Murali_Mohan_das

Delightful exposition!! As you and Srila Sridhar Maharaja say, we are more with evolution of consciousness than with evolution of the species.

However, taking what you said one step further (into the realm of my speculations)...

I've often wondered if "showing off" is a strong evolutionary factor. Rather than seeing creation as a desperate struggle for survival among adversaries, why not consider that each minute jiva soul is yelling "Look what *I* can do!!" as they do back-flips in glee!

Of course, maybe I've just run past the skate park one too many times

I was studying Brhadbhagavatamrtam by Srila Sanatana Goswami, looking at the things he says about the svarup of the jiva-atma. I found that Sanatana had said that the jiva has senses and sense organs such as the prototype ear and nose, even when merged in Brahman (((sleeping atma-vigrahas who are not on earth but in Vaikuntha, please stop reading now!!! what I say after this will be incomprehensible to you))).

 

Because the soul is consciousness he can manifest from his subtle [astral or mental] body a nose, ear, eyes etc in order to experience a reality outside of brahmaloka (nirvisesha brahman).

 

According to Sankhya, with the description of 24 elements of creation, etc., SB 3.26.35 etc.. the sky or space is produced from mind, and when the sky is produced the ear which hears sound moving in the sky also manifests.

 

Anyhow, I was thinking about this and about something someone from the Gaudiya Math said:

 

 

Where Guru Maharaj speaks of the sun and moon he means the DEVA who is a celestial body or celestial being; he doesn't mean the physical sun and moon which are the bodies that become manifest from tamoguna (earth,water-hydrogen-oxygen,fire).

 

And it ocurred to me that maybe there is a third option for the creation of life on this planet besides creationism and evolution through chance.

 

It occurred to me that maybe little minds inside of little embryos that are first a single cell and are then dividing and sub-dividing, maybe these little minds emerging from the universal mind of "mahat-tattva" are the causes of evolution.

 

Personally, I do believe souls in ignorance enter into water and then wriggle like sperms or tadpoles and evolve to a higher stage of life. Some only have a limited creative drive and they form less complex bodies, but others with backing from a higher consciousness, those souls may conceive a more complex "eye" and "ear" that will evolve on their head. So then, from the sperm of a rishi like Kasyapa there can be one son who evolves a bird head (Garuda) and another who has a snake head (Vasuki).

 

anyhow, just some random thoughts....

 

and you creationists and guruvani (the destructionist), don't bother trying to drag me into debates about Creationism because I'm a committed evolutionist (of some sort).

 

Theoretically, I'm not opposed to the idea that living creatures can arise from slime that evolves from chemicals on the seashore. What is the sea, anyhow? Mother ocean? Prakriti? And besides that, a human baby grows from some slime that comes from a man's body. What interests me more, however, is the mental energy [mind-stuff] within that slime which is trying to evolve into a "happy" state of mind.

OK, Lowborn Prabhu. You just triggered an acid flashback!!

Very good discussion. Loved the article Vikram-ji. I'd mention one point of disagreement--the fact that the existence of God lies outside the purview of science doesn't mean that it lies exclusively in the realm of faith. Many beings have had *direct experiences* of the God-nature. This certainly is not the exact same thing as "faith".

I can accept evolution without dismissing the Vedic cosmology as "myths". They both have their validity within their respective frames of reference.

Also, notice the scientist's use of the word "useful" when talking about the theory of evolution. Regardless of whether it's true or not, the theory is found *useful* by scientists.

Isn't this in the same vein as "accepting the favorable" and "rejecting the unfavorable"? It is not that what we reject is not Krishna (everything is Krishna). It is that we reject things that are not *useful* to us in our devotional life.

If it was not for the Nagas and other Upadevas humans would have destroyed the Earth decades ago. They are the Watchers. There is so much more to this world you have no clue about... but as you said: Ignorance is bliss

 

I do not fight devotees who have faith in evolution in the typical sense - that battle has very little meaning for our spirituality. But I think you are missing a lot by denying this world it's magic. I pity people who are so rational they never even try to see the hidden dimensions all around them, pulsating with the most fascinating life you cannot even imagine

So, you take the 25%/75% numbers literally, eh?

