Jump to content

More from the pioneering years of ISKCON's Zonal Acarya days (after 1977)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts


Calling a murderer a murderer is not fault finding. Prabhupada always spoke the truth however unpalatable.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja also didn't consider to compromise - in fact it seems that he was quite strict in every respect. Of course this not always makes friends, but in this way we can also better understand Srila Prabhupada's strictness like he followed his guru's example.


Prabhupāda: Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura was so strict that because Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur married twice, he used to say, “strī- saṅgī, attached to woman,” even his father. He was very strict. Sometimes when he would be angry, he’d, “You strī-saṅgī.”

And don’t discuss this thing.

He was very strict.

No excuse, no compromise.

Tamāla Krishna: That’s where you got all of that from.

Prabhupāda: My is imitation, but his was real. All these Navadvīpa people were afraid of him.

Tamāla Krishna: Afraid.

Prabhupāda: Strong-hearted. They made a, what is called, conspiracy to kill him.

Hṛdayānanda: Who did this?

Prabhupāda: Oh, the Navadvīpa gosvāmīs. They raised 25,000 rupees and wanted to bribe this police officer that “You take this money. We shall finish him. Don’t take any action.”

Tamāla Krishna: But the policeman said?

Prabhupāda: Refused. “Yes, we take bribe, but not in such cases.”




Morning Walk Conversation

with His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

February 10, 1976, Māyāpura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Not even a brief reference to Bhava's active homosexuality in those days? If you are going to write the truth, write it all.


You are not shy blaming Sridhara Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja for supporting the zonal gurus Prabhupada put in place. The zonal (regional) secretary system introduced by Prabhupada was naturally transformed into the zonal guru system when these zonal secretaries became gurus on Prabhupada's order. In itself, that was not a bad system. Problem was that these people were eventually corrupted by the absolute power, fame, profit, and sense gratification that came with it. The personality cultism previously centered on Prabhupada was now transformed into the zonal "acharya" personality cultism. You think Sridhara M. or Narayana M. could have stopped that? They tried, and that is why they were eventually REJECTED and willified by the ISKCON power elite.

But people like you blame GM devotees for the Iskcon debacle... how brainwashed can you people be?

When, where, & how did Prabhupada order "his zonal secretaries" to become "gurus"? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The appointed gurus where not qualified on the level of Prabhupada, yet we would worship them anyway ON THAT LEVEL with the hope they would become qualified, that’s how innocent we were but we genuinly believed that in time, due to the purification process of Bhakti-yoga, they would become pure devotees under the test of time.

We all quoted Prabhupada to support this by saying that Prabhupada gave Brahmin initiating to devotees saying,

“Now that I have given you Brahmin initiation, now become Brahmana”

All of us Godbrothers put a new twist on Prabhupada’s comment –

“Now that I have given you the authority to become initiating Guru, now become Guru”.


Here are the facts -



Ravindra Svarupa dasa in a number of essays have amply documented the struggle for authority created by Prabhupada's departure (See Rochford, E. B., Jr. 1985, Shinn, Larry 1987: 47-60, and dasa, Ravindra Svarupa 1985, 1994).

All three scholars more or less concur on identifying the major issues: 'who are the real inheritors of Prabhupada's mantle?

The new gurus? The GBC? All the disciples of Prabhupada who have the capacity to be gurus? No easy answers emerged in the years following Prabhupada's death.' (Shinn, 1987: 49).3

Two prominent Indian supporters of ISKCON raised the same questions when they met Prabhupada in Vrindavana shortly before his death in 1977.4 Would Prabhupada appoint a single successor from among his followers? Prabhupada's answer:


All his disciples would succeed him.


The response disappointed them, for they had in mind the autocratic guru of Hindu tradition. Perhaps if they had been more familiar with Prabhupada's teachings they would not have been so surprised. In a purport to the Shri Chaitanya-caritamrita (Adi-lila, 12.8), he writes:

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a governing body and conduct missionary activity cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next acarya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of acarya, and they split into two factions over who the next acarya would be. Consequently, both factions were asura, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the spiritual master (Prabhupada1975).

Indeed, Lord Chaitanya had given an open order for all to "become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land."5 But a succession of 'all' is a succession of none. Yet, anarchy was certainly not Prabhupada's intention.

In the disobedience of his first disciple Kirtanananda, Prabhupada recognised the seeds of dissent, which, if left unchecked, would dismantle his fledgling institution. Kirtanananda's challenge must have convinced Prabhupada that he needed to train his disciples quickly in order to form a governing board to insure the institution's cohesion, particularly when he was no longer present.

At least while he was present he could lay the foundation and construct the framework for his vision of a vast missionary movement. Thus by 1970, four years after incorporating the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Prabhupada established the Governing Body Commission (GBC), as his 'direct representatives to act as the instrument for the execution of the will of His Divine Grace'. (Goswami, S. 1982: Vol. IV: 103-104) 6 But an organisational superstructure is no better than its members and therein lay a huge problem.

Kirtanananda Swami was the son of a Southern Baptist minister. Initiated by Prabhupada into the order of sannyasa while accompanying his master to India, Kirtanananda believed that the spreading of Krishna consciousness was hampered by the devotees' odd appearance - by the traditional robes and sikha, the tuft of hair left on an otherwise cleanly shaven head.7


But Kirtanananda and his spiritual master disagreed on more than what constituted proper devotional attire. Underlying the misgiving about dress, were Kirtanananda's doubts about dualism: he could not distinguish between the impersonal and personal features of Krishna, between the soul as individually distinct from the Godhead (See letters to Brahmananda, Rayarama, and Gargamuni, Prabhupada1987: 229-230, 232).

Prabhupada's initial response to Kirtanananda's deviation was novel: rather than condemning his speculations, he suggested that Kirtanananda stop in London on his return to America in order to test out his ideas.

But Kirtanananda circumvented his guru's order, flying directly to New York where he made his godbrothers the target of his new gospel. Prabhupada tightened the screws: he ordered that Kirtanananda should be stopped from speaking in any of the society's temples.8

When his disciples wrote to India repeating Kirtanananda's arguments, Prabhupada refuted impersonalism in each of his replies. Yet he did not reject his wayward disciple; Kirtanananda's confusion, he suggested, was a "temporary manifestation of maya [illusion]" and "will be corrected as soon as I return" (See letter to Himavati, Prabhupada1987: 241-2).

