Divine Slavery and the myth of free will

[Guruvani 0]

Srila Sridhar Maharaja:

 

 

Slave of the Slave

We are not independent. Constitutionally we are slaves of the slave, and there we thrive. We are to appreciate that slavery is our fortune. But this is a hard nut to crack, to accept this. How can slavery be for our gain, for our fortune? Krsna is so great that His slavery is of a high, noble order. He is so good, so great. Without that sort of disposition it is impossible for us to approach Him, to have any intimate connection. He lives in such a high sphere that it is impossible to meet Him. Only by the acceptance of His intimate slavery can we hope to enter that domain. It is so high for us, so very high. We should really try to understand how slavery is the highest attainment. Just calculate how much higher is the position that Krsna holds.

Surrendered service is the highest type of service, and that is found only in Vrndavana. Divine slavery to the extreme. This type of service means to accept slavery as our highest position.

 

He is so good, that if we can be connected to Him in slavery we will receive infinite good. Whatever degree of slavery we are able to accept, then we may attain such height of goodness. It is quite reasonable. Otherwise we cannot have any entrance into that holiest land. We can gain admission only when we offer our service to the extreme point of slavery. And that slavery must be unconditional.

 

 

Slavery in that domain is far, far better than mastery in this land of exploitation, where the reaction can only be very, very bad. And the middle plane, the land of renunciation, is neither good nor bad; it is nothing—zero—a freezing point. It is very hard to conceive of this beneficial divine slavery, but nothing short of that will give us entrance to the holy domain.

 

 

thus, I contend that in Goloka free will of the jiva is a myth.

There, it is about eternal slavery to Krishna.

There ain't no coming back once you get to Goloka.

The maya option is not offered there.

Eternal slavery is the situation.

[Guruvani 0]

Sridhar Maharaja:

 

We are to appreciate that slavery is our fortune. But this is a hard nut to crack, to accept this.

Our free will is such a bad choice.

We need to give up this false idea of free will and accept that we are the slaves of Krishna eternally.

We can either be slaves of his maya or slaves of his love.

Free will?

Our only option is to choose rotting in hell or eternal freshness as a slave of Krishna.

Use your free will and make your choice.

[Guruvani 0]

Srila Prabhupada:

 

 

Krsna says He has given free will, but His personal advice is: "I am now talking to you the most confidential words." Sarva-guhyatamam. "You stop your so-called free will. Just surrender to Me." This is the most confidential. "If you surrender to Me, that is good for you. But if you go on keeping your free will you'll not be happy." (731213mw.la)

 

so, to get Krishna we must give up this false idea of free will and become the slaves of Krishna.

When you enter into that divine slavery there is no getting out of Krishna's slavery.

It is fixed for eternity.

[Guruvani 0]

BB Vishnu Maharaja:

 

 

 

In the ISKCON GBC Position booklet (OOPs p. 194) it is stated that the residents of the spiritual world have the free will to leave, as a crazy man has the free will to jump off the roof. In this booklet they state that these residents are indeed crazy (bewildered) when they leave. This explanation is very insubstantial and misleading. In the material world we always have the choice between matter and spirit but in the spiritual world there is no matter so one will not and cannot choose matter.

[theist 1]

Sridhar Maharaja:

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> We are to appreciate that slavery is our fortune. But this is a hard nut to crack, to accept this. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

"....hard nut to crack. to accept this." Shows our free will in the process. We can accept this or not. To try to take this statement to prove there is no free will for the jiva is very wrong IMO.

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

[Guruvani 0]

 

To try to take this statement to prove there is no free will for the jiva is very wrong IMO.

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

The jiva still has free will in Goloka, but the option to choose maya is not available.

Maya is not accessible from Goloka as maya is not allowed to enter there.

 

The option to leave Krishna and go to maya is just not available in Goloka.

 

So, as Srila Prabhupada advises:

 

"You stop your so-called free will. Just surrender to Me." This is the most confidential. "If you surrender to Me, that is good for you. But if you go on keeping your free will you'll not be happy."

So, obviously we must give up the maya option to enter Goloka and lose that option for eternity in divine slavery of Krishna.

