Friday, January 5, 2018

IRM vs. Sundar Gopal (Singapore)

IRM (Krishna Kant)

Back To Prabhupada, Issue 54, Winter 2016/17

The previous article addresses the disciples of the guru hoaxers. We have also been asked about the position of disciples of Srila Prabhupada who support the guru hoax, even though they may not be guru hoaxers themselves.

Sincere service:

The request arose because our readers had directed us to statements made in a paper titled "IA77". The paper's compilation was guided by Singapore Temple President and Srila Prabhupada disciple, Sundar Gopal Dasa ("SG"). His history is that after the guru hoax began in 1978, he served under it. He took second initiation from guru hoaxer Hamsadutta, and then served as a Temple President under various GBCs, who were guru hoaxers. He stopped supporting the guru hoax in 1997 when he received The Final Order ("TFO") and his eyes were opened, and therefore GBC Resolution 303, 1999, sanctioned him for having accepted TFO stating he held "managerial or spiritual authority in ISKCON".

IA77 promotes him as having "spent more than four decades of his life in the sincere service of Srila Prabhupada". Yet, as just seen, 2 of these decades were spent supporting the guru hoax. Thus, if supporting the guru hoax is compatible with being in the "sincere service of Srila Prabhupada", then by extension the guru hoaxers themselves would also be engaging in "sincere service to Srila Prabhupada". Thus, by claiming this, IA77, which is supposed to oppose the guru hoax, contradicts its very aim.

[PADA: This is somewhat of a problem because we know a number of people in and around ISKCON who are externally serving the GBC's gurus, but inwardly they believe that Srila Prabhupada is their actual link to Krishna. This also happened at the time of Krishna, some people were externally serving Kamsa but internally they served Krishna. 

So we cannot make a blanket condemnation of all of the people inside the institution, since we cannot always know their inner feelings. We also know personally a number of people inside the inside the institution who accept our Prabhupadanuga idea, but for various reasons they remain inside the GBC's movement.]  

Disobedient disciples

The reality is that if one is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, then the quotes in reference to the guru hoaxers, such as —

"First offense is guror avajna, defying the authority of guru. This is the first offense. So one who is offensive, how he can make advance in chanting? He cannot make. Then everything is finished in the beginning." 

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 4/7/74)

"If you become disobedient to guru, then your business is finished."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 10/8/74) 

"If one is disobeying the spiritual master, he cannot remain in the pure status of life. He cannot be siksa-guru or anything else. He is finished, immediately."

(Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 4/7/74)

— apply just as equally to him if he supports the guru hoax, since he is also disobeying his guru's orders: to keep Srila Prabhupada as ISKCON's only diksa guru. Therefore, support of the guru hoax would not constitute being "in the sincere service of Srila Prabhupada", as IA77 claims about SG. Ironically, this fact is also accepted by IA77 itself, which states that serving under the guru hoax regime would actually constitute being "party to the offence", thereby leading IA77 to engage in a double contradiction.

[PADA: Right, we should ideally operate outside the GBC structure, if possible. That is the better alternate.] 

Two-tier caste system

The paper also states that SG:

"was initiated directly by Srila Prabhupada in January 1977".

It is claimed that SG was initiated "directly" by Srila Prabhupada because he became Srila Prabhupada's disciple during his physical presence. This implies that anyone accepting Srila Prabhupada as their diksa guru now would only be receiving "indirect" initiation. However, this two-tier "caste system" of devotees who have received "direct" and "indirect" initiations was not taught by Srila Prabhupada. Rather, it undermines the paper's supposed argument that Srila Prabhupada is everyone's diksa guru equally.

[PADA: Good. Everyone who worships Srila Prabhupada now should be considered as an equal disciple as the original pre-1977 disciples. Moreoever, many of the newer followers are doing better in their sadhana than a number of the "original disciples," many of whom went down hill spiritually especially after 1977.] 

