Sunday, December 4, 2016

Rocana's Church of Posthumous Pooja

Are Krishna's Successors Posthumous Dead Folks?

Rocana's Posthumous Church

"The Church Of Ritvik" By Rocana dasa/

[PADA: Rocana prabhu was a big supporter of the post 1977 GBC gurus after Srila Prabhupada departed, serving dubious "gurus" like Hansadutta, Kirtanananda and others. He seems to have later fallen off their train wreck in the later 1980s, only when the GBC was running out of vouchers and payments to give to their loyalists like Rocana. 

Meanwhile, we had been writing papers critical of the GBC as were being published in the "Vedic Village Review" and elsewhere, and yet Rocana remained oddly -- silent. Although he sometimes says he has "reformed" and he wants to join us to promote "The Sampradaya Acharya" Srila Prabhupada, he then goes back to the bogus GBC policy of (which is at least what Atreya Rsi calls it) "stabbing Prabhupada in the back"; the GBC policy of promoting that Srila Prabhupada is the "dead and gone post - samadhi / posthumous guru." 

It thus appears that Rocana has re-joined the GBC since: he is writing a paper giving the GBC's exact "living guru" arguments, indeed Rocana is using the GBC's terms such as "post samadhi," and then he is submitting his "through the back door" GBC paper to be published on the "GBC friendly" web sites. Rocana is thus back -- to officially attacking the people who want to establish the worship of the Sampradaya Acharya Srila Prabhupada.]

* Rocana dasa (RD): Introduction: In my previous paper, entitled "Sampradaya Acarya," I choose to exclude a number of sections in order to maintain focus on the central theme. In this paper, I hope to clearly explain the degree to which I differ from philosophical exponents of post-samadhi diksa.

[PADA: First of all, Rocana correctly says that that Srila Prabhupada is "the Sampradaya Acharya," a term used even by us Prabhupadanugas, and this term was even used in Hansadutta's "reform" book some years ago. Yet then Rochana suddenly switches hats and becomes a disciple of (the GBC's guru) Ravindra Swarupa's saying: Srila Prabhupada is dead, gone, "posthumous," "post mortem," and in sum: Srila Prabhupada is now the "post samadhi" diksha guru.

Meanwhile Rocana never tells us who is the current diksha guru for ISKCON? Its not Srila Prabhupada, who is it then? He never says. So he wants us to apparently, worship no one? 

And let us not forget that Rocana's co-writing team members such as: Ravindra / Jayadvaita / Tamal / Kailash et al., have ALSO previously referred to Srila Prabhupada as the "posthumous" guru only a few short years ago. That is, until they received so many complaints from folks like us that they had to change their "posthumous" term to "post samadhi." So the idea they are painting is clear: that Srila Prabhupada is "post" i.e. "posthumous" and he is thus "dead." 

It seems that first Srila Prabhupada was poisoned to make him "dead" physically, and then along came the Tamal / Gaudiya Matha deviants / Ravindra / Rocana / Kailasha Chandra team who conspired to make him ideologically "dead" with their "guru is (posthumous) dead" dogma.

We know of no other bona fide religion with either Vedic or Western roots that teaches "our guru is the dead and posthumous one." We also know that if Rocana had come into Prabhupada's room before 1977 and said, "Who are we going to worship as 'living' when you are the -- dead, gone and the posthumous one," he would have been laughed out of the room in derision, but as we know, when the cat is (allegedly) away, the mice will play. 

Now Rocana asks, "Why worship a dead body like that of the Sampradaya Acharya's? What about reading my papers, after all, I am living"? He has become Ravindra's twin brother. Of course people also thought like Rocana even when Krishna was present. "Once this blasted Krishna fellow is out of our hair, then we will declare He is dead and gone, and we will be worshiped as 'the living Kings, the living expert authorities, the living this and living that,'" because Srila Prabhupada says, they were envious of Krishna even when He was here, plain and simple. 

And similarly Srila Prabhupada says that the Gaudiya Matha's "living guru" project was based on the fact that they were "envious of my guru maharaja." And so Srila Prabhupada says that just like they tried to get rid of Krishna, they may try to get rid of me.

Rocana's "posthumous guru" idea was thus mentioned many times by Srila Prabhupada as part of the deviant teachings of the post 1936 Gaudiya Matha in India: "As soon as it was announced that guru maharaja is dead, I am so advanced I can kill guru and become guru" (Srila Prabhupada 1976). 

