IRM is defeated

[Guest guest]

Dear Maharajas, Prabhujis, and Matajis,

 

 

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

 

I pray this message finds you well in your Krishna Consciousness. My

husband, Héctor Rosario, felt the spiritual urge to challenge IRM last

month. He therefore initiated a debate with Krishnakant desai. I will

briefly summarize the results of said debate for the benefit of ISKCON

members. Towards the end of the message, I will explain the intimate reason

for my husband's challenge. We hope that the entire chain of messages will

be posted soon at the Hare Krishna Cultural Journal website

http://www.siddhanta.com/ritvikism/, maintained by our Godbrother Krishna

Kirti Prabhu.

 

 

 

As a way of introduction, our family members are aspiring disciples of Sri

Srimad Hridayananda dasa Goswami Acaryadeva. My husband will finally receive

initiation from Srila Acaryadeva next week in Atlanta during the Panihati

Festival. Less importantly, my husband is an assistant professor of

mathematics at the University of Puerto Rico, and holds a Ph.D. from

Columbia University in New York City. He simply tried to humbly put his

God-given intelligence to Srila Prabhupada's service by helping expose IRM.

 

 

 

During the debate, my husband tried to maintain a level of decorum worthy of

a Vaisnava. Nevertheless, the gentleman from IRM became irritated and

offensive, choosing derision over chivalry in almost every instance. Before

I give the conclusion of the debate, I will like to share with you Srila

Prabhupada's words with respect to the use of logic in establishing

religious truth. We thank Ramakanta Prabhu for making this quote available

to us.

 

 

 

"It has been described in the Bhagavata that tarko 'pratisthah. If you want

to establish religious truth, you cannot establish it by your logic and

argument. It is not possible because I may be a very perfect religious man,

but I may not be a very good arguer; another strong man who can argue very

strongly, who knows logic very nicely, he can defeat me. He can make my all

conclusion null and void. So therefore, simply by argument or logical

conclusion one cannot reach to the truth, to the religious truth. It is not

possible. Tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinnah." (Bg. 3.21-25 Lecture, New

York, May 30, 1966)

 

 

 

If the gentleman from IRM would simply humbly meditate upon these

transcendental words of Pramahamsa Prabhupada, a perfect personality by his

own admission, then his devotional life could develop. Unfortunately, he has

disregarded Srila Prabhupada's instructions and become 'asara' or useless.

Worse than that, he has become a disturbance to devotional service.

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada quotes the Brahma-yamala thus: "If someone wants to pose

himself as a great devotee without following the authorities of the revealed

scriptures, then his activities will never help him to make progress in

devotional service. Instead, he will simply create disturbances for the

sincere students of devotional service." (The Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 7,

pp.60-61).

 

 

 

Keeping Srila Prabhupada's words in mind, I will summarize the arguments.

The crux of the debate revolves around two quotes, one from The Nectar of

Devotion and another from Teachings of Lod Caitanya.

 

 

 

1) The spiritual master must never be carried away by an accumulation

of wealth or a large number of followers. A bona fide spiritual master will

never become like that. But sometimes, if a spiritual master is not properly

authorized and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may

be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples.

(The Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 14, p.116)

 

 

 

2) If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material

conveniences offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as a bona fide

master, the growth of the plant will be impeded. Simply by taking advantage

of material conveniences one may become addicted to enjoying material

comforts. (Teachings of Lord Caitanya, p.30)

 

 

 

The IRM bases one of its 'strongest' arguments against the authorization of

ISKCON gurus to offer initiation on the first quote. In the Special Summary

Issue, IRM presents a truncated 'proof' of the one appearing in The Final

Order. The recap is the following:

 

 

 

1. Nectar of Devotion states that when not properly authorized –

sometimes the Guru falls.

2. Hence, if Guru falls, then he was not properly authorized.

3. But all Gurus authorized in exactly the same way.

4. Thus all Gurus not properly authorized.

5. Ritvik system authorized by July 9th directive remains.

 

 

 

My husband made the mistake of assuming the argument was sound and hastily

attempted to apply it to the Gaudiya Matha to show an undesirable result.

However, once he realized that the 'proof' was no proof at all, he

understood that the battle was even easier. Certainly, steps C, D, and E are

not quite based on logic, but on questionable assumptions. Nevertheless, one

needs only to consider a case in B which IRM ignores. It comes from the

second quote above (from Teachings of Lord Caitanya).

 

 

 

First of all, B does not follow from A, as my husband showed the IRM

gentleman. However, my husband conceded that if you substitute A, for "if

guru authorized, then guru does not fall," which appears in the same quote

the IRM gentleman took the quote from, then one simply need consider the

contrapositive of this statement and derive B. Hence, the debate considers

the following chain of arguments.

 

 

 

1. Nectar of Devotion 'states' if guru authorized, then guru does not

fall.

2. Hence, if guru falls, then he was not properly authorized.

3. But all gurus authorized in exactly the same way.

4. Thus all gurus not properly authorized.

5. Ritvik system authorized by July 9th directive remains.

 

 

 

However, when one considers the quote from Teachings of Lord Caitanya, it

says that a bona fide master may fall if he "is attracted by a large number

of disciples and material conveniences offered by these disciples and

forgets his duty as a bona fide master."

 

 

 

IRM contends that 'bona fide master' and 'bona fide spiritual master' refer

to two different things. However, IRM admits that Srila Prabhupada elsewhere

uses the two terms interchangeably. Therefore, by its own admission, Srila

Prabhupada is inconsistent in the way he uses his words. However,

inconsistency leads to contradictions. Hence, this would imply that Srila

Prabhupada contradicted himself, which, in all fairness, is something IRM

never intended to claim or conclude.

