Beggar

For preaching and attracting other conditioned souls we can do any kind of experiments. But for being a guru, only a pure devotee can. Experimenting with this can only be disastrous, for it has already been a disaster for ISKCON with gurus falling / dying in regular intervals.

I don't see the logic in equating falling and dying One should certainly aspire to get the association of a pure devotee, but what is the use if we don't aspire to become pure devotees ourselves? If we focus on the faults of others instead of ourselves it is a sure sign that we are not following the process the pure devotees are giving in their talks and books. As already stated by others, trnad api sunicena...Sri Gaura-Purnima,Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.38 Lecture by Srila Prabhupada, Mayapur, March 16, 1976

There is no difference. They are both false.

As it is stated by Srila Prabhupada in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 3.7.9:

According to Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Bhagavad-gītā and all other Vedic literatures, the living entities are generated from the taṭasthā energy of the Lord, and thus they are always the energy of the Lord and are not the energetic. The living entities are like the sun's rays. Although, as explained above, there is no qualitative difference between the sun and its rays, the sun's rays are sometimes overpowered by another energy of the sun, namely by clouds or by snowfall. Similarly, although the living entities are qualitatively one with the superior energy of the Lord, they have the tendency to be overpowered by the inferior, material energy. In the Vedic hymns it is said that the living entities are like the sparks of a fire. The sparks of fire also are fire, but the burning potency of the sparks is different from that of the original fire. When the sparks fly out of touch with the original fire, they come under the influence of a nonfiery atmosphere; thus they maintain the potency to be again one with the fire as sparks, but not as the original fire. The sparks can everlastingly remain within the original fire as its parts and parcels, but the moment the sparks become separated from the original fire, their misfortunes and miseries begin. The clear conclusion is that the Supreme Lord, who is the original fire, is never overpowered, but the infinitesimal sparks of the fire can become overpowered by the illusory effect of māyā. It is a most ludicrous argument to say that the Supreme Lord is overpowered by His own material energy. The Lord is the master of the material energy, but the living entities are in the conditioned state, controlled by the material energy. That is the version of Bhagavad-gītā.

Yes, when H.H. Bhakti Tirtha Swami became ill, it crossed my mind that, "why is he suffering so much maybe he has commited some offense?". But knowing that I am a conditioned soul and prone to fault finding I identified that thought as such and tried to check my mind. If even by some chance that thought is wrong and someone is really pure at heart, then my criticism would in itself be a big offense and perhaps immense suffering would fall upon me. Why take such a big risk? Fault finding of devotees is not a sport but rather glorifying devotees is a form of devotional service. Also, just because some devotees have a different opinion about certain siddhantic issues which in fact may be incorrect, it doesn't protect us from the reaction of personally criticizing a devotee. One can criticize the wrong idea but not make a personal attack upon the devotee for that is Vaisnava aparadha.

I am not convinced of a "region" called tatastha as in a certain geographical setting. I am tatastha in nature

 

So what is meant by tatastha? A place which is made up of sleeping souls. Is that not what the brahmajyoti is?

 

Is the tatastha region then a state where the sleeping souls in the Brahman effulgence immediately arise to as they (re)gain or claim their individual natures and just prior to their desiring to be servant of the Enjoyer or the enjoyer themselves and sealing the direction that they will follow? That is my personal belief.

 

The Brahman effulgence is also the Spiritual world as are all jivas in essence so I have no doubt we came from Spiritual world.

The Brahman effulgence is also the Spiritual world as are all jivas in essence so I have no doubt we came from Spiritual world.

This is a great point. And this is wherein all the confusion lies. We keep plodding along trying to understand all these most subtle concepts with the dull and crude English language of the early 21st century. What a daunting task! Consequently most of these threads are mired in devotees arguing with each other over merely semantical points. It's kind of sad when you think about it, but then again it is Kali Yuga. The entire English language is based on duality. In our paradigm and language the tatastha is either a geographical place or it is not a geographical place. And then of course we are concerned as to whether the jiva is from the spiritual world or not from the spiritual world. Black and white, on and off etc. A great language and way of thinking for computer science and all technology but not Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta. As Srila Sridhar Maharaja has said, "there is gradation everywhere". We have to deeply ponder this, as we need to ponder Mahaprabhu's concept of acintya bhedaabheda tattva, simultaneous oneness and difference.

Can one who has sinned be a saint?

 

Everyone except me.

That's a mighty fantastic hypothetical you have manufactured there.

