Quotes of Narayana Maharaja on Prabhupada's books?

[Guest guest]

 

In this purport by Srila Prabhupada he explains the wide and expansive platform of the Krishna conciousness movement.

He makes it clear that joining the cult and adopting all the cult trappings is not necessary.

As Krishna consciousness sheds the cloak of ritual, ceremony and formality it will spread far and wide unfettered by the cultural shackles of India and Indian tradition.

As the yuga-dharma, the chanting of the Holy Name is above and beyond all ritual, ceremony and formality.

It is the birthright of all the souls who get human birth in this kali-yuga.

 

CC,Madhya 7. 128, purport -

 

 

 

This is the message of Srila Prabhupada.

Chasing this sadhu or that sadhu around the world hoping for some magical transformation because one can make airfare to get on a wide-body jet and fly around the world is artificial beyond description.

 

Airfare can't get you to Vrindavan, neither can it get you sadhu sanga if you can't find it in the Srimad Bhagavatam and Caitanya Caritamrita.

 

We can associate with so many great sadhus and pure devotees in the books of Srila Prabhupada.

Chasing the vapu of some so-called holy man around the world is not sadhu sanga.

We need sadhu sanga to get good instructions.

Sadhu sanga is not about physical proximity to the vapu of a pure devotee.

It's about hearing the instructions and teachings of all the greatest devotees who have contributed a vast treasure of Vaishnava literatures.

 

All true but it doesn't mean that no souls get sadhu sanga in physical proximity to a sadhu. Just like it doesn't mean that no souls get sadhu sanga out of physical proximity. Remember for thousands of years there were no printing presses or electronic media. Also in all the stories in the Bhagavatam

the guru and disciple had "physical proximity" except for Brahma but his teacher was Krsna directly. Most followers who go across the world do so for exchanges of love and affection with their guru. But that doesn't mean that a transcendental guru is limited to exchanges of love and affection by physical proximity.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

Sorry #76 was by me.

[theist 1]

 

I've read most of Srila Narayana Maharaja's books and meet him several times. I condsider him one of my siksa gurus. If look at my post #60 on this thread you'll see my attitude towards "guru fanatics".

Yes I have never got that from you. If everyone had the same attitude as you then I believe the passion would be taken out of the discussions. As it is it is not healthy for anyone.

 

But I have from very many from 1998 on various forums. Prabhupada appointed Narayana Maharaja as head of Iskcon because he asked him to supervise the samadhi arragements etc., you know what I mean.

 

Shouldn't everyone promote Krsna instead of their guru?

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

Shouldn't everyone promote Krsna instead of their guru?

Exactly

But I have from very many from 1998 on various forums. Prabhupada appointed Narayana Maharaja as head of Iskcon because he asked him to supervise the samadhi arragements etc., you know what I mean.

 

The B.S. Govinda Maharaja followers have a similar logic. 1) Prabhupada wanted all his followers to hear from Sridhar Maharaja and then become Sridhar Maharaja's follower. 2) Sridhar Maharaja wanted all his followers to follow his successor, Govinda Maharaja. THEREFORE: All real followers of Prabhupada are followers of Govinda Maharaja. If you tell this to Govinda Maharaja he will chuckle and laugh and just wink at you because both you and he know, kids will be kids and neophytes will be neophytes. What to do? The same with Narayana Maharaja. Still the preaching will go on.

[Guest guest]

"Man, these guru pushers are irritating as hell."