 

 

 

Besides, from the context, it is obvious that Srila Prabhupada refers to a

diksa guru in both quotes. To summarize, we have at least one more axiom

that may be the cause for the

falldown of a bona fide guru, in case the second one raises some questions,

namely:

 

1) Forgetfulness of duty

2) Taking advantage of material conveniences

 

Hence, if a spiritual master forgets his duty as a bona fide master, then he

may fall. Certainly, only a bona fide spiritual master can know what the

duties of such a position are. Moreover, it can be inferred that such

forgetfulness might come from being attracted and taking advantage of

material conveniences.

 

Therefore, since we have two more axioms, B becomes:

 

IF (guru falls), THEN (he was not authorized OR he forgot his duty as a

bona fide master OR he took advantage of material conveniences).

 

If the second axiom is rejected, then we get:

 

IF (guru falls), THEN (he was not authorized OR he forgot his duty as a

bona fide master).

 

In either case, 'proof' 4 of IRM's Special Issue and The Final Order

collapses.

 

 

 

If we now attempt to apply this reasoning to ISKCON's history, then we are

in a better position to understand what might be the cause, based on Srila

Prabhupada's shruti, behind the fall of so many of ISKCON's gurus.

 

 

If an ISKCON guru falls, there are at least three possible reasons Srila

Prabhupada gives for his falldown, namely: unauthorization, forgetfulness of

duty, and taking advantage of material conveniences. How would one know

which was the reason in each individual case? Only Krishna knows.

 

Nevertheless, one likely scenario is that, given ISKCON's vast material

opulence and resources, some gurus took advantage of material conveniences

and in the process forgot their duty as bona fide spiritual masters. As a

result, they fell.

 

This should not surprise us, since Srila Prabhupada had already warned us

that:

 

"Regarding your questions concerning the spirit souls falling into maya's

influence, it is not that those who have developed a passive relationship

with Krishna are more likely to fall into nescient activities. Usually

anyone who has developed his relationship with Krishna does not fall down in

any circumstance, but because the independence is always there, the soul may

fall from any position or relationship by misusing his independence. But his

relationship with Krishna is never lost, simply it is forgotten by the

influence of maya, so it may be regained or revived by the process of

hearing the holy name of Krishna…" (70-02-27 Letter to Jagadisa)

 

 

We pray this is the end of IRM, but only Krishna will decide when this

disturbance shall perish.

 

 

 

My husband's intimate reason for engaging the IRM gentleman in debate is the

following. My husband first came in touch with devotees in 1994, as a

freshman at the University of Puerto Rico. He began to make steady progress

in devotional life. However, perhaps too early in his devotional life, he

came in contact with IRM. Perhaps five years ago in New York City he noticed

two devotees at a subway station and happily approached them to associate

with them and buy a book. He told them, "I go to the Brooklyn temple. Are

you new in New York?" hoping to start a conversation. However, the gentleman

seemed quite annoyed by my husband's innocent and friendly question. He

replied in a dry an almost angry tone that he had nothing to do with those

people in Brooklyn. My husband felt he could not talk to him any longer,

since he was hostile. He paid his obeisances and decided to leave.

Nevertheless, he took the gentleman's card and attempted to visit their

meeting place once. He wanted to be fair and listen to what they had to say.

Nonetheless, by the grace of the Lord, he never found the place. My husband

was so disgusted and confused by the meeting and the subsequent reading of

IRM's website that as a result, he momentarily abandoned his devotional

life. Afterwards, my husband gave away all his Srila Prabhupada's books,

including the Vedabase. He simply didn't want to have anything to do with

Srila Prabhupada. After completing his PhD, my husband returned to Puerto

Rico and began associating with the local devotees. He has been blessed with

the association of many good devotees, who have helped him cultivate the

seed of bhakti. Last year he decided to devote his life to chanting and

reading. He chants 32 rounds daily and 64 or more on ekadasi and other

special occasions. He also voraciously reads Srila Prabhupada's books. I

should add that he feels very much inspired by Sripada Gour Govinda Swami's

and Srila Acaryadeva's works. He is overjoyed that his devotional life was

not permanently impeded by IRM. Those weeds have been removed.

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada says in a purport from the Caitanya Charitamrita that "One

must judge every action by its result." (CC Adi 12.8) Please, judge my

husband's actions by their result. If at least one devotee has been able to

recover or strengthen his or her spiritual life as result of this debate,

then my husband's task should be considered successful.

 

 

 

My husband prays that the parampara will forgive him for any offenses he may

have committed in the discharge of his devotional service. May Lord

Nityananada have mercy on us all and may this victory be transcendentally

relished by all faithful followers of Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

 

I remain,

 

My husband's sati,

 

At Srila Acaryadeva's feet,

 

 

 

Verónica

 

 

 

"Wherever there is Krishna, the master of all mystics, and wherever there is

Arjuna, the supreme archer, there will also certainly be opulence, victory,

extraordinary power, and morality. That is My opinion." (BG 18.78)

 

 

--

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama

Rama Hare Hare

[Guest guest]

Dear Lady Veronica,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances.

 

I honor your mood of supporting your beloved husband. So in that mood, I will continue on to correct the mistakes you have made in doing so, for your benefit and that of anyone else reading this public forum who are still forming their opinions regarding the transcendental science of Bhakti Yoga.

