Sunday, October 15, 2017

GBC leader Prahladananda Describes ISKCON Guru Chaos


Our Guru program is -- a hot steaming mess. 

PADA: Its seems that many of the GBC's leaders themselves know that their living guru process has failed. First of all, the GBC was disbanded in 1978 and then we had the "11 member acharya board" -- which ruled over the GBC. Then right away there were problems with these maverick acharyas -- who did not listen to the GBC body, or even to the "acharya board." Nor were they following Srila Prabhupada's standards for acharyas, and this hot mess was going on right out of the gate shortly after 1978.

And now the apologists for the GBC like Rocana / Torben / Ajit / Hanuman Croatia are scrambling to explain how their living guru system is supposed to work. Yet as we see clearly herein -- by reading what the leaders of this process admit -- their living guru project's leaders cannot explain all the chaos going on in their living guru project? If it is a bona fide program, why is there so much chaotic activity, such as currently one of their own maverick acharyas is trying to sell the Brooklyn temple without the approval of the Governing Body. 

And Satsvarupa is writing his crazy maverick Journals and doing his whacky art, and Hrdayananda is doing his maverick Krishna West, and so on and so on and so forth, and these guys do not really adhere to the GBC's instructions, for decades now. Of course this begs the question, what are they "governing" if the gurus they manage do not listen to the governing members, and many / most of their appointed and elected "gurus" have not done so all along since this all began?  

The GBC / Gauidya Matha / Rocana / Hanuman Croatia / Ajit Krishna / Torben etc. are attacking the ritviks as "like the Christians." And Jesus and Srila Prabhupada are the posthumous, post samadhi, and post mortem dead and irrelevant persons. OK so the Christians are bogus for worshiping a pure devotee, and the ritviks are bogus for worshiping a pure devotee, so we should worship -- whom?  

At least the ritviks know who is their guru, and how we connect with him ...

https://stillinsound.com/2017/10/15/the-potency-of-srila-prabhupada_s-books-108-quotes/




Apologist for the sex with taxi driver's guru parampara

Oh no! Hanuman das Croatia now says we need to make ISKCON great again by promoting Bhakti Vikas swami, who was voted in as acharya along with the reinstatement of his sex with taxi drivers acharya Bhavananda. So we cannot worship Jesus, we cannot worship Srila Prabhupada, we need to worship an illicit sex with men, women and children (and taxi drivers) guru program? So the only good news is, these people do not worship sex with goats?

Hanuman also says worship of Srila Prabhupada is a "zombie guru program." Wow! So worship of pure devotees is worship of the "living dead," but they have a handful of molester messiah project members for us to worship instead! Swell!



Did we forget to mention, Bhakti Vikas swami program is killing their God brothers by advising them to absorb sins and make pretend they are another Jesus? And Bhakti Vikas Swami followers like Ajit / Torben / Hanuman Croatia say, we need to expand this process? We need more of this?  

Why do these people like the GBC / Rocana / Hanuman / Ajit Krishna / Torben etc. always go back to saying, we need to work with the (illicit sex) living guru program, which Prahladananda says below is pretty much a chaotic hot mess, and not a bona fide process for a religion?  

And why is Hanuman Croatia claiming to be a "reformer," while simultaneously promoting the key leaders of the "sex with taxi drivers in the holy dham" guru parampara? And is this not an example of what Prahladananda is saying below, they do not fix things properly, because its a dysfunctional imbroglio. 

Instead of fixing problems -- like the Bhavananda sex with taxi drivers guru process -- they INSTEAD reinstated Bhavananda and voted in -- Bhakti Vikas swami. Instead of fixing the problem of false gurus, they voted in more false gurus! So Bhakti Vikas Swami is voted in when sex with taxi drivers is recoronated and reinstated as the acharya, and Hanuman thinks his illicit sex messiah's program is bona fide? 

As Sulochana used to say, even cannibals do not worship illicit sex with taxi driver guru programs. Hee hee! And Sulochana said further, these people like Hanuman will eventually take birth as cannibals, so they can worship a lion, a mountain, lightening, like the cannibals are doing, and this will be a big advance from his worship of sex with taxi driver's guru programs! 

And his sex with taxi driver's guru program -- will make ISKCON great again? 

Did we forget to mention that the Bhavananda program was mass molesting children, and now Hanuman has become the biggest defender of this parampara -- which we had sued for $400,000,000 for child abuse? This is the program we need to uphold? So Hanuman worships a program which orchestrates mass abuse of children, as his messiahs? And this is the way forward, to worship Bhakti Vikas Swami, Jayapataka's right hand man, and Bhavananda's bucket boy?

This is the Bhakti Vikas guru process we STILL need to follow now? And we have to worship this process as our acharyas, we cannot worship Jesus or Prabhupada instead? 

I personally saw one of the fallen GBC acharyas eating a chicken salad at a health food store. Wow! The GBC / Rocana / Hanuman guru process has  promoted worship of even a meat eating guru in its parampara. Why do they think we need to worship a chicken salad acharya's sampradaya? Anyway, this is good, even they admit, their living guru process is -- a failure. Meanwhile our process is "living" and moving ahead on many fronts. ys pd]



We cannot worship the post samadhi, posthumous, and post mortem gurus like Jesus and Prabhupada? WHAT! People worship "departed" pure devotees, indeed pure devotees who existed thousands or even millions of years ago, all the time, throughout ALL the Vedic culture! 

=========================

"You should always pray to His Divine Grace (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati) because naturally He will be more affectionate to you than to me. Generally one is more affectionate to the grandchildren than to the children directly. So I am sure that my Guru Maharaja will be easily inclined to your prayers than that of mine. You will do good always by offering your prayers to His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Goswami Maharaja."

Srila Prabhupada Letter to: Brahmananda—Los Angeles 19 December, 1968

========================


(Duties of GBC and Guru in ISKCON, Prahladananda Swami, 2006)

"Unfortunately, since the departure of Srila Prabhupada, the GBC Body has not maintained his clear authority structure. […] 

In the absence of a GBC Body that clearly represents the desires of Srila Prabhupada to preach Krsna consciousness as a unified movement, the Society remains together more on the basis of a loose confederation of initiating gurus and independent local leaders, rather than as a unified movement of surrendered servants."

"Such an uttama-adhikari Vaisnava is in perfect touch with the Supersoul and at every moment knows the Supreme Lord's desires. [...] 

No one so far has been seen in that category."

"But as with the Gaudiya-Matha, just after His Divine Grace's disappearance, leading disciples disobeyed the orders of the Founder Acarya to work cooperatively under the GBC Body and, although the GBC Body met yearly, each initiating guru virtually occupied the position of an Acarya in his zone. These diksa gurus divided the world into 11 zonal Acarya regions and disunited the mission. […] 

The imitation of uttama-adhikaris by these neophyte devotees undoubtedly led to their fall-downs and many subsequent problems in ISKCON." 

"The main problem is that the GBC Body is supposed to supervise ISKCON and they are not doing this service adequately. Therefore, many leaders are not acting strictly according to the directions of his Divine Grace."

"Presently the GBC Body lacks authority. Some of its leading members are initiating gurus who do not want to surrender their high degree of autonomy in the Society. Some leaders in ISKCON cooperate with the Society only as long as they can retain their own autonomy. [...] 

If the GBC Body is to regain its authority, its members must become a disciplined body of devotees who are clearly selfless and enlightened in their dedication to Srila Prabhupada's mission."

"The last snare of maya is to think oneself God, or even God's pure representative, worthy to be worshiped and served by others. [...] It is an attachment that is difficult to give up."

"ISKCON sometimes takes pride in accomplishments that prove to be only temporary. […] 

For example, in the former Eastern Block nations, in the absence of a strong Krsna conscious leader, a pattern is sometimes visible. After the demise of the Communist system, many people became interested in the process of Krsna consciousness and joined the temples. This resulted in a large force of preachers and a surge in book distribution. However, after some time the devotees married and had children, and then preaching and book distribution diminished […] 

ISKCON's success appears to be due more to circumstances than to a viable management system that encourages long-term preaching. Another example can be seen in India, […] again it is likely that success is due not to a viable management system, but to the unique circumstances of India."

"Srila Prabhupada clearly established ISKCON's system of management with Temple Presidents, Secretaries, and Treasurers, under the supervision of a GBC representative and ultimately the GBC Body. He gave no managerial position to the initiating gurus within ISKCON." 

Prahladananda Swami

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Chandra Shekhara Swami (Chris Ostrowski) Defends Molester Messiah's Project


Is he helping Brooklyn NYC Temple Thieves?


Chandra Shekhara Swami: 

After 13+ years of legal battle, the court case in Long Island over the Freeport Temple has been decided in court in favor of ISKCON and the GBC. The Ritviks are being evicted. Judge Randi Sue Marber also concluded that, in matters pertaining to ownership and management, the legal court system of New York State defers to the GBC as the authority to decide over who does or does not have the right to properties and legal entities.