 

I don't see any need for that anyway, because I have already been initiated by the flute music of Lord Dwarakadisha since 1975 and initiated by the gayatri tape of Srila Prabhupada since 1977.

 

If Srila Prabhupada didn't believe in the process of initiation by tape then he certainly would not have authorized it.

 

Other than that I have sat at Srila Prabhupada's lotus feet and listened to his Hari-katha, been in his kirtans and taken prasadam from his hand and from his plate.

 

I have seen Srila Prabhupada on the Ratha Yatra cart in San Francisco as well as at festivals in San Diego and Los Angeles.

 

Since i have heard Maha-mantra from the lips of Srila Prabhupada, I consider that as complete initiation, even though I took gayatri diksha by tape.

 

If Srila Prabhupada needed to appear to me and give me gayatri directly in the ear, then that would pretty much indicate that they way he gave it by tape was not legitimate.

 

I don't think Srila Prabhupada would ever do that.

 

Srila Prabhupada has come to me before in dreams. But, he never gave me gayatri diksha again in my ear.

 

He did give me a clue to his spiritual identity in a dream once.

 

He told me how I could find out his spiritual identity.

Hearing it through tape is certainly legitamate by Srila Prabhupada's will.

But hearing him chant gayatri in one's ear in a dream or vision would be very nice. I don't think that thought in of itself questions the validity of hearing the mantras on a tape. It depends on your angle of vision.

Since i have heard Maha-mantra from the lips of Srila Prabhupada, I consider that as complete initiation, even though I took gayatri diksha by tape.

 

If Srila Prabhupada needed to appear to me and give me gayatri directly in the ear, then that would pretty much indicate that they way he gave it by tape was not legitimate.

 

I don't think Srila Prabhupada would ever do that.

 

Srila Prabhupada has come to me before in dreams. But, he never gave me gayatri diksha again in my ear.

 

He did give me a clue to his spiritual identity in a dream once.

 

He told me how I could find out his spiritual identity.

Well, it's not a concept that I stayed awake at night trying to fabricate.

 

Srila Prabhupada knew well that Narayana Maharaja was a loose cannon on the deck of the Saraswata Gaudiya ship (with his stint with the babajis whom he appreciated very much).

 

This feeling came to me automatically and instantly as I pondered the words of Srila Prabhupada.

 

It's not a feeling that I strained hard to imagine.

It came quite naturally and simply with knowing the orthodox rigidity of Narayana Maharaja.

 

Anyone who doesn't understand the danger and destructive potential that Srila Prabhupada saw in the person of Narayan Maharaja, doesn't get the picture as far as I am concerned.

 

Srila Prabhupada feared the danger and harm that Narayana Maharaja represented.

That is why he tried to appease him by putting him in charge of the samadhi ceremony.

 

Fearing the same threat from the orthodoxy of Vrindavan, Srila Prabhupada hired local pundits to install the deities at the opening of the Krishna-Balarama Mandir in Vrindavan.

 

If we apply the same logic to the pundits of Vrindavan that has been applied to Narayana Maharaja, then we have some orthodox brahmins in Vrindavan that are the successors to Srila Prabhupada.

Why don't you open the School of Creative Vaisnava Aparadha? Another idea would be to become a late night TV talk show host and instead of opening with a comedic monologue, you could do an aparadhic monologue.

You could also convert to radical fundamentalist Islam and write monologues for Osama Bin Laden. I could get you an agent.

Sounds like so much hocus-pocus to me.

 

Since all mantras are concentrated and condensed into the MAHA-MANTRA, it only logical that only pure chanting of the Holy Name can enhance and perfect the gayatri mantras.

 

Hearing the mantra again from some sadhu won't help is one doesn't purify his chanting of MAHA MANTRA.

 

When one has got MAHA MANTRA from the Krishna cosnciousness movement Sankirtan, then that is complete.

 

when one is chanting Harinama, then that has all the effects and benefits of it's partial representation in other mantras.

 

Maha mantra is complete. No other mantras are necessary.

Of course the Holy Name is all and all. But here's when your overall idea falls apart. If Srila Prabhupada suddenly appeared before you and asked you to sit next to him so he could speak the gayatri mantras in your ear would you reply, "sounds like so much hocus-pocus to me"?

techical

"help my devotees" is another way of saying "please don't harm my devotees".

 

Srila Prabhupada told both Srila Sridhar Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja that his disciples were like rough stones or "unpolished gems" and he requested both of them to help them. "Help my devotees" is another way of saying "please don't harm my devotees"." Interesting theory but truly farfetched. In fact in the last quarter of a century I've never heard anyone suggest that. Instead of coming up with novel theories like a muni why don't you just pray to Lord Nityananda akanda guru for help.

