===============================================================
Srila Prabhupada: There have been so many fallen down. First of all there will be no sannyasi anymore. I have got very bad experience. And at least, we are not going to create new sannyasis. And those who have fallen down, let them marry, live like respectable gentlemen. I have no objection. After all, young man, fallen down—that's all right. It is by nature's way. But marry that girl....(Prabhupada conversation Jan 7, 1977)
http://swamitripurari.com/2010/12/iskcon-reform/
Q. I heard that when you were a member of The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Iskcon) you were nominated to be an initiating guru but were rejected because you took guidance from Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Is this true? If so, will you explain some of the history behind this?
A. I was initiated by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in 1972, took sannyasa from him in 1975, and was present with him shortly before his departure in 1977. During that period, Srila Prabhupada said that his students could receive further instruction from his Godbrother Srila B. R. Sridhara Deva Goswami.
[PADA: Where is the evidence Srila Prabhupada said that? We do know that Srila Prabhupada wrote to Rupanuga in 1974 that Sridhara Maharaja is not qualified to be an acharya because he tends to make other unqualified persons into bogus acharyas. We do know Srila Prabhupada said in 1977 that Sridhara Maharaja is the leader of the "severe offenders" Bagh Bazaar party. We do know that Srila Prabhupada recounted how the "guru" created by Sridhara Maharaja (Ananta Vasudeva) was a homosexual and that this bogus guru was never authorized. We were also told by Srila Prabhupada that "dissenters" to the bogus guru cult created by Sridhara Maharaja were beaten and some were murdered. Why would Srila Prabhupada tell his followers to consult with the 1936 founder father of a violent homosexual messiah's cult?
Srila Prabhupada: There have been so many fallen down. First of all there will be no sannyasi anymore. I have got very bad experience. And at least, we are not going to create new sannyasis. And those who have fallen down, let them marry, live like respectable gentlemen. I have no objection. After all, young man, fallen down—that's all right. It is by nature's way. But marry that girl....(Prabhupada conversation Jan 7, 1977)
http://swamitripurari.com/2010/12/iskcon-reform/
Q. I heard that when you were a member of The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Iskcon) you were nominated to be an initiating guru but were rejected because you took guidance from Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Is this true? If so, will you explain some of the history behind this?
A. I was initiated by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in 1972, took sannyasa from him in 1975, and was present with him shortly before his departure in 1977. During that period, Srila Prabhupada said that his students could receive further instruction from his Godbrother Srila B. R. Sridhara Deva Goswami.
[PADA: Where is the evidence Srila Prabhupada said that? We do know that Srila Prabhupada wrote to Rupanuga in 1974 that Sridhara Maharaja is not qualified to be an acharya because he tends to make other unqualified persons into bogus acharyas. We do know Srila Prabhupada said in 1977 that Sridhara Maharaja is the leader of the "severe offenders" Bagh Bazaar party. We do know that Srila Prabhupada recounted how the "guru" created by Sridhara Maharaja (Ananta Vasudeva) was a homosexual and that this bogus guru was never authorized. We were also told by Srila Prabhupada that "dissenters" to the bogus guru cult created by Sridhara Maharaja were beaten and some were murdered. Why would Srila Prabhupada tell his followers to consult with the 1936 founder father of a violent homosexual messiah's cult?
Where did he say we need to consult with Sridhara Maharaja? And since Srila Prabhupada had already said on January 7, 1977 that his ISKCON leaders are not fit for renounced monk's life (see quote above), why did Sridhara Maharaja and Tripurari claim these same identical "unfit for sannyasa" people are acharyas, i.e. equals to Jesus? (A) They are not fit for renounced monk's life, therefore, (b) they are fit to be worshipped as an "acharya" i.e. equal to Jesus?]
TS: I was at the feet of Srila Prabhupada when he spoke these prophetic words. However, it was not until several years later in the midst of the confusion that followed Srila Prabhupada’s departure that these words blossomed into the directive that would deeply affect the course of my life. Initially the governing body commission of Iskcon (the GBC) pursued and welcomed the advice of Srila Sridhara Maharaja, but after some Iskcon members had accepted him as their siksa guru, the GBC began criticizing him and finally officially prohibited association with him.