I like to imagine the numbers are more like .00000000000001% come to the Material World and the rest go straight Home.

But, hey, call me a rosy optimist!!

The other 75% of creation is full of nitya-siddha devotee of whom some are simultaneously in the mahat-tattva as a bodiless conscious projection.

'Can you say "inconceivable", children? I knew you could!'

--Mr. Rogers

Srila Prabhupada did not say in this purport that the conditioned souls originated in Goloka, nor did he say that the conditioned souls originated in the brahmajyoti. We have to remember that the brahmajyoti is the effulgence of the body of the Lord. Maybe that's the problem. I know from discussions with many Prabhupada sisyas in the '70s and beyond that they practically considered the brahmajyoti to be a dity word. In some ways Gaudiya Siddhanta can be quite complex as it tries to harmonize and accomodate opposites or paradoxes. The Pradymna Swami Sleepervadis do not think that there even exits a paradox in the origin of the jiva soul. That is because they have no understanding of acintya bheda [a]bheda tattva and try to force their Christian conception upon Gaudiya Vaisnavism. The followers of acintya bheda [a]bheda tattva will see that when Srila Prabhupada says, "There is no necessity of tracing out the history of when the living entity desired this" [enjoying separately from Krsna], he is referring to a paradox that is beyond the conception of the material mind and intelligence. When Srila Sridhar Maharaja explains that from the viewpoint of siddhanta that the soul's origins are the brahmajyoti he automatically assumes the capacity of the audience to accommodate the inherent paradox. That paradox is that the brahmajyoti is not a static place it but rather a position that has been described a tathasta or marginal. Both the brahmajyoti and the jiva souls that comprise it are compared to the demarcation between the seashore and the sea. There is no static line and there's no way to tell exactly where that line is, even conceptually for our puppy brains. Consequently it appears that Prabhupada is alluding to that kind of paradox. It is apasiddhantic to declare that the baddha jivas originate in Goloka and that's why you never see such a phrase or sentence in Prabhupada's books.

Megaditto's Guruvani!!

I want to be swept up in the personality cult of Gurudev, Mahaprabhu, and Sri Sri Radha-Krishna!!!

Heck, on the mundane platform, I'm pretty carried away by the personality cult of Hugo Chavez.

well, surely that is better than a personality cult around Britney Spears?

 

everybody is in some sort of personality cult.

 

for you, it might just be you are in your own personality cult.

 

personalism is natural.

 

everybody is in somebody's personality cult.

In another discussion on this forum, someone made mention of a need to "slam Maya".

This adversarial attitude is familiar from my childhood in and around ISKCON, and, I'm afraid, is a misinterpretation of the mood of Srila AC Bhaktivendanta Swami Prabhupada.

The problem with "slamming" Maya (and all the incumbent sexual overtones) is: when you "slam" Her, She tends to slam you back with just as much force.

Really, what is the Vaishnava mood regarding Maya Devi?

Gurudev has expressed an almost reverential mood towards Maya Devi. We are to give her all respect due to the Energy of the Supreme Lord.

Think of the phrase "sleeping in the lap of the witch Maya". Yes, She is being called a "witch", but what is *our* position? We are sleeping contendedly IN HER LAP!! That does not sound like an adversarial mood! She is nurturing us in her own "deceptive" way!

So, really, there is no need to "slam" Maya (well, there may be a need, but it is a material one). The only need is to embrace Krishna. Seeing our sincerity and our hankering for her Lord, Maya Devi happily lifts us to our feet and sends us on our way.

Isn't it????

Think about it......

If your guru called you a "friend of the Gaudiyas", wouldn't you be devastated? The idea is to become a Gaudiya, not a friend of the Gaudiyas.

How about servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant?

What an insult, eh?

In the interest of giving credit where credit is due, I believe the below passage has been modified from an essay by Mark Twain.

Of course, in the adaptation lies the adaptor's brilliance!!

Having chosen English as the preferred language in the worldwide community of devotees, the BBT editorial board commissioned a secret feasibility study on ways of improving Srila Prabhupada’’s books. This plan can now be revealed.