Thus Rocana's second idea, that Srila Prabhupada is the "posthumous guru," is all part of the terminology coined by the GBC's ideological (siddhanta) leaders, such as the Gaudiya Matha's deviants and their followers such as Jayadvaita and Ravindra swarupa? Of course the GBC's advisors such as Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, BV and BP Puri Maharajas, and similar others have also said the same thing, they all supported the worship of the GBC's deviant guru lineage. Their collective idea is that: at least the deviants we are supporting as gurus are "living." So for the deviants, it is better to worship another deviant than a "a posthumous departed acharya."

It is an incontestable historical fact that their idea of "worship of a living body" (vapuh vada) subsequently lead to worship of deviants after 1936 in India. And later, when their "living bodily guru worship" (vapuh vada) was adopted by the GBC in ISKCON it lead to the same thing, worship of deviants after 1977. 

This has all been recorded in the public newspapers, and thus this fact has never been contested by the GBC or their supporters such as Narayana Maharaja. Yet notice, they are still very proud of their deviations and will not admit to their glaring mistake, never mind that their "posthumous guru" dogma has lead to weird and dangerous "living guru" cults, and then the mass molesting of thousands of children, murders, horrific publicity, and the curse of a high rate of suicides among their victims, and so on and so forth? 

In other words, they said that you need to worship a living body, which is not found anywhere in the Vedic writings, then they selected deviants as the "living body" one had to worship. Rocana is essentially stating that he is still in league with this group?

Notice: Srila Prabhupada says that these "living guru" thinkers are in actual fact "killing guru" with their bogus ideology, or siddhanta. They are attacking the acharyas not necessarily with physical weapons like guns. So these "guru killers" ideologues are using their words to attack and kill the acharya. "Our guru, oh yes he is the posthumous one, our guru is the dead and gone one." That means they are "killing their guru" with their ideology. Either that or Rocana seems to be confused right from the beginning? A "Sampradaya Acharya" is someone who is very much relevant now, even if he has departed physically. 

Meanwhile, these sophisticated self proclaimed "advanced" devotees have at one time or other promoted the worship of deviants as "Krishna' successors," including their alleged great independent scholars such as Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and BV and BP Puri Maharajas, all of the GBC's various "advisors" over the years. 

Rocana does not say how he differs from these thinkers? Rocana says we need to worship a living person, not a dead and gone person like Srila Prabhupada. He only differs from the GBC in that his "living guru" has no name, address or apparent real existence? Either that, or the "living guru" of Rocana's is really: Rochana himself, since Srila Prabhupada says that by minimising the acharyas one is making himself the guru?

In short, their real agenda is to say that the worship of Srila Prabhupada is really some kind of ignorant "tama guna" ghost worship of a "post mortem" departed person, like the people who worship ghosts. Meanwhile, while they have blocked the door to the worship of Srila Prabhupada, they have opened to door, certainly as a collateral result, to the worship of deviants and even orchestrators of murder. 

So they are blocking the door of worship the bona fide acharya and thereby they are directly or indirectly opening the door to worship of all sorts of unqualified persons, and deviants, as has occurred. Again, this is what happened in the Gaudiya Matha. Notice too, that they are vehement bullies in their process of stopping the worship of Srila Prabhupada, which is why Srila Prabhupada says that these Gaudiya Matha thinkers are "envious of their guru," they made false replacements for their guru and "they insisted on it."

Srila Prabhupada was also very angry when "Time Magazine" asked on the cover "Is God Dead"? He was furious. And since Krishna is also one of our parampara's acharyas, Rocana's team is thus lumping even Lord Krishna in as one of their "post samadhi diksha acharyas"? Why are we saying that God is (post mortem) dead! Ravindra Swarupa says, "If Srila Prabhupada is still living, write him a letter and see if he replies." Similarly, the communists in Bengal also ask the same question, "If there is a God, then write Him a letter and see if He replies"? 

So Srila Prabhupada says that the communists as well as these "Brahma Sampradaya Renegades" are really atheists. Moreover these renegades seem to take some kind of glee that God and Guru are apparently absent. "Yes, the bona fide acharyas are all post mortem. Write them a letter? Of course, if you write a letter to us 'living' Brahma Sampradya Renegades or us communist atheists, we can reply." So they are sometimes killing Guru by poison, and when that does not work, by their poisonous rhetoric, "Guru and God are posthumous." Of course there are many other similar branches of renegades from the Brahma Sampradaya who try to say, "Krishna died five thousand years ago, He is dead and gone, He is an ordinary mortal," and so on. Same idea, "Krishna is posthumous."

