Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Bhakti Vikas Swami followers chastise GBC's "gurus"

[PADA: Bhakti Vikas swami (BVKS) with Radhanath swami, a big supporter of the sexual predator Kirtanananda's acharya's samadhi program in Vrndavana. Why is BVKS helping promote the sexual predator's samadhi advocates program as "gurus and acharyas"? And why aren't the followers of BVKS addressing this deviation? Notice below that BVKS is training his followers and disciples that acharyas are generally mundane men who need to be chastised, censured and corrected for deviating and making false statements, and / or statements that are against shastra, and even that acharyas are offensive aparadhis who offend Vaishnavas and need to apologize for being such vicious offensive aparadhis and so on. Why is BVKS training his people that acharyas are generally and often -- offensive aparadhis?]

1 st Letter to the GBC From: Murari Das Date: Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM Subject: Letter from HHBVKS Disciples to the GBC To:, 

Dear Ananda Tirtha Prabhu, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada The following is a letter sent by some disciples of HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami Maharaja to the GBC. Please note my contact email and phone number for any replies or communications that may need to be made to this group of disciples. Your servant, Murari Das (+91) 9159 484 378 


Dear Respected GBC members, Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. 

We are a group of concerned, senior disciples and followers of H.H. Bhakti Vikasa Swami who are formally requesting to discuss with the GBC its resolution 313 from this year's "Minutes of the Annual General Meeting," concerning Maharaja's book Women: Masters or Mother? (WMM). In this regard, we have summarized in this message our views and concerns about this resolution and the GBC's subsequent statements and actions around this. 

Furthermore, as senior students of Maharaja, we are confident that the view expressed here represents the view held by the majority of the more than 1500 disciples of H.H. Bhakti Vikasa Swami and innumerable followers. Given that this is a non-trivial number of ISKCON members, we suggest that it would be in everyone's best interests that you give careful consideration to the view expressed herein. As members of ISKCON, loyal to the Founder-Acarya; His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, we are taught to accept the authority and rulings of the GBC and see them as the ultimate managerial authority of ISKCON.

[PADA: OK so the BVKS GBC program says acharyas are often deviating; and acharyas are being "2/3 show of hands" GBC voted in, voted out; censured, suspended for deviations; "monitored" to see if they are chanting their rounds; and worse -- acharyas are sometimes watching porno, eating chicken salads, gambling in Reno, drinking vodka, watching football cheerleaders on TV; dating minor aged female disciples; taking psychotropic drugs for their headaches; and so on and so forth. And when acharyas reach a certain level of deviation they are removed by GBC votes. Why is BVKS teaching his followers that these are the activities of acharya successors to Krishna?]   

And according to the conclusions of our disciplic succession, we are enjoined to consider our guru the direct representative of the Lord-saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastrair uktas tatha bhavyata eva sadbhih, acaryam mam vijaniyan, etc. 

[PADA: Wow! The GBC's position paper writer, spokesman and main editor Jaydvaita swami says that the ISKCON GBC's gurus are prone to "illicit sex with men, women and children." And the BVKS disciples think that means: these GBC acharyas are "saksad hari" -- "as pure as God." What is BVKS teaching here? Persons prone to illicit sex are the saksad representatives of God? And BVKS is as pure as God, because he is voted into this illicit sex guru parampara? Amazing, the GBC gurus are simultaneously prone to being engaged in illicit sex with men, women and children, and they are the shaksat hari direct representatives of God. Why is BVKS program juxtaposing illicit sex and saksat hari tvena acharyas?] 

Yet ISKCON's Founder-Acarya also taught that authorities are no longer to be followed if they disregard or abandon the regulative principles of devotional service, give misguidance, or go against the will of the Lord.[1] The salient point here is that as disciples, when some doubt arises as to the validity of guidance being offered to us by some authority, we are supposed to use our own discrimination. 