 

Linguists around the world have often pointed out that English spelling is unnecessarily difficult -- for example, cough, plough, rough, through and thorough. The BBT editors have determined that what is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be administered by a committee staffed at the top level by career editors such as Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu.

 

In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 's' instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, shange-vadis in all sities would resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k' since both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up konfusion in the minds of BBT site workers, but keyboards kould be made with one less letter.

 

There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it kould be annoused that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'. This would make words like 'filosophy' twenty per sent shorter in print, which translates into big savings for the BBT publishers.

 

In the third year, akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are possible. The editors would enkourage the removal of double letters which have always been a deterent to akurate speling. And, we would al agre with the editors that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the language is disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and writ as though nothing had hapend.

 

By this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and peopl would be reseptiv to steps sutsh as replsing 'th' by 'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by 'v', vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary 'o' kould be dropd from words kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

 

Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls or difikultis, and evrivun vud fin it ezi tu understand ech ozer.

 

Zen, ze drems of ze BT editrz vud finali hav kum tru!

Muralidhar Prabhu.

Thanks for clarifying something for me. In Prapanna Jivanamritam, I saw that quote attributed to "Jagannatha" and wondered just which Jagannatha was being quoted.

That's amazing about JDB chanting only the pancha-tattva mantra. In a rare moment of (relative) humility, I recently mused that, whereas I have seen chanting pancha tattva as a chore to get through before chanting mahamantra, really, I ought to chant that mantra exclusively for lifetimes in hopes of eventually chanting Hare Krishna Mahamantra without offense.

I see there is some precedent!!

No, actually it's a not a matter of IQ, it's a question of understanding what science and empiricism are.

By the definition of science and empiricism it's impossible to prove that God exists in the same way it is impossible to determine with 100% certainty that humans are behind the currently observed global warming trend.

In the IPCC reports, language like "high confidence" is used when making pronouncements. Elsewhere in the documents, "high confidence" is defined to be 80% certainty or something like that--which, in itself, is just an estimate.

A good scientist knows he or she can state nothing with certainty, merely express a degree of confidence in his/her assertions.

Sorry if that bothers you, but that's just the way it is. If you can't accept that, it doesn't mean you have a higher IQ than we do, it just means you are stubbornly ignorant in this regard.

I'm not saying to abandon logic and reason. St Augustine was very fond of logic and reason, and used them to take him as far as they would take him. At a certain point, he found it necessary to take a leap of faith.

"Any religious pursuit is, to some extent, irrational, because God and the atma cannot be empirically proven to exist."

 

You do not need empirical science to prove God for it to be a rational idea, belief, or knowledge. There are other means such as self-reflection, pure logic, and the list goes on. Really, you need to study epistemology (vaisnava is good) and stop living in the means of knowledge of modern science as superior. Are you saying humans cannot know if God is real with rational thinking? Is mysticism all irrational to you too? Really, it is just a matter of IQ!

The story of Madhavendra Puri sure sounds like a test doesn't it? I call it "play" (yes, I read the translation). The Lord certainly *does* like to play doesn't He? Does the Lord ever doubt the devotion of Madhavendra Puri?

When we talk about testing in the sense of the Biblical Book of Job, then we're really talking about Maya Devi, aren't we? Sure, Maya Devi is a potency of the Lord, but it is *her* job to "test" us, so to speak, isn't it?

Of course, it is also said that, to the degree we embrace Maya, she embraces us. Not that she has us helpless in her clutches (though it certainly feels that way sometime, doesn't it?). Rather, we are clinging desperately to her and she is holding us just as tightly to her ample bosom.

We create these "tests" for ourselves where Maya Devi is concerned.

Where the Sweet Lord is concerned, all is play, even the "tests".

Yes it's observable but within oneself and not others unless Krsna gives us the vision.

We can't even see within ourselves without Krsna giving us vision, let alone being able to see through the samskaras of others.

From my own experience, I know what a tremendous capacity for self-deception I possess. How many times I have I justified nonsense behavior on my part in the name of "distribution" (I prefer to do my preaching in bed )?

Without Gurudev (chaitya or otherwise) opening our darkened eyes with the torchlight of transcendental knowledge, what can we see?