Similarly, there is no other "tradition of religion" except for Rocana and his fellow GBC, Gaudiya Matha deviants and other associates like Kundali and Kailasha that refer to their guru as "the former, posthumous, post, dead and gone one." "He reasons ill who thinks vaishnavas die" says Srila Thakura Bhaktivinode. So Rocana is giving the same identical arguments and he even incorporates the concocted terms as the deviants, "Guru is (post mortem) dead." Again, this is the identical argument used by deviants from the Gaudiya Matha, the GBC and their clones like Kundali and Kailasha -- all along? So they are all renegades from the Brahma Sampradya since no other bona fide acharyas or their bona fide followers have EVER reffered to ANY previous acharyas as the "post (dead and gone) samadhi diksha gurus," because for starters Krishna is one of the "previous acharyas." So they are saying that "God is dead" since He is another "post samadhi guru" in their equation. And thus they are simply infuriating Srila Prabhupada thereby: "Krishna is another post (dead) samadhi guru."]

* RD: For many years, I have been unfairly stigmatized by members of ISKCON as being a Rtvik advocate, although I have been ostracized by the Rtvik inner circle since 1996.

[PADA: Rocana has never been "ostracized" by anyone, he has willingly chosen to associate with his "Guru is post mortem dead (and de facto God is dead)" crew. We have asked him to discuss his "point" with us for 20 years and he refuses to debate perhaps more than a few lines of oblique discussion with us, either privately or publicly, just like Narayana Maharaja, Kailasha and the GBC. They never reply to our points, they just repeat the GBC's "the guru is post mortem" slogans? Maybe he is frustrated since he first of all supported as his "living gurus" the GBC/ Kirtananda/ Jaggadish/ et al. empire in Canada for many years. 

Let us not forget that Rocana's guru lineage, that he still cites terminology from, is: the deviant guru project. And again, Kirtanananda also used to say that Prabhupada is the dead and gone person, so we need to worship a living person (like a deviant). So Rocana is still repeating Kirtanananda's ideology? He is still tethered to these people? Worse, since Rocana refuses to identify who his "living guru" is, despite our asking him for over the past ten years, he simply makes it sound like maybe -- the deviants are -- still his idea of a guru lineage? 

He has not targeted where our worship is supposed to go, he simply says, we cannot worship posthumous persons like Srila Prabhupada? By the way Rocana's idea that "Prabhupada's worship is ritvik heresy" simply means he is helping thousands of people walk away to the Gaudiya Matha and so on. He and the GBC are their best recruiters.]
* RD: Admittedly, I share many philosophical conclusions with the Rtvik pandits, particularly when it comes to giving Srila Prabhupada his proper prominence within the contemporary Vaisnava community, and inclusion as a rare Sampradaya Acarya within our glorious parampara. Interestingly, however, I have experienced a much more ferocious, reactionary feedback from fanatic members of the Rtvik camp than I have from followers of other groups with whom I have a philosophical conflict.

[PADA: Wonderful, except that nowadays even most of the GBC say that they agree with us at PADA that: Srila Prabhupada must be given "prominence"? They have even written papers about how Srila Prabhupada must be made the "prominent acharya," not too far distant from Rocana's paper. The Devil is in the details. Yes, he is the prominent acharya, but -- your team still says that we need a living guru to actually worship today since Srila Prabhupada is gone and posthumous. 

So the GBC and Rocana are one, again. Since Rocana is simply a parrot for the GBC, why would we agree with his ideas? We say God and Guru are eternally living: and his team is saying the acharyas are dead, gone and "post mortem." They are including even Krishna since He too is also a "post" acharya in our lineage according to their idea? Thus, as long as Rocana and his fellow associates such as the GBC, Sridhara, Narayan Maharajas et al. refer to our succession of gurus, which includes God mind you, as "post" -- dead and gone, they will not find much support in any bona fide circles? 

They have never proven that Krishna and His Great Devotees are "post" mortem and thus dead, for starters? They have not shown where their concocted "dead God and dead Guru" terminology is used by any bona fide acharyas, or by Krishna? Krishna says the opposite, "Acharyam Mam Vijnaniyam," "one should consider the acharya as My very self." And they say fine, Krishna is "post" -- mortem? Thus we would say that their idea that guru is dead is the same as saying God is dead, and this is confirmed by Krishna Himself as in the above citation.]

