What difference would it make if one attained siddha through sadhana or one was nitya ?

[krsna 3]

The following article by Rocana das brings up this point of siddha, what difference does it make if one becomes siddha by sadhana bhakti or one is an eternally perfected soul from Krsnaloka?:

 

Feb 23 2005

"Srila Prabhupada’s Instructions on Advanced Association"

 

A Response to Aniha das

Religion without philosophy is sentiment (or sometimes fanaticism),

while philosophy without religion is mental speculation.

 

 

In his February 11th article on Chakra, Aniha das responded to my previous article wherein I address my many concerns over B.V. Narayana Maharaja’s comments on the Bhagavata Sampradaya theory. Aniha’s opening excuse that he is unqualified to respond on a philosophical level is nonsense. Instead, he was moved to express his sentiments and frustration at my apparent criticism of great Vaisnava personalities. He refuses to directly debate, point on point, but instead resorts to the touchy, feely, new-age approach. He parrots often-heard verses and stories used by spokesmen of the Gaudiya Matha camps.

 

I won’t participate in the counter-quoting game. I’ve already presented my arguments in the original article, and will be happy to engage in any direct discussion on the points raised therein. After publishing that article, I was challenged by another BV Narayana Swami disciple, who presented himself as Krsna das from the Netherlands. He had a similar approach as Aniha das’s. The ensuing debate can be found at the Krsna Blog. My thanks go out to Shiva das for the valuable contributions he made during that Blog thread. I invite interested readers to study the contents and add their own comments.

 

I will take this opportunity to expand upon my initial article and the Blog contributions that followed it. My position is essentially rooted in my image of His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada as being situated in the exalted post of a rare Sampradaya Acarya. For those unfamiliar with this idea, I invite you to read my Sampradaya Acarya paper. Those who read the above-mentioned Blog and Sampradaya Acarya paper, and who are not convinced by my conclusions, are encouraged to present their thoughts and challenges.

 

As I see it, the essence of this disagreement is a pervasive lack of realization in regards to Srila Prabhupada’s unique position. Understanding this phenomenon also helps us to understand why Srila Prabhupada ordered the ISKCON-wide ban on associating with his Godbrothers. Historical memory reveals that since Srila Prabhupada’s departure, this order was ignored by the GBC, which resulted in major problems. Yet again, time has proven that Srila Prabhupada was correct.

 

My challenge is directed to any and all who advocate that Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers/gurus are spiritually equal to him. I assert that all are not spiritually equal, and that only the other nitya siddha Sampradaya Acaryas such as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura are comparable to Srila Prabhupada. The “all Gurus are one” asiddhantic theory is a virus originating from the Gaudiya Matha philosophers, and it has insidiously infected countless devotees.

 

ISKCON’s Prabhupada Lilamrita, which casually depicts Srila Prabhupada, has contributed to this contamination. This literary concoction is, in fact, a remnant of the early days of the Zonal Acarya era. It leaves the reader with the impression that Srila Prabhupada is a sadhana siddha. This outlook mirrors the conclusion of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers. Amazingly, this treatise remains the official ISKCON biography of their Founder-Acarya.

 

In reality, the guru issue has been hotly debated since time immemorial. To illustrate this, we can reflect upon the historical example presented by Aniha das in his article. During the Battle of Kurukshetra, Arjuna fought and mortally wounded his beloved grandfather, Bhisma deva. In the first Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam there is a description of Bhisma deva’s passing from his body while lying on the bed of arrows. In these verses and Srila Prabhupada’s purports, Bhisma deva is described as one of the twelve great Vedic authorities known as Maha jnanas. Yet just before the battle Sri Krsna spoke the Bhagavata Gita, saying that he had come to reestablish the Brahma Parampara on account of this knowledge being lost. Interestingly, we find that Bhisma isn’t listed as one of the 32 Sampradaya Acaryas going back to Lord Brahma.

 

My point is that Sampradaya Acaryas are situated in a category all to themselves. I am not implying that Sampradaya Acaryas have been the only pure devotees in this universe from the time Lord Brahma spoke the truth to the Sun God, who then spoke it to Manu. What I am saying is that the Sampradaya Acaryas play an important role in Lord Krsna’s overall mission of saving the fallen conditioned souls. There are innumerable other pure devotees who play supporting roles as participants in Krsna lilas, including Shaktavesa Avataras such as Jesus and Mohammad. In fact, Lord Krsna’s empowered pure devotes are innumerable; they display many pastimes within this material world.

