[PADA: So the worship of deviants, if not illicit sex with men, women and children debauchees as "God's guru successors" is the "principle of shastra"? Sorry, there is nothing new, a person has to accept a pure devotee as his guru; We have to offer bhogha to a pure devotee and so on. Krishna Kirti himself rejected Hrdayananda as a guru, despite Hrdayananda is a long standing GBC authority. It also sounds like this recording had to be done in secret as it sounds like it was recorded inside a bath tub, which apparently means the GBC folks do not want these type discussions to be made public since it shows how they are foolish speculators. See below where Anuttama chastises everyone for allowing their speculation process to become public.
How can we be asked to accept the GBC as an authority, when Krishna Kirti himself does not? He says the GBC made a huge mistake "empowering" Hrdayananda as an acharya. OH OH, then he says we are ALL sadhana bhaktas who are prone to mistakes and defects. How can we make "God's successor gurus" out of people who are prone to making mistakes, not only minor league mistakes -- mistakes such as being attracted to severe deviations and various illicit behaviors? OH OH, then he says there are so many train wreck (gurus) in ISKCON. And that is "the tradition"? All glories to "the train wreck of gurus"?
And all of these people keep saying we have to synthesize all the quotes from Srila Prabhupada. And the synthesis is, conditioned neophytes and / or deviants are fit to be worshiped as the successors to God, and to absorb sins like Jesus. So now the women guru promoters are simply doing the same thing, they are cutting and pasting various quotes to "prove" that "Srila Prabhupada wanted" the male bodied already existing illicit sex with men, women and children guru program to invite in women to be part of their debauchees guru parampara.
The only good news is that Basu Ghosh has finally figured out that if ISKCON keeps making these bogus guru programs, and expands that bogus process by adding women bodied persons to their hokey guru parampara, then the whole show might be rejected by the Hindus and they will lose monetary support from the Hindus. That is the only reason they are panicking now, they are realizing the women guru process might be rejected by their prime customers, the Hindus, and then their guru business program will be de-funded.]
Text PAMHO:31909219 (293 lines) From: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP
(Baroda - IN)
Date: 03-Feb-20 21:25 +0530
To: ICC (Indian Continental Committee) [9245],
IIAC (ISKCON India Advisory Committee) [6309],
ISKCON (India) Bureau Discussions [3976]
Cc: ICC Western Divisional Council [1832],
Prabhupada Disciples [21966]
Subject: Krishna Kirti Prabhu responds to Anuttama Prabhu & Madan Mohan Das
------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Forwarded Message ----------
Letter PAMHO:31909172 (278 lines)
[M1]
From: Internet: "Krishna Kirti Das" <krishnakirti@gmail.com>
Date: 03-Feb-20 15:30 (21:00 +0530)
To: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) [204995]
Reference: Text PAMHO:31908641 by Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)
Attached: 31909172.eml (28689 bytes) "Original email file"
Subject: Re: FYI
------------------------------------------------------------
This is my response to Anuttama Prabhu's objection to our presentation of
our research on the Bharadvaj Samhita, which is an authorized shastra that
is a part of Narada Pancharatra.
Anuttama Prabhu says,
During those meetings [ICC, IIAC, India Bureau], Krsna-kirti prabhu (KK) gave a PPT presentation why he and others oppose the GBC decision.
One of the main arguments KK gives is that Srila Prabhupada's instructions on Vaishnavi diksa gurus are "conflicting" and need to be harmonized. Harmonizing seemingly conflicting statements within shastra or by guru is exactly the process that Srila Prabhupada and our acharyas have prescribed for us to understand siddhanta.
One of the main arguments KK gives is that Srila Prabhupada's instructions on Vaishnavi diksa gurus are "conflicting" and need to be harmonized. Harmonizing seemingly conflicting statements within shastra or by guru is exactly the process that Srila Prabhupada and our acharyas have prescribed for us to understand siddhanta.
Srila Prabhupada frequently quotes Srila Narottama Das Thakura's
"sadhu-shastra-guru-vakya cittete kariya *aikya*" The word "aikya" is very
important here as it means to synchronize our understanding. We don't just
quote guru or sadhu or shastra in an inconsistent way, our understanding
must be consistent with these sources.