 

Krishna advises "stop your so-called free will and surrender to me".

 

So, Krishna makes it clear that we must give up that so-called free will if we want eternal life in Goloka as his servant/slave.

 

Divine slavery ki-jaya!!

[theist 1]

In post 1 your write:

 

 

"...thus, I contend that in Goloka free will of the jiva is a myth."

 

 

In your last post you write:

 

" The jiva still has free will in Goloka, ..."

 

 

So the question is, if there is free will in Goloka you must explain the nature of that free will. Free will to choose what?

[Guruvani 0]

 

 

 

So the question is, if there is free will in Goloka you must explain the nature of that free will. Free will to choose what?

 

Free will in Goloka is the freedom to decide which kind of flower to pick for Krishna, which kind of fruit to pick for Krishna, which kind of sweetmeat to prepare for Krishna etc. etc.

 

The freedom to choose maya is NOT an option from Goloka.

So, when I say there is no free will in Goloka I mean there is no option to choose maya.

When I say there is free will in Goloka it means that there is some choices to make in which way to please Krishna.

The freedom to choose maya is just not one of the freedoms available from Goloka.

It is not a freedom that anyone wants in Goloka.

Nitya-siddhas would not consider that as freedom.

They are free to travel all over the spiritual world.

They have that freedom.

 

The freedom to take up the service of maya is not a freedom that is included in the Goloka menu.

 

Krishna does not allow his devotees there to be tempted.

He protects his devotees perfectly and absolutely.

[Guruvani 0]

The pure devotees of Goloka do not consider that being refused the option to become a worm in stool in the material world to be a bad thing.

They are not thinking "Krishna will not allow me to become a worm in stool, this is such a terrible thing".

 

They are grateful that Krishna protects them from that eternal hell.

They don't have a problem with that.

[theist 1]

Clearly your side of the debate does not understand what marginal means in terms of the living entities.

 

For the tenth time I will tell you no one says there is maya in Goloka. That is your strawman. The living being carries the option with them always to serve the Supreme Enjoyer or desire to be the central enjoyer themselves.

 

If the desire to be the central enjoyer arises then the experience of maya comes into play. That is the arguement. You are beating a dead horse that you killed yourself, that belonged to yourelf and no one was riding away.

[theist 1]

Here you quote BB Vishnu Maharaja

 

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> In the ISKCON GBC Position booklet (OOPs p. 194) it is stated that the residents of the spiritual world have the free will to leave, as a crazy man has the free will to jump off the roof. In this booklet they state that these residents are indeed crazy (bewildered) when they leave. This explanation is very insubstantial and misleading. In the material world we always have the choice between matter and spirit but in the spiritual world there is no matter so one will not and cannot choose matter. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

He obviously does not understand the argument either.

 

Please show me where the Iskcon people are saying that maya or matter exists in the spiritual world. I have never read that or heard that so IMO these types of statements amount to a form of defamation of character.

 

There may be some statement like that since I don't read Iskcon publications other than Prabhupada's books but I would have to see it to believe it. It is certainly not in Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> I have heard a lecture where Srila Prabhupada states that maya is like Krsna's shadow and is always present in that way. Obviously the shadow does not exist in the direct sunlight (Goloka) but is always present and accessible to the jiva.

 

Marginal nature of the jiva is not about which flower to offer Krsna it refers to the choice to offer a flower or not in the first place.

 

You know if you want to defeat anothers mposition you have to attack that position and not creat a fictious position for them and attack that, No need to read Sun Tzu to figure that one out.

[Guruvani 0]

 

The living being carries the option with them always to serve the Supreme Enjoyer or desire to be the central enjoyer themselves.

 

 

 

Then that would be a defect.

The ability to choose the wrong thing would be a defective feature of the liberated souls.

As long as a soul has the potential to fall down then he is defective.

Perfection is when the possibility of falling down is overcome.

 

Krishna says his pure devotees are infallible.

If they had the possibility of falling down then they would be fallible.

 

Krishna removes that fallibility from his pure devotees and the possibility of making the wrong decision does not exist in the heart of the nitya-siddhas.

 

When the material coverings are removed and the soul is established in the internal svarupa-shakti there is NO chance that they could do something that stupid and choose to leave Krishna to become a worm in stool in the material world.