There is no such thing as the “Ritvik System”, at least in the Vedas or Srila Prabhupada’s books. If you search the Vedabase for the word “rtvik,” you will find about 36 hits or so. 

[PADA: Right! We need to follow the GBC! Who knew! 

OK great, and according to the GBC's spokespersons -- like Jayadvaita swami -- Chandra Shekhara swami's GBC "eternal guru program from Vaikuntha" contains "illicit sex with men, women and children." Where do we find that God's "diksha guru successors" are often illicit sex debauchees, either in the Vedas, or in any other bona fide religion? 

Why are the GBC / Chandra Shekhara swami folks teaching even little children that the path to God is -- to worship a "chain of gurus" that are often debauchees? Worship of a debauchee guru line takes one to God? And this is what they are teaching to five years old children, that these children have to worship a "guru chain from God" that contains severe criminals and / or sexual predators -- as the children's worshiped guru's lineage? 

One GBC guru defender told me "there are not too many" deviants, sexual predators, porno swamis, drunkards, pot heads, thieves, crooks etc. in their guru chain. Swell -- there are "not too many" dog's stools in the sweet rice! There are some good successors to God, and some rotten successors to God, but there are "not that many" rotten successors to God? There are "not that many" deviants in the pure chain of gurus from God. Where is this stated in the Vedas? Not too many dog's stools in the sweet rice, who is going to want that sweet rice? Is this the plan, to make the Krishna religion so odious the temples will be empty, then they can sell the buildings? 

Isn't the guru parampara an eternal chain of PURE and DIVINE saints, who are in direct contact with the Supreme GOD? Why can't the GBC find ANY evidence of this process in the Vedas? Or are they saying, persons in contact with God are often debauchees? And now, their folks rationalize, there are "not too many" debauchees in God's chain of successors? 

The chain of gurus starts with God / Krishna and as we go through the "eternal links" in the GBC's "chain of eternal saints that connects us to God" we will find:

Illicit sex; Smoking pot; Sexual predators of minors; Buying mini-skirts for female gurukula students as the messiah is "dating" her at the Mall; Going to the Star Wars movies; Shooting guns at occupied buildings and being arrested; Drinking beer, vodka and schnops; Being sent post cards from Reno for being a good customer; Porno swamis; Sahajiya "gopi rasika classes" groups formed with Narayana Maharaja; Police SWAT raids on various of these guru's properties; Being sued for $400,000,000 for a program of starving and abusing children; and so on -- ad infinitum. 

Did we forget to mention the GBC is saying Chandra Shekhara's NYC guru Romapada swami and his program -- are thieves who are stealing the Brooklyn building by starting a bogus off shoot charity named the Bharatiya Society, and they have transferred ISKCON's assets to their own charity? Are property thieves also messiahs?

Why is all this chain of deviants and their extensive deviations an eternal "pure chain of saints that descends from God"? Did we forget to mention, the acharya Srila Prabhupada himself complained of being poisoned from prominent members of this group? So Krishna is eternal, His guru successors are eternal, therefore, we need to worship a "chain of gurus" that contains debauchees as also -- eternal? Isn't that what Satan wants to declare, we need to worship debauchees, and not the pure saints? Is the worship of debauchees eternal, only in the Church of Satan? 

Doesn't Chandra Shekhara swami, Jayadvaita swami et al. know that deviants, criminals, molesters, sexual predators etc., and fallen down conditioned souls in general ARE NOT, WERE NOT and COULD NOT HAVE BEEN, eternal gurus in a chain from God? 

So we need to worship an illicit sex guru parampara, because the GBC says so? What happened to Krishna? When did He say the path back to Him, and back to Godhead, is to worship a debauchee filled guru lineage? Why don't these people know that Krishna is superior to the GBC, and He says we have to worship His pure devotees, not debauchees posing as His pure devotees? And moreover worship of debauchees as acharyas is forbidden, and takes one to hell?



Isn't Chandra Shekhara part of the temple thieves program in Brooklyn?

OK. There are allegedly 36 mention of ritviks, maybe so, but there is no mention that ISKCON has to worship Chandra Shekhara's GBC illicit sex with men, women and children, and maybe sex with goats -- messiahs, acharyas, parampara members etc. as "God's guru successors"? Where is this mentioned?

And worse, Chandra Shekhara swami apparently cannot hardly find any examples where people worship pure devotees in the Vedas? Ooops, don't we find that worship of pure devotees as our gurus is the main idea found in the Vedas, or even the sole and exclusive idea?

The bogus GBC's plan is, we have to worship their debauchee infiltered group of bogus messiahs as our gurus in order to attain God, and worse -- now Chandra Shekhara is apparently saying there are hardly any examples of where people worship pure devotees found in shastra? Where are people instructed to worship a debauchee guru line in the Vedas? Sorry, there are no examples of this idea.]  

In all of these, where the word is referenced in the word-for-word, the word “rtvik” simply means “priest” or a type of Brahmana. The notion of “proxy” is not a part of the definition of the word ritvik. If you look at the Sanskrit derivation, also the word is a compound of the “Rtu” (meaning season) and “Yuj” (meaning one who offers sacrifice). It is obviously true that, in our modern world, certainly the word has come to mean proxy, but that is not its original, Vedic meaning.

[PADA: Right, so the persons who are falling into illicit sex with men, women and children are called neophytes, proxies, priests or conditioned souls attempting to conduct ceremonies on behalf of the guru, they are themselves full blown diksha gurus, and as such they can absorb sins like Jesus? 

The people falling down are not proxies for the acharyas, they are themselves acharyas? Where does Srila Prabhupada say acharyas are falling down left, right and center? Sorry, neophyte devotees who try to represent the acharya are FALLIBLE proxy agents, preachers, priests, who are aspiring AGENTS of the acharyas. A fallible soul is a proxy of the acharya AT BEST, just like a priest is a fallible proxy agent of Jesus, he is not the guru successor to Jesus.]

This topic has gone round and round for close to 30 years and I do not expect those who are convinced of the “Ritvik System” to be swayed by any argument. Therefore, I will just present this information once. To those who have ears, let them hear. Otherwise this Facebook thread will simply become a flame war uselessly wasting time. I will not reply further to the same arguments over and over.

[PADA: The GBC are arguing for a guru line that has apparently more than fifty percent of the time gurus that are fallen down, because apparently fifty percent of their acharyas have been falling down. Gurus are often fallen? Where is this stated in the Vedas? And now the new wave of gurus was voted in by the first wave, the wave that has persons engaged in illicit sex?]

Suffice it to say that the word Ritvik has come, in our modern times to be associated with the notion of proxy. This is a modern overlay upon the word which just has a generic meaning, which is simply priest. If you want to read more into the word, then go ahead, but then do not associate that with Srila Prabhupada.


[PADA: Right, Srila Prabhupada did not appoint proxies, who are fallible and who can fall down, he appointed full blown diksha gurus. That means Chandrashekahra is saying acharyas cannot distinguish neophytes from acharyas, and so the acharyas appoint conditioned souls and neophytes as the guru successors to Krishna.] 

In that same discussion on May 28, Prabhupada makes the definition of “They are his disciple. Who is initiating. He is grand-disciple.” “He becomes disciple of my disciple.” “He becomes regular guru.” 

Those statements are about as clear as you can get. If Prabhupada’s direct words answering a direct question do not change your view, then nothing will. I am aware that Ritvik-System believers can twist those simple words, but do so at your own peril. I do not take the idea that Prabhupada used the word “his” to mean himself; speaking of himself in the third-person. I do not take the idea that Prabhupada took the idea that the word “Ritvik” implied “proxy.” If you do, then we really have nothing more to talk about.

I also do not take the July 9th letter to be a revocation of the May 28th discussion. The July 9th letter is simply an expansion of the July 8th conversation with Tamala Krishna Gosvami. Read the July 8th discussion. It clearly spells out the context of the July 9th letter. The context was not a revocation of the May 28th discussion, but rather a policy directive for initiations during Prabhupada’s own lifetime, but while he was too sick to travel. If you want to read more into it than that, go right ahead, again at your own peril. And again, if you do there is really nothing more we have to talk about.

This controversy has been argued ad-nausea and further embellished with other speculations. There will never be a resolution to it and there is no compromise with it. Any misread of Prabhupada’s direct words can never be accepted, when it directly contradicts his preaching for 11 years. Find any place in Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhagavad Gita or any of Prabhupada’s books where the proxy plan for initiation is mentioned, directly, and spelled out and I will be happy to take a look at it. That is why I say that there is no such thing as the “Ritvik-System.” Prabhupada did not create one out of the blue in his final months and then leave its structure and definition open. And no, Prabhupada did not let one or two disciples in on this sweeping Ritvik idea and expect them to convert the entire rest of the movement. Prabhupada did not do things that way.


Certainly Acharyas can take advantage of modern technology, but that is a very different thing from changing philosophical conclusions. If we call it "Absolute Truth" that means it never changes for anyone at any time or any place.

Certainly, relative truth does change. The pertinent question is what is absolute in our philosophy and what is relative or what is principle and what is detail.

