Suicide, another 17 year old devotee takes his life

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Srila Prabhupad is a Mahatma and as a Mahatma he did whatever he could according to the circumstances.

 

Some of the 11 disciples Prabhupada chose to lead his movement were very sincere, and some were clearly not. I doubt Prabhupada was fully aware of the extent of their shortcomings. Still, he made the choices he considered suitable at the time and the rest is history. Devotees worshipped the 11 he chose as "good as God" not because Narayana Maharaja told them to do so, but because this is the way Prabhupada was worshipped and the people he chose were seen as his successors.

 

In Iskcon, guru was elevated to a supeman-like status and not much thought was given to the fact that this approach carried a very high risk. Just like so many sannyasis fell down even when Srila Prabhupada was present, the possibility of these gurus falling down was very real as well.

[bija 0]

I have copies here at home of 'Visnupada Sambandha' magazines.

 

I wish no direspect to Bhavananda, but its very sad to read these magazines from the early 80's. The articles from the devotees in the magazines are not quite right, its subtle in the writings. Too much adoration, and with hindsight it is clear from these magazines something was wrong with Iskcon's structure and the falldown that ensued.

 

I feel for both Bhavananda and the simple devotees of this time. And I will keep these magazines as a reminder of the dangers of cult worship.

 

 

Srila Prabhupad is a Mahatma and as a Mahatma he did whatever he could according to the circumstances. amlesh

I have always felt that way too about Srila Prabhupada. I care for him and his vision. That is why I respect Iskcon today, even though I am not a part of that group. And I can see the devotees love for Srila Prabhupada, which is much deeper than I can understand.

[Kulapavana 0]

The old Vaishnava truth that "guru is one", and it is actually Sri Guru, Krsna, has been replaced in Iskcon with a personality cultism - first centered on Prabhupada, later centered on the "zonal acharyas", and now back to Prabhupada. That is why all these devotees are so confused when their guru falls down.

[suchandra 1]

 

 

This is yet another load of dung

Freudian slip, you just expressed what you really consider happened to the lives of thousands betrayed ISKCONites, meanwhile ex-ISKCONites? In fact the "guru-fiasco" mentioned above, in Europe, this ravaged since the very day Prabhupada left this world, people here haven't seen anything else. But this one cannot mention, like SDG bemoans above, "Now I can't publish without peer approval. My statements of authenticity may be banned. That's because I have been deemed an untrustworthy writer."

[cbrahma 0]

Prabhupada gave every instruction necessary to understand the position of guru, the role, the qualification and correct protocol towards such a person.

Prabhupada's standards for a guru where very high - namely the guru had to be self-realized, on the brahma bhuta platform. That precludes fall down.

The rationalized understanding that a guru is some ordinary fallible person is wanting to have one's religious cake and eat it too.

The diksa compulsion, which is religious is promoted all the while making excuses for the less qualified. It's a crap shoot in ISKCON certainly and traditionally one only has to be casually acquainted with the history of the Maths to see how corrupt it can get.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Prabhupada's standards for a guru where very high - namely the guru had to be self-realized, on the brahma bhuta platform. That precludes fall down.

 

First: how does one verify that his or her guru is on the brahma-bhuta platform? Did you actually verify that Prabhupada is on that platform before you accepted him as your guru? Or did you just assume on faith that he was? If you verified Prabhupada, please tell us how you did that.

 

Second: having that very high guru standard apparently did not stop Prabhupada from endorsing 11 of his disciples as gurus. Were they all on the brahma-bhuta platform when Prabhupada authorized them to accept disciples? Many of his sannyasis fell down by that time, the experience was there - do you think he did not consider a possible fall down of these 11 gurus as well?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Freudian slip, you just expressed what you really consider happened to the lives of thousands betrayed ISKCONites, meanwhile ex-ISKCONites? In fact the "guru-fiasco" mentioned above, in Europe, this ravaged since the very day Prabhupada left this world, people here haven't seen anything else.

 

I have learned a LOT from this experience, however painful it was for me and many of my friends. This tragedy was caused as much by the blind faith in guru that was a central part of Iskcon doctrine, as it was by the guru's lack of proper qualifications.

 

There is a very good saying in that context:

 

"Shame on you for lying to me. Shame on me for trusting you."

[suchandra 1]

 

First: how does one verify that his or her guru is on the brahma-bhuta platform? Did you actually verify that Prabhupada is on that platform before you accepted him as your guru? Or did you just assume on faith that he was? If you verified Prabhupada, please tell us how you did that.

