Bv Suddhadvaiti Swami Maharaja was born as Guy Bouchié de Belle in 1953 in an ancient French, aristocratic family, with the title of Baron. From a young age he wanted to become a catholic priest, but starting the practice of yoga at 14 made him turn eastwards for his spiritual development. He studied and practiced Buddhism, then kriya-yoga in India, before taking up the path of bhakti in 1973. He received diksa initiation in 1974 under the name Jayantakrid das from Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, of whom he is one of the most senior French disciples.
He studied closely for 10 years under his beloved siksa-guru, Srila Gour Govinda Swami, the foremost disciple of Srila Prabhupada.
[PADA: Gaura Govinda Maharaja was "voted in" as a GBC guru in 1986, at the exact same time the GBC reinstated Bhavananda as the GBC's alleged Vishnupada acharya. There were many well known reports of Bhavananada's engaging in illicit sex acts, and this issue was not only being discussed at Mayapura, but also among rank and file devotees around the world. This was a huge controversy at the time.
These numerous allegations against Bhavananda included illicit sex in the holy dham -- and so on, and yet he was reinstated to the post of the Vishnupada acharya by Gaura Govinda Maharaja's GBC program. Meanwhile, at the same exact 1986 Mayapura festival, the GBC ALSO voted for Gaura Govinda Maharaja to become Bhavananda's co-acharya. Read: GGM was voted in simultaneously at a sexual predator acharya's recoronation. And that means Gaura Govinda Maharaja continued the program of worship of, and offering bhogha to, illicit sex deviants on Krishna's altars.
This also means -- the same identical people who re-certified a known sexual predator as their acharya, also certified Gaura Govinda Maharaja as their acharya. This begs the question, what is a sexual predator guru recoronation and certification? Why is Gaura Govinda Maharaja being "voted in as guru" simultaneously with a sexual deviant acharya's being reinstated?
If GGM is the "defender of the parampara" why didn't he stand up and object to this re-certification of a KNOWN sexual aggressor and DEVIANT posing as an acharya, like we were doing? Instead he marginalized our protest, resulting in Sulochana's being assassinated for "offending pure devotees." And that also means the worship of illicit sex continued on Krishna's altars. Aren't these altars supposed to be sacred grounds -- and not a place for the photos of sexual predators to be worshiped? GGM says his idea is "the tradition," which tradition supports the worship of illicit sex "as good as God" and on Krishna's altars no less?
Why does GGM aid, abet and help orchestrate the use of the DIVINE name of Vishnupada -- to become connected to illicit sex in the holy dham? Where is the basic respect for the name Vishnupada, and the title of acharya? As for the Christians, they would never say that "man to man" sex in the holy dham then becomes the successor acharyas to God and Jesus, because the Christians have respect for the post of God's successor and these divine titles. GGM also told me he was well aware they were reinstating illicit sex in the holy dham as the Vishnupada acharya of his program.
Gaura Govinda Maharaj was thus a big participant in this 1986 bogus GBC deviation of reinstating a known sexual predator to the post of Vishnupada acharya, since he validated the GBC's votes as bona fide. Yes, lets be clear, the same people who reinstated the worship of "illicit sex in the holy dham" also voted for Gaura Govinda Maharaja -- at the very same festival and event.
Why doesn't Jayatakrid know that reinstating "illicit sex in the holy dham" acharyas is bogus, and therefore GGM should have helped us oppose that deviation instead of his "going along to get along" and receiving a guru rubber stamp from the self same deviant reinstators? If one is certified to be "as pure as God and Jesus," at the same ceremony where Rasputin is declared to be as good as Jesus, what is the value of such a certification?
Why does GGM think that the same people who reinstate sexual deviants as acharyas can also vote others in as the co-acharya of such deviants? Anyway, if one is voted in as guru by the same people who vote in known sexual predators as acharyas, one is corrupting the whole system of acharyas. GGM told me he has to "cooperate, tolerate and work with the GBC," why does he have to "cooperate" with the worship of illicit sex as Vishnupada acharyas? Which previous acharyas were voted in as co-acharyas at the recoronation of illicit sex? Of course, the whole idea of guru voting is itself bogus -- and so on and so forth.]
Since Srila Gour Govinda Swami’s departure from this world in 1996, he has taken siksa from Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja, who nicknamed him Jayanta-Krishna. In March 2008 after thirty five years of practice and study on the path of bhakti, he received from Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja the renounced order of sannyasa and the name Bhaktivedanta Suddhadvaiti Swami.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada said when his God brothers reinitiated his followers and gave them new names, this was very offensive and against vaishnava etiquette.]
"The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. They missed the boat, but at least they know that they’re supposed to wait for a messiah. The ISKCON leaders don’t even understand that!"
[PADA: Where did Srila Prabhupada says we should wait for the next messiah?]