I am not trying to be dogmatic, but just try to see the logic there. If Prabhupada taught us that everything is in Guru, Sadhu and Sastra, that means that what Prabhupada says is the same as Guru, Sadhu and Sastra. New iPhone or whatever has nothing to do with it.

And if Prabhupada supposedly created some "new" system, then why did not give any details about how that system was to be carried out?



========================

[PADA:  Right, there is nothing new, so worship of pure devotees is always the process and worship of Chandra Shekhara's illicit sex with men, women and children messiahs is -- not EVER the process. His debauchee's guru line idea is not new at all, many illicit sex guru lines have appeared in the past and Srila Prabhupada says they are ALL packing off to the most obnoxious regions of the unvierse. 

Then again, taking sins without authority is taking down these false gurus already, no need to wait for the next life to experience hellish problems? Anyway, the court of public opinion is not in favor of these molester messiah's programs, they will never be accepted widely, plain and simple. ys pd]





==================

Chandra Shekhara swami has apparently become the aid and abet assistant of Romapada swami in the theft of the Brookyn temple:




===============================

GBC "advisor" Sridhara Maharaja says that Krishna's successor acharyas may "go mad" after money, women and followers, and this has become the GBC's main standard bearing concept after 1977:




At least Narayana Maharaja admits he makes monkeys into his messiahs:


Agnideva in Hospital ICU

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Reincarnation Explained (Krishna org)

None Dare Call it Conspiracy (ISKCON history 1977)

PADA: The main problem with the Gaudiya Matha, GBC, Rocana, Torben, Ajit Krishna, Hanuman Croatia (and others) is -- they know for sure Srila Prabhupada is NOT the current acharya, but then they do not know for sure -- who is? Recently Hanuman Croatia became very offended when some of us posted this video (below) of Bhakti Vikas swami. It seems that there is still a lot of sympathy for the GBC and their voted in guru messiahs. And BVKS is voted in at Bhavananda's recoronation in 1986, a time when it was known Bhavananda was having "man to man" sex with taxi drivers in the holy dham. 

Rocana is another one of these people, he says we need to make more messiahs and then have them "managed" by the GBC. Umm, same GBC that promotes worship of illicit sex messiahs? Rocana keeps saying we need to continue the process of making his neophyte pals into diksha acharyas, never mind they are getting sick, falling down and dying from taking sins without authority. Or they are going a little nutty, like Bhakti Vikas swami clearly is. 

It is amazing to me that even alleged "reformers" like Hanuman Croatia are still defending the "illicit sex with men, women and children" guru parampara, and he wants us to worship Bhakti Vikas swami, who was voted into that parampara. Yes, we need to worship the "man to man sex with taxi drivers in the holy dham" guru parampara. And Hanuman wants little children to worship his man to man sex in the holy dham guru program?

And "reformer" Rocana is still saying its bogus for us to worship pure devotees because this is the "church of ritvik" and we need to worship a living person, ummm, you mean we have to worship the "man to man sex with taxi driver's in the holy dham guru lineage" along with Hanuman Croatia and others? They never really explain what ELSE they really want us to do? Anyway, here is a little history lesson from an eye witness in 1977, Yasoda nandana das.   



video

The nutty professor's acharya's lineage (Bhakti Vikas swami is the sannyasa disciple of Jayapataka)  


None_Dare_Call_it_Isk-Conspiracy.pdf

None Dare Call it a(n) Isk-conspiracy, ISKCON Mythology and the Actual Facts – 

Part 1

by Yasoda nandana dasa

Challenging the (Rocana’s) SAAS (Self-Appointed Acarya Sabha) and the LGEP (Living Guru Experimental Project).

nama oṁ viṣṇu-pādāya kṛṣṇa-preṣṭhāya bhū-tale
śrīmate bhaktivedānta-svāmin iti nāmine

namah–obeisances; oṁ–address; viṣṇu-pādāya–unto him who is at the feet of Lord Visnu; kṛṣṇa-preṣṭhāya–who is very dear to Lord Krsna; bhū-tale–on the earth; śrīmate–all beautiful; bhaktivedānta-svāmin–A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami; iti–thus; nāmine–who is named

I offer my respectful obeisances unto His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, who is very dear to Lord Kṛṣṇa, on this earth, having taken shelter at His lotus feet.

namas te sārasvate deve gaura-vāṇī-pracāriṇe
nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādi-pāścātya-deśa-tāriṇe

namah–obeisances; te–unto you; sārasvate deve–servant of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī; gaura-vāṇī–the message of Lord Caitanyadev; pracāriṇe–who are preaching; nirviśeṣa– impersonalism; śūnyavādi–voidism; pāścātya–Western; deśa– countries; tāriṇe–who are delivering

Our respectful obeisances are unto you, O spiritual master, servant of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī. You are kindly preaching the message of Lord Caitanyadeva and delivering the Western countries, which are filled with impersonalism and voidism.

By Yasoda nandana dasa

October 7, 2017

In a recent series of articles and commentaries (the “Articles”) published in the Sampradaya Sun, on September 27 and 28, 2017, the loquacious self-styled "independent brahminical commentator" and editor of the Sampradaya Sun, has attempted to misrepresent various statements, and written letters which I authored in 1978 and 1979, and my role in the submission of a paper presented to the GBC, while I was serving in my assigned service by Srila Prabhupada, in the Bhaktivedanta Swami Gurukula, in Vrindavana, India.

The following initial accounts and descriptions(s) are my direct personal experiences of the factual background and history of the so-called debate, previous correspondence, and some of the meetings with members of the GBC (Governing Body Commission) of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), which occurred in late 1977,  1978 and 1979, primarily at the ISKCON Krishna Balarama Mandira and Mayapura.  

Kindly note that for the time being, due to my frail health and as time permits, this is only a partial rendition of my personal experiences on the issues prevailing at that time, and still prevailing as of the writing of this article, namely how should initiations should be conducted in the aftermath of Srila Prabhupada’s departure for His society and movement.

These accounts are based upon my personal notes in my archives and records, and my realizations on the basis of available information at different points in time.

Before we proceed, we should point out that I and many other devotees, have appreciated the stand which the Independent Brahminical Commentator has taken on several controversial and polemical issues such as the assassination of Sulocana dasa, exposing various neo-matha posers, the unauthorized adulteration of Srila Prabhupada’s books, exposing child molesters, abusers and exploiters and various other issues of interest to various devotees.

However, in one of his recent articles titled, "Challenging the Zonal Acaryas -- and the Ritvik-Vadis,” on September 27, 2017, the Independent Brahminical Commentator, in his on-going efforts to support the GBC / Iskcon Corp. acarya appointment logic and his laborious attempts to prop up the Iskcon Corp. GBC LGEP myth and arguments, has offered his various personal opinions and inaccurate aspersions on my early role in 1979 with regards to the controversy.
___________________________________

http://www.iskcon-truth.com/zonal-acarya-system.html

http://www.iskcon-truth.com/guru-issue.html

http://www.iskcon-truth.com/ritvik-validity.html 

http://www.iskcon-truth.com/why-ritvik-is-bonafide.html
___________________________________

Rocana dasa aka Independent Brahminical Commentator: Today we completed our presentation of the 1979 Vrindavan challenge paper delivered to the Zonal Acaryas. In the previous segment, Part 18, it was confirmed that Yasodanandana then - Swami and Pradyumna das were two of the key leaders responsible for writing this paper, as evidenced by the fact that they were to be its primary defenders in a debate with the GBC, should one have taken place.

Ynd: Confirmed by whom? Incorrect, the paper was compiled by Kailsa candra dasa. It was not compiled by Pradyumna dasa. He did not sign it. I was a signer on the paper, along with several other sannyasis, and over 30 devotees serving at the Krishna Balarama temple and Bhaktivedanta Swami Gurukula. 

Pradyumna did not sign it for personal reasons. Pradyumna (Pandita ji)’s role in the discussion, was to challenge the then GBC position and policy of accepting worship in front of Srila Prabhupada, the use of various self-bestowed honorific titles and vyasa-asanas in front of Srila Prabhupada, pictures on the altars, claims of being acaryas for specific zones, etc. He had written a letter to Satsvarupa Swami dated August 7, 1978, expressing his concerns regarding those various issues. 

It must be pointed out that none of us had access to the original tapes and accurate transcripts of those conversations, which occurred between Srila Prabhupada and some members of the GBC in the last few months of His manifested presence, particularly for the period of April 1977 to November 14, 1977.

These important conversations were under the control and jurisdiction of the GBC, and primarily under the direct possession of Tamal Krishna Goswami, (the “Secretary” also known as “Tkg.”) My primary intent and role in submitting the paper to the GBC was to have a full threadbare discussion on the issue(s) related to the exact statements, recordings and all conversations with took place with Srila Prabhupada concerning initiation, and related topics, in His society and movement.  I hinted at that in my letter to Satsvarupa Swami dated January 1, 1979, Page Two (2), “Other Topics for Discussion,” Items Numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.  