Prabhupada explained that he signed all his letters to disciples as 'Your ever well-wisher' to indicate that he remained ever concerned for his disciples, even if they left him. But other disciples found it difficult to embrace their spiritual master's mood. They spat on Kirtanananda and ejected him from the temple (See letter to Rayarama, Prabhupada1987: 243-4).9

Kirtanananda's mistaken attitude, Prabhupada ultimately concluded, was based on his refusal to accept the parampara (disciplic succession) system and the authority of the scriptures. His misfortune, however, proved a learning experience for the other disciples. Though one or two had been swayed by Kirtanananda's arguments, the majority had become strengthened by successfully defending their guru's teachings.

The harsh response of the spitting incidents was tempered by Prabhupada's abiding concern for even one who had turned against him. Consequently, within a matter of months, Kirtanananda had recanted and apologised and began work once more under his master to establish the New Vrindaban, West Virginia community. Though time would prove that his philosophical misconceptions were not in fact corrected, Prabhupada's skilful handling of the incident allowed Kirtanananda to return, at least temporarily, to active and beneficial service for ISKCON. 10

The Kirtanananda incident is the first instance of an open challenge to the founder's authority. It was not Prabhupada alone but the authority of the entire disciplic line and the scriptures that were being questioned. In the Christian tradition, such challenges were regarded as heresy; and the heretic was considered as evil:

The word heresy is derived from a Greek word meaning 'choice.' It had been used to designate the particular teachings of philosophical schools, and it denoted the opinions that each one had chosen. Christian writers began to use the term and soon gave it a pejorative significance. To them it indicated that a person had chosen a human opinion and rejected divine revelation. In this sense heresy has an evil significance, and the heretic is considered evil (Tyson 1984: 410).

We may note, in comparison, that in Prabhupada's estimation Kirtanananda deviated from the authority of the disciplic line and scripture, which was for ISKCON a rejection of divine revelation in favour of human opinion. Prabhupada treated Kirtanananda's influence as an evil to be carefully guarded against, but unlike his disciples who demonised the evil-doer, Prabhupada treated him with compassion.11 As we shall see, this is often a distinguishing feature in the way Prabhupada and his disciples handled similar challenges.

In fact, the challenges faced first by Prabhupada and later by his disciples are so strikingly similar that they appear to be mirror images of each other, logically suggesting a treatment in consonance with their inherent congruence. They fall within two broad categories: the problem of a) authority of the leadership, and b) continuity of the tradition.

These are the two crucial problems every founded religion must solve if it wishes to preserve its identity over time, particularly after the founder's departure. We shall look at four 'heresies' of authority, the first two as they arose while the founder was still alive, showing how he met these challenges, then looking at two 'heresies' of authority that arose after the founder's departure, showing how his disciples met and are meeting these challenges.

We will then treat four heresies of continuity following the same scheme-first during the founder's time, then during the period of his disciples. But before we begin, a brief caveat for ISKCON readers.

Heresies polarise. But divisiveness is not necessarily bad. The disruptive beliefs and actions of contentious persons can also be stimulants, forcing the institution and its leaders to define and defend itself.

Exploring heresy can provide insights into doctrinal and institutional issues that other methods might not so easily reveal. The study of heresies, therefore, is important for more than antiquarian reasons.

A religious tradition should pay attention to heresies not merely to guard against the errors of the past (and certainly not to demonise their advocates) but to learn from them. Every heresy is a warning of unresolved tensions within a tradition and a challenge to preserve the tradition in changing cultural and intellectual circumstances.




Heresies of Authority


The Guru is God Heresy




There were lessons, undoubtedly, in the Kirtanananda episode for Prabhupada as well as for his disciples. Upon his return to America, he increased his translation output with the intention of establishing the movement on a firm philosophical footing. At the same time he began the formation of a body to govern his growing institution.12

It may be recalled that after the departure of Prabhupada's guru, the Gaudiya Matha splintered when Bhaktisiddhanta's senior disciples, instead of following his instruction to govern collegially, attempted to appoint a sole successor. Thirty years had elapsed and each leader was now the head of his own institution. They had been silent when, immediately after arriving in America, Prabhupada had sought their help.

Now, hearing of Prabhupada's success, they suggested he return to India to discuss the most effective means to spread Chaitanya's teachings. But Prabhupada was wary of their sudden interest in his activities. 'Tell them,' he said, 'that I will only come if they agree to form a governing body with twelve members. Since they have never dared to leave India, they can collectively appoint one representative and ISKCON shall make up the other eleven.' (Goswami, T. 1991:193)

There was no reply. Instead, a veiled criticism of Prabhupada was included in a letter to devotees in New York from Acyutananda dasa, a disciple of Prabhupada who was living in one of the Indian Gaudiya Mathas. Acyutananda dasa suggested that the title 'Prabhupada' ('he, at whose feet all masters sit') should be reserved for Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Rupa Goswami (Sri Chaitanya's foremost disciple).

Always alert lest any harm befall his fledgling movement, Prabhupada viewed his disciple's criticism as a spot of cancer which, if left unchecked, would relativise his absolute position. He also noted that the honorific 'His Divine Grace' and 'Prabhupada' had come to be omitted from the cover of the most recent of his translations released by ISKCON Press, Boston. Another publication merely described him as 'acarya', ('the institutional head') even though he had instructed that the title 'founder-acarya' be included in all his publications.

To get a better sense of the distinction we need to explicate the term acarya. 'One who teaches by example' (which may refer to any genuine devotee) is the first definition. Another meaning is 'one who grants initiation to a disciple,' - in other words, a guru.

Then there is a third meaning, 'the spiritual head of an institution,' a title that may be given to future successors. But the designation 'founder- acarya' is exclusive, inapplicable to any other head of the institution other than its founder.13 When Prabhupada objected to the omission of 'founder' before the title 'acarya,' he was obviously insisting on this last definition.

Prabhupada detected similar challenges to his absolute authority in the behaviour of certain leaders of his Los Angeles headquarters. Increasingly, in the guise of protecting his privacy for his translating, the leaders denied devotees direct access to him.

In San Francisco at the Festival of the Chariots, there was no seat for him on any of the carts. Thus, he saw on a number of places moves to minimise his position. With an adroitness, which was characteristic of his administrative skills, he acted suddenly to check this latest threat.