[PADA: Yasodanandana prabhu was one of the first persons deputed to go to see Sridhara Maharaja on behalf of the GBC in 1978, and Sridhara Maharaja said he had no idea he was going to be their advisor? The real reason Sridhara Maharaja was "eventually rejected" by the GBC is because they began to quote the many citations from Srila Prabhupada on why we are not supposed to associate with Sridhara Maharaja or the Gaudiya Matha leaders in general. A document was created by the GBC showing the many quotes from Srila Prabhupada on the reasons Sridhara Maharaja is not bona fide.]
TS: I first read Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s words when Ramesvara Maharaja asked me to read "Sri Guru and His Grace" and tell him what was philosophically wrong with the book.
[PADA: The book "Sri Guru and His Grace" by BR Sridhara Maharaja says that acharyas (people like Jesus) go mad after money, women and followers. When did Srila Prabhupada say that people like Jesus (acharyas) are going mad after money and illicit sex? And why doesn't Tripurari know that is in an offense to actual bona fide acharyas and saints (like Jesus) to say they are mad after money and illicit sex? Srila Prabhupada says he is an acharya and Jesus is his brother, where does he say such acharyas are falling down into chasing money and illicit sex? Rather Srila Prabhupada says it is a severe offense to consider acharyas as fallen and debauched.
TS: I was at the feet of Srila Prabhupada when he spoke these prophetic words. However, it was not until several years later in the midst of the confusion that followed Srila Prabhupada’s departure that these words blossomed into the directive that would deeply affect the course of my life. Initially the governing body commission of Iskcon (the GBC) pursued and welcomed the advice of Srila Sridhara Maharaja, but after some Iskcon members had accepted him as their siksa guru, the GBC began criticizing him and finally officially prohibited association with him.
[PADA: Yasodanandana prabhu was one of the first persons deputed to go to see Sridhara Maharaja on behalf of the GBC in 1978, and Sridhara Maharaja said he had no idea he was going to be their advisor? The real reason Sridhara Maharaja was "eventually rejected" by the GBC is because they began to quote the many citations from Srila Prabhupada on why we are not supposed to associate with Sridhara Maharaja or the Gaudiya Matha leaders in general. A document was created by the GBC showing the many quotes from Srila Prabhupada on the reasons Sridhara Maharaja is not bona fide.]
TS: I first read Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s words when Ramesvara Maharaja asked me to read "Sri Guru and His Grace" and tell him what was philosophically wrong with the book.
[PADA: The book "Sri Guru and His Grace" by BR Sridhara Maharaja says that acharyas (people like Jesus) go mad after money, women and followers. When did Srila Prabhupada say that people like Jesus (acharyas) are going mad after money and illicit sex? And why doesn't Tripurari know that is in an offense to actual bona fide acharyas and saints (like Jesus) to say they are mad after money and illicit sex? Srila Prabhupada says he is an acharya and Jesus is his brother, where does he say such acharyas are falling down into chasing money and illicit sex? Rather Srila Prabhupada says it is a severe offense to consider acharyas as fallen and debauched.
"Sri Guru and His Grace": "No law should go to limit or control the acharya" (p.77)
PADA: This is what occurred, a lawless society. Dr. J. Stilson Judah says the idea that a conditoned soul should have absolute authority and not to be bound by any rules or laws -- almost always results in severe deviations is called "antinomianism" -- lawless-ness in the name of religion. This is why Dr. Judah told me to "watch my back" -- he knew this lawless guru program could -- kill -- people like me, and he was very worried about my well being in terms of these lawless gurus promoted by Sridhara Maharaja.
PADA: This is what occurred, a lawless society. Dr. J. Stilson Judah says the idea that a conditoned soul should have absolute authority and not to be bound by any rules or laws -- almost always results in severe deviations is called "antinomianism" -- lawless-ness in the name of religion. This is why Dr. Judah told me to "watch my back" -- he knew this lawless guru program could -- kill -- people like me, and he was very worried about my well being in terms of these lawless gurus promoted by Sridhara Maharaja.