* RD: ISKCON and the Rtviks are opposite sides of the same coin, and the tell tale traits of religiosity are manifest in the die-hard members of both opposing groups.

[PADA: No it is that your post mortem guru idea and the GBC's idea are on the same side of the coin, and you both use the same terminology? You say that we need to make some replacements for worship of the post and dead acharya, which is like the Medieval Papal system? You are the ones who are advocates of some mundane religious ideas? We are not saying that we need to make some artificial "spokesman for God" "living gurus," just as the College Of Cardinals votes in the same at the Vatican? Your team are using the GBC's arguments, the Papal system arguments, and you are even using their terminology. We never said that guru is "post" and dead like you and the GBC and the founders of the original Papal system at the Vatican. 

Neither does any "religionist" refer to his guru or God as "the dead one" as your team is doing. Your "post samadhi diksha" complaint against the acharyas is the foundational idea of making the Papal system, and the GBC and Gaudiya Matha's appointed and voted in guru system, thus yours is the mundane religious system? So what is the difference between your ideas and the mayavadis who say that Krishna was an ordinary man and now He is "post." Or the smartas who say that the vaishnava acharyas are "post"? You are agreeing with these folks.]

* RD: The core message of the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya is for all followers of Lord Caitanya's Sankirtan Movement to exclusively surrender to the unalloyed parampara representative, and to not blindly obey the less than perfect institutional religionists posing as Acaryas.

[PADA: Good point, except now you are switching hats again and giving the essence of the ritvik idea: "We have to worship the bona fide acharya." So this means you are contradicting yourself, just as the GBC does when they say we have to emphasize Prabhupada. You are giving the GBC argument and sometimes, the ritvik argument? You are the blind leaders of the blind followers however since the GBC names "bogus people" as their living acharyas, while you have "no one" as your living acharya? So both of you are blind.]

* RD: The signs of religiosity can be seen in efforts at stifling freedom of expression, muzzling dissenting opinions, marginalizing the brahminical process, ostracizing those not willing to follow lockstep with the elite, and demonizing anyone openly critical of the managers and their latest version of "truth."

[PADA: Exactly, anyone who does not agree with your ideas that "God and Guru are post samadhi dead guys" is treated horrendously. Your team's idea of "post samadhi" has also resulted in thousands of innocent people being banned, beaten, and killed. You siddhanta policy has also resulted in thousands of children being starved, beaten, molested and killed. Agreed, this is all the "living result" of your "post samadhi diskha guru" regime from the 1930s and 1970s. But, why are you saying your ideas are having to do with "religiosity"? Do not lump in your "God and Guru are post mortem and dead" idea with any bona fide religion since no religion on earth preaches that their Guru is -- post, dead and in sum post mortem as your team is doing?]

* RD: A technique commonly shared by ISKCON and the Rtviks is an overemphasis on the absolute necessity for newcomers to discover their diksa guru connection to the Sampradaya, and benefit from the subsequent removal of accumulated vi-karmic reaction.

[PADA: This is "the technique" has been used by all the acharyas for thousands of years i.e.: they preach that one has to be connected to the bona fide acharya -- so that he can get "divyam jnanam which destroys sins" (diksha). This is indeed one of the most prominent teachings of Lord Krishna found in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna tell Arjuna to surrender to Him so that Arjuna will be saved from -- the vikarmic reactions? Thus, according to Rocana, Krishna is a mundane religionist since He wants to right away explain the benefit of absorbing the sins and "vi-karmic" reactions, by connection to the parampara guru? 

Sorry, Krishna is not "overemphasizing" anything. Krishna is merely explaining the plain fact of spiritual life, that vikarmic reactions have to be nullified for spiritual progress. "Surrender to Me and I will save you from all reactions," this is practically the whole sum and substance theme of Krishna's teachings in the Gita? And yet Rocana implies that Krishna's teachings is some sort of mundane religiosity program? 

Worse, Rocana's idea of "blocking Srila Prabhupada's mercy" has lead to people "taking shelter" of various fools, and deviants as their means of "getting saved from sins," but this has not worked as we see? 

Rocana's idea is exactly like the Catholic Church, the figurehead will be paid a tithe and this removes the sins, not the worship of Jesus directly. No, this is bogus and it is not going to work. Of course Rocana also attacks the worship of Jesus as well as we shall see, despite that Srila Prabhupada says "me and Jesus are brothers."