 

Near the beginning of your latest post, you offer a quote from His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (My Prabhupada) regarding the shortcomings of only using logic to establish religious truth.

 

"It has been described in the Bhagavata that tarko 'pratisthah. If you want

to establish religious truth, you cannot establish it by your logic and

argument. It is not possible because I may be a very perfect religious man,

but I may not be a very good arguer; another strong man who can argue very

strongly, who knows logic very nicely, he can defeat me. He can make my all

conclusion null and void. So therefore, simply by argument or logical

conclusion one cannot reach to the truth, to the religious truth. It is not

possible. Tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinnah." (Bg. 3.21-25 Lecture, New

York, May 30, 1966)

 

However, you neglect to inform the audience what can be used to establish religious truth. In Sri Jiva Goswami's Tattva Sandarbha he elaborates as to the means of aquiring knowledge of Vedic truth. There are various types that are considered "aroha-pantha" or bottom up ascending methods, whereby a conditioned soul uses higher or lower senses. For example, "Pratyaksa" or direct perception where in a person uses one or more of the 5 lower senses in scientific experimental observation. Then there is "Anumana" or logical inference, which relies on the sense of the mind to infer the truth about an unknown object by relating it to a similar and related phenomenon which is known. Next there is Pratibha or Intuitive Knowledge, where one relies on the highest level of Mind which is Intelligence, and is the most direct way to aquire knowledge through the senses.

 

Of course the conclusion is that all of these methods are incomplete by which to comprehensively know the absolute truth about the Personality of Sri Krishna due to the faulty nature of the senses, our propensity to cheat, etc.

 

Thus "avaroha-pantha", the Decending Method or hearing from Authority, is considered by Sri Jiva to be the most important and indeed the only way to know of something, especially the nature of the Lord, in its fullness. And the other means of knowing (aroha-pantha) can be used to support the Authorized knowledge for means of demonstrating and preaching.

 

Thus to understand what Srila Prabhupada wanted in any situation, all one needs to do is have a grasp of the English language, and a submissive attitude, and take him at his word. This includes understanding any of his purports to Divine Scripture.

 

In your latest letter, you characterize the point of contention in the debate between your husband and KrishnaKant Das as being the authorization or lack thereof of Iskcon Gurus to initiate disciples, saying...

 

"The IRM bases one of its 'strongest' arguments against the authorization of

ISKCON gurus to offer initiation on the first quote."

 

And you claim "The crux of the debate revolves around two quotes, one from The Nectar of Devotion and another from Teachings of Lord Caitanya." which are as follows.

 

1) The spiritual master must never be carried away by an accumulation

of wealth or a large number of followers. A bona fide spiritual master will

never become like that. But sometimes, if a spiritual master is not properly

authorized and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may

be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples.

(The Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 14, p.116)

 

2) If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material

conveniences offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as a bona fide

master, the growth of the plant will be impeded. Simply by taking advantage

of material conveniences one may become addicted to enjoying material

comforts. (Teachings of Lord Caitanya, p.30)

 

Next you reiterate the argument being used by the IRM, and the portion of the debate that you use to indicate the fault of the IRM positon, which I will reprint below in its entirety.

 

*{The IRM bases one of its 'strongest' arguments against the authorization of

ISKCON gurus to offer initiation on the first quote. In the Special Summary

Issue, IRM presents a truncated 'proof' of the one appearing in The Final

Order. The recap is the following:

 

1. Nectar of Devotion states that when not properly authorized –

sometimes the Guru falls.

2. Hence, if Guru falls, then he was not properly authorized.

3. But all Gurus authorized in exactly the same way.

4. Thus all Gurus not properly authorized.

5. Ritvik system authorized by July 9th directive remains.

 

However, when one considers the quote from Teachings of Lord Caitanya, it

says that a bona fide master may fall if he "is attracted by a large number

of disciples and material conveniences offered by these disciples and

forgets his duty as a bona fide master."

 

My husband made the mistake of assuming the argument was sound and hastily

attempted to apply it to the Gaudiya Matha to show an undesirable result.

However, once he realized that the 'proof' was no proof at all, he

understood that the battle was even easier. Certainly, steps C, D, and E are

not quite based on logic, but on questionable assumptions. Nevertheless, one

needs only to consider a case in B which IRM ignores. It comes from the

second quote above (from Teachings of Lord Caitanya).

 

 

First of all, B does not follow from A, as my husband showed the IRM

gentleman. However, my husband conceded that if you substitute A, for "if

guru authorized, then guru does not fall," which appears in the same quote

the IRM gentleman took the quote from, then one simply need consider the

contrapositive of this statement and derive B. Hence, the debate considers

the following chain of arguments.

 

1. Nectar of Devotion 'states' if guru authorized, then guru does not

fall.

2. Hence, if guru falls, then he was not properly authorized.

3. But all gurus authorized in exactly the same way.

4. Thus all gurus not properly authorized.

5. Ritvik system authorized by July 9th directive remains. }**

 

In your attempt to debunk this, you next use the excerpt from "Teachings of Lord Chaitanya" which you mentioned to be a case which the IRM ignores and you consider to have direct relevance here. You Say.

 

{"However, when one considers the quote from Teachings of Lord Caitanya, it

says that a bona fide master may fall if he 'is attracted by a large number

of disciples and material conveniences offered by these disciples and

forgets his duty as a bona fide master.'"}

 

Now I wish to nip this all in the bud right here. Let us do as you and Sri Jiva Goswami propose, and neglect all methods for understanding this situation but one. The words of Authority. After all, the whole arguement is about who is authorized and what happens to those not so. And how is one authorized? By gaining their knowledge from the Supreme Author or his Pure representative, and acting on that knowledgable instruction ONLY.