[PADA: Yes, we need to "synchronise" kanisthas absorbing sins like Jesus, and promoting a guru parampara which contains illicit sex with men, women and children, with the guru representatives of God, who are pure? How is this going to be synchronized? And now Krishna Kirti is complaining that the GBC is making female gurus, while claiming the existing illicit sex guru process contains diksha gurus?]
[PADA: Yes, we need to "synchronise" kanisthas absorbing sins like Jesus, and promoting a guru parampara which contains illicit sex with men, women and children, with the guru representatives of God, who are pure? How is this going to be synchronized? And now Krishna Kirti is complaining that the GBC is making female gurus, while claiming the existing illicit sex guru process contains diksha gurus?]
See Srila Prabhupada's purport in CC
Madhya 20.352, which I quoted in my IIAC presentation and gave examples
from Srila Prabhupada as to how he employed it.
The full presentation with slides is online at Youtube at this link:
KK told you that he's been able to harmonize those instructions, specifically by referencing a few verses from Bharadvaja-samhita — a sastra that Srila Prabhupada never cited, and only mentioned once in his writings. I disagreed with that viewpoint.
With all due respect to Anuttama Prabhu and all the service he has done for
Srila Prabhupada's movement, I respectfully would like to point out that
referencing sources that Srila Prabhupada himself never cited is something
the GBC itself has done to defend its position when specific information on
certain topics was not found in Srila Prabhupada's own writings.
[PADA: This is good, we should not be citing shastra that was never cited by Srila Prabhupada.]
For example, in the 1995 GBC handbook titled "Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON", the GBC cites Srila Narahara Sarakara's Krishna Bhajanamarta as pramana for what to do when a guru deviates from the path: [verse 59] "If a spiritual master commits a wrongful act, breaking Vaisnava regulative principles, one should confront him in a solitary place for his rectification, using logic and appropriate conclusions from sadhu, sastra, and guru, but one is not to give him up." [verse 63]
[PADA: Right, Srila Prabhupada never cited this, however he does explain that a fallen guru was never a guru in the first place.]
"The authorized course of action is to continue as before with one's prescribed devotional service. One may take guidance through instructions from the Vaisnavas, for all Vaisnavas are considered guru or spiritual master, or one may use one's own intelligence, duly considering the relevant instructions from sadhu, sastra, and guru. In all cases one should continue one's devotional service." [verse 64] "
. . . the spiritual master acts enviously towards that which is connected with the Supreme; is bewildered regarding the Supreme Personality of Godhead ('isvare bhrantah'); is averse to expanding the fame of Lord Krsna; personally refuses to accept hearing or chanting about the glorious pastimes of Lord Krsna, or has become totally bewildered, listening to the false praise of ignorant persons, and day by day is more materially contaminated and fallen."
These statements from Srila Narahari Sarakara are quoted as-is in the GBC's handbook. But Srila Narahari Sarakara is mentioned only once in Sri Caitanya Caritamrita (CC Adi 10.78 - 79), and there is not a single reference to Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita in any of Srila Prabhupada's published works.
[PADA: Yes, Gaura Govinda Maharaja and Jayapataka started citing this Narahari Sarakara work as a justification for all their falling down acharyas. And Gaura Govinda Maharaja was deputed by the GBC to write a paper on falling down acharyas, which has become the prime foundation for their whole idea that acharyas are often illicit sex with men, women and children deviants. However, there is no quote from Srila Prabhupada saying that acharyas are commonly debauchees. Just the opposite, he says anyone who thinks acharyas are deviants is a resident of naraka -- hell.]
So, how is it that all of a sudden, the fact that Srila Prabhupada refers to Bharadvaja-samhita only once in his own works now somehow makes it a non-authority? Anuttama Prabhu's opinion here is factually opposite to how the GBC itself has tried to resolve controversial issues in the past. And, while I was not at your meetings to present the in-depth philosophical reasoning behind the GBC decision--or to counter the arguments of KK, I encouraged you to study the matter more carefully.