In sum, Krishna's whole point in the Bhagavad Gita about absorbing the sins is not "over emphasis"? This is merely simple common sense: "In order to get cured from the disease, we will have to remove your tumor sir"? This is practical sense? Of course, we should want to get "removal of vikarmic reactions," otherwise how is progress going to occur if we keep the deadly tumor intact? Rocana's plan is to forget the deadly tumor, but Krishna is not such a fool as Rocana? So Krishna carefully explains this point to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. This is technically called "guru asraya." 

Rocana even started his paper by saying we all have to recognize the Sampradya Acharya, and that means, "he who destroys the accumulated vi-karmic reaction." That is part of his title, diksha guru? Now he says, why should we emphasize the capability of the acharya who is the person who gives this "divyam jnanam -- which destroys sins." 

We should not discuss or "over emphasize" his potency? Why are they forbidding us to discuss the potency of the acharya? Why should not people know that the acharyas can give "spiritual knowledge which destroys (vikarmic) sins"? Rather we should be proud that our guru has this potency? He says we have to minimize the preaching of the glories of the acharyas? Instead they want to emphasize that the acharyas, including Krishna, are all dead, gone, post mortem, and we do not.]

* RD: This emphasis ignores the many sastric declarations about the amazing purification that comes about by coming in contact with the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya.

[PADA: Sastra says: that by coming in contact with the Sampradaya Acharya one obtains divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha). That is part of the effect, one is purified of sins? Rocana says that this purification of sins is not "destroying vikarma." So what is he talking about? He does not even know what these Vedic terms mean? He has never studied the Bhagavad Gita? 

And besides, Srila Prabhupada says that people who simply get his books are getting -- divyam jnanam (which destroys sins). So Rocana is contradicting himself, he says we should NOT emphasize the qualities of the acharyas, that they can purify our vikarmic reactions, and then he says, we must? The problem with his type of folks is that their ideas are full of these contradictions? Again, one woman wrote to tell me, "Rocana's paper is so confusing, I cannot figure out anything he says." I wrote back and told her, "The mayavadi siddhanta is always full of contradictions."]

* RD: From his divine association flows all the knowledge required in order to properly chant the sacred mantras, beginning with the Holy Names. In addition to the Hare Krsna mahamantra, the newcomer receives from the Sampradaya Acarya detailed instruction on how to worship the Deities, Tulasi, follow Ekadasi, and so. There is no pre-requisite stated in sastra that all the purification available via engagement in devotional service first requires being initiated by the diksa guru. The real requirement is connection to the Sampradaya Acarya.

[PADA: The above is all word jugglery? The real process is that the newcomer gets instructions from the acharya (di), and by dint of following he gets purified (ksha), while "formal initiation" is not required at all, nor did we say it was? Rather, just by following -- he is connected and in that sense he is initiated. Srila Prabhupada gave "official initiation ceremonies" to many thousands of people who -- subsequently fell by the wayside. While many others who had no "formal initiation," they have continued. So the "real process" is that anyone who accepts the teachings of the acharya is de facto initiated, as we have seen. You have not read the PADA paper "Our Living Guru." a document which we printed some years ago, we said there is no need for a formal initiation. 

You are making up a straw man argument here. Nor do we find that Arjuna had a formal diksha guru ceremony from Krishna, Arjuna accepted the instructions, that is the essence. Rocana thinks the instructions of the guru are useless unless one has some living bags of stools body to worship? This is called vapuh vada.]
* RD: The Rtvik pandits have assigned such exalted spiritual qualifications to the bona fide diksa guru that only a divine personality with genuine Sampradaya Acarya status comes close.

[PADA: "Comes close" to what? Rocana is intentionally using confusing the terms used by the acharyas. Srila Prabhupada does not say, "This pure uttama devotee -- never came close -- to that pure uttama devotee"? Where does he apply these ideas to the pure devotees? Why is Rocana saying that there is some type of "holier than thou" pecking order amongst pure devotees? So that means you have a material idea of pure devotees?

Srila Prabhupada: "In the United States, the predominating personality is the President. However, when the next election comes, the President will have so many rivals, but in the spiritual sky the Supreme Lord has no rival. THOSE WHO WANT TO BECOME RIVALS ARE PLACED IN THIS MATERIAL WORLD, UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF MATERIAL NATURE. In the spiritual sky there is no rivalry, and all the inhabitants therein are liberated souls."