 

I can certainly understand your feelings on this, Theist prabhu. And I think you'll find "pushers" in nearly every camp. My perspective on this is that these "pushers" are in the minority these days. I mean the Sanga has grown so large that most members of that Sanga would probably rather it didn't grow any larger, for the simple fact that it would reduce the quality time they get to spend with their Gurudeva. In fact, within this very thread, I've only seen one person (an anonymous guest) "push" their guru. And my immediate gut reaction at the time was that he was NOT a disciple of Srila Narayana Maharaja, but someone opposed to him, knowing that by "pushing" he would elicit further ill feelings that some have towards that Sanga. I have no way of proving it. But any sane, mature disciple of Srila Narayana Maharaja would not be behaving like that, knowing full well what the response will be. You are correct that in the late 90's there was a lot of "guru promoting" taking place. A lot of that, IMHO, was a backlash to all sorts of really vicious, slanderous position papers which the GBC wrote. Therefore, new disciples of SNM would spend more time than they would have liked trying to establish SNM as bona fide, and establish his spiritual connection with Srila Prabhupada. But times have changed, especially the past 3 or 4 years. I think there was a devotee on these forums named Satyaraja who was beyond fanatic, who did a great disservice in "pushing" his agenda. He wrote so voluminously that it may have given the appearance that all of SNM's disciples were like that. Satyaraja eventually left the Sanga (thank God.) In my somewhat limited association with that Sanga, I see no mood of pushing, at least not from the vast majority of the devotees there.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that back in the 70's, lots of devotees "pushed" visitors and newcomers to move in, shave up, and take initiation after a period of time. Prabhupada's disciples were pretty aggressive in their recruiting tactics, and I don't think anyone who was around at that time can deny it. I saw it first hand. But again, perspective is required, being that most of those who were "pushing" were newcomers themselves, and usually quite young, being in their early to mid-20's.

 

It sounds like you have had some bad experiences with people "pushing" their guru on you, and I have no doubt that this took place. All I'm asking is for some perspective, and to realize that those pushers, at least at this stage in time, are in the minority, as far as SNM's sanga goes. And that those who were "guilty" of pushing in the past, were very likely pushed out of Iskcon, simply for the crime of being favorable, and wishing to attend a Festival. Again, just a temporary backlash, from what I can see. I rarely encounter this

anymore, either in person or on the internet.

 

Thanks for listening,

JJ

[Guruvani 0]

The danger of the vapuvada conception is that those devotees who depend on the physical proximity of the guru will be SOL when the guru leaves his body. They can't find a solid foundation in the books, so they chase around some physical guru thinking that it is magic or something.

When the physical form is gone, then the magic is gone and these people will be left to face reality that Krishna consciosness has to be founded on something more fundamental than vapu sanga.

 

The books not only teach the value of sadhu sanga, they also provide sadhu sanga in the teachings and guidance of so many great gurus and acharyas.

 

The books aren't just instructions on the process, the books are very much the process itself.

Hearing about the Lord and his pure devotees from the most authentic and reliable source is what the books are about.

We can get cheated by this sadhu or that sadhu if we put too much trust in every old Indian Swami that pops up preaching ritual and formality.

 

We have to really get the authentic and reliable information from the books, because in this age there are a lot of selfish individuals out there in the guise of sadhus and Swamis.

 

The sooner we can peal all the layers of formality and ritual off of Krishna consciousness, the better off the world is gonna be.

That is my rather controversial viewpoint.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

The sooner we can peal all the layers of formality and ritual off of Krishna consciousness, the better off the world is gonna be.

That is my rather controversial viewpoint.

True, but if we keep on peeling and go too far we will peel off the personal aspects of Krsna Consciousness and be left with impersonalism.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

I'm glad this thread is opened....

[theist 1]

 

"Man, these guru pushers are irritating as hell."

 

I can certainly understand your feelings on this, Theist prabhu. And I think you'll find "pushers" in nearly every camp. My perspective on this is that these "pushers" are in the minority these days. I mean the Sanga has grown so large that most members of that Sanga would probably rather it didn't grow any larger, for the simple fact that it would reduce the quality time they get to spend with their Gurudeva. In fact, within this very thread, I've only seen one person (an anonymous guest) "push" their guru. And my immediate gut reaction at the time was that he was NOT a disciple of Srila Narayana Maharaja, but someone opposed to him, knowing that by "pushing" he would elicit further ill feelings that some have towards that Sanga. I have no way of proving it. But any sane, mature disciple of Srila Narayana Maharaja would not be behaving like that, knowing full well what the response will be.