 

Second: having that very high guru standard apparently did not stop Prabhupada from endorsing 11 of his disciples as gurus. Were they all on the brahma-bhuta platform when Prabhupada authorized them to accept disciples? Many of his sannyasis fell down by that time, the experience was there - do you think he did not consider a possible fall down of these 11 gurus as well?

It is questionable to consider that Prabhupada would have told these 11 to accept disciples and at the same time he knew that from these original 11, 9 would fall down. To think Prabhupada could not have known this and all the chaos happening due these fall downs is something like pulling Prabhupada down on the level of a defective conditioned soul. Then there is the term inefficiency - also Narayana Maharaja is using this term, apparently a guru is not fallen, but nothing happens, he can't impart bhakti-lata-bija to the disciple. To think that Prabhupada would have installed such a system where people cannot know anything unless they take a high risk to work with it, just doesn't make sense. Prabhupada's greatest concern always was to introduce a 100% secure, corruption free system.

Lord Caitanya, He Himself didn't take up the position of initiating guru, but entrusted others like Haridas Thakura, the six goswamis etc. So unless one is not properly entrusted by superior authority why to exact that newcomers have to take a risk?

Vaishnavism just doesn't go along with taking a risk.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

It is questionable to consider that Prabhupada would have told these 11 to accept disciples and at the same time he knew that from these original 11, 9 would fall down. To think Prabhupada could not have known this and all the chaos happening due these fall downs is something like pulling Prabhupada down on the level of a defective conditioned soul.

 

Prabupada was not omniscient. He made his decission in good faith but his disciples did not live up to the standard. It is that simple - to me and to the majority of thinking people on earth familiar with the subject.

[cbrahma 0]

 

First: how does one verify that his or her guru is on the brahma-bhuta platform? Did you actually verify that Prabhupada is on that platform before you accepted him as your guru? Or did you just assume on faith that he was? If you verified Prabhupada, please tell us how you did that.

 

Second: having that very high guru standard apparently did not stop Prabhupada from endorsing 11 of his disciples as gurus. Were they all on the brahma-bhuta platform when Prabhupada authorized them to accept disciples? Many of his sannyasis fell down by that time, the experience was there - do you think he did not consider a possible fall down of these 11 gurus as well?

Prabhupada did not endorse these disciples to be gurus. How does one verify brahma-bhuta? That one is not affected by the dualities of material nature , for one thing, and that includes the need for praise and adoration, sense gratification etc...

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Prabhupada did not endorse these disciples to be gurus. How does one verify brahma-bhuta? That one is not affected by the dualities of material nature , for one thing, and that includes the need for praise and adoration, sense gratification etc...

 

Of course he did. There is no hiding that. The only reason these 11 became prominent as gurus was his endorsement.

 

And you did not answer my question. Did you, or did you not, verify that Prabhupada was on the brahma bhuta platform before you accepted him as your guru?

[suchandra 1]

 

Of course he did. There is no hiding that. The only reason these 11 became prominent as gurus was his endorsement.

 

And you did not answer my question. Did you, or did you not, verify that Prabhupada was on the brahma bhuta platform before you accepted him as your guru?

Would look better if you say, "according my subjective point of view Prabhupada actually asked 11 of his leaders to make an experiment and sit on the vyasasana as full fledged diksa-gurus".

 

There're meanwhile too many people who don't accept your version of, "it is proven - Prabhupada empowered them to be his successors and initiate their own disciples."

[bhaktajan 0]

Who has suffered more than I because of ISKCON's [1978 to 1987] short comings?

Have you lost any thing other then your delicate dignity?

Lost your comradeships?

Lost your Guru shipmast?

Lost your bank account?

Lost a limb?

 

Glorify who, what, where & how to know Krishna!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[the majority of discussions (kathas) on the site are degrading to our spiritual intuition it should be composed of enlivening and thus, enlightening information that expands knowledge of "Who is Krishna"]

 

While universities are recruiting people to learn arabic and study the Koran

---for real-life academic reasons [while war wages and further eco-catastrophies head our way and the price of rice in China is too expensive for sundry factory goods workers] ---We shall debate away our life-times' life-force.

 

I have to look the other way in all spheres of life inorder to for me to function at basic duties.

 

I have to endure the nonsense of every person I encounter --from telephone solictors to the tax man, the are thieves at every step in the material world --when did I think that I was joining a cult, when I joined ISKCON? Never! I knew what to watch out for.