The Gopis are also supposedly considered as the highest but they are thinking Krishna's flute is doing better service? Lord Chaitanya thought, He was doing no service at all? Where is this idea, this pure devotee's service "never came close" to that pure devotees service emphasized? This is baffling, "these" pure devotees "never came close" to "those" pure devotees? He are making an "us and them," a sort of concocted caste system, as part of pure devotional service? Srila Prabhupada says that only the uttma adhikary can become a guru, and there is no "status war" among that class of devotees? 

Srila Prabhupada says, "one cannot become guru unless he is an uttama pure devotee," and amongst uttama gurus he says, "guru is one." This argument is also what the Gaudiya Matha deviants propose, the diksha guru, the parampara guru, he might have less qualification than uttama, so they opened their Pandora's door for their bogus gurus?]

* RD: Consequently, they feel there is an absolute need for post-samadhi diksa from Srila Prabhupada. They ostensibly disqualify all other possible diksa guru candidates.

[PADA: No, we asked you to submit the name of your alleged potential diksha guru 20 years ago? And as we recall you went running away holding your hands in the air because you knew that we had defeated you, your guru has no name, no address, no books, he does not exist? We did not disagree, we merely challenged you to give us the name of your alleged proposed or possible diksha guru, and you de facto admitted, you would rather see people worship nobody than worship Prabhupada.]

* RD: Due to their fanatical mood, I strongly doubt whether any of the Rtvik-ites I know today would manifest the spiritual insight required to recognize and embrace the next Sampradaya Acarya, should Lord Caitanya see fit to send one in our lifetime.

[PADA: This is all speculation. This is also what the Gaudiya Matha argues, "If another pure devotee comes you will not be able to recognize him." And they were foremost in not recognizing Srila Prabhupada? And indeed most of them still call him "Swamiji," and not "Prabhupada." Yet so far the GBC and the Gaudiya Matha has only forwarded their 1936 and 1977 homosexual guru lineages? They keep saying that there is a living guru, but they have not shown us who he is, only some of the backers of the homosexual gurus, so this is all straw man argument?]

RD: From his divine association flows all the knowledge required in order to properly chant the sacred mantras, beginning with the Holy Names. In addition to the Hare Krsna mahamantra, the newcomer receives from the Sampradaya Acarya detailed instruction on how to worship the Deities, Tulasi, follow Ekadasi, and so. There is no pre-requisite stated in sastra that all the purification available via engagement in devotional service first requires being initiated by the diksa guru. The real requirement is connection to the Sampradaya Acarya.

[PADA: Agreed, the newcomer does not need a false initiation by a so-called concocted diksha guru, he only needs connection to the Sampradaya Acharya. Rocana has put on his ritvik hat here and this is good.]

History of the Rtvik Movement

[PADA: As we all know, Srila Prabhupada is the actual founder of the idea that he wanted some kind of Governing Body, and he ordered some of them to act as officiating priests or ritviks, but notice that Rocana forgets to even acknowledge that these words came from the Sampradya Acharya?]

RD: Since many readers may be unaware of the differences between the various Rtvik groups, I will attempt to present an overview of their common beliefs and a brief history of the Rtvik movement, as I understand it. The Rtvik's guru-tattva philosophy is based upon the conviction that Srila Prabhupada wished that a sincere follower of his be free to take post-samadhi diksa via his proxy representative, the "priest", or "Rtvik."

[PADA: That is what Srila Prabhupada said hundreds if not thousand of times. After I depart there will be proxies, a Governing Body. That is a proxy system, and he would remain as the Sampradaya and diksha guru. Where was Rocana when Srila Prabhupada said this, thousands of times, that after I depart the society will be managed by proxies and not another Gaudiya Matha false diksha guru process? He also said that his books would be giving the divyam jnanam, the essence of diksha, and this could go on indefinitely?]

RD: Such initiations would be conducted in basically the same manner that was in place prior to Srila Prabhupada's entering into samadhi.

[PADA: Right, that is also what he said about a thousand times, after I depart DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. Of course the GBC, their Gaudiya Matha advisors and Rocana changed the whole thing.]

RD: Proponents of the Rtvik system hold the July 9th, 1977 letter, wherein Srila Prabhupada appointed eleven regional GBC's to act as his Rtvik representatives, to be absolute proof that this system was to continue "henceforward" after his departure.