 

So here again is the NOD Purport by Srila Prabhupada.

 

1) The spiritual master must never be carried away by an accumulation

of wealth or a large number of followers. A bona fide spiritual master will

never become like that. But sometimes, if a spiritual master is not properly

authorized and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may

be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and large numbers of disciples.

(The Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 14, p.116)

 

First #1. We know that one may be the spiritual master of another even when not at the stage of uttama adhikari " 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 5)

 

So it is not necessary to be a MASTER of SPIRITUALITY to take disciples and be the "SPIRITUAL MASTER" of someone else. We still use the term Spiritual Master because there is some greater advancement in spirituality as opposed to the student, and thus the teacher has more MASTERY than the student, but no one would argue that a third class Kanistha Adhikari devotee is a MASTER of SPIRITUALITY.

 

Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada states, "There is no possibility that a first-class devotee will fall down" (Madhya 22.71)

 

And, "Unless one is a resident of Krishna Loka, one cannot be a Spiritual Master." (Letter Mukunda 6/10/69)

 

So here we have conclusive proof from authority of which I speak. A resident of Krishna Loka is a Spiritual Master. In other words, a Master of their own Spiritual nature, first class, beyond material desires, and not subject to the type of fall down that falling prey to Maha Maya's offering of material gratification can produce.

 

So when reading NOD Chapter 14, p.116, we can see using knowledge from his entire body of teachings, that based on the qualities of the Different types of spiritual masters mentioned, that Srila Prabhupada is making distinctions.

 

NOD 14-p116: Broken Down by sentence.

 

"The spiritual master must never be carried away by an accumulation

of wealth or a large number of followers." (Here is advising on how to know who a Spiritual Master is. OBVIOUSLY then refering to a first class one. We will know one is NOT if carried away by an accumulation of wealth or a large number of followers.)

 

"A bona fide spiritual master will never become like that." (Straightforward support of the premise.)

 

"But sometimes, if a spiritual master is not properly authorized and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away" (This clearly refers to a type of Spiritual Master who "MAY" be carried away. We have already been informed that the only type of Spiritual Master who even has that potential is not of the First Class. And most importantly, the only symptom given here is that he is not properly authorized, and becomes one on his own inititative.)

 

Now, is the above enough to give credence to the contrapositive of the proof given in the debate, that If a guru does fall, then it was because he was not properly authorized?

 

To answer this challenge, you provided your husband with the quote from the Teachings of Lord Chaitanya, which we shall look at next.

 

"If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material

conveniences offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as a bona fide

master, the growth of the plant will be impeded. Simply by taking advantage

of material conveniences one may become addicted to enjoying material

comforts." (Teachings of Lord Caitanya, p.30)

 

From this, he deduced the following from debate 9:

 

Sri Hector: "Srila Prabhupada is so merciful that he not only has provided one, but two more axioms that may be the cause for the falldown of a BONAFIDE guru, namely,

 

1) Forgetfulness of duty

2) Taking advantage of material conveniences"

 

To show how this is incorrect, I will first quote the FULL Paragraph in which the excerpt you quoted from the TOLC is found to give more context.

 

"There are also other factors which disturb the plant of devotional service. Along with this plant the weeds of material desires also grow. When a person advances in bhakti, it is natural that many persons will come to him requesting to become disciples and will offer him some material gains. If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material conveniences offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as a bona fide master, the growth of the plant will be impeded. Simply by taking advantage of material conveniences one may become addicted to enjoying material

comforts."

 

The portion of the TOLC where these excerpts come from is the portion where there is discussion of the GROWTH of the devotional creeper (plant) and the OFFENSES to be avoided. Just previous to the excerpt you provide about being carried away by disciples, is the explanation of the 10 offenses to chanting the holy name, and discussion of weeds that can strangle the creeper.

 

Indeed, just prior to the discussion of offenses we are told what happens to the plant if we are successful at cultivating it properly.

 

"When the plant of devotional service sprouts up from the seed of devotion, it begins to grow freely. When it is full grown, it surpasses the length and breadth of this universe and enters into the transcendental atmosphere, where everything is bathed in the effulgence of the brahmajyoti. The plant even penetrates this brahmajyoti and gradually enters the planet known as Goloka Vrndavana. There the plant takes shelter at the lotus feet of Krsna. That is the ultimate goal of devotional service. After attaining this position, the plant produces fruit, which is known as the fruit of love of Godhead. However, it is necessary for the devotee, or transcendental gardener, to pour water on the plant daily by chanting and hearing. Unless one waters the plant by chanting and hearing, there is every chance that it will dry up."

 

About the problems to avoid, Lord Chaitanya says to Rupa Goswami..

 

"Lord Caitanya pointed out to Rupa Gosvami that there was a certain danger to be encountered while watering the root of the devotional plant. After the plant has grown some bit, an animal may come and either eat or destroy it. When green leaves of a plant are taken by some animal, the plant generally dies. The most dangerous animal is considered a mad elephant, for if a mad elephant enters into a garden, it causes tremendous damage to plants and trees. An offense to a pure devotee of the Lord is called vaisnavaparadha, the mad elephant offense. In the discharge of devotional service, an offense to the feet of a pure devotee can create havoc. Thus one has to defend the plant of bhakti by tending it properly and taking care not to commit offenses. If one is cautious, the plant can properly thrive."