APASIDDHANTAS SHOULD BE OPPOSED
[PADA: BTW! Gaura Govinda Maharaja ALSO taught that Srila Prabhupada's jeeva tattva is -- wrong. He is preaching apasiddhanta on the guru issue, jeeva issue, all these issues. Srila Prabhupada said GGM's idea that we do not originate with Krishna is "tinged with mayavada." Of course why did the rest of the GBC allow GGM to preach this mayavada siddhanta, at all, even for a few years?]
I just read the GBC paper written by Ravindra Svarupa dasa, www.founderacharya.com/ Srila Prabhupada: the Founder-acarya of ISKCON and, as a member and one of the earliest French disciples of His Divine Grace still practicing, I want to express my indignation. Some people accuse me of having left the institution, but I consider myself as belonging to the greater, real ISKCON, not to what my guru's mission has sadly been made into.
[PADA: What is sad is that Jayantakrid worships the people who have made ISKCON what it is today, for example Sridhara Maharaja said that the guru voting program should be introduced into ISKCON, and it was. And the result is that fools are being voted in. Of course, Sridhara Maharaja made a homosexual guru deviation in 1936 with the same results, their mission was ruined.]
I am somewhat disconcerted that the GBC has imposed their unenlightened views on the society once again. The same root reason for their past blunder of presenting the 11 ritviks named by Srila Prabhupada in July 1977 to initiate on his behalf as long as he was sick, as chosen successors and rubber-stamping them as “His Divine Grace, 108, uttama-adhikari and what not, and their countless subsequent mistakes and failures, is again producing sour fruits.
[PADA: Except Sridhara Maharaja, Gaura Govinda Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja all worked along with Tamal and his "chosen successors" program.]
What is that reason? It is the stubborn refusal to approach higher-level sadhus for siksa. As Srila Prabhupada had mentioned that one could approach his Godbrother, the acarya board of ISKCON approached Srila BR Sridhara Maharaja in 1977, but only to use him to establish themselves as gurus, to have the stamp of approval of a senior Vaisnava to back up their scam and rule the mission they had just high-jacked, not for taking siksa.
[PADA: OK good, so Jayantakrid admits that Sridhara Maharaja gave his stamp of approval to the bogus guru scam of the 11. Correct. And Sridhara Maharaja co-wrote the ZONAL GURU deviation by saying, there will be the acharya of the zone. And Narayana Maharaja had been their rasika guru all along from the 1980s to the 1990s, and Gaura Govinda Maharaja is their voted in co-acharya. So all of these people helped the bogus guru scam. So they are ALL responsible for the results, since they co-created this mess.]
The ISKCON leaders are thus left with their minds as authority, like munis, or any common person for that matter.
[PADA: Since the 11 GBC were already rubber stamped as gurus by people like Sridhara, Narayana and Gaura Govinda maharajas, why would they need to consult anyone else anyway? The guru does not need to consult with a GBC, or a Gaudiya Matha person, and so on and so forth, he is independent. The problem is that the false gurus were rubber stamped by these folks.]
Actually, anyone who has not prayed for and approached a higher siksa-guru after Srila Prabhupada’s physical departure proves he or she has not understood that fundamental point of his teachings: to always be in higher sadhu-sanga. Srila Prabhupada clearly speaks of siksa-guru in the very first chapter of the Chaitanya Charitamrita. It is said that the association of saints is the birthplace of bhakti, and that one should always associate with saints, even up to prema, as it is still the main limb of bhakti.
[PADA: Yet you just said that the GBC's higher authorities rubber stamped the 11 as gurus? We were opposing the GBC gurus, and your rubber stampers were giving us a nightmare by opposing us. And by your group opposing us, our members were being banned, beaten and assassinated.]
Once again they have legislated that this sadhu-sanga can only be done within the walls of the institution, they have thereby cheated the whole society and presented themselves de facto as the sadhus. It is like interbreeding, and everyone knows the danger of consanguinity. They are bleeding inside each other’s wounds… They present their ISKCON gurus as the only possible boats one can take to cross over the ocean of material existence, but it’s a great violence to propose stone boats and forbid their dependents to take shelter of good boats.
[PADA: Yet the leaders of your good boat helped the captains of the stone boat become authorized.]
To present themselves as the only choice, they have to character assassinate the Gaudiya Math, seen as “the competition”, therefore they present the various sadhus thereof as spiritually impotent. At the same time, maybe out of fear of vaisnava-aparadha, or maybe and I prefer to believe so, out of intellectual integrity, Ravindra Svarupa writes, "Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura attracted many luminaries,” (p12) then minimizes it by writing, "Many senior Gaudiya Math disciples left the institution in disgust,” (p13) without mentioning, except in a footnote (p66-67) that those who did not participate in the controversy (and therefore do not fit into the category of asara).
[PADA: Sridhara Maharaja was a ring leader of the 1936 controversy, he appointed a bi-sexual deviant as the acharya of the Gaudiya Matha. Dissenters were banned, beaten and killed, that is worse that asara, that is getting Vaishnavas beaten and killed, just like Sridhara's support of the 11 got more Vaishnavas beaten and killed.]