First, he awarded the renounced order of sannyasa to his errant managers, commanding that they give up their administrative roles in exchange for travelling and preaching. Simultaneously, he appointed twelve of his most trusted disciples as members of the first Governing Body Commission. As a final act, he announced that despite his poor health and advanced age, he would himself leave for establishing ISKCON's mission in India, the source of the attack on his movement.

But the cancer had not been checked. Halting in Japan en route to India, Prabhupada learned that four of his new renunciants had begun preaching a strange gospel. At a huge gathering of ISKCON faithful at New Vrindaban on Krishna's birth anniversary, 1970, they had announced that by leaving America, Prabhupada had rejected his disciples for failing to recognise that Prabhupada was actually Krishna Himself.

This was nothing but another aspect of impersonalism. While Kirtanananda had previously failed to distinguish between the personal and impersonal conceptions of Godhead, the new sannyasis had failed to distinguish the guru from the Godhead. Vaishnavas teach that the guru is the servant of God, but never the Godhead Himself. A Vaishnava spiritual master will never say that he is God or that God is impersonal.

In Japan, Prabhupada revealed the underlying implication: by making him God, the seat of the guru was now vacated to make room for one of his Gaudiya Matha godbrothers. He was, in effect, being picked upstairs. He asked Sudama dasa and Tamal Krishna Goswami, the two GBC representatives with him in Tokyo, what they intended to do. In unison they responded that the four errant sannyasis should be driven out of ISKCON. Prabhupada immediately agreed.

The GBC members at the New Vrindavana festival had already begun to expose the fallacious teachings of the four sannyasis by citing numerous references from Prabhupada's books. But they were surprised by the harsh edict that came from Japan. Nevertheless, they carried out the order, relaying Prabhupada's instruction that the sannyasis must now preach separately from the institution, depending solely on Krishna for their support.

Though penniless and without institutional shelter, the forced independence appeared to strengthen their connection with Prabhupada, and they headed in different directions to carry out his order to preach.

Prabhupada's stern response seems to indicate that he was prepared to sacrifice a few individuals to save his Society from being seriously infected with what he considered impersonalist poison.

He did not, however, reject the errant sannyasis; he had merely quarantined them from other disciples to prevent further harm to his movement. He continued to correspond with them and encouraged them to preach. Gradually purified by the ordeal, each was eventually incorporated back into ISKCON and went on to perform important service for the Society.

At the heart of this heresy is the challenge to Prabhupada's authority. Elevating Prabhupada to the position of God cleared the way for a successor, which in this case Prabhupada believed to be one of his godbrothers. Because Prabhupada saw this as the real threat, he may have been more severe in his response than when he dealt with Kirtanananda.

As long as the living authority is on earth, he may adopt strategies that can seem inconsistent. Although he never acts arbitrarily (he is guided by sadhu and shastra - the precedents set by previous saintly persons and the injunctions of scripture), time, place, and circumstances may influence his decisions. Guru, sadhu and shastra check and balance each other. But when the guru departs sadhu and shastra can take on a new import, as those who succeed him become the new interpreters of past precedents, scriptural law and new set of circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




The Centralisation Heresy


Although the Governing Body Commission would eventually become 'the ultimate managing authority' of ISKCON (Goswami, S. 1983: Vol. VI: 328-9) Prabhupada retained final authority in all matters during his lifetime. Once in a while he vetoed the GBC's decisions, and on one notable occasion he was forced to suspend its functioning entirely.


In March of 1972, without consulting Prabhupada, eight of the twelve GBC members held a meeting in New York to centralise ISKCON's management. The plan was to centralise control in the hands of each zonal secretary by giving the GBC member complete control over the temples' finances.


All funds collected were to be sent to a head office, which would then allot expenditures to each temple. In a memo he issued to all ISKCON temple presidents, Prabhupada referred to the 'big, big minutes' of the meeting in which they had inducted one of his disciples, the chartered accountant Atreya Risi dasa, as a new member and as secretary. The meeting had empowered a management committee of two to act without Prabhupada's permission and 'without divulging to the devotees.' (Prabhupada1987: 1956-7)


This attempt at autonomy 'has upset my brain,' Prabhupada wrote his temple presidents. He spelled out his alarm in capitals: 'I authorise you to disregard for the time being any decision from the GBC men until my further instruction.' Seeking to establish a direct link with each temple president, he urged that they manage their temples' affairs 'peacefully and independently,' and inform him of the names of their assistants. Finally, he repeated: 'all GBC orders are suspended herewith by me until further notice.'

In a further letter to Hamsaduta dasa, one of the illegitimate meeting's organisers, Prabhupada pointed out how it was unconstitutional (1987: 1958-9).14 The seven members in attendance may have constituted a quorum, but the meeting had been convened without a general announcement to all twelve GBC members. Prabhupada expressed surprise that none of the other GBC members had detected this defect in the procedure. 'What will happen when I am not here, shall everything be spoiled by GBC?'

Prabhupada's concern seemed to focus on two issues. The first was to avoid centralisation that would hamper each temple's development by dampening their individual enthusiasm. In a letter dated 13, October 1969, prior to the GBC's establishment, Prabhupada wrote this writer (1987: 1054):

I have seen the agenda of your presidents' meeting. This is nice. One thing should be followed, however, as your countrymen are more or less independent spirited and lovers of democracy. So everything should be done very carefully so that their sentiments may not be hurt, According to Sanskrit moral principles, everything has to be acted, taking consideration of the place, audience and time. As far as possible the centres should act freely, but conjointly. They must look forward to the common development.

Further instructions contained in a letter dated October 18 indicate Prabhupada's concern to avoid centralisation, yet encourage organisation (Goswami 1991: 189-97).