[PADA: This is totally bogus, there are thousands of statements where he said that there was just going to be a GBC after his departure, a proxy system. He merely confirmed that in one letter towards the end. He also said that he had made ritviks in a number of other 1977 conversations at that time. So he was making a GBC system and a layer of that would be a ritvik system. Of course, even if there is only "one" letter (and Rocana admits there is a letter making ritviks) that is still "absolute proof" since why would "the number of letters" have anything to do with the validity? Rocana forgets also that there were already "ritviks" chanting on the beads covering the whole society starting in the early 1970s, and this was still going on at that time, and Prabhupada said hundreds of times, do not change anything.]

RD: In addition to this letter, they have their own interpretation of an earlier conversation (May 28, 1977), and the personal testimony of one witness, Gauridasa Pandit. This hypothesis originated from the person of Yasoda nandana dasa, who is one of the founding members of a loosely organized underground movement started in the late 1970's, aiming protest at the GBC/Zonal Acaryas.

[PADA: This is again totally false. Many of us understood that Prabhupada had only made a GBC and proxy system and he had not appointed any diksha gurus even before we later on found: the hidden letters (discovered in 1984), the hidden tapes (1985), the hidden will (1985), the hidden conversations (1990), the poison tape (1997) and so on and so forth? I was arguing against the GBC for many years before meeting Yasodanandana in the mid 1980s. It was understood by all sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada for example that Jayatirtha's sex and drugs escapades were not part of the bona fide parampara. 

Thus, we said that they are proxies, and the GBC are thinking these deviants are diksha gurus. We said that in 1978 way before anyone read "Yasodanandana's" papers or anyone else's? Yasodananda prabhu has of course added considerable documentation to prove this was Prabhupada's order, indeed he convinced even many of Rocana's contemporaries and others to jettison their support of the GBC gurus with his documents. So "the aim" of this underground movement was to uncover more of the actual letters, tapes, conversations and eyewitness testimony, in part to protest but mainly to find out what was really ordered and to convince others of these points, as has occurred?]

RD: Most of the intellectuals who formed the inner circle of this cell were unceremoniously excommunicated from ISKCON for publicly voicing their subversive ideas. To the best of my knowledge, the membership included Pradyumna dasa, Jadurani devi dasi, Kailasa candra dasa, and Yasoda nandanana dasa. This school of radical thought wrote, printed and circulated many confrontational tracts in the early days, with limited results. Initially, they did not try to promote the return of the Rtvik process, but rather focused on the advanced spiritual qualifications required to become a bona fide diksa guru.

[PADA: This is because most of the letters, all of the audio tapes, the will, and other important documents were being hidden and suppressed by the GBC. The "focus" was adjusted as these new documents and materials surfaced, including that Prabhupada was poisoned to suppress the ritvik instruction. Rocana seems to be unaware that most of these documents were hidden and forbidden, and that when me and Sulochana began to distribute "the letters" in 1984-5, we got death threats from Ramesvara and others.]
RD: These were qualities the Zonal Acaryas sadly lacked. Naturally, the Zonals' policy of exaggerated glorification and their self-anointed honorific titles incited the disgust and outrage of this early protest group. The sastric definitions for diksa set forth by this group were so unattainable by Kali yuga Westerners that Srila Prabhupada was the only ISKCON related personality who unquestionably qualified. It was this train of thought that naturally evolved into the post-samadhi diksa concept.

[PADA: Well yes, the guru has to be qualified? That means he is not a deviant. Of course if someone says that their guru is the "posthumous" dead person, like the GBC gurus and Rocana say, they are not even bona fide neophytes since no one calls their guru "the dead one." And yes, since the GBC gurus and their Gaudiya Matha advisors supported the worship of homosexual pedophiles as their gurus, saying Prabhupada is the post mortem dead guy, we have had the perfect argument: that the GBC system of proxies should be re-established so as to eliminate the enormous guru scandals and offer instead the correct worship. Most people agree with us, even many GBC have told us, behind the scenes, that they agree with our proposal to emphasize Srila Prabhupada as the guru and not the neophyte GBCs.]

RD: The group's need for supporting documentable evidence required a re-interpretation of the same July 9th letter the Zonals had previously highlighted as their authorization to take unfettered, exclusive regional power.

[PADA: The July 9th letter was not offered to the mass of devotees, nor was the GBC's other alleged core evidence, the May 28th tape? Nor was it discussed? Nor would the GBC allowing us to discuss it?]

RD: After some time, the band of protesters dissolved their alliance. Yasoda nandana dasa resurfaced in Toronto, writing and preaching that the Rtvik solution was what Srila Prabhupada "ordered."