Sure, there are many symptoms of devotion which are clearly lain out. However, symptoms can be very easily faked by a skilled actor (and we've been studying our current roles for how many lifetimes?).

As to saying the KC is not based on faith (which was not you, theist), I can only respond with a loud guffaw. Whatever you say about the scientific nature of Bhakti Yoga, without faith, it is merely a system of gymnastics like any other. Do I really need to pull dozens of quotes out to illustrate?

What I'm trying to say below is: if something I say or do pleases you or any other Vaishnava, then I am certain that the Lord is pleased.

Conversely, if I say something to offend you or the other Vaishnavas, then I fear My Lord is not pleased with me.

Thank you for that answer, theist. It is a perfectly good answer and I place it upon my head.

 

I must admit, though, that the question was a loaded/baited one. Despite honestly wanting to see what you or others would say (and not wanting to initially color the discussion), I had something in mind.

 

In these regards, I have heard it said that, if Gurudev is pleased, Krsna is pleased. Of course, in order to have this sort of feedback (and be more sure it is not just our minds tricking us), we would need to have some sort of relationship with a fully-surrendered, qualified guru.

 

Of course, even then, should I run to Gurudev each time I leave the lavatory and ask if he is pleased with the fruits of my actions? Despite his infinite mercy and patience, doing so would not likely bring him satisfaction, would it?

 

Still, by seeing the reaction of the Vaishnava to our words/deeds, we can have some sense of whether the Lord Himself is pleased, can we not?

 

In any case, your initial post was a wonderful start of what could be an enlivening discussion. Let's hope it is not tainted any further by acrimony!

Thank you for that answer, theist. It is a perfectly good answer and I place it upon my head.

I must admit, though, that the question was a loaded/baited one. Despite honestly wanting to see what you or others would say (and not wanting to initially color the discussion), I had something in mind.

In these regards, I have heard it said that, if Gurudev is pleased, Krsna is pleased. Of course, in order to have this sort of feedback (and be more sure it is not just our minds tricking us), we would need to have some sort of relationship with a fully-surrendered, qualified guru.

Of course, even then, should I run to Gurudev each time I leave the lavatory and ask if he is pleased with the fruits of my actions? Despite his infinite mercy and patience, doing so would not likely bring him satisfaction, would it?

Still, by seeing the reaction of the Vaishnava to our words/deeds, we can have some sense of whether the Lord Himself is pleased, can we not?

In any case, your initial post was a wonderful start of what could be an enlivening discussion. Let's hope it is not tainted any further by acrimony!

Yes our problem is we have no real vision. We can only do our best and pray Krsna shows us how to please Him inspite of our awkward position.

 

Of course we try for success on Krsna's behalf just as Arjuna fought to his full capacity to win the war but if the Pandavas would have lost the war are we to then assume Krsna was displeased with Arjuna and his brothers?

 

The idea that we can judge Krsna's devotee by mundane means like number of disciples, books written or temples opened is ridiculous. Some of these past homosex pedophiles pretending to be gurus had thousands of disciples. Are they now more than Gaura Kshore babaji based on numbers?

 

Some were very expert at giving lectures etc. but if their words were not infused with love for Krsna and a desire to please Him then all their fine speeches are just so much finely polished noise.

But more than that the devotee acts to please Krsna and if Krsna is pleased by his attempts then that is the measure of success.

Very nice, theist!

This raises the question: how do we know if Krsna is pleased by (and accepts) our attempts to serve? Or is it not possible to know, and therefore impossible to guage our own success?

Thank you, GuestWestern, for highlighting the humble mood of Gurudev!

Considering the mood of devotion you display for Gurudev Srila Prabhupad, can you really blame my Godbrothers, Guruvani-ji, if they were to say (which they don't as far as I know) that Govinda Maharaj is the second coming of the Christ, can walk on water and heal the lame (I know *I'm* pretty lame and I'm feeling more healed from day to day)?

Isn't it the mood of the disciple to see Gurudev as the all-in-all, the storehouse of all scriptural wisdom, the friend of the fallen?

If they are "psycophants", then aren't you as well?

