Jahnava Nitai Das

$60,000 plus free food and free housing, free vehicle and free gasoline, free phone bill, free flight travel, etc. Add to that a $120,000 bonus payment when he quits. Plus there were accusations that several people on the BV Manor temple payroll also had their wives and sons on the payroll (imagine three people from the same house getting paid, now thats a good income).

 

The previous person who was temple president was Vipramukhya Swami. I wonder if he received the same payments as well.

 

Whether wrong or right, no on can deny that this is about as far off from Prabhupada's standard as you could go. Prabhupada wanted renounced devotees (including grihasthas) dedicating their lives to (unpaid) devotional service for the purpose of spiritual advancement. If someone had suggested that we should pay the above salary and benefits to a temple president, what would Srila Prabhupada have done?

 

are you saying that lower birth (pratiloma) is the same as varna sankara?

Both words have the same literal meaning. Sankara means mixing. When the castes are improperly mixed it is known as varna-sankara.

 

Interestingly enough, even BBT books state the same thing (Hridayananda Goswami's commentary on 11.20.2 of Srimad Bhagavatam):

 

"Pratiloma indicates the combination of a superior woman with an inferior man. For example, the vaidehaka community consists of those born of a sudra father and brahmana mother, whereas the sutas are those born from a kshatriya father and a brahmana mother or from a sudra father and kshatriya mother. ... That such mixing of castes is not very much appreciated in the Vedic culture is demonstrated in the first chapter of Bhagavad-gita. Arjuna was very worried that the death of so many kshatriyas on the battlefield would lead to the mixing of superior women with inferior men, and on those grounds he objected to fighting."

 

This is directly in reference to Arjuna's use of the word varna-sankara. If you check where Hridayananda Goswami got this concept, you will find it is from other commentaries. It is not his own creation.

 

Srila Prabhupada's use of "unwanted progeny" for varna-sankara is another example of his genius. Srila Prabhupada was presenting the spiritual essence of the Gita in his Bhagavad Gita As It Is. If he translated it literally as "mixed caste", then 1000 questions would rise that needed to be answered before the reader could move on to the next verse. What is wrong with intercaste marriage... is caste based on birth... if caste is not based on birth then why would the mixed caste marriage be wrong... how does mixed caste marriage destroy society and lead to the degradation of religion, etc. Such questions would just divert the reader's mind from the essential spiritual message that needed to be conveyed by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Srila Prabhupada's purpose while writing the first chapter of Bhagavad Gita was not to minutely explain the Vedic caste clasifications and marriage customs. Rather than deal with all these external topics, he brushed them all aside by translating the word as "unwanted progeny", a concept that every westerner could immediately understand. Srila Prabhupada has done the same thing in his stating that Vichitravirya passed away while Dhritarashtra was still young. Rather than explain how Dhritarashtra's father could have passed away prior to his conception (a concept impossible in western thought), he translated the concept into an understandable form that perfectly conveyed the spiritual essence of the verse. What you see as Srila Prabhupada's mistake is actually his genius.

 

based on this definition, was Vidura a varna-sankara? and was every suta a varna-sankara? how about Lomaharsana suta? IMO you do not understand the term varna-sankara.

Let us see what the Bhagavatam says.

 

Balarama points out Romaharshana Suta's low caste:

 

yasmad asav iman vipran

adhyaste pratiloma-jah

dharma-palams tathaivasman

vadham arhati durmatih

 

yasmat—because; asau—he; iman—than these; vipran—brahmanas; adhyaste—is sitting higher; pratiloma-jah—born from an improperly mixed marriage; dharma—of the principles of religion; palan—the protector; tatha eva—also; asman—Myself; vadham—death; arhati—he deserves; durmatih—foolish.

 

"[Lord Balarama said:] Because this fool born from an improperly mixed marriage sits above all these brahmanas and even above Me, the protector of religion, he deserves to die."

 

Suta Goswami (son of Romaharshana) refers to his own low caste:

 

suta uvaca

aho vayam janma-bhrito 'dya hasma

vriddhanuvrittyapi viloma-jatah

daushkulyam adhim vidhunoti sighram

mahattamanam abhidhana-yogah

 

sutah uvaca—Suta Gosvami said; aho—how; vayam—we; janma-bhritah—promoted in birth; adya—today; ha—clearly; asma—have become; vriddha-anuvrittya—by serving those who are advanced in knowledge; api—although; viloma-jatah—born in a mixed caste; daushkulyam—disqualification of birth; adhim—sufferings; vidhunoti—purifies; sighram—very soon; mahat-tamanam—of those who are great; abhidhana—conversation; yogah—connection.

 

"Sri Suta Gosvami said: O God, although we are born in a mixed caste, we are still promoted in birthright simply by serving and following the great who are advanced in knowledge. Even by conversing with such great souls, one can without delay cleanse oneself of all disqualifications resulting from lower births."

 

By birth they were Suta caste, but by associating with saints they became pure and considered brahmanas.

