Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Devotee trades up

Rate this topic


theist

Recommended Posts

 

Instead of simply focusing on his own mood of seva, KK makes a huge deal of rejecting his diksa guru. IMO this is very immature and going against established Vaishnava etiquette. Another cheaply made episode of Iskcon's soap opera "The gurus of our lives"...

Could be that others follow his example and in this way things will change in that sense, that ISKCON has to learn to deal with it properly and not cover up/push things aside.

 

ISKCON's "public affairs spokesman" Anuttama dasa says that this abuse of position phenomena within ISKCON is -- just like the abuse of position problem of the Catholic Church. No!

 

Every devout Catholic can assure you the Catholic Church never said that Lord Jesus is a conditioned soul neophyte. No, they do not say that and have never said that. This is illegal slander of both Jesus and the entire Catholic Church and all of its members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Every devout Catholic can assure you the Catholic Church never said that Lord Jesus is a conditioned soul neophyte. No, they do not say that and have never said that. This is illegal slander of both Jesus and the entire Catholic Church and all of its members.

 

Are you comparing the position of guru in Iskcon with the position of Jesus in Catholic church? A guru in Iskcon is not necessarily a liberated soul, and Jesus in CC is God :rolleyes:

 

Rejecting gurus for social or political reasons is against Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. There are very clear injunctions from our acharyas as to when a guru can be rejected. A disciple can accept another siksa guru that inspires him more than his diksa guru, but a formal rejection of a diksa guru is a big deal and MUST NOT be taken lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by Kulapavana

Insteadof simply focusing on his own mood of seva, KK makes a huge deal ofrejecting his diksa guru. IMO this is very immature and going againstestablished Vaishnava etiquette. Another cheaply made episode ofIskcon's soap opera "The gurus of our lives"...

</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

All he made was a simple statement. Breach of Vaisnava etiquette???? Soap opera????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All he made was a simple statement. Breach of Vaisnava etiquette???? Soap opera????

 

What he said is indeed simple. KK rejected his diksa guru because he blessed a gay couple. As far as I know in the Gaudiya tradition there is no precedent for such an action. Past acharyas cited rejection of Vaishnavism as the reason for rejecting one's guru, or repeated immoral activities on guru's behalf. Being kind to gay people hardly qualifies for either.

 

The 'guru soap opera' refers to all kinds of guru drama being played in Iskcon over the years: from personality cultism, zonal acharyaism, rock star groupism, to ritvikvada, and other assorted colors of the psychodelic guru rainbow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What he said is indeed simple. KK rejected his diksa guru because he blessed a gay couple. As far as I know in the Gaudiya tradition there is no precedent for such an action. Past acharyas cited rejection of Vaishnavism as the reason for rejecting one's guru, or repeated immoral activities on guru's behalf. Being kind to gay people hardly qualifies for either.

 

The 'guru soap opera' refers to all kinds of guru drama being played in Iskcon over the years: from personality cultism, zonal acharyaism, rock star groupism, to ritvikvada, and other assorted colors of the psychodelic guru rainbow...

 

It just comes down to for what ever reasons, persons have taken or have been put in posts for which they are unqualified. Hridayananda M. presentations of Krsna Consciousness have clearly become mixed with the 'objective' perspective of the university professor mindset. He fought an uphill battle and lost at least for now, because he fought from a position of weakness not strength. It was the dictates of his own mind that sent him to graduate school in the first place, not the advice of a superior sadhu.

I have heard his classes where he implicitly criticizes Srila Prabhupada's translations and gives his own unique perspective which often is way off the point of pure devotional service to Krsna. His socio-politcal views are just a part of a centrifugal drift away from the concepts of suddha Krsna bhakti. In reality he has already very much separated himself from mainsteam Iskcon but he is still, often requested to speak in the temples for eccentric, separatist programs have become the norm in the religio-political stalemate that exists within Corporate Iskcon, as it has become a ship without a true rudder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What he said is indeed simple. KK rejected his diksa guru because he blessed a gay couple. As far as I know in the Gaudiya tradition there is no precedent for such an action. Past acharyas cited rejection of Vaishnavism as the reason for rejecting one's guru, or repeated immoral activities on guru's behalf. Being kind to gay people hardly qualifies for either.