 

I knew that the status quo in ISKCON was "every man for himself, all together as independent contractors for a common goal".

 

ISKCON devotees always learnt that the next devotee would be the next one to leave the nest--so we were leary of all pacts with each other.

 

No one could ever vouch for a new comers' motivation or perseverence, and that is still the case.

 

Brahma-bhuta realized status? Now, this is the standard of measurment?

 

Go check the tire pressure on the vehical next time you get onto an airplane --or ask your godsent guru to assure you.

 

I am a devotee of ISKCON --irregardless of who come and goes. I know how to recognize bogus-ness in almost any circumstance yet I am responsible alone to act accordingly --everyone of us will fall by the way side in time, none-the-less.

[cbrahma 0]

 

Of course he did. There is no hiding that. The only reason these 11 became prominent as gurus was his endorsement.

 

And you did not answer my question. Did you, or did you not, verify that Prabhupada was on the brahma bhuta platform before you accepted him as your guru?

 

There is no 'of course'. In fact it was pure concoction. As was discovered later. It appears you would rather indict Prabhupada.

 

In the "Pyramid House Confessions" (recorded in 1980, at Topanga Canyon), Tamal Krishna Maharaja, one of the 11 zonal acharyas, stated the following:

 

"Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus... You cannot show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says: 'I appoint these eleven as gurus'. It does not exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth."

 

[Kulapavana 0]

 

There is no 'of course'. In fact it was pure concoction. As was discovered later. It appears you would rather indict Prabhupada.

 

"Discovered" based on what? The word of Tamal KG? He is your authority now? The transcripts of the "appointment tape" are public knowledge. I do not need you or TKG to figure out what is being said there.

 

I am not indicting Prabhupada. Read again:

 

Prabupada was not omniscient. He made his decission in good faith but his disciples did not live up to the standard. It is that simple - to me and to the majority of thinking people on earth familiar with the subject.

 

Still no answer to my question. But I understand. At least you are not trying to lie about it.

 

I did not think Harikesa was on the brahma-bhuta platform. But he was inspiring me and many others to serve Krsna by his words and deeds and that was good enough for me. I knew from the very beginning that guru is one, Sri Guru, and He comes in many manifestations.

[suchandra 1]

 

There is no 'of course'. In fact it was pure concoction. As was discovered later. It appears you would rather indict Prabhupada.

It should be also clear that the term "guru" doesn't say anything. In Hinduism anyone is a guru - father, uncle, teacher, priest, doctor, relative, etc. etc.

When Prabhupada said "you become a guru", he just said, become learned and teach the people about Bhagavad-gita. Since Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja did not appoint anyone, Prabhupada followed his example. Why not? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja had lots of disciples born in Vaishnava families, but still, he didn't appoint anyone.

[cbrahma 0]

 

"Discovered" based on what? The word of Tamal KG? He is your authority now? The transcripts of the "appointment tape" are public knowledge. I do not need you or TKG to figure out what is being said there.

 

I am not indicting Prabhupada. Read again:

 

Prabupada was not omniscient. He made his decission in good faith but his disciples did not live up to the standard. It is that simple - to me and to the majority of thinking people on earth familiar with the subject.

 

Still no answer to my question. But I understand. At least you are not trying to lie about it.

 

I did not think Harikesa was on the brahma-bhuta platform. But he was inspiring me and many others to serve Krsna by his words and deeds and that was good enough for me. I knew from the very beginning that guru is one, Sri Guru, and He comes in many manifestations.

What question? Your question is loaded and of course I'm using Tamal- what better authority than one of the supposed zonal acaryas.

Appointment tape? Please. More anti-Prabhupada wishful thinking.

 

As we see, anyone who disagreed that the eleven were "appointed gurus" was essentially vilified, and often, viciously driven out of ISKCON. Moreover, as Hansadutta admits above, the audio recording of the May 28th 1977 "appointment tape" was not being circulated to the devotees. Worse, anyone who asked to hear it was then harassed and villified as we see herein. Oddly, when I finally got a copy of the "appointment tape" in 1985 from Sulochana dasa who had paid a bribe to the archives, Hansadutta told me he wanted to hear the tape since he had never heard the actual tape before? He then agreed that the May 28th tape "appointed" no one as guru (or eleven gurus) and the whole "appointed guru" program was "a hoax." He said in 1985 that he had simply accepted what Tamal and others -- claimed -- was stated on the appointment tape.