"Sri Guru and His Grace": "The position of acharya is dangerous, it is full of temptations. (p.78)
PADA: There your have it, there are those who say Jesus was tempted by Satan, and Jesus lost or could have lost. Sridhara and Tripurari are saying the same thing, great acharyas like Jesus can be tempted and fall. This is the nutshell idea of Sridhara and Tripurari. They do not say, only a fool posing as an acharya will be tempted, they say acharyas (ok -- all acharyas) can be tempted, that includes Jesus.]
TS: I found nothing wrong; indeed, I felt I had come into contact with the same spiritual substance that I had found in Srila Prabhupada’s words. Having come to realize the true spiritual stature of Pujyapada Sridhara Deva Goswami, I contacted the leading devotees who had been forced to leave Iskcon because of their taking shelter of him. In consultation with these devotees, I decided that it would be best for me to try to continue my service in Iskcon and be a voice of reason and sastra over the emotion and religious fanaticism that were so prevalent at that time. As deviations of the original eleven gurus became apparent, increasing numbers of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples became absorbed with trying to figure out how to set Iskcon back on track.
[PADA: OK, these 11 were deviating, but notice Tripurari STILL claims they were gurus? A guru is a person like Jesus, how come Tripurari claims the people who are deviating are or were gurus? Why didn't Tripurari set things on track by saying, these 11 were told they are not fit even for renounced monk's order, so they cannot have been gurus in the first place?]
TS: My own conviction was that the detached, objective, and highly spiritual insight of Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja was vital to steering Iskcon in the direction that Srila Prabhupada envisioned it should go—and it was increasingly apparent that the gurus Srila Prabhupada appointed were floundering their ability to realize this direction, as was the GBC.
[PADA: Now Tripurari claims that just after Srila Prabhupada had said in January of 1977 that his followers are not fit for the even the basic renounced order of being a monk (rather they should get married), a few months later he said in May of 1977 that these same people were "appointed as his guru successors" (to be worshipped as Jesus-like acharyas)? Why would Srila Prabhupada say: (A) they are not fit to be ordinary renounced monk's (in January 1977), then (B) say they are fit to be worshipped as persons equal to Jesus a few months later (May 28th 1977)?]
TS: My understanding of Srila Prabhupada’s vision was not that Sridhara Maharaja should be Iskcon’s acarya, but that Prabhupada’s disciples would themselves rise to the occasion.
[PADA: That is not what happened. Sridhara and Tripurari began to claim that the only the 11 had been appointed, thus no one else was being allowed to rise to anything of significance. Only those 11 persons who had been appointed by the GBC and who were supported by Sridhara Maharaja were allowed to rise to any higher level of status, all others were being suppressed. And as we know by now, many were suppressed by banning, beatings and sometimes murders. In other words, by Sridhara and Tripurari rubber stamping these fallen 11 people as "appointed messiahs" a dangerous cult environment was created.]
TS: Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja also had no ambition to be the acarya of Iskcon. His only desire was to assist Prabhupada’s mission while personally remaining in the background. After all, it is well known that Srila Sridhara Maharaja himself preferred to refrain from initiating disciples and did so only when inspired to do so by Nityananda Prabhu, who told him that “you ask for my mercy, but when others ask you for initiation you do not give them your mercy.” Thus Srila Sridhara Maharaja decided that although he would not seek disciples, he would not turn them away if they asked for initiation.
In those days, many of the devotees who had affinity for Srila Sridhara Maharaja felt that the GBC would soon realize its mistake and acknowledge the spiritual potency of Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s guidance. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen, and the GBC’s shameful prohibition against hearing from Srila Sridhara Maharaja, and even reading his literature, remains in place today throughout much of Iskcon.
[PADA: Look what Tripurari is doing, on the one hand he says the 11 are gurus (just like Jesus is a guru), then he says they are shameful. Why is Tripurari always saying gurus (people like Jesus) are bogus and shameful? Why does he not admit that these 11 were never gurus at all, and that he and Sridhara Maharaja have been making a huge mistake by saying these falling down people are, were, or could have been gurus?
