GBC Critique of 2013 SAC Paper
BY: VIDHEYA DEVI DASI
"The following is a critique by a GBC member of the Sastra Advisory Council’s 2013 FDG paper. The analysis is so scathing that the SAC was too embarrassed to publish their paper to the public. Thus it was not easy for us to get a copy of it and the GBC review. This paper could be held up as an example of how not to write a paper, it is that bad. But, you may be asking, why are we posting this here on Urmila’s blog?
The reason is simple, Urmila is the chairwoman of the SAC and she is also pushing to be a diksa guru so she is the main one responsible for this SAC paper. Of course all other members of the SAC who signed off on it also bear responsibility but she is the main one. It is because of several papers like this that no one has any respect for or trust in the SAC. And, it thus reflects badly on her. Urmila’s ambition is to be in the spotlight, what she didn’t realize is that in the spotlight we can see all her spots.
The reason is simple, Urmila is the chairwoman of the SAC and she is also pushing to be a diksa guru so she is the main one responsible for this SAC paper. Of course all other members of the SAC who signed off on it also bear responsibility but she is the main one. It is because of several papers like this that no one has any respect for or trust in the SAC. And, it thus reflects badly on her. Urmila’s ambition is to be in the spotlight, what she didn’t realize is that in the spotlight we can see all her spots.
Before you read the critique you should read the original SAC paper.
And, this is the response by ISKCON India in 2009 to the first SAC paper on FDG and the reason why the SAC came out with their 2013 paper.
and
Why Women Should Not Be on the Sastric Advisory Council
[PADA: First of all, why do acharyas need to have an SAC (Shastric Advisory Committee) to monitor and advise them in the first place? This is the first problem we have had with the Gaudiya Math / GBC / Rocana / Torben / Ajit Krishna / Hanuman Croatia program, apparently they think God's acharyas no longer need to receive dictation from God. Rather acharyas need to be "dictated to" by the GBC / or SAC committee, and be the subordinated peons of some sort of speculating group of conditioned souls.
OK and the speculating GBC is the superior authority to the acharya, and will oversee and overlord the acharya. Worse, many in this same group also write complaints and advice for their acharyas, because they also think they are the superior advisors of the acharya. Where is this "acharya's advisory group" system used in the Vedas? Yep! The GBC / Rocana / Hanuman Croatia etc. are the advisors to the acharyas.
OK, (A) they rubber stamp fools as their acharyas, then (B) correct and advise them? No!
Acharyas are not the subordinated subjects of the control of conditioned souls or their contrived committees. These "acharya advisor" folks never understood the square one idea of Krishna consciousness, the acharya is getting dictation from Krishna, not from some faulty committee, and / or various ad hoc advisors like the SAC / Rocana / Torben / Hanuman Croatia etc. The acharya is being given dictation from Krishna, not these people. This is also what the GBC said in 1980, Sridhara Maharaja is our "advisor." Why do acharyas need such advisors? And what did Sridhara Maharaja advise? Well we should hold meetings and decide how these acharyas should operate. Speculating!
OK and the speculating GBC is the superior authority to the acharya, and will oversee and overlord the acharya. Worse, many in this same group also write complaints and advice for their acharyas, because they also think they are the superior advisors of the acharya. Where is this "acharya's advisory group" system used in the Vedas? Yep! The GBC / Rocana / Hanuman Croatia etc. are the advisors to the acharyas.
OK, (A) they rubber stamp fools as their acharyas, then (B) correct and advise them? No!
Acharyas are not the subordinated subjects of the control of conditioned souls or their contrived committees. These "acharya advisor" folks never understood the square one idea of Krishna consciousness, the acharya is getting dictation from Krishna, not from some faulty committee, and / or various ad hoc advisors like the SAC / Rocana / Torben / Hanuman Croatia etc. The acharya is being given dictation from Krishna, not these people. This is also what the GBC said in 1980, Sridhara Maharaja is our "advisor." Why do acharyas need such advisors? And what did Sridhara Maharaja advise? Well we should hold meetings and decide how these acharyas should operate. Speculating!
Thus! The GBC -- combined with their Shastra Committee -- comes up with all sorts of "rules for acharyas": The acharyas are to be: voted in, voted out, censured, monitored for deviations, chastised, over-ruled, suspended for deviations, and even -- excommunicated for deviations. What kind of acharyas are the subject of such rules?
Rocana's "constitution" plans to have many more of these same "acharya rules" as part of his plan, but he forgets that acharyas are not subordinated to such committees and their rules? Some of the SAC shastra committee folks changed the process of bhogha offerings: we should offer bhogha to Krishna first, in case our guru is deviating. We cannot offer bhogha to the guru first, the system established by the acharya? And we need to offer to Krishna first, because our guru might be deviating? What kind of gurus are they producing then?
And then Bhakti Vikas swami writes a book to condemn the SAC "Female Diksha Guru" idea. Yet BVKS never addresses the fact that acharyas would not be subordinated to such a committee in the first place? And he has to write a book to censure, correct, and educate -- the other acharyas? So he is another acharya advisor. Sorry, the acharya's advisor is -- Krishna. We might think we are going to take over the job of Krishna, and take over His position as the advisor of the acharyas, but that is how we fell to the material world in the first place -- we wanted to take over the post of Krishna. ys pd
Rocana's "constitution" plans to have many more of these same "acharya rules" as part of his plan, but he forgets that acharyas are not subordinated to such committees and their rules? Some of the SAC shastra committee folks changed the process of bhogha offerings: we should offer bhogha to Krishna first, in case our guru is deviating. We cannot offer bhogha to the guru first, the system established by the acharya? And we need to offer to Krishna first, because our guru might be deviating? What kind of gurus are they producing then?
And then Bhakti Vikas swami writes a book to condemn the SAC "Female Diksha Guru" idea. Yet BVKS never addresses the fact that acharyas would not be subordinated to such a committee in the first place? And he has to write a book to censure, correct, and educate -- the other acharyas? So he is another acharya advisor. Sorry, the acharya's advisor is -- Krishna. We might think we are going to take over the job of Krishna, and take over His position as the advisor of the acharyas, but that is how we fell to the material world in the first place -- we wanted to take over the post of Krishna. ys pd
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.