 

Hence.......... infallible.

[sevabhakta 0]

 

If the desire to be the central enjoyer arises then the experience of maya comes into play. That is the arguement. You are beating a dead horse that you killed yourself, that belonged to yourelf and no one was riding away.

 

 

Yeah, well the latest Mahabhagavat Acarya to grace the scene, who understood things a tad more than you do at this point, said that the option always exists to reject Krsna's active service but due to how outstandingly wonderful and blissful that service is, a devotee fixed up in such service DOES NOT EVER FALL.

 

This appears to be your stumbling block.

 

You sleepervadis cannot grok the fact that the desire to be the central enjoyer DOES NOT ARISE in a devotee fixed in pure devotional service to Krsna, and SIMULTANEOUSLY free will exists to do ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN.

 

That does not mean that the POTENTIAL is there to use free-will in such a way in a perfected servant. Where there is potential for something to happen, it CAN HAPPEN. But in this case there is NO POTENTIAL PRESENT. ONLY FREE-WILL IS PRESENT.

 

Thus an acarya, in describing the nature of eternal free will of each person, can explain to neophytes that "IF" the desire to be like Krsna, or to enjoy maya, arises, a person will fall.

 

Examine the two letters to Jagadisa, in the sequence they were written to him. The first letter seems to directly back the sleeper vadi theory.

 

 

70-02-27.Jag Letter: Jagadisa

Regarding your questions concerning the spirit souls falling into Maya's influence, it is not that those who have developed a passive relationship with Krsna are more likely to fall into nescient activities. USUALLY ANYONE WHO HAS DEVELOPED HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH KRSNA DOES NOT FALL DOWN IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT BECAUSE THE INDEPENDENCE IS ALWAYS THERE, THE SOUL MAY FALL DOWN FROM ANY POSITION OR ANY RELATIONSHIP BY MISUSING HIS INDEPENDENCE. BUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH KRSNA 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 KRSNA AND THEN THE DEVOTEE ENGAGES HIMSELF IN THE SERVICE OF THE LORD WHICH IS HIS ORIGINAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE LIVING ENTITY WITH KRSNA IS ETERNAL AS BOTH KRSNA AND THE LIVING ENTITY ARE ETERNAL; THE PROCESS IS ONE OF REVIVAL ONLY, NOTHING NEW.

 

The second letter, in logical and chronological sequence, is the higher understanding, and its definitive nature trumps the first letter and establishes the perfection of the use of free will in a liberated servant of Krsna.

 

 

70-04-25. Letter: Jagadisa

Regarding your questions about how and from where did the conditioned souls fall, your first question if someone has a relationship with Lord Krsna on Krsnaloka, does he ever fall down? THE SOULS ARE ENDOWED WITH MINUTE INDEPENDENCE AS PART OF THEIR NATURE AND THIS MINUTE INDEPENDENCE MAY BE UTILIZED RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY AT ANY TIME, SO THERE IS ALWAYS THE CHANCE OF FALLING DOWN BY MISUSE OF ONE'S INDEPENDENCE. BUT THOSE WHO ARE FIRMLY FIXED UP IN DEVOTIONAL SERVICE TO KRSNA ARE MAKING PROPER USE OF THEIR INDEPENDENCE AND SO THEY DO NOT FALL DOWN.

 

 

The only conclusion a reasonable student can come to is that the Acarya concluded that such fall down is NOT a real potential. Actually he clearly states the opposite. There is no potential. They are free to do it but NEVER will.

 

I believe this should mark the End of this debate. It feels quite refreshing, and there is a very light drizzle falling on the field outside my humble (no exaggeration) abode. Begs for a japa walk.

 

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

Hare Krsna

[gHari 0]

 

Letter to Jagadish 01/01/70:

Letter to Jagadish 03/03/70:

 

Therefore:

 

 

OR PERHAPS:

 

 

 

But when you're up to your neck in crocs,

there's only one solution anyway:

 

[sevabhakta 0]

The paradox I see here is that a person might claim that the conclusive statement at the end of the second letter, which includes and expands upon the truisms of the first letter, could be subject to falsity based upon an occurance that an acarya told us ALWAYS MAY HAPPEN, BUT NEVER DOES.