 

In the context of this debate, we are focusing on those exalted souls whose mission is to revive, rejuvenate, surcharge, and philosophically expound, according to time, place and circumstance, the Brahma Vaisnava Sampradaya. Let’s not forget that there are Sampradaya Acaryas within the other three Vaisnava Sampradaya traditions, such as Ramanuja and Nimbarka Acaryas.

 

I hope this explanation illustrates my position that some of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers may very well be advanced sadhana siddha Vaisnava’s and honorary members of our Sampradaya, but they are not Sampradaya Acaryas. I am convinced that Srila Prabhupada has exhibited symptoms which show him to be a nitya siddha Sampradaya Acarya rather than a sadhana siddha, like others in the modern Krsna Consciousness landscape.

 

Aniha das speaks abundantly about Srila Prabhupada’s active participation and close association with his Godbrothers during his pre-ISKCON days. Despite the few supporting quotes he presented in his article, these pastimes were not familiar topics during Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON lila. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada far more frequently brought up the fact that he had disagreed with his Godbrothers and that his difference of opinion went back to the time of his Guru Maharaja’s departure. He let us know, in no uncertain terms, that they failed to appreciate that Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati was a nitya siddha Sampradaya Acarya. Consequently, they tried to replace him as the head of the Gaudiya Matha. All the hearsay accounts offered by Aniha das came to light after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, and they are therefore suspect.

 

Aniha das comes to his conclusions based on these anecdotal stories, and from this he extrapolates that we are authorized to follow Srila Prabhupada’s footprints and associate intimately with Godbrothers, uncles, and cousins. Apparently we are to ignore the profound philosophical disagreements between them and Srila Prabhupada. Not only are the circumstances much different for us today then they were for Srila Prabhupada with regards to the availability of Vaisnava association, but Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati didn’t decree to Srila Prabhupada that he was to avoid his Godbrothers, like Srila Prabhupada decreed to us.

 

Another aspect of this issue to keep in mind is that from the very onset, Srila Prabhupada fully comprehended the transcendental nature and spiritual status of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur in terms of being a Sampradaya Acarya. Consequentially, Srila Prabhupada was more than capable of associating with his Godbrothers, despite the fact that they didn’t share his realization, and he could do so without being adversely effected by their “living Acarya” rhetoric -- unlike most of us in today’s circumstance.

 

History reveals that Srila Prabhupada never had any long-term commitment to any of his Godbrother’s mathas. I hypothesize that it was because of the aforementioned contrariety in regards to the Sampradaya Acarya.

 

Srila Prabhupada informed us, his disciples, far more often and in more detail about his disharmony with his Godbrothers then he ever did as to the rosy “good time” pictures Aniha das wishes us to embrace. Aniha’s emphasis on Srila Prabhupada’s seldom-uttered complimentary comments, and the unspoken meaning Aniha das construes from the “final forgiveness” statement Srila Prabhupada made just prior to his departure, seem dishonest to me. This vision leaves everyone with the impression that Srila Prabhupada finally admitted that he had made an egregious blunder, both in forbidding us to associate, and in making critical public and sastric comments suggestive of him being influenced by the mood of anger. There appears to be no advisement that Srila Prabhupada gave the matter deep, conscious consideration before acting, on both accounts.

 

We are advised that serious disciples are obliged to cultivate the attitude that all of Srila Prabhupada’s purports are non-different from sastra. The logic of Aniha das and his peers suggests that Srila Prabhupada’s fault-finding statements should be deleted from the archives. The bottom line is that Vaisnavas following Srila Prabhupada are obliged to accept one side of the argument or the other. Therefore, the question remains: which is more offensive, to associate with the Godbrothers, or to avoid their association?

 

For thirty years prior to his journeying to the west, Srila Prabhupada maintained throughout his profound realization that his guru was, in reality, a Sampradaya Acarya. The critical statements Srila Prabhupada made of his Godbrothers were primarily rooted in their lack of appreciation for Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati’s exalted position. The Godbrothers’ lack of realization resulted in the ruination of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta’s vibrant preaching mission. Their pretentious attempt to replace him with a non-Sampradaya Acaraya was the cause of the mission’s loss of momentum. We could say the same thing for the post-samadhi ISKCON GBC, as evidenced by their immediate enactment of the disastrous Zonal Acarya System, which was suggested by the Gaudiya Matha acaryas.