I wanted that various items be fully and thoroughly discussed, specifically the issue of Srila Prabhupada’s exact unedited original statements during the last few months of His manifested presence, as opposed to the paraphrasing and official party line propaganda of the GBC and the SAAS. 

In the aftermath of Sriman Pradyumna’s letter of August of 1978, I had been informed from reliable sources that there had been threats uttered by some irate GBC members and some of their fanatical followers, due to their displeasure of Pradyumna’s letter to the GBC, and the on-going discussions which were taking place in Vrindavana among several sannyasis, temple devotees, visiting devotees from various temples in ISKCON, and many of the Gurukula teachers and devotees at that time.

[PADA: Right, several people present in India at the time report getting death threats. We were given very icy glares from the disciples of Jayatirtha when we challenged a few of his policies in UK. OK, we could have been beaten up. There was a very sub-violent mood against anyone who "challenged the appointed successors to Krishna." It was hard or even impossible to openly question the "appointed 11 gurus" process, and Rocana seems to totally gloss over these minor details.]

Independent Brahminical Commentator:  As we mentioned in previous commentaries, this paper makes it very clear that among this group of senior devotees in 1979, there is no indication that the July 9th Letter was understood to represent an instruction for the post-samadhi diksa ritvik initiation of Srila Prabhupada disciples. Just the opposite.

[PADA: What exactly is the point of Rocana saying Srila Prabhupada is the post samadhi; posthumous, and post mortem guru all the time? Is this the way devotees and even acharyas commonly refer to their guru after he physically departs? And didn't Srila Prabhupada say he would live forever in his books? The books are giving the divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha) all along, and this process would continue, when was this changed?]

Ynd: More misrepresentation from the Independent Brahminical Commentator. The following is a brief summary of my various attempts to discuss and seek clarifications from members and former members of the GBC and SAAS about this issue from 1977 to 1979.

May 29, 1977, Vrindavana, Krishna Balarama temple courtyard, May 29, 1978
This is a conversation which occurred on May 29th 1977 in the courtyard of the Krishna Balarama temple in Vrindavan, India, a conversation between Bhava Ananda (then) Goswami ("Bag") and Yashodanandan. It happened just prior to the initiation of Bhakti Charu Swami, Bhakti Prem Swami, and Bhakti Chaitanya Swami. They were the last three sannyasis who were personally given sannyasa by Srila Prabhupada.  

This took place in the courtyard of the Krishna Balarama temple, on or about 9.30 in the morning. . We were facing east, getting ready for the fire sacrifice because there were several gurukula children who were also getting initiated that day. Srila Prabhupada was in his room.  The following is [are] my notes from the conversation with Bhava Ananda, then Goswami (“Bag.”)

Ynd: So how is Srila Prabhupada’s health?
Bag: Improving. It fluctuates.
Ynd: What about this rtvik acharya thing? What does that actually mean?
Bag: On behalf of Prabhupada. Will initiate while he is in this condition.
Ynd: What about after?
Bag: I guess we don’t know yet.
Ynd: (changing the topic) So it should be a nice fire sacrifice.
Bag: You take care of this. You put on a good show.
(The fire sacrifice was ready to start and Bhava Ananda all of sudden)
Bag: I can’t wait till we start to do this. I can’t wait!
Ynd to Bag: What did you say?
Bag: We’re already late for this fire sacrifice.

Note:  What did Bhavananda Goswami actually mean when he said, “We don’t know yet”? What did he mean when he said, “I can’t wait till we start to do this”? Who is “we”? What is “this”? Was it a hint of what was to come? Or a Freudian slip?

Note:  The above-referenced conversation took place the next day after the May 28, 1977 alleged appointment tape conversation. It is obvious that Bhavananda was aware of the conversation which had taken place with Srila Prabhupada and some of the GBC members the day before.  I had heard from Smara Hari dasa, my brahmacari assistant at the time, that there had been some discussions with Srila Prabhupada and some GBCs members concerning future initiations and the issue of ritvik-acaryas.  

I did not have access to the full transcripts of this May 28, 1977 conversation and other important conversations, until many years later.  It is interesting to note that none of the full transcripts of the so-called “appointment tape” and other crucial conversations were released by the GBC until several years later.  The first partial transcript came from the Jadurani papers in 1980-1981, not from the GBC. It was obtained with the help of some sympathetic devotees serving in Los Angeles, California at the time.
___________________________________

In late July 1977, Outside of Srila Prabhupada’s quarters, Krishna Balarama temple, Vrindavana, India, an attempt was made to obtain further clarification from Srila Prabhupada.

The following is a conversation which took place in late July 1977, between Gurukripa (then Swami), Bhagavan Dasa and Yasodanandan (then Swami).  This took place just outside Srila Prabhupada’s room near the Krishna Balarama temple courtyard, regarding a request for clarification pertaining the role of rtvik representatives, which had been discussed by Srila Prabhupada in July 1977.
Gurukrpa (then) Swami to Bhagavan: Why don’t we go and ask Prabhupada what he means by this rtvik acharya thing? How is it supposed to work? Can anyone else do this besides the eleven named in the letter? What is the GBC’s role in all of this? Let’s go and ask him.

Bhagavan to Tamal Krishna: Let’s go and see Prabhupada and clarify this rtvik-acharya thing.

Tamal Krishna to Gurukrpa Swami:  Prabhupada is not well. Besides, I think he’s busy. Let’s not disturb him with this. It’s all clear anyway.

(And he [Tkg] changed the subject to talk about some other things and avoided to seek the clarification.)

Note:  I tried to obtain some clarification, but there was considerable resistance from the Secretary.
___________________________________

It seems that I was not the only one attempting to obtain clarification from Srila Prabhupada around that time.  In Vrindavana, in October 1977, Satsvarupa Swami, attempted to obtain clarification from Srila Prabhupada and Tamal Krishna refused.

The following is from a Memories essay penned by Satsvarupa Swami and distributed by Jayadvaita Swami in San Diego, California on January 14, 1990, prior to the so-called ritvik debate.  Another attempt to obtain clarification from Srila Prabhupada was again denied by the Secretary.

Satsvarupa Swami: “…Then in October [1977], Srila Prabhupada again became very critical in his health, and many of us went again to him for the last time. In this connection, I have another relevant memory of something that occurred in the very last days of Prabhupada’s stay. I was talking with Jayadvaita Maharaja in a room in the guest house at Krishna Balarama Mandira. 

I expressed to him my understanding that the list of persons who Prabhupada had picked to initiate on his behalf was also the list of persons Prabhupada had promised he would pick in May [the word June is crossed off] when he said he would appoint some of his disciples who would [words “who would” are hand written and three words are crossed off] initiate their own disciples after Prabhupada’s disappearance.

I don’t think that Jayadvaita Maharaja disagreed with me. But he did say strongly that I had better get this in writing from Srila Prabhupada.  He said this was very important and that it was not clear.  He said that unless it was in writing it would be contested by devotees later.  I was surprised to hear that because it [word crossed off] seemed quite clear to me.  But Jayadvaita Maharaja insisted that I should get it in writing from Prabhupada.

So, on his advice I thought that he must be right that it was very serious. I went down to Tamala Krishna Maharaja and asked him about it. In retrospect, it seemed like it certainly would have saved a lot of trouble if we had gotten Prabhupada to put everything in writing.  And yet, by the arrangement of Providence, it was not done that way.  

Anyway, I asked Tamal Krishna Maharaja to please get this in writing.  He asked. Why?  I said because people will not understand that Prabhupada picked the regular gurus when he named the person who would initiate while he was still with us. Tamal Krishna Maharaja replied that he himself knew very well what Prabhupada intended and that good enough for him. I tried again to ask him to see Prabhupada to sign something.  But Tamal Krishna Maharaja was not willing. I could see he was distraught by the intense situation he was going through.  

And for myself, I was in my own paralyzed mental state because of grief and inability to love Prabhupada.  And so Prabhupada never signed a paper.  It was something that might have happened, but never did.

And if I may be permitted a bit of speculation, we might also say that Srila Prabhuapda was fully aware of what he was doing, and what would happen after his disappearance, and he did the very best he could in these circumstances….”
Note:  The above-referenced text and rendition of the May 28th, July 7th conversation, and July 9, 1977 letter authorized by Srila Prabhupada represents the typical party line of the SAAS and LGEP.
___________________________________


October 3, 1977
In Hari Sauri dasa’s unpublished black binder diary, typed by Smara Hari’s brother in Vrindavana, on Page 11, October 3, 1977, Hari Sauri discusses Srila Prabhupada’s express desire to bring all of his disciples to Vrindavana.

“…In Delhi I purchased some items for Srila Prabhupada - a water heater, a mosquito net and some powders for his dry bath.  Also, I informed Adi Keshava that only the GBCs should come to see Srila Prabhupada at present. Tamal Krsna had previously informed the USA men that Srila Prabhupada’s health was very bad that whoever wanted to come should come.  