How and when does an eternal mantra received from a bona-fide source ever become weakened or dead and in need of re-issuance?

 

Is the mantra like a battery that loses it's charge after some period of neglect?

 

Since the mantra IS Krishna, how does it become weakened or depleted?

Common sense Prabhu. Suppose one is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada and they have not chanted their gayatri mantras for so long that they can only remember fragments of some lines and have entirely forgot other lines. If that devotee again wanted to take up the process of chanting the mantras per their guru's orders they have several options. First they could request a copy of the paper that the mantras are printed on. But what if they could actually hear the mantras directly from Srila Prabhupada? Or what if they had originally heard the mantras from Srila Prabhupada on a tape recording and now they want to hear the mantras directly whispered in their ear by Srila Prabhupada? Would you object? Now supposing that it is after the disappearence of Srila Prabhupada and one of his disciples has faith that he has met a pure devotee who is also on the transcendental platform. What if they feel that it would be more inspiring to hear the mantras from the lotus lips of a pure devotee rather than just reading it from a paper? If one is sleeping they are generally awakened by sound vibration. The mantras contain the name of Krsna so they are non-different from Krsna, yes. But the capacity of the person who has recieved that mantra must be taken into account. Likewise we must take into account the capacity or potency of the person giving the mantra. Who would want to receive the mantras from an unqualified guru?

Now, the lovebugs and peacenicks are trying to undo that and promote an orgy of brotherly love between ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math.

 

Having Narayana Maharaja perform the funeral ceremony of Srila Prabhupada was not something that could or should undo everything that Srila Prabhupada taught for years and even wrote into his books as well as in many letters.

First, If it means to be a "peacenick" to warn devotees against Vaisnava aparadha then so be it. But your are not addressing the fact that it may be a serious offense against Srila Prabhupada to consider his samadhi mahotsava to be a "funeral". If a so-called spiritual society is infested with misconceptions and aparardhas or offenses, should we stay? Sounds like you are entraped in the "mental prison of the institution"[srila Sridhar Maharaja]. I am not saying that no one has the proper outlook in ISKCON but either you are not properly following your guide or you don't have proper guidance. These arguments will only fly with those who are more interested in the bottle than its contents. If someone who was originally inspired in ISKCON but now feels that his advancement is being repressed due to societal considerations, what should he do? There are so many instructions that the spiritual master gives. What if he tells one to get him pure water from a particuliar well. Then if the disciple goes to the well and finds stool in the well; he should bring back that water? Or should he bring back pure water?

Anyway are you aware that Srila Prabhupada himself near the end of his prakata lila said, "The war is over now," and then created the Bhaktivedanta Swami Charity Trust for developing Gauda-mandala-bhumi and encouraging better relations and cooperation between ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada instructed that this trust construct a kirtana hall at Srila Sridhara Maharaja's Matha and also one at the birthplace of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Yoga-pitha.

...and that they should consult Narayana Maharaja about the funeral procedures.

Your shotgun blast approach to Vaisnava aparadha has succeeded again. Again the spray of the blast has struck Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and the hearts of his followers and those who have affection for him. Saksad hari tvena samasta sastrih. A genuine uttama adhikari guru who comes down to the madhyama stage, "to spread the Holy Name around" does't die but rather goes into a maha-samadhi or devotional transe. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur says, "He reasons ill who tells that Vaisnavas die, when thou art living still in sound." Funerals are for ignorant persons who's bodies are placed in wooden coffins in the ground. A great devotee doesn't just choose anyone to chant the mantras and place his body composed of sat-cit-ananda into the samadhi. When ones intellegence is clouded by neophyte sectareanism they cannot see this and they are bound to make offenses.

If you really think about it in terms of "not a blade of grass moves without the will of the supreme Lord" and that the Yadus had a big internal feud and destoyed every last one of them except for the Pandavas, then you can start to understand that feuds are part of the Lord's plan and that feuds are natural and unavoidable.

 

It's the nature of this vitiated plane called "the world".

 

In the highest vision, the feud is also Krishna.

It has a reason and purpose, though it might not be apparent from a outside viewpoint.

 

Even in Goloka there is a feud between Radhika and Candravali.

 

Feuding can be spiritual if Krishna is at the center of the feud.