Srila Prabhupada actually co-founded the Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti in the 1940s with his would be sannyasa-guru Srila BP Kesava Maharaja. Some also preached outside of India, partly through their western followers who had left ISKCON disgusted with the “illusions of proprietorship” of the Zonal acaryas.
[PADA: And Sridhara Maharaja was the leader of the post-1977 GBC's zonal acharya deviation. He said there will be "the acharya of the zone." There is no such thing as a zonal acharya, he has no idea what is an acharya. So Sridhara Maharaja co-created the zonal acharyas, and then people left in disgust, well that is correct. After 1936 people left the Gaudiya Matha being disgusted with Sridhara Maharaja and his sexual predator acharya program. Sridhara Maharaja rubber stamps bogus gurus, and then everyone leaves in disgust, that is correct.]
But Ravindra Svarupa insists, "Srila Prabhupada made a kind of reboot - and-recovery of Mahaprabhu’s mission”, (p41) completely discrediting the Gaudiya Math. Completely and offensively discarding the preaching of many Gaudiya Math sadhus, Ravindra Svarupa writes, "Animated by the indwelling spirit of its founder-acarya, ISKCON is the embodiment in this world of the spiritual potency of Lord Caitanya." (P50)
This is so much wishful thinking! Countless ISKCON devotees have taken shelter of Gaudiya math sadhus after the falldown of their guru(s) having been promoted as bona fide by the GBC, or after realizing they had been short-changed, but how many devotees from the Gaudiya math are joining ISKCON? Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote, "If those who have no inclination for bhajana do not get the association of Vaisnavas who are immersed in the bliss of bhajana, they’ll become completely materialistic in no time."
[PADA: Yes, but it was Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and GGM who supported the GBCs gurus. And when their bogus gurus started to fall, Sridhara Maharaja said that is what happens, acharyas go mad after money, women and followers. No, we neophytes go mad after mundane things, not the acharyas? Instead of admitting they promoted false acharyas, they began to argue, acharyas are falling down left, right and center. And thus ISKCON became a mundane program because it was worshiping mundane people.]
For such people it is nothing but self-deception to establish and promote themselves as representing the society of Gauranga without association with suddha-vaisnavas.” (Sri Caitanya- siksamrta)
Then Ravindra Svarupa writes, "ISKCON is exemplifying unity in diversity" (p50) This is not possible if one has a sectarian mood. In the words Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, sampradaya-virodho yam davanalo vicintyate. “The eleventh obstacle of the Vaisnavas is sectarianism, which takes the shape of the forest fire. Due to sectarianism a person cannot accept anyone outside of his own group as a Vaisnava, and as a result he faces many obstacles in finding a guru and associating with devotees. Therefore extinguishing the forest fire is most important.”
[PADA: So this is important, Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and GGM started a forest fire by supporting false and sectarian gurus. And that is what Srila Prabhupada also said, Sridhara Maharaja's false guru program "started a fire in the Gaudiya Matha." And now these people are the number one obstacle to people finding a bona fide guru. As soon as anyone takes shelter of Srila Prabhupada they are criticized as "being like the Christians" etc.]
Then Ravindra Svarupa quotes a letter by Srila Prabhupada, “But if we fight on account of diversity, then it’s simply the material platform.” (P51) So stop fighting! Get off the material platform instead of presenting pages and pages of rhetoric and verbiage in a document that took 6 years to produce but which is full of misconceptions and statements out of touch with reality.
[PADA: The reality is that Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and GGM supporting and promoting the worship of illicit sex acharyas has ruined the good name of Krishna all over the planet, just like they ruined to good name of the Gaudiya Matha by the same process.]
When you know that this paper has been approved by all their gurus, swamis and leaders, you can understand the level of their advancement… Ravindra Svarupa insists again, quoting a 1969 letter of Srila Prabhupada out of context, “The Gaudiya math has failed” (p58). However, Srila Prabhupada said in 1977, “ No more non-cooperation. Now everyone cooperates to spread Lord Caitanya’s movement.” and it’s quoted p61! Why not act upon that?
[PADA: We should cooperate to promote Sridhara Maharaja's illicit sex guru program, and ruin the name of Lord Chaitanya's mission, just as they did after 1936? And that is what Gaura Govinda Maharaja told me, he has to cooperate with the GBC guru program. Which previous acharyas cooperated with the worship of illicit sex acharyas?]
There is a spiritual axiom, which states clearly that one cannot progress from one adhikara of bhakti to the next without associating with a living uttama-adhikari (See Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya 16.74 Purport and Madhya 22.71, Purport, and Srila Sarasvati Thakura’s commentary in Bhag 11.2) When is the last time ISKCON leaders availed themselves of that higher association?
[PADA: OK so the Sridhara Maharaja / Narayana Maharaja / Gaura Govinda Maharaja program promotes the worship of "living" sex with taxi drivers, how does that elevate anyone?]
Almost 40 years ago, before Srila Prabhupada left! How did the ISKCON leaders go from the kanistha-adhikara to the madhyama-adhikara level, what to speak of up to the uttama-adhikara level? The answer is very simple: according to the above-mentioned axiom they did not!