A secondary concern was the undue stress on management and finances that Prabhupada believed was not a solution to some of the problems of spiritual laxity, but their cause. He described these problems as (1) a failure to maintain neatness and cleanliness ('I still see those who are initiated as brahmanas, they do not wash their hand after eating even; of course, there may be so many defects due to your births in non-brahmana families, but how long shall it go on?'); (2) failure of all the members to chant sixteen rounds daily; (3) failure at times to maintain the rigid schedule of temple worship beginning at 4:00 a.m. ('I find that the devotees are still sleeping up to six, seven o'clock.') (See letter to Hamsaduta, Prabhupada1987: 1958-9)

A terse telegram from Prabhupada summarises his view: 'Your material legal formula will not help us. Only our spiritual life can help us.' (See telegrams to Hamsaduta, Karandhara and all temple presidents, 1987: 1954-5)

Prabhupada called his GBC member for Western USA, Karandhara dasa, to Tokyo to clearly establish the GBC's responsibilities. In a letter issued by Karandhara, but bearing Prabhupada's signature of approval, one can sense Prabhupada's authorship:

The formula for ISKCON organisation is very simple and can be understood by everyone. The world is divided into twelve zones. For each zone there is one zonal secretary appointed by Srila Prabhupada. The zonal secretary's duty is to see that the spiritual principles are being upheld very nicely in all the temples of the zone. Otherwise each temple shall be independent and self-supporting.


Let every temple president work according to his own capacity to improve the Krishna consciousness of the centre. So far the practical management is concerned, that is required, but not that we should become too much absorbed in fancy organisation.


Our business is spiritual life, so whatever organisation needs to be done, the presidents may handle and take advice and assistance from their GBC representative. In this way let the Society's work go on and everyone increase their service at their own creative rate. (See letter to all temple presidents, Prabhupada1987: 1966-7)

The failed attempt at centralisation did not mean that Prabhupada's chosen leaders would cease jockeying for position and control, desires that seem at the heart of each heresy. Indeed, every religion's history is chequered with dark moments of ambition, in which personal desire is seen as divine empowerment.


Prabhupada's formula for preventing such hegemony was to ensure each temple's autonomy within a loose-knit framework supervised by the GBC. Local temples were to be financially and legally autonomous though spiritually answerable to the GBC.


Yet in 1976 Prabhupada again encountered an attempt at centralisation, this time under the prompting of lawyers who suggested that all ISKCON temples in the United States should be sheltered under a single 'umbrella corporation'. Prabhupada again stubbornly opposed this, insisting that it would make all ISKCON temples vulnerable to any litigation filed against one.


Time proved Prabhupada's wisdom; had ISKCON followed its legal advisors, it would have been bankrupted by the anti-cult inspired court cases of the 1980s.

By suspending the GBC temporarily, Prabhupada indicated that this highest body was neither infallible nor autonomous. As long as he was present, it was answerable to him, but in his absence how would its mistakes be rectified? Ideally, it would correct itself, but events following Prabhupada's departure proved otherwise.



The Zonal Acarya Heresy



The departure of ISKCON's charismatic founder traumatised the Society's entire membership and, as might be expected, inaugurated an extended struggle to resolve the issue of authority. His death was not sudden, but followed a protracted illness lasting a year.


Though devotees had enough time to prepare themselves for the inevitable conclusion, their total dependence upon Prabhupada left them deeply shaken by his absence. The aftershocks were felt again and again, individually and on ISKCON as a whole.


Prabhupada had warned that the acarya's departure is a great loss to the world; the spiritual vacuum thus created would be the cause of havoc in his institution, a view confirmed by the history of the Gaudiya Matha.


But despite such warnings, ISKCON's leaders acted hastily to fill the void created by Prabhupada's departure. No doubt they were motivated by one of Prabhupada's final requests that they at least maintain what he had left them.


Yet immaturity and, on the part of some, desire and ambition, led to the establishment of a zonal acarya system in the 1980s which threatened to leave ISKCON as divided as the Gaudiya Matha.


The eighties decade also saw attempts to bring into ISKCON acaryas from outside Gaudiya groups. It also saw the proposal that since none of Prabhupada's disciples was qualified to serve as guru, Prabhupada himself would continue to initiate posthumously (the ritvik-acarya theory).

The GBC was in place to oversee the functioning of ISKCON. Yet how was this 'ultimate managing authority' to be harmonised with the position of the initiating guru, particularly as the role of the guru had become institutionalised in ISKCON after Prabhupada's departure?


Ravindra Svarupa frames the issue for us


'The problem arose when the conception of guru was implicitly based on the traditional model of an inspired, charismatic, spiritual autocrat, an absolute and autonomously decisive authority, around who an institution takes shape as the natural extension and embodiment of his charisma.' (dasa, R. 1994: 43)


This echoes Shinn's remarks, following the views of Max Weber: 'Consequently, if the movement begun by such a charismatic figure is to continue, the charisma must somehow be 'routinised' or transferred to surviving institutional rules or structures.' (Shinn 1987: 50)

Prabhupada prepared for such routinisation by creating the GBC. 'The practical problem facing ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's demise was this: How do gurus, who are God's direct representatives and according to fundamental Vaishnava theology to be worshipped by their disciples 'on an equal level with God,' fit within an organisation functioning through modern rational and legal modes under the direction of a committee?' (dasa, R. 1994: 25)

In their first annual meeting held after Prabhupada's demise in the spring of 1978 in Mayapur, West Bengal, the GBC decided to consult Prabhupada's respected and closest godbrother B. R. Sridhara Maharaja to help resolve this dilemma.


But in the Gaudiya Matha, Sridhara Maharaja himself had been prominent among those advocating a successor acarya instead of the GBC that Bhaktisiddhanta had ordered after his own guru's demise. Now the acarya at the head of his own institution, he recommended that ISKCON gurus must be similarly absolute:

The majority (of the GBC) are non-acarya (non-guru). According to my opinion, that will create a difficulty. In our system, both autocracy and democracy cannot go together. But ours is an autocratic thing, extremely autocratic. Guru is all in all. Our submission to guru is unconditional.


This is a great difficulty. Submission to guru is unconditional. So when I (as a disciple) see my guru's powers are being pressed by other Vaishnavas it will create disturbance in the mind of the shishya (disciple), to grow his shraddha, faith, absolute faith... It is better that the members of the governing body be gurus. They are all acaryas. The assembly of acaryas will consult with one another. (See Rochford 1991: 223)

Six months before his own demise, Prabhupada had announced that he would appoint some of his disciples to perform all of the functions of initiating new disciples, as he had become too ill to do so. Those so initiated would still be Prabhupada's disciples, while those who would be initiated after his demise would become his grand-disciples. Shortly thereafter, Prabhupada selected eleven disciples to begin assisting him and asked his secretary to communicate their names to the rest of ISKCON.15

Following Prabhupada's death and the fateful meeting with Prabhupada's godbrother Sridhara Maharaja, the eleven gurus named by Prabhupada assumed an extraordinary position above all others including the non-guru GBC members. Even within the GBC, they established their own Guru Board to appoint new gurus and handle guru problems. In the temples their status was elevated practically equal to Prabhupada's.