 

Prabhupada states:

 

“This man, Romaharshana, is so impudent that he has accepted a higher seat than that of all the respectable brahmanas present here, although he was born in a degraded pratiloma family.”

 

Elsewhere Prabhupada states:

 

"Romaharsana Suta had been given a chance to become a perfect brahmana, but because of his ill behavior in his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his low birth was immediately remembered. Romaharsana Suta had been given the position of a brahmana, but he had not been born in the family of a brahmana; he had been born in a pratiloma family. According to the Vedic concept, there are two kinds of mixed family heritage. They are called anuloma and pratiloma. When a male is united with a female of a lower caste, the offspring is called anuloma; but when a male unites with a woman of a higher caste, the offspring is called pratiloma. Romaharsana Suta belonged to the pratiloma family because his father was a ksatriya and his mother a brahmana."

 

 

As to Vichitravirya, based on Mahabharata, he was not much of a kshatriya, but he was raised in a royal household.

The name Vicitra-virya literally means "amazingly heroic". But I suppose your whims of determining who was a real kshatriya and who wasn't are more substantial.

If you can't see the sun, then there is no way you will see the small stars.

There is also an article on the Sampradaya Sun by Jayo Das called something like "BBT and BI, ISKCON's Kurukshetra War".

 

This appears to be a mistake, it should read deham. Probably an error when transcribing from tape.

It is likely a commentator has considered sphitam to be an adjective of deham (sphitam deham), making it "vast, gigantic form" which indicates Virat Rupa (Universal form).

 

Multiple commentators may have attributed sphitam to different words, making it refer to either Krishna's vast family network, or Krishna's vast universal form. It isn't possible to include both interpretations in the word for word, but in the purport it is possible to present multiple explanations.

 

 

"Here in this verse the word sphītam is also used, which indicates that He left His gigantic universal form called the virāṭ-rūpa, not His primeval, eternal form, because there is hardly any possibility of His changing His form of sac-cid-ānanda."

 

If we had just taken the word deham alone, it doesn't indicate that the form being referred to is the Virat Rupa. It could conceivably refer to Bhagavan leaving his sac-cid-ananda rupa as well (an impossible thing, but for Bhagavan who can say something is logically impossible). The addition of the word sphitam would point more towards the Virat Rupa, as opposed to the Svayam Rupa of Bhagavan.

 

But from a logical perspective there are three possibilities:

 

1) sphitam refers simultaneously to deham and kulam

2) sphitam refers only to deham and word for word is wrong

3) sphitam refers only to kulam and the purport is wrong

 

If one looks in the 10 collected commentaries it should answer if sphitam has been used as an adjective to deham by anyone. And if there are recordings of Prabhupada's transcriptions left they can be referred, to see if its a transcription error.

 

Without having time to go through the above two steps, I would suggest the likely answer is 1 and it is correct.

 

Arjuna is a Pandava through his mother and the royal house, just like Dhritarastra is a Kuru.

Pandava literally means son of Pandu. By your logic, Vyasa should correct his mistake of referring to Arjuna as a son of Pandu. This is the exact same thing Prabhupada has done referring to Dhritarashtra as son of Vichitravirya.

 

Anybody understands that small mistakes can be made

No one has said there are no editorial mistakes in Prabhupada's books. But what you think are mistakes, just aren't mistakes. And if someone like you were free to edit Prabhupada's books, huge mistakes would be put into his books as is evident in this thread. Unfortunately someone like you (Jayadvaita) is free to edit Prabhupada's books, and he isn't any brighter either.

 

Inadequate or inept editing of these books by BBT only makes such tasks harder...

And your solution: further inept editing. No thanks for that solution.

 

What people dont understand is why there is a need to turn everything upside down to prove that "there is no mistake whatsoever".

No one is saying there are no mistakes, but what you claim to be a mistake (Vichitravirya being called the father of Pandu) is not a mistake at all. Uneducated people trying to edit Prabhupada's books is the real danger we need to be watching for.

 

 

And you are free to believe that Vicitravirya died when Dhritarasra was a child, but most people will not agree with that view. Nor will they consider him the father of Dhritarastra.

Again a strawman argument that no one has raised. You can't comprehend how Vicitravirya could have passed away and still be considered the father of Dhritarashtra, nor how Arjuna can be called son of Pandu, yet not have been conceived of by Pandu.

 

Of course you failed to address the fact that Satyavati, a fisherwoman, was the mother of both Vyasa and Vichitravirya. Vyasa was considered a brahmana, but Vichitravirya was considered a Kshatriya - both because of their father's caste. Neither was considered a fisherman, which was the mother's caste.

 

 

Krsna established just 4 varnas

You are really out of touch with reality. I think there is no point continuing, as you obviously think you know everything about Vedic culture without having studied any of it.

 

The problem with ISKCON is there are so many people who learned everything by reading the Cliff Notes version of Mahabharata, yet want to correct Prabhupada for things they perceive as mistakes. First spend some time actually studying under traditional Vedic teachers or scholars and learn this culture.