[PADA: So if they are not uttama, why were their advisors promoting them as uttama?]
Moreover, it should be stated: “By an offense against the dearest devotee of the Lord, even real bhava will be destroyed, if the offense is grave. If the offense is medium, the bhava will turn to bhava-abhasa. If the offense is slight, the bhava will become an inferior type.” (BRS, 1.3.54)
[PADA: Correct, many sannyasas fell down in the Gaudiya Matha after 1936 because they supported the false guru program, and the same thing happened in ISKCON.]
One is retrograded to a lower adhikara if one offends sadhus. They committed vaisnava-aparadhas against Srila BR Sridhara, Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja and Srila BV Narayana Maharaja. So where are they at now? There are only a few who have not succumbed to the various trappings surrounding the position of guru. Over 50% of the ISKCON gurus [75 out of 140 (I have stopped there)] have fallen down. And that’s the official record…) while some have maintained themselves somewhat afloat by continuing to serve the mission and practicing vaidhi-bhakti, but without vertical advancement to higher levels, due to no sadhu-sanga, they only make horizontal progress within the kanistha-adhikara.
[PADA: That is what Sridhara Maharaja established in the Gaudiya Matha, Srila Prabhupada said the leaders there are "fourth class and tenth class," so they were not making advancement.]
Back to Prabhupada, No. 31, Spring 2011 Ravindra Svarupa speaks of the importance of Srila Prabhupada’s presence "to be felt in the life of every ISKCON devotee today and in the lives of devotees many centuries in the future" (p11). How is this different from Christianity? He speaks of establishing Srila Prabhupada as "the founder-acarya of ISKCON for all times" (p16), as if Srila Prabhupada needed the GBC and had waited for them to do so.
[PADA: OK but if we are not going to worship Srila Prabhupada (the "Christian idea") whom will we worship instead? Why not tell us who is going to be the current worshiped person instead? Not naming this alleged person has lead to all sorts of endless speculation.]
No one contests this position to Srila Prabhupada, so "for all times" is irrelevant, unless the GBC means something else than the words indicated when they speak of establishing Srila Prabhupada as such. And this is what it is all about: Behind the words "founder-acarya," there is a whole doctrine, which is presented and developed point by point. And it has nothing to do with the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition. The need to “keep Srila Prabhupada in the center” (p17) comes when no qualified gurus are there, (or the highly qualified one has not been recognized), and when so many gurus have fallen down, bringing about the extreme reaction to an extreme situation: the ritvik-vadis, who are continuously challenging and attacking the GBC position on the guru issue. Ritvik-vada is also inspired by Christianity.
[PADA: And what exactly is the system of making illicit sex gurus -- as was established by Sridhara Mahararaja et al. -- going to accomplish? Where does Srila Prabhupada say worship of the pure devotee is a deviation, or a version of Christianity?]
The ideas of Srila Prabhupada being “not less a presence to subsequent generations than he has been to the first. Some believe he could even be more;” of “fostering in all devotees of ISKCON generation after generation an ever-increasing awareness of their deep connection with its founder-acarya;” (p17) of Srila Prabhupada “being a perpetual indwelling active, guiding and directing presence;” (p22) of Srila Prabhupada “being an inescapable, predominant, felt presence in the lives of all devotees, no matter who else may serve as their diksa-guru;” (p 24) and of “If Srila Prabhupada’s position as Founder-acarya is realized, generation after generation will be able to receive his special mercy;” (p 25) smells terribly like Christianity. Or is it kowtowing to the ritvik-vadis, who are de facto following the Christian tradition of one savior, Lord Jesus-Christ, and everyone else is just a helper?
[PADA: Again, fails to name who will be the current acharya instead?]
Calling the gurus ‘teachers’ (p 25) and ‘guides’ (p 86) just fit that idea Srila Prabhupada’s books will naturally be read as we read Srila Rupa Gosvami’s or Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s books. Why try to invent something? Why do we want to apply indiscriminately to all devotees what applies to his direct disciples? Ravindra Svarupa speaks of “authentically conveying Srila Prabhupada’s real teachings” (p27). Why don’t they start to teach what he taught on jiva-tattva and guru-tattva instead of the apasiddhantas they have voted or are constantly adjusting?
[PADA: The Gaudiya Matha guru tattva is that they appointed some fools as gurus, and those fools appointed more fools, thus Srila Prabhupada says that "another man comes to be guru, then another then another" (as each one fails in succession) and this is "kill guru and become guru." As for jeeva tattva, Srila Prabhupada said the Gaudiya Matha idea that we do not originate with Krishna is tinged with mayavada.]
GBC's institutional role according to Srila Prabhupada Ravindra Svarupa speaks of Srila Prabhupada having made the GBC his “chosen successor at the head of ISKCON.” (P82) Where is the evidence for this? Who is foolish enough to accept that, except uneducated devotees, particularly the new ones?
[PADA: Who has been foolish enough to accept that Srila Prabhupada appointed gurus? Well these fools would be folks like -- Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and Gaura Govinda Maharaja, they all boosted and promoted the appointed 11 gurus "big lie." Yes, who would be so foolish as to accept this big lie? Good point!]