 

So back to the paragraph in question, I will break it down.

 

"There are also other factors which disturb the plant of devotional service. Along with this plant the weeds of material desires also grow. When a person advances in bhakti, it is natural that many persons will come to him requesting to become disciples and will offer him some material gains."

 

(So here it is clear that Srila Prabhupada is speaking of a Person who advances, meaning moving forward, or advancing in Bhakti. This person has not yet had their devotional plant grow and "surpass the breadth of the universe" and go all the way to Krishna Loka and produce fruit called LOVE OF GOD. So there is need to speak of weeds (material desires) still being dangerous enough to strangle the creeper of Bhakti!!)

 

"If one is attracted by a large number of disciples and material conveniences offered by these disciples and forgets his duty as a bona fide master, the growth of the plant will be impeded. Simply by taking advantage of material conveniences one may become addicted to enjoying material

comforts." (Teachings of Lord Caitanya, p.30)

 

(So most specifically, the person at this stage of Bhakti is admitted to be one who has accepted and then forgotten the duties of a bona fide master. But earlier Srila Prabhupada wrote in the NOD that "a Bona Fide Spiritual Master would never become like that" (carried away by wealth or followers))

 

How to rectify this?

 

If one is a Kanishta (neophyte) or madhyama (intermediate) devotee, then one may be earnest about wanting to shelter others. It is quite easy to discover and read all the duties of a spiritual master, and upon one's own initiative begin to accept disciples.

 

This is recommended against as per the quote I gave previously. Those STILL ADVANCING 3rd and 2nd class devotees give only "insufficient guidance" and in the CC Madhya 7.130, Srila Prabhupada purports :"One should not try to be an artificially advanced devotee, thinking, "I am a first-class devotee." Such thinking should be avoided. It is best not to accept any disciples."

 

So the only type of person who would accept duties of a Bona Fide Spiritual Master that one would not be able to live up to and thus forget on account of being "ATTRACTED" by material desires for "Wealth" and "Followers". is the type of person who is STILL ADVANCING.

 

Thus only a Bona Fide Guru would know who was advanced enough to accept such duties without fear of them falling down. Especially as such a person actually feels themselves to be not even a vaisnava, not lip service, but this is how they feel. How many times did Srila Prabhupada speak of how he needed to be ORDERED to take Sanyassa and ORDERED to preach and be Guru. And how Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was ordered by Sri Mahaprabhu to "become Guru and save the world".

 

Thus the admonition to wait to be authorized.

 

Thus the need to follow explicit instructions from a MahaBhagavata Acharya whose Bhakti plant has ALREADY ADVANCED into Krishna Loka in this regard.

 

And if he says, accept Disciples on my Behalf as officiating Acharyas, and "KEEP THE ACHARYA IN THE CENTER" then that is what he means.

 

So a person who is capable of Transmitting Transcendental Knowledge that will ERADICATE the sins of a disciple, and can GUIDE them FAULTLESSLY through the process will be authorized by some Authority to accept disciples and there will be no INSUFFICIENT GUIDANCE.

 

So where we see insufficient guidance. Where we see fall downs of whatever magnitude, we can be sure that someone has jumped the gun. Whether on their own initiative, or by being instigated by Someone else or some group who inspires them to accept Duties beyond their ability to fulfill.

 

I wish you take this information with an open heart and use it to your spiritual health and well being.

 

All Glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

 

Hare Krsna

 

y.s.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

They were defeated as revisionists.

 

mahak

[Guest guest]

Dear Mahak,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances.

 

All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga.

 

I was very touched by your expression in the "Book changes" thread on this forum. You were not only generously sentimental but were so from a foundation of authority and reason.

 

Will you please present the occasion where some Person was able to defeat the Premises indicated in the Position papers of the Iskcon Revival Movement?

 

From what I have seen, all such attempts have been defeated by one or the other representatives of the IRM using evidence obtained by statements from Srila Prabhupada thus using "avaroha-pantha" or the descending method of aquiring knowledge through authority.

 

However if someone else has presented greater evidence of the same nature in a recorded debate so as to defeat the IRM, and I have not seen this, I would be appreciative to be guided to it for my own advancement.

 

Sincerely yours in service,

 

Mark

[suchandra 1]

 

They were defeated as revisionists.

 

mahak

 

Thanks Bhakta Mark, your quoting of Srila Prabhupada's statements on genuine guru-tattva are most enlightening! Where did you learn all this?

 

Unfortunately everywhere people believe, fallen down gurus, isnt that bad!

How come?

[Guest guest]

Dear Suchandra,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances,

 

I am so glad you found my answers to be acceptable.

 

I have been spurred to learn and understand the essentials of Guru-tattva out of a strong need to not become a victim of any man or woman.

 

I have a strong 6th sense for posers, as I was brought up in a traumatic and abusive environment, but due in part to personal will power, kind assistance from well meaning neighbors, and the blessings of the Lord, I have survived with my emotions in tact, and have clarified senses.

 

I basically never take to heart anything anyone says regarding transcendental topics unless they are quoting my Srila Prabhupada, or what they are proclaiming can be confirmed by what my Spiritual teacher had to say on the matter.

 

Of course regarding mundane knowledge, intuition, logic and direct perception work ok in most cases.

 

This is the way I keep in the clear.

 

I do not think this is an easy thing to do unless one has been thouroughly humiliated by their own embarrassment at their real position here in Kali Yuga. Otherwise it is very easy to twist and use the potency of Vaisnava philosophy to subtly enhance ones own tendency to be a lord of material nature.

