PADA: Mark prabhu says "no one cares" about the ritviks, so the GBC is spending $15,000,000 suing us, and putting their TOVP temple, books printing, other temple building projects etc. ALL "on hold" so most of their funds can go to lawyers, for -- "nothing that anyone cares about"? Why is Mark saying that his gurus are pouring $15m into the toilet for "nothing that anyone cares about"?
If no one cares, why spend all this money on the issue? Or does Mark think $15m is chump change of no value? The ritviks are nothing, so, lets spend $15 m on them? They also said our child molesting issue was nothing, and so they lost a $400m lawsuit over that, again $400,000,000 is nothing, at least so says Mark prabhu? $400m is nothing, $15m is nothing, in what universe is that?
Mark now claims that the GBC wanted all of us to be diksha gurus. First of all, the GBC has never preached that everyone should become a diksha guru after 1977?
They have been saying, (a) there are only eleven diksha gurus, who were appointed, and they have zones, because Srila Prabhupada does not know what is a guru. So he appointed false ones, and with zones.
Then the GBC said, (b) even if the 11 are deviating, we are going to fight tooth and nail to keep them in the acharya post, and kick out people who do not agree that they are pure devotees. Which is why: there is no longer any big harinama and book distribution in most of the West, and which is why there are rats in some temples because there is not enough people to manage the buildings etc., because they purged most of those thousands of "other diksha gurus" out.
They never said all these thousands of people are also our co - diksha gurus like us etc., they just booted them out. Then (c) they banned, beat and killed people who dissented, which created terrible media press stories, and huge multi-million lawsuits, some of which are still ongoing.
And big national TV shows discuss these violent purges, drug addicted messiahs, illicit sex, child molesting, drug dealing businesses like PDI, crimes of all types etc, because no one else thinks this is what gurus are doing, even the public.
Then they said, (d) these 11 shall vote in others by 2/3 show of hands votes, and many of these subsequent voted in persons also began deviating after they were voted in as acharyas (like Hari Sauri, Prabhavishnu, Umapati etc.).
Basically they said, (e) the 5,000 other devotees (which you are now saying are also gurus) have to be purged out, and most of them were. I am sorry, but the idea that everyone should become a guru has never been applied, ever. First of all, if all the 5,000 are or could have been diksha gurus, why were they wholesale banned, beaten, purged, vilified, and even assassinated, are you saying the GBC is committing all these crimes against other gurus? Not sure what Mark's question is?
In any case, a teacher may also say, everyone here in the kindergarten class is expected to become a brain surgeon, that does not mean, you can issue hack saws to the kindergarten children and have them perfom surgeries now? Another one of Mark's gurus with "a young female disciple / companion"http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-13/editorials9874.htm Why doesn't Mark know this is not what messiahs are doing? ys pd
Mark now claims that the GBC wanted all of us to be diksha gurus. First of all, the GBC has never preached that everyone should become a diksha guru after 1977?
They have been saying, (a) there are only eleven diksha gurus, who were appointed, and they have zones, because Srila Prabhupada does not know what is a guru. So he appointed false ones, and with zones.
Then the GBC said, (b) even if the 11 are deviating, we are going to fight tooth and nail to keep them in the acharya post, and kick out people who do not agree that they are pure devotees. Which is why: there is no longer any big harinama and book distribution in most of the West, and which is why there are rats in some temples because there is not enough people to manage the buildings etc., because they purged most of those thousands of "other diksha gurus" out.
They never said all these thousands of people are also our co - diksha gurus like us etc., they just booted them out. Then (c) they banned, beat and killed people who dissented, which created terrible media press stories, and huge multi-million lawsuits, some of which are still ongoing.
And big national TV shows discuss these violent purges, drug addicted messiahs, illicit sex, child molesting, drug dealing businesses like PDI, crimes of all types etc, because no one else thinks this is what gurus are doing, even the public.
Then they said, (d) these 11 shall vote in others by 2/3 show of hands votes, and many of these subsequent voted in persons also began deviating after they were voted in as acharyas (like Hari Sauri, Prabhavishnu, Umapati etc.).
Basically they said, (e) the 5,000 other devotees (which you are now saying are also gurus) have to be purged out, and most of them were. I am sorry, but the idea that everyone should become a guru has never been applied, ever. First of all, if all the 5,000 are or could have been diksha gurus, why were they wholesale banned, beaten, purged, vilified, and even assassinated, are you saying the GBC is committing all these crimes against other gurus? Not sure what Mark's question is?
In any case, a teacher may also say, everyone here in the kindergarten class is expected to become a brain surgeon, that does not mean, you can issue hack saws to the kindergarten children and have them perfom surgeries now? Another one of Mark's gurus with "a young female disciple / companion"http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/03-13/editorials9874.htm Why doesn't Mark know this is not what messiahs are doing? ys pd
I noticed you often make a blog post where you are responding to someone but never link to the source of the original conversation or information.
ReplyDeleteis that a policy or an oversight?
Its a policy, I am not always trying to advertise others names here in general, because they may face repercussions from the GBC and etc. There are some folks who gladly give their names, and so we give their names here as well. I notice you are anonymouse yourself, so you sort of answered your own question. ys pd
ReplyDeleteI didn't say anything about the person's name. I was pointing out that there is never any context to refer to when reading your blog posts, because there is no way to find out what you were responding to.
ReplyDeleteSame answer, we are hiding the context to keep it semi-anonymous, same reason. ys pd
ReplyDelete