Srila Prabhupada made the GBC the ultimate managing authority, not the ultimate spiritual authority. He said that he had created the GBC for big egos, that it was the watchdog of ISKCON. GBC members are simply to see that things are going on; So how is it that the GBC are the final authority? They are simply to examine that things are going on nicely, that is all. (Letter July 9, 1971) GBC men should not dictate very much, simply supervise and see that the standards are maintained. (Letter, February 14th 1972)
[PADA: So why does Sridhara Maharaja create the worship of illicit sex acharyas as the standard? And why does he establish that we have to offer bhogha to such deviants?]
What will happen when I am not here, shall everything be spoiled by GBC? So for the time being, let the GBC activities be suspended until I thoroughly revise the whole procedure. (Letter, April 11th 1972) I made the GBC to give me relief, but if you do like this, then where is the relief. It is anxiety for me. This is the difficulty, that as soon as one gets power, he becomes whimsical and spoils everything. (Letter, Sept 12th 1974)
I am training some of my experienced disciples how to manage after my departure. So if instead of taking the training, if in my lifetime you people say ‘I am the Lord of all I survey’, that is dangerous conspiracy. (Letter, Oct 8th 1974) Now has the GBC become more than Guru Maharaja?
(Letter, Nov 10th 1975) It is now evident that some of our top men are very much ambitious and there has been so many fall-downs. (Letter, January 27th, 1975) The GBC’s record of blunders is so bad that they are an authority only in their own minds, especially a spiritual authority. This is utterly ludicrous. They have been changing their position on the guru issue so many times that one cannot keep track of it, and now they have almost joined the ritvik-vadis in their conclusions.
When the GBC finally admitted in 1990 in the Vaisvava Journal No. 1 through an excellent article of Ravindra Svarupa that Srila Prabhupada had NOT appointed the 11 as guru successors and that the infamous, preposterous zonal-acarya concept had been properly rejected in 1985, then the ritvik-vadis attacks against the GBC and their popularity went down. But when the GBC retracted themselves later on, the ritvik-vadis flourished more and more and have challenged and defeated regularly the GBC’s untenable position on the guru issue, so much so that the GBC is more and more openly agreeable to some form of ritvik-vada, which Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja called “ prachanna ritvik-vada”, or covered ritvik-vada.
[PADA: Good, so we get the main credit, because the main people who oppose the worship of illicit sex acharyas have been the ritviks, while at the same time Gaura Govinda Maharaja was cooperating with the deviants and attacking the ritviks, In 1990 Narayana Maharaja was the GBC's rasika acharya, and the only reason Gaura Govinda Maharaja was "voted in as acharya" is because Sridhara Maharaja had told the GBC to vote in more acharyas. That means the ritviks were the only people pointing out all these deviations, while Jayanakrd's program was participating, acquiescing if not supporting these deviations.
Of course this begs the question, since many of the elder people like Rupanuga, Hansadutta, Brahmananda, Tamal, and many other original disciples, apparently knew that for example Kirtanananda was one of the members of a gay household, and he was inclined to oppose Srila Prabhupada, why didn't they say something when Kirtanananda mounted a Vyasa seat a few years later? And why did they remain silent when the GBC went off to the Gaudiya Matha, knowing how much Srila Prabhupada opposed their program? Why didn't they all join me to protest Jayatirtha's sex and drugs and rock and roll program, and so on and so forth? Its a mystery.]
Their present philosophy, presented in this position paper is actually nothing short of ritvik-vada with a thin veneer of the traditional guru idea, so that they can get all the benefits of a guru position without assuming its responsibilities.
[PADA: Who is your traditional guru now? And why have you people said the tradition is illicit sex?]
They more or less agree with the ritvik-vadis that their present gurus cannot deliver their disciples by not being able to deliver to them the ‘transcendental necessities’ (see C.C. Madhya 24.330 Purport: suddha-nama, divya-jnana, etc.) and that it is Srila Prabhupada who is delivering them to their disciples. They say that if one’s guru falls down one can take shelter of Srila Prabhupada and be saved anyway. Well, that is not the Gaudiya-Vaisnava philosophy.
[PADA: OK but who do we take shelter of?]
It is Christian or maybe at best from the Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva lines but Srila Prabhupada or our previous Gaudiya acaryas never encouraged that. How GBC ritvik-vada philosophy formed
Srila Prabhupada asked Tamal Krishna Goswami to make a GBC meeting to decide who would initiate after him. Tamal Krishna Goswami disobeyed and did not arrange the meeting because he didn't think he would be selected.
[PADA: Why then did Narayana Maharaja say that Tamal is the dear tree of Radharani, that he is a guru and so on, if Tamal was disobeying his guru? Why didn't Narayana Maharaja help us when we pointed this out?]
