[Prabhupada stated in his lecture of May 25, 1969, "But in everything we do, devotion and sincerity are the real things. There is a word in Sanskrit; bhava grahi janardana: This means the Lord accepts service in devotional emotion. If we are sincere in offering something to the Lord in devotional love, He will accept it. The procedure may not be very correct, but the desire being sincere, He accepts our offering. This is also confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita. He accepts foodstuffs from devotees because they are offered to Him in complete love and affection. That is required."]

I really appreciated andy108's last post (#24). Even if you don't agree with his solution(s) you will have to admit that it is an excellent analysis, especially for someone who was born after Srila Prabhupada's manifest lila.

Actually, I was born during the summer of love. 1968.

My first exposure to Sri Krsna was hearing his name from a news reporter on WINS 1010 NY radio news station.

It was after 1977 because I was at least 10 years old, and in the 5th grade.

The newscaster mentioned the name (as I heard it) Harry Krishnas. In relation to members of a religious group approaching people on the streets in NYC. In my mind, after hearing they were the "Harry Krishnas" I immediately envisioned the strange looking men who wear black hats with long beards and curly locks down their sideburns, and thought Oh, that must be who he means.

The rest of my life up til my 20's is just another mundane matter, no different in essence than any other conditioned soul. Average. Took some hard knocks. Got inquisitive and repentant, then Krsna sent some mercy.

I think the moral of the story is that by reading Srila Prabhupada's books, and by keeping company with a few select devotees over the years who abandoned the Prakrita Sahajiya cult of apa-Iskcon, but kept Prabhupada's Iskcon in their hearts, I can see pretty clearly what he wanted as opposed to what is being perpetrated. By the combined mercy of Guru, Sadhus, and Sastra.

I have nothing to add or offer of my own on top of what Srila Prabhupada gave. What bliss. I just read and repeat. And look good doin it. This gives me an otherworldly confidence that any to challenge anyone, no matter how long they have been "in the movement" or "initiated by Prabhupada". If they go against his conclusion, they are wrong and I know it.

Which reminds me of something Rasananda dasa declared in his article posted on the Sampradaya Sun today.

After First tooting his own horn regarding his material accomplishments and his illustrious mundane families lineage before meeting Srila Prabhupada, and then praising his early devotional service, I thought oh boy, here we go.

Then he went on to speak very nicely and I agreed with just about everything he said. Until he got to this point.

"As far as discipleship and guruship - disciple means discipline. As we all follow the particular discipline promulgated by Srila Prabhupada: following the four regulative principles, chanting sixteen rounds and distributing his literature - anyone doing these things can claim to be his disciple. (Of course, the etiquette of senior and junior, with particular regard to those who were initiated during the physical presence of Prabhupada, should be observed."

 

Earlier in the article he focused strongly on the need for recoginizing Prabhus by qualification and behavior only. He went deeper and spoke very well. And he also admits Srila Prabhupada can and did set things up to take more disciples via those officiating on his behalf.

But now he advocates some sort of Senior/Junior "ettiquete" differential based on who was initiated "during the physical presence".

If someone is senior by birth to me, and is following strictly, but just a neophyte, I would treat them according to whatever classification of elder member of society he falls into, expect him to help me get the women and children out of a burning building first, and would expect him to accept spiritual duties according to his level of realization.

If they are junior by birth to me, but more advanced in devotional service, I would defer to them in class scheduling, and anything else they did better than me, but socially expect them to follow standard ettiquette based on age difference.

I don't think when a person was initiated had butt-all to do with anything.

And am sure those who do are looking to gain a spot of prestige where none is deserved.

Hare Krsna

Now I understand how easy it is for you to believe in the myths propagated by the old ritviks.

 

If you think the present Iskcon is a sahajiya camp, the old one was more like a boot camp of Muslim fanatics.

Myths? You are quite a piece of work. There hasn't been one person who has been able to touch me in a debate over initiations since I pieced together the puzzle from Srila Prabhupada's own mouth. As a matter of fact everyone I have ever faced off against has inevitably had to make something up (mythmaking) in order to "defeat" my position.

That is Ok, as long as I know the truth, and trust me I don't wish it on Prabhupada's detractors, but they can (and will) go to hell.