 

If you truly believe that Srila Prabhupada is on the exalted platform of a Sampradaya Acarya, then you can theoretically immunize yourself from being adversely influenced by all the pretentious small “a” acaryas. Evidence is that they don’t accept the concept of a category of spiritual classification known as the Sampradaya Acarya. Instead, they preach something less than that understanding -- which means they preach that Srila Prabhupada is on a less exalted platform.

 

It is a great shame that those who advocate the Sampradaya Acarya concept are looked upon suspiciously by the authorities in various institutional camps. Not surprisingly, the authorities view the idea as a potential threat to their own status. Keeping one’s thoughts on this matter private for the sake of gaining “association” may be deemed a worthwhile trade-off for some devotees. I don’t find fault with those who decide to zip their lip. Maybe Srila Prabhupada did the same during his pre-ISKCON lila period. Regardless, we must keep in mind that Srila Prabhupada is a Sampradaya Acarya, and as such is infinitely more qualified and capable in all activities, some of which are potentially dangerous to a neophyte’s spiritual health.

 

It behooves us to remember that Srila Prabhupada did clearly and categorically forbid his disciples from associating with his Godbrothers. All the profound reasons behind this decree continue to remain a mystery and consequently, we are still involved in this 30 year-old discussion. The Gaudiya Matha devotees have gone out of their way to dispel any fear we may have of disobedience to the guru. Aniha das has provided us with many of their well-known arguments, by which many in the past have been convinced -- even those within the highest ranks of ISKCON management.

 

The modus operandi for most, if not all, the Gaudiya Matha gurus, as well as many ISKCON diksa gurus, is to promote the concept that our branch of Gaudiya Vaisnava lineage is enjoying an era of diksa guru initiation. I can find no supporting statements from the last two Sampradaya Acaryas, namely Srila Bhaktisiddanta and Srila Bhaktivedanta Swamis, verifying the validity of the current ‘exclusive diksa guru’ ideology. Quite the contrary.

 

I have encountered copious pronouncements by ISKCON personalities which glorify various characterizations of Srila Prabhupada. However, not one of these accolades categorically declares Srila Prabhupada as a rarified nitya siddha Sampradaya Acarya on the same level as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Why this is so remains a mystery to me.

 

Aniha das has informed us that Lord Chaitanya instructed his followers to be very reverential to our Spiritual Master’s Godbrothers: “Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Himself taught us that we should offer all respects to the godbrother of our guru and never find fault in him.” One must ask the question as to why, if the above is true, this truth doesn’t apply to Srila Prabhupada, who indelibly enshrined within his purports to divine scriptures many critical remarks directed towards the actions of his Godbrothers?

 

By my way of thinking, if Srila Prabhupada felt so duty bound to express his disapproval, despite the sastric warnings, then we must conclude there is a profound message to all the future readers. Srila Prabhupada let us know on many occasions that his comments on sastra are Lord Krsna communicating through him. Aniha das is now asking us to accept his personal premise that Srila Prabhupada had included his dire warnings only for the sake of protecting his preaching mission. What negative influence originating from the Godbrothers would have adversely affected Srila Prabhupada’s preaching effort? Aniha das asks us to swallow his contention that this necessity on banning association with the Gaudiya Matha was, in fact, a temporary measure that is now outdated. Yet Aniha das offers no explanation for the fact that Srila Prabhupada apparently embedded such a temporary instruction into the permanency of sastric purport.

 

I assert that Srila Prabhupada’s pastime of asking forgiveness from his Godbrothers at the end of his lila was simply a gesture of genuine humility and magnanimity. He made no mention that he was referring to his previous contentious critical comments. It appears that Aniha das’s group has jumped to their conclusion because they were always offended by Srila Prabhupada’s attitude in this regard, and were looking for some indication that Srila Prabhupada was admitting that he was mistaken. Aniha das’s position logically leads the reader to conclude that his vision of Srila Prabhupada is that he is a fallible jivatma.

 

Aniha das adds insult to injury by introducing ideas that will logically lead some to conclude that Srila Prabhuapda’s comments on his Godbrothers should be removed from his books. For example, he goes so far as to say that the devotees constant repetition of Srila Prabhuapda’s criticisms “brings shame on ISKCON.” Let us pray that in the future, the BBT authorities will not be influenced by the likes of Aniha das, and will not have Srila Prabhupada’s books once again “edited” so as to remove these contentious comments.