 

Thus I am just an average garden variety Sakama devotee who still has weeds growing amidst my bhakti creeper and a tendency toward material desires, but my recognition of such is what counts. Those who think they are beyond that stage when they are really not make all the bad arguements and are quite easily defeated from what I have seen.

 

Best regards,

 

y.s.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Dear Suchandra,

 

As for your question, "how come people believe, fallen down gurus, isnt that bad?"

 

I have found that there are 2 types of belief. The first is when we believe something based on knowing it by one of the bonafide methods of aquiring knowledge, and thus to some degree or other there is evidence to urge us to believe it.

 

The second belief is when we hold something to be true, without it being verified to us by observation, reason, or authority, but because that something is a brick in the foundation of one of our self-serving agendas, and thus regardless of its relation to truth, we need to "believe" it anyway, or else let go of our illusion.

 

So if you believe it is true that Fallen down Guru's are a serious problem, and have evidence that this is truth.

 

And others believe it is not that bad, you have to examine the degree of dismissal they give to the falldowns. Are they saying it is not that bad because they can always receive mercy again if they are sincere about rectifying their mistakes?

 

Are they saying that it is "not that bad" as in just make believe it didn't happen?

 

The context is important.

 

y.s.

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

I have investigated IRM claims for over ten years (or at least since they officially formed, which may have been later), and find little validity in their claims.

 

First, they value letters from Tamal to temple presidents (july 9, 1977) as more valid than anything Srila Prabhupada has written concerning guru tattwa in his books, and when one tries to present these full contextual teachings of how parampara works, they will contradict themselves repeatedly, demean Srila Prabhupada teachings as out of date, saying Tamal's 7-9-77 creation is more authoritive, just as we see above.

 

The rtvik model has us believe that simply by the vani of Srila Prabhupada, which they conclude is his books, tape ministry, letters, memoes, etc., is all that is needed for advancement in Krsna consciousness. However, throughout Srila Prabhupada's literature, there are many indications that one must be in consultation with the advanced devotees, not just by osmosis and appreciation, but by serving with rapt attention. From Sri Chaitanya Charitamrta, we see a sample of these many direct teachings on the need for direct and personal contact instruction:

 

Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Antya 7.53

 

TRANSLATION

 

Knowing that Vallabha Bhatta's heart was full of pride, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu spoke these words, hinting at how one can learn about devotional service.

 

PURPORT

 

Vallabha Bhatta was greatly proud of his knowledge in devotional service, and therefore he wanted to speak about Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu without understanding the Lord's position. The Lord therefore hinted in many ways that if Vallabha Bhatta wanted to know what devotional service actually is, he would have to learn from all the devotees He mentioned, beginning with Advaita Acarya, Lord Nityananda, Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya and Ramananda Raya. As Svarupa Damodara has said, if one wants to learn the meaning of Srimad-Bhagavatam, one must take lessons from a realized soul. One should not proudly think that one can understand the transcendental loving service of the Lord simply by reading books. One must become a servant of a Vaishnava. As Narottama dasa Thakura has confirmed, chadiya vaishnava-seva nistara peyeche keba: one cannot be in a transcendental position unless one very faithfully serves a pure Vaishnava. One must accept a Vaishnava guru (adau gurv-asrayam), and then by questions and answers one should gradually learn what pure devotional service to Krishna is. That is called the parampara system.

 

mahaksadasa: From this and many, many other quotations, Srila Prabhupada affirms the traditional and direct parampara system. There is no change of this policy, no system of eccliastic religion, that has replaced the need for a disciple to humbly inquire from a vaisnava guru on the science of bhakti yoga. The matter of him setting up a policy whereby many disciples can be initiated by him through his disciples is viable, but there is no system created where this is a modification of guru tattwa as presented by the science of bhakti yoga itself.

 

I am actually favorable to the idea of officiating acarya, but the authority for this is not contained in documents of questionable authenticity. The authorization is in his books where he describes the transcendental relationship between Guru and disciple, acting in complete unison. I accept initiation on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, but, then again, IRM has never responded to my main point that Srila Prabhupada never initiated anyone independently of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. In fact, any guru who claims to be a master should be rejected immediately, because our descending path means we only accept humble servants as our guru.

 

In fact, this is why I reject July 9, IRMs shastra. This document names many who claimed to be masters, exhibited no humility (IMHO, and I witnessed their ridiculous activities of misrepresentation even while Srila Prabhupada was personally and physically present), and, my contention all along is that if the J9 document is, indeed valid, as IRM insists, then they must hold Srila Prabhupada personally responsible for the activities of his ministers named in that document, just as we hold bush responsible for the actions of rumsfeld, rice, wolfowitz, rove, etc. If IRM is valid, then IRM must humble themselves to the eleven disciples named in that document to get authority from what that document claims.

 

I am not a supporter of the GBC elected guru system, nor any other "system". System means that the vyasasana is guru, and whomever sits there gets authority from that chair. No, this is also nonsense. But Guru Tattwa is a fact, and is perfectly and completely presented in Srila Prabhupadas books. Read up in First Canto, the meeting of Sukadeva Goswami and King Pariksit. Find out how Sukadeva was "Inspired" to approach King Pariksit. Find out our Krsna Consciousness DESCENDS, from Lord SesaBalarama to inspire guru to appear to a sincere candidate for this science. This is factuial Guru Tattwa, not some contrived system revised everyday by a faction which Srila Prabhupada pleaded us not to form.