And if the 11 were "appointed as gurus," where is the evidence the 11 were appointed as gurus?
PADA: There your have it, there are those who say Jesus was tempted by Satan, and Jesus lost or could have lost. Sridhara and Tripurari are saying the same thing, great acharyas like Jesus can be tempted and fall. This is the nutshell idea of Sridhara and Tripurari. They do not say, only a fool posing as an acharya will be tempted, they say acharyas (ok -- all acharyas) can be tempted, that includes Jesus.]
TS: I found nothing wrong; indeed, I felt I had come into contact with the same spiritual substance that I had found in Srila Prabhupada’s words. Having come to realize the true spiritual stature of Pujyapada Sridhara Deva Goswami, I contacted the leading devotees who had been forced to leave Iskcon because of their taking shelter of him. In consultation with these devotees, I decided that it would be best for me to try to continue my service in Iskcon and be a voice of reason and sastra over the emotion and religious fanaticism that were so prevalent at that time. As deviations of the original eleven gurus became apparent, increasing numbers of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples became absorbed with trying to figure out how to set Iskcon back on track.
[PADA: OK, these 11 were deviating, but notice Tripurari STILL claims they were gurus? A guru is a person like Jesus, how come Tripurari claims the people who are deviating are or were gurus? Why didn't Tripurari set things on track by saying, these 11 were told they are not fit even for renounced monk's order, so they cannot have been gurus in the first place?]
TS: My own conviction was that the detached, objective, and highly spiritual insight of Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja was vital to steering Iskcon in the direction that Srila Prabhupada envisioned it should go—and it was increasingly apparent that the gurus Srila Prabhupada appointed were floundering their ability to realize this direction, as was the GBC.
[PADA: Now Tripurari claims that just after Srila Prabhupada had said in January of 1977 that his followers are not fit for the even the basic renounced order of being a monk (rather they should get married), a few months later he said in May of 1977 that these same people were "appointed as his guru successors" (to be worshipped as Jesus-like acharyas)? Why would Srila Prabhupada say: (A) they are not fit to be ordinary renounced monk's (in January 1977), then (B) say they are fit to be worshipped as persons equal to Jesus a few months later (May 28th 1977)?]
TS: My understanding of Srila Prabhupada’s vision was not that Sridhara Maharaja should be Iskcon’s acarya, but that Prabhupada’s disciples would themselves rise to the occasion.
[PADA: That is not what happened. Sridhara and Tripurari began to claim that the only the 11 had been appointed, thus no one else was being allowed to rise to anything of significance. Only those 11 persons who had been appointed by the GBC and who were supported by Sridhara Maharaja were allowed to rise to any higher level of status, all others were being suppressed. And as we know by now, many were suppressed by banning, beatings and sometimes murders. In other words, by Sridhara and Tripurari rubber stamping these fallen 11 people as "appointed messiahs" a dangerous cult environment was created.]
TS: Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja also had no ambition to be the acarya of Iskcon. His only desire was to assist Prabhupada’s mission while personally remaining in the background. After all, it is well known that Srila Sridhara Maharaja himself preferred to refrain from initiating disciples and did so only when inspired to do so by Nityananda Prabhu, who told him that “you ask for my mercy, but when others ask you for initiation you do not give them your mercy.” Thus Srila Sridhara Maharaja decided that although he would not seek disciples, he would not turn them away if they asked for initiation.
In those days, many of the devotees who had affinity for Srila Sridhara Maharaja felt that the GBC would soon realize its mistake and acknowledge the spiritual potency of Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s guidance. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen, and the GBC’s shameful prohibition against hearing from Srila Sridhara Maharaja, and even reading his literature, remains in place today throughout much of Iskcon.
[PADA: Look what Tripurari is doing, on the one hand he says the 11 are gurus (just like Jesus is a guru), then he says they are shameful. Why is Tripurari always saying gurus (people like Jesus) are bogus and shameful? Why does he not admit that these 11 were never gurus at all, and that he and Sridhara Maharaja have been making a huge mistake by saying these falling down people are, were, or could have been gurus?
