Hrdayananda's Bucket Boys Also
BIG Part of the Problem.
Yep! Evidently!
Pedophile messiahs is NOT the problem!
You are the problem for objecting!
Who knew!
He wanted to be friends with them and with us, but it is clearly not working. He has to start to draw a line on the GBC, and that would mean, all their gurus are bogus because all of them have been accomplices to so many deviations. Looks like Krishna Kirti and others are basically agreeing. The GBC guru process has been coming off the rails all along, and it is getting worse each day.
Of course Krishna Kirti is already famous for essentially saying that when Krishna dictates to the acharyas, Krishna is dictating foolishness, so Krishna Kirti has to take over Krishna's job and dictate the right information to the acharyas, because Krishna has no idea how to do that. Yep, Krishna Kirti thinks he is Krishna's boss and superior.
In 1986 Hrdayananda and others helped re-instate their homosexual acharya Bhavananda as their Vishnupada acharya of ISKCON, and they excommunicated Sulochana. That means they never understood who is an acharya, who is a Vishnupada, what is a chain of gurus from Krishna etc. -- the whole time. Krishna Kirti does not seem to understand their whole operation is off the rails ALL ALONG and it is not about nit picking the details endlessly.
They are not, were not, could not have been gurus, period. They never had the authority to make either homosexuals into gurus, or women into gurus, or any others into gurus, the whole time. The whole premise that the GBC are Krishna's guru voters and / or successors is - wrong, and has been the whole time.
Anyway I agree, the female diksha guru process will make a lot of current followers of ISKCON -- leave. It will be the last straw for a lot of folks. And in that sense, it is a suicide pill for what little remains of the ISKCON society. Then again the ISKCON India ICC alternate idea, let us worship pedophile men who are molesters of little girls, is another suicide pill.
Either way, it is going down. And that is going to be good for us, we do not need a strong and financially powerful operation going on that worships illicit sex deviants as its acharya chain. Let us pray it gets weaker and weaker, because pedophile worshipers are very dangerous for us and for all of the citizens of the earth, especially the children.]
> "The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the
> number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences
> of parents everywhere; that this planning, in such ways as are mutually
> acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and
> important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of
> positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience
> to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources
> and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying
> population needs and problems of society and the claims of future
> generations." [25]
> Strong words like “deliberate tampering with nascent life,” of course, are
> no longer used. Rather, this statement employs fluffy euphemisms that are
> codes for the same. Later, the Communion in some of its world wide branches
> officially sanctioned abortion under terms similar to “positive choice
> before God.”
That's what I wrote in 2007, and since then our GBC has similarly shifted
their moral stance on a number of issues in much the same way.
One last thing about Hridayananda Maharaja I want to point out is Maharaja's current approach to understanding Srila Prabhupada. His approach in his 2005 paper on homosexuality has become mature and widespread within ISKCON, including even in the GBC's Shastric Advisory Council and their new and heterodox approach to Vedic hermeneutics. His 2020 paper is here:
https://www.hdgoswami.com/understanding-prabhupada-2/
Here is the fundamental defect in Hridayananda Maharaja's thinking. From
his 2020 paper Understanding Prabhupada, He says,
"Prabhupāda often claims that everything he says comes from guru and śāstra.
This is true only if Prabhupāda is referring to tattva and siddhānta, not otherwise."
But what Maharaja does not understand is the role of shishtacara is essential for understanding what is tattva and siddhanta, because the shastras declare it to be so. Manu 2.6 cites four sources of knowledge of dharma, and that is Vedas, smritis written by pure men who are thoroughly learned in the Veda, their sad achara and their preferences. Yajnavalka accepts these four and offers a fifth one, that is a desire to do something good and is not against the shastras (such as, "I will drink water only at meals").
===================
Krishna Kirti Dasa: Dear Dr. Chaturvedi and all the other Maharajas and Prabhus receiving this, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you for your email. As Pancharatna Prabhu just said in a separate email, your cry for help is like a breath of fresh air for us. I am an American, born and raised in America and who has also been a preacher in America but now live in India. I am also a former disciple of Hridayananda Maharaja. Here is my story.