 

The 'guru soap opera' refers to all kinds of guru drama being played in Iskcon over the years: from personality cultism, zonal acharyaism, rock star groupism, to ritvikvada, and other assorted colors of the psychodelic guru rainbow...

 

 

And which past acarya blessed gay marriages? Therefore he did not reject a GV acarya at all, only a pretenderthat has an interest separate from his spiritual master. Such a personshould not be accepted in the first place, but having done that shouldbe rejected when one gains more knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And which past acarya blessed gay marriages? Therefore he did not reject a GV acarya at all, only a pretenderthat has an interest separate from his spiritual master. Such a personshould not be accepted in the first place, but having done that shouldbe rejected when one gains more knowledge.

 

Do not confuse a guru with an acharya. There were thousands of Gaudiya gurus in the last 200 years and only a few acharyas. Did any Vaishnava acharya before Prabhupada gave sannyasa to gay disciples only a couple of years after they embraced Vaishnavism? No, they did not. Yet we praise Prabhupada for being merciful and a pioneer.

 

If a sannyasi choses to bless a gay couple that can certainly be seen as controversial, but a grounds for rejection as a diksa guru? IMO that is absurd.

 

KK also does not indicate whether he actually talked to his guru trying to reconcile the matter - another step our acharyas recommend. I do not know him in person so I can't say whether he is sincere and confused, or just seeking pratistha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Sri Krsna Bhajanamrita by Acharya Narahari Sarkara Thakur:

 

Verse 59

If the spiritual master commits a wrongful act breaking Vaisnava

relative principles then in that case one should in a solitary

place, confront him for his rectification using logic and appropriate

conclusions from sadhu, sastra and guru references, but one is not to

give him up.

 

Verse 60

One should not be hesitant or fearful because one is confronting or

challenging a spiritual master.

"For it has been prescribed that one must appropriately discipline

even a spiritual master who is:

 

*bewildered about what he should or shouldn't do;

*who is inexperienced or ignorant:

*who has deviated from the Krsna conscious path;

*or if he is bewildered by false pride."

 

Verse 61

This statement of the revealed scriptures is applicable at all times

and under all circumstances.

 

Verse 62

The natural behavior of the Vaisnava devotees is to take complete

refuge of Lord Sri Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

accepting Him as their principal and real shelter. The very life

of the Vaisnava devotees of the Lord is singing the glories or Lord

Sri Krsna, describing and expanding the fame of Lord Sri Krsna, and

discussing the nectar of His transcendental pastimes.

 

Verse 63

The authorized course of action is to continue, as before, with one's

prescribed devotional service. One may take guidance through

or instructions from the Vaisnavas, as all Vaisnavas are considered

guru or "spiritual master," or one may use one's own intelligence,

duly considering the relevant instructions from sadhu, sastra and

guru. In all cases one should continue in one's devotional service.

 

Verse 64

However, if the spiritual master:

*acts envious towards 'isvarebrantah', that which is

connected with the Supreme;

*is bewildered regarding the Supreme Personality of

Godhead;

*is averse to expanding the fame of Lord Krsna;

*personally refuses to accept hearing or chanting about

the glorious pastimes of Lord Sri Krsna;

*has become totally bewildered, listening to the false

praise of ignorant persons and day by day is more

materially contaminated and fallen

___then the spiritual master must be renounced.

 

Verse 65

Under those circumstances one should not doubt, "How can I give up my

spiritual master?" With a strong desire for achieving spontaneous

devotional service and attaining the lotus feet of Lord Krsna, the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, a devotee accepts the shelter of a

spiritual master, if that spiritual master takes on "asuric" qualities

or a demoniac mentality then it is one's duty to reject such a demon

"asura" guru and in his place accept a Krsna conscious spiritual master

and worship him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But Hrydayananda, ACB Swami's disciple, who also has the same doubts about ACBS, is a Guru, not an acarya, although he encourages his disciples to call him ACARYADEVA.