 

Hare Krsna, thanks for your kind remarks. BTW, are you from SDak, and did you used to post on the famous Dharma Mela. If so, haribol, glad to hook up with you again. Ys in cooperation, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

I like to keep my posting short and to the point.

As far as the effect and effectiveness of reading the books of Srila Prabhupada, we might do well to take his own statement from the preface to KRSNA book.

 

"By reading this one book, Krsna, love of Godhead will fructify"

 

 

According to Srila Prabhupada, reading his books is all we really need to do.

 

If we read them with faith and devotion, then love of Godhead is assured.

[mahak 0]

"By reading this one book, Krsna, love of Godhead will fructify"

 

This is a fact. If one reads Srila Prabhupadas books, understanding will take place. In his books, there are countless explanations of the processes of devotional service. To read these books as one would read novels or other literature, thinking that the instructions contained in these books are not necessary to follow, is this what is meant by Srila Prabhupadas statement here?

 

No, we read books for the information contained within, then we act on such information. So, you see, there is no contradictionn in the citation I provide and the one nicely put by "Your Ever Well-Wisher".

 

We read these books, then act on the information. If we do not understand something, Prabhupada said read again, and again. But along with this reading is becoming a disciple of a bonafide acarya, also clearly taught as necessary in his books. Guru is one whom we "submissively inquire" from. I love this phrase of his, submissive inquiry, because all fanaticism and sentimentality is destroyed by this combination of words. Submission means we serve with rapt attention, and inquiry means we put Guru to the test. It is the disciples duty to scrutinize the spiritual master, to avoid being misled. It is the spiritual master's duty to chastize the disciple to correct any potential misunderstanding. This personal and intimate relationship between spiritual master and disciple is the very subject matter of the Krsna Book, BGAII, TLC, NOD, NOI, SB, TQK, all these wonderful masterpieces provided by the great gift-giver.

 

I am somewhat partial to the IRM in that they have inquired and put some claiming mastery of this science to the test. There has been great failures, and many have been brought to public attention by IRM and other factions. However, they lose credibility if they become "neti, neti" artists. There is no value hearing from those whose preaching consists of "he is not guru, nor is he, and she is also rejected because she has done this." Better to hear from those whose mission is that of Srila Prabhupada, those who spread this samkirtana movement to every town and village. A good test is to see if others are becoming devotees of Krsna because of this positive preaching effort, because Srila Prabhupada emphatically teaches that it is not possible for one not empowered by Lord Nityananda Prabhu, the original spiritual master, known as sri Chaita guru, to enable another to chant the holy names of the supreme lord.

 

Yes, we can spend our time reading literature telling of falldowns of devotees, but it is absurd to think that Srila Prabhupada has rejected them. He often stated that maya extends her efforts as one makes advancement. However, rather that blasting away at the misfortune of a godbrother, it is better to wish him well, and pray hard to Krsna for rapid recovery, especially for those who sacrificed theiur very youth in order to help Srila Prabhupada push on his program.

 

IRM is defeated because they exhibit coarse and unmerciful behavior. If one reads the Krsna book, especially the most important chapter on the killing of Romaraharsana, we will find out just why Romaraharsana was killed by the original spiritual master, Sri Balarama. He sat in the vyasasana, but he was not gentle, not forgiving, thuis not capable of sitting where those could hear him teach. While IRM says there aint no gurus, nor will there ever be for 10,000 years, are they not pretending to be guru? Are they not acquiring followers? Are they not pushing their agenda in opposition of the enemy? And are not their enemies VAISNAVAS> This is why IRM is defeated, because they have enemies whom they avow as enemies, who are vaisnavas. Not just GBC faction, either. IRM will gladly deride VAISNAVAS who are not, nor ever were, under the jurisdiction of ISKCON nor the GBC. They actively preach against babajis, who may not be like Prabhupada, who is gosthyanandi, but who are fully fixed up as Bhajananandis and possibly pure Vaisnavas. Prabhupada tells us all, on his samadhi bed, that the war is over between him and his godbrothers, yet IRM insists on keeping the war going, defying Srila Prabhupada in the process.

 

So, Ive said enough. Beware of those who profess hatred of vaisnavas, or those who do not have forgiving hearts, or any appreciation for those whom Srila Prabhupada loved dearly. If they read here, they will surely criticize me, saying that I am an enabler of child rapists, but Im not speaking of such, Im speaking of those who DO FOLLOW Srila Prabhupada. But they would have you believe that all who are not in IRM are criminals, disloyal to Prabhupada, etc, etc.

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Mahaksadasa,

 

I am not from SDak, and not the person you are thinking of.

 

In my last post to you, I asked you,

 

"Will you please present the occasion where some Person was able to defeat the Premises indicated in the Position papers of the Iskcon Revival Movement?

 

From what I have seen, all such attempts have been defeated by one or the other representatives of the IRM using evidence obtained by statements from Srila Prabhupada thus using "avaroha-pantha" or the descending method of aquiring knowledge through authority.

 

However if someone else has presented greater evidence of the same nature in a recorded debate so as to defeat the IRM, and I have not seen this, I would be appreciative to be guided to it for my own advancement."

 

You then shared your own opinions, but did not answer my question.

 

You then claim that "IRM has never responded to my main point that Srila Prabhupada never initiated anyone independently of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati."

 

So it sounds like you yourself at one point were in a debate with a representative of the IRM and defeated them due to their silence in not responding to one of your points. I have found no evidence of this. Perhaps you could prove that and let me know who conceded defeat to you, so I can assist them in enlightening you, or take the debate from that point myself.