As Prahladananda Maharaja has already pointed out, there are serious problems with the paper by presented by Anuttama Prabhu. (The author is Madana Mohana Prabhu from Russia.) One problem that hasn't already been pointed out is that his paper tends to nullify or diminish the authority of statements by Srila Prabhupada or bona fide shastras that lead to conclusions he doesn't agree with. For example, at the beginning of his paper, Prabhu Madan Mohan says (bolding in original):
There in verses 1.61-62 Bharadvaja Muni makes a blanket statement about conditioned souls who, due to their own beginningless sinful inclinations and *resultant births into sinful families, sinful communities, or sinful countries, or at inauspicious times,* cannot develop remembrance of, or surrender to, or servitude toward Lord Visnu, or Kesava: . [quotes Sanskrit verses].
As you can see, this statement from the scripture you propose as the new norm for ISKCON is literally one philosophical mutation away from what Gopiparanadhana Prabhu was apprehensive about as “the conclusion that actually only Indians born in brahmana families should be diksa-gurus”.
[PADA: Yep, here we go. The ISKCON ICC India bureau is trying to make this a racial issue, proving that only India bodied persons can understand shastra and not the Westerners. Its an attempt to run out the Westerners as authorities, although the India bodied people are making the same mistake, they think conditioned soul India bodied people can be acharyas. The root problem is that conditioned souls cannot be acharyas, it does not matter if they are Western, Eastern, male, female, or your local street dog.
This problem is already brewing in Mayapur, my spies tell me that when Jayapataka departs the Bengalis there will not accept another Western guru authority. They have seen first hand how all the speculation goes on in Mayapura with all their bogus meetings, committees, etc.]
(8) But the purport to SB 4.31.10, Srila Prabhupada especially lists Bharadvaja-samhita as a shastra that accepts persons as brahmanas based on qualification instead of birth. Prabhupada says, On the other hand, if the brahminical qualifications are found in the person of a *sudra, *he should immediately be accepted as a *brahmana.*
To substantiate this there are many quotations from *Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Bharadvaja-samhita *and the *Pañcaratra,* as well as many other scriptures. For Madan Mohan to say this statement from Bharadvaja-samhita is just "one philosophical mutation away from" thinking that "only Indians born in brahmana families should be diksa-gurus" is out of line with Srila Prabhupada's statement that Bharadvaja-samhita accepts brahmanas by qualification, not by birth.
The point here is that Madan Mohan should be using the verses he quoted (or anything else) to support and illuminate Srila Prabhupada's teachings, not trying to make some appearance of disruption between this shastra and Prabhupada. That is the opposite of "aikya" in "sadhu-shastra-guru-aikya.' It's not explaining Srila Prabhupada, but "explaining him away."
Aikya means to synchronize our understanding of sadhu-shastra-guru. Srila Prabhupada and Bharadvaja-samhita should be understood to be in harmony with one another, not disharmony. This is the type of mistake Madan Mohan commits here and throughout his paper. Your servant, Krishna-kirti das
[PADA: Yep, Krishna Kirti reads Srila Prabhupada's books and he finds out that the guru parampara from God is a train wreck full of debauchees.]
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:47 PM Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)
Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP@pamho.net> wrote:
---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Text 31907677 (73 lines)
From: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Puri - > IN) > Date: 03-Feb-20 08:39 +0530
To: ICC (Indian Continental > Committee) [9244], > IIAC (ISKCON India Advisory > Committee) [6308], > ISKCON (India) Bureau > Discussions [3971]
Attached:
Guru_The_Principle_Not_the_Body__by_Madana-mohana_Da.sa_202051.pdf
2024191 bytes) "Paper" Subject: From Anuttama Dasa--Continuing our Discussion on Vaishnavi Gurus > ------------------------------------------
Dear Respected Friends and Leaders of the Bureau, IIAC, and ICC, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Last November, upon the invitation of HH Gopal Krishna Goswami, you allowed me to meet with you during your leadership meetings. I appreciated the time spent with you.
During that time, I presented to you a brief history of the 15-year process that led to the GBC decision allowing Vaishnavi diksa gurus (under certain conditions). I also explained why I, and a majority of GBC members, were convinced this decision was the right one and that it is in line with the teachings and desire of our Founder-Acarya Srila Prabhupada.