And if the 11 were "appointed as gurus," where is the evidence the 11 were appointed as gurus?
We offered a $108,000 reward for any evidence that the 11 had been appointed as gurus, no one came forward to collect the money because -- there is no evidence. One of the 11 named Tamal Krishna in fact said, "you cannot show me anything on tape or in writing where he appointed 11 gurus." (Topanga conversations, December 1980). Yet Tripurari continues to claim that these fallen 11 people were appointed to the post of being acharyas like Jesus? And this is why these 11 were being worship as people like Jesus in the first place in 1978, because Sridhara and Tripurari said they are gurus (aka people like Jesus). Srila Prabhupada said, they are not even fit for renounced monk life, how can they be gurus and equals to Jesus?]
TS: My coming under the influence of Srila Sridhara Maharaja happened to coincide with pressure that Iskcon members were putting on the GBC to increase the number of gurus in the society. Many devotees believed that this would help mitigate the abuse being perpetrated by the original eleven gurus who had assumed power in Iskcon after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada. Ironically, Srila Sridhara Maharaja had first suggested this idea. He said that the GBC should increase the number of gurus–not lavishly but extending it to senior devotees who were seen to be qualified.
[PADA: As the first wave of 11 gurus began to crash on the beach in scandals, falldowns and in sum "illicit sex with men, women and children," then Sridhara Maharaja said these falling down people should "vote in" more messiahs. How can the same identical people who are often being caught engaged in bad if not illicit behaviors "vote in" more messiahs? Was any acharya voted in before? Was Jesus voted in? No. And was any acharya voted in by deviants? No. So look what is happening here, Tripurari is saying that the bogus first wave of messiahs -- who are falling down into illicit sex, drugs if not criminality, should "vote in" the next wave of messiahs. And here we find out that it was Sridhara Maharaja himself who said that the first wave of bogus Jesus-like saints should vote in another wave of bogus Jesus-like saints! Why does Sridhara Maharaja think persons who are claiming to be equals to Jesus, while falling into debauchery, can simultaneously vote in another wave of "equals to Jesus" messiahs for ISKCON? Does this make any sense, Sridhara Maharaja's first wave of bogus Jesus are crashing into debauchery, so now they should vote in another wave of messiahs?]
TS: In his opinion, doing so would encourage devotees by creating what he referred to as “a fair field for preaching.” After all, Iskcon leading members were awakening people’s faith in Krishna only to have one of the eleven gurus fly in and initiate the new converts, and then in many cases turn these new devotees against the preachers who had initially inspired them. Needless to say, these were troubled times for Iskcon and many disciples of Srila Prabhupada felt extremely oppressed.
[PADA: Right, the devotees were being oppressed because there never was any appointment of 11 gurus, this was a lie being spread by Sridhara and Tripurari and they are still spreading it.]
TS: In this difficult transitional period, a GBC member who was also one of Iskcon’s eleven initiating gurus approached me about this issue. He admitted that the organization’s policy needed reform and supported the proposal that the GBC now authorize other senior members of Iskcon to also become diksa gurus and initiate disciples.
In this spirit he submitted my name to the GBC as a devotee (a non-GBC member) that he felt was qualified to initiate in Iskcon. He did so even though he knew my appreciation for the siksa of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Although I agreed with him that the society’s policy needed reform, I also made it clear that I didn’t see increasing the number of gurus to be a comprehensive solution to the problems Iskcon faced.
The GBC approached me in 1985 about becoming an initiating guru in the organization. Knowing that I had affinity for Srila Sridhara Maharaja, the only question they asked me was why I was interested in him. Along with the obvious spiritual reasons, I replied that if I left Iskcon I did not feel that any of them cared enough about me to come after me to bring me back, but that Srila Sridhara Maharaja upon learning that a senior sannyasi had left the mission would undoubtedly send someone for me. That said, the GBC ruled that I was not qualified to initiate in their society.