 

 

Recap for Andy: Hridayananda Swami is a Vaishnava guru to a lot of devotees. That is a fact. He is not an acharya IMO. Srila Prabhupada is a genuine Vaishnava acharya IMO.

 

Read the excerpt from SRIKRISHNA BHAJANAMRTA I posted. (more here:

http://www.krishna-das.com/ksyberspace/docs/skb.txt )

 

Once you take diksa from a G. Vaishnava guru you need to follow the tradition as explained by Narahari Sarkara Thakura. Krsna Kirti did not follow these rules and thus his decision is maya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do not confuse a guru with an acharya.

Translation= AC Bhaktivedanta Swami was a confused old man who was susceptible to being conned by hippies, and made decisions that had poor results for the Krsna Consciousness Movement, and even though if not for his efforts I wouldn't know squat about Gaudiya Vaisnavism, he clearly was not an Acarya, but maybe a Guru, maybe not, scholars will debate that til the end of time (as long as I am there to cast doubt.)

 

But Hrydayananda, ACB Swami's disciple, who also has the same doubts about ACBS, is a Guru, not an acarya, although he encourages his disciples to call him ACARYADEVA.

 

 

If a sannyasi choses to bless a gay couple that can certainly be seen as controversial, but a grounds for rejection as a diksa guru?

The great Acaryadeva Hridayananda, who according to his own public record has rejected the teachings, scriptural understandings, and instructions of his Diksa Guru, ACBSP on the grounds of the dictates of his mind's own need for pratistha is not very absurd, but....

 

He is actually a Sanyassi of the renounced order of life (renounced his Guru that is) and Krsna Kirti his ex disciple is looking for pratistha by rejecting him for breaking with the mood of ACBSP and past Acaryas, even though they weren't really acaryas, and is absurd.

 

Is everyone clear now?

 

Don't quit your day job Kula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One time in the early 90's, Srila Govinda Maharaja of the Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math was on the same plane with Hrdayananda Maharaja. Hrdayananda M. asked, "please stop re-initiating my disciples". So when Srila Govinda M. came to the U.S. he announced that he would no longer re-initiate

Hrdayananda M's disciples because he was not fallen. Then this was publicly announced. The Hrdayananda M disciples who were there, just didn't say anything or even lied when questioned and all ended up getting the connection with Srila Govinda Maharaja. I remember how anxious they were to break their connection with Hrdayananda M and establish what they believed was a real one. We have also heard that there were also certain inhabitants of Vraja 5,000 years ago, who were even willing to renounce scriptural injunctions to obtain their goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Recap for Andy: Hridayananda Swami is a Vaishnava guru to a lot of devotees. That is a fact. He is not an acharya IMO. Srila Prabhupada is a genuine Vaishnava acharya IMO.

 

Read the excerpt from SRIKRISHNA BHAJANAMRTA I posted. (more here:

http://www.krishna-das.com/ksyberspace/docs/skb.txt )

 

Once you take diksa from a G. Vaishnava guru you need to follow the tradition as explained by Narahari Sarkara Thakura. Krsna Kirti did not follow these rules and thus his decision is maya.

 

Ok just to recap.

 

The person Kula claims he believes is an acarya, who by his own public record belives was fallible, made mistakes, and not able to give diksa now that he is dead and gone, has this to say.

 

 

Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.25.28 -- Bombay, November 28, 1974

Not that I accept you guru just to know how much you are learned, how much you can talk with me, not with that spirit. (indistinct) ...that I surrender to you sir, śiṣyas te 'ham, I have become śiṣya. Śiṣya means voluntarily accepting his ruling. Whatever guru will say he will accept, that is called śiṣya. Śiṣya means ruling, who accept disciple, means disciplinary measure. Whatever guru says, one who accepts he becomes disciple. He, I don't care for my guru's order and still I am disciple, that is not accepting guru. Of course it has become a fashion like that, to have a guru but don't care for guru.

 

According to this person's own words, his so called disciple, Hridayananda, has not accepted him as Guru. No link.

 

Yet Kula claims Hridayananda is a Guru. Even though the one he doesn't actually believe is Acarya, but now claims is acarya, says this..

