Can There Be Many Acaryas?

[suchandra 1]

Clear words - many acaryas in one society, "is not the principle."

Srila Prabhupada: "Unless we accept the acarya in the parampara system we cannot understand things as they are. It is not possible...

...Suppose we are in a group, this, our International Society for Krishna Consciousness, if everyone becomes ruler or acarya, then how it can be managed? No! There must be some head. That is the principle in our practical life. We follow our political leaders. We cannot say that I belong to this party unless I follow a leader. That is natural."

 

Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 7.7 - Māyāpur, March 9, 1974

[Guruvani 0]

I remember some letter that Srila Prabhupada wrote during the time Kirtanananda was causing a disturbance in ISKCON.

 

Srila Prabhupada criticized him by saying that Kirtanananda did not understand that there can only be one leader in an organization.

 

He gave some example of how even practically if there becomes many leaders that no organization can function properly.

 

Even in corperations you always have the CEO.

There always has to be ONE top authority in any successful organization.

 

When you get many "acharyas" in one organization you have a formula for failure.

 

There is only ONE spiritual master for ISKCON as far as ISKCON as an organization is concerned.

 

The alternative has shown quite convincingly that it didn't work successfully.

ISKCON has failed miserably under the GBC guru system.

[Guest guest]

 

Clear words - many acaryas in one society, "is not the principle."

Srila Prabhupada: "Unless we accept the acarya in the parampara system we cannot understand things as they are. It is not possible...

...Suppose we are in a group, this, our International Society for Krishna Consciousness, if everyone becomes ruler or acarya, then how it can be managed? No! There must be some head. That is the principle in our practical life. We follow our political leaders. We cannot say that I belong to this party unless I follow a leader. That is natural."

 

Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 7.7 - Māyāpur, March 9, 1974

 

In this case, like in many others, Srila Prabhupada later contradicted himself by appointing GBC as a group to manage the society he created, going even against his own DOM principles.

[Guruvani 0]

 

In this case, like in many others, Srila Prabhupada later contradicted himself by appointing GBC as a group to manage the society he created, going even against his own DOM principles.

 

It is wrong and offensive to say that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself.

You really shouldn't be so puffed-up and arrogant as to accuse Srila Prabhupada of that.

The contradiction exists in your mind because you are failing to understand because you really don't want to understand because you have an agenda that won't work if you understood properly the instructions of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Appointing managers to implement HIS directions and instructions does not violate the concept of a single leader.

 

The GBC were supposed to be FOLLOWERS of Srila Prabhupada, not independent leaders of ISKCON.

 

As much as they follow they are leaders, but on the strength of following and keeping Srila Prabhupada as the real leader of ISKCON.

 

No, Srila Prabhupada did not contradict himself.

It is stupid to accuse him that he did.

 

It just shows how stupid we are and how we choose to keep our eyes closed to the actual facts of how Srila Prabhupada organized ISKCON.

[Guest guest]

 

It is wrong and offensive to say that Srila Prabhupada contradicted himself..

 

Out of pseudo-respect for the Acharya, his disciples distort reality to fit their theory of what the Acharya should and should not do. Thus they become a laughing stock of all impartial observers and a source of embarassment to the Acharya himself.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Out of pseudo-respect for the Acharya, his disciples distort reality to fit their theory of what the Acharya should and should not do. Thus they become a laughing stock of all impartial observers and a source of embarassment to the Acharya himself.

 

According to Mahaprabhu the acharya is "as good as God".

 

So, those who say he is not "as good as God" are the ones distorting the truth because the truth gets in the way of their personal agenda.

 

The distortion of reality is the minimizing of the acharya down to some level where we think we can criticize him and say he always contradicted himself.

 

Srila Prabhupada never contradicted himself.

We have failed to understand because we are stupid and lowborn.

[Guest guest]

 

Srila Prabhupada never contradicted himself.

 

define the terms "never" and 'contradicted himself" and I will show that your statement is false.

[Guruvani 0]

 

define the terms "never" and 'contradicted himself" and I will show that your statement is false.

 

The contradiction is only due to our lack of understanding.

If we really understand the meaning of his words we would never see a contradiction.

We see contradictions because we are stupid and spiritually blind.

[Guruvani 0]

feel free to prove your point with examples.

 

I have been studying Srila Prabhupada's instructions for over 32 years and I haven't seen contradictions.

 

go ahead and prove your point.

I don't think you can.

 

I think you are just a fault-finder with a personal agenda that causes spiritual blindness.