[PADA: Where is your discrimination if you think BVKS is bona fide because he is voted into an illicit sex with men, women and children guru parampara, which buries sexual predators in samadhis in the holy dham?] 

The sastras enjoin us not to be blind followers. This applies not only to the guidance coming from one's guru, such as our own guru Sri Bhakti Vikasa Swami, but also to the guidance of learned assemblies such as yours. On account of your public admonition of Maharaja and his book, and your subsequent, silent withdrawal of your ban, it is now our prerogative, sanctioned by sastra, to judge whether our Gurudeva's guidance is bona fide or your guidance is bona fide. 

[PADA: How can BVKS be bona fide if the party that certified him as an acharya is not bona fide?] 

Our assessment is that however imperfect Sri Bhakti Vikasa Swami Maharaja's efforts to present the will of Srila Prabhupada might have been seen in writing WMM, he has followed the process given by our acaryas. But in publicly attesting to the allegation:  

1) The fact that the GBC at no time has offered any reason based on sastra, previous acaryas, and guru-either for their initial ban or for the amended resolution with the ban removed. 

2) The current (and highly amended) form of resolution 313 continues to besmirch both the book and its author. 

3) The GBC passed and amended resolution 313 without due process or proper communication. 

4) The GBC failed to communicate their removal of the ban to the rest of ISKCON and even to the author. 

5) Bans still in place by GBC sub-institutions such as the still standing NA GBC's ban, the UK ban, and bans by individual temples such as in Vrindavan. 

[PADA: The BVKS followers are basically saying the entire GBC's guru's body is bogus. OK, they are bogus and they are also simultaneously -- the gurus of ISKCON. That means the entire GBC program is promoting bogus people posing as gurus. Good, except BVKS says our idea of worship of Srila Prabhupada as the acharya is the bogus ritvik idea. So he wants us to worship the GBC's deviants as gurus process, and not Srila Prabhupada. Why does he block the worship of the bona fide acharya and he promotes that we need to worship his deviated GBC's gurus process instead?]

Here is why our protest is justified: 

[PADA: Why would anyone have to protest the statements of a group of acharyas? BVKS followers are proud that he corrects and chastises the other GBC's gurus, but that means, gurus are conditioned souls who need correcting. Why is BVKS saying gurus are conditioned souls who need censure, suspending and removal and so forth?]

a) Bhakti Vikasa Swami Maharaja's book is a transcendental work that represents the will of Krishna. Yes, we know you disagree that it is, but to be fair, in writing his book he has followed the standard process prescribed by our acaryas whereas in criticizing it you have not. 

The example of Sri Svarupa Damodara Gosvami in CC Antya chapter 5, in which he extensively quoted sastra to show the disqualification of a work purporting to be transcendental, is the standard that should be followed-especially by the GBC, whose members are supposed to be exemplary in matters such as this. 

b) While some of you who emphasize your personal experiences with Srila Prabhupada may feel Bhakti Vikasa Swami Maharaja's book is improper, your say-so without the support of sastra is against the principle of guru, sadhu, and sastra. That is not the way Srila Prabhupada taught us to understand these matters. In this case, you have quoted none of them, hence your transgression of this principle is extreme. 

c) We are not defending Maharaja merely because he is our guru, and we're just fanatics. We are defending him because he has followed the standard process prescribed by our acaryas in composing a sacred work whereas in criticizing it you have not. Why should we believe you over Maharaja when he has made a goodfaith effort to follow sastra and the acaryas and you have acted independently of them and whimsically (niyamagraha)? 

[PADA: Right, the GBC is acting independent of shastra, how could they have voted in more gurus if they are themselves not authorized? And how could they have voted in BVKS himself? And why would he accept such a bogus certification?]

d) Prima facie, you have committed the nama-aparadha of sruti-sastra-nindanam, blasphemy of Vedic literature or literature in pursuance of the Vedic version. 