I can see what you mean about the fanatic boot camp. Except for the reasonable non-fanatics of that day who you lump in to that description, who either left peacably or were forced/marginalized who you fail to mention. You know, the ones who actually respected Srila Prabhupada, who would accept his correction, and made actual improvement in their spiritual lives.

Of course once Srila Prabhupada disappeared from mortal vision, any of those reasonable types were wholesale marginalized and forced out for doubting the Jihadists.

And once they were fully in charge, the only people who came and stuck around were those vetted by them, who were willing to toe the line and get their meal ticket punched.

So in actualit today, there is not a possibility of a freedom loving, truth knowing, truth telling person within the apa-Iskcon borders.

Take it Cheap and Easy, don't ask don't tell Sahajiyas every last one.

Stands to reason for the reasonable, but then some people would rather ignore the logical sequence and instead enjoy creating myths about modern Iskcon, place of the "very goodvery nice" staunch Sadhana Bhaktas, to support their denial of the facts.

Yes, they should be happy for being screwed over by the leaders of this movement and subjected to all kinds of inhumane treatment. Should the abused women and kids be happy too? Yey! I only got raped once! I should have been raped 10 times! My child has been subjected to only 3 years of nightmares in the Danudhar's gurukula! what a blessing! He should have suffered like that for 30 years... lucky him...

 

Very few people complain about plain austerities, and those who are can be called whiners. It is the ABUSE that is the issue here.

Abuse is an issue and must be addressed.

The fact that some victims seem only capable of whining and not get past their victimization is another issue to address.

Whining is not bad inherently, it is an emotional expression of helplessness, dread and pain.

Why can't you see both issues, instead of saying Abuse is THE issue?

It might seem easier to stem the tide of abuse by arresting those Abusers from their ability to be in society.

But if the victim is not healed of their victim mentality they WILL DRAW ANOTHER ABUSER TO THEM.

Also, blaming the system that a Victimizer abused for purposes of abusing their victim, is like blaming the victim for being abused. The system was a victim of the victimizer because the victimizer does that with anything.

Anything but pure unalloyed devotional activity will bring some subtle or gross violence to another living entity.

Srila Prabhupada instituted protocols of Daiva Varnasrama Dharma within Iskcon, and those who will follow THAT SYSTEM will not be creating future sinful reactions. In DVD Yoga Maya takes over for the neophyte, and if the neophyte is purely following, all apparent sense gratification is taken into account as the fan is still spinning though unplugged.

Change one instruction, twist one order, and the equation is spoiled and a mundane situation will occur with resulting sinful reactions and abuses.

Srila Prabhupada did not set up a mundane institutional system. It is only our misinterpretation of what he set up, and actions based on that, which create a mundane institution full of abuse.

To say otherwise would be to reject him as Maha Bhagavat Acarya, representative of Sri Govindaji AND Sri Madana Mohan Vigrahas.

Excuse me for responding to your personal attacks on me.

So correcting someone's mistakes in a spiritual discussion is a personal attack?

I don't think so.

It feels like an attack if you are too-self absorbed and take things personally.

Now if that feels like an attack it is not.

I am self absorbed to the extent I am but I know it and deal with it.

You seem oblivious to your own, and that doesn't do you any good if you really want to have a spiritual discussion.

I am only this blunt with you because you constantly criticise Srila Prabhupada and his system, otherwise our relationship might be quite different.

I thought you were describing your own ex-hippie generation of devotees, responsible for all the nasty things that happened in our movement.

Shows how much divine vision you get from spending your days in a Karmi science laboratory.

I wasn't even born then.

And the closet (a metaphor by the way all seeing one) is a recent phenomenon. I have seen the so called sadhana that is displayed in Iskcon communities, I have lived in more of them than you have, but enough to know. The body is only as good as the head. Those who don't speak out against the corrupt head are doing Sahajiya Cheerleader sadhana, and while it is something to be respected at a distance, it is nothing to laud.

P.S. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings before. It is not what I intend.

How do I point out the effect of living amongst puffed up Sahajiya Sadhakas who were inconsiderate, rude, condescending, and even worse, without sounding like I am condescending myself?