[Guest guest]

On occasions -"Factually, no one call fall from vaikuntha"

 

On other occasions- "As soon as you think the material world is a good place, so Krishna says ok you go there"

 

 

feel free to prove your point with examples.

 

I have been studying Srila Prabhupada's instructions for over 32 years and I haven't seen contradictions.

 

go ahead and prove your point.

I don't think you can.

 

I think you are just a fault-finder with a personal agenda that causes spiritual blindness.

[gHari 0]

 

On occasions -"Factually, no one call fall from vaikuntha"

 

On other occasions- "As soon as you think the material world is a good place, so Krishna says ok you go there"

Of course this is the popular paradox that overloads the minds of today's word-juggling munis. But a paradox does not a contradiction make.

 

The Brahma-Samhita 5.38 purport reveals a place for contradiction:

 

I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is SyAmasundara, KRSNa Himself with inconceivable innumerable attributes, whom the pure devotees see in their heart of hearts with the eye of devotion tinged with the salve of love.

 

 

PURPORT

 

The SyAmasundara form of KRSNa is His inconceivable simultaneous personal and impersonal self-contradictory form.

True devotees see that form in their purified hearts under the influence of devotional trance. The form SyAma is not the blue color visible in the mundane world but is the transcendental variegated color affording eternal bliss, and is not visible to the mortal eye. On a consideration of the trance of VyAsadeva as in the zloka, bhakti-yogena manasi etc. [sB 1.7.4], it will be clear that the form of SrI KRSNa is the full Personality of Godhead and can only be visible in the heart of a true devotee, which is the only true seat in the state of trance under the influence of devotion. When KRSNa manifested Himself in Vraja, both the devotees and nondevotees saw Him with this very eye; but only the devotees cherished Him, eternally present in Vraja, as the priceless jewel of their heart. Nowadays also the devotees see Him in Vraja in their hearts, saturated with devotion although they do not see Him with their eyes. The eye of devotion is nothing but the eye of the pure unalloyed spiritual self of the jIva. The form of KRSNa is visible to that eye in proportion to its purification by the practice of devotion.

 

 

<center>

</center>

 

[Guest guest]

 

feel free to prove your point with examples.

 

one more time: what constitutes a contradiction for the sake of this discussion?

 

this is relevant because the weasly and rubbery definitions often used by you are unacceptable for most people

[Guruvani 0]

 

one more time: what constitutes a contradiction for the sake of this discussion?

 

 

that is for you to decide what is a contradiction in your mind.

you show me what you consider a contradiction and I will see if I agree with you or not or if I have a harmonizing explanation.

 

I don't see contradictions, but maybe as Ghari has mentioned there might be some paradoxical instructions that appear to be a contradiction until we harmonize them with a broader understanding.

 

everybody has the right to change their position if circumstances change.

 

 

So, according to situations, Srila Prabhupada had the right to "go with the flow" and adjust things as he saw necessary.

 

Doing so does not amount to contradictions in his instructions.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

As Lowborn points out, this becomes a semantic debate.

 

If Sri Krishna is the Divine Autocrat and Guru is "as good as God", then isn't the Guru also the Divine Autocrat within his/her own domain?

 

Guru is free to contradict (apparently, truly, or what-have-you) him/herself, and the faithful disciple need not be baffled.

 

 

one more time: what constitutes a contradiction for the sake of this discussion?

 

this is relevant because the weasly and rubbery definitions often used by you are unacceptable for most people

[suchandra 1]

 

one more time: what constitutes a contradiction for the sake of this discussion?

 

this is relevant because the weasly and rubbery definitions often used by you are unacceptable for most people

As Prabhupada mentions in this lecture above the term "acarya", he also explains what an acarya in a spiritual society is: a ruler. One who says what should be done, who makes the decisions. Isnt it common sense that there cannot be many chiefs in one company?

 

Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 7.7 - Māyāpur, March 9, 1974

 

http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/740309CC.MAY.htm?i=1974

[Guest guest]

 

everybody has the right to change their position if circumstances change.

 

 

and that is why Prabhupada speaks of the need for only one acharya when he was with us, and later places GBC in charge of his society after he is no longer physically present.

 

such a situation becomes an example of a contradiction (at least for most impartial observers) when the initial instruction is worded in an absolute, inflexible fashion.

 

there are countless examples of Prabhupada not following his own DOM directives as well. just reed the document and see how things were actually done by Prabhupada in the subsequent years. is it a contradiction? in the opinion of many: YES. such contradictory actions created a precedent for very fluid and opportunistic style of management by his followers.

[Guruvani 0]

 

and that is why Prabhupada speaks of the need for only one acharya when he was with us, and later places GBC in charge of his society after he is no longer physically present.