When I was still his disciple, in 2001 he asked me to go to Albuquerque, New Mexico to preach. My wife and I went. I already had a difference with him over his stance (and the GBC stance) on female equality (regarding their infamous year 2000 resolutions on women in ISKCON), but you try to get along and be a good disciple as far as possible. And we had discussed the matter before in person, but still, the both of us tried to put aside our differences and work together.
After moving to Albuquerque and preaching there for a couple of years, at the end of 2004, Maharaja made a public, radical statement saying that ISKCON should openly and publicly support "gay monogamy". As soon as that statement had been published (on the CHAKRA website at that time, chakra.org, which used to stand for Champions of Krishna's Army - ha ha - its former reason for existing was to combat ritvikism but later became an exponent for spreading feminism - you can't make this stuff up, really).
Krishna Kirti Dasa: Dear Dr. Chaturvedi and all the other Maharajas and Prabhus receiving this, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you for your email. As Pancharatna Prabhu just said in a separate email, your cry for help is like a breath of fresh air for us. I am an American, born and raised in America and who has also been a preacher in America but now live in India. I am also a former disciple of Hridayananda Maharaja. Here is my story.
When I was still his disciple, in 2001 he asked me to go to Albuquerque, New Mexico to preach. My wife and I went. I already had a difference with him over his stance (and the GBC stance) on female equality (regarding their infamous year 2000 resolutions on women in ISKCON), but you try to get along and be a good disciple as far as possible. And we had discussed the matter before in person, but still, the both of us tried to put aside our differences and work together.
After moving to Albuquerque and preaching there for a couple of years, at the end of 2004, Maharaja made a public, radical statement saying that ISKCON should openly and publicly support "gay monogamy". As soon as that statement had been published (on the CHAKRA website at that time, chakra.org, which used to stand for Champions of Krishna's Army - ha ha - its former reason for existing was to combat ritvikism but later became an exponent for spreading feminism - you can't make this stuff up, really).
I sent Maharaja an email asking him if he had actually written that, I got a phone
call from him almost immediately. The discussion started out polite but quickly degraded to a shouting match, with him finally saying, "You think I'm a liberal such and such. . . " and then slamming his phone down on me. Then a few days later, he wrote another email to me telling me not to write anything until after he wrote something more fully explaining his statement about gay monogamy. So, I waited until he came out with his paper, which was after about another couple of months.
call from him almost immediately. The discussion started out polite but quickly degraded to a shouting match, with him finally saying, "You think I'm a liberal such and such. . . " and then slamming his phone down on me. Then a few days later, he wrote another email to me telling me not to write anything until after he wrote something more fully explaining his statement about gay monogamy. So, I waited until he came out with his paper, which was after about another couple of months.
So, the paper he finally produced is titled Vaisnava Moral Theologoy and
Homosexuality. When he first published it, he had also translated his own paper in Spanish and Portuguese and distributed them simultaneously. This was about February or March 2005. His paper is still available here on his website:
https://www.hdgoswami.com/vaisnava-moral-theology-and-homosexuality/ The
paper was immediately condemned by many devotees, and some ISKCON leaders in America such as Danavir Maharaja and Sankarshana Prabhu. But there was no response from any official ISKCON institution, either in North America or the GBC.
Homosexuality. When he first published it, he had also translated his own paper in Spanish and Portuguese and distributed them simultaneously. This was about February or March 2005. His paper is still available here on his website:
https://www.hdgoswami.com/vaisnava-moral-theology-and-homosexuality/ The
paper was immediately condemned by many devotees, and some ISKCON leaders in America such as Danavir Maharaja and Sankarshana Prabhu. But there was no response from any official ISKCON institution, either in North America or the GBC.
[PADA: Yep, this is the state of ISKCON. They have gurus, who are the sum totals of the demigods messiahs, who are getting dictation from Krishna. But then the GBC and / or Krishna Kirti can kick Krishna's dictations out the door -- and take over the post of dictation to the guru!
In sum, Krishna Kirti thinks he is Krishna's superior, and he has to remove Krishna from the post of dictation to the guru. Either that, or Krishna Kirti is admitting his gurus are bogus and are not getting any dictations from Krishna.]