During those meetings, Krsna-kirti prabhu (KK) gave a PPT presentation why he and others oppose the GBC decision. One of the main arguments KK gives is that Srila Prabhupada's instructions on Vaishnavi diksa gurus are "conflicting" and need to be harmonized. KK told you that he's been able to harmonize those instructions, specifically by referencing a few verses from Bharadvaja-samhita — a sastra that Srila Prabhupada never cited, and only mentioned once in his writings.
I disagreed with that viewpoint. And, while I was not at your meetings to present the in-depth philosophical reasoning behind the GBC decision--or to counter the arguments of KK, I encouraged you to study the matter more carefully.
In that mood, I am forwarding to you below a well-researched and just released paper, authored by Madana-mohan prabhu, a GBC Deputy and former member of the Sastric Advisory Council. I think you will find it enlightening. While this is not an official GBC sponsored paper, I believe that upon careful reading of it many devotees who opposed the GBC decision (based perhaps on incomplete information), may adjust their opinion and acknowledge that the GBC decision was a reasonable one. One last comment: It's come to my attention that some respected Vaishnava friends who disagree with the GBC decision have posted derogatory and negative posts on U-Tube and other venues.
As the Minister of Communications, and as a humble servant of all the Vaishnavas around the world, I respectfully request you to not allow yourselves, ourselves, to publicly broadcast our differences in offensive and divisive ways.
Srila Prabhupada ordered us to observe unity in diversity. I recall that during our November meetings, at one point Bhaktarupa prabhu felt it necessary to stand and request all of us to not be carried away by our differences of opinion -- or to speak or act in ways that harm the unity of Srila Prabhupada's movement.
I repeat the same request here: Please, while we may differ in viewpoints on many issues, let us remain respectful in our discussions. Especially let us not post things on social media, or public media, that may cause a loss of faith among our members and the public towards Srila Prabhupada's movement.
To do so, I believe, is to risk the mercy of Srila Prabhupada, our previous acaryas, and Lord Sri Krishna. Here is a link to the paper:
https://tinyurl.com/guru-not-the-body > <https://tinyurl.com/guru-not-the-body
A pdf file is also attached. Thank you for your ongoing services to our ISKCON society, and for your association. Your servant, Anuttama dasa ISKCON Minister of Communications.
[PADA: Yep, we need to work in cooperation with Gopal Krishna swami, who helped Radhanath bury a known homosexual pedophile in a samadhi, and to bury a porno swami in another samadhi. and all of this is "synchronized from shastra? Well yep, the shastra called the Devil's Bible! ys pd]
[PADA: This is good, we should not be citing shastra that was never cited by Srila Prabhupada.]
For example, in the 1995 GBC handbook titled "Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON", the GBC cites Srila Narahara Sarakara's Krishna Bhajanamarta as pramana for what to do when a guru deviates from the path: [verse 59] "If a spiritual master commits a wrongful act, breaking Vaisnava regulative principles, one should confront him in a solitary place for his rectification, using logic and appropriate conclusions from sadhu, sastra, and guru, but one is not to give him up." [verse 63]
[PADA: Right, Srila Prabhupada never cited this, however he does explain that a fallen guru was never a guru in the first place.]
"The authorized course of action is to continue as before with one's prescribed devotional service. One may take guidance through instructions from the Vaisnavas, for all Vaisnavas are considered guru or spiritual master, or one may use one's own intelligence, duly considering the relevant instructions from sadhu, sastra, and guru. In all cases one should continue one's devotional service." [verse 64] "
. . . the spiritual master acts enviously towards that which is connected with the Supreme; is bewildered regarding the Supreme Personality of Godhead ('isvare bhrantah'); is averse to expanding the fame of Lord Krsna; personally refuses to accept hearing or chanting about the glorious pastimes of Lord Krsna, or has become totally bewildered, listening to the false praise of ignorant persons, and day by day is more materially contaminated and fallen."
These statements from Srila Narahari Sarakara are quoted as-is in the GBC's handbook. But Srila Narahari Sarakara is mentioned only once in Sri Caitanya Caritamrita (CC Adi 10.78 - 79), and there is not a single reference to Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita in any of Srila Prabhupada's published works.