 

Satyavati being a woman, how is it possible that she was the father of Vyasa as you state below?

Obviously I meant mother, but miswrote father as I was in a hurry:

 

"Another relevant example is Satyavati (a fisherwoman), who is the father of Vyasa. Vyasa is considered a brahmana by virtue of his father Parashara."

 

Vyasa's father is Parashara and mother is Satyavati.

 

I did not say that the child inherits mother's caste.

 

On another site this is what you said:

 

"And as to Drona and Bhishma, they were both kshatriyas maintained by the royal court. While Drona is a brahmana only by a birth from brahmana Bharadwaja (his mother was an Apsara - certainly not a brahmani woman, and the varna of a child comes from the mother"

 

It is a fact that caste comes from the father. When two people of equal category caste have a child, the child takes the caste and gotra of the father - with no connection to the past caste, sub-caste or gotra of the mother. When two people of incompatible castes have a child, the child is known as mixed caste, or in the words of Krishna "varna-sankara" (literally "mixed caste", or as Prabhupada translates it "unwanted progeny"). As a result of being born from an impure line, the child's caste is considered polluted, and thus he is given a title such as Suta, etc.

 

 

I said that in determining the child's caste mother's caste is of primary concern.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. Coming from someone who often proclaims that "he is a real Kshatriya", and who likes to speak about Varnashrama makes it a joke. You don't have a clue about the very basics of what a varna, jati and gotra are, but you run around pointing out "flaws" in Prabhupada's books based on your self perceived Vedic cultural knowledge.

 

 

these statements are contradicted by the shastra - they may be customary where you live at the present time, but they are not based on Vedic culture.

Exactly what experience do you have with Vedic culture besides having read a Mahabharata translation and having lived in an ISKCON temple? And exactly how do you feel it makes you qualified to point out mistakes you see in Prabhupada's writings?

 

anyway, that has nothing to do with the issue on hand. Vicitravirya was dead before Dhritarastra was conceived, and that is a fact.

Vicitravirya is the factual father of Dhritarashtra, and Prabhupada was perfectly correct in stating so. Dhritarashtra is referred to as a "Kuru" throughout the Mahabharata, which is a lineage traced through his father Vicitravirya. It is impossible to be a Kuru through Vyasa.

 

Dhritarashtra was considered a pure Kshatriya, not a mixed caste, and was therefore considered fit for sitting on the throne. This is due to the fact that his father has always been considered as Vicitravirya. Had his father been a brahmana (Vyasa) he couldn't have ruled the kingdom.

 

We have a similar example in the case of the Pandavas. Arjuna is always addressed as a Pandava (son of Pandu), even though Pandu did not conceive him. Only a fool would try to argue that Prabhupada was also mistaken in calling Arjuna a son of Pandu.

 

When a queen conceives a child through a Deva or a Rishi, the father is considered the husband of the queen, not just the one who conceived the child, and caste is determined based on the kings lineage.

 

Another relevant example is Satyavati (a fisherwoman), who is the father of Vyasa. Vyasa is considered a brahmana by virtue of his father Parashara. Satyavati is also the mother of Vichitravirya (with Maharaja Shantanu). Despite her being a fisherwoman, the sons were Kshatriyas by virtue of their father. So here we have the exact same woman giving birth to two children from two different men, and the children both receive the castes of their father.

 

You can keep reading Prabhupada's books like a crow, looking for some imagined mistakes, but intelligent people don't waste their time doing such things.

 

according to Manu Samhita (Chapter 10) child's caste is based on the mother

What is stated in those verses of Manu samhita is not what you claim. It has nothing to do with inheriting the mother's caste. It states what caste a child is given if a male of caste A marries a woman of caste B. It was looked down on for a lower caste man to marry a higher caste woman, and as a result the son's caste was considered low (for example a suta).

 

What we have here is someone (yourself) who knows much less of Vedic culture than Srila Prabhupada, foolishly saying Prabhupada is mistaken and needs to have his books changed because you think you are right and he is wrong. According to you, Prabhupada was mistaken to say Vicitravirya was the father of Dhritarashtra, and you think it is an obvious mistake that needs to be corrected. Anyone with a cursory knowledge will know that Prabhupada was correct in his statement, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he said. The danger we have is when people who know nothing try to change the books of Prabhupada based on their poor fund of knowledge.

 

All your self promoting claims of your great experience and expertise in editing books doesn't change the fact that you are wrong on this.

Though Vyasa conceived the child, Vicitravirya was the father of Dhritarastra, and only through that link did he have right to the throne, right to his caste, etc. Caste, gotra and inheritence are passed down from the father to son, not through the mother. Dhritarastra and his descendents never make a claim of belonging to the lineage of Vyasa, but rather to their father's dynasty. (Elsewhere I saw you make the claim that caste is passed on from the mother, but I didn't waste time to point out this mistake, as you weren't using it to criticize Prabhupada's writings.)

