Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Isa das / Narayana Maharaja imbroglio update

PADA: Isa Dasa wrote to tell PADA that Narayan Maharaja never really supported the GBC's gurus, and NM was always critical of them. Except, from 1978 - 1993 NM had many GBC gurus going to meet with him, some constantly, and he was regularly being advertised by the GBC's guru clique as "the GBC's rasika guru." Some of the members of that group were folks like: Tamal Krishna swami, Giriraja swami, Indradyumna swami, Satsvarupa swami, Shivaram swami, Jnana das, Jadurani dasi and many others. 

OK by 1993 the GBC finally realized NM was creating a huge exodus, siphoning many people off to his program and so the GBC tried to "ban" him, but that means the GBC took the initiative to break off the connection and not NM? Now Isa makes a startling statement that the GBC issued an ultimatum to Tamal in 1993, he had to break off connection to NM or face being charged with criminal charges like orchestrating murder and abetting molesting. OK that means NM did not break off the connection? 

Ummm, what, Tamal was being charged with murder of who or whom, and molesting of who or whom? And if some crimes were known at that time, why didn't NM and his folks help victims get these crimes placed into a proper criminal investigation? Why didn't Isa and other NM folks forward these crimes to the proper authorities if they knew such crimes were going on? 

Of course Gaura Govinda Maharaja stood up at the 1993 meeting and said we need to keep Tamal in the post of guru and leader, right, we need to keep the founder father of the deviant messiahs project in charge of ISKCON! GGM says we need to pray to Krishna to get a bona fide guru, right, we need to pray to Krishna to save us from fools like GGM who are cramming bogus gurus down our throats!  

Anyway! A whole bunch of "rasika" letters exchanged between members of the GBC and NM "rasika group" were published previously on various sites, and these letters prove how the GBC body was totally under the sway of the influence of NM especially in the 1980s. Narayana Maharaja was also mentioned in various GBC documents all along, including the 1984 "Guru Reform Notebook" of Satsvarupa Das Goswami. Yep, as the banning, beating, embezzling, molesting and assassinating was going on, NM was giving rasika classes to the leaders of the KGB Mafia.

NM was made a de facto GBC consultant on this matter of "Guru Reform," so NM was helping the GBC's gurus form their apa-siddhanta, write their bogus papers etc. Of course the GBC and their hand maiden NM were widely criticized by us Prabhupadanugas, starting off with -- how can the guru need "reform"? 

This itself shows how badly NM has not understood the siddhanta, otherwise he would not have advised a "guru reform" if he knew that gurus do not need reform? For that matter, sincere neophytes also do not need to be "reformed" from illicit sex, drugs and crimes like NM's acharyas need to be rectified from? Which previous acharyas needed reform for deviations? 

Why does NM think that acharyas are less advanced than the neophytes? 

So this is the first problem with NM, he helped the GBC's promote the idea that their acharyas need "reform" and he thus helped the GBC's contrive a whole convoluted system of -- guru reform, guru suspension, guru monitoring, guru voting, guru rectification, guru removal, and even -- gurus sometimes being demons and etc. None of this was mentioned by Srila Prabhupada.

And later this GBC clique was involved in getting "rasika classes" from NM through the late 1980s and early 1990s. Lets review a few statements from NM: 

“Those who think, “There is no need to accept a guru as a mediator because we can chant the holy name, we can read books, and we can do arcana and sadhana simply by the rtvik system,” are not within the guru-parampara. They deceive others. They are actually cheaters; not bhaktas.” 

[PADA: OK so Srila Prabhupada says that after he departs he will have representatives (ritviks) and not appointed successor gurus, and this process made by the acharya is -- cheating and not coming from a bhakta? Meanwhile NM supported the idea that GBC 11 gurus had been appointed as successor acharyas, which really is cheating! 

Of course if NM had read the books, he would realize that acharyas are not appointed, not reformed, not voted in, as he supported along with his pals like Tamal on the GBC etc. Anyway notice, as soon as NM finds out that the acharya did not appoint conditioned souls as Krishna's acharyas, he thinks the acharyas are deviated! 

The Ritvik system is DEFINED as accepting Srila Prabhupada as the Guru who mediates. Thus the only person doing the "deceiving and cheating" here is NM.] 

NM: “Nowhere in the sastra is it written that a rtvik can ever give bhakti. This can never be the case. “ 

[PADA: Amazing, NM thinks his promoting the GBC's illicit sex acharya program is giving bhakti. How can a person get bhakti by worship of the illicit sex deviants NM has promoted as his idea of acharyas? Is there any religion anywhere on earth that recommends the worship of illicit sex as their acharyas, other than the GBC and their hand maidens like NM? Those who accept the Ritvik system receive Bhakti from the self-realized Guru, Srila Prabhupada.] 