I have heard Srila Govinda Maharaja tell many times, "I did not want this chair (Vyasasana), I told Guru Maharaja (Srila Sridhar Maharaja), please give this chair to someone else, I do not care for any position. But Srila Guru Maharaja insisted, 'no you must take it'." If you can assume that this means rtvik chair and not the chair of the guru or acarya then you have become quite mad!

So how do you define a success that is or was Isckcon gurukula system? That one of it's alumni entered Harvard?

To be clear, it's Harvard School, an exclusive college prep school in L.A., and not Harvard College.

http://www.hw.com/

I never tried to define ISKCON Gurukulas as an unmitigated success. I merely hoped to counter the assertion that they were an utter failure. Obviously, not all of us felt like we were let down.

You ask one interesting question:

 

"...was the eventual collapse of the Gaudiya Math a sign of the failure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati?"

 

Gaudiya Math did not just fade away like ISKCON gurukulas. It has merely been transformed and it is wery much alive and well today, unlike Iskcon's gurukulas.

I really can't speak for the current state of ISCKON gurukulas. I believe there is still some sort of day school in L.A. No doubt there still *are* Gurukulas somewhere (if only in India).

However, I *would* be willing to say, the main reason for the (presumed) lack of vitality today would be lack of demand. If there are no householders in the immediate temple community, what need is there for a school? It's not a failure of the Gurukula system as much as a general failure to maintain strong, close-knit communities.

At the height of the L.A. Gurukula, there must have been over 100 children in a number of different ashramas--you should have seen the faces of the "karmi" parents when the vans pulled up at Lindbergh Park (in a few minutes, we usually had the park to ourselves)!! My own ashram teacher, Traidish (sp?) Prabhu was as (maybe even more) affectionate and patient with us as our own parents.

One could argue that the Gurukula success stories are isolated anecdotes and not indicative of the overall health of the system. Conversely, I would argue that the instances of abuse were mostly isolated. Perhaps in Dallas and Mayapur (or was it Vrindavan) Gurukulas, abuse was more systemic/endemic, but those two (or three) schools certainly did not comprise the majority of the historical ISKCON Gurukulas. No doubt abuse happened at New Vrindavan, but so did a lot of good things as well.

The seemingly endless tales of abuse have certainly clouded the historical perception of the Gurukulas. Hopefully, others will step forward to challenge the prevailing notion with some personal experiences.

Another point is that I am not saying that the failure of Iskcon's gurukula system is the failure of Srila Prabhupada. I am saying that the gurukula system itself was a failure.

 

And on the issue of basic fairness: if you are ready to praise someone specific for the success of a project, you should also be prepared to assign responsibility for a failure of the project. However, the success has many fathers, but a failure is always an orphan.

All true things you say, and beyond the scope of my reach. From my personal perspective, Gurukula was a success. I know whom I have to thank. I have no one to condemn.

No apologies necessary Prabhu!

I really can't say, though, if Gurukula prepared BR or myself better materially than spiritually. To my knowledge, there aren't any standardized tests to guage spiritual advancement (despite the existence of tests to guage reading retention).

I am what I am. As for BR, when I see him from time to time, I am struck by his sincerity. If you asked him, he would not claim to be a devotee. He is in no way pretentious (unlike me).

Still, I cannot help but see him as a Vaishnava due to his sincerity and exposure to saintly persons in his childhood.

Honestly, isn't his position as secure or more secure than somebody (anybody) on this forum offending the Vaishnavas in the name of Bhakti?

Sorry about the last message, but the moderator's edited version left out some details that would have helped it make more sense. I didn't mean to upset or offend you.

 

By the way, there were just 110-130 kids in each grade, so as a very small community everybody did know everybody else. Even to the point of being able to tell the difference between the handful of kids with Karandhara's surname! <smile>

 

Your message indicates that gurukula ironically gave Bhakta Rupa a better material preparation than spiritual preparation. That was basically the point of my messages before they were edited by the moderator. Assuming that he was there sometime in the 1985-87 time frame before Ramesvara left, Harvard School people didn't know Bhakta Rupa as a devotee, even though there were other Hindu kids whose religion was respected and accepted.

 

I'm glad to learn of his later material success, though. Again, it seems ironic that gurukula may have given him a better material than spiritual preparation for life. In any case, I'm happy for him.