 

Your attempts to find "obvious" mistakes in Prabhupada's books are pathetic, as they just highlight your own misunderstandings. These are things that any child in India is aware of, but you want to publicly point out some imagined fault in Prabhupada's books because you are ignorant of this culture.

 

In Hindu and Vedic culture the wife takes the caste of the husband at the time of marriage (giving up her own), and this is why a son is considered so important to keep the family line alive so that Pinda can continue to be offered for the forefathers.

 

Evidence to backup your claim?

 

Though it wasn't my claim, I think history has amply shown that many members of the GBC in the past were not liberated souls (i.e. serious criminal activities have been perpetrated by past GBC members). These criminal activities, fall downs and other occurences are regular and consistant, not only restricted to a particular time period for ISKCON. The same defects have been found in sufficient ISKCON gurus as well.

 

There are so many varying characters on the GBC, many often hating each other and fighting through their meetings. Take for example the GBCs attempts to throw out Gour Govinda Swami from ISKCON, and recently the GBCs attempts to do the same to Bhakti Swarup Damodar Swami (due to a conflict between him and his former disciple Rasaraj). Once the saintly devotees pass away, the GBC tries to pretend they always loved them, and they even go so far as to put their birth days on the yearly ISKCON calendars to celebrate. An amazing turn around from how they actually treated them while they were present.

 

Thus from the past functioning of the GBC and numerous criminal activities perpetrated by GBC members, it is clear that at least some (and likely the majority, or even all) of the GBC are not liberated souls.

A couple other points. The claim surrounding this document is that Prabhupada "wrote" it because a devotee in Australia was preaching that the soul originates in brahmajyoti. This is different from saying the soul manifests from Sankarshana, MahaVishnu, Tatastha, etc. There are other possible sources besides Vaikunta and Brahmajyoti. Prabhupada condemning the soul originating from Brahmajyoti does not disqualify these other possibilities.

 

From a logical perspective this document would actually suggest the souls did not originate in Vaikuntha:

 

1) The GBC claims in this document Prabhupada is saying we fell from Vaikuntha.

 

2) Prabhupada understood the term Vaikuntha, as he used it throughout his books - even going so far as saying no one ever falls from Vaikuntha.

 

3) If someone wrote a document to clear the doubt on the origin of the soul, and if someone wanted to convey that we came from Vaikuntha, the natural thing would be to directly say "we fell from Vaikuntha". The whole point of clarifying something is to make it clear and unambiguous.

 

4) If the person's intended statement was "we fell from Vaikuntha" but then instead of directly saying it, they chose confusing ambiguous words like "we were originally with Krishna in His sport", what would be the use - especially since the document's purpose was to "clarify"? When a simple and direct statement would perfectly make your position clear, why would you avoid making that statement? This suggests that Prabhupada's intended statement never was that "we fell from Vaikuntha".

 

I dont see how anyone can destroy anyones spiritual life if the follower is genuine. This hate or blame mentality that people carry is baggage, and shows that they do not trust krsna's system nor understand it even though posing as scholors.

When Swami K sexually molests devotee children A, B, C, and D, and those children grow up to hate Prabhupada, it is a fact that Swami K destroyed their spiritual life. You can add to it that child B shoots himself in the head.

 

Criminals need to be exposed, blamed and punished. The fact that ISKCON leaders and gurus continuously protect known criminals shows that corruption is present deep within.

 

If someone points out the crimes, for example child molestation, someone like you says we are all wrotten fault finders who need to have faith in Krishna's system and not judge others. It is a fact that not a single corrupt ISKCON leader has been brought to trial with the help of ISKCON leadership (i.e. testifying against the criminal). It is also a fact that not a single corrupt ISKCON leader has had criminal complaints registered against them by ISKCON leadership.

 

In the outside world, if someone steals money and runs off, a police case is filed. If someone molests a child, a police case if filed. But in the history of ISKCON this has never been done when the leaders have been found to have engaged in these criminal activities.

 

On the contrary, they are glorified for the "wonderful devotional service they did". Someone else will come along and say "if they even gave out one book then Prabhupada is pleased with them" despite the fact that they have chased all the devotees out of ISKCON, misused Krishna's funds, molested the devotee children, and spoilt Prabhupada's name throughout the world. Wearing the dark glasses of blind sentimentality doesn't help Prabhupada's movement and it doesn't please him.

 

Swami K. had a few devotees killed because they disagreed with him... but so what, if he even distributed one book Prabhupada is happy with him.

 

Swami K. sexually abused young devotee children... but so what, if he even distributed one book Prabhupada is happy with him.

 

Swami K. made ISKCON a drug smuggling cartel... but so what, if he even distributed one book Prabhupada is happy with him.

 

Swami K. broke up hundreds of devotee families to increase his income collection... but so what, if he even distributed one book Prabhupada is happy with him.