NM: “They say that in this world there are no pure devotees, and therefore there are no pure devotees to initiate anyone. This idea is very, very wrong and it is against the principles of bhakti.” 

[PADA: Right, so the GBC spokesman Jayadvaita swami says the GBC gurus are engaged in illicit sex and other deviations, and NM thinks these people are the living guru representatives of Krishna. Nope! What is interesting is that a new NM bhaktin in Europe told one of our people she is only going to accept NM as her guru -- because his leaders are fighting over position, so she cannot accept any of them as pure. OK, so she is taking ritvik from NM? Who is actually the living successor to NM?

Anyway! This does not change the fact that Srila Prabhupada established the Ritvik system for ISKCON. Thus NM’s idea is ‘very, very wrong’ and it goes against the principles of actual Ritvik system as given by Srila Prabhupada.] 

NM: “Beware of this rtvik system. Without a self-realized guru you cannot achieve bhakti in thousands of births. This is an established truth. This is siddhanta. You should therefore accept a sad-guru, serve him, and try to follow his instructions. Then you can develop your Krishna consciousness and all of your anarthas will disappear. Otherwise, it will never be possible for pure bhakti to come and touch your heart and senses.” 

PADA: Yet the Ritvik system actually ENABLES one to ‘accept, serve and follow the instructions of the self-realised sad guru’, it is clear that one must ‘beware of NM’, for he is teaching the exact OPPOSITE of the truth. A Ritvik is DEFINED as someone who accepts Srila Prabhupada, it is NM who is again misleading us by positing the existence of a non-existent entity. Yep, watch out, you might end up worshiping a pure devotee and not NM's illicit sex messiahs! Danger, danger Will Robinson! NM thinks worship of the pure devotee is dangerous, and worship of his illicit sex pals is bona fide?  

Earlier in an interview that NM had given to the ISKCON Journal in 1990, NM had claimed that: I have not seen the word “ritvik” in our Vaisnava dictionary. (…) We have seen no such word as “ritvik”. (Narayana Maharaja Interview, ISKCON Journal, Page 23). In the same interview NM says Sridhara Maharaja, Tirtha Maharaja and Madhava Maharaja are all acharyas like Srila Prabhupada. Ooops, Srila Prabhupada says that these three people deviated from the orders of their guru. Notice also that NM is going to defend the GBC in their ISKCON Journal, so he is not "preaching against the all along" as Isa claims. Of course this begs the question, why is the GBC promoting the deviated people of the Gaudiya Matha as "acharyas like Srila Prabhupada"?

OK lets not forget NM says that Srila Prabhupada's idea that we originated with Krishna is bogus! He defends the MAYAVADA idea that we do not see Krishna originally. OK so NM is always challenging Srila Prabhupada and the statements of the acharya. Anway, then ISA DASA says, he is going to not answer any of these questions, just like Narayana Maharaja invited me to his ashram and then he cancelled our meeting four times, then he sneaked off the property without seeing me. OK NM could not answer this either. No problem, we will answer it for them! ys pd]

1 comment:

  1. Right, Gaura Govinda Maharaja, Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, Kailash chandra and his disciples like Torben Nielsen and Ajit Krishna, the GBC, Rocana etc. they all agree that we need to worship their physically living bodied person, which means they are saying we need to worship a physical body in order to attain Krishna, and how handy, they have a pocketful of deviants in living bodies for us to worship.

    So this means they are on the bodily platform of existence, they think we can only go to Krishna by worship of some physical body, which is made of mundane matter. There is no such idea found anywhere in the Vedas, that the path back to Krishna is to worship a mundane body made of pus, stools, mucous and so forth.

    That is not the process, so we called these people vapu-vada, or worshipers of the material body. Rather we are supposed to be vani seva devotees in order to attain Krishna, we worship the words of the acharya and not the physical body. Anyway it seems their idea is collapsing as their mundane bodied gurus keep dying, and this is leaving them with only a dead carcass to worship, and this is not going to fly very long. So their idea that we need to worship a carcass is basically the modes of ignorance, there is no such body worship idea found in the Vedas, we worship the vani or instructions of the acharyas and not the material body.

    Did we forget to mention that most of the material bodied persons they selected as their messiahs ended up being debauchees, so they could not even find a nice person in a body for us to worship in the first place? Worship a body, even the body of a debauchee, and that takes us to God? This is not the Vedic idea. ys pd


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