The paper is still featured by Maharaja on his personal website, and to this day the ISKCON leadership has never censured or asked him to remove it. Here is the link to his paper:
[PADA: Yep, the GBC has not condemned many bogus statements from many of their gurus, and currently the GBC is promoting a known pedophile as their chief guru in India (Lokanath swami) in addition to the GBC burying known homosexuals and pedophiles and / or porno swamis in samadhis. None of this is condemned by the overall body. Worse, reformers like Bhakti Vikas swami are supporting the Basu Ghosh party that wants to keep pedophiles in the post of acharya.]
https://www.hdgoswami.com/vaisnava-moral-theology-and-homosexuality/
At that point, in early 2005, I decided that I could no longer bring people to Krishna consciousness to only later see them take shelter of Maharaja and have their lives misdirected in the name of Krishna consciousness. So, I decided that I could no longer preach under his authority (he was both guru to me and GBC also), so, I sent the one brahmachari living with my wife and me on to India and stopped the preaching. It's for this reason I am living in India and not still preaching in America.
As my example shows, what has happened to the preaching in America is that the top leadership in America has narrowed their own preaching field to the socially and political Left and far Left of America and themselves have also tried to adopt the values of the Left to make themselves more appealing to people on the Left. The problem with that is that there are many other Leftist spiritual organizations that are always going to be more Left than ISKCON in America is.
At that point, in early 2005, I decided that I could no longer bring people to Krishna consciousness to only later see them take shelter of Maharaja and have their lives misdirected in the name of Krishna consciousness. So, I decided that I could no longer preach under his authority (he was both guru to me and GBC also), so, I sent the one brahmachari living with my wife and me on to India and stopped the preaching. It's for this reason I am living in India and not still preaching in America.
As my example shows, what has happened to the preaching in America is that the top leadership in America has narrowed their own preaching field to the socially and political Left and far Left of America and themselves have also tried to adopt the values of the Left to make themselves more appealing to people on the Left. The problem with that is that there are many other Leftist spiritual organizations that are always going to be more Left than ISKCON in America is.
But here is the problem: if you can get God from elsewhere and keep your leftist social and political beliefs too, then why should you come to ISKCON or stay in ISKCON? The preaching has been going down in America because they have been watering down Krishna consciousness to make it more appealing to the political Left in America.
[PADA: Well yes and no. All Americans, left or right, want to worship a pure devotee like Jesus -- and they do not want to worship homosexual, pedophiles, and so on. Krishna Kirti is another guy who simply retreats from the battle to go live in India instead of preaching the right thing in the West, to help the Westerners.
Even my Hindu friend mentioned above says it is very difficult to challenge them in India because it is a very fanatical situation there. Sorry, this is not a left or right issue, almost all Americans want to worship pure devotees and not debauchees, whether they are politically left, right or center. I am friends with many Christians of all political stripes -- and all of them agree that pedophile worship is bogus. Whether they are politically right, left, middle, even my homosexual friends, all agree, worship of pedophiles is an extreme deviation and an abomination to God.]
(I have some further thoughts on this in a recent video addressing the lack of success of preaching in America as felt by the ISKCON leadership:
https://youtu.be/EkAaBDRtwB0 )
In any case, since that time from 2005 to 2007, I had tried to discuss our differences on gay mongamy, and the private conversations never went
anywhere, just like the ISKCON India leaders discussions with the GBC on
female diksa-gurus did not go anywhere. Maharaja never took my concerns
seriously no matter how politely presented. So, finally, in 2007 I published a public rebuttal to the Maharaja's on the Dandavats website. The fact that they published it means that some on the GBC were concerned about Maharaja's stance, but they were too weak to personally confront him about it, so, Praghosh Prabhu at the time allowed my paper to be published.
[PADA: They are mostly grabbing cash from the ISKCON cash cow and they do not want to disturb their business. That is why one of them said "I cannot address these problems because I have a career to maintain."]
The link to the Dandavats article and directly to my paper are here.
Dandavats article: http://www.dandavats.com/?p=2734
My paper:
http://www.dandavats.com/wp-content/uploads/response_to_gay_monogamy.pdf
There is some interesting discussion in the comments section at the Dandavats entry, too. In any case, in my own article there are a couple of things that have come to pass.