 

Swami K. forced the women devotees to act as prostitutes... but so what, if he even distributed one book Prabhupada is happy with him.

 

Swami K. completely changed all of Prabhupada's teachings... but so what, if he even distributed one book Prabhupada is happy with him.

All glories to Srila Bhaktipada! Like the energizer bunny, still a guru after all this because of blind sentimentalists.

http://www.kirtananandaswami.org/

 

 

 

 

When dealing with other gurus like Shankaracharya, Sai Baba, and Mahesh Yogi, devotees need to "kick those mayavadi rascals in their face". But when it comes to child molesters, murderers and other criminals in their own fold, "Krishna is happy with them even if they distributed one book", "We shouldn't judge them. Leave all judgement to Krishna." This is the epitome of blind misguided sentimentalism.

 

Let us look a little closer at your words:

 

Your claim: The ONLY way we can help others is by educating them and being examples ourselves.

 

Practical application: Swami K. is a child molester. Taking your advice, we don't blame him and instead try to set a good example by not being a child molester ourselves. The result is Swami K. continues to molest children despite our perfect example.

 

Your claim: [No one can say] Person K should of done this and that.

 

Practical application: Swami K. molests children. No one can say Swami K. should have done this and shouldn't have molested those children. Only Krishna and Guru can know these things.

 

Your claim: Only Krsna and guru know for certain, we just speculate according to the emotions or condionings we have quoting certain things that go with what we feel.

 

Practical application: Swami K. molests a child. None of us can judge because our judgement is "speculation" based on "emotions" and "conditionings". Only Krishna and Guru can actually know for certain whether Swami K. molesting a child should have been done or not.

 

Your claim: Ultimately person K and others are acting out of their conditioning as they had no powerful leader to keep them in check anymore.

 

Practical application: Swami K. molests a child. Ultimately its not his fault as he didn't have a powerful leader to keep him in check anymore. It's only natural for people without powerful leaders to molest children, so no one should say anything against it or try to judge Swami K.

 

Your claim: We cant say that their conditioning should have disappeared. Krsna does not do that, who are we to wish it to happen.

 

Practical application: Despite all scriptures saying devotional service purifies one and removes all conditioning, still we can't say that it should have happened to Swami K. because "Krishna does not do that". Instead, Krishna makes his devotees become child molesters. And "who are we to wish" that those devotees should be purified instead of becoming child molesters.

 

Your claim: The only thing we can do is become genuine if we really care, so we can become the better leaders and educate the followers to become better followers.

 

Practical application: Swami K. is molesting children, so if we really care the only thing we can do is become a better leader ourselves and try to educate the children to be better children. We shouldn't judge Swami K., but instead try to educate the followers (children) to be better followers.

 

And to take the practical example of Gour Govinda Maharaj which you cited, even he was going to be banned from ISKCON. Your claim that ISKCON will magically clean itself up if you are a better example is proven false in this case. The history shows that even when the better example comes along, none of the corruption changes. Rather they try to throw out the better example.

 

 

Otherwise we have a whole bunch of people feeling hurt being the jury and the judges living in their ideal world.

What you refer to as an "ideal world" the rest of the world refers to as civilization. Having a society where child molesters are judged and punished isn't an ideal world fantasy. Having a society where murderers are in prison instead of being worshipped on Vyasasanas is not an ideal world fantasy.

 

So some feel clarifcation has already been made by prabhupada especially when directly issuing the crow and tal statement when asked about these contradictions.

Even in the crow and tal fruit paper nothing is refuted regarding souls not falling from Vaikuntha. "Formerly we were with Krsna in His lila, or sport". Everything is Krishna's lila, including srishti. Sankarshana and Mahavishnu are also part of Krishna's lila. No where does Prabhupada say "Formerly you were in Vaikuntha, and you fell." Prabhupada was not a foolish person. He could have easily directly answered the question saying we fell from Vaikuntha, but he didn't, and in his books he has written the opposite - that no one falls from vaikuntha.

 

Here are a couple questions regarding this paper:

 

1) Who actually wrote it (i.e. typed it, transcribed it and edited it). Since there is no direct statment "You fell from Vaikuntha", everything depends on the interpretation of one or two key words. Whether Prabhupada actually used these words or not, or whether an editor or transcriber was involved would make a big difference.

 

2) Why wasn't it signed by Prabhupada. There is no other document like this, where Prabhupada writes an essay (not a letter) and sends it to a temple to clear a philosophical point (especially without signing it).

 

Overall we see Prabhupada never mentions that we fell from "Vaikuntha", but rather says the opposite many times. ISKCON on the other hand directly stated in BTG as well as in their GBC book that "we fell from Vaikuntha". So this change from "Krishna's lila or sport" to "Vaikuntha" is a very drastic change in Prabhupada's teachings. Prabhupada knew the word "Vaikuntha" and he also knew it would be the obvious and easy answer to give if we actually fell from there. But he never used this word at all.