Its good that Krsna is the center of these fights. I don't think that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur desired to bring Westerners to Mayapur/Navadvip to display their expertness is "fighting and sex life". If the current Saraswat Vaisnavas wish to go on with their fratricidal war they will find the different camps of babajis the victors by default. Is this what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada wanted?

Can you show us the reference where Narayana Maharaja has said like this.

 

If you can't show authentic documented references, then why are you stating these things?

http://www.purebhakti.com/lectures/lecture20021203c.shtml

[srila Narayana Maharaja:] But we must consider that the presence of uttama-adhikari (mahabhagavata), madhyama-uttama-adhikari (those approaching the stage of bhava), and even madhyama-madhyama-adhikari (those at the stage of asakti) devotees are very rare in this world. It is very rare, therefore, to have a guru of this caliber. What should we do under these circumstances? We will have to take a guru. If a guru is not "sabde pare ca nisnatam", if he has not realized the established truths delineated in the Vedas, Upanisads and other sastras, but he has very strong faith in his pure guru and is sincerely following him, then, even if he is a madhyama-adhikari – or even kanistha-madhyama – do not reject that guru. If he is always serving his own mahabhagavat guru and is obedient both internally and externally to him, then do not reject him. We can give up our guru only with the consideration given by Srila Sanatana Gosvami in his Hari-bhakti-vilasa:

avaisnava-mukhodgirnam putam hari-kathamrtam

sravanam naiva kartavyam sarpocchistam yatha payah

["One should not hear anything about Krsna from a non-vaisnava. Milk touched by the lips of a serpent has poisonous effects; similarly, talks about Krsna given by a non-vaisnava are also poisonous."]

If a guru is not serving his own gurudeva, he has left the process given by him, and his guru is not satisfied by his behavior – only in that case can we reject him. However, if the guru is a madhyama-adhikari and sincere, if he is very obedient and following the footsteps of his guru, then he will gradually become uttama-adhikari. So we should not reject him. At the same time, if he is not perfect and thus cannot remove all our doubts about Krsna Consciousness, what should we do?

We should offer pranama to him and ask his permission to have the association of a mahabhagavata devotee: A disciple may ask, "May I go to Srila Jiva Gosvami"? or "May I go to Srila Rupa Gosvami?" or, "May I go to a high class of Vaisnava?" If the guru says, "No, you cannot go," you should give him up. On the other hand, if he says, "Certainly you can go, and I will also come," then he is a real guru. In fact, a guru who sends his disciple to a superior guru for instruction may also be an uttama-mahabhagavata, as there are various stages of mahabhagavata, and that guru is certainly not to be rejected. For example, Srila Narottama dasa Thakura was a disciple of Srila Lokanatha dasa Gosvami, but he took permission from him to take shelter of Srila Jiva Gosvami; and Srila Syamananda prabhu also took permission from Srila Hrdaya-caitanya dasa Gosvami for that same shelter of Srila Jiva Gosvami.

Then beggar deleted his message. I don't know why.

 

Another message mysteriously disappears. Maybe premature Alzheimers disease. Very nice experience. I'm not really in any camp, or so it seems. In going in between camps I have noticed that some in the Narayana Maharaja camp assume that Govinda Maharaja's camp is an antiparty that Govinda Maharaja can't be a pure devotee (and of course visa versa). I have also met Govinda Maharaja and he seems to be a very exalted pure devotee. I know Narayana Maharaja and I feel that this is also true of him. I know that there are deep divisions and outlooks. But I also know that somehow they are both trying to serve their gurudevas and that their service has be uninterrupted for a very long time. Also both had extensive association with Prabhupada especially pre-ISKCON times. I spoke with Narayana Maharaja about his position on the current ISKCON leaders and he assured me that he had great admiration and respect for their service to Prabhupada over these many years. He said that he just wants them to be more "liberal" and "come closer to the real Krsna Consciousness." It's obvious that you are concerned with some of his rhetoric, but its always good to give devotees the benefit of the doubt. It just seems to me that all this fighting, offenses and counter-offenses are somekind of sign that the Earth planet is in serious trouble. In America we have a famous history of two hillbilly families known as the Hatfields and the M'Coys. They were well known for an intractable feud that lasted a few generations. Its time for the feuds amongst the Gaudiya Vaisnava groups to come to and end. It has to be, the whole World is depending on it, even if they don't know it. It's time to fulfill the real vision of Bhaktivode Thakur, that devotees from all over the World will come together with the Bengali and Indian Devotees in a unified way and gloriy Gaur Nitai.

