Now You See Them, Now You Don’t.
By Surya Nara dasa - New Zealand. Blunt Crayon Productions.
“When someone first contacts ISKCON, at least in most parts of the organization, for a few months he is encouraged to directly accept Srila Prabhupada as his guru. We suggest that once someone has done this, as evidenced by accepting Srila Prabhupada in his heart as his spiritual master and following Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, the newcomer does not need to search for another Vaishnava to connect him with Srila Prabhupada. The newcomer is already directly connected with Srila Prabhupada, who is his current link to the parampara.”
Dhira Govinda Das - Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link
I sent the above piece to a friend the other day who wrote back, “makes perfect sense.” Yes, either the Founder-Acarya is available to us or he’s not.
“Srila Prabhupada, the Founder-acarya of ISKCON, is forever manifested through his books, his murti, his teachings, ISKCON and the devotees who honestly represent his teachings.”
(GBC resolution, 1999).
If we’re told we must accept an Iskcon guru despite Srila Prabhupada being forever manifest to us through his books, murti, teachings and society, the GBC obviously believes His Divine Grace is somehow inadequate as a long term or complete guide, and that the ‘real deal’ is the Iskcon guru.
It’s implied that Srila Prabhupada’s presence is limited, and his capacity to shelter and guide us, temporary at best. He is not an absolute person in the sense of having the ability to be our guru in their opinion.
For the disciple whose Iskcon guru has fallen away, but who continues on in their practice with more determination, loyalty and sincerity than their fallen guru, the institutional pressure to accept yet another Iskcon guru contradicts the ideal that Srila Prabhupada is, in truth, available to them via any of the above criteria.
For those loyal to Srila Prabhupada, perhaps the only time their spiritual life was put into danger would have been at the hands of a malfunctioning Iskcon guru, further convincing them that shelter, guidance, spiritual education, advancement, inspiration and grace can be found in ample quantity through their direct connection to Srila Prabhupada. The fallen Iskcon guru failed to do what Srila Prabhupada does both pre and post Iskcon guru. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
[PADA: Right, when the Srila Prabhupada disciples are being banned, beaten, chased with baseball bats, sued, and even assassinated by the GBC's goonda program, clearly their lives are in danger from the malfunctioning GBC guru system.
For the disciple whose Iskcon guru has fallen away, but who continues on in their practice with more determination, loyalty and sincerity than their fallen guru, the institutional pressure to accept yet another Iskcon guru contradicts the ideal that Srila Prabhupada is, in truth, available to them via any of the above criteria.
For those loyal to Srila Prabhupada, perhaps the only time their spiritual life was put into danger would have been at the hands of a malfunctioning Iskcon guru, further convincing them that shelter, guidance, spiritual education, advancement, inspiration and grace can be found in ample quantity through their direct connection to Srila Prabhupada. The fallen Iskcon guru failed to do what Srila Prabhupada does both pre and post Iskcon guru. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
[PADA: Right, when the Srila Prabhupada disciples are being banned, beaten, chased with baseball bats, sued, and even assassinated by the GBC's goonda program, clearly their lives are in danger from the malfunctioning GBC guru system.
When I was in Los Angeles, the local police told me several times, "Hey you, don't be loitering around Watseka, don't you know -- these people want to kill you"?
Svavasa dasa -- and his pedophile worshiping goondas squad -- are always glaring at anyone who does not worship their child molester messiah's program, which we have had first hand experience. Very dangerous indeed.
Sulochan used to call them "the boot lickers for the butt busters" and that is why they had to kill him, just a few blocks away from Watseka. In other words, the GBC overall policy is to force people to worship their illicit sex with men, women and children guru program, and anyone who disagrees (like the Prabhupada devotees) can be banned, punished severely, threatened with death, even killed.]
In the past, disciples of fallen gurus who refused to take reinitiation, or the new bhakta who wished to remain under the shelter of Srila Prabhupada, were considered heretics. In 2018 in an online piece entitled, Taking Shelter of Srila Prabhupada and Re-initiation, Hridayananda Swami remarks:
“The GBC made things up as they went along since none of us had ever been in that situation before, and search as we might, we could not find many clear, explicit instructions on this situation (reinitiation), either in Shastra or from Prabhupada. There was no manual.”
Further evidences of GBC bewilderment and speculation around the guru issue:
“Whereas despite warnings by Pradyumna prabhu and others, for many years the Governing Body Commission, being weakened due to the Zonal Acarya DEVIATION, failed to correct these errors to the detriment of many Iskcon members.”
(GBC apology letter to Pradyumna Das, Resolutions 1999 - emphasis added).
”What we were trying to do you have to understand had never been done. It had just never been done,…..”
(Ravindra Svarupa Das, ISKCON Guru Reform lecture series, 1999).
(4) “The GBC acknowledges that this Body has since 1977 made changes in the manner in which initiations are carried out in ISKCON, is contemplating changes at present, and may well make changes in the future.”
(GBC Resolutions 1999).
“This contradiction could be resolved if the guru-authorization law were rewritten.”
Sastric Advisory Committee, 3 July 2005.
By 2012 the growing unpopularity of reinitiations forced the GBC to craft a new resolution: "If your Iskcon guru falls you’re now considered directly connected to Srila Prabhupada and the entire Vaishnava Parampara."
In the past, disciples of fallen gurus who refused to take reinitiation, or the new bhakta who wished to remain under the shelter of Srila Prabhupada, were considered heretics. In 2018 in an online piece entitled, Taking Shelter of Srila Prabhupada and Re-initiation, Hridayananda Swami remarks:
“The GBC made things up as they went along since none of us had ever been in that situation before, and search as we might, we could not find many clear, explicit instructions on this situation (reinitiation), either in Shastra or from Prabhupada. There was no manual.”
Further evidences of GBC bewilderment and speculation around the guru issue:
“Whereas despite warnings by Pradyumna prabhu and others, for many years the Governing Body Commission, being weakened due to the Zonal Acarya DEVIATION, failed to correct these errors to the detriment of many Iskcon members.”
(GBC apology letter to Pradyumna Das, Resolutions 1999 - emphasis added).
”What we were trying to do you have to understand had never been done. It had just never been done,…..”
(Ravindra Svarupa Das, ISKCON Guru Reform lecture series, 1999).
(4) “The GBC acknowledges that this Body has since 1977 made changes in the manner in which initiations are carried out in ISKCON, is contemplating changes at present, and may well make changes in the future.”
(GBC Resolutions 1999).
“This contradiction could be resolved if the guru-authorization law were rewritten.”
Sastric Advisory Committee, 3 July 2005.
By 2012 the growing unpopularity of reinitiations forced the GBC to craft a new resolution: "If your Iskcon guru falls you’re now considered directly connected to Srila Prabhupada and the entire Vaishnava Parampara."
Because they’re specifically speaking of a guru who has fallen away, the GBC clearly accept and acknowledge that the devotee who conducts the initiation ceremony connects the disciple directly to Srila Prabhupada regardless of whether the initiator remains in the disciple's life. Therefore the Iskcon guru has NO bearing on the direct spiritual connection between the disciple and Srila Prabhupada whatsoever.
[PADA: After Ramesvara blooped, and many people left with him. Badrinarayan then said -- we have to make the disciples as official property of ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada, so they won't leave when their guru does. Of course this was never implemented.]
"Those devotees initiated by Prabhavisnu Das continue to be connected to Srila Prabhupada and our