 

So in this case 1+2 simply = 3.

 

1. USUALLY ANYONE WHO HAS DEVELOPED HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH KRSNA DOES NOT FALL DOWN IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT BECAUSE THE INDEPENDENCE IS ALWAYS THERE, THE SOUL MAY FALL DOWN FROM ANY POSITION OR ANY RELATIONSHIP BY MISUSING HIS INDEPENDENCE.

 

2. SO THERE IS ALWAYS THE CHANCE OF FALLING DOWN BY MISUSE OF ONE'S INDEPENDENCE. BUT THOSE WHO ARE FIRMLY FIXED UP IN DEVOTIONAL SERVICE TO KRSNA ARE MAKING PROPER USE OF THEIR INDEPENDENCE AND SO THEY DO NOT FALL DOWN.

 

1+2=

 

3. USUALLY ANYONE WHO HAS DEVELOPED HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH KRSNA DOES NOT FALL DOWN IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT BECAUSE THE INDEPENDENCE IS ALWAYS THERE, THE SOUL MAY FALL DOWN FROM ANY POSITION OR ANY RELATIONSHIP BY MISUSING HIS INDEPENDENCE.SO THERE IS ALWAYS THE CHANCE OF FALLING DOWN BY MISUSE OF ONE'S INDEPENDENCE.BUT THOSE WHO ARE FIRMLY FIXED UP IN DEVOTIONAL SERVICE TO KRSNA ARE MAKING PROPER USE OF THEIR INDEPENDENCE AND SO THEY DO NOT FALL DOWN.

 

And to reiterate the value of 3...

 

Because independence is there, the soul MAY fall down from any position or any relationship by misusing his independence. So there is ALWAYS THAT CHANCE. BUT those who are firmly fixed up in devotional service to Krsna ARE MAKING PROPER USE OF THEIR INDEPENDENCE AND SO THEY DO NOT FALL DOWN.

 

A fixed up soul May misuse his independence. That is what independence entails. But he does not. Ever.

 

Chance is there, never happens.

 

Devotee may reject Krsna, never happens.

 

Ever.

 

Unless you are just dreaming that it happens.

[gHari 0]

Some may think that getting beyond all these so many desires is impossible - and if we can fall again then why bother struggling again and again. I'll just give up; sit on my chariot and put down my bow and arrows.

 

I think maybe we'll believe what we need to believe, to get us down the road. Maybe we'll believe both, to cover all the bases.

[sevabhakta 0]

 

Some may think that getting beyond all these so many desires is impossible - and if we can fall again then why bother struggling again and again. I'll just give up; sit on my chariot and put down my bow and arrows.

 

I think maybe we'll believe what we need to believe, to get us down the road. Maybe we'll believe both, to cover all the bases.

 

Yes, thus the difference between belief and faith-full knowledge.

 

Hare Krsna

[gHari 0]

But then, if we knew, we wouldn't be here to post anyway. Or would we?

 

The Conehead

[theist 1]

Uh ....sevabhakta thanks for offering the nice post but to do so in an attempt to correct my position means you don't understand my position, I totaly agree with what you posted and that has been my understanding of the situation for devades and I challenge you to find somewhere where I have said differently.

[sevabhakta 0]

 

Uh ....sevabhakta thanks for offering the nice post but to do so in an attempt to correct my position means you don't understand my position, I totaly agree with what you posted and that has been my understanding of the situation for devades and I challenge you to find somewhere where I have said differently.

 

Uh, Theist, thanks for recognizing the truth, but I challenge you to show somewhere that you have stated, succinctly, the position you are claiming to have "understood for decades", which I just encapsulated.

 

If you had such a clear understanding for decades, why didn't you ever just say so, instead of playing the fence all this time, and only after I spell it out plainly, you then claim WHAT I SAID has been YOUR position.

 

Come on bro, I wake up too early for that, I call B.S., but with the understanding that we all need to guard our pride, I get B.S. called on me every day, so I hope you don't take it TOO personally.