During the last month of his lila, Srila Prabhupada asked Tamal Krishna Goswami to make a GBC meeting and decide who would initiate after him. Bhakti Charu Swami was a witness and has admitted it. Tamal Krishna Goswami did not obey. Srila Prabhupada asked him if they had a meeting and Tamal Krishna Goswami answered that they did not. Srila Prabhupada then asked him if he (Srila Prabhupada) should suggest some names Tamal Krishna Goswami answered negatively.
He admitted later that he thought he would not be chosen but that it would be Kirtanananda or Satsvarupa. Then, as Tamal Krishna Goswami still did not obey and did not call for a meeting, Srila Prabhupada suggested the names of Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja or HH Radha-Govinda Swami, or both.
[PADA: There was no appointment of any acharyas, whether Tamal or anyone else. Had Tamal, or Gaura Govinda Maharaja or anyone else had been appointed as guru, Srila Prabhupada would have made that clear to the whole society.]
Bhakti Charu Swami was also in the room in 1979 when Srila Prabhupada’s god-brother Sri Akincana Krsna dasa babaji Maharaja, whom Srila Prabhupada said was a paramahamsa, came and examined Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja when he was displaying uncommon symptoms and confirmed he was in bhava.
[PADA: Gaura Govinda Maharaja said to me that he has to cooperate, tolerate and work with the GBC gurus. There are no examples of ANY acharyas in bhava who were voted in at sexual predator guru recoronations? Mixing up bhava with sexual predator guru recoronations is confusing the public. Moreover the title of Vishnupada is meant for the bhava acharyas and not for sexual predators, yet GGM compromised with recoronating a sexual deviant as Vishnupada.]
Srila Prabhupada had given us an indirect hint by repeatedly telling us that his Guru Maharaja had not appointed an acarya but that “ his idea was, ‘let them manage then whoever is qualified for becoming Acarya, he’ll manifest’.” (Letter 21.9.1973) and “his idea was that who would come out successfully and self-effulgent acarya would be selected.’ ” (Letter 28.4.1974) So Srila Prabhupada was certainly against artificially making an acarya, but not at all against recognizing one. So, here we had one! He was in bhava, an uttama-adhikara.
But what did the GBC say? “No, he is just greedy to become a guru, and the Babaji is trying to help him. We won’t accept him.”
[PADA: That is another problem, Gaura Govinda Maharaja had the photo of a babaji on his altars and he was not recognized by Srila Prabhupada as bona fide.]
It is said atmavan manyate jagat, one sees the world according to one’s own mentality. How more self-effulgent an acarya did they want than Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja to be?
[PADA: OK so GGM was voted in as guru at the recoronation of a known sexual predator who was reportedly having sex with taxi drivers, he is bona fide, the people who protested are not bona fide? That rewards ill behavior.]
When I presented the idea to the GBC in 1994, Bhakti Charu Swami said that this was the worst attack of kali against the movement since the gopi-bhava club of LA in the early 70s, thus calling me a kali-cela. That year he was trying to push a resolution that every new disciple should establish his relationship with Srila Prabhupada as the most important thing in his/her spiritual life.
Now he has succeeded. Kali has successfully neutralized the once so powerful ISKCON society by reducing it to an impotent religion, a mere sukrti producing factory. It is sad to see new people joining ISKCON on the basis of Srila Prabhupada’s books but being served this Christian-ritvik soup.
[PADA: OK except Gaura Govinda Maharaja is also departed? You are still promoting a departed person?]
The “philosophical response” of the GBC to my suggestion of a guru-reform was 100 Bengali devotees with the order to scare me to death; a smaller GBC group even told them to beat me and leave me with my breath.
[PADA: Right, so GGM was supporting a violent guru cult that was banning, beating and assassinating people. Why was he doing that? And does this not make him partially responsible for the banning, beating and assassinating, since he was a card carrying member of their group? If you had been beaten up, you would have simply experienced what many other victims of GGM's bogus guru program has experienced already.]
I have heard the same arguments used against Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja, who was an ISKCON member and against Srila BV Narayana Maharaja, who was outside of ISKCON: "We have to protect ISKCON." I have come with the passing of time to read this as, "We have to protect our own positions in ISKCON, our monies, manpower, pratistha and facilities."
[PADA: That is what GGM's followers told me, he has to stay in ISKCON or he will have no position, no temples and manpower. Same idea, he wanted these assets and so he acquiesced with the GBC to get them.]
The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah.
[PADA: And so are you, you have not mentioned who the current acharya is, that means you are waiting for one to appear. That is what Christians are doing, waiting for the second coming.]
The GBC tried to promote 11 kanisthas as the successor acaryas then, when their fraudulent, sinister plot was exposed, they dropped the idea, thus “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” Missed boats of opportunity It brings to my mind a French joke: Once there was a great flood. The people in a small town were being evacuated. The local priest, Father Hubert was in the church, praying. The Firemen came on a Zodiac boat and told him he should come with them.
He said he depended on God’s mercy and had full faith in it. The water kept on rising. The Fire Brigade kept on evacuating the people. When the water was more than halfway up the big entrance doors of the church, they came back and told the priest, who had climbed up the preaching chair, “Father Hubert! You must come now! The water is rising and we won’t be able to come back for you. We can barely pass under the entrance porch now.” He refused again, repeating he had faith and depended on the Almighty.
