Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Gaudiya Matha vs ISKCON (update)

Confused about the fact Gaudiya Matha leaders supported the GBC's guru project.

PADA: Unfortunately, a lot of the history this person says is true. The GBC in the 1980s especially had all of the ISKCON followers accepting and visiting to the Gaudiya Matha's gurus and leaders -- like Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, BV and BP Puri, Fakir Mohan and others (as he explains). The GBC announced that these Gaudiya Matha leaders are -- pure devotees, shiksha gurus, rasa-acharyas, rasika advisors and so on, and the GBC coerced all of the ISKCON devotees into "taking darsan" from these "gurus," listening to their lectures, reading from their writings and so forth. This problem continues to the present time because some of the GBC still visits with Radha Kunda babajis and others.

The first problem is that the GBC said SRILA PRABHUPADA had ordered ISKCON to "take shelter" of these Gaudiya Matha leaders, and that these Gaudiya Matha leaders had understood all along that Srila Prabhupada was going to appoint guru successors. Problem is, Srila Prabhupada did not tell us to go to the Gaudiya Matha for "advice," nor did he appoint any guru successors. To his credit BV Puri said that Srila Prabhupada told him that he was only going to appoint ritviks, and that Narayana Maharaja held a grudge against Srila Prabhupada for using the title of "Prabhupada." Unfortunately, BV Puri also later on supported some of the GBC's false gurus.

In any case, the GBC re-wrote history by saying ISKCON has to duplicate the Gaudiya Matha's "living guru" program and accept their leaders, and the result has been -- the GBC ended up helping these Gaudiya Matha folks siphon many people away from ISKCON, maybe thousands. At one point in the 1990s, Narayana Maharaja was even openly bragging that he has "more original Srila Prabhupada disciples in his movement than ISKCON has." Perhaps he was right, there was a mass exodus away from ISKCON over to these "camps."

And this mass exodus was started by the GBC itself when they said we need to go to these Gaudiya Matha leaders for "shiksha" advice. In sum, the GBC spawned ISKCON's own competition. The GBC used the "rubber stamp of authority" from these folks to prop themselves up as authorized gurus. Of course, now the current followers of the Gaudiya Matha cannot connect the dots of the whole story together, that their Gaudiya Matha styled "gurus" like Narayana Maharaja were among the main cheer leading supporters of the 11 GBC gurus of ISKCON, and that implicates these "advisor" gurus in the problems that were generated by supporting these bogus GBC gurus.

Worse, people like Sridhara Maharaja and Narayan Maharaja were ghost-writing the GBC's position papers and documents starting early on. Later on, when the GBC made a declaration in 1982 that no one should go and visit Sridhara Maharaja anymore, and his followers would be banned, naturally these folks started their own independent spin off operations that are competing with ISKCON. First of all there was the Jayatirtha spin-off which took away thousands of ISKCON devotees, and then there were many others such as Tripurari swami, Dheera Krishna swami, Jagat Guru swami, Paramdvaita swami and several others.

In sum! The ISKCON leaders spawned their own competition, by telling ISKCON's people that these Gaudiya Matha leaders are pure devotees, they started a sort of pied piper program leading everyone over to the Gaudiya Matha and other similar outside programs. I think this was an unintended consequence, they probably did not envision how all this would fracture and divide ISKCON. Anyway, the fact that the GBC first glorifies people as pure devotees -- then bans the same people as rascals who are trying to take over ISKCON -- is clearly a severe hypocrisy problem, which is explained in this video. Just this hypocrisy issue alone has driven thousands away from ISKCON.

The main good news right now is that the Sridhara movement has died down quite a bit, except in South America under Paramadvaita swami. And now that Narayana Maharaja has departed, his movement is fizzling, and they are fighting over "where did the money go" for his samadhi. So we are finding even locally around San Francisco area that some of the former followers of these programs are sort of gravitating back to our idea of worship of Srila Prabhupada.

Of course we could have done a lot better if not for some infighting within the so-called Prabhupadanuga's program. We could have got a lot more of these Gaudiya Matha exodus people on board with us if we had been more organized and had some sort of shelter to offer these folks. In any event, we are gaining some of their former people gradually, so we feel that over time our Srila Prabhupada worship idea will expand.


From PADA news 1999:

PADA: In 1976, "Nitai dasa" said that vaishnava acharyas may fall down. He cited the alleged example of Lord Brahma's fall down (which took place before he had heard the Bhagavatam Verses), and which is not appropriate to cite as an excuse for bogus cheaters posing as acharyas in the first place. Anyway, Srila Prabhupada said Nitai is a rascal, poisonous, and he banned Nitai from ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada says in his "who is that rascal?" conversation, that those who think the acharyas do not have to be a pure devotees are rascals. This would seem to indicate many prominent current leaders of both ISKCON and the Gaudiya Matha?