 

</smile>

I never posted anything as Sridhar Maharaja's "will and testament".

I never said you did. I called it that. Certainly, it *is* his spiritual will and testament, is it not?

I posted something from his "declaration of spiritual succession" as it is described on the official website for the Matha.

 

His "will and testament" is a legal document that the lawyer helped them draft in regards to his estate and the passing on of his property over to Govinda Maahraja. It was a seperate document from his "declaration of spiritual succession".

Clear enough! If I wanted to discuss his legal will and testament, no doubt I would have done so on a forum named "Legal Discussions" and not one called "Spiritual Discussions" wouldn't I?

"splendor of acharya"?

 

You means that being a chaste disciple and acting as a transparent via-medium of the acharya is less splenderous than being an "acharya"?

For those who have some love for him, Gurudev is the sweetest, most humble personality they have had the fortune of meeting. In all he does, he *is* a transparent medium for the conception of his Gurudev. His chastity to his Gurudev is never in question.

Why is being a diksha-guru any more splenderous than being a ritvik?

Don't think anybody said it was. However, I've heard the term "acharya abhiman" used to describe the confidence of the Guru. Sometimes Gurudev will say something that might sound like pride if it was coming from somebody without his sincerity (for example, "Ask me any question. I can answer...not that I have qualification, but that I have heard from my Gurudev"--I'm paraphrasing something I've heard from his lips). That is understood to be acharya abhiman.

So, while Srila Sridhar Maharaj was before our eyes, Gurudev maintained a certain mood (I won't even try to characterize it--especially since I had no experience of Gurudev from this period of time). Now that Srila Sridhar Maharaj is no longer manifest, perhaps the mood is different, but the difference is external--for the sake of audarya/distribution of mercy. To anyone with the eyes to see (and even to one as blind as I am), it is obvious that Gurudeva's legendary surrender to Srila Sridhar Maharaj is as complete now as it was at age 17.

If the acharya appoints you as ritvik, then there is nothing more splenderous than following the orders of the acharya.

 

There is nothing splenderous about disobeying the acharya and becoming an imitation acharya.

Agreed! Agreed!! Beyond obeying his Gurudev fully, I am certain Srila Govinda Maharaj continues to *delight* him (and Srila Swami Maharaja Prabhupada) as only he can.

Thank you Gauravani Prabhu for giving me this opportunity to try to praise Gurudev.

Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda Dev-Goswami Maharaj ki Jai!!!!!

Wow!! So it's time to split hairs, eh? I defer to your greater knowledge about Harvard-Westlake.

If memory serves, BR did not graduate from Harvard School (or Harvard-Westlake, or...) since the funds to send him there stopped after a period (perhaps when Ramesvar Mj left?).

The point of raising this example was to illustrate that Gurukukla provided an adequate education as measured by conventional standards for those with some eagerness to learn.

If BR could gain admission to Harvard School, it's a safe assumption that he was adequately prepared by his Gurukula education. Whether he graduated is immaterial (in fact, he went on to graduate from a law school and is a member of the California Bar).

Considering his family name is "Smith", yeah, I'm sure the name would have jumped out at you, Prabhu Surely, there couldn't have been many Smiths at the school!

As for him not showing up to school every day in dhoti and kurta playing a mridanga and singing "Jiv Jago"--he isn't Prahlad Maharaj (who couldn't very well get expelled from Demon High, now could he, considering who his Dad was?). I read recently that the devotee, out in the world, will often conceal his devotional mood to facilitate performance of his mundane duties. BR was there to get an education (presumably to facilitate future preaching activities).

Dandavat pranamas at your very well-educated feet!!

Dear Murali Mohan Prabhu,

 

Please accept my dandavat pranams. All glores to Srila Prabhupada and all the Vaishnava devotees!

 

This will be a sanitized and edited-down version of a message I have posted twice before but that was deleted by the moderators. Moderator, if you delete even this sanitized version, please leave a post explaining why, as I am trying to be a helpful participant on this forum. It is frustrating to post a simple message and then find myself banned for a week or two with no explanation or no seeming rationale.