 

Yes the response is also unhealthy. Guruvani for example seems to feel his guru is being shunted unfairly into the background by someone wanting to take disciples. So he gets defensive(naturally) and then strikes back and on it goes.

 

 

 

You are correct that in the late 90's there was a lot of "guru promoting" taking place. A lot of that, IMHO, was a backlash to all sorts of really vicious, slanderous position papers which the GBC wrote. Therefore, new disciples of SNM would spend more time than they would have liked trying to establish SNM as bona fide, and establish his spiritual connection with Srila Prabhupada.

 

This is the same principle from another angle. My self I quit listening to anything the GBC said after Sria Prabhupada left. Truthfully I never trusted them before 1977 either, but anyway I never read the papers you speak of. The thing is when people who are generally identified as ritviks hear this then they clump Narayana Maharaja in with 11 Keystone gurus then they expand their trip and throw Sridhar Maharaja in and anyone else who becomes prominent and they see as a threat to Srila Prabhupada. This is surely madness from all sides. It must end. Promote Krsna. Promote Krsna. Promote Krsna and then all problems like this are solved automatically without the need for analysis on who started what.

 

 

 

But times have changed, especially the past 3 or 4 years. I think there was a devotee on these forums named Satyaraja who was beyond fanatic, who did a great disservice in "pushing" his agenda. He wrote so voluminously that it may have given the appearance that all of SNM's disciples were like that. Satyaraja eventually left the Sanga (thank God.) In my somewhat limited association with that Sanga, I see no mood of pushing, at least not from the vast majority of the devotees there.

 

Yes I remember Satyaraja and went through several bouts with him. And Puru das also. I have noticed in his last several posts that he has gotten past this it seems and it is a good thing because one can learn a lot from Purudas.

 

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that back in the 70's, lots of devotees "pushed" visitors and newcomers to move in, shave up, and take initiation after a period of time. Prabhupada's disciples were pretty aggressive in their recruiting tactics, and I don't think anyone who was around at that time can deny it. I saw it first hand. But again, perspective is required, being that most of those who were "pushing" were newcomers themselves, and usually quite young, being in their early to mid-20's.

 

Yes i know. As someone who blooped from temple life in 1971 I was the constant target of it. Everydy I would go to the temple and everyday someone would coe up to me and say,"Well, when are you going to shave up prabhu."? LOL at some point I just became numb to it.

 

It sounds like you have had some bad experiences with people "pushing" their guru on you, and I have no doubt that this took place. All I'm asking is for some perspective, and to realize that those pushers, at least at this stage in time, are in the minority, as far as SNM's sanga goes. And that those who were "guilty" of pushing in the past, were very likely pushed out of Iskcon, simply for the crime of being favorable, and wishing to attend a Festival. Again, just a temporary backlash, from what I can see. I rarely encounter this

anymore, either in person or on the internet.

[Guruvani 0]

 

True, but if we keep on peeling and go too far we will peel off the personal aspects of Krsna Consciousness and be left with impersonalism.

 

As long as appreciate the value of association of devotees we are ok.

We don't need ritual and formality, but we do need each other.

 

It's not just old Swamis with beards that are sadhus either.

We seem to tend to neglect the simple and humble devotees and just promote some Swami setting on the big cushion as the only sadhu sanga.

 

And please stop accusing devotees of Krishna as impersonalists because they don't believe in ritual and formality.

Impersonalists are mayavadis.

Devotees who reject ritual and ceremony aren't impersonalists, they are fundamentalists.

Ritual and ceremony is not fundamentally essential.

Krishna consciousness is the only thing that is fundamentally essential and the rituals and ceremonies are just ornaments - not the life-force of bhakti.

 

Some devotees just prefer to be more personal with Srila Prabhupada and less personal to devotees they don't trust as much.

That is not impersonalism.

It is faith in a particular spiritual master.

Faith is not cheap or artificial.

People have to follow their faith, even if it is not any any LIVING guru.

[Guruvani 0]

 

The danger of the vapuvada conception is that those devotees who depend on the physical proximity of the guru will be SOL when the guru leaves his body. They can't find a solid foundation in the books, so they chase around some physical guru thinking that it is magic or something.