The idea that "acharyas fall down" is now the GBC's main siddhanta, which can be proven from numerous GBC documents. In fact, this bogus "falling acharya" idea has become the centerpiece of the GBC's post 1977 guru siddhanta. The GBC follows Nitai dasa. We find that this siddhanta was also given in the Gaudiya Matha: that acharyas fall down (as is also found in Sridhara Maharaja's book "Sri Guru And His Grace"): "So, deviation and partiality, these two things can take down the acharya." SGAHG p.78

Naturally, Srila Prabhupada says the direct opposite, acharyas like Narada Muni cannot ever be brought to the material plane, and it is an offence to think that they can. "Narada muni, Haridasa thakura, and similar acharyas especially empowered to broadcast the glories of the Lord CANNOT BE BROUGHT DOWN to the material platform. Therefore one is strictly forbidden to think that the acharya is an ordinary human being (gurusuh narah matih naraka sah). (SB 7.7.14)

In a portion of a book penned by Narayan Maharaja's group included below, we find that they still think that the (homosexual) Ananta Vasudeva was the appointed acharya for the Gaudiya Matha. I was very much shocked to see, despite my pointing out this (homosexual guru) to you, in person, nearly twenty times in a direct conversation, you skipped over it as not even barely worthy of a reply, and instead you went forward telling me that Vasudeva was a great scholar and so on. You are like the mother of a bank robber, "Oh, Charles is robbing banks, true, but he always ate his potatoes nicely." Fine. But then he started robbing banks? You have missed the point?

Indeed, you are missing the whole point: a person with unresolved homosexual anarthas might be a great scholar, agreed, but he is not and was not the acharya. Nor was he ever appointed as the acharya by His Divine Grace BHAKTISIDDHANTA SARASWATI THAKURA PRABHUPADA. Therefore Sridhara Maharaja and his associates --deviated-- by making Vasudeva the acharya. That point you are not even answering: the real point in question? I hate to say this, but you sounded very much like the ISKCON GBC sector.

I have been saying to them, for years together: "You have homosexual deviants in your guru parampara." And their reply is almost always, "So what, why are you objecting? And dissidents are getting killed, agreed. And the media is practically vomiting in disgust, agreed. STILL we are not to be questioned, since we'll get our sidewalk goondas to threaten you"? In sum, both you and they are EVADING a direct reply, although I have to admit your approach is very much higher class in comparison.

Of course, the Gaudiya Matha's false gurus evaded the same question from Srila Prabhupada: "... I have also read specifically your articles on the matter of acaryas, wherein on the 14th paragraph I see that the acarya shall be entitled to nominate in writing his successive acarya. But we do not find any record [in the 1930s Gaudiya Matha] where our Srila Prabhupada nominated any acharya after him. Different persons have interpreted this point and every one of our God brothers are acting as acharyas..." (SPL August 21, 1969)

Worse, you tell me that Sridhara Maharaja's solution (to his Frankenstein mad guru concoction) was to leave the Gaudiya Matha and start his own independent institution. In sum, "I started the Gaudiya Matha's house on fire, as a result, innocent citizens are now being banned, beaten and killed. So, to help my fellow citizens, those who are suffering death threats and so on from my creation, I am formally leaving the burning down house. I personally poured gasoline on that house for years, so 'too bad suckers,' I am moving to another house. Bye bye!

Or suppose that the ship's captain foolishly places the big ocean liner on the rocks in a 90 mph gale, with 2000 passengers, and he slips off in his private yacht and drinks soda on the banks of shore, while the passengers are horrified and in danger? That is your idea of helping? How does that help?

Yes, how did that help? That ONLY made matters VASTLY worse for the suffering souls aligned with the Gaudiya Matha. In sum, Sridhara Maharaja created the very dangerous cult imbroglio, and instead of clearing up his own creation, he instead said, the best thing to do is to --leave the mission, and feed my poor God brothers to the sharks that I empowered, and forget all about it? How did this help? You TOTALLY lost me here?

Both Sridhara Maharaja and later Narayana Maharaja's book further says that there were eleven GBC gurus? What? No, there never were eleven gurus? Where is there any evidence of this? We have been asking for evidence of this for over 20 years? Are we ALL not aware, by now, that these eleven were only appointed as ritviks? Why are we saying there are eleven gurus, and some of them fell down as Narayana Maharaja's book says?

No. There were eleven imitators. End of story. And they were fallen WAY before they even spent one second on a vyasasana, because they were already thinking they could imitate the acharya. This is always forbidden everywhere in shastra. And then along comes Sridhara Maharaja in 1978 and encourages these cheaters, "wear the acharya's uniform and it will show you what to do" (i.e. cheat others by posing as acharya, as he had encouraged in the Gaudiya Matha). Just like he told Vasudeva to do in the 1930s?

Sridhara Maharaja should have said, "gurus were not appointed in ISKCON because your Srila Prabhupada opposed --appointing gurus-- for forty years. And where is the specific proof that you were appointed? Why was this not released earlier? And besides, you are not qualified to be acharyas, and so on, and so on, and so forth.]

TD: It is precisely for this reason that Srila Madhvacarya does not accept Brahma-vimohana lila & so many other portion of 10th canto. This also one of the reasons Mahaprabhu felt Himself in some ways closer philosophically to the Ramanujas than to the Madhva camp Now your dealing with more substantial issues than who's in charge at New Dvaraka. You say the Gaudiya Math has similar guru problems.