 

Anyway, I was in New Dvaraka in the mid- to late-1980s. I'm a graduate of Harvard School, and served at the BBT under Rajendranath Prabhu and in the IOPA under Mukunda Maharaja.

 

I'm aware of Karandhara's Western surname, and I can tell you from my firsthand knowledge that there was no Hare Krishna devotee with that surname attending Harvard School between 1976 and 1989.

 

By the way, I assume you meant “Harvard School” rather than “Harvard-Westlake” as the schools didn’t merge until 1989, by which time Ramesvara had left for New York.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the two different documents. I was referring to the document you posted as Maharaja's "Will and Testament".

Now that that is hopefully clear, can you address my actual questions?

To reiterate--how do you come to the conclusion that, by placing his full faith and blessing in Gurudev, and empowering him to initiate disciples of himself (Srila Sridhar Maharaj) via ritvik, there was any implication that, contrary to established custom, Srila Govinda Maharaja was to remain eternally in the formal position of ritvik (after all, he *is* eternally empowered to connect the sincere seeker with the lotus feet of his own Master) and not assume the full splendor of Acharya after his Gurudeva's departure?

You need to understand that the will was for legal purposes and for matters of inheritance, laws and governmental issues.

 

The actual declaration of spiritual succession was given publicly to the devotees on a special occasion.

 

Devotees dragged-out the legal will of estate to try and trump his declaration of spiritual succession, but it is a flimsy effort in face of his addressing all the devotees of the Matha with his specific spiritual instructions regarding his spiritual succession.

 

The will was for legal matters. It was not for spiritual matters.

 

His declaration of spiritual succession announced Govinda Maharaja as a ritvik, which was not necessary in the legal will and his passing on of properties in accordance with the laws of the state.

 

What he announced in front of the devotees was that Govinda Maharaja was a ritvik.

 

What he wrote in his legal documents is not reflective of the spiritual issues he addressed in his declaration of spiritual succession.

 

The Will was for the state goverment.

 

The declaration of spiritual succession was for the Vaishnava community and his followers.

 

The legal Will is of no concern to the Vaishnava community.

The Will was for the governmental matters.

 

It had nothing to do with the spiritual issues.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't guage the success of anything (except maybe propaganda) based on polls.

What you say may have some truth from a particular perspective, but it's not a perspective I care to adopt.

I really don't know anything about "widespread abuse" or what most Gurukulis would say. I know my own experiences and have a fair sense of the mood of the Gurukulis I know personally.

If I had attended an elite East Coast prep school like Choate or Andover, no doubt I could have found instances of abuse, but would you take those instances as proof that the whole prep school system is a "failure" (from the material perspective--of course they are failures from a particular spiritual perspective)?

Yet again, mundane sustainability is not a consideration for me with regards to success. If Srila Prabhupada's journey to the West had led to his discovery of only *one* pure devotee before the movement (apparently) collapsed--that would have been more than enough.

For that matter, was the eventual collapse of the Gaudiya Math a sign of the failure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati? I think not!!

I understand your sentiment and I never said ALL gurukulas failed. The SYSTEM failed. You just cant separate the good from the bad in this case. As a system, gurukulas were a failure not simply because of the widespread abuse due to extremely poor oversight, immaturity of the staff, etc. - but also nad primarily because the system mostly produced kids unprepared for normal functioning in the society - which is a basic purpose of any primary educational system. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are only exceptions.

 

The proof of the failure is in the average "product" of this system and in the fact that this system is now pretty much extinct.

 

If you polled ex-gurukulis most would not send their kids to the school they went to. That is the sustainability test. That is another symptom of a failure.

 

If you consider Iskcon gurukulas a success, I really dont know what is failure.

[Murali-mohan--if you'd like to write me privately at babhru {at} gmail {dot} com and remind me who you are, I'd like that. If not, that's cool, too.]

Sent an e-mail, but, since I don't guard my identity on this forum (I've mentioned my family name a couple of times as well as my father's full legal name), I'll respond generally.

I only spent one month at BV. If memory serves correctly, I was in Madhusudana Prabhu's Ashram.