 

This issue has been exhaustively researched by both sides, therefore the chance that any new information will come to light is slim to non-existent. Consequently, serious devotees must study the philosophical points made by both parties and decide what personal conclusions they will reach in this regard. While reaching the wrong conclusion may not destroy one’s devotional life, this is not a small matter and it has the potential of seriously impacting one’s spiritual progress.

 

your servant,

Rocana dasa

 

 

 

 

Replies: 3 comments

 

Rocana prabhu,

 

My pranams. Allow me to play devil's advocate. There is no doubt that SP held SBST in absolute love and surrender but what is your specific reference for saying "For thirty years prior to his journeying to the west, Srila Prabhupada maintained throughout his profound realization that his guru was, in reality, a Sampradaya Acarya."

 

Posted by Uddharana dasa @ 02/24/2005 09:18 AM PST

 

 

 

 

Dear Uddharana dasa,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Thank you for reading and commenting on this Blog thread.

 

You wrote:

 

 

There is no doubt that SP held SBST in absolute love and surrender but what is your specific reference for saying

 

 

"For thirty years prior to his journeying to the west, Srila Prabhupada maintained throughout his profound realization that his guru was, in reality, a Sampradaya Acarya."

 

If you are asking me to provide a specific quote from the Vedabase Folio in order to substantiate my claim that Srila Prabhupada knew his Spiritual Master was a Sampradaya Acarya, then I have to admit I can’t find anything that is overtly obvious. I could, however, ask you or anyone to provide a quote that indicates otherwise. On this issue and on many others, the followers are expected to personally “connect the dots”.

 

There are really only two opposing answers to your question. One is that Srila Prabhupada did know that his Spiritual Master was a nitya siddha, as I’m proposing. The other is that he didn’t, as is suggested by the Lilamrta and accepted by its adherents. My Sampradaya Acarya premise is based on the understanding of Srila Prabhupada factually being nitya siddha. The Lilamrta conclusion is based on the sadhana siddha analysis.

 

My statement that Srila Prabhupada realized his Spiritual Master was a Sampradaya Acarya is based on the assumption that when two empowered nitya siddhas meet for the first time, and both are on the same deputed divine mission, they recognize one other. We understand that nitya siddha representatives advent on account of being sent by the Lord, in this case Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. As such, they are essentially controlled/overseen directly by the Lord. Whether or not there was some yoga maya covering applied to this lila so as to have the pastimes unfold according to plan, I can’t say with complete certainty. Srila Prabhupada called Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati “a Vaikuntha Man”. It has been told with all authority that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura begged Lord Caitanya to send a nitya siddha to help, and his son appeared to fulfill that request. In my previous paper, I’ve given a more expanded set of symptoms Srila Prabhupada manifested throughout his ISKCON lila period which revealed that he, too, is a nitya siddha.

 

With respect to Srila Prabhupada being a Sampradaya Acarya, we are all aware of the reminiscent conversations and lectures Srila Prabhupada gave which seem to humbly indicate otherwise. Naturally, I don’t put much stock in these utterances when weighed against the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. The humble proclamations of Maha-Bhagavata devotees should not be taken as declarations of truth, just as Hari das Thakura’s humble actions and words only reveal his profoundly advanced stage, or as Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu ordered one and all not to broadcast his actual status as the Yuga Avatar. The sastra is filled with such vocalizations of humility made by exalted personalities. Why not hear Srila Prabhupada’s statements as being on a similar spiritual level?

 

The excerpts below, from the writings of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati (“Be Humbler Than A Blade Of Grass”)”, illustrate my point.

 

 

 

“If anybody coming up to Chaitanya deva happened to say ‘You are the Son of the Lord of Braja’, He at once used to put His hands to His ears and protest - “Krishna should be called Krishna; I am a tiny jiva; you should not call Me Krishna.”

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

“All the audience have accepted ordinary seats, I alone have been provided with a lofty seat. All are being told in effect - “Do have a look at a big animal from the Zoo-gardens. What arrogance! So foolish! So wicked! Have you ever seen such a big brute? Garlands of flowers have been put round his neck! What laudations! What bombastic long-drawn and hyperbolic adjectives! And how complacently too be [sic] is listening to the praise of his own achievements, how intently, and with his own ears! He also evidently feels delighted in mind! Is he not acting in plain violation of the teaching of Mahaprabhu? Can such a big brute, so selfish and insolent, be ever reclaimed from brutishness?