[PADA: This is because no one else, especially Rocana, has shown us "what else" he might have ordered?]

RD: Nityananda dasa from Louisiana was convinced, and invited Yasoda nandana and others to move into his rural community, which became the nucleus of the Rtvik movement. They soon published a periodical focused on promoting Rtvik-tattva, called "Vedic Village Review". Nityananda's businesses, which underwrote the expenses of the magazine and community, eventually ran into serious problems that forced the community to disband. Yasoda nandana and family relocated to California, where he still resides. Since that time, Yasoda nandana's Rtvik position has been adopted by many others in the movement. One of those was the renowned global traveler and preacher, British-born Kamsa hanta dasa. 

He embraced the cause with passionate zeal and a missionary spirit. Among Kamsa hanta's noteworthy inter-continental converts were Krsna Kanta Desai (England), Jitarati dasa (Hong Kong), Adridarana dasa (India), and Nandi kesvara dasa (Canada). In small conferences, they attempted to better organize and develop a consensus as to the finer philosophical points of the Rtvik-tattva.

Krsna Kanta and his associates then produced a manifesto entitled the "Final Order". Interestingly, the creation of this treatise was done without soliciting input from the Rtvik founder, Sriman Yasoda nandana dasa, or any of his West Coast Rtvik group. When the "Final Order" debuted, Yasoda nandana dasa and company disagreed with many key elements of the theory.

[PADA: No, we all agree on the key elements, we have to worship the bona fide acharya Srila Prabhupada? The main disagreement between the IRM and us was over -- the poison issue?]

RD: Krsna Kanta and his newly formed ISKCON Reform Movement (IRM) tried to distance themselves from the West Coast Rtviks due to the endless stream of faultfinding rhetoric the group aimed squarely at ISKCON. Krsna Kanta and company held out hope that they could convince the GBC, so long as Yasoda nandana's group was excluded. As history reveals, their efforts were thwarted by the GBC. From that time on, an increasingly contentious relationship has developed between the two main Rtvik camps.

[PADA: Well this is all irrelevant verbiage? If Srila Prabhupada did not order a GBC, then what did he order?]

RD: While Yasoda nandana dasa, Puranjana dasa and other Rtvik advocates continued to attack ISKCON, Krsna Kanta advocated a forgive-and-forget policy towards past transgressions of the GBC. This naive strategy failed and the GBC, feeling threatened by the surge of support for this "back to the beginning" movement, responded in a proactive manner by producing a number of papers and GBC resolutions opposing the Rtvik philosophy. Unfortunately, they also employed demonizing efforts that further polarized the Vaisnava community, and brought the Gaudiya Matha closer as allies against a common enemy.

[PADA: Well then, PADA was right on this point, trying to capitulate with the GBC as the IRM attempted did not work.]

RD: Adridarana dasa, the long-time president of Calcutta Temple, and other well-established Indian ISKCON leaders were swayed by the "Final Order's" powerful arguments and rejuvenated the IRM. The IRM continues to do battle with the ISKCON leadership to this day, with some success. The original Rtvik exponents from North America, still headed up by Yasoda nandana dasa, have continued to be vocally critical of the IRM, ISKCON and BV Narayana Swami. They recently began their own organization, the Hare Krishna Society.

[PADA: At the same time some of the IRM folks have said that the poison issue is probably correct, so there is some conciliation going on that Rocana is unaware of.]
RD: While I have attempted to present an accurate, abbreviated historical timeline of the evolving Rtvik movement, I have not carefully researched this history. I encourage readers to confirm the dates and details for themselves by contacting the personalities mentioned above.

[PADA: To sum, it is an insult to constantly imply, as Rocana's team does every day, that Srila Prabhupada is now the post mortem, i.e. dead, gone and de facto irrelevant guru? Worse, Rocana says that Srila Prabhupada's idea of worship of the bona fide acharyas makes him a sort of detestable "ritvik pundit." Rocana also says Srila Prabhupada is a deviant from the Vedas, since Srila Prabhupada says we must worship the bona fide acharyas whereas Rocana says: "this is not found in the tradition." Rocana also complains that Srila Prabhupada's idea to make a Governing Body (and have some of them acting as priests) is exactly what the Christian Church does, so Rocana complains that Prabhupada is a mundane relgionist. Rocana is directly attacking Srila Prabhupada as the real deviant. Thanks pd]

No comments:

Post a Comment

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