You see, I was (and still am) very attached to my parents. The first time they tried to send me to BV, I got on my bike half an hour before the van was scheduled to leave and went bike riding for an hour and a half.

So, my parents made me a deal: go to BV for a month and check it out. If you're not happy, come back home after the month. I agreed.

It was a good month. At first, I jumped out of bed in the morning before the other kids and performed my morning ablutions. Then we'd walk under the most star-filled skies I've ever seen to a lovely Mangala Arati. My academic teacher (who's name escapes me at this moment) was a kind, intelligent devotee (with a British accent, perhaps?).

Really, it was an idyllic month with, in addition to sadhana, swimming in the lakes and playing soccer in the association of the devotees.

As the month wore on, though, my initial enthusiasm faded and I dragged myself out of bed just like the other children. I missed my parents and went back to L.A.

After that, I attended the day school at New Dwaraka being expertly nurtured by Mohana devi dasi.

My point is, Gurukula was certainly not all bad--in fact, for many of us, it was very, very good. Really, though, can anybody point out a formal system of education that has had no problems with abuse of authority?

When you read the Will and Testament of Srila Sridhar Maharaj, the meaning seems abundantly clear to you.

When I read the same words, another meaning is abundantly clear to me.

Why mention ritvik at all? Because so many captivated souls were coming to seek shelter of Param-Gurudev Srila Sridhar Maharaj and he wanted them to not feel cheated. He wanted to assure them that, by taking shelter of the lotus feet of Srila Govinda Maharaj, they were getting his full conception in its pure state.

Why would you assume that, contrary to established tradition, Srila Sridhar Maharaj intended Gurudeva's position as Ritvik to extend past Srila Sridhar Maharaja's manifest pastimes?

I have some Godbrothers and Godsisters who, due to a strong attachment for him, took hari-nama and diksha initiation from Sripad B. A. Sagar Maharaj (who is mentioned by Srila Sridhar Maharaj as an authorized ritvik of himself). They took initiation from *him* (certainly cognizant of the trust and faith placed in him by his siksa Guru) as Guru, not as ritvik, despite the presence of Srila Govinda Maharaja.

No scandal. No difficulty.

When circumstances changed and Sripad Sagar Maharaj left sannyas ashram, he lovingly guided his disciples to the feet of Srila Govinda Maharaj. This was all done with the utmost sweetness and no fuss. Nobody lost any faith in anybody or anything (as far as I can see).

You can call my worshipable God-Uncles, Aunts, Brothers and Sisters "idiots and fools" if you like, since, I am certain, you worship them in your heart even as you call them names.

As well, I think the parivar of Srila Sridhar Maharaja has suffered a great blow because idiots and fools around the Matha thought that if Govinda Maharaja was a ritvik and not an acharya that it would be an insult.

 

Being a ritvik to Sridhar Maharaja was never an insult or a diminshing of the authority and qualifications of Govinda Maharaja.

 

People with big egos and little minds stripped Govinda Maharaja of his ritvik status and reduced him down to a simple guru.

 

Sridhar Maharaja was not insulting or diminishing Govinda Maharaja by appointing him ritvik. It was the greatest honor and distinction that he could bestow on Govinda Maharaja, but some idiots loitering around the Matha couldn't understand that and thought that stripping Govinda Maharaja of his ritvik position was somehow more flattering than letting him be ritvik of Sridhar Maharaja.

 

When you are considering certain Mathas and institutions that were established by certain acharyas under particular acharyas with specific ontological nuances that distinguish the acharya from the masses, then there can never really be anything EXCEPT ritviks in the succession of the Matha.

 

That is what has preserved the Madhva sampradaya as a pristine sampradaya of Madhvacharya.

 

If the successors are "self-effulgent" acharyas, then the Matha gets hijacked by the successor and the founder-acharya gets moved to a secondary position.

 

That is why as far as ISKCON and SCSM goes there can only really ever be ONE acharya and ritvik successors.

The false guru is needed to fulfill the desire of the false disciples. They need him as much as he needs them to fulfill the fantasy. They all get their just rewards in this world but what they don't get is Balarama's direct presence.

What a wonderful (and simultaneously sobering) realization!!

I've joked for a while now that, "We all get the gurus we deserve!"