 

The reason why I eventually nail all these so called philisophical contradictions is because my false ego is being humbled into oblivion by my ignorance every day, and my recognition of it, and the resulting pain, is so much that the Lord can't help but give me the truth in place of the ignorance once I let it go.

 

I highly suggest the process. Poison going down, nectar comin out.

 

Hare Krsna

[theist 1]

 

Uh, Theist, thanks for recognizing the truth, but I challenge you to show somewhere that you have stated, succinctly, the position you are claiming to have "understood for decades", which I just encapsulated.

 

If you had such a clear understanding for decades, why didn't you ever just say so, instead of playing the fence all this time, and only after I spell it out plainly, you then claim WHAT I SAID has been YOUR position.

 

Come on bro, I wake up too early for that, I call B.S., but with the understanding that we all need to guard our pride, I get B.S. called on me every day, so I hope you don't take it TOO personally.

 

The reason why I eventually nail all these so called philisophical contradictions is because my false ego is being humbled into oblivion by my ignorance every day, and my recognition of it, and the resulting pain, is so much that the Lord can't help but give me the truth in place of the ignorance once I let it go.

 

I highly suggest the process. Poison going down, nectar comin out.

 

Hare Krsna

The onus is on you who are accusing me of something to back it.

I am maintaining that margnal energy is the very nature of the jiva and is with him always. The fact that he doesn't choose to fall does not negate the fact that he carries with the ability to so choose.

 

Now the question comes to origin witch is only associated with the point under disscussion and not the point itself which is the ability to choose. Some say the origin is the Brahman some say we were in Vaikuntha. On that I take no position and leave that to others to squabble over.

 

Just to add to the mix Revetinandana then Swami says that Srila Prabhupada had just told him that it is possible for the jiva to fall TWICE but that should not be widely broadcast because it may discourage some. I totally believe him because he told the same thing to me soon after he had this conversation with Srila Prabhupada and he was still blown away by it.

 

I never repeated it because Srila Prabhupada told him not to broadcast it widely and he passed that on to me but because he has come out publically with it I mention it here. Believe it or not I could not care less.

[sevabhakta 0]

Hari bol.

 

Please allow me to rephrase the last reply I gave which did not make it through moderation, though I can't understand why...

 

Theist wrote,

 

 

Uh ....sevabhakta thanks for offering the nice post but to do so in an attempt to correct my position means you don't understand my position, I totaly agree with what you posted and that has been my understanding of the situation for devades and I challenge you to find somewhere where I have said differently.

 

 

That nice post that you claim I made was in response to your "position" from this post of yours.

 

 

Clearly your side of the debate does not understand what marginal means in terms of the living entities.

 

For the tenth time I will tell you no one says there is maya in Goloka. That is your strawman. The living being carries the option with them always to serve the Supreme Enjoyer or desire to be the central enjoyer themselves.

 

If the desire to be the central enjoyer arises then the experience of maya comes into play. That is the arguement. You are beating a dead horse that you killed yourself, that belonged to yourelf and no one was riding away.

 

 

Wherein you claim that for the 10th time , you will tell us that no one says there is maya in Goloka, and then state that the desire to be the central enjoyer may arise, and the experience of maya comes into play.

 

And that that is the arguement.

 

But the arguement has ACTUALLY BEEN, that a devotee fixed in loving service of Krsna in Goloka NEVER desires to be the central enjoyer. And that such a desire is actually a product of maya's influence on a non-liberated spirit spark.

 

Ergo, people in this debate ARE claiming, indirectly, that maya has influence in Goloka, because the very desire to be the central enjoyer is NOT POSSIBLE, the position is already taken, so such a desire is illusion, thus a gift of Maha Maya.

 

But then you appear to have been holding an ACE up your sleeve in a debate that you "could care less about", that a Jiva can fall twice, which alludes that YOGA Maya can give the desire to be central enjoyer as part of Krsna's lila.

 

And in my post that was deleted, I simply stated that my realizations on this matter are coming through reading, speculating, inferrring, checking against Guru and Sadhu, and then sharing immediately with the debate field.

 

Whereas you seem to have it all figured out, but are claiming disinterest in a debate where you have been in the very midst of, claiming to be neutral and disinterested.