After this ruling in March of 1985, I remained within Iskcon until the famous meeting in New Vrindavana took place–a meeting intended to reform Iskcon that was well attended by Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. The two prominent positions that devotees took at the meeting were to support the current eleven gurus or to decrease the power and prominence of the gurus. One side wanted to engage in lavish worship of questionable gurus, while the other side proposed what could be called a covert ritvik system, which all but did away with successor acaryas altogether. I saw both these stances as problematic, but I was not allowed to speak because of my affinity for Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja.
At this point I realized that I could no longer be a voice for reform within Iskcon and that its policy of not allowing its members to take siksa from Srila Sridhara Maharaja was not going to change. Listening to the opinions voiced in that meeting, it seemed to me that material solutions were taking the upper hand over spiritual ones, and I felt discouraged by what I felt to be an overwhelmingly shallow understanding of Krishna consciousness and Srila Prabhupada’s desires. I had the strong conviction that despite the fact that there were sincere devotees within Iskcon, the institution as a whole had deviated from the desires of Srila Prabhupada and was not living up to his expectations.
[PADA: This "reformer" was evidently Satsvarupa, the leader of the 1984-1986 "guru reform." How did you guess, Satsvarupa was simultaneously writing that Kirtanananda was "like Jesus." Why didn't Tripurari tell Satsvarupa that Kirtanananda is not another Jesus? Kirtananda was a homosexual pedophile who was having devotees beaten and sometimes assassinated for "dissenting. And the 1986 guru reformers excommunicated (me and) Sulochana for dissenting, at the same time they re-instated Bhavananada to be their Vishnupada messiah. Of course reports were being given to the leaders that Bhavananada was having homosexual affairs with taxi drivers and others, so why was he reinstated by Tripurari's "reform" friends? And once again notice, the title of Vishnupada is another one that is equal to that of Jesus. So the GBC re-instated a known homosexual pedophile to the status of Jesus. Tripurari has never even mentioned this problem that we know of? Rather, he still claims that the people who created all these deviations are some sort of "appointed gurus"? How can the people who create all these deviations be gurus? Why does Tripurari keep saying that these 11 are the appointed gurus, even after he states that they are deviants?]
TS: Having been essentially barred from preaching in Iskcon, I felt that my ability to change the course of Iskcon’s misguided trajectory was greatly hampered within the institution, and further, I did not want to be in any way connected with the serious deviations that were taking place. History has shown that significant change comes more readily from committed individuals, not organizations or governments, and certainly not committees. Further, as Gandhi said, you should be the change you want to see. Mutely following leaders who had proven themselves unworthy of respect was not my idea of progressive Krishna consciousness. Thus I decided with much regret that I could better pursue the ideal I had imbibed from Srila Prabhupada outside of Iskcon. Indeed, if I were to have a voice at all, it would have to be from outside of corporate Iskcon.
[PADA: Except Tripurari is still saying the 11 were appointed as gurus, which is the root of all the problems, including all the criminality, molesting and so on?]
TS: Thus in October/November of 1985, I went to Nadiya to seek the blessing of Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja, knowing that leaving Iskcon and having a desire to help it were not mutually exclusive. When I asked Srila Sridhara Maharaja for some service, he advised me, “Swami Maharaja (Prabhupada) has taught you everything. Now go and start something yourself and I will be in the background to help you.” This is what I did, and by the grace of Sri Guru and the Vaisnavas, I am happy and my efforts have been met with some success. It should be clear from Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s instruction to me that he wanted to see Prabhupada’s disciples flourish in leadership positions and to serve his mission as acaryas.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to take the post of acharyas i.e. equals to Jesus? No, he said they are not even qualified for basic renounced monk life. Rather it is Sridhara and Tripurari who kept saying these leaders were supposed to be worshipped as acharyas and people like Jesus. Anyway this is good, Srila Prabhupada says they are not even fit for basic monk's life, then Tripurari defies that and says they are fit to be gurus, acharya and in sum -- equals to Jesus messiah acharyas. This is the root of my complaint about him. Now he is apparently wanting to sue me for slander, meanwhile his idea that debauchees are gurus / messiahs / acharyas slanders, insults, attacks and defiles the name of Jesus all day long. ys pd]
=====================================
TS: My coming under the influence of Srila Sridhara Maharaja happened to coincide with pressure that Iskcon members were putting on the GBC to increase the number of gurus in the society. Many devotees believed that this would help mitigate the abuse being perpetrated by the original eleven gurus who had assumed power in Iskcon after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada. Ironically, Srila Sridhara Maharaja had first suggested this idea. He said that the GBC should increase the number of gurus–not lavishly but extending it to senior devotees who were seen to be qualified.