Then later we decided that if so many men came then there would be no programme. Then they may stay around for weeks and they may not even be able to see Srila Prabhupada either. I phoned to tell him that only GBCs and sannyasis should come.  The call was just in time.  Hundreds of men were preparing to come….”

Questions: (i) Who is the we referred to in these notes? (ii) Why were Srila Prabhupada’s disciples not informed of the actual desires of His Divine Grace to see all of his disciples in Vrindavana before his departure? (iii) Giriraja sent a telegram to Ramesvara dasa, who did not inform the devotees to come to Vrindavan.

Note: Again, who is the “we” referred to by Hari Sauri in the above entry in his private diary, Is this the same “we” that is referred to by Bhavananda in his May 29, 1977 Freudian slip conversation with myself, just before the fire sacrifice ceremony for the sannyasa initiation of Bhakti Caru Swami, Bhakti Prema Swami and Bhakti Caitanya Swami.

Is this the same “we” also referred to in an upcoming conversation between Bhavananda and a Gurukula assistant teacher, as will be discussed later, in August of 1978? 
___________________________________

In December of 1977, in Vrindavana, India, at the Bhaktivedanta Swami Gurukula building, upon our return from Japan in December 1977, where Srila Prabhupada had sent us to collect funds to settle an on-going lawsuit with the building contractor for the Bhaktivedanta Gurukula building, there was a meeting between Gurukrpa, myself and the late Secretary, regarding future initiations in ISKCON.

Gurukrpa: So, what is going to happen with this initiation issue? How is this going to work?
Tkg: (Very surprised at the boldness of the questioning by Gurukrpa) A long silence. Tamal appeared stunned. `”Well, we will have to see, nobody really knows, but we will have to discuss this in Mayapura.  We don’t know yet but we will all discuss at Mayapura.”
___________________________________

Ynd:  In March of 1978, at the Vrindavana Bhaktivedanta Swami Gurukula building, on the 2nd floor balcony facing the courtyard, a former member of the GBC from France, Bhagavan dasa, visited Vrindavan. In a conversation with the said Prabhu, I asked him the following question:

Ynd: So many devotees are asking questions about how the process of initiations is supposed to work?
Bhagavan dasa: What do you mean?! People are talking! Only the GBC should talk about this. Why are they talking about this? Who are they? They have nothing to say.
Ynd: Come on. The devotees are curious. They want to know what is going to happen.
Bhagavan dasa: Nobody, you hear, should talk about this. Only the GBC.

Note:  It was becoming clearer that several GBCs besides Tamal Krishna were reluctant to discuss the issue with other regular devotees. But there were many private discussions among these leaders. 
___________________________________

On March 27, 1978, in Mayapura, West Bengal, India, at the long building rooftop room near the Mayapura Chandrodaya mandira, I was living in a room with Gurukrpa Swami, Tamal Krishna Goswami and Bhagavan dasa. I had a conversation with the late Secretary and former SAAS founder, Tamal Krishna Goswami.  On one occasion, I was alone with Tkg.

Ynd:I am getting a lot of inquiries from parents, devotees from various zones about how this new initiation process is going to work.  Nobody seems to have any clear answers.  Why don’t you arrange to have all the main conversations which took placed in the last few months with Srila Prabhupada transcribed, and this should be discussed openly among all the temple presidents, senior devotees, and sannyasis.  We can gather 50 or 60 brahmanas and secretaries and get this done in a few days.

He appeared stunned by the question. After a brief silence he stated.

Tkg: Prabhupada said that if we have philosophical questions, we can go to see Sridhara Maharaja. Why don’t you go there and ask him questions?
Ynd: Really Srila Prabhupada said that. [I was a little surprised.]
Tkg: Just go and record what he says.

Note: I had no way of verifying what Tkg said about Sridhar Maharaja. Again, the ominous conversation of April 22, 1977 in Bombay, between Srila Prabhupada and Tkg, where Srila Prabhupada discussed the breakdown of the Gaudiya Matha and the various parties involved was not available, but Tkg knew about it. In that conversation, Srila Prabhupada noted that both parties were “severe offenders.”  

While it is an undeniable fact that Srila Prabhupada maintained cordial and friendly relationship with Sridhar Maharaja, He clearly expressed reservations and His warnings about his role in the unauthorized appointment of one acarya in 1937, and the subsequent breakdown, chaos and disunity which resulted. 
Why would Srila Prabhupada send us to a person whom he had characterized as responsible for the breakdown of the Gaudiya Matha for philosophical questions.  Srila Prabhupad famous letter to Rupanuga dasa, dated April 28, 1974, surfaced a few years later 

Srila Prabhupada; “…He never recommended anyone to be acarya of the Gaudiya Matha, but Sridhara Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja, and he and others who are already dead unnecessarily thought that there must be one acharya…… So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure….”
This above-referenced letter from Srila Prabhupada to Rupanuga dasa, was also not available at that time. It was not until several years later that this revealing letter surfaced.
___________________________________

In August 1978, in the gurukula courtyard, of the Krishna Balarama temple, Vrindavan, India, there was conversation between Bhavananda Goswami and a gurukula teacher, Niragadeva dasa. I was standing on the second floor of the gurukula building, witnessing an animated conversation between Bhavananda and Niragadev.  Bhavananda seemed agitated, and occasionally throwing his hands in the air, as if dismissing something. I could no hear the details of the conversation because I was too far. When Niragadev came back to the second floor of the gurukula building, I asked him:

Ynd: So, what did you discuss?
Niragadeva: I mentioned Pradyumna’s letter to Satsvarupa and I said that many devotees had concerns how this new guru system was being implemented in ISKCON.
Ynd: So, what did Bhavananda say?
Niragadeva: He spoke loudly and said, “There is nothing to discuss. It has already all been discussed. We’ve already decided everything.”
Ynd: So what else did you say?
Niragadeva: I raised the issue that many devotees and Prabhupada disciples were upset with the introduction of Vyasa Pujas, pictures on the altar, Vyasasanas in front of Srila Prabhupada. Bhavananda said, “So what? Let them all leave. We’ve got our own disciples now!” I was shocked and left.
Note: Again, who is the “we” referred to again by Bhavananda? Is it the same “we” that he referred to in May 1977 when he said, “I can’t wait till we start to do this”?
___________________________________

End of August 1978 at the Krishna-Balarama temple in Vrindavana, Mathura District, Uttara Pradesh, India – summary of events and significant stages. 

1) Pradyumna Dasa had just written a letter to Satsvarupa. With several points, several notes, many important points. One misconception in this letter was about the nature of the devotees which were chosen by Srila Prabhupada to initiate on his behalf.

2) It should be noted that Pradyumna and the others never had the actual transcripts of the May 27-28 conversations and the July conversation with Srila Prabhupada.

3) Various points raised about the Gaudiya Math are irrelevant to the situation in ISKCON.

4) Bhavananda specially delivered Pradyumna’s response to Satsvarupa. The reply by Satsvarup was the basic denial of the points raised by Pradyumna. Towards the end of August 1978 for the Janmashtami festival Tamal Krishna and Bhagavan came to Vrindavan. They arrived by taxi at the front gate at the Krishna Balarama temple. The devotees and all the gurukula children greeted them with a nice kirtana and flower garlands. 

They came to the temple room, took darshana of the Deities. No special foot bath or pada puja and no Vyasasanas were provided. Both Tamal and Bhagavan were visibly upset and disappointed that they had not gotten their own Vyasasanas and neither pada puja (foot bath). Both of them went to Gurukripa’s room in the Krishna Balarama temple on the second floor of the Guest House. Pradyumna and Yashodanandan came in. 

Present at the meeting was Tamal Krishna Goswami, Bhagavan Dasa, Yasodanandan (then Swami,) Gurukripa (then Swami) and Pradyumna Dasa. There was a discussion regarding the letter that Pradyumna Dasa had just written to Satsvarupa. Major points of discussion:

Gurukrpa Swami” We have a few questions about the guru situation.
It seems that there has been a few changes from what was agreed at Mayapura.