 

And I was disappointed that you did not just share your vision from the beginning, and commented that SOMETHING was getting in the way of heartfelt sharing in your case, but thanked you for sharing anyway, even if we had to pull teeth to get you to open up!!

 

The something is for you to figure out I guess. I wear my heart on my sleeve and am about as cunning as a grasshopper. Anyway, it has been REAL.

 

Hare Krsna

[theist 1]

 

And I was disappointed that you did not just share your vision from the beginning, and commented that SOMETHING was getting in the way of heartfelt sharing in your case, but thanked you for sharing anyway, even if we had to pull teeth to get you to open up!

 

Actually I was speaking to Guruvani not you. The beginning???? This subject has been ongoing since I got on the internet 9 years ago and I have been saying the exact same thing. Rather you believe that or not is not important to me in any way grasshopper.

[Guruvani 0]

 

I have been having trouble posting to this topic.

I have been trying all day but it never goes through.

I don't know what the problem is.

[Guruvani 0]

It appears to me Srila Prabhupada, being the great world acharya he was, also had to be part psychologist, part socialogist and part babysitter.

As I quoted before, Srila Prabhupada even wrote in his purport that he was somtetimes perplexed about exactly how to preach Krishna conciousness on a world scale.

 

 

 

The Krishna consciousness movement is trying its best to bring people back to Krishna consciousness in its pure form, but the pāṣaṇḍīs and atheists, who are cheaters, are so numerous that sometimes we become perplexed and wonder how to push this movement forward.

So, I see in Srila Prabhupada's approach to preaching a sort of mayavada defense mechanism in his parakosha method of analogous examples.

 

He appeared to worry that the actual Gaudiya siddhanta could get misunderstood and butchered by neophyte western devotees if he was too straight forward and open about the actual connection between the jiva and it's brahmajyoti origins.

He does explain the situation in some parts of his books but in most of his letters and conversations he seemed to dance around the issue and avoid such direct and open explanations.

 

So, as a spiritual pshycologist, Srila Prabhupada approached preaching about origins and the fall of the jiva with an extreme measure of tact so as to hopefully prevent upstart western devotees from misunderstanding the siddhanta and using it to justify some jnana-misra bhakti and an over-infatuation with the brahman aspect of Krishna.

 

Sometimes I refer to this as fairytale telling.

Srila Prabhupada felt that kind of preaching was necessary.

I personally prefer the straight on siddhanta.

I don't think I needed to be spoonfed some watered-down siddhanta.

Maybe Srila Prabhupada felt that most modern people did.

 

So, I see a certain measure of psychological programming built into the preaching of Srila Prabhupada.

I don't see his message as some raw version of Gaudiya siddhanta.

I see some embellishments that Srila Prabhupada added because he felt the need as he admitted to being perplexed sometimes about exactly how to push forward the KC movement on a global scale.

 

However, if we venture into the actual Gaudiya texts and writings of the previous acharyas we will find that there is much less of this psychology added to the siddhanta and the shastra.

 

I certainly don't fault Srila Prabhupada for the way he preached.

I am not so sure I agree that western people really needed to hear it that way, but Srila Prabhupada obviously felt they did.

He was an Indian guru and I am an American, so our perspectives on that issue are very different.

 

In the end I think the preventative measures might have become an issue.

Not that the fall-from-goloka fairytale really hurts anyone, while the Mayavada contamination would.

 

Personally, I don't think that the raw Gaudiya siddhanta at all nurtures any Mayavada tendencies and I personally don't really see that the "fairytale" was necessary.

Srila Prabhupada did not exactly tell the fairytale, but it is seen that from his preaching the fairytale was able to be extrapolated.

 

So, it is not really that Srila Prabhupada diverged from the Gaudiya siddhanta.

He just approached his world mission with a certain approach to the psychology that he thought was necessary for western people.

 

I am not so sure that Srila Prabhupada really understood the mind of western people.

I think western people could have been given the raw siddhanta without making a mess out of it.

What has been made a mess of is his "origins" theory and his paroksha method of preaching by analogy.

The analogies have been taken too literally and some philosophical confusion has taken root in ISKCON.