 

I happen to be one of the greatest fools. No one offers me good advice on account of my arrogance. Inasmuch as nobody condescends to instruct me I placed my case before Mahaprabhu Himself.”

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

“I am extremely unfit and encompassed with all the evils. But an immense number of God’s devotees have mercifully appeared for the good of one like me who is so completely engulfed in evil. Many of them have gathered at this place for subduing my irrepressible arrogance. All of them are instructing me about the highest service of God. May we be ever ready to sweep away from our hearts, by the rough application of hundreds of thousands of pointed broomsticks, the wicked design of desiring to be honoured above other persons by the devotees of God.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a separate email, you wrote:

 

 

I am interested to know how you put together the main components of theSampradaya Acarya concept.

 

In making spiritual progress, one’s realization serves as a stepping-stone for the next revelation. In my pursuit of transcendental understanding of the divine nature of the personality of Srila Prabhupada, I have found that realization is gained gradually by perseverance.

 

Granted, I was fortunate enough to be Srila Prabhupada’s diksa disciple. This fact has its obvious advantages, but it also has some downsides when it comes to offering my thoughts on this, the most important and basic of subjects. The awkwardness for someone in my position is that many readers will write my hypothesis off as the fanatical exuberance of a narrow-minded disciple. We have all witnessed such individuals, both as Srila Prabhupada disciples and other Vaisnava followers. Under the weight of that social stigma, I try to present what I feel is truth. Admittedly, I’m not so spiritually advanced that I’m never wrong, nor am I completely free from bias. As for being totally logical in my predilection for recognizing Srila Prabhupada as a Sampradaya Acarya, my assertions are certainly open to challenge.

 

Being discouraged by the mind’s objections and criticism from others never gets one anywhere. This is especially true when criticism is surcharged with accusations of one being envious, an aparadhi, offensive, lacking humility, and so on. Many times I have second-guessed my own mindful perceptions of major events, personalities, and circumstances, especially pertaining to Krsna Consciousness. Over time I’ve discovered that I was often correct, and should have acted rather than complacently gone along with the flow. Trust one’s God given common sense is a truism I try to follow. Having said that, I have concluded that those who find fault with my assertions are equally as speculative in their claims that Srila Prabhupada is something other than a Sampradaya Acarya. In other words, Srila Prabhupada is and always will be mysterious to us lowly conditioned souls.

 

I have decidedly fixed my mind on the goal of gaining as much insight as Supersoul will reveal to me in terms of Srila Prabhupada’s identity. It has taken me many years to gradually come to my present position, and I expect and hope to continue this journey on until… is there an end? Isn’t this the purpose of life, to understand and love the Supreme Lord and his confidential associates? Best to begin with our extraordinary Spiritual Master.

 

 

”While describing the system of protection for the creeper of devotional service, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has especially stressed protection from offenses unto the lotus feet of Vaisnavas. This is called vaisnavaparadha. Aparadha means “offense.” If one commits vaisnavaparadha, all of his progress in devotional service will be checked. Even though one is very much advanced in devotional service, if he commits offenses at the feet of a Vaiñëava, his advancement is all spoiled.… Therefore one should be very careful about committing offenses at the feet of a Vaisnava. The most grievous type of vaisnavaparadha is called gurv-aparadha, which refers to offenses at the lotus feet of the spiritual master. In the chanting of the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, this gurv- aparadha is considered the most grievous offense. Guror avajna sruti-sastra-nindanam (Padma Purana). Among the ten offenses committed against the chanting of the holy name, the first offenses are disobedience to the spiritual master and blasphemy of the Vedic literature.

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.21.37

 

 

The most important feature of our preaching is Srila Prabhupada’s version and vision of Krsna Consciousness. That’s what we are “marketing’. After all, Srila Prabhupada as the Sampradaya Acarya distinguished himself, first and foremost, as a super-empowered worldwide preacher and he continued in that role until his physical departure. He strongly encouraged us all to follow his example. In this regard, I have been continually reminded about the manner in which ISKCON, the Gaudiya Matha and many independent devotees are under-rating Srila Prabhupada when introducing him to newcomers. Their hagiography is sadly lacking in enthusiasm, is non-philosophical and sentimental, to the point of mundane-ness bordering on offensiveness. Many preamble pieces to Srila Prabhupada’s books and other ISKCON literatures begin by highlighting such unflattering, irrelevant circumstances as heart attacks, being penniless and alone, having diabetes, previously being a business man, abandoning his family, and so on. Internally, we often hear far more flattering terms describing Srila Prabhupada, such as his being properly described as a nitya-siddha, Maha-Bhagavata, Shaktavesa avatar, savior of the world, etc. Unfortunately, all these wonderful adjectives typically come without any philosophical explanations, which could indicate that the statements have no real absolute substance, but are just expressions of an individual’s personal feelings.