It is frustrating, because they seem to be the only ones who are at LEAST pretending some interest in Krsna and Vaisnava culture, and I am not prepared or qualified to start my own movement. On the other hand, the common Christian is emotionally more mature and agreeable and safe to be around.

I guess I just need to learn to live with reality, grin and bear it.

You ask: "Who was suggesting that the poor leadership be absolved responsibility?"

Yeah HELLO! I asked that because you directly implied that someone other than yourself did suggest this and then you proceeded to use it as a straw man to beat up, while avoiding dealing with what I DID SUGGEST such as the error in your attack on Sonic's understanding of the situation, as if he was simply blaming the whiners while letting the leaders off the hook, the error in your thinking that the past can ever be "different", and all your other erroneous mental postures.

As to the merit of the conversation: devotees under my care were never cheated or mistreated. I did not demand from others what I did not expect to give myself.

Why does the merit of the conversation have to begin and end with YOU?

This conversation has a lot more merit than as a vehicle for your own self glorification.

But I guess I can't expect someone so self absorbed to see past that, so good for you King Kula. You just mommy up those whiny victims and stomp those leaders. See what kind of Kingdom you end up with. Oh yeah, King of Karmi Lab rats (scientists) in Bumblesville North Carolina.

Of course in your paranoia you see me blaming Prabhupada for lack of common sense among rank and file devotees

Not paranoia. Your record speaks for itself.

For instance, after you claim you are not blaming Prabhupada, for their lack of common sense, in the next sentence their lack of common sense is due to...

Not that they lack common sense, but...

I was merely pointing out the reason many devotees trusted the leaders Prabhupada appointed: the very fact of them being placed in these positions by their guru.

So it is the very fact Prabhupada placed them in their positions that they lacked common sense and trusted them when they were told black was white.

Just as I said before. If you never admit you have a problem, you will never get past it.

Of course these devotees were often naive to the extreme. But that does not remove the responsibilities of Iskcon authorities for the abuses that took place on their watch.

What a short memory. Who was suggesting that the poor leadership be absolved responsibility?

This whole conversation is based on you claiming Sonic was blaming the whiners (victims). I pointed out he was actually trying to empower them by showing them the reality of an alternative.

Of course you can't just come in and say, "Good point", but must fabricate a straw man position... "But that does not remove the responsibilities of Iskcon authorities for the abuses that took place on their watch."... which no one even advocated.

So, why didn't you step up in the past you big Ksyatria you? And save people from their karma?

I used the scripturally backed fact of life that when a devotee does actually suffer, and Big King Kulapavana wasn't there to prevent it, that it was supposed to be 10x worse.

I stated this because you took the irrational position that something that happened did not have to happen as it happened.

I offered the rational alternatives listed in my post, that you could try to arrange for the protection in the future and prevent the same mistake.

And somehow you twist this to infer that I absolve Victimizers of their responsibilities?

Don't you have some Karmi scientists to schedule lunch breaks for O Mighty King Kula?

Unlike you, I know personally and up close scores of Iskcon diksa-initiated devotees who have plenty of transcendental knowledge, who maintain a very good sadhana, and who perform very nice devotional service every day.

 

You judge by the results. If diksa from Prabhupada was so much more superior that is not showing in his disciples, who are just as prone (if not more) to all kinds of deviations and illicit behavior as those who got diksa from the Iskcon gurus.

"plenty of transcendental knowledge"

Then their so called Diksa initiation had nothing to do with gaining transcendental knowledge. They were simply able to glean something from reading the changed books, though they won't get the whole picture and won't progress very far under the insufficient guidance of the neophytes who changed the books.

The neophytes at North America's largest and most populace temple make a "very nice" altar. Very very nice doesn't even begin to describe the opulent beauty of their artistry in Deity worship.

Of course these folks are very rude, condescending, and socially thoughtless in their selfishness. Outside of how they treat the Deities, they are just awful.

Very good sadhana. Right. When you are done with your tour of the Colon Highway, take the first exit for reality, and come on up to the surface and see what you've been missing.

Duh! What you missed in their 'whining' is that IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE THIS HARD OR THAT CROOKED. Sankirtan was austere enough without all these extra idiocies imposed by most Iskcon misleaders.