They insisted but he refused so they left. He drowned in the rising waters. When he arrived at the gates of heaven, he was loudly complaining, “I prayed and prayed with faith, but God did nothing!” St Peter told him, “Just wait a moment. Let me consult our registers. What’s your name again?” He exclaimed, “I just told you. I am Father Hubert, the unfortunate priest forsaken by God in spite of his faithful prayers!” St Peter looked at him sternly and said, “Sorry, Father Hubert, but this is not a fact! You can see for yourself what is written next to your name here: Father Hubert: …2 Zodiac boats.
Srila Prabhupada had arranged for the Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja boat, whom they enviously rejected and slandered until Krishna took him away the very eve of the day they wanted to forbid him to preach worldwide.
[PADA: Gaura Govinda Maharaja had challenged the GBC that they should not say that the jeevas were originally with Krishna, ok except -- that is what Srila Prabhupada taught us. In other words, GGM was trying to challenge Srila Prabhupada's statements that we all originated with Krishna. So the GBC was trying to forbid him from preaching because he was saying that Srila Prabhupada's ideas are false. GGM was not challenging the GBC, he was challenging Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada had told us that anyone who does not accept that we were originally with Krishna is "tinged with mayavada." So for once the GBC was doing the right thing, they were telling someone not to challenge the statements of the acharya.]
So they missed that boat, which was within the society itself. Srila Prabhupada had also arranged for the Srila BR Sridhara Maharaja's boat, whom the GBC rejected in 1992 when he suggested them to let other devotees who were as much or more advanced than those in place to become gurus (which was not difficult given the hecatomb which followed over the years.)
[PADA: Right, Sridhara Maharaja said that the GBC should vote in more gurus. He forgot something, gurus are not voted in? And how can unqualified persons vote for gurus in any case? Should the janitor be in charge of certifying the brain surgeons?]
So they missed that boat too, from outside the society. Srila Prabhupada had arranged a third boat, also outside the society, the Srila BV Narayana Maharaja boat, who gave them good advice for years and even saved ISKCON from Srila Prabhupada’s son who claimed it as his inheritance.
[PADA: Narayana Maharaja formed the so-called rasika club with the GBC leaders and he was encouraging their idea that they were acharyas. He was feeding their illusions. He also helped Satsvarupa write the "Guru Reform Notebook" -- where they said gurus deviate and need reform. This is an offense to the platform of guru, to say gurus are mundane men who need reform.]
Some top leaders approached him for siksa but later rejected him under their peers’ pressure. The result of rejecting a bona fide guru is that they are cursed and that nobody can give them shelter. (Srila Narayana Maharaja said that they had actually approached him to get higher knowledge so that they could compete with Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja who had siksa disciples of 30 ISKCON gurus plus a few Prabhupada disciples taking siksa from him.)
[PADA: Right, so the GBC gurus were taking shiksha from Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and GGM, that means all of these people were validating the false guru claim.]
By the way, if Srila BV Narayana Maharaja was not bona fide and top leaders approached him for siksa, what does that tell about their qualifications? And since he is bona fide but they rejected him, what does that tell about their qualifications and those of the GBC who made a horrendous campaign of slander against him? So they missed that boat too. Ravindra Svarupa’s paper is an implicit admission that none of the present ISKCON gurus are actually qualified, especially p. 98 where he’s asking a rhetorical question, “What if there are a number of self-effulgent acaryas?” and an insult to Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja not recognizing him as such.
The GBC is left with the only sadhu they have met and recognized as such, our Srila Prabhupada, but they are trying to make him into some kind of a Jesus-Christ figure, with some kind of “born-again Hare Krsna” mentality that one is saved if he belongs to ISKCON and that, “it doesn’t matter if your guru is not qualified or falls down because “Lord Prabhupada” will save you anyway.
[PADA: OK meanwhile Jayantakrid keeps saying departed people are going to save us now, he refers to Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and Gaura Govinda Maharaja, all of them are now departed. So he is promoting the worship of departed persons himself.]
Ravindra Svarupa writes, “the central temple opens a gateway to the vertical dimension” (p86) but since when do buildings and not sadhus save the people? Ravindra Svarupa gives the example of the sampradaya-acaryas, but if you follow that line of thought, our sampradaya acarya is Madhvacarya, so should we follow the udharaka (savior) and upakaraka (helpers) conception of the Madhvas and Ramanujas? Ravindra Svarupa defends his paper against this accusation in
Response to Criticism of the Founder-Acarya Book, but where is the difference, really? One may say that since Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu we have become a special branch of the Madhva line, the Gaudiya line. Then the sampradaya acarya is Srila Rupa Gosvami, as we are called rupanugas. But did Srila Prabhupada ever instruct us to take Rupa Gosvami as the sampradaya acarya and follow the Madhvas/Ramanujas’ mood? Trying to make Srila Prabhupada into a special founder-acarya that he already is, shows the spiritual bankruptcy of the GBC. They are still trying to cling to Srila Prabhupada, as they only see the body, not understanding that, “ Krishna and His representative are the same. The spiritual master is the principle, not the body.” (SP Letter 28.4.1968)
Having missed a basic tenet of Vaisnavism, the siksa-guru conception, they’re left with trying to concoct a solution for the salvation of their members instead of accepting Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and solution.