 

[Kulapavana 0]

The question (for the third time) was: Did you actually verify that Prabhupada was on the brahma-bhuta platform before you accepted him as guru?

[cbrahma 0]

 

The question (for the third time) was: Did you actually verify that Prabhupada was on the brahma-bhuta platform before you accepted him as guru?

For the third time I answered already

 

Prabhupada did not endorse these disciples to be gurus. How does one verify brahma-bhuta? That one is not affected by the dualities of material nature , for one thing, and that includes the need for praise and adoration, sense gratification etc...

 

<!-- / message -->

[Kulapavana 0]

 

It should be also clear that the term "guru" doesn't say anything. In Hinduism anyone is a guru - father, uncle, teacher, priest, doctor, relative, etc. etc.

When Prabhupada said "you become a guru", he just said, become learned and teach the people about Bhagavad-gita.

 

No. Prabhupada never used the word guru in that way. He entrusted 11 of his disciples to be initiating gurus in Iskcon. "father, uncle, teacher, priest, doctor, relative, etc. " DO NOT INITIATE disciples - these 11 were meant to be gurus and take on their own disciples. Prabhupada never mentions in his writings that he intends to introduce some new way of initiating people or new way of parampara to go on.

[Kulapavana 0]

For the third time I answered already

Is that a yes, or a no? Somehow I missed that part of your answer.

[suchandra 1]

 

No. Prabhupada never used the word guru in that way. He entrusted 11 of his disciples to be initiating gurus in Iskcon. "father, uncle, teacher, priest, doctor, relative, etc. " DO NOT INITIATE disciples - these 11 were meant to be gurus and take on their own disciples. Prabhupada never mentions in his writings that he intends to introduce some new way of initiating people or new way of parampara to go on.

 

You also seem to be insistant in the same way when it comes to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja, "he never mentions in his writings that he intends to introduce some new way of initiating people or new way of parampara to go on."

What you're saying is that even when a spiritual master like Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja doesn't appoint a successor this doesn't mean anything, we go on with what we heard is the tradition? Since this understanding is identical with present GBC policy it should be clear that this is a rebellious mentality. Rebellious mentality like we see it everywhere mentioned whenever things are described in sastra as "glanir", deviating behaviour. The reason why Krishna appears in this world, could be that this is your ulterior motive, to cause Krishna to appear and correct the deviants. Since this is Krishna's main concern to keep the parampara system working perfectly and deliver the fallen souls it should be clear that any messing around is most sinful and as we see, ISKCON didn't learn anything from the past 30 years. Prabhupada also mentions the term "rebellious" quite often. Could be that this is our real problem.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

What you're saying is that even when a spiritual master like Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja doesn't appoint a successor this doesn't mean anything, we go on with what we heard is the tradition?

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did not nominate one person to lead Gaudiya Matha - that has NOTHING to do with his disciples becoming gurus and initiating their own disciples, because that is part of our tradition. He gave permission to 2 of his disciples to initiate even in his presence! You are comparing apples and oranges. In the same way Prabhupada did not nominate one leader to take charge of Iskcon, but he named 11 disciples to take on the role of gurus within Iskcon. It is very obvious to those who keep their eyes open.

[Sarva gattah 0]

 

First: how does one verify that his or her guru is on the brahma-bhuta platform?

 

Did you actually verify that Prabhupada is on that platform before you accepted him as your guru? Or did you just assume on faith that he was?

 

If you verified Prabhupada, please tell us how you did that?

 

That a very good question.

 

Basically many are trying to understand why some had Prabhupada as their Spiritual Master of which some were initiated in the early days after only being in the Temple for a few weeks, not really knowing who Prabhupada was, while others had to suffer the embarrassment of following one of his disciples (who eventually fell down from their post as guru), THINKING such disciples of Srila Prabhupada were PURELY representing him.

How did WE know Prabhupada was a pure devotee in the beginning, when we really new nothing about him or Vedic culture?

Yes, the fact is many of us didn't. Many did not know that Prabhupada is a pure devotee, that developed over time.

So how do we understand this?

The answer is, it’s the test of time. What does that mean?

 

Remember, Prabhupada past the test of time, he came alone to America, preached to all who wanted to hear, wrote so many books, established so many Temple, taught the devotees everything from devotee dress to cooking to building Rathayatra carts. He never wavered even when he was leaving his body in Vrndavana and so devotees became stronger in there worship and love for him. Many might not of realized whom he was when they joined, but other time, they saw in him, due to his actions, preaching and pure love and compassion, the pure devotee that he is

So the next question is, why did many accept the ‘chosen gurus’ in the same way, after Prabhupada's passing, out of good faith, thinking they represented Prabhupada?