[PADA: As the first wave of 11 gurus began to crash on the beach in scandals, falldowns and in sum "illicit sex with men, women and children," then Sridhara Maharaja said these falling down people should "vote in" more messiahs. How can the same identical people who are often being caught engaged in bad if not illicit behaviors "vote in" more messiahs? Was any acharya voted in before? Was Jesus voted in? No. And was any acharya voted in by deviants? No. So look what is happening here, Tripurari is saying that the bogus first wave of messiahs -- who are falling down into illicit sex, drugs if not criminality, should "vote in" the next wave of messiahs. And here we find out that it was Sridhara Maharaja himself who said that the first wave of bogus Jesus-like saints should vote in another wave of bogus Jesus-like saints! Why does Sridhara Maharaja think persons who are claiming to be equals to Jesus, while falling into debauchery, can simultaneously vote in another wave of "equals to Jesus" messiahs for ISKCON? Does this make any sense, Sridhara Maharaja's first wave of bogus Jesus are crashing into debauchery, so now they should vote in another wave of messiahs?]
TS: In his opinion, doing so would encourage devotees by creating what he referred to as “a fair field for preaching.” After all, Iskcon leading members were awakening people’s faith in Krishna only to have one of the eleven gurus fly in and initiate the new converts, and then in many cases turn these new devotees against the preachers who had initially inspired them. Needless to say, these were troubled times for Iskcon and many disciples of Srila Prabhupada felt extremely oppressed.
[PADA: Right, the devotees were being oppressed because there never was any appointment of 11 gurus, this was a lie being spread by Sridhara and Tripurari and they are still spreading it.]
TS: In this difficult transitional period, a GBC member who was also one of Iskcon’s eleven initiating gurus approached me about this issue. He admitted that the organization’s policy needed reform and supported the proposal that the GBC now authorize other senior members of Iskcon to also become diksa gurus and initiate disciples.
In this spirit he submitted my name to the GBC as a devotee (a non-GBC member) that he felt was qualified to initiate in Iskcon. He did so even though he knew my appreciation for the siksa of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Although I agreed with him that the society’s policy needed reform, I also made it clear that I didn’t see increasing the number of gurus to be a comprehensive solution to the problems Iskcon faced.
The GBC approached me in 1985 about becoming an initiating guru in the organization. Knowing that I had affinity for Srila Sridhara Maharaja, the only question they asked me was why I was interested in him. Along with the obvious spiritual reasons, I replied that if I left Iskcon I did not feel that any of them cared enough about me to come after me to bring me back, but that Srila Sridhara Maharaja upon learning that a senior sannyasi had left the mission would undoubtedly send someone for me. That said, the GBC ruled that I was not qualified to initiate in their society.
After this ruling in March of 1985, I remained within Iskcon until the famous meeting in New Vrindavana took place–a meeting intended to reform Iskcon that was well attended by Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. The two prominent positions that devotees took at the meeting were to support the current eleven gurus or to decrease the power and prominence of the gurus. One side wanted to engage in lavish worship of questionable gurus, while the other side proposed what could be called a covert ritvik system, which all but did away with successor acaryas altogether. I saw both these stances as problematic, but I was not allowed to speak because of my affinity for Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja.
At this point I realized that I could no longer be a voice for reform within Iskcon and that its policy of not allowing its members to take siksa from Srila Sridhara Maharaja was not going to change. Listening to the opinions voiced in that meeting, it seemed to me that material solutions were taking the upper hand over spiritual ones, and I felt discouraged by what I felt to be an overwhelmingly shallow understanding of Krishna consciousness and Srila Prabhupada’s desires. I had the strong conviction that despite the fact that there were sincere devotees within Iskcon, the institution as a whole had deviated from the desires of Srila Prabhupada and was not living up to his expectations.