I don't think Sonic misses anything. He is pointing out that whining is useless, and counterproductive. And perhaps a whiner could take a lesson from the example of Sonic, that it was there own choice to be cheated and stay that way.

It DID "HAVE TO BE THAT HARD AND THAT CROOKED" because what occured at the time was the measure of the karmic desire of the cheaters and cheated involved, and tempered with the mercy gained due to whatever sincerety was there to please Prabhupada, even if it was just for personal gain. Or did you miss that part of the ABC's of using suffering to our advantage and see that it is Krsna's mercy and whatever level of suffering we endure is actually minimized by him because it was supposed to be 10x worse?

It would be more "proper" for you to say that "IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT HARD OR THAT CROOKED AGAIN."

Or even more "proper" if you could state with conviction that "IT WILL NOT BE THAT HARD OR CROOKED IF YOU FOLLOW MY LEAD."

And then prove it.

If the sankirtan and fundraising methods were PROPER we would have avoided burning out both the public and the book distributors. If Gurukripa was treating soldiers in Vietnam the same way he was treating his sankirtan men he would have been shot by his own men, plain and simple. That happened many times to guys like him over there.

So, do something about it and stop whining.

Yes, we need to blame the simple minded and naive rank and file devotees like Suresh for trusting Iskcon leaders appointed by Prabhupada and for beieving the garbage these people fed them.

Of course your whining rant would not be complete without an oblique jab at Srila Prabhupada. That kind of thing is actually what prevents you from being able to do better than what was done. You need his mercy, but won't get it by criticizing him.

According to your own confession, you didn't trust the leaders he appointed, and refused to do anything suggested that didn't ring true to your conscience.

The nature of the guna and karma you brought to the table was different than others. Variety is present always. If someone told you a girl was a boy, you didn't say to yourself, "well Srila Prabhupada appointed this leader so a girl must be a boy."

But you blame Srila Prabhupada for the fact that another person didn't have your common sense? Is that a way to encourage them to take personal accountability for their brainlessness? How will they ever get to be as savvy as you if you blame their brainlessness on someone else? Or would you rather them stay little naive mushrooms in the dark for you to pick at will for your own purposes?

Sonic wants them to get over their victim trip. Not remain mushrooms for anyone's fantasy.

Yet in a sense, formal diksa is the sampradaya like the shell of a sea animal is also the animal. But even if the animal dies, the shell will be left behind. Similarly real siksa is the real internal life of the sampradaya. So an institution can become like the shell and what's inside may be for all practical purposes, dead. And from the viewpoint of Caitanya Caritamrta, so can a sampradaya, or at least a branch of the sampradayic tree. The example was the son of Sri Advaita Acarya who did not accept the divinity of Sri Nityananda Prabhu. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur traced this phenomena to the imitationist lines masquerading as representing Mahaprabhu during his era. So has mainstream Iskcon for all intents and purposes also become the latest sahajiya sampradaya? There are many who would say yes. But despite all this if one doesn't want to accept formal diksa then they should really keep that to themselves. For if such a thing is broadcast publicly then they lead others to the non-sampradaya, sampradaya, formal diksa or not. So such things are private matter, not for public consumption otherwise it also becomes an hypocrisy for it would be a total contradiction. And I don't expect most to agree or even understand what I am writing.

Maybe because your metaphors are loose and your words seem to be contradictory doublespeak as if only you could actually understand what goes on in your blessed mind?

I honestly, for the life of me, have no idea what conclusive point you were trying to make.

The part about Mainstream Iskcon becoming a Sahajiya branch of the Gaudiya Madhva Sampradaya is evident to a 3rd grader. The third graders I used to teach would be able to accurately describe their activity as "crazy" and "wierd". My junior high students would know they were a "cult". My high schoolers would tack on the word "personality" to cult.

Of course they are still neophyte Vaisnavas and deserve mental respect for their craziness from a distance. But you and I have the spiritual grace to understand that. They don't see anyone as Vaisnavas, actually don't know what one is, and are cut off from grace, unless you consider building indirect Sukrti as counting toward that, but then everyone who hears a joke about "Hare Krsnas" has some sukriti and is thus as spiritually advanced as average Sahajiya Iskcon cult member.