 

Weren't they just like the early Prabhupada disciples who followed him, yet eventually dicovered 'over a period of time, they were being mislead because such 'appointed gurus' were nothing like Prabhupada?

Yes, as already stated, MOST did not know who Prabhupada really was in the beginning, maybe a few did, however for most of us, he proved to us, over time he was and is a pure devotee of Krsna with his wonderful example of what is expected of a pure devotee. As a result of getting to know Prabhupada more and more, our faith and understanding of who he really is, increased.

In the same way, many of the second generation of devotees also did not really know if their gurus are pure devotees either. In actual fact, most were attracted to the movement because of Prabhupada. However, due to him not being physically present after 1977, they took shelter of one of his eleven guru disciples, who they expected to be like Prabhupada.

Once again the test of time would proved nearly all of them were not pure devotees and that they were just imitating Prabhupada

Again, it is the test of time. One by one these new gurus began falling down.

AGAIN I EMPHASIZE Remember, Prabhupada past the test of time, he came alone to America, preached to all who wanted to hear, wrote so many books, established so many Temple, taught the devotees everything from devotee dress to cooking to building Rathayatra carts. He never wavered and so devotees became stronger in there worship and love for him. Many might not of realized whom he was when they joined, but other time, they saw in him, due to his actions and preaching, the pure devotee that he is

A good example of one seeking for a guru is George Harrison, his first choice of a guru was not Prabhupada, he first went to Mahesh yogi and thought he was a great transcendentalist but as soon as he saw that he tried to have sex with Mia Farrows sister, he rejected him as bogus, he was exposed by the test of time. If any so called guru fails the test of time, then they must be rejected. On the other hand Prabhupada never ever wavered and was preaching about Krishna to his last breath in Vrndavana in 1977, in this way I might not of known he was a pure devotee as a young seeking 17 year old right at the begining of his ISKCON Movement, but I certainly do know now.

There is another consideration also thet is very difficult to understand, personally, why was I within the first 20 devotees to join the movement in Australia? Why did others come to the movement after Prabhupada had left this world and experience the ‘guru bungle years? We can only presume our past lives have a lot to do with all this

The following is interesting but I want to make it very clear you are right, most of us did not know however, over time we learned to love Prabhupada and could understand his mercy had saved us from a horrible existence. Krsna in the heart testing us to see if we really want to find a bonafide Spiritual Master

Reporter: How can a person tell he has a genuine guru?

Srila Prabhupada: Can any of my students answer this question?

Disciple: Once I remember John Lennon asked you, "How will I know who is the genuine guru?" And you answered, "Just find out the one who is most addicted to Krsna. He is genuine."

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. The genuine guru is God's representative, and he speaks about God and nothing else. The genuine guru is he who has no interest in materialistic life. He is after God, and God only. That is one of the tests of a genuine guru: brahma-nistham. He is absorbed in the Absolute Truth.

In the Mundaka Upanisad it is stated, srotriyam brahma-nistham: [MU 1.2.12] "The genuine guru is well versed in the scriptures and Vedic knowledge, and he is completely dependent on Brahman." He should know what Brahman [spirit] is and how to become situated in Brahman.

These signs are given in the Vedic literature. As I said before, the real guru is God's representative. He represents the Supreme Lord, just as a viceroy represents a king. The real guru will not manufacture anything.

Everything he says is in accordance with the scriptures and the previous acaryas. He will not give you a mantra and tell you that you will become God in six months. This is not a guru's business.

A guru's business is to canvass everyone to become a devotee of God. That is the sum and substance of a real guru's business. Indeed, he has no other business. He tells whomever he sees, "Please become God conscious." If he canvasses somehow or other on behalf of God and tries to get everyone to become a devotee of God, he is a genuine guru".

[suchandra 1]

 

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja gave permission to 2 of his disciples to initiate as ritviks in his presence. These new disciples were then Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja's disciples. Good point you mention this.

Coming to "You are comparing apples and oranges."

Considering that ISKCON caused so much pain and suffering to thousands of ex-members, it is very strange and deformed that still they keep such an instructive know-it-all mentality to teach what is wrong and what is right. Looks rather like an inveterate and obstinate policy of dangerous cults.