What does it matter to me what Sridhara Swami says? I don't follow any of those Gaudiya Math swamis.

That's true. Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur gave sannyas to Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar-deva Goswami Maharaja and Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar-deva Goswami Maharaja gave sannyas to Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja and Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja gave sannyas to Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja.

anartha na gele sisye jata-rati bole na

anartha-visistha sisye rasa-tattva bole na

 

Translation:

Without the removal of anarthas, attachment (rati) cannot blossom in the disciple. So a disciple infested with anartha is never instructed in rasa-tattva.

 

Verse 59 of Prakrta Rasa Shatadushani, by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura.

Ask Jagat from the Babaji camp if what Narayana Maharaja is giving about rasa-tattva is detailed or cursory. In fact others are giving also things that could be considered beyond the purview of Prabhupada's teachings. Do you think that Sridhar Maharaja never explained the position of the manjaris to the Westerners?

...i never heard of this river Viraja and stuff before,i thought that the Epics Ramayana and Baratha is enough to keep looking when we have doubts.But this seems new,educate me where did u come up with this wrong turn concept?

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 19.153

upajiyā bāḍe latā 'brahmāṇḍa' bhedi' yāya

'virajā', 'brahma-loka' bhedi' 'para-vyoma' pāya

SYNONYMS

upajiyā — being cultivated; bāḍe — grows; latā — the creeper of devotional service; brahmāṇḍa — the whole universe; bhedi' — penetrating; yāya — goes; virajā — the river between the spiritual world and the material world; brahma-loka — the Brahman effulgence; bhedi' — penetrating; para-vyoma — the spiritual sky; pāya — attains.

TRANSLATION

"As one waters the bhakti-latā-bīja, the seed sprouts, and the creeper gradually grows to the point where it penetrates the walls of this universe and goes beyond the Virajā River, lying between the spiritual world and the material world. It attains brahma-loka, the Brahman effulgence, and penetrating through that stratum, it reaches the spiritual sky and the spiritual planet Goloka Vṛndāvana.

PURPORT

A creeper generally takes shelter of a big tree, but the bhakti-latā, being the creeper of spiritual energy, cannot take shelter of any material planet, for there is no tree on any material planet that the bhakti creeper can utilize for shelter. In other words, devotional service cannot be utilized for any material purpose. Devotional service is meant only for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sometimes men with a poor fund of knowledge maintain that bhakti can be applied to material things also. In other words, they say that devotional service can be rendered to one's country or to the demigods, but this is not a fact. Devotional service is especially meant for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and it is beyond this material range. There is a river, or causal ocean, between the spiritual and material natures, and this river is free from the influence of the three modes of material nature; therefore it is called Virajā. The prefix vi means vigata ("completely eradicated"), and rajas means "the influence of the material world." On this platform, a living entity is completely free from material entanglement. For the jñānīs who want to merge into the Brahman effulgence, there is Brahma-loka. The bhakti-latā, however, has no shelter in the material world, nor has it shelter in Brahma-loka, although Brahma-loka is beyond the material world. The bhakti-latā grows until it reaches the spiritual sky, where Goloka Vṛndāvana is situated.

<<< >>>

One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master.

NOI

Verse 5 Purport

HDGACBSP

So if one's diksa guru is offering insufficient guidance and one has come into a connection with a higher guiding or siksa guru then there is no need to reject the diksa guru. If the diksa guru gives permission to take the higher quality siksa, and he is also seeking siksa then there is not a problem. But if the diksa guru trys to stop his disciple from getting such vital instruction it means that he thinks the disciple is his property and not Krsna's property and he can be rejected without incurring an offennse. This is basically how Narayana Maharaja explained the situation and Sridhar Maharaja also followed this policy in regard to reinitiating those who had ISKCON gurus in so-called "good standing".

Then what do you suppose was Sridhar Maharaja's understanding of how the disciplic succession in ISKCON was to continue if indeed Srila Prabhupada never appointed any gurus?

 

Was the parampara supposed to end there?

Or, was there some concept of how it should continue?

Sridhar Maharaja would give the example that sometimes the Ganges is thin, and sometimes very wide but in each case it is the Ganges. So the disciplic succession would go on, but perhaps in a zig zag way. There may be gurus in Prabhuapada's disciplic line but there is not need of rubber stamping. It would be based on the faith of the disciples. He would also tell that when there is higher quality seed available one should take that instead of lower quality seed. Generally he emphasized siksa.

Be happy with your hateful, bigoted prejudice outlook.