When the physical form is gone, then the magic is gone and these people will be left to face reality that Krishna consciosness has to be founded on something more fundamental than vapu sanga.

 

The books not only teach the value of sadhu sanga, they also provide sadhu sanga in the teachings and guidance of so many great gurus and acharyas.

 

The books aren't just instructions on the process, the books are very much the process itself.

Hearing about the Lord and his pure devotees from the most authentic and reliable source is what the books are about.

We can get cheated by this sadhu or that sadhu if we put too much trust in every old Indian Swami that pops up preaching ritual and formality.

 

We have to really get the authentic and reliable information from the books, because in this age there are a lot of selfish individuals out there in the guise of sadhus and Swamis.

 

The sooner we can peel all the layers of formality and ritual off of Krishna consciousness, the better off the world is gonna be.

That is my rather controversial viewpoint.

[Guruvani 0]

I didn't mean to quote myself, but I guess I hit the quote button instead of the edit button which seems to have been disabled on this topic.

[Guruvani 0]

It's kinda funny though, that we don't hear any of the anti-ritviks talking smack to Christians and Muslims, which they most all give some credibility to, but when it comes to Vaishnavism it can't be given the same berth and latitude that Srila Prabhupada gave to Christianity and Islam.

 

Nope, the anti-ritviks don't despise and villify Christians and Muslims - just their Vaishnava godbrothers who don't live by formality and tradition.

 

These ISKCON gurus set on their thrones talking about the brotherhood of religions, yet if a ritvik Vaishnava shows up at the festival preaching his faith he will get stoned and cursed.

[Guruvani 0]

By the way, I we look at Mahaprabhu's mission in South India we will see Krishna consciousness being spread expansively without all the ritual and formality that the smrti-wallas have attached to the Sankirtan movement.

 

Srila Prabhupada made comments in that chapter that the Krishna consciousness movement he was preaching was basically modeled after movement of Mahaprabhu in South India.

 

Some ritual and formality is there and has been prescribed by the Goswamis, but Mahaprabhu's mission in South India didn't have all the ritual and formality that eventually became attached to the Sankirtan movement.

 

The Goswamis introduced smriti rituals into the culture because they were preaching and teaching in India.

Outside of India, most all those smriti rituals and formalities aren't very important.

[cbrahma 0]

I read the entire post and my response adequately addresses the objection that I'm being illogical and circular. Maybe you just don't get it.

 

 

I'm not perfect but try to also respond to some of the other points I brought up in my post. (think first).

[theist 1]

 

By the way, I we look at Mahaprabhu's mission in South India we will see Krishna consciousness being spread expansively without all the ritual and formality that the smrti-wallas have attached to the Sankirtan movement.

 

Srila Prabhupada made comments in that chapter that the Krishna consciousness movement he was preaching was basically modeled after movement of Mahaprabhu in South India.

 

Some ritual and formality is there and has been prescribed by the Goswamis, but Mahaprabhu's mission in South India didn't have all the ritual and formality that eventually became attached to the Sankirtan movement.

 

The Goswamis introduced smriti rituals into the culture because they were preaching and teaching in India.

Outside of India, most all those smriti rituals and formalities aren't very important.

 

You brought the South India preaching of Mahaprabhu a few months back and I was thrilled to see it. I was hoping you would expound upon it and remind us a bit more. Maybe this time.

[cbrahma 0]

It is an interesting observation. I've met very nicely dressed devotees with perfect tilak, cermonially correct in every way, like they just landed right out of Vaikuntha. The only problem - no shakti. No spirit. And I don't easily mistake passionate fantacism for shakti.

 

 

 

As long as appreciate the value of association of devotees we are ok.

We don't need ritual and formality, but we do need each other.

 

It's not just old Swamis with beards that are sadhus either.

We seem to tend to neglect the simple and humble devotees and just promote some Swami setting on the big cushion as the only sadhu sanga.