 

 

From SSR 2

"Well, if he is bad, how can he become a guru? [Laughter.] How can iron become gold? Actually, a guru cannot be bad, for if someone is bad, he cannot be a guru. You cannot say “bad guru.” That is a contradiction. What you have to do is simply try to understand what a genuine guru is. The definition of a genuine guru is that he is simply talking about God—that’s all. If he’s talking about some other nonsense, then he is not a guru. A guru cannot be bad. There is no question of a bad guru, any more than a red guru or a white guru. Guru means “genuine guru.”

 

 

Yet Kula insists that this Bad Guru who has disobeyed the orders of his Guru somehow is qualified anyway to give "Diksa" (Transcendental Knowledge of their Eternal Self in Relation to Guru and God), and should not be rejected.

 

Ok, now we are cookin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Hrdayananda M disciples who were there, just didn't say anything or even lied when questioned and all ended up getting the connection with Srila Govinda Maharaja. I remember how anxious they were to break their connection with Hrdayananda M and establish what they believed was a real one. We have also heard that there were also certain inhabitants of Vraja 5,000 years ago, who were even willing to renounce scriptural injunctions to obtain their goal.

 

IMO that is a bogus application of devotional sentiment. Why do you need another diksa if we are preaching that we are a 'siksa sampradaya'? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The person Kula claims he believes is an acarya, who by his own public record belives was fallible, made mistakes, and not able to give diksa now that he is dead and gone, has this to say.

 

I accept Narahari Sarkara's verdict on the matter of gurus-gone-bad.

 

 

 

According to this person's own words, his so called disciple, Hridayananda, has not accepted him as Guru. No link.

 

He took diksa from him, he took the name Hridayananda gave him (and is still signing his letters with that name), but Andy thinks there is no link between these two Vaishnavas... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

<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 bhaktajan --[in response to andy108]

Exhibit: "endearing himself to a demographic who he has identified as being a target market"

 

Exhibit: "they will die struggling to keep a strangle hold on the innocents in the Iskcon rank and file, and any other innocent seeker"

 

Exhibit: "I scoured the internet for years and read all I could from Srila Prabhupada alone."

 

Exhibit: "brought me to a temple or two for Sunday feast, and explained the corruption scenario as he knew it."

 

Exhibit: "I traveled to many temples and farm communities, and lived at a few. I participated ... as a ghost but the extreme arrogance of the "leaders", and the abuse their victims tolerated was beyond my capacity ... I can say I was the most mature and human person everywhere I went."

 

Exhibit: "I have no individual potency to start a movement on my own."

 

Exhibit: "... I am certain I could help to run a bonafide Sankirtana program via the training I have picked up little by little during my infiltrations ..."

 

Exhibit: "Nevermind infusing a locality with a broad spectrum of Vaisnava culture."

 

Exhibit: "So all I have left is to try to pick these usurpers off, philisophically, exposing their true agendas, one at a time. I find out who those people are on the internet. The ones who have any link, any influence over Iskcon or those interested in Iskcon. The ones who speculate themselves into some position of authority . . ."

 

Exhibit: "It keeps me learning the philosophy and able to defend the truth. ... and wards off my sense of impotence. And also exposes these rascals ..."

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Forest Gump lives!

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::

NEWS FLASH:

This stuff is so old --they've built and worn down and re-built football stadiums in the time it has taken you to get up to speed on these topics. Maybe you can save some people in Rwanda; Cambodia; Thailand; Aids Wards; South Africa; Congo; Narco-traffic Wars on the Rio-Grand; how about the droughts; alternative energy sources --Oh how you lament because you can't fit in at any ashram any where you go --you can't even make your own way?

 

PS: If it is posted on the SUN --I discard. But that is my opinion.

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

andy108's rebuttal:

Gee, how kind of you to pick my points out of context and line them up so it looks like I am a confused contradictory hypocrite.

 

Does that make you feel better about your own impotence?

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

bhaktajan's rebuttal:

"and line them up"

 

I lined and up and consecutively enumerated them . . . read carefully; there's danger at every step in the material world; it's like walking on a razor's edge.