Tkg: What is that?
Gurukrpa: Pradyumna knows and he would like to explain a few things.  Pradyumna comes in the room.
Tkg: Pradyumna knows and he would like to explain a few things.
Pradyumna comes in the room, offers pranams and starts talking.
Pradyumna:   On point is about the Vyasa-asana, why there should be a vyasa-asana in the There is reason why. According to Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition is improper to take worship in front of one ‘s own Godbrother and also the temple does not belong to the initiating gurus. It belongs to the society. Why should one Godbrother, by putting his seat there, claim the place. Once you put the seat, no one can remove it. It becomes permanent.  There is no reason why the Vyasa-asanas should be there, it should be separate.
Tkg: Well, in Bombay, what I’ve done is my Vyasa-asana is there and the top portion of it is removable so that after me someone else can sit there
(obvious attempt to step out of the argument)
Bhagavan:  You Godbrothers should simply accept us without envy, just like the five Pandavas put their elder brother, Maharaja Yudhisthira, on the throne and thus worshipped him, so you should do like that.
Gurukrpa: Well, at Mayapur festival it was not clarified that you would erect these Vyasa-Asanas. Why all of a sudden have you done this?
Pradyumna:  Why have they made these geographical divisions.  This should not have been done.
Tkg: In every temple, there must be a representative of the Sampradaya.
Pradyumna:  Prabhupada never nominated any acharyas. Prabhupada never mentioned Vyasasanas, Vyasa Pujas, special pranam mantras, pictures on the altar, and special titles like Vishnupada, Gurupada, none of this.   That is why Prabhupada appointed the temple presidents so that he may represent the sampradaya.
Tkg: The temple president is only for material management, only, in every temple there must be a representative of the sampradaya.
Pradyumna:  but the temple president is..
Tkg: (Interrupting), you mean to say that in Bombay for example, Giriraja, the temple president, is the representative of the sampradaya. No, I am the representative.
Bhagavan:[Interrupting seeing the difficulty in Tkg’s position]  Listen, listen. We are just trying to follow what Sridhara Swami [Navadipa Gaudiya Matha] said. He is the one who said to put up Vyasa asanas.
Pradyumna:  The fact remains that Prabhupada has not given any instruction for what is being done in ISKCON now. Well, he should be consulted again. This point should be clarified.
Tkg: You should not go by yourself.

[then the conversation turns to other topics, the everyone pays obeisances]

Note: This conversation occurred the day before Krishna Janma Astami on August 25, 1978.  After this, the meeting disbanded and Tamal Krishna and Bhagavan went to the next floor upstairs to speak privately with Gurukripa. This occurred midafternoon, Tamal Krishna protested to Gurukripa that Pradyumna and Yasoda nandan are making waves and causing trouble for everyone. “If you bring them under control, we will make you a guru next year at Mayapur.” Gurukripa replied, “This is all nonsense.”
___________________________________

Late August 1978, Krishna Balarama Guest House, Conversation between Tkg and Bhagavan dasa.  after leaving Gurukrpa’s room.

Bhagavan dasa to Tkg in the stairwell of the guest house after the meeting in Gurukrpa’s room]

Discussing what to do with devotees who questioned the “new guru system”
Bhagavan dasa: “In my zone, it is my way or the highway”
Tkg: Agreeing with aloud laugh. loud laugh!.
___________________________________
October 1978 

One GBC and SAAS member from Southern California mentioned to a devotee from the Southeastern zone, in October of 1978:  This was directly related to me when the devotee visited Vrindavan in the fall of 1978.

One of the former SAAS member and ex-GBC from California [Ramesvara dasa, then Swami] told a visiting devotee from the Southeastern USA zone:” There is no place in our movement for smarta brahmanas like Pradyumna and Yasoda nandan. and if Kailash chandra and Yasodanandan don’t stop talking about this guru issue, (the then prevailing issue), then I’ll have my disciples kill them.” 

The former SAAS member further elaborated, “You’re going to see how the GBC will get rid of them in Vrindavan when we go there.” Again the “we”, was there a secret elitist cabal within the GBC, privately discussing policies for everything and everybody else?
___________________________________

From the letter sent from Yasoda nandana (then Swami) to Satsvarupa Swami January 1, 1979

Page 2.  Other Topics for Discussion.
“A hand-written cover note from Yasodanandana identifies the document as “Proposed Topics of Discussion for 1979 Mayapura Meeting”.
Discussion of the meaning of the term rtvik acarya
3. Reason for appointment and mood of appointment of the eleven diksa-gurus at the time of Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance
a. the conversation of Srila Prabhupada and Tamala Krsna Goswami regarding the appointment of these 11 diksa gurus
b. see letter by Tamala Krsna Goswami
Ynd:  For the record, from my perspective, the February 1979 paper, submitted to the GBC was a proposal for discussion based upon the information of Srila Prabhupada’s statements and recordings available at the time.
Ynd:  The GBC meeting was not a true debate. Satsvarupa Swami stated right at the beginning of the meeting that this was not a thread-bare debate, but just to discuss the points in the paper submitted.   It was not long before I (and others), quickly figured out that it was as a rigged set-up, not an honest brahminical open thread-bare debate.  As disclosed by various statements by several GBCs and SAAS members at the time, the GBC had no interest to really fully discuss the issue, they had reached their own secret decision and schemes. 
But ominous warnings had been articulated since the late August 1978 private meeting between the late secretary and SAAS member from Dallas, Texas [Tkg], the SAAS member and GBC from France and Gurukrpa (then Swami), the GBC of Vrindavana, India and another SAAS member [!] from France.
___________________________________

Independent Brahminical Commentator: Obviously, had the GBC deigned to give the Vrindavan devotees a floor for debating guru-tattva, Yasodanandana himself would have stood before them to assert the exact same understandings and arguments found in this paper. He would not have argued that the July 9th Letter was an instruction for post-samadhi ritvik diksa initiations, but rather, that it was understood that some of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples would now serve as diksa gurus, and the disciples would be their own. And of course, that as diksa gurus, they were to be humble servants, not self-declared pure devotee Zonal Acaryas.

Ynd: Total speculation. I knew beforehand the outcome of the rigged-up so-called debate which had been planned by some members of the GBC. I knew they had no serious interest whatsoever in debating. Regardless of any of the terminology in the paper submitted to the GBC, I never had the understanding and conviction that they were successor and appointed diksa gurus by Srila Prabhupada.  Whatever terminology was used in that paper and correspondence was the prevailing terminology used by devotees at the time, based upon the available information provided by the GBC.  

The submitted paper was simply an attempt, from my observation, to facilitate a full discussion in order to obtain the exact statements of  Srila Prabhupada, which were not available from the GBC at that time. The GBC suppressed the information and any real discussions. 
___________________________________

Independent Brahminical Commentator: This 1979 paper is historically important for many reasons, one of which is that it documents the period prior to the start of the Ritvik-vada movement, and tells the story through one of the Ritvik-vadi’s own founders, Yasodanandana dasa. After co-authorizing the 1979 challenge paper, he and a few associates went on to create – basically out of thin air – a Ritvik movement that relied upon the July 9th Letter as its key piece of evidence.

Ynd:  Another outlandish falsehood, I am not the founder of a ritvik-vada movement or any movement. Srila Prabhupada is the founder of the movement and my only intent and function was to ascertain and follow the order(s) of the acarya Srila Prabhupada.  

[PADA: Yes, Rocana keeps saying we "founded" or concocted the idea that pure devotees have to be worshiped as the acharya, ooops, when this was founded hundreds and trillions of years ago by Krishna. We did not found this idea?] 

The final order for initiations was decreed and mandated by Srila Prabhupada himself, in His July 9th, 1977 directive to the whole society, not me. The Independent Brahminical Commentator letter is ascribing way too much significant and importance to my insignificant and humble self in this matter. And the Independent Brahminical Commentator, a current apologist and defender of SAAS relies on word jugglery and misinterpretations to try to establish their legitimacy as appointed diksha-gurus.
___________________________________

“They’ll concoct, manufacture some blasphemy against you.”
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 4/9/73)

Independent Brahminical Commentator: How is it that Yasodanandana came to adopt such a striking new realization years later, in the mid- to late-1980’s, as he began to heavily politic for the newly launched Ritvik-vada philosophy? What convinced him to adopt a completely contrary understanding of the July 9th Letter, despite the fact that he and his close associates commonly shared an opposing understanding?

In the weeks ahead, we will answer that question, using Yasodanandana’s own written words. We’ll begin next time with a document he wrote that enumerates many elements of guru-tattva as he understood it, circa 1979.

Ynd: There was no “striking new realizations.” The GBC suppressed open discussion and debate, they suppressed the publication of Srila Prabhupada’s letters and other documents. They did not want the truth of Srila Prabhupada’s actual instruction on the issue of initiations and the actual conversations with Srila Prabhupada in 1977 to come out.  

And I did not engage in “heavily politic for the newly launched Ritvik-vada philosophy?” This is simply another example of prevarication from the fertile speculative mind of the Independent Brahminical Commentator

From the above-referenced statement of the self-styled Independent Brahminical Commentator, one can seriously wonder if he having a serious case of indigestion as a result of eating too much parampara pablum from the dogma propaganda coming from the SAAS and the GBC.    
___________________________________

First of all, there was a legitimate question to raise as to why the Secretary and the GBC did not openly bring out all of the tape recordings and full transcripts of the crucial conversations which the said Secretary and the GBC members had with Srila Prabhupada.  There were plenty of devotees available at the Mayapura festival who could have transcribed these conversations.  And then to discuss these issues openly among the devotees, the temple presidents, senior devotees, and sannyasis at the March 1978 Mayapur festival. The question has to be raised to the GBC, why did they not come out with all of the original tape recordings?