 

Even in the Crow and Tal fruit paper, which is supposedly his direct answer on this question, he never went and said "we fell from Vaikuntha". Rather he spoke indirectly about always being in contact with Krishna, even now in the material world. That reinforces the idea that Krishna's lila is not refering simply to Vaikuntha residents. When you then read it in line with what Prabhupada repeatedly wrote in his Srimad Bhagavatam purports it is impossible to honestly conclude that Prabhupada is speaking of falling from Vaikuntha in that paper.

 

I guess they did to some degree, and may be some had a spot of good motivation in there as well.

I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons why people take the position of guru, especially while they are not liberated. Many are probably able to justify it in their minds in some philosophical manner. People like Harikesh, Kirtanananda, Bhagavan, Bhavananda, etc., knew they weren't self realized. Without having "seen the truth" what can you offer to your disciples. People like Satsvarup still try to cling on to the guru position even after falling down, saying "no one is perfect, we are all working our way towards perfection." That is fine for a disciple, but not for an acharya and spiritual master. The spiritual master must not be an imperfect conditioned soul.

 

A few ISKCON devotees probably take the position of guru sincerely thinking its the right thing to do. They believe the spiritual master may be a conditioned soul as long as he follows the four regulative principles and chants 16 rounds of hare krishna mahamantra. Their view of guru is really just an expanded ritvik theory. Personally they have none of the divine qualities of a spiritual master, but they just try to link you to Prabhupada and as such Prabhupada delivers you. Does one really need a conditioned soul to receive the mercy of Krishna, or can a conditioned soul liberate you? Certainly not, as he cannot give something which he has never attained and has no control over. He himself is struggling for deliverance from the material world, and as such he isn't the "boat" that can help you cross it.

 

Other rare saints may be there, but practically speaking the amount of damage done by 100 pretenders really is incomparable to the present day actions of one or two saints (if they are there). The damage done by the pretenders isn't just material damage (i.e. X dollars stollen, Y temples closed, etc.). They have destroyed the spiritual lives of thousands and thousands of sincere devotees. Prabhupada has worked hard to give Krishna consciousness to the world, but these pretenders have acted in a way directly opposite to Prabhupada's intended desire. Destroying the spiritual lives of devotees is not just a material sinful activity. It is an aparadha that cannot be easily forgiven, not even by Krishna. No amount of devotional service will purify one of that offense. One actually loses the right to perform devotional service. Externally he may continue doing the same physical activities, but it is not devotional service.

 

When saints do come, it is ISKCON policy to ban them and attempt to throw them out of ISKCON. You mentioned Gour Govinda Maharaj, but he was the one the GBC (i.e. ISKCON gurus) were trying to ban and throw out of ISKCON. Harikesh banned Gour Govinda Maharaj from coming into eastern europe because he didn't want to lose disciples and money to him. These are not the actions of a devotee. He wasn't the only one to do this. If GGM hadn't passed away, he would have been thrown out of ISKCON.

 

 

Again the spiritual activities they have done in distributing prabhupadas message is infinately incomparable to the material chaos they caused.

Those who have clearly studied the history will know that the amount of damage they have done completely outweighed what "service" they did. Kirtanananda's molesting children, having people killed, turning Prabhupada's movement into a drug smuggling cartel, making female devotees act as prostitutes, completely changing Prabhupada's teachings, sitting himself on a throne with a kings crown and scepter while the devotees were taught to no longer chant Hare Krishna, purposely breaking apart families to increase income collection, appointing homosexuals in positions of power throughout ISKCON (most of whom are still on the GBC today), destroying the spiritual lives of thousands, and of course creating such a hatred for ISKCON amongst the American population that hardly a single person would even consider becoming a devotee for the next 50 years.

 

Now compare that to what he did: he made a broken, run down "palace of gold" with slave labor and drug money. That really isn't any accomplishment at all. If you go in person to New Vrindavan and see the crumbling building in the middle of nowhere, which cost thousands of devotees spiritual lives, you will think, "What was the use?"

 

Whatever limited spiritual success ISKCON has had after Srila Prabhupada's departure, it was done by the potency of Srila Prabhupada. Foolish people think the spiritual credit is due to the corrupt leaders who usurped Prabhupada's movement. They did nothing but break this movement into pieces, and then ran off with the money after creating chaos.

 

spare me the hype, prabhu.

I'm curious about your view on Harikesh's flying UFO spaceship? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars did it cost, and what ever happened to it?

 

As a disciple of Harikesh, what was your view of that project and how did you see it connected to Srila Prabhupada and Krishna's devotional service?

 

not all of them were like Kirtanananda, and some made sure millions of Prabhupada's books were distributed all over the world including communist countries.

Even materialists may distribute books if it is in their material self-interest. When someone positions themself as the pure devotee guru of the entire world, it is their selfishness that pushes them to distribute books and bring in new disciples for themselves. They spread Krishna consciousness because the end result was that they would get more disciples, fame, money and worship.