 

Why must you keep on about other's impotence? I guess it's the thought that counts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you comparing the position of guru in Iskcon with the position of Jesus in Catholic church? A guru in Iskcon is not necessarily a liberated soul, and Jesus in CC is God :rolleyes:

 

Rejecting gurus for social or political reasons is against Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. There are very clear injunctions from our acharyas as to when a guru can be rejected. A disciple can accept another siksa guru that inspires him more than his diksa guru, but a formal rejection of a diksa guru is a big deal and MUST NOT be taken lightly.

Well no, Lord Jesus Christ is considered by the Catholic Church as the son of God. This is yet another example how Iskconites are twisting anything to make it fit for justifying their chaos.

Suddenly Jesus= God and an Iskcon guru can be a neophyte but has to be worshiped as God's direct representative? In other words they demand to be worshiped like Jesus, this is what it is. Neophytes want to be worshiped as God's direct representative=Lord Jesus. This is actually slandering Jesus and the Christian religion. Christians would never say that a neophyte should be worshiped like Lord Jesus.

I always thought, wow, these Christians are so sinful, meat eating, killing of animals etc. But now it should be clear that Iskconites are even more fallen. Enforcing upon innocent people that they should worship someone as God's direct representative who is in fact a conditioned soul. This is by far a bigger sin than all this stuff what the Christians do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He took diksa from him, he took the name Hridayananda gave him (and is still signing his letters with that name), but Andy thinks there is no link between these two Vaishnavas... :rolleyes:

 

First you prove that a rascal who treats his Spiritual Master the way Hridya. did is somehow qualified to "give Diksa", somehow a personal manifestation of Srila Madana Mohana Vigraha.

 

 

CC Adi Lila, 1.47 Purport

 

The initiating spiritual master is a personal manifestation of Śrīla Madana-mohana vigraha, whereas the instructing spiritual master is a personal representative of Śrīla Govindadeva vigraha.

 

The only link between Hridaya. and KKdas is that they have been playing each other and all around them in a game of one-upsmanship from day one, never looking to repent their material tendencies.

 

That Narahari Sarkara Thakur quote you gave could have been translated by any old Joe Schmo looking to manipulate the masses.

 

I will go with what the Current link in the Gaudiya Line had to say on the issue.

 

There is no Bad Guru. There is no Fallen Master of Spirituality.

 

You are a Master of Spirituality or not a master of Spirituality.

 

If someone accepts another person as a Master, hoping to become Spiritual, and the person they accept has not mastered their own spiritual nature, they are sailing down $#!T$ Creek with no paddle. And were not fully or sincerely interested in becoming "Spiritual" to begin with.

 

Same for one who "surrenders" to an actual Spiritual Master in order to get some money, and then "unsurrenders". Spiritual transformation was never on their to do list to begin with.

 

 

March 10, 1972, Vrndavana

Ācārya, guru, he is completely surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. He has taken the shelter of Kṛṣṇa, being completely freed from all material affection. Brahmaṇy upaśamāśrayam. Everything... Everyone has got some material desire to fulfill, but a guru or ācārya has no such business. That is the symptom of ācārya. He has no more any material business. Brahmaṇy upaśamāśrayam. He has finished all business of material satisfaction. That is the symptom of ācārya. And śābde pare ca niṣṇātam. And he has taken full bath in the ocean of transcendental (indistinct). Śābde pare ca niṣṇātaṁ brahmaṇy upaśamāśrayam. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta [sB 11.3.21], one should surrender to such spiritual master. Jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam, when he is actually serious about inquiring the transcendental subject matter. Otherwise there is no need of accepting guru or ācārya. He has no business. If one is not interested in the transcendental subject matter... Just like so many people come, they have no interest. Unnecessarily they talk and waste time. As soon as I asked that man that "If I say something, whether you will accept?" He said, "If I like it, then I shall accept." Then why come to waste my time to inquire from me?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Enforcing upon innocent people that they should worship someone as God's direct representative who is in fact a conditioned soul, this is by far a bigger sin than all this stuff what the Christians do.