They accepted honorific titles, were given elevated seats and were worshipped in the same manner accorded previously to Prabhupada. Each was allocated his own exclusive geographical area in which to initiate-his own GBC zone and that of any other non-guru GBC willing to align with him.


Since all the new recruits soon became his disciples, each guru exercised an increasing influence over not only the devotees within his own GBC zone, but any other zone of which he was the initiating guru. Thus, for all purposes he became the zonal acarya, the head of the institution (or at least a significant geographical portion of the institution).

As Ravindra Svarupa notes, 'The guru zones were more unified than ISKCON as a whole, which was becoming increasingly fragmented, turning into a kind of amphictyony of independently empowered leaders.' (dasa, R. 1994: 31) While disciples of the new gurus found nothing strange in this new arrangement, disciples of Prabhupada who were not gurus became increasingly alarmed. In Pradyumna dasa's prophetic letter written just after the changes were set in place, he expresses his concerns in two ways.


First, that the eleven gurus not having been appointed to the position of acarya and for which they are unqualified both by a) insufficient knowledge of shastra (scripture) and b) the incomplete realisation of Krishna Consciousness, are accepting worship on that level-and this may lead to anomalies in the Society and personally, because of lack of complete detachment in atma-jnana (knowledge of the self), to have build-up of pride, and subsequent fall-down.


Secondly, that the united society ISKCON, because of a legal division and control by a few members instead of the joint GBC will become broken up in separate societies and the unified preaching effort very much hindered. (See, dasa, R. S. 1985b)

An exodus of Prabhupada's disciples followed. Within only a few years of his departure, a majority of Prabhupada's disciples ceased to actively participate in ISKCON.16

Faith in the gurus and in the institution as a whole was severely shaken when the GBC had to censure three of the eleven gurus for varying degrees of misconduct. Jayatirtha dasa was found to be taking 'LSD' and was guilty of sexual transgressions.


Hamsaduta Swami, in a much publicised case, was discovered amassing weapons, and was also found to be sexually promiscuous. Tamal Krishna Goswami, the leader of a large number of sannyasa and brahmacari preachers, insisted that he was now their via media in relating to Prabhupada and expected that his godbrothers follow him absolutely.


Furthermore, he temporarily engaged them in raising funds for community development rather than allowing them to continue the service of book selling, the principal missionary directive they had received from Prabhupada. The GBC suspended the initiating rights of all three gurus.


But when on the advice of Prabhupada's godbrother Sridhara Maharaja, the sanctions came to be lifted surprisingly soon, it seemed that individual gurus had become stronger than the collective GBC.


At the same time, Sridhara Maharaja's influence continued to increase as a number of prominent ISKCON leaders including Jayatirtha defected to join his camp. The defectees claimed that Sridhara Maharaja, due to his exalted qualifications, was clearly Prabhupada's successor.

As Rochford has rightly pointed out, Sridhara Maharaja, perhaps unwittingly at first, became a political symbol for growing discontent with the ISKCON management system. (Rochford, 1985: 247) Surrounded by dissidents, Sridhara Maharaja's criticism of the GBC increased, and he also raised the questions about certain decisions and actions of Prabhupada.


This seemed to confirm to ISKCON leaders what they had previously learned from Prabhupada: it was best to keep away from the Gaudiya Matha. Wary of further contact, the GBC entirely separated themselves from Sridhara Maharaja.17

But this did not remedy the unhappy state of affairs within ISKCON. Divisiveness due to zonal acarya hegemony continued to increase until the leading non-GBC disciples of Prabhupada, many of them temple presidents in North America, expressed their collective outrage.


By the end of 1984 they launched what came to be known as the 'guru reform movement,' culminating in the fateful meeting at the New Vrindavana community attended by all GBC and temple presidents and open to all Prabhupada disciples.


This cathartic gathering, which had begun from a groundswell of discontent, gained such momentum that it eventually swept away the entire zonal acarya system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the next annual GBC meeting in the spring of 1987, the number of ISKCON gurus was more than doubled and the number of GBC men significantly increased to include some of the prominent leaders of the guru reform movement.


18 Gurus were now free to initiate in any zone.19 Most significantly, each guru was clearly made to understand that his authority was tied to the GBC, thus re-establishing Prabhupada, through the GBC, as the head of ISKCON.

The stormy decade following Prabhupada's demise left many casualties in its wake: perhaps as many as 90% of Prabhupada's initiated disciples were now marginalised; disciples of fallen gurus felt they had no shelter; the preaching mission as a whole lost momentum and cohesion. ISKCON was battered and bruised-but it had survived.


Important lessons had been learned. One was that Prabhupada's position was unique and not to be imitated. His status was not due merely to being ISKCON's founder, but to his exalted level of Krishna consciousness. The status of GBC, gurus, and other leaders, on the other hand, was as much a matter of inheritance as personal qualification.


But reliance on such inherited status, without a continued effort to become actually qualified, would prove to be but a thin veneer of spirituality. Knowing devotees to be fallible, Prabhupada had purposely named no single successor, but instead had designated the GBC as the ultimate managing authority for ISKCON.20 In doing so, Prabhupada forbade any single person, no matter how exalted, to try to imitate his position. Rather, all were enjoined to 'follow in his footsteps.'

The GBC emerged from the zonal acarya decade a tougher, more honest, and thoroughly collegial body. No longer did individuals fighting for turf dominate it. Gurus with large followings sat on an equal level with non-guru godbrothers. And they were not the only ones to be humbled. The GBC itself, the 'ultimate managing authority,' had seen its own authority collapse, only to be resurrected by a 'lower house' of temple presidents.

Assuming extraordinary powers, the temple presidents had made the GBC submit itself to the judgement of its own appointed committee of 50 non-GBC godbrothers, thus in effect temporarily suspending itself, something that only Prabhupada while alive could have done. This action put the GBC and everyone in ISKCON on notice that no individual or group was beyond scrutiny.