I had warned that the approach he had taken for his reasoning on gay mongamy would be used in other areas as well. The radical difference and incompatibility of these two statements [between the official GBC definition of illicit sex and Hridayananda Maharaja's definition] points to similarly radical and important differences in the way those who made these statements read and interpret scripture. Because Goswami’s approach can almost certainly be applied to a wide variety of issues besides that of homosexuality, the interpretive approach he used to reach his conclusion is more important than whether he came to the right
conclusion. Indeed, we have just witnessed his approach applied to the
circumstance of fallen householders, who of course are not homosexual.
This essay is therefore not so much concerned with the truth or falsity of Goswami’s ethical conclusions about homosexuality. Instead, it is primarily
concerned with the nature of his approach to understanding such issues. In
advocating gay monogamy, Hridayananda das Goswami employs a number of
interpretive strategies and rhetorical devices that cooperatively have the
effect of bypassing what could be reasonably considered Srila Prabhupada’s
consistent views of sexuality and homosexuality. This essay presents an
analysis of Goswami’s approach, examines its effects, and discusses how
that approach, if it becomes prominent, might affect ISKCON’s future.
(page 7)
And Maharaja himself has been behind much of the bad logic employed for
justifying female diksha gurus and which prominent ISKCON leaders
supporting it use. I can give many, many examples of how Maharaja has
adversely infected his colleagues, but that would be for another discussion.
Another thing that I wrote about in my 2007 paper has also come to pass,
ISKCON's top leadership over a period of decades abandoning their orthodoxy
for heterodoxy. In my paper, I wrote (beginning on page 15):
Throughout history there have been many examples of religions that, over
time, persistently shifted their baseline understanding of what they
believed in and, as a consequence, came to the point of schism. In our
time, the most immediate and outstanding example is the Anglican
Communion—a world-wide group of churches affiliated with the Church of
England.
Historically, Christianity has viewed the purpose of sex as being primarily for the sake of procreation, and Christians have consistently condemned contraception since the time of pre- Christian Rome. Up through 1908, the Anglican Communion was no exception. At the Lambeth conference of that year (their equivalent of our GBC meetings) their topmost bishops passed these resolutions:
> "The Conference regards with alarm the growing practice of the artificial
> restriction of the family, and earnestly calls upon all Christian people
> to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as
> demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare. The Conference
> affirms that deliberate tampering with nascent life is repugnant to
> Christian Morality." [22]
> At Lambeth twenty two years later, in 1930, the Communion passed a
> resolution that appreciably differed:
> "Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid
> parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary
> and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may
> be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power
> of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a
> clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there
> is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference
> agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the
> light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong
> condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives
> of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience." [24]
> For this resolution, the vote was 193 to 67, clearly a majority but
> certainly not unanimous. The hold-outs were more likely to have been older
> bishops who were around in 1908.
> Twenty-eight years later, at the 1958 Lambeth conference, the Communion by
> that time had turned a full “about face” away from its historical
> Christian view of contraception:
https://youtu.be/EkAaBDRtwB0 )
In any case, since that time from 2005 to 2007, I had tried to discuss our differences on gay mongamy, and the private conversations never went
anywhere, just like the ISKCON India leaders discussions with the GBC on
female diksa-gurus did not go anywhere. Maharaja never took my concerns
seriously no matter how politely presented. So, finally, in 2007 I published a public rebuttal to the Maharaja's on the Dandavats website. The fact that they published it means that some on the GBC were concerned about Maharaja's stance, but they were too weak to personally confront him about it, so, Praghosh Prabhu at the time allowed my paper to be published.
[PADA: They are mostly grabbing cash from the ISKCON cash cow and they do not want to disturb their business. That is why one of them said "I cannot address these problems because I have a career to maintain."]
The link to the Dandavats article and directly to my paper are here.
Dandavats article: http://www.dandavats.com/?p=2734
My paper:
http://www.dandavats.com/wp-content/uploads/response_to_gay_monogamy.pdf
There is some interesting discussion in the comments section at the Dandavats entry, too. In any case, in my own article there are a couple of things that have come to pass.