Iskcon Mythology -December 3, 1980 Topanga Canyon, California.  Meeting with Hamsadutta Swami, Tamal Krishna Swami, Dhira Krsna Swami, Jayadvaita Swami, Kirtiraja dasa and others.

http://www.iskcon-truth.com/tamal-admission-topanga.html

Tamal Krsna Goswami: Actually, Prabhupada never appointed any gurus. He didn’t appoint eleven gurus. He appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement the last three years (28 now) because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus.

“What actually happened, I’ll explain. I explained it, but the interpretation is wrong. What actually happened was that Prabhupada mentioned that he might be appointing some ritviks, so the GBC met for various reasons and they went to Prabhupada – five or six of us. We asked him, “Srila Prabhupada, after your departure, if we accept disciples, whose disciples will they be, your disciples or mine?” Later on, there was a piled-up list for people to get initiated, and it was jammed-up. I said, “Srila Prabhupada, you once mentioned about ritviks. 

I don’t know what to do. We don’t want to approach you, but there’s hundreds of devotees named, and I’m just holding all the letters. I don’t know what you want to do.” …

Tamal Krishna: “The point I want to state on that is this realization, and I feel that the GBC body, if they don’t adopt this point very quickly, if they don’t realize this truth: You can’t show me anything on tape or in writing where Prabhupada says, “I appoint these 11 as gurus.” It doesn’t exist because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth. Everyone is qualified to right now give initiation and you’ll see no blood and pus will fall out of the sky, no thunderbolt will strike you dead. “

Note:  It is interesting to note that Tamal Krishna refers to “What actually happened was that Prabhupada mentioned that he might be appointing some ritviks,” so the GBC met for various reasons and they went to Prabhupada – five or six of us. We asked him”

Ynd note: As of the date of this compilation, no record has ever surfaced of this above-referenced conversation with Srila Prabhupada which occurred prior to the May 28, 1977, so-called “appointment tape” meeting, where Srila Prabhupada had been talking that “e might be appointing some ritviks.”  Where did that or these conversations go? If it was recorded, then where did the recording(s) go? If it was not recorded, then why not?
___________________________________

GBC withheld key question about initiations in their letter distributed to all temples and temple presidents claiming to represent the actual contents of the topics discussed with Srila Prabhupada, which had occurred on May 27, 28 and 29, 1977
___________________________________

DECEMBER 13, 1999 VNN5073 – EDITORIAL

GBC Suppressed the Truth

BY LOCANANANDA DAS

[Underline and bold are mine. Ynd]

EDITORIAL, Dec 13 (VNN) — New evidence has just been discovered that suggests a GBC conspiracy to suppress instructions given by Srila Prabhupada concerning how he wanted initiations to be performed after his departure.
In May of 1977, the members of the GBC were summoned to Vrindavana, India to meet with Srila Prabhupada when His Divine Grace thought his departure from this world was imminent. His Divine Grace revealed to a committee of GBC members that he was going to recommend some of his disciples to act as officiating acharyas to perform first and second initiations when he would no longer be with us. As evidenced by the following document, the GBC decided at the time that devotees throughout the world should not be informed of this most important revelation made by their beloved spiritual master.

The repercussions of the decision to suppress the truth and the subsequent deviation from Srila Prabhupada’s instructions have left devoted followers of His Divine Grace deadlocked over the issue of guru succession and initiations in ISKCON for more than two decades.

The document in question is a summary report of the GBC meetings held during the three days from May 27-29, 1977. The report was sent out to all ISKCON temple presidents and begins with a list of names of the GBC members in attendance. The first point mentioned in the report is that a list of trustees of all ISKCON properties was submitted to Srila Prabhupada. The second point states that committees were formed to improve the original charter and expand the Bureau of Management in India. Point number three deals with the questions posed by the GBC committee concerning how Srila Prabhupada’s mission was to be continued under the direction of the GBC after his departure. It is this third item that is of great significance.

A review of the document shows quite clearly that the GBC deliberately omitted from the report Srila Prabhupada’s answer to the question concerning initiations. This intentional omission was apparently made to conceal Srila Prabhupada’s wishes from his disciples worldwide concerning the initiation procedures he wanted followed after his departure. Had this been an honest presentation of the facts, the report would have stated:

“When asked how first and second initiations would be performed after he was no longer with us, Srila Prabhupada said that he was going to recommend some of his disciples to act as officiating acharyas.”

The text of Srila Prabhupada’s conversation with the GBC committee was not disclosed for many years, which has created a credibility gap between the leaders of ISKCON and ISKCON’s general membership.

Six weeks later, a letter issued on July 9th, 1977 bearing Srila Prabhupada’s signature was sent to all temple presidents to explain changes that were being made in initiation procedures. It was the outcome of a discussion that had taken place two days earlier between Srila Prabhupada and his secretary. In that conversation, to resolve the problem of an initiation backlog, Srila Prabhupada first recommended that senior sannyasis could again perform initiation ceremonies as had been done before his illness. 

However, when the secretary reminded Srila Prabhupada of the May 28th meeting with the GBC, this historic conversation evolved into the naming of the officiating acharyas, referred to in the letter as “ritvik representatives“.
Srila Prabhupada had said he was going to recommend some of his disciples to perform initiations on his behalf after his disappearance, and the July 9th letter was the fulfillment of that promise. 

According to the May 28th announcement to the GBC, those initiated during his physical presence by representatives of the acharya would be considered his direct disciples, while those initiated after his disappearance by officiating acharyas would be considered his second generation of disciples, or granddisciples. The difference was considered to be one of formalities, since all members of ISKCON throughout the course of its history would perpetually serve, worship and follow the teachings of their great preceptor acharya, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. That is the principle that unifies the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

The document presented below was transcribed exactly from the original which accounts for any spelling or grammatical errors. Because the only remaining copy may be the one in my possession, I recommend that devotees save copies in their files for future reference.

Beginning of Document
GBC MEETINGS Vrindavana (Krsna Balarama Mandir) May 27-29, 1977
Signatures of Attendance
Adi Kesava Swami (acting GBC)
Harikesa Swami
Atreya Rishi dasa
Hridayananda Goswami
Balavanta dasa
Jagadisa das
Bali Mardan dasa
Jayapataka Swami
Bhagavan dasa
Kirtanananda Swami
Bhavananda Goswami (non GBC member)
Pancadravida Swami
Brahmananda Swami
Ramesvara Swami
Gargamuni Swami
Rupanuga das
Giriraj das (non GBC member)
Satsvarupa Goswami
Gopal Krsna das
Swarupa Damodara das
Guru Kripa Swami
Tamal Krsna Goswami
SUMMARY REPORT

1. A list of trustees for all ISKCON properties worldwide was submitted to Srila Prabhupada at his request. Properties in India can never be sold, mortgaged, etc. Properties outside India in principle should never be sold, but in the event it is necessary, they can be mortgaged, etc. only with the signed approval of all the appointed trustees. The list of trustees (and instructions for setting up this “trustee-system” legally) will be circulated by the GBC Property Committee to all GBC members and temple presidents for immediate implementation.

2. For ISKCON India, committees were formed to protect the Society by making improvements in the original “charter”, expanding the Bureau of Management (for India), and seriously researching permanent residency visas as our top priority.

3. A list of questions was presented to Prabhupada, some of which he said he would tell us later. Two significant questions His Divine Grace did reply to are:
a. GBC members shall remain permanently. If a member leaves, the GBC can appoint new GBC members.

b. New translations of Vedic works can be published in the future, even after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, by the BBT but they can only be done by one who is very expert and advanced in his realization. At present, Prabhupada acknowledged, there is no one yet qualified.

4. In order to help the India Yatras, a co-GBC was appointed for liasion purposes, especially to assist with manpower and financial requirements- for each of the major India projects as follows:

a. Bombay: Ramesvara Swami and the Western USA Zone
b. Mayapura: Tamal Krsna Goswami, Adi Kesava Swami and the Northeast USA Zone
c. Vrindavana: Bhagavan dasa and the Southern Europe Zone
d. Hyderabad Farm: Harikesa Swami and the North Europe Zone
e. Hyderabad temple: Hrdayananda Goswami, Pancadravida Swami and the two Latin America Zones
(Note: this does not mean that assisting these projects is the exclusive responsibility of these western zones- these still remain the whole Society’s projects, and we are all responsible)

5. The Australia GBC Zone and Hari Sauri dasa will be responsible for assisting Fiji.

6. As the date for the Bombay opening is fixed (October 21) funds are required immediately and a short-term solution adopted was that Nama Hatta would make one more substantial payment in June, and funds would be borrowed from Spiritual Sky Incense Co. in LA for a comparable payment in June. The main source of increased funds is recognized as increasing book distribution, and the US BBT must resume its monthly payments at the end of July.

7. Each temple must donate a fixed contribution each month to ISKCON Food Relief, on the following allocation:
small temple: $50.00 medium temple: $100.00 large temple: $150.00 maha-large temple $200.00

Each GBC man shall open one zonal account, and be responsible to collect money from all his temples, then send it in one sum to Adi Kesava Swami for forwarding to ISKCON Food Relief in India. The India centers distributing food must send the GBC regular reports of their prasad distribution, including photos.