Even 'ultimate authorities' have limits. As Shinn notes shortly after the momentous meetings of 1986 and 1987, 'the impressive fact for any careful observer of ISKCON's history is that it has been able to evolve in a very short time from a charismatic movement to a relatively stable institution in the face of a hostile external environment and a volatile governing structure within.' (Shinn, 1987: 60) From - <TABLE class=para cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=615 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=icjtitles vAlign=bottom height=50>


The Perils of Succession:

Heresies of Authority and Continuity In the Hare Krishna Movement <!-- #EndEditable -->


</TD><TD class=titles_2 vAlign=bottom height=50> </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=490><!-- #BeginEditable "insert main text/graphics/links here" -->









Spiritual Degrees for ISKCON Gurus Mandatory in 2008


[Amendment to ISKCON Law]


Although ISKCON law states mandatory and discretionary qualifications for gurus in ISKCON, and gurus having spiritual degrees like Bhaktivedanta and Bhakti Sastri is in the discretionary lists,

Spiritual exams, courses, and degrees were formerly not available but now are,

Srila Prabhupada, by mentioning in a letter that devotees with the Bhaktivedanta Degree would be considered for being gurus and initiating, established it as a qualification he considered important,

In 1987, when the standard for serving as a guru in ISKCON was adopted, the spiritual degree system was still in an early formative stage,


Spiritual degrees--Bhakti Sastri, Bhakti Vaibhava, and Bhaktivedanta (when available)--are now a mandatory qualification for being granted "no objection" status to serve as a guru in ISKCON.

404. Explanations for Resolutions

[internal Procedure Guideline]


The GBC deliberates for many hours prior to making a decision, but devotees generally do not understand the rationale behind the decision,

In the future, evidence for why decisions were made will help ISKCON better implement decisions,

When revisited years later, GBC resolutions are often unclear as to their original intention,

Without evidence of support from guru, sadhu, and sastra, GBC decisions are subject to undue challenge,


The GBC Secretary shall, wherever possible, include in the minutes an explanation of the reasoning and purpose for any new laws.

To demonstrate the correctness and authority of resolutions relating to spiritual or philosophical standards, the GBC shall provide for each such resolution a written explanation detailing its logic and purpose, with available evidence from guru, sadhu, and sastra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Indeed, Lord Chaitanya had given an open order for all to "become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land."5 But a succession of 'all' is a succession of none. Yet, anarchy was certainly not Prabhupada's intention.


Prabhupada as well as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja might have considered that to appoint successor gurus who initiate their own disciples would split up the movement and render it too weak in order to fight the materialists who don't leave without a struggle in this age of kali-yuga. So they both seem to have tried to first of all make the preaching strong and not break it up at the beginning stage by creating camps, or, even worse, installing unqualified parampara gurus.

Prabhupada preached in the West for only 10 years. So how to expect that his movement was strong enough for such kind of experiments like they're documented above?

Of course, Krishna's movement cannot be even defeated when run by only 5 devotees who strictly follow. But there has to be someone who really follows. Otherwise even the biggest Vaishnava institution can be brought down by the non-Vaishnavas within a short period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • 'It's not just only the bad devotees who have caused all the problems in ISKCON, the blame and responsibility also must be shared by all those good hard working dedicated devotees with good intentions, who have stood by and did nothing, even when they KNEW wrong was being done, letting the bad things happen year after year after year and doing nothing about it!!!'. - Discribing ISKCON in the1980s in Australia and America. Devotees new what was going on in the 80s, but did nothing.

It is certainly not ‘all’ Bhavananda’s fault either; his Godbrothers lavishly glorified him first before he had any disciples


Also he never ever demanded respect and worship off me, although Ramai Swami always would DEMAND it with threats to kick you out of the Temple if you did not fall at his feet, he was very arrogant, demanding and secretive and no-one could ever get too close to him.


He always treated me impersonally and always patronised me and others. On many occasions he would say “get down and bow when you see me coming’, he would demand proudly. Sadly he was a clever bully to those who were not submissive to him.


Anyway I never experienced that impersonalism with Bhavananda. It’s like Ramai had this invisible shield around him. I travelled with him for years like this and his 'coldness' was very frustrating. Even now he remains aloof from everyone even if his with them right in the middle of all the GBC men. Bhavananda was not like that. His Godbrothers, including myself, are to fault by taking his worship way over the top.


Back then, we had the 'frog in the well' mentality, puffed up with the little knowledge we had, especially Ramai Swami, he thought he new everything, but now we can see how blind we all were back then, Ramai Swami had no idea how to lead and protect the lives of others. 'He new everything that was going on'


He did not know how to deal with or handle so many basic issues he new about, he new me better than I new myself at the time but still had no idea how too deal with me or anyone else for that matter. I was too insecure to not go along with it all, after all, ISKCON was my only family.


Personally Bhavananda treated me fine, over all the years he was always kind and encouraging to me, he never ever demanded worship off me; in fact in all fairness to him, it was his Godbrothers, including myself, who saw him as a substitute 'Prabhupada' so to speak, and then treated him like Prabhupada, building him up to be a 'Prabhupada' we called 'Vishnupada'. His Godbrothers gave him that name; he certainly never gave it to himself.

Once again, when Bhavananda was away from his disciples, he was a reasonable person; he never ever raised his voice in anger to me, even though he did to others.




Ananda Prabhu should have been warned


I remember one time I became disturbed by what he did when I was Temple Commander of Vrndavana Temple in 1978. We used to go around to all the rooms in the Temple and Gurukula to see if they were clean in the morning, on this occasion, Bhavananda came for the inspection, all the Gurukulis were suppose to be in the Temple room chanting however, there was one room where two Gurukulis were still sleeping, Bhavananda went into a rage when he went into their room, picked one of the boys, Ananda Prabhu, who was 10 or 11 years old at the time, and threw him into the wall, then picked him up and did it a second time. I stood by and watched in surprise as I did not know nor experience that side of Bhavananda, after all his role as Guru had only just begun

What could I do, that’s just how it was in those days because that how we were treated when we went to school in the 50s and 60s. (I was 17 when I first went to the Temple in 1971) Bhavananda then turned to me and said “these boys need discipline, this place is not a free motel, make sure no one is in any of these rooms during the morning program”

In my mind I was thinking I should have warned the boys that Bhavananda was inspecting the gurukuli rooms with us as I new they were resting. Afterwards I went back to see if Ananda was alright, he had a hobby of reading books on airplanes and jets, which he was reading when I went into see him, he just carried on like nothing had happened’

Ananda Prabhu had a gash to his head that I treated and bandaged and some bruises on his body, I told him what had happened to him shocked me because I did not know Bhavananda could get so violent, as I was talking to him, Danavir, his school teacher, came in and yelled at him more for not attending the morning program.