 

And please stop accusing devotees of Krishna as impersonalists because they don't believe in ritual and formality.

Impersonalists are mayavadis.

Devotees who reject ritual and ceremony aren't impersonalists, they are fundamentalists.

Ritual and ceremony is not fundamentally essential.

Krishna consciousness is the only thing that is fundamentally essential and the rituals and ceremonies are just ornaments - not the life-force of bhakti.

 

Some devotees just prefer to be more personal with Srila Prabhupada and less personal to devotees they don't trust as much.

That is not impersonalism.

It is faith in a particular spiritual master.

Faith is not cheap or artificial.

People have to follow their faith, even if it is not any any LIVING guru.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

It is my observation that Guruvani and cbrahma are so burned by their recent experiences or observations of the condition of ISKCON that they cannot objectively discuss the siddhantic and philosophical issues that have been raised on this thread. Guruvani seems bent on establishing Rtvik, "by any means necessary". And from his posts cbrahma seems like an extremely jaded individual who thinks that diksa is a four letter word. I don't really know about cbrahma but somehow I expected more from Guruvani.

[Guruvani 0]

 

It is my observation that Guruvani and cbrahma are so burned by their recent experiences or observations of the condition of ISKCON that they cannot objectively discuss the siddhantic and philosophical issues that have been raised on this thread. Guruvani seems bent on establishing Rtvik, "by any means necessary". And from his posts cbrahma seems like an extremely jaded individual who thinks that diksa is a four letter word. I don't really know about cbrahma but somehow I expected more from Guruvani.

 

It's rather curious that we have no known pronouncement from Srila Prabhupada that his disciples should not try to continue the ritvik system after hs passing.

You would think that Srila Prabhupada could have surely seen that there would be conflict and division amongst his disciples over the issue of continuing the ritvik system.

With ISKCON having had a ritvik system in place at his passing, surely Srila Prabhupada could have foreseen trouble over the ritvik system if he did not make an authoritative statement that the ritvik system could NOT be continued after his passing.

 

However, Srila Prabhupada never uttered a word or even hinted that the ritvik system had to be dismantled after his passing.

He gave 11 men full authority to approve ritvik initiations in his last days, but he didn't think there would be issues over continuing the ritvik system after his passing if he did not definitively make a statement that the ritvik system had to be dismantled after his passing?

 

Srila Prabhupada never authorized the GBC to dismantle the ritvik system he had set up.

He never gave a time or a circumstance in which the ritvik system had to be terminated.

 

Actually, only Srila Prabhupada had the authority to dismantle the ritvik system, but he never told the GBC that after his passing they could terminate the ritvik system.

 

Srila Prabhupada never authorized the GBC to terminate the ritvik system after his passing.

The GBC had no authority to terminate the ritvik system, only the authority to continue it.

 

In order for the GBC to have authority to terminate the ritvik system they would require specific orders from Srila Prabhupada that would allow them to do that.

The GBC was never given the authority by Srila Prabhupada to terminate the ritvik system at any time.

Terminating the ritvik system by the GBC was unauthorized by Srila Prabhupada.

If Srila Prabhupada would have wanted the ritvik system to stop after his passing, he would have given orders to that effect.

He did not.

[Guest guest]

It's because the ritviks have concocted their own system which is not authorized. Also, the ritviks cause too much disturbance instead of going out and starting their own stuff like the Christians do. That is why they get treated like this.

 

In any case, seems like the ritviks exist mostly on internet forums. there hasn't been much of them lately anywhere.

 

 

It's kinda funny though, that we don't hear any of the anti-ritviks talking smack to Christians and Muslims, which they most all give some credibility to, but when it comes to Vaishnavism it can't be given the same berth and latitude that Srila Prabhupada gave to Christianity and Islam.

 

Nope, the anti-ritviks don't despise and villify Christians and Muslims - just their Vaishnava godbrothers who don't live by formality and tradition.