[PADA: Yes, Gaura Govinda Maharaja and Jayapataka started citing this Narahari Sarakara work as a justification for all their falling down acharyas. And Gaura Govinda Maharaja was deputed by the GBC to write a paper on falling down acharyas, which has become the prime foundation for their whole idea that acharyas are often illicit sex with men, women and children deviants. However, there is no quote from Srila Prabhupada saying that acharyas are commonly debauchees. Just the opposite, he says anyone who thinks acharyas are deviants is a resident of naraka -- hell.]
So, how is it that all of a sudden, the fact that Srila Prabhupada refers to Bharadvaja-samhita only once in his own works now somehow makes it a non-authority? Anuttama Prabhu's opinion here is factually opposite to how the GBC itself has tried to resolve controversial issues in the past. And, while I was not at your meetings to present the in-depth philosophical reasoning behind the GBC decision--or to counter the arguments of KK, I encouraged you to study the matter more carefully.
As Prahladananda Maharaja has already pointed out, there are serious problems with the paper by presented by Anuttama Prabhu. (The author is Madana Mohana Prabhu from Russia.) One problem that hasn't already been pointed out is that his paper tends to nullify or diminish the authority of statements by Srila Prabhupada or bona fide shastras that lead to conclusions he doesn't agree with. For example, at the beginning of his paper, Prabhu Madan Mohan says (bolding in original):
There in verses 1.61-62 Bharadvaja Muni makes a blanket statement about conditioned souls who, due to their own beginningless sinful inclinations and *resultant births into sinful families, sinful communities, or sinful countries, or at inauspicious times,* cannot develop remembrance of, or surrender to, or servitude toward Lord Visnu, or Kesava: . [quotes Sanskrit verses].
As you can see, this statement from the scripture you propose as the new norm for ISKCON is literally one philosophical mutation away from what Gopiparanadhana Prabhu was apprehensive about as “the conclusion that actually only Indians born in brahmana families should be diksa-gurus”.
[PADA: Yep, here we go. The ISKCON ICC India bureau is trying to make this a racial issue, proving that only India bodied persons can understand shastra and not the Westerners. Its an attempt to run out the Westerners as authorities, although the India bodied people are making the same mistake, they think conditioned soul India bodied people can be acharyas. The root problem is that conditioned souls cannot be acharyas, it does not matter if they are Western, Eastern, male, female, or your local street dog.
This problem is already brewing in Mayapur, my spies tell me that when Jayapataka departs the Bengalis there will not accept another Western guru authority. They have seen first hand how all the speculation goes on in Mayapura with all their bogus meetings, committees, etc.]
(8) But the purport to SB 4.31.10, Srila Prabhupada especially lists Bharadvaja-samhita as a shastra that accepts persons as brahmanas based on qualification instead of birth. Prabhupada says, On the other hand, if the brahminical qualifications are found in the person of a *sudra, *he should immediately be accepted as a *brahmana.*
To substantiate this there are many quotations from *Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Bharadvaja-samhita *and the *Pañcaratra,* as well as many other scriptures. For Madan Mohan to say this statement from Bharadvaja-samhita is just "one philosophical mutation away from" thinking that "only Indians born in brahmana families should be diksa-gurus" is out of line with Srila Prabhupada's statement that Bharadvaja-samhita accepts brahmanas by qualification, not by birth.
The point here is that Madan Mohan should be using the verses he quoted (or anything else) to support and illuminate Srila Prabhupada's teachings, not trying to make some appearance of disruption between this shastra and Prabhupada. That is the opposite of "aikya" in "sadhu-shastra-guru-aikya.' It's not explaining Srila Prabhupada, but "explaining him away."
Aikya means to synchronize our understanding of sadhu-shastra-guru. Srila Prabhupada and Bharadvaja-samhita should be understood to be in harmony with one another, not disharmony. This is the type of mistake Madan Mohan commits here and throughout his paper. Your servant, Krishna-kirti das
[PADA: Yep, Krishna Kirti reads Srila Prabhupada's books and he finds out that the guru parampara from God is a train wreck full of debauchees.]