 

Prabhupada said in NOD that even a kanistha adhikari can be a guru. Kanisthas are certainly conditioned souls, yet a disciple should see them as a representative of God.

 

Christians claim that Jesus is God. Just google up "Jesus is God" and see what you find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well no, Lord Jesus Christ is considered by the Catholic Church as the son of God. This is yet another example how Iskconites are twisting anything to make it fit for justifying their chaos.

Suddenly Jesus= God and an Iskcon guru can be a neophyte but has to be worshiped as God's direct representative? In other words they demand to be worshiped like Jesus, this is what it is. Neophytes want to be worshiped as God's direct representative=Lord Jesus. This is actually slandering Jesus and the Christian religion. Christians would never say that a neophyte should be worshiped like Lord Jesus.

I always thought, wow, these Christians are so sinful, meat eating, killing of animals etc. But now it should be clear that Iskconites are even more fallen. Enforcing upon innocent people that they should worship someone as God's direct representative who is in fact a conditioned soul. This is by far a bigger sin than all this stuff what the Christians do.

 

 

Amen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Prabhupada said in NOD that even a kanistha adhikari can be a guru. Kanisthas are certainly conditioned souls, yet a disciple should see them as a representative of God.

 

Christians claim that Jesus is God. Just google up "Jesus is God" and see what you find.

No, Prabhupada says in NOD a diksa-guru has to be an uttama adikari. Don't come up with the guru confusion. Guru is anyone who says, do this. Diksa guru is something else as pointed out today by a Brijbasi Vaishnava.

 

Why Deprive People?

BY: R. DASA

Feb 16, 2009, INDIA — A message to Gurukripa prabhu.

Dear Bhakta Dasa and Gurukripa prabhus, Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I came to Krishna Consciousness at age 15 in 1975, and was 17 when I joined the nearest Temple, a couple of hours drive away. Then I ended up staying at the Vrindavan Krishna Balaram Temple in the fall of '77, when I got to see Srila Prabhupada. While there I got to see you, Gurukrpa prabhu, and really admired you and your band of men. I am not sure all the stories about you were true, but we pretty much thought of you being like a transcendental Robin Hood.

Anyway, I really appreciated someone like you speaking up about the (mis)leadership and what happened. I left ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's antya lila and had a preaching center for a few years, but mostly just preaching to my parents over the years. They have, as have I, noticed that many things are wrong in the state of affairs: repeated scandals, book changes, poor circulation of BTG, sannyasis condoning homosexuality/crazy artwork/watching sports, rubber stamped gurus, so-called devotees (female and male) criticizing Srila Prabhupada -- AND NO ONE (in the institution) CORRECTS THEM, etc.

Now, here is my concern: when Srila Prabhupada was on this planet, he agreed to initiate people without meeting them, and simply on the basis of the recommendation of his senior disciples. PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DEVOTEES WHO GOT INITIATED IN THIS MANNER NEVER HAD THE FORTUNE OF HAVING SRILA PRABHUPADA COOK FOR THEM OR RIDING IN THE SAME CAR, OR ANY PHYSICAL INTERACTION. Then just a few months (four) before departing, he agreed to formalize the ritvik system and never placed a time restriction on that. Sure, he wanted his disciples to be gurus, but that doesn't mean they have to become diksa gurus, at least not inside the institution he founded. For example, in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Srila Prabhupada states in the introduction:

  • "...Here the Lord clearly tells Arjuna that He is making him the first receiver of a new parampar? (disciplic succession) because the old succession was broken. It was the Lord’s wish, therefore, to establish another parampar? in the same line of thought that was coming down from the sun-god to others, and it was His wish that His teaching be distributed anew by Arjuna. He wanted Arjuna to become the authority ...."

Even though it is stated that the Lord wanted to make Arjuna the first receiver of a new parampara, and an "authority", we never find Arjuna's name in the list of disciplic succession. In other words, one can still be guru/authority in the parampara, without becoming a diksa guru.