Therefore they present Srila Prabhupada as the savior. Most if not all ISKCON gurus share the same misconception: “I am not a qualified guru but I am connecting my disciples to Srila Prabhupada so they’re going Back To Godhead through his mercy.” That is not our Gaudiya-Vaisnava philosophy. That is Christianity or covered ritvik-vada, consciously or not.
It is an apasiddhanta and as such should be opposed. The GBC are responsible for misleading their dependents with a kind of morbid, nostalgic brand of Christian-ritvik-vada instead of promoting Srila Prabhupada’s healthy philosophy: to always be in higher sadhu-sanga. Granted, Srila Prabhupada at one point recommended us not to associate with most of his god-brothers because they had not recognized his greatness, but his last words, as quoted by Ravindra Svarupa (p66-7) were different.
Why cling to the former instructions and not the latest? Conclusion: It is a basic teaching, included in ISKCON, that if one is not able to deliver one’s dependents, he should connect them with one who can.
[PADA: People who promote the worship of illicit sex acharyas are not connected to the parampara.]
That person must be a presently living saint, not Srila Prabhupada. Pure sadhus are always there. Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja used to say that ropes of mercy are hanging but we do not see them. Such sadhus are the ornaments of the Earth. Without them, it could not exist, just like it could not exist without the sun and the moon. One has to look for their association, pray and cry for it. And not be sectarian and think that such a sadhu can only be in one’s institution. Every time a boat of merciful salvation is presented, it is a challenge to sectarianism, that great enemy of truth, and to one’s preconceived ideas.
[PADA: Gaura Govinda Maharaja said the same thing, you cannot accept Srila Prabhupada as the acharya, you have to pray for someone else. What if Srila Prabhupada is the person people prayed for and Gaura Govinda Maharaja is blocking them from getting Srila Prabhupada? Jayantakrid says there is always a pure devotee present, nope, Srila Prabhupada says there are gaps. Anyway, he cannot identify this alleged present person?
One thing we keep noticing is that people like Jayantakrid are trying to re-write the history of what happened in ISKCON. I was recently engaged in a discussion with a Jayapataka disciple, and he was totally out of touch, confused, and he basically had everything mixed up.
The good news is that the PADA version of history is gradually being accepted as the factual version by the majority of devotees. For example, just a few days ago some GBC guru's folks wrote to tell me that until recently they were accepting the Jayadvaita version of events, but NOW they think our idea of Jayadvaita and his deviations -- is the correct idea. One brick at a time.
We have all along been working with various devotees who have been writing and recording things since the 1980s, and our version has already been accepted and presented: Within various devotee essays and web sites; Within various newspaper articles and various TV presentations; Within books like Monkey on a Stick, on CBS TV news accounts and so on and so forth.
We have also been consulted by various law enforcement agencies and they have accepted our version as accurate. And some of our web site's documents have been used in lawsuits in India and elsewhere, wherein the question of "who is the acharya of ISKCON" is being legally challenged, and the documents we forwarded are being accepted as credible and authorized.
Similarly, more and more of the devotees themselves are accepting the documents on our sites and our analysis of those documents that we have forwarded over the years -- such as -- the July 9th letter, the will, the appointment tape analysis, the poison issue, the book changes issue, the criminality issue, and in fact a number other the documents we originally forwarded back in the 1980s are being more widely known and accepted over the years.
Its amazing to me that a few GBC hold outs and their sympathizers like Dayalu Nitai's HKC Jaipur are still saying that all of the documents of Srila Prabhupada that we originally forwarded (like his will), our testimony to law enforcement, our collation of Srila Prabhupada quotes, as well as the testimony of hundreds of devotees, as well as some hidden audio tapes we forwarded before anyone else did, as well as other evidences from shastra collated by others -- and so on, all of which we forwarded over the years -- "has no credibility." Well jeepers, why is everyone discussing all this then?
Just about everyone accepts that we are right by our saying -- Kirtanananda is not the next messiah and the GBC has been bogus to promote him as such. So now we are down to a very small group that is not accepting, i.e. the few remaining hold out supporters of the GBC's gurus and their groupies and cheer leaders, which is an ever dwindling group.
Anyway, regarding this article, right, the worship of pure devotees is "like Christianity" -- and that is evil! What we need to do it -- worship the Sridhara Maharaja / Narayana Maharaja / Gaura Govinda maharaja program / -- all of whom supported the GBC's "live gurus," and most of the GBC's gurus have fallen down. Then Sridhara Maharaja / Narayana Maharaja / Gaura Govinda Maharaja have also said, gurus are often fallen debauchees, no problem, they are always falling down. Who knew! ys pd]