 

Why is there such a huge discrepancy between these two diametrically opposed accounts of the Founder-Acarya? I am only left to wonder in disbelief. ISKCON has doggedly stuck to Satsvarupa’s Lilamrita approach of presenting Srila Prabhupada as being an “accessible human”. I have stated many times that I believe that the Lilamrita is, in fact, a very offensive product of the Zonal Acarya propaganda machine. Present day ISKCON authorities show their extreme foolishness in this regard. While their expressed desire is to see ISKCON become a worldwide religion, they allow their official manifesto to diminish Srila Prabhupada’s image. Where would the Christians be today if they hadn’t presented Jesus in the heart-wrenching, dramatic and mystical fashion they have? The Christians philosophically present their “founder-acarya” as a nitya siddha (immaculate conception) savior of the world. Christian preachers like to emphasis all of Christ’s mystic powers, miracles and so on. Can Srila Prabhupada be described in a similarly larger than life manner? Yes, because in our hearts we all know Srila Prabhupada qualifies as a Shaktavesa nitya siddha. Of this there is no doubt! At least not to me.

 

What the future holds for ISKCON is anyone’s guess, but unless and until the powers that be do a complete rethink on “marketing” Srila Prabhupada, they will not be utilizing the unlimited potential which has been squandered up to now. They will also leave the door open for others to re-write Srila Prabhupada’s history in an even less flattering manner.

 

What I have described in terms of projecting Srila Prabhupada’s image applies to ISKCON’s attracting new members and keeping the one’s they have from going to Gaudiya Matha competitors. By not projecting this image, ISKCON authorities are also handicapped in their ability to satisfactorily defend against accusations hurled at Srila Prabhupada by the gurukulis and other disenfranchised ex-members of ISKCON.

 

I hope the above will help to answer your question as to how I put together the main components of the Sampradaya Acarya concept. This thesis is the result of my past experiences and present circumstances, which together contributed to the development of the concept. If I have not clearly answered your question(s), perhaps it would be helpful for me to do a bullet-point outline of the fundamental assumptions underlying this concept. Let me know if this would be more helpful.

 

I offer my ideas for the consideration of both newcomers and old-timers alike. Newcomers seem to have no problem whatsoever accepting and adopting this concept. Old-timers naturally, have some resistance, because the debate of these ideas jars their long-held understandings and assumptions. Up until now, no one has defeated my premise. As for bringing this point of view to the level of absolute truth, that’s not likely to occur unless and until another Sampradaya Acarya appears, or someone on the spiritual level of Krsna dasa Kaviraj writes a definitive version of Srila Prabhupada’s pastimes and philosophy. Prior to the Chaitanya-caritamrita, most within Vaisnava Community were not absolutely sure what version of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s appearance, pastimes and disappearance to accept as absolute truth. During this interim period of the post-samadhi Srila Prabhupada era, it behooves all of us to give this subject careful thought, as we are frequently called upon to acquaint sincere seekers with the glories of Srila Prabhupada.

 

your servant,

 

Rocana dasa

 

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 02/28/2005 07:12 PM PST

 

 

 

 

"I am convinced that Srila Prabhupada has exhibited symptoms which show him to be a nitya siddha Sampradaya Acarya rather than a sadhana siddha, like others in the modern Krsna Consciousness landscape."

 

Siddha is siddha isn't it? What difference would it make spiritually if one attained siddha through sadhana or one was nitya siddha?

 

Posted by withheld @ 03/02/2005 07:53 AM PST

 

[theist 1]

I don't know what that means. But it should be obvious that Srila Prabhupada is a rare and prominently empowered personality even among the lines other leaders.

 

But what would prevent Krsna from empowering a siddha-bhakta in such a way if He wanted to. And what would be the reason He would even make the distinction between the two in the first place? As the last poster queried, "siddha is siddha, isn't it?"

 

Wasn't Narada Muni a so-called siddha-bhakta?

[muralidhar_das 0]

I am just wondering what exactly it is, that makes Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada superior or different from his Godbrothers who also preached and initiated many disciples.