8. The profit made by the US BBT by selling 100,000 records to temples will be set up as a travel fund for the 20 Argentina devotees going to India, and for repaying the Food Relief debt of Rs. 50,000 to Mayapur.

9. As each BBT division must allocate funds for temple construction, and as the Latin America zones are responsible for assisting the Hyderbad temple, the Spanish BBT construction money will be sent each month to Hyderbad to complete the temple construction there (estimated completion by January 1) and thereafter their monthly allotment sent to Srila Prabhupada to repay Hyderabad’s loan from His Divine Grace.

10) RESOLVED: Whereas Srila Prabhupada’s desires and goals for expanding ISKCON activities through special projects in India (construction, development, maintenance, food distribution, etc.) are known to all GBC members, it is resolved that the GBC body accepts the final responsibility for these.
End of Document
____________________________

See 1990 ISKCON Journal re: publication of hand written notes and GKD GBC circular, and Locana Ananda dasa VNN article re: misrepresentation of actual GBC notes.

Re:  GBC Summary Report of May 27-29, 1977 meetings distributed to temple presidents.

Interviewer:  The issue of initiations in ISKCON has divided devotees for several decades and appears to have evolved into a schism.  What is your personal perspective on this issue?

Locana ananda dasa:  When I was president of the Amsterdam temple in 1977, I received a copy of the summary report of the GBC meetings held in Vrindavana that year from the 27th through the 29th of May [1977].    

I received a copy of the GBC meeting held in Vrindavana that year from the 27th through the 29th of May. In that report, two of the three questions Srila Prabhupada answered on May 28th were included, but the answer to the question about future initiations was not.  A few weeks later, I received a copy of the July 9th letter explaining the new initiation protocols. It didn’t seem as if much had changed. Initiations would resume despite Srila Prabhupada’s ongoing illness. The letter also addressed the selection to “ritvik” representatives of the acarya and referred to the May 28th meeting with Srila Prabhupada.  Bu there was no detailed explanation as how the two were connected. We were really left in the dark for years as to what instructions Srila Prabhupada has actually given the GBC as a mandate for future initiations.

Interviewer:   Would you say it was a cover-up and hijacking of the movement?
Locanananda dasa:  There is no question that vital information was withheld from the devotees, information that was critical to the future of our society. But even after the transcript of the recorded conversation of May 28th, 1977 was released, Srila Prabhupada’s intentions were still not clearly understood, and therefore everything was subject to interpretation   Rather than carefully analyze the actual words of the spiritual master spoke on May 28th, the devotees who sought reform in the mid-80’s did so on the basis of general instructions contained in Srila Prabhupada’s books.   

This may be a subtle point, but devotes should know that Prabhupada did not manage the Society through his books. He managed through written correspondence with the leaders and through conversations with them that addressed specific management issues. Also on occasion to ensure that certain standard management procedures were followed everywhere, Srila Prabhupada would have a letter sent out to all centers stating a policy that he wanted to introduce globally. The July 9th letter was one such document.  It should be noted that His Divine Grace does not mention the Governing Body Commission (GBC) in any of his books, even though the GBC acts as the primary instrument for the execution of his will by overseeing the management of all ISKCON operations.  The question of how initiations would be conducted when his Divine Grace would no longer be present, was basically a management issue, and the answer is not to be found in the books although his books can be sued to philosophically substantiate his managerial directive. In other words, what we are looking for are his ISKCON–specific instruction concerning future initiations, and they can be found in the May 28th conversation discussion with the GBC.
Interviewer:  So let’s take a look at the May 28th conversation and see what Srila Prabhupada’s words reveal about his intentions?

Locanananda dasa:   That day there were nineteen full GBC members present in Vrindavana.  Also in attendance at the meetings were one acting GBC man and two non -GBC   members.  To ask the most delicate question, a six-man committee consisting of those GBC members who were on the original GBC formed in 1970 went before Srila Prabhupada. The first question asked was about GBC members: “How long should they remain in office?” Srila Prabhupada answer was immediate, direct and succinct: They should remain for good.”    Then a few points of clarification were added and the next question was brought up.

“Then our next question concerning initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiations would be conducted?”

Srila Prabhupada replied immediately, directly and succinctly: “Yes I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled up I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acarya.”

In answering this question, Srila Prabhupada introduced a new term a term not found in any book or previous conversation he had ever had with his disciples. It was the designation he had chosen to fit the role of future initiations in ISKCON.   I do not know why the GBC felt it necessary to hide this instruction Perhaps they themselves did not understand what it meant or how to explain it to others, or perhaps it just wasn’t what they wanted to hear.

The Summary report stated that some of the questions the GBC asked Srila Prabhupada would not be answered until alter. We now know that to be untrue.  We know he answered all their questions that day, immediately and succinctly.
The only question that the GBC asked that were not included in the report had to do with initiations. Srila Prabhupada answer to that question was that when he would no longer be present, initiations would be performed by officiating acaryas selected from among his leading disciples.  The leaders did not like the sound of that at the time, nor do they like the sound of it now. Otherwise somewhere along the way they would have asked, “So how does one act as officiating acarya?”

In his subsequent comments, Srila Prabhupada does not mention that any special worship would be offered to an officiating acarya.  Nor did he say the officiating acarya would become the topmost spiritual authority for those who would receive diksa from them. The GBC’s future gurus did not like the sound of that either…”
___________________________________

Another separate meeting this time between Bhavananda, Bhagavan, Guurkrpa and Tamal meeting.

–          Stop making waves and we will make you a guru.
–          They all knew they were never appointed
–          Just stop making trouble about this appointment of gurus and we’ll make you the 12th guru at the next Mayapur meeting.

After Srila Prabhupada left, in November 1977, I stayed in Vrindaban till Gaura Purnima 1978, and there was no discussion of guru during these three or four months, because Srila Prabhupada’s last instruction, or as the Ritviks call it, “The final order”, was that “Now we have built a framework. There is no need to try and expand more. If we can just maintain our men and increase the chanting and hearing that is sufficient. We should sit down now and chant and hear.”

There was NO TALK about initiations that I heard either in Vrindaban or in Mumbai during these months. If Srila Prabhupada has appointed these eleven as spiritual masters, why did they not start initiating at once? Because they all knew very well they were never appointed! We knew the philosophy, what is tattva darshi and what is Saksad Hari… but behind closed doors there was a plot simmering. 

In the GBC meeting of 1978 the initiation issue was brought up and it appeared they had already concluded that they were going to go ahead and say that they were appointed. I asked Harikesh sitting next to me, ‘how are you going to let people call you a paramahansa? You are not a realized soul, you are a piece of shit. He turned to me with a smrik on his face, and said “What are you going to do about it?” 

That is basically what happened, none of us could do anything after that.

In 1978, Janmastami, TKG came to Vrindavan to give Sannyasa diksa to Bhagavan. I was the GBC at the time in Vrindavan. TKG called from Delhi and demanded flower garlands and a large reception greeting at the temple with vyasasanas for them to sit on. I told them this is Prabhupada’s temple and everybody can sit on the floor. 

When they came I gave them no such reception, and the next morning in Bhagavatam, Bhagavan brought his politics into the class. I went and told him, if you ever do this again, bringing politics into Bhagavatam class, you will never speak again in any temple I manage. That day, Bhavananda, TKG, and Bhagavan asked me to meet them in the guest house for a meeting. 

When I came, they said, why are you making waves? Just stop making trouble about this appointment of gurus and we’ll make you the 12th guru at the next Mayapur meeting. I told them, Prabhupada did not make anyone gurus, you have to be a realized soul. They said there was some talk about you in Japan doing some things, therefore Prabhupada did not name you. 

I told them you are now believing your own lies. They were silent. Bhavananda tried to speak. I told him to shut his mouth because he was a homosex and he had never done service and had been living off the money I collected and sent to Mayapur for construction.  Written by Bhakta Dasa – Thursday, 02 October 2014 21:27

Note: It is significant to note that in many of Rocana’s verbose writings, he used “death language” terminology with terms such as “manifest lila”, “the departed Sampradaya Acarya”, “the most recent Sampradaya Acarya”, “during Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON lila”, “list of 32 Sampradaya Acaryas”, “prominent Sampradaya Acarya”, ”preeminent Sampradaya Acarya”, “post-samadhi period”, “post-samadhi Rtvik priests”, “post-samadhi diksa initiation from the Sampradaya Acarya”, “pre-samadhi ISKCON”, “post-samadhi proxy diksa”, “post-samadhi era”, “entered into maha-samadhi”, and “post Srila Prabhupada’s maha-samadhi.”

These various terms tend to relegate Srila Prabhupada dangerously close to a dim historical role, and it practically removes Srila Prabhupada out of the picture, supporting his “Sampradaya Acarya” idea. In Church of the Ritvik, Rocana dasa uses the word, “samadhi”, 18 times.

Please also see: http://www.iskcon-truth.com/doar.html

PADA: Why would Krishna want appointed conditioned souls worshiped as His guru successors? ys pd]