 

 

the GBC was in charge long before Srila Prabhupada passed away.

 

Srila Prabhupada took his hands out of management and put the GBC in charge and got everything working the way he wanted it to continue after his passing.

 

the GBC didn't take charge "after Srila Prabhupada was no longer physically present".

 

They were in charge years before the passing of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Everything was suppoed to just keep going on exactly as it was during the life of Srila Prabhupada.

 

"don't change anything"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Obviously, we are all very dense as we can't understand one simple statement without trying to interpret, adjust and distort for our own agendas.

[gHari 0]

Just noticed that I contradicted myself with the quote. What a paradox!

[krsna 3]

 

Of course this is the popular paradox that overloads the minds of today's word-juggling munis. But a paradox does not a contradiction make.

 

 

The Brahma-Samhita 5.38 purport reveals a place for contradiction:

 

 

I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is SyAmasundara, KRSNa Himself with inconceivable innumerable attributes, whom the pure devotees see in their heart of hearts with the eye of devotion tinged with the salve of love.

 

 

PURPORT

 

The SyAmasundara form of KRSNa is His inconceivable simultaneous personal and impersonal self-contradictory form.

True devotees see that form in their purified hearts under the influence of devotional trance. The form SyAma is not the blue color visible in the mundane world but is the transcendental variegated color affording eternal bliss, and is not visible to the mortal eye. On a consideration of the trance of VyAsadeva as in the zloka, bhakti-yogena manasi etc. [sB 1.7.4], it will be clear that the form of SrI KRSNa is the full Personality of Godhead and can only be visible in the heart of a true devotee, which is the only true seat in the state of trance under the influence of devotion. When KRSNa manifested Himself in Vraja, both the devotees and nondevotees saw Him with this very eye; but only the devotees cherished Him, eternally present in Vraja, as the priceless jewel of their heart. Nowadays also the devotees see Him in Vraja in their hearts, saturated with devotion although they do not see Him with their eyes. The eye of devotion is nothing but the eye of the pure unalloyed spiritual self of the jIva. The form of KRSNa is visible to that eye in proportion to its purification by the practice of devotion.

 

 

 

<CENTER>

</CENTER>

 

 

Wonderful Quote. O, the super-wonderful opulences of that Syamasundara Personality who is attracting us to his lotus feet. :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray:

[krsna 3]

KRSNA is KRSNA as bigger than the biggest or also simultaneously smaller than the smallest.

 

Now is that a contradiction or a paradox or is it acintya-bheda -abeddha tattva, Mahaprabhu's doctrine of simultaneous oneness and difference?

[krsna 3]

Sometimes according to the spiritual eligibility( or lacking thereof) of the audience, Srila Prabhupada preached that we all 'fell' from Vaikuntha.

 

And at other times when the audience was ripe, mature and absolutely sober as in the Srimad Bhagavatam purport wherein he emphatically states that in fact the conclusion is that no one falls from Vaikuntha, the spiritual world.

[Guest guest]

 

the GBC was in charge long before Srila Prabhupada passed away.

 

Srila Prabhupada took his hands out of management and put the GBC in charge and got everything working the way he wanted it to continue after his passing.

 

Prabhupada continued to make important decisions and was an unquestionable and ultimate authority in Iskcon untill his very last days. To claim that there is no difference between then and now is an example of dishonesty in argumentation I was talking about earlier in the thread.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Prabhupada continued to make important decisions and was an unquestionable and ultimate authority in Iskcon untill his very last days. To claim that there is no difference between then and now is an example of dishonesty in argumentation I was talking about earlier in the thread.

sorry to disagree, but I was in ISKCON back then and I know better.

The GBC handled all the adminstrative issues and Srila Prabhupada was translating in the last few years.

Very rarely did Srila Prabhupada have to make a decision on management.

 

If GCB recommended a devotee for initiation it was sent to the secretary of Srila Prabhupada who picked a name and entered the name in the book of disciples.

Srila Prabhupada had completely taken his hands out of the intiation process and it was on automatic under the authority of the GBC.

 

I was at the world headquarters. I know how things went on.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

I was at the world headquarters. I know how things went on.

 

By your own admission, you were a (blessed) peon at the time. What access did you have to the inner, political workings of ISKCON beyond hearsay and innuendo?

[Guest guest]

 

sorry to disagree, but I was in ISKCON back then and I know better.

The GBC handled all the adminstrative issues and Srila Prabhupada was translating in the last few years.

Very rarely did Srila Prabhupada have to make a decision on mangement.

 

 

Read his letters from that period.