Bottom line, where there is NO ACTUAL TRANSCENDENTAL KNOWLEDGE BEING DISTRIBUTED OR REALIZED, THERE IS NO DIKSA, NO INITIATION INTO THE BEGINNING PROCESS OF SPIRITUAL SADHANA. There is at best a big Sukrti factory amidst the horror and abuse. That is not Diksa.

Diksa can and should be separated from the institution

That is not an original idea of Kulapavana's.

The creator of the Iskcon institution did just that. He arranged that for all those conditioned souls entering his Iskcon Institution aspiring for devotional service, HE would transcendentally provide the Diksa initiation, just as he did for the entire time when he was present in his human vapu form on the planet.

The transcendental act of giving Diksa Mantra initiation was done through his neophyte disciples who acted as his representatives via ceremony in his absence for many years while AC Bhaktivedanta Swami was still appearing to our mortal vision on this planet. Many of His initiated disciples NEVER EVER met him "in person" aka : in his bodily form.

He formalized this system of using priestly representatives in an institution wide edict in 1977 shortly before disappearing from our mortal vision. He declared the system to continue henceforward. He never recinded this order, or countered the instruction by any further act or implication.

Thus by his own words he showed He was willing to accept many more disciples he would "never meet" and initiate them transcendentally. It seemed he was confident in the Siksa he left, and those who would take it seriously and pass the Siksa on purely themselves. The same as it ever was.

He did this through those APPOINTED to the POSITION of REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ACARYA for the PURPOSE OF PRESIDING OVER THE INITIATION CEREMONY ON BEHALF OF THE ACARYA.

And as with any other appointment in a material based institution, a person so honored who fails to meet the terms of their appointment is subject to be unseated from that position forthwith.

This act was in no way a Spiritual conference of some Spiritual power upon the individuals so named. Just an appointment filled with conditions.

The actual power of any disciple within the institution to be a transcendental conduit for Diksa initiation was paradoxically enabled only by following the conditions of the authorized instructions of that disciple's Spiritual Master.

Such disciples may become pure and advanced devotees of Lord Sri Krsna, be rightly considered Spiritual Masters and Siksa Gurus in their own right, but as we know, no-one gets to that point by disobeying orders of their own Acarya. The order was, within Iskcon, the Founder-Acarya remains the Initiating Guru. All else BECOME Instructor (Siksa) Guru.

It has been argued that a devotee who becomes qualified as Siksa Guru and Spiritual Master is inherently and implicitly capable and qualified to give Mantra Diksa Initiation on their own.

Which is true. But perhaps the Acarya and Krsna had a reason for setting things up as they did. Perhaps the abuse of the formality of Diksa for hundreds of years in India, and the abuse that has occured in the shadow of Iskcon over the last 40 can give us a clue to their wisdom if we cannot accept it at face value. Perhaps it was done as a preaching tool, a safeguard, a gesture of love for the fallen.

In any event, an order is an order, and knowing that the real spiritual initiation is not dependent on the Diksa ceremony, perhaps it is time to just follow the orders of those who knew better than us when they found us wallowing in the stool house like hogs and dogs, and not presume to know better than them.

Quite simple for the simple.

Hare Krsna

When the unqualified leaders also give diksa and try to initiate as many personal followers as possible

If anyone here believes AC Bhatkivedanta Swami is any kind of authority on matters, he says in the Caitanya Caritamrta

The initiating spiritual master is a personal manifestation of Śrīla Madana-mohana vigraha, whereas the instructing spiritual master is a personal representative of Śrīla Govindadeva vigraha.

 

In a letter to a senior sanyassi disciple named Madhudvisa in 1975 Bhaktivedanta Swami said.

The GBC should all be the instructor gurus. I am in the initiator guru, and you should be the instructor guru by teaching what I am teaching and doing what I am doing. This is not a title, but you must actually come to this platform. This I want.

 

 

So Bhaktivedanta Swami, the Founder-Acarya of Iskcon, considered himself qualified to lead and considered himself a personal manifestation of Srila Madana Mohana Vigraha.

His management instruction was that the members of his ultimate managerial authority (GBC) were to become instructor gurus (representatives of Srila Govindadeva Vigraha) and they needed to acheive that platform it was not a title given.

So how exactly do unqualified leaders give Diksa?

What exactly do the "initiate" some one into?