  • Later I took him down Loi Bazaar in Vrndavana and we had a kumba Lassi drink (the best place in the world to get this drink) and checked out all the shops, he new so much about Vrndavana, showing me the best places to buy dhotis, shirts and Deities, then we visited Prabhupada’s room at the Radha Damodar Temple, Ananda Prabhu told me how early in the morning Srila Prabhupada would translate Srimad Bhagavatam and then chant his rounds. Afterwards walking around the samadhis of Jiva Goswami and Rupa Goswami chanting Hare Krishna. We then went to Davanala Kund and swam with others boys, on the banks of the Kund was a Shiva lingum and Ananda Prabhu and an older boy Dvarkadisha das ACBSP explained how the young girls from the village came to worship the lingum. I remember thinking what the early British Christian missionaries must of thought on seeing such worship. I remember someone took photos of us all swimming at Davanala Kund, love to see those photos now


  • Wakey wakey ISKCON


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was prevented from taking diksa from any of these rascals gurus. Something in my heart just said NO. Once you have read Prabhupada's books, are saturated in his vani, you have all you need to spot the frauds.

As soon as they opened their mouth, I knew. Later on when their duplicitous and criminal behavior were exposed, my knowledge was confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I was prevented from taking diksa from any of these rascals gurus. Something in my heart just said NO. Once you have read Prabhupada's books, are saturated in his vani, you have all you need to spot the frauds.


As soon as they opened their mouth, I knew. Later on when their duplicitous and criminal behavior were exposed, my knowledge was confirmed.


Well , not all of them, in time one will stand out to be a dynamic preacher of Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Indradyumna Swami is a brilliant preacher and has also past the test of time


But don't forget those who were also partly responsible, as very nicely explained here-



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Vigraha


"It is only honest here to point out that Srila Sridhar Maharaj from the Gaudiya Math, not only supported the 11 Zonal Acaryas in ISKCON late in 1977, but also encouraged them all to be initiating Spiritual Masters in the mood of Srila Prabhupada.

I witnessed this at his Gaudiya math Temple in 1978 when he glorified the new Zonal gurus in ISKCON.


Also Narayana Maharaj originally supported and encouraged the 11 gurus, regardless of what he says today. So as far as I am concerned, Narayana Maharaj is just as naive and Spiritually immature as us Godbrothers were who also pushed the 11 guru worship that is really just an imitation of Srila Prabhupada, just like a child imitates their hero



Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a crap shoot in any event. The statistics are inauspicious. I shouldn't gamble, least of all with my spiritual welfare.

The involvment of the Math gurus is a nefarious incident in the double dealing of the GBC who courted them and then rejected them.

How anybody can take shelter of those who come late from an organization such as the Gaudiya Math, whose history and destruction if anything should be an object lesson in how NOT to succeed an acarya, is a wonder to me.

Besides where were these wonderful gurus when Prabhupada was spreading his mission? I categorically do not trust them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


How anybody can take shelter of those who come late from an organization such as the Gaudiya Math, whose history and destruction if anything should be an object lesson in how NOT to succeed an acarya, is a wonder to me.


Besides where were these wonderful gurus when Prabhupada was spreading his mission? I categorically do not trust them.


Either do I and I have meet all of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<center>Srila Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Deva Goswami

<tt>Sri Guru & His Grace</tt>

First Part of Chapter Eleven </center>

<center> <tt>The Land </tt><tt> of </tt><tt> Gurus</tt>



In the Srimad-Bhagavatam

dot_clear.gif (11.9.31) it is stated:



<center> na hy ekasmad guror jnanam

su-sthiram syat su-puskalam </center> "One certainly cannot get complete knowledge from only one guru." In the highest stage of devotion, we must see not only one guru; we must see that guru is everywhere. In the land of Krsna, all are gurus; our transformation should be towards that. Everything in the spiritual world, the entire environment is our guru and we are servants. To enter into Vaikuntha, or Goloka, means that on all sides we must see guru and pay our respects. There is gradation of course, but all are guru .

There are different classes of guru. All Vaisnavas are considered gurus. If the spiritual master gives even one letter to the disciple, what is contained there is infinite. The knowledge given by the spiritual master is infinite. To know and understand it fully, however, different sources are necessary.

In the highest position one can read devotion to Krsna from everywhere. If we can attain the proper vision, then everything will supply me inspiration towards the performance of our duties. Whenever Mahaprabhu saw a forest, he saw it as Vrndavana. Whenever he saw a river, he saw the Yamuna. Whenever he saw a hill, he saw it as Govardhana hill. In that highest stage, wherever we cast our glance, it will remind us about our Lord. They will teach us, they will press us to engage ourselves in service to Krsna. That is the duty of guru. Wherever we cast our glance, whatever we come in contact with will only excite us "Do your duty." That is guru. Our guru is whoever gives us impetus for the service of Krsna, whoever helps us to look towards the center. So, because every atom in Vaikuntha and Goloka will encourage us towards our duty, they are all our gurus. Gurus will be very amply available when we can raise ourselves to a higher level.

Guru-Dispels Darkness

When we are in the lower stages of material conception, everything we see takes us away from the center by the out-carrying current. Whatever we see says "Oh, come and enjoy me." The invitation of enjoyment is found here in the lower level, and the inspiration of renunciation is also found in a particular stage. The impersonalists who desire salvation say "Whatever we find here is temporary. Reject it all!" But devotion is the positive side. From the side of devotion, everything will draw me towards the center, towards Krsna. And those who will help us in that way, are our gurus. Guru means "one who dispels the darkness of both enjoyment and renunciation . "

Krsna tells us not to particularize in one point (acaryam mam vijaniyan ). There are so many siksa gurus dot_clear.gifin the line, and it is our good fortune to see more gurus, to come to the stage where we see gurus everywhere. Everywhere we shall try to draw the hints of the auspicious presence of Godhead. Krsna says, "One who can see me everywhere, and everything in me is never lost to Me, nor I to him (yo mam pasyati sarvatra, sarvam ca mayi pasyati ). We shall try to see Him in every medium. Then our position is safe. Not to see guru is a dangerous position. But if we can see guru everywhere, advising us to concentrate our energy towards the service of God, then we'll be safe. Of course, there is also a specific vision of guru, from whom I can get the maximum immediate help. But ultimately, Krsna says, "I am the acarya,dot_clear.gif "See Me in him."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find very curious among many Iskcon devotees is a categorical and complete acceptance of Prabhupada, and a categorical and complete rejection of his Godbrothers. To me that approach seems 100% sentiment based.