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:47 PM Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)
Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP@pamho.net> wrote:
---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Text 31907677 (73 lines)
From: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Puri - > IN) > Date: 03-Feb-20 08:39 +0530
To: ICC (Indian Continental > Committee) [9244], > IIAC (ISKCON India Advisory > Committee) [6308], > ISKCON (India) Bureau > Discussions [3971]
Attached:
Guru_The_Principle_Not_the_Body__by_Madana-mohana_Da.sa_202051.pdf
2024191 bytes) "Paper" Subject: From Anuttama Dasa--Continuing our Discussion on Vaishnavi Gurus > ------------------------------------------
Dear Respected Friends and Leaders of the Bureau, IIAC, and ICC, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Last November, upon the invitation of HH Gopal Krishna Goswami, you allowed me to meet with you during your leadership meetings. I appreciated the time spent with you.
During that time, I presented to you a brief history of the 15-year process that led to the GBC decision allowing Vaishnavi diksa gurus (under certain conditions). I also explained why I, and a majority of GBC members, were convinced this decision was the right one and that it is in line with the teachings and desire of our Founder-Acarya Srila Prabhupada.
During those meetings, Krsna-kirti prabhu (KK) gave a PPT presentation why he and others oppose the GBC decision. One of the main arguments KK gives is that Srila Prabhupada's instructions on Vaishnavi diksa gurus are "conflicting" and need to be harmonized. KK told you that he's been able to harmonize those instructions, specifically by referencing a few verses from Bharadvaja-samhita — a sastra that Srila Prabhupada never cited, and only mentioned once in his writings.
I disagreed with that viewpoint. And, while I was not at your meetings to present the in-depth philosophical reasoning behind the GBC decision--or to counter the arguments of KK, I encouraged you to study the matter more carefully.
In that mood, I am forwarding to you below a well-researched and just released paper, authored by Madana-mohan prabhu, a GBC Deputy and former member of the Sastric Advisory Council. I think you will find it enlightening. While this is not an official GBC sponsored paper, I believe that upon careful reading of it many devotees who opposed the GBC decision (based perhaps on incomplete information), may adjust their opinion and acknowledge that the GBC decision was a reasonable one. One last comment: It's come to my attention that some respected Vaishnava friends who disagree with the GBC decision have posted derogatory and negative posts on U-Tube and other venues.
As the Minister of Communications, and as a humble servant of all the Vaishnavas around the world, I respectfully request you to not allow yourselves, ourselves, to publicly broadcast our differences in offensive and divisive ways.
Srila Prabhupada ordered us to observe unity in diversity. I recall that during our November meetings, at one point Bhaktarupa prabhu felt it necessary to stand and request all of us to not be carried away by our differences of opinion -- or to speak or act in ways that harm the unity of Srila Prabhupada's movement.
I repeat the same request here: Please, while we may differ in viewpoints on many issues, let us remain respectful in our discussions. Especially let us not post things on social media, or public media, that may cause a loss of faith among our members and the public towards Srila Prabhupada's movement.
To do so, I believe, is to risk the mercy of Srila Prabhupada, our previous acaryas, and Lord Sri Krishna. Here is a link to the paper:
https://tinyurl.com/guru-not-the-body > <https://tinyurl.com/guru-not-the-body
A pdf file is also attached. Thank you for your ongoing services to our ISKCON society, and for your association. Your servant, Anuttama dasa ISKCON Minister of Communications.
[PADA: Yep, we need to work in cooperation with Gopal Krishna swami, who helped Radhanath bury a known homosexual pedophile in a samadhi, and to bury a porno swami in another samadhi. and all of this is "synchronized from shastra? Well yep, the shastra called the Devil's Bible! ys pd]
Lets make the former Prithu Putra's Satan worshiping program's woman associate into "a guru successor to God"?
LD: Amazing these people think kanistha or less than can become worshiped acharyas. They reduced acharya to conditioned soul with many anarthas. Very sinful people. They are lost souls but unfortunate for all of us, they are misleading other people. "Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says, rūpa-raghunātha-pade haibe ākuti kabe hāma bujhaba se yugala pirīti. The sahajiyās' understanding of the love affairs between Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa is not bona fide because they do not follow the principles laid down by the six Gosvāmīs. Their illicit connection and their imitation of the dress of Rūpa Gosvāmī, as well as their avoidance of the prescribed methods of revealed scriptures, will lead them to the lowest regions of hell. These imitative sahajiyās are cheated and unfortunate. They are not equal to advanced devotees (paramahaṁsas). Debauchees and paramahaṁsas are not on the same level." Problem is, these people have no faith in the shastra.
ReplyDelete