 

These ISKCON gurus set on their thrones talking about the brotherhood of religions, yet if a ritvik Vaishnava shows up at the festival preaching his faith he will get stoned and cursed.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

Here in a nut shell is the essential siddhantic issue I brought up:

 

The whole thing comes down to this. Just because structure and form are only there to transfer the real substance doesn't mean that the structure and form should be abandoned. If we have to choose between form (formality not spiritual form) and substance we must choose substance. Yet if we renounce all form, in this case the formality of diksa, on a permanent basis, then we will destroy the vessel in which the Absolute substance is generally conveyed in this relative world.

Also I was making the point that if we strip away all apparent external features of Krsna Conciousness i.e. the dhama appears in India, Mahaprabhu spoke Bengali etc.; then are we heading towards a concept of divinity that is without attributes, like impersonal brahman?

 

After more diabtribes on Rtivikism, I wrote:

 

 

It is my observation that Guruvani and cbrahma are so burned by their recent experiences or observations of the condition of ISKCON that they cannot objectively discuss the siddhantic and philosophical issues that have been raised on this thread. Guruvani seems bent on establishing Rtvik, "by any means necessary". And from his posts cbrahma seems like an extremely jaded individual who thinks that diksa is a four letter word. I don't really know about cbrahma but somehow I expected more from Guruvani.

And what do we get back from Gururvani in post #94, Another long winded Rtvik diatribe! Also on a side note: impersonalism and mayavada are not always the same. Impersonalists only see the impersonal nature of the Supreme but may not be envious like mayavadis who want to become Krsna. Sukadeva and the Four Kumaras are examples of brahman realized jivas who became attracted to the Personality of Godhead.

[Guruvani 0]

 

It's because the ritviks have concocted their own system which is not authorized.

 

that is a lie.

Srila Prabhupada designed the ritvik system.

The "ritivks" had nothing to do with it.

Sridhar Maharaja also used ritviks.

 

The ritvik system was implemented and authorized by Srila Prabhupada, so you should stop telling lies that it was concocted by his disciples.

 

You must be totally ignorant of the true history of ISKCON, or you would know that Srila Prabhupada designed and established the ritvik system himself.

[Guest guest]

I think all it takes for this new wave called ritviksim to die down is time. It's already dwindling and if you've been following some of the ritvik activities, they've started fighting amongst themselves! (IRM split with the Bangalore temple, for example)

 

They're a big nuisance, having completely misunderstood Sastra and Guru. They'll keep barking up the wrong trees and eventually, the whole thing will fade away.

 

 

Here in a nut shell is the essential siddhantic issue I brought up:

Also I was making the point that if we strip away all apparent external features of Krsna Conciousness i.e. the dhama appears in India, Mahaprabhu spoke Bengali etc.; then are we heading towards a concept of divinity that is without attributes, like impersonal brahman?

 

After more diabtribes on Rtivikism, I wrote:

 

And what do we get back from Gururvani in post #94, Another long winded Rtvik diatribe! Also on a side note: impersonalism and mayavada are not always the same. Impersonalists only see the impersonal nature of the Supreme but may not be envious like mayavadis who want to become Krsna. Sukadeva and the Four Kumaras are examples of brahman realized jivas who became attracted to the Personality of Godhead.

[gHari 0]

Srila Prabhupada: "Yes, that's a formality, because in my presence one should not become guru."

 

He clearly gave the reason for the word, ritvik.

 

Some ignored this statement, refused to acknowledge it and its implications, and then proceeded to build a house of cards atop a non-existent foundation. It has been all fantasy from the beginning, a Bizarro world bent on destroying Superman. Delusions die hard.

 

Ritvik never was.

[Guest guest]

Short, precise and compelling post! Now in return, expect a barrage of nonsensical posts from the book-vadis, especially Guuvani.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada "Yes, that's a formality, because in my presence one should not become guru."

 

He clearly gave the reason for the word, ritvik.

 

Some ignored this statement, refused to acknowledge it and its implications, and then proceeded to build a house of cards atop a non-existent foundation. It has been all fantasy from the beginning, a Bizarro world bent to destroy Superman. Delusions die hard.

 

Ritvik never was.