[PADA: We don't say anything independently. The fact is that there are hundreds of quotes from Srila Prabhupada about the Gaudiya Matha's post-1930s guru debacles which included: false guru appointments; homosexual gurus; murders and beating of dissenters; bad publicity; an "acharya's" child not only being abused but murdered; and in sum: ditto of what has occurred in post-1977 ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada said: "Another man comes, another man comes (by vote) to be guru." (Room Conversation, August 14, 1976 Bombay, India)

TD: There are over 20 Gaudiya Math branches because most of Srila Sarasvati Thakur's sannyas-sisyas eventually opened up their own branch, not to defy the others but to increase the flow of nectar of Mahaprabhu's sankirtan parties.

[PADA: That is the deviation exactly. Srila Prabhupada said in 1959 in his Vaisistha - astakam offering that this "many branches" is due to the tigress of name and fame. They were not supposed to start a big imbroglio of fighting guru camps, many separated guru branches, rather they were supposed to unite under one acharya, namely Srila Sarasvati Thakura, and form a GBC and work cooperatively. They did not do that. They have still have not done that.

Besides, the main parties were called "usurpers," not "bona fide brances" as you imply: "...Regarding the section 92 case against the Gaudiya Matha, I don't think there is any possibility of compromise. Both the Bagh Bazaar party [Sridhara Maharaja's group] and the Mayapura party [Tirtha Maharaja's group] have UNLAWFULLY usurped the missionary institution of Srila Prabhupada..." (SPL September 5, 1969)]

And these "bona fide branches" were simply a headache for Krishna and his pure devotees: "All along my [Gaudiya Matha "guru"] Godbrothers have gave me ONLY depression, repression, compression, but I continued strong in my duty." (SPL August 4, 1972)

TD: Any normal tree will eventually branch. That is not deviation; that is a sign of health & growth. We all have to become qualified gurus. Meanwhile we cannot tolerate that our gurudev's mission is being led deviants & cheaters. I support you until you blame senior vaisnavas outside of ISKCON such as Srila Sridhar Maharaja & Srila Narayan Maharaja. There's a saying among Christians: you're never defeated till you blame others. SSM never even kept any Vyasasan in his own Math for himself! What to speak of him being responsible for the size & altitude of asanas in ISKCON. Hoping this meets you in good health & protected by Sri Guru & Gauranga. Your god brother, servant & friend, Tarun

[PADA: This is fact finding not fault finding. Srila Prabhupada is the authority, and he has proven that by his books, his preaching and his accomplishments. And he severely criticized the Gaudiya Matha's false gurus.

For example, Srila Prabhupada called some of these so-called branches the "cockroach guru" branches:

"That [extensively preaching] is the duty of a [guru] acharya. Not that three dozen [guru] acharyas in Mayapura. [The Gaudiya Matha] Each one has a temple and a few dozen, not few dozen, one dozen disciples. Collecting some money, taking [pilgrims] to the holy place. They [artificial gurus] say "whatever is in our capacity we are doing". That capacity means when they are speaking that "cockroach is as good a bird as Garuda. Cockroach is also a bird and Garuda is also a bird." How can the cockroach say "I am also as good as Garuda?" Tamala Krishna: "That is called insanity. (RC April 10, 1977. Bombay, India)

Anyway, Sridhara Maharaja said on numerous occaisions that these eleven GBC were not ritviks --but gurus. The point is, you should not dare to question Srila Prabhupada's judgement on the Gaudiya Matha's deviation: "...If you are serious to be an important assistant in our society NOT mix yourself with my SO-CALLED [Gaudiya Matha] Godbrothers. As there are some residents, like monkeys and hogs, in Vrindavana, similarly there are many RASCALS in the name of Vaishnavas, be careful of them. And do not DARE to question impudently before your spiritual master... " (SPL November 21, 1972)

Narayana Maharaja also claims that the GBC were gurus in defiance of the order for them to be ritviks. Yet, there is no evidence anywhere that these people were ever qualified to acquire the title of acharya? This is the same false propaganda that caused the reactions (and responses from Srila Prabhupada) as mentioned above --in the Gaudiya Matha. These Gaudiya Matha folks have never proven their first point: that either Ananta Vasudeva or later our eleven were EVER appointed as gurus?

Yet they dare to challenge the acharya on this point, even in the book just now penned by Narayan Maharaja (see analysis below) --at their and our peril. "We haven't got to manufacture. To manufacture ideas is troublesome. Why should we take the trouble? And as soon as you want to manufacture something to my...., that is DANGEROUS. Guru mukha padma vakya cittete kariya aikya ara na kariha mane asa. This is ...You are singing every day, "What our guru has said, that is our life and soul. We do not want". Ara na kariha mane ...As soon as this POISON will come-suppress guru and I become Brahman-everything FINISHED. Spiritual life is finished. Gaudiya Matha finished, that, ...VIOLATED the orders of Guru Maharaja." (RC April 20, 1977 Bombay, India)]
ys pd

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.