Now in the case of my parents, they do not have absolute faith in anyone except Srila Prabhupada. SO, IF PEOPLE IN THE PAST COULD GET INITIATED FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA WITHOUT MEETING HIM, WHY SHOULD WE DEPRIVE PEOPLE LIKE MY PARENTS FROM THE SAME OPPORTUNITY? After all, as Srila Prabhupada himself said, the real initiation is in the heart, and the ceremony is just a formality. He also told V... prabhu that just by reading his books, people are initiated.

Even IF the ritvik system goes against tradition (and that is very debatable), why deprive people in Kali yuga from getting initiated by the greatest Acarya ever known in the history of Vaishnavism, who carried the seeds of bhakti across the globe, and whose appearance was predicted in the scriptures? Did not Ramanujacarya, out of compassion, go up on the roof and start shouting out the mantra that could liberate the common man, even though he was told not to do so?

Sincerely,

R Dasa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Prabhupada said in NOD that even a kanistha adhikari can be a guru. Kanisthas are certainly conditioned souls, yet a disciple should see them as a representative of God.

 

Christians claim that Jesus is God. Just google up "Jesus is God" and see what you find.

TRUE: "Prabhupada said in NOD that even a kanistha adhikari can be a guru"

 

FALSE: "Kanisthas are certainly conditioned souls."

There are pure neophytes. See Caitanya Caritamrta for examples.

 

Neophytes who disobey their Guru are not able to be a representative of Madana Mohana Vigraha and initiate others with Divya Jnana.

 

When they repent and become properly situated under the shelter of their Guru's instructions they become purified and can be considered a pure devotee. Like Candrasekara Prabhu is noted as being in CC.

 

Now in the case of the Kanistha Adhikari known as Hridayananda das, who took Diksa from Srila Prabhupada, just his assuming the position of initiating Guru to anyone is disobeying Srila Prabhupada's instructions on the matter. Not just his Ritvik instruction, but from his BOOKS. As a matter of fact from the very NOD purport you cite in his defense. Read it and understand. Especially the three bolded parts.

 

 

The Nectar of Instruction : NoI Texts : NoI 5 : PURPORT :

In this verse Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī advises the devotee to be intelligent enough to distinguish between the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, madhyama-adhikārī and uttama-adhikārī. The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has given some practical hints to the effect that an uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava can be recognized by his ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaiṣṇavism. One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikārī. A neophyte Vaiṣṇava or a Vaiṣṇava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikārī as a spiritual master.

 

 

Facts

-Hridayananda is known to have disobeyed his Spiritual Master's instructions just after he disappeared.

 

-He has for 30+ years been guilty of imitating his Guru (a devotee situated on a higher platform), while simultaneously criticizing, minimizing, and contradicting his Guru in public.

 

-He has accepted disciples as if he was uttama which he is not.

 

How much more do you need. NO DIKSA. Sorry. And yes, this extends to your ex-Bad Guru HariKesh.

 

You are still formally uninitiated.

 

And apparently are still working on the Siksa part, kicking and screaming as you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Prabhupada said in NOD that even a kanistha adhikari can be a guru. Kanisthas are certainly conditioned souls, yet a disciple should see them as a representative of God.

 

Christians claim that Jesus is God. Just google up "Jesus is God" and see what you find.

Right as priest, should see them as officiating priest who is not to be seen as God's direct representative but as priestly representative. Remember, priests are allowed to quit/fall/leave. This is where your neophyte gurus are positioned, they want to have the privilege to quit office. Who can deny? This is priest, not Vaishnava sampradaya acarya.

No one ever complained for saying that Kirtanananda should not have been allowed to become a diksa guru, rather the GBC itself expelled Kirtanananda because they finally agreed that he is not properly representing Krishna to the world.

And - one can cite your own documents such as Hrdayananda's Bhagavatam wherein he says Kirtanananda and Bhavananda are his idea of Krishna's representatives.

In sum there's a real heavy confusion going on and to say a neophyte can become a diksa-guru, but this neophyte diksa-guru has to be worshiped like a mahabhagavat pure devotee, is wrong. He's a priest, neophytes are priests. What is your problem of being a priest?

 

For this people don't need an ISKCON movement. It is far better for them to remain Christians and when they can manage to give up meat eating they are better off than anyone else of the neophyte diksa guru idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...