[PADA: This "reformer" was evidently Satsvarupa, the leader of the 1984-1986 "guru reform." How did you guess, Satsvarupa was simultaneously writing that Kirtanananda was "like Jesus." Why didn't Tripurari tell Satsvarupa that Kirtanananda is not another Jesus? Kirtananda was a homosexual pedophile who was having devotees beaten and sometimes assassinated for "dissenting. And the 1986 guru reformers excommunicated (me and) Sulochana for dissenting, at the same time they re-instated Bhavananada to be their Vishnupada messiah. Of course reports were being given to the leaders that Bhavananada was having homosexual affairs with taxi drivers and others, so why was he reinstated by Tripurari's "reform" friends? And once again notice, the title of Vishnupada is another one that is equal to that of Jesus. So the GBC re-instated a known homosexual pedophile to the status of Jesus. Tripurari has never even mentioned this problem that we know of? Rather, he still claims that the people who created all these deviations are some sort of "appointed gurus"? How can the people who create all these deviations be gurus? Why does Tripurari keep saying that these 11 are the appointed gurus, even after he states that they are deviants?]
TS: Having been essentially barred from preaching in Iskcon, I felt that my ability to change the course of Iskcon’s misguided trajectory was greatly hampered within the institution, and further, I did not want to be in any way connected with the serious deviations that were taking place. History has shown that significant change comes more readily from committed individuals, not organizations or governments, and certainly not committees. Further, as Gandhi said, you should be the change you want to see. Mutely following leaders who had proven themselves unworthy of respect was not my idea of progressive Krishna consciousness. Thus I decided with much regret that I could better pursue the ideal I had imbibed from Srila Prabhupada outside of Iskcon. Indeed, if I were to have a voice at all, it would have to be from outside of corporate Iskcon.
[PADA: Except Tripurari is still saying the 11 were appointed as gurus, which is the root of all the problems, including all the criminality, molesting and so on?]
TS: Thus in October/November of 1985, I went to Nadiya to seek the blessing of Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja, knowing that leaving Iskcon and having a desire to help it were not mutually exclusive. When I asked Srila Sridhara Maharaja for some service, he advised me, “Swami Maharaja (Prabhupada) has taught you everything. Now go and start something yourself and I will be in the background to help you.” This is what I did, and by the grace of Sri Guru and the Vaisnavas, I am happy and my efforts have been met with some success. It should be clear from Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s instruction to me that he wanted to see Prabhupada’s disciples flourish in leadership positions and to serve his mission as acaryas.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada wanted his disciples to take the post of acharyas i.e. equals to Jesus? No, he said they are not even qualified for basic renounced monk life. Rather it is Sridhara and Tripurari who kept saying these leaders were supposed to be worshipped as acharyas and people like Jesus. Anyway this is good, Srila Prabhupada says they are not even fit for basic monk's life, then Tripurari defies that and says they are fit to be gurus, acharya and in sum -- equals to Jesus messiah acharyas. This is the root of my complaint about him. Now he is apparently wanting to sue me for slander, meanwhile his idea that debauchees are gurus / messiahs / acharyas slanders, insults, attacks and defiles the name of Jesus all day long. ys pd]
=====================================
Problem with these folks is that it is a group dynamic. If you look who is there, 99% ex-ISKCONites hang out at the GM camp.
ReplyDeleteTS feels insecure, he must know that Prabhupada is not satisfied, but because the whole crew is there, birds of a feather. They tap each other on the shoulder and thats it, thats why they stay there. No argument counts.
An insincere hypocrite cannot be a guru. One whose aspiration is for mundane activity cannot be a guru. Pseudo-gurus should be turned out and exposed. If one selfishly uses the gifts his disciples have surrendered to the Lord, taking them as a means to accumulate wealth, women and worldly fame, then he should be renounced immediately as a cheater. One should not listen to the words of such a rascal. One who purloins the materials meant for God's service in his own selfish interest is not worthy of the name "guru."Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prabhupadanugas.blogspot.in/2011/12/bhaktisiddhanta-saraswati-on-guru.html