 

most importantly though, many devotees were truly helped and inspired by these imperfect gurus, because KRSNA often acted THROUGH them...

 

I was living in Iskcon temples at that time and I dont need anybody's quotes to tell me how it was.

I can't agree that child molesters like Kirtanananda "truly helped devotees", nor that "Krishna acted through them". Krishna acted through his pure devotees such as Srila Prabhupada. Because Prabhupada's books are still being distributed, ISKCON is still making new devotees. Everything is based on the potency of Prabhupada's books, not on the preaching of child molesters.

 

Anyone with common sense can understand that if ISKCON hadn't had the fake zonal acharya's the preaching success would have been many times greater than it has been. They were simply a drag and disruption to Prabhupada's movement. Prabhupada's books were so potent that those books continued to make new devotees despite the presence of rogues within ISKCON.

 

Some people mistakenly think that potency actually came from the rogues themselves with Krishna acting through them, when in reality they were just blocks clouding the potency in Prabhupada's books.

 

Someone spends hundreds of thousands of dollars making a flying UFO [yes, literally], and we are expected to think it was Krishna acting through him? These people were just literally insane, but no one wanted to point it out.

 

So you don't believe in the fact that by Krishna's mercy, one finds a guru? If he happens to find a wrong guru or unqualified guru, it's partly his fault for not being sincere enough.

By Krishna's mercy one gets a guru. But that speaks nothing about why you get a fake guru. As Prabhupada has said, there is actually no such thing as a fake guru (even though we use these words to convey an idea), as guru means real. Anything else just isn't a guru at all.

 

So then the next question, why does one get this thing we refer to as a fake guru? It is just another material karmic reaction. You get it the same reason why you get a cold, the same reason why you stub your toe, the same reason why you have any reaction within this world. It doesn't identify one as insincere. When someone stubs his toe, it isn't proof that he was spiritually insincere. They just received some of their karmic reactions. In the same way, when someone suffers poor leadership (posing as spiritual leadership) it is because of karmic reactions.

 

Krishna's mercy brings a true guru. Some of us don't even know we have received that mercy of Krishna. Some of us have suffered karmic reactions in the form of false spiritual leadership, and simultaneously have also received Krishna's mercy in the form of Srila Prabhupada. Just because one has suffered a karmic reaction (stubbed one's toe, got a cold, been initiated by a pretender) doesn't mean they haven't received the mercy of Krishna.

 

Thus sincerity and insincerity can't be judged based on how many fake gurus one has received. It simply depends on whether they have made contact with Krishna's pure representative. And anyone who has come in contact with Srila Prabhupada has come in contact with Krishna's pure representative. Practically speaking, everyone who has come in contact with ISKCON has received Krishna's special mercy.

 

Certain instructions are meant for certain people. We should be careful to reference conversations of Srila Prabhupada with other people.

You failed to see that six out of eight of the quotes were directly from Srila Prabhupada's books. These are not certain instructions meant for certain people. These are Srila Prabhupada's essential teachings, that the guru is a pure devotee and does not fall down:

 

"A bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord." - Bhagavad Gita 4:42

 

"The pure devotee is always free from the clutches of Maya and her influence." - Srimad Bhagavatam 5.3.14

"There is no possibility that a first class devotee will fall down." - Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya-Lila, 22.71

 

"The pure devotee's body is therefore called cin-maya-sarira ("spiritualized body"). In other words, a devotee's body is not connected with material activities, and as such, a devotee is always liberated (brahma-bhuyaya kalpate), as confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (14.26)." - Srimad Bhagavatam 4.22.26

 

"A pure devotee, who is free from all material desires experienced on the mental platform and who is also free from empiric philosophical speculation or fruitive activity, is always above material conditioning and is always liberated." - Srimad Bhagavatam 4.29.65

 

"In a spiritual body the devotee becomes a direct associate of the Lord, but even though a devotee may superficially appear to be in a material body, he is always liberated and is engaged in the same duties of service to the Lord as a devotee in Vaikunthaloka. There is no distinction." - Srimad Bhagavatam 9.13.9

The problem is devotees of new gurus reject Prabhupada's own teachings in favour of the teachings of their gurus'. Anything in Prabhupada's books that doesn't agree with their guru's teachings is thrown out, when actually it should be the other way around. We have all seen the results of rejecting the teachings of Prabhupada in favour of some new "33rd pure devotee in the line from Krishna". If everyone remains blind and silent as suggested by some of the posters here, then we will all be wearing Christian robes and chanting the mahamantra in English while attending our choice of one of seven interfaith churches of God (as instructed by Kirtanananda).

 

Also, it is possible for a pure devotee to fall. Look at Vishvamitra. He had reached the pinacle of purity with his penance. He even became a Brahma Rishi, the highest state of Rishi there is, self realised in every way.

Does the Guru fall?

Indian man (1): Prabhupada, a devotee, very often after chanting why they develop very, very high. I see a lot of devotees, they falls down back to the maya. What is the reason?