Accepts hoaxer authority

The paper states that it will offer "sastric references" from the Srimad-Bhagavatam, but then it quotes many times from the Srimad-Bhagavatam translated by guru hoaxer HH Hridayananda Dasa Goswami ("HD") to make its arguments:

SB 10.44.10; 10.87.39; 11.2.42; 11.8.13; 11.17.33; 10.74.40; 11.2.46; 11.2.47;

And in the case of the last three verses listed above, Srila Prabhupada had actually also given translations for them by referring to them in the purports of his books. But even then the paper still preferred to quote the versions given by HD!

[PADA: Right, this is a good point, we should not quote the GBC's penned books as authoritative. PADA quotes them sometimes for reasons of exposing the faults of their statements, that is another thing.]

By elevating HD to a position of being on a par with — or as we saw in some cases, superior to — Srila Prabhupada in the matter of translating scripture, the paper defeats its supposed objective of opposing the guru hoax:

1) In BTP 51 article "The Unauthorised Cantos", we detailed how HD had completed the Bhagavatam cantos quoted by IA77 whilst being in the maya of the zonal-acarya guru hoax. HD had even written nonsense purports glorifying the other zonal acaryas. Yet, the paper believes this guru-hoax Bhagavatam is equivalent to Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavatam.

2) Srila Prabhupada states that translation of scripture must be done by one who is "very realised" (Room Conversation, 28/5/77). Thus, by accepting HD's translations as authoritative, the paper accepts he was "very realised", rather than a guru hoaxer.

3) The paper itself states that the guru hoaxers are "envious of Srila Prabhupada and should be neglected or disregarded". Thus, by relying on HD's translations, rather than neglecting and disregarding HD, the paper is not accepting that HD is a guru hoaxer.

While promoting the paper, its publishers had boasted that it contained "some never-before-added, compelling scriptural evidence". However, the only thing not seen before was "scriptural evidence" from a guru hoaxer, which those opposing the guru hoax would ‘never have added'.

Not Srila Prabhupada

The paper also claims that Srila Prabhupada stated:

"Your love for me will be shown by how you cooperate among yourselves after I have gone." "

Note the use of speech marks to indicate that it is presenting a direct verbatim quote from Srila Prabhupada. However, there is no such recorded quote from Srila Prabhupada. Rather, the first time this quote ever appears on record is from guru hoaxer HH Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami, in his 1981 Vyasa-puja offering. So, again IA77 accepts the authority of a guru hoaxer, rather than letting him be "neglected or disregarded".


Again, we have given examples of how the Prabhupada-Free Paradigm (PFP) leads even those opposing the guru hoax to unwittingly end up promoting it, in order to demonstrate just how dangerous it is. Therefore, we must only directly quote Srila Prabhupada and only state conclusions supported by his teachings.

[PADA: Correct, we cannot quote the GBC's literature as authoritative. We have had some problems with the Prahlad / HKC Jaipur types claiming that Sundar Gopal prabhu has the only factual realization of Srila Prabhupada's instructions. Evidently, he does not. 

Apparently Prahlad and one of his "lifetime brahmacari" counterparts are against some of the devotees who play guitars on their kirtans. And so we got a message from one of these people complaining that guitars are like "giant vaginas." And Prahlad and this guy also do not like PADA's contemporary music. Don't these guys have something else to do with their lives than seeing giant vaginas all over the planet? Hee hee! Similarly, we need to only listen to Sundar Gopal, he has the superior realization -- even over PADA -- but he has flaws in his source of citations?

At the same time, Sundar Gopal prabhu has been doing good service and preaching, and he should be encouraged in doing that. 

All of these problems have been created by a lack of communication among the various folks involved with this process. Often times certain people do not ever write to me, but they write about me, and thus they usually write wrong info because they never consulted with me. 

If Sundar Gopal wants to write papers on these topics, he should run them by some of us to double check the statements therein. Of course the same thing happened with the IRM, they wrote complaining about us, without consulting us. And the IRM thus made the wrong conclusions about: the books changes lawsuit, the child molesting lawsuit, the poison issue and so on. We are hoping that the various Prabhupadnauga groups will increase their communication in 2018 to avoid these contrary results. ys pd]  

No comments:

Post a Comment

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