[PADA: So, the same people who reinstated "sex with taxi driver's acharya Bhavananda" also voted in BVKS as an acharya. Why is BVKS part of the sex with taxi driver's guru parampara? How could the same people who certify sex with taxi driver acharyas also certify BVKS? Its amazing that people like Torben, Ajit Krishna, Kim Moller, Hanuman Croatia and others think BVKS is bona fide because he has a sex with taxi driver's guru sabha certification.]

And because of your position as ISKCON's ultimate managerial authority, you are inducing wide swaths of ISKCON to also engage in such blasphemy and thereby leading otherwise innocent members of ISKCON astray in their spiritual lives. e) Your dealings with Bhakti Vikasa Swami Maharaja at nearly every stage of this episode have lacked the quality of straight-forwardness-so much that even those who have reservations about Maharaja's stance on certain matters have made their disapproval of your behavior toward him known.

f) There was extensive dialogue between the present GBC EC and Bhakti Vikasa Swami Maharaja regarding the book and THEIR demand that he withdraw it. It was disingenuous of them to thereafter remove the ban they demanded and then not make a public statement. The GBC EC, and now the full GBC body, owe it to a sense of public decency and Vaisnava etiquette to announce this publicly. 

g) The heavily redacted, and current, version of resolution 313 has removed language explicitly banning the book but continues to allege that the book represents only Maharaja's opinion and not that of Srila Prabhupada and the guru-parampara. But if you are still convinced that Maharaja's book is a departure from the parampara, why not retain the ban? You don't want books you feel misrepresent Srila Prabhupada circulating in ISKCON, do you? And if Maharaja's book is indeed a transcendental work, then you have a duty to remove this resolution in its entirety and apologize to the rest of ISKCON for your mistake. 

h) And finally, the bans and strong and blasphemous language still in place by GBC sub-institutions against Maharaja for his book cannot be allowed to stand as they are, as they are not fully independent of GBC oversight and control. Either a ban is warranted, or it is not. This is our position, and we are open to changing our view on receipt of superior evidence that we are in error. As we have described above, merely someone's say-so that we are in error is not good enough. We are obliged to present the proper evidence in the proper way as given by Srila Prabhupada-if not for ourselves, at least for the general body of devotees. In lieu of any better account of your activities from yourselves, we believe that the following recommended actions if pursued in a spirit of reconciliation by the GBC institution will put this matter to rest for the satisfaction of all: 

1) An unconditional, public apology to Sri Bhakti Vikasa Swami Maharaja for besmirching his character. 

2) An unconditional, public apology for misleading devotees to believe that Maharaja's book Women: Masters or Mothers? (or its other titles, such as Mothers and Masters) does not represent the guru-parampara coming in the line of His Divine Grace, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. 

3) An unconditional, public apology and retraction of bans enacted by ISKCON sub-institutions under your direct or indirect authority-specifically the North American GBC, the GBC of the United Kingdom, and ISKCON Vrindavan. And finally, with regard to Vaisnava etiquette, we would like to note that we regret having to use such strong words with elder devotees who are so much senior to us. This is something we very much dislike. Yet the way you have dealt with this matter up to the present has left us with no other option than to broadcast our concerns with plain and straightforward language. We hope you come to understand that your determination not to first discuss the matter with our Guru Maharaja before acting and your determination to avoid dealing with him in a Vaisnava way has brought us to this point. 