I had warned that the approach he had taken for his reasoning on gay mongamy would be used in other areas as well. The radical difference and incompatibility of these two statements [between the official GBC definition of illicit sex and Hridayananda Maharaja's definition] points to similarly radical and important differences in the way those who made these statements read and interpret scripture. Because Goswami’s approach can almost certainly be applied to a wide variety of issues besides that of homosexuality, the interpretive approach he used to reach his conclusion is more important than whether he came to the right
conclusion. Indeed, we have just witnessed his approach applied to the
circumstance of fallen householders, who of course are not homosexual.
This essay is therefore not so much concerned with the truth or falsity of Goswami’s ethical conclusions about homosexuality. Instead, it is primarily
concerned with the nature of his approach to understanding such issues. In
advocating gay monogamy, Hridayananda das Goswami employs a number of
interpretive strategies and rhetorical devices that cooperatively have the
effect of bypassing what could be reasonably considered Srila Prabhupada’s
consistent views of sexuality and homosexuality. This essay presents an
analysis of Goswami’s approach, examines its effects, and discusses how
that approach, if it becomes prominent, might affect ISKCON’s future.
(page 7)
And Maharaja himself has been behind much of the bad logic employed for
justifying female diksha gurus and which prominent ISKCON leaders
supporting it use. I can give many, many examples of how Maharaja has
adversely infected his colleagues, but that would be for another discussion.
Another thing that I wrote about in my 2007 paper has also come to pass,
ISKCON's top leadership over a period of decades abandoning their orthodoxy
for heterodoxy. In my paper, I wrote (beginning on page 15):
Throughout history there have been many examples of religions that, over
time, persistently shifted their baseline understanding of what they
believed in and, as a consequence, came to the point of schism. In our
time, the most immediate and outstanding example is the Anglican
Communion—a world-wide group of churches affiliated with the Church of
England.
Historically, Christianity has viewed the purpose of sex as being primarily for the sake of procreation, and Christians have consistently condemned contraception since the time of pre- Christian Rome. Up through 1908, the Anglican Communion was no exception. At the Lambeth conference of that year (their equivalent of our GBC meetings) their topmost bishops passed these resolutions:
> "The Conference regards with alarm the growing practice of the artificial
> restriction of the family, and earnestly calls upon all Christian people
> to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as
> demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare. The Conference
> affirms that deliberate tampering with nascent life is repugnant to
> Christian Morality." [22]
> At Lambeth twenty two years later, in 1930, the Communion passed a
> resolution that appreciably differed:
> "Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid
> parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary
> and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may
> be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power
> of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a
> clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there
> is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference
> agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the
> light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong
> condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives
> of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience." [24]
> For this resolution, the vote was 193 to 67, clearly a majority but
> certainly not unanimous. The hold-outs were more likely to have been older
> bishops who were around in 1908.
> Twenty-eight years later, at the 1958 Lambeth conference, the Communion by
> that time had turned a full “about face” away from its historical
> Christian view of contraception:
> "The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the
> number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences
> of parents everywhere; that this planning, in such ways as are mutually
> acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and
> important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of
> positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience
> to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources
> and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying
> population needs and problems of society and the claims of future
> generations." [25]
> Strong words like “deliberate tampering with nascent life,” of course, are
> no longer used. Rather, this statement employs fluffy euphemisms that are
> codes for the same. Later, the Communion in some of its world wide branches
> officially sanctioned abortion under terms similar to “positive choice
> before God.”
That's what I wrote in 2007, and since then our GBC has similarly shifted
their moral stance on a number of issues in much the same way.
One last thing about Hridayananda Maharaja I want to point out is Maharaja's current approach to understanding Srila Prabhupada. His approach in his 2005 paper on homosexuality has become mature and widespread within ISKCON, including even in the GBC's Shastric Advisory Council and their new and heterodox approach to Vedic hermeneutics. His 2020 paper is here:
https://www.hdgoswami.com/understanding-prabhupada-2/
Here is the fundamental defect in Hridayananda Maharaja's thinking. From
his 2020 paper Understanding Prabhupada, He says,
"Prabhupāda often claims that everything he says comes from guru and śāstra.
This is true only if Prabhupāda is referring to tattva and siddhānta, not otherwise."