 

Prabhupada: He is not devotee. He's pretending to be devotee. One who is devotee never falls down. There are so many false devotees. He falls down.

 

"A bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord." - Bhagavad Gita 4:42

 

"The pure devotee is always free from the clutches of Maya and her influence." - Srimad Bhagavatam 5.3.14

 

"There is no possibility that a first class devotee will fall down." - Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya-Lila, 22.71

 

"A Spiritual Master is always liberated. In any condition of His life He should not be mistaken as ordinary human being. " - Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tamal Krishna, 21/6/70

 

"The pure devotee's body is therefore called cin-maya-sarira ("spiritualized body"). In other words, a devotee's body is not connected with material activities, and as such, a devotee is always liberated (brahma-bhuyaya kalpate), as confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (14.26)." - Srimad Bhagavatam 4.22.26

 

"A pure devotee, who is free from all material desires experienced on the mental platform and who is also free from empiric philosophical speculation or fruitive activity, is always above material conditioning and is always liberated." - Srimad Bhagavatam 4.29.65

 

"In a spiritual body the devotee becomes a direct associate of the Lord, but even though a devotee may superficially appear to be in a material body, he is always liberated and is engaged in the same duties of service to the Lord as a devotee in Vaikunthaloka. There is no distinction."

I realize it's not your belief (only something you heard from someone), so please don't take this personally:

 

Attaining Vaikuntha while still in this body (by becoming a pure devotee), and then losing it because a pure devotee of the Lord ate a grain of rice on ekadashi is a manufactured philosophy. I hope no one actually believes it.

 

1) The very idea of saying that being a jivan-mukta means attaining a Vaikuntha planet while living in the material world is a stretch and concoction. That is not the definition of jivan mukta given by any acharya.

 

2) The idea that the pure devotee mahabhagavata falls down is another concoction.

 

3) And third, the idea that a liberated mahabhagavata would stop being a pure devotee simply because he ate a grain of rice on ekadashi is another concoction.

 

For those who have read the Puranas, and especially the tamasic and rajasic puranas such as Skanda Purana, they will be aware that there are countless exagerations in these texts. Such statements don't need to be literalized and proven, as they aren't factually true; they are generalizations and allegorical concepts.

 

Of course not every single statement in the Purana is allegorical or exagerated, but some are. And to know which are which requires following the commentaries of Acharyas. There are reasons why practically no Vaishnava acharya has ever written a commentary on Skanda Purana or some of the other Puranas. The philosophy presented there is not the pure philosphy of the Gita, Bhagavata or Vishnu Purana.

 

"From the very beginning of His childhood life Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu introduced the system of observing a fast on the Ekädaçé day. In the Bhakti-sandarbha, by Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, there is a quotation from the Skanda Puräëa admonishing that a person who eats grains on Ekädaçé becomes a murderer of his mother, father, brother and spiritual master, and even if he is elevated to a Vaikuëöha planet, he falls down.

This is a figurative statement that is not logically plausable, nor philosophically consistant. It is ludicrous to think that one can attain Vaikuntha, but then must subsequently fall down because he had once upon a time eaten a grain on ekadashi millions of lifetimes before in the material world.

 

First one must define what it takes to "attain vaikuntha", which obviously includes such things as shuddha bhakti, cessation of material desires, freedom from material karmic reactions, etc. One who has attained Vaikuntha is not influenced by past sinful activities. It is just foolish to think this statement can even remotely be a literal instruction.

 

These are the frequent exagerative statements found in certain scriptures to make dull witted people understand certain concepts. There are thousands of these in the Puranas. For example Brahma Vaivarta Purana says if you perform pious activities you can go to Vaikuntha for a day of Brahma, and then you subsequently die and again take birth here. This is factually not true, but Vyasa has spoken in colorful ways to convince those influenced by lower modes of nature.

 

When trying to emphasize the weight of the sin, he chose to use unrealistic comparisons to make it understood that the sin was very bad. "If you eat a grain on ekadashi, you are so sinful that even after attaining Vaikuntha you will still fall down." This is the opposite of the flowery words of the Vedas. On one side they speak of the eternality and unlimited enjoyment attained by performing pious activities (which aren't actually unlimited, nor eternal), then on the other hand you have the thorny words of the Vedas, which say even Bhagavan can't save you if you even once ate an onion. Don't be fooled by either of these, but understand the message they are trying to convey.

 

You don't have to worry, when you finally do attain Vaikuntha, Krishna is not going to throw you out because you ate rice on the ekadashi of Sept 3rd, 1982.

 

...

 

If someone would argue that the statement "even if he is elevated to Vaikuntha" refers to having already attained Vaikuntha, then it is still logically inconsistant. There is no possibility of breaking ekadashi in Vaikuntha. Ekadashi is based on tithis, which is space, time and the resultant material influence. There is no such thing in Vaikuntha.

Perhaps you mean "Padmavati", the name of Lakshmi in Tirupati?