Rationally speaking, we can admire many, many wonderful things these Vaishnavas represent, and we can also find a thing here and there that is perhaps subject to a critical analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


What I find very curious among many Iskcon devotees is a categorical and complete acceptance of Prabhupada, and a categorical and complete rejection of his Godbrothers. To me that approach seems 100% sentiment based.


Rationally speaking, we can admire many, many wonderful things these Vaishnavas represent, and we can also find a thing here and there that is perhaps subject to a critical analysis.


I admire some of the writings of Sridar Maharaj, I have previously posted essays of his on this forum however, for me ISKCON, is the authority on Gaudiya Vaishnavism regardless of it's 'teething' problems simply because I am a disciple of Srila Prabhupada.


Aparantly so is beggar and I wonder why he does not quote more of Prabhupad - everything is in his books, letters and lectures, all easily available over the web


Go on a kirtan with Indradyumna Swami ACBSP and Sri Prahlada HDS and you will see ISKCON is in some very good hands, although there are still many leadeship lessons to TO BE learnT

Link to comment
Share on other sites


What I find very curious among many Iskcon devotees is a categorical and complete acceptance of Prabhupada, and a categorical and complete rejection of his Godbrothers. To me that approach seems 100% sentiment based.


Rationally speaking, we can admire many, many wonderful things these Vaishnavas represent, and we can also find a thing here and there that is perhaps subject to a critical analysis.

You commit a threefold error -

1. I am not an ISKCON devotee

2. I have no sentimental reasons to trust or distrust. My reasons are based often and almost entirely on Prabhupada's instructions, specifically his explanation of a bona fide acarya.

3. History is full of lessons which have nothing to do with sentiment. The Math gurus absence and criticism of Prabhupada while he was spreading his mission and the subsequent brief courtship in aiding and abetting the zonal acarya fiasco speak volumes beyond sentiment.


You are the sentimental one. You are blind to the threefold problems mentioned above and even try to excuse the blatant travesty the GBC made of Prabhupada's legacy, simply for the sake of loyalty to your new guru. And what about that? Why do you find it necessary to acquire a new one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


... simply for the sake of loyalty to your new guru. And what about that? Why do you find it necessary to acquire a new one?


Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

One should not proudly think that one can understand the transcendental loving service of the Lord simply by reading books... One must accept a Vaisnava guru (adau gurv-asrayam), and then by questions and answers one should gradually learn what pure devotional service to Krsna is. That is called the parampara system. (Cc. Antya-lila 7.53, purp.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites


You commit a threefold error -

1. I am not an ISKCON devotee

2. I have no sentimental reasons to trust or distrust. My reasons are based often and almost entirely on Prabhupada's instructions, specifically his explanation of a bona fide acarya.

3. History is full of lessons which have nothing to do with sentiment. The Math gurus absence and criticism of Prabhupada while he was spreading his mission and the subsequent brief courtship in aiding and abetting the zonal acarya fiasco speak volumes beyond sentiment.


You are the sentimental one. You are blind to the threefold problems mentioned above and even try to excuse the blatant travesty the GBC made of Prabhupada's legacy, simply for the sake of loyalty to your new guru. And what about that? Why do you find it necessary to acquire a new one?


1. You are an Iskcon devotee by your acceptance of Prabhupada as your sole guru

2. Blind acceptance of anybody's instructions is pure sentiment

3. Prabhupada was far more critical of his Godbrothers than they were ever critical of him.


I have not accepted any "new" gurus in the last 15+ years. I see senior Vaishnavas like Sridhara Maharaja or Narayana Maharaja as my siksa gurus, just like Srila Prabhupada is my siksa guru. My gurus are our entire Sampradaya - something you will hopefuly understand one day. I would have never accepted Prabhupada if he did not represent the proper Vaishnava sampradaya. My loyalty is to the sampradaya, not to any one guru from that sampradaya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


My gurus are our entire Sampradaya - something you will hopefuly understand one day. I would have never accepted Prabhupada if he did not represent the proper Vaishnava sampradaya. My loyalty is to the sampradaya, not to any one guru from that sampradaya.



I have to admit I like this broad approach to things and the idea that you have to have one living guru and be subservient to that one living guru is the thing that has always turned me off about Krishna Consciousness. When I read the story about Jada Bharata or Lord Rsabadheva I feel like I am getting instruction from them so I like your broad approach and how you have moved away from the guru personality cult platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Do you mean by this that you are really striving to be a member of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's prema nama sankirtan movement?


I have firm faith in the line coming down from Lord Caitanya and the taste for the type of spirituality it carries. This is what I try to develop in myself and help others in developing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Those who never learn how to appreciate other Vaishnavas, will in turn be not appreciated by others.



Other Vaishnavas like Prabhupada and his spiritual master and his spiritual master? Gaudiya Vaisnavism has its sampradaya. There is nothing narrow about accepting it especially when its version of Vaisnavism is non-sectarian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1. You are an Iskcon devotee by your acceptance of Prabhupada as your sole guru


Nonsense. ISKCON is an institution and at this point has so deviated from Prabhuapda's vani has to hardly synonymous. That is a political label - not a philosophical one.



2. Blind acceptance of anybody's instructions is pure sentiment

But blind acceptance of the Math gurus is not?

Citing Prabhupada's authority is no more blind, than citing any other acarya.


3. Prabhupada was far more critical of his Godbrothers than they were ever critical of him.

That could be debated ad nauseam and has. Nevertheless you prefer to ally yourself with his critics.


I have not accepted any "new" gurus in the last 15+ years. I see senior Vaishnavas like Sridhara Maharaja or Narayana Maharaja as my siksa gurus, just like Srila Prabhupada is my siksa guru.a.

But you quote the latter almost exclusively labelling those who accept Prabhupada's purports as authoritative as 'Prabhupada only' and blind.

I quote other acaryas also. But not the former who I do not trust blindly considering their history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group

  • Create New...