 

How many disciples did Srila Gaurakishore dasa Babaji have? Does he get a place in this list of Sampradaya Acaryas made by Rocana dasa?

 

Srila Gaurakishore dasa Babaji didn't preach as widely as, for example, Bon Maharaj. We know that Srila Sridhar Maharaj, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami and others were very much opposed to Bon Maharaj, but it is also a fact that Bon Maharaj has many disciples and that he opened many temples.

 

Again, what then can be said of Srila Bhakti Saranga Goswami Maharaj, who preached in London in the 1930's, and who was instructed by Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur that if he met anyone in England who wanted to take diksa, that Srila Bhakti Saranga Goswami could give that person diksa. And not as a ritvik or representative of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur; rather, at Howra station and in front of many witnesses Srila Saraswati Thakur told everyone that Goswami Maharaj was to become a diksa guru and initiate anyone who wanted diksa. And in fact, Goswami Maharaj did initated one man, an Australian, and bring him to India to meet with Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur in 1936. How can it be said that Goswami Maharaj is not a "Sampradaya Acharya" when he was specifically told to give diksa to newcomers by Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur. It is sometimes said that Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur never authorised anyone to become a Guru after his passing; however it is a fact that Srila Bhakti Saranga Goswami became a Guru before Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur passed away - and with the full blessings of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

 

What is more, in the book Prabhupada Lilamrtam, which Rocana despises, it states that for one year Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj was the temple president of one of the temples of Srila Bhakti Saranga Goswami Maharaj, and that the devotees at the temple were not happy with his management style, and that it was suggested that Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj should leave that job of temple president. He did leave that job, and then he went to Keshava Maharaj and took sannyasa from him. To say this is not to minimise the greatness of Srila Prabhupada. It is merely a telling of the actual events which have happened in the Gaudiya Math... it is history.

 

Mushrooms grow in the dark and feed on compost and dung. Sometimes I think that people like Rocana are mushroom farmers and that the people he cultivates are like mushrooms.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

http://scsmath.com/docs/articles/SaraswatiTkrApp-Damayanti0503/Page%20two_files/meeting.jpg

 

Is this what he means about "never associate with my Godbrothers" Here you can see Prabhupad visiting His very dear Godbrother Srila Sridara Maharaj with many of his disciples. Not just once but many times he would come to Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math to conferr with Sridhara Maharaj about his world preaching activities and share very high Hari katha. Srila Sridhar Maharaj had a house there for him (still there today) and referred to as Swami Maharajs' House.

 

He even brought his disciples to SCSM on Srila Sridhara Maharajs' Vyasa Puja celebrations to show his disciples the proper way to respect the Gurus appearance day

Whatsmore he sent his disciples Achutananda Prabhu and others to learn the bhajans properly from SCS math.

 

Not to mention the twelve years they spent living and preaching together in Calcutta and other parts of India, in the early days before all this western paranoia.

Srila Sridhara Maharaj doesn't need any certicate from any of his Godbrothers to validate his Achard, but many of them did, and his own Guru recognized that and told many of his disciples. "Now I am satisfied there is one man who can carry on my line."

Prabhupad approached Guru Maharaj a number of times to take Sannyas as did many of Srila Saraswati Thakurs disciples. If he didn't have the uttmost confidence in him as empowered to give such a currant, why would he do so.

Are these blind men suggesting Prabhupad had no vision or he was just taking an artificial connection. Personally I don't think he took his sanyas (from Srila Kesava, who took sanyas from Srila Sridhara Maharaj) that light, he knew guru maharajs' position unlike some of his kanista disciples.

 

This is all just more insecurity, that other missions are expanding enormously and because they have an empowered acharya at the helm that is directing by example, they are truly pleasing to their Lordships and also to the whole Rupanuga guru varga.

 

The saddest thing is to see that Great souls are present on this planet who are more than pleasing to Srila Prabhupad, and many are missing whole other tsunami waves of grace and mercy not unlike the first wave sent by SP. and it's actually those who are stuck in this sectarian mud of misconception that are raising doubts to keep the newcomers from taking a genuine connection to Krsna Consciousness, that are the real stumbling blocks.

 

All I can say is get out of the sectarian well, and get with Mahaprabhus program, who can empower innumerable Acharyas to spread His mission world wide.

 

If only Iskcon would get behind some of these lifelong preachers of Krsna Consciouness we may just see Prabhupad himself return to his society.