We pray to Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai, Srila Prabhupada and the Acaryas that we can quickly put this dark episode behind us and move forward together in spiritual life and preaching, with the affection that is natural between juniors and seniors in Lord Caitanya's sankirtana Movement. Your servants, Swami B.A. Tirtha, initiated 1996, TP ISKCON San Diego, California (USA) Krishna Kirti Das, initiated 1990, Accepted as siksa disciple of HH BVKS May 2014, Editor, Author, Statistician. (USA) Gokul Candra Das , initiated 1994, TP ISKCON Salem ,Tamil Nadu, Author, (India) Akincana Krsna Das, initiated 1997, TP ISKCON Vellore Tamil Nadu, (India) Caitanya Mahaprabhu Dasa, initiated 1997, BTG Gujarati Publishing , Preacher for 24 Namhatta Programs, ISKCON Vallabh Vidya Nagar Vice-president, Gujarat (India) Savyasaci Das(JPS), initiated 1999, Head of Steering committee, Nandagram Farm project, Gujarat and Preaching Coordinator for ISKCON Bhopal (India) Vasudeva-datta Das, initiated 1999, TP ISKCON Batticaloa (Sri Lanka) Kisora Das, initiated 1999, Sanskrit Editor (India) Nityananda Das, initiated 2001, Sanskrit translator, BBT (India) Radhesh Das, initiated 2002, BTG Gujarati Preacher, Congregational Preacher - Surat, Book Distribution cocordinator, Gujarat (India) Aravindaksha Das, initiated 2002, Congregational Preacher, Bhakti Vikasa Trust official, Surat (India) Sri Giridhari Das, initiated 2002, BTG Tamil Editor, Translator and Editor for BBT Tamil (India) Sankirtan Das, initiated 2003, TP ISKCON Brno (Czech Republic) Nateswar Narottam Das(JPS), initiated 2004, Sankirtan Leader and Youth preacher (India) Nitai Pada Kamala Das, initiated 2004, General Manager, ISKCON Mayapur, West Bengal (India) Priya Govinda Das, initiated 2005, Youth preacher, (India) Gopalacarya Das, initiated 2005, TP ISKCON Inis Rath Island (Ireland) Sridhara Srinivas Das, initiated 2006, Fulltime Grhastha Book Distributor and Preacher. Damodar Das, initiated 2006, BVKS media ministry, Vedic culture research, Nandagram Farm project, Gujarat (India) Damodara Nityananda Das, initiated June 2006, (Phd, Prof) Author (India) Murari Das, initiated 2007, TP ISKCON Blantyre (Malawi) Vrindavana Candra Das, initiated 2010, Book production, Former Secretary to HH BVKS (India) Jagannatha Das, initiated 2013, Manager of ISKCON Bhopal (India) 

p.s. We would like to settle our differences on this matter with you privately, as far as possible. However, as all of you have already given extensive time to discussing this amongst yourselves, long before you have received our letter, we think that 15 days' time is sufficient to wait for any kind of response. In lieu of hearing timely from you, we shall continue to increase our efforts to raise awareness of our perspective among the general body of devotees and the public at large. [1] There are innumerable pramanas for this position. Some prominent ones as given by Srila Prabhupada are given here: SB 8.20.1, "According to sastra, the duty of the guru is to take the disciple back home, back to Godhead. If he is unable to do so and instead hinders the disciple in going back to Godhead, he should not be a guru." And several other references are given in the purport: SB 5.5.18, guror na sa syat. . .; Mahabharata Udyoga 179.25 guru apy avaliptasya. . . ; Padma Purana sat-karma-nipuno vipro. . ., etc. 

[PADA: Why is BVKS the sannyasa disciple of Jayapataka swami, the founder father of the illicit sex with men, women and children guru's parampara?

The Bhakti Vikas guru program votes in gurus, without even bothering to see if their gurus have any degree of God realization? And even if they have some minimum realization, how does that qualify them to absorb sins like Jesus? And what difference does it make if women or men are being voted into the post of sin absorbing Jesus, when none of them are qualified for that post? And why is the BVKS program joining Jayapataka's training of little children that God's gurus, parampara members, acharyas and successors etc. are often illicit sex with men, women and children sexual predators, drunkards, drug addicts and  deviants? Is this not illegal fraud mis-representing of Krishna and His teachings? And is this not corrupting the morals of minors?]

No comments:

Post a Comment

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