 

Opinions are plentiful. But stack them all end to end, and they may not rise to the construction of one single fact without being backed up by the authority of a Mahabhagavat Acharya.

 

Your post in reply to me was full of holes and contradictions. You make broad sweeping statements, some of which I could easily show have no bearing on reality, and other assertions you could not possibly back up with evidence from any source, just hearsay or your own opinions. This is my claim. And if I am right, then I have something to share with you.

 

You say, "I love this phrase of his, submissive inquiry, because all fanaticism and sentimentality is destroyed by this combination of words"

 

You must have submissively inquired from Srila Prabhupada at some point, or else would never have been able to say such nice things in that Book Change thread.

 

I am claiming you have fell victim to fanaticism and sentimentality on the issues you pontificated on in your last 2 posts. So strongly in fact was your rhetoric that I will not attempt to respond unless you ask it of me. If you could look over what you wrote previously and not find at least one of the type of errors that I generally mentioned above, that indicate that your posts did not rise to the level of a valuable spiritual discussion with me, then I would be a fool to engage with you further, as it would not be discussion between 2 people submissively looking to find more truth from the Words of an Acharya greater than them.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mark

[Guest guest]

Mark, you may have others think that you are neutral, but your bias is very clear. You have set your mind onto the IRM way, which is your choice. However, by doing so, you have cast your lot with those who say Srila Prabhupada placed his whole society in the hands of the eleven named in the July 9 document. Therefore, as the king is responsible for the actions of his ministers, one must conclude that Srila Prabhupada is responsible for the subsequent actions of those eleven devotees he named as the official leaders of ISKCON, the only ones who can make disciples in his name.

 

I dont have this problem, I dont accept July 9 as authoritive, I dont even accept that it is valid. And July 9 does NOT say anything about initiations after he is no longer with us, as IRM seems to contend.

 

My basis for rejecting IRM is the authority they have given this document. They further make revision by stating that July 9 supercedes anything Srila Prabhupada wrote previously on the subject, because it was written later.

 

Okay, if I accept this premise, and agree with IRM, all I have to do to get them to ruin their credibility is publish the letter to Tusta Krsna, where Srila Prabhupada tells the process for his disciples to initiate their own disciples AFTER his disappearance. You wanna know how IRM responds to this? By presenting many letters written years before this letter to Tusta about tusta. So where is their consistancy? Where is their truthfulness? There is none, because the LAST thing they have to Tusta should be the truth that supercedes all previous discussion to the same party. (BTW, Tusta Krsna Prabhu was not a member of ISKCON, nor under the jurisdiction of GBC on 7-9-77, nor was I, so any letter by Tamal to TPs had nothing to do with me.).

 

Anyway, no need to respond, because it is clear that you are a member of IRM. Your attempt to question folks who dont surrender to your guru, whoever your leader is, is just mor untruthfulness as evidences by any such corespondence with these people. It is very Kali yugaesque that they (IRM) claim the GBC will not nregotiate with them. I can communicate quite well with ISKCON leaders, even with Sriman Jayadwaita Swami, who I have openly disagreed with on the book issue, and all such communications are based on equal acceptance of that which unifies us, our common father Srila Prabhupada. Not so, with IRM. I dont go to Rathayatras, and it is not because I fear ISKCON? It is because the fanatics of rebel groups make all this propaganda there, disrupting the festival, when devotees should be concentrating only on the atmosphere in front of Srimati Subhadras cart.

 

So, dishonesty is why IRM is defeated, plus all the revisionism that nullifies the teachings on guru tattwa presented by Srila Prabhupada in his books (and I have all the originals).

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

 

IRM is defeated because they exhibit coarse and unmerciful behavior.

 

compared to the mercy extended through child abuse, wife abuse, gestapo tactics, cover ups, bigotry, money laundering, extortion, the IRM is like the Girl Scouts.

 

 

So, dishonesty is why IRM is defeated,

 

 

"IRM has never responded to my main point that Srila Prabhupada never initiated anyone independently of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati."

 

Did you HONESTLY make this challenge and not receive a reply? Or are you just stretching the truth a little to make a point? It isn't like us Big Arrogant Merciless Egotists of the IRM to pass up a good challenge.

 

I ask because in my personal experience with you so far, in reference to the points I asked you about, you decide not to answer them directly with evidence from an acharya, but instead decide it is time to attack my character by referring to me as someone who is trying to fool others,

 

 

Mark, you may have others think that you are neutral, but your bias is very clear.

 

and and refer to my untruthfullness. How generous.

 

and then after placing another heap of your opinions on what makes me and IRM member so "wrong" about everything, you pompously and courageously declare it to be unassailable truth, (no need to back it up with quotes from an Acharya greater than yourself of course) then brag about how you can communicate quite well with Iskcon leaders (pedophiles and all?) , but end our communication and dismiss me with a wave of your hand.

 

 

Anyway, no need to respond, because it is clear that you are a member of IRM

 

Be cause I am with the "evil" IRM.

 

Perhaps a brush up lesson on Vaisnava ettiquette would be in order, or am I so low that your mercy does not extend to someone who honors Srila Prabhupada's system for better or worse, and am less than vaisnava compared to Iskcon leaders who have proven to do far worse in your "Common Father's" name?

 

If you prick me do I not bleed?

 

And yes, my feelings ARE hurt. Even though I clearly sense you to be exhibiting hypocrisy and double-standard to an extreme here.

 

You just had such nice things to say about book changes, I hoped for a little more.

 

Any way, Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

 

y.s.

 

mark