But what Maharaja does not understand is the role of shishtacara is essential for understanding what is tattva and siddhanta, because the shastras declare it to be so. Manu 2.6 cites four sources of knowledge of dharma, and that is Vedas, smritis written by pure men who are thoroughly learned in the Veda, their sad achara and their preferences. Yajnavalka accepts these four and offers a fifth one, that is a desire to do something good and is not against the shastras (such as, "I will drink water only at meals").
Except for the Vedas, all of these sources of knowledge of dharma are human in origin. And the presumption that they are sources of Vedic knowledge is that it is *presumed* that such a learned and pure person will not do or say anything that is against the shastras. Hence, even on topics that are not mentioned in the shastras, the word of such shishtas (purified and learned men) are considered to be law. Otherwise, who is going to say whether or how cars or cell phones can be used in Krishna service or how to act in a situation not spoken of before in the shastras?
The problem Hridayananda Maharaja has is acutely seen in his 2005 paper on
homosexuality when he ignores SP's statements in SB 3.20.26, in which he
says that homosexuality is not for any sane man. Because Hridayananda
Maharaja ignores SP's statement on the plea that there is no equivalent
statement in the shastras, it means that he has rejected SP as a source of
knowedge of dharma, that Srila Prabhupada is NOT in fact a bona fide writer
of smriti shastra. But as per Manu and Yajnavalkya, those things written by
the shishtas are also Vedic evidence. As Aapastamba says in his dharma
sutras (1.2 - 3), dharmajna samayah pramana, vedas ca, that those who also
know dharma are also pramana, in addition to the Vedas.
The problem Hridayananda Maharaja has is acutely seen in his 2005 paper on
homosexuality when he ignores SP's statements in SB 3.20.26, in which he
says that homosexuality is not for any sane man. Because Hridayananda
Maharaja ignores SP's statement on the plea that there is no equivalent
statement in the shastras, it means that he has rejected SP as a source of
knowedge of dharma, that Srila Prabhupada is NOT in fact a bona fide writer
of smriti shastra. But as per Manu and Yajnavalkya, those things written by
the shishtas are also Vedic evidence. As Aapastamba says in his dharma
sutras (1.2 - 3), dharmajna samayah pramana, vedas ca, that those who also
know dharma are also pramana, in addition to the Vedas.
Hridayananda Maharaja does not accept this principle, and, unfortunately, many among the rest of our leadership also accept this erroneous undrstanding.
And finally, I want to say that you are spot on about how other Sampradayas
will react to ISKCON's embrace of female diksa-gurus. Here are the signed
letters of three ahcaryas / pundits in the Sri Sampradaya who are on record
as having reached out to the GBC about this. The GBC did not give them even
the courtesy of replying back to them, in any form.
https://www.akincana.net/2019/02/21/three-leading-sri-vaisnava-scholars-comment-on-iskcons-pending-female-diksa-guru-decision/
They will correctly observe that ISKCON has become a nashtika (heterodox)
institution and its followers no longer fit to call themselves followers of
the Vedas.
There is much more I can say about all of this, but I will save that for
future correspondence.
Once again, thank you for reaching out to us. Your plea is just further
confirmation that the rest of us are seeing things in the the right way.
Your servant, Krishna-kirti Das
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 4:48 AM Dr. Sameer Chaturvedi, USA <
chaturvediusadrsameer@gmail.com> wrote:
And finally, I want to say that you are spot on about how other Sampradayas
will react to ISKCON's embrace of female diksa-gurus. Here are the signed
letters of three ahcaryas / pundits in the Sri Sampradaya who are on record
as having reached out to the GBC about this. The GBC did not give them even
the courtesy of replying back to them, in any form.
https://www.akincana.net/2019/02/21/three-leading-sri-vaisnava-scholars-comment-on-iskcons-pending-female-diksa-guru-decision/
They will correctly observe that ISKCON has become a nashtika (heterodox)
institution and its followers no longer fit to call themselves followers of
the Vedas.
There is much more I can say about all of this, but I will save that for
future correspondence.
Once again, thank you for reaching out to us. Your plea is just further
confirmation that the rest of us are seeing things in the the right way.
Your servant, Krishna-kirti Das
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 4:48 AM Dr. Sameer Chaturvedi, USA <
chaturvediusadrsameer@gmail.com> wrote:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.