 

You can argue against ideas and siddhantas that you think are incorrect. But don't make personal attacks on other devotees, no matter what camp they are in. That your apparent opponents may do this is no excuse. It will become Vaisnava aparadha and your heart will become very hard. Be careful, remember when we point fingers, three fingers are pointing back at us. So this is the "trade secret", when we personally criticize others, then we will gradually become what we are criticizing. Of course I am also trying to remind myself. Maybe this is not always bad, just as when Saul became Paul in the New Testament. The Lord truly works in mysterious ways. Anyway we should all be careful. We are supposed to be discussing spiritual topics, this is not a political forum. Anyone who chants the names of Gaur Nitai must be respected, even if there is some defect in their character. We should not be sectarean, we should respect devotees in all camps and try to see their sincerity. But that doesn't mean that we should just go on hearing or reading Vaisnava aparadha for it is our duty to protect our own devotional creepers. Sometimes we have to speak up, or go away, or jump in the river or ocean with our clothes on!

You can tell by his mood and his preaching that if ISKCON would have allowed Narayana Maharaja a foot in the door that he would have tried to take over the whole show and subjugate all the leading devotees to follow him.

 

If Narayana Maharaja had been very humble and respectful to ISKCON leaders, then maybe they would have allowed him to come to temples and preach.

But, he was like a lion roaring proclaiming himself king of the jungle and the ISKCON leaders could see that and knew they couldn't allow him to participate in internal ISKCON preaching.

Many leading ISKCON devotees were going to Narayana Maharaja for siksa in the early 90s. One GBC man told that the real reason they split with Narayana Maharaja was that they were afraid that Tamal Krsna Goswami would use what he was learning to try to become the head acarya of ISKCON as he had previously done in 1980. For 55 or so years Narayana Maharaja was a member of his guru maharaja's institution, the Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti. Two years ago there were some politics and simply left that institution. He could have salvaged some math properties for his own, but he wanted no part of the politics and fighting and just walked away from the situation. Lion guru, that is a bad thing? Narayana Maharaja was supposed to submit himself to men who were small children when he took sannyasa?

Sridhar Maharaja accepted the ISKCON guru system and gave them some good advice on how to make it work.

 

I don't think you can take a statement by Sridhar Maharaja about them following the Prabhupada of their imagination and just turn that into a blanket condemnation of all the senior ISKCON devotees.

 

One thing for sure, Sridhar Maharaja never instructed ISKCON leaders to appoint Narayana Maharaja as ISKCON's official siksha guru.

Later in 1982 Sridhar Maharaja said, "I am a simple man, they came to me and told, "Swami Maharaja appointed us" [guru], so I accepted. But now I can see by their behaviour that they were not appointed, it is not possible."

If that is true where does the GBC derive its authority to appoint gurus? Also siksa is informal therefore there is no question of appointment.

Because ISKCON devotees followed Srila Prabhupada instead of Narayana Maharaja you say there are NO sadhus in ISKCON.

 

Sridhar Maharaja said about the GBC in 1981 that "they are defending the Prabhupada of their imagination". For many years now the GBC has officially accepted Sridhar Maharaja. Are you sure that the ISKCON devotees you are speaking of are not following an imaginary Srila Prabhupada? And that maybe that is the problem? The ISKCON devotees that give so many different interpretations of Prabhupada within their own institution that it sounds like a modern day Tower of Babel are following who? I still attend ISKCON events and festivals, I'm not a black and white person, I can see that there are advance devotees in ISKCON like Radhanatha Maharaja who are somehow above the frey. But I know for a fact that Radhanatha Maharaja has had the association of Srila Bhakti Ballabha Tirtha Maharaja and for that and other reasons he is in a better position than others. It is a sympton of kannistha adhikari that one sees his guru as the only guru. I'm sure that some of Srila Narayana Maharaja's followers also fit that category. But that is certainly not the realization of Narayana Maharaja himself or many of his more experienced followers. I know, I know he says he's Prabhupada's successor, but you'll have to understand the concept of acarya abhimana, how the guru can take the ego of emperor sanyasi and still be the most humble devotee. Srila Prabhupada did the same thing as do all acarya's. The problem is that Srila Prabhupada personally asked Narayana Maharaja to help his followers several times immediatley before he left the planet. He is being blocked from helping the official ISKCON by certain influential GBC leaders for nothing more than political reasons. But still somehow there are sadhus in ISKCON. Sridhar Maharaja said, "It doesn't matter who's right it matters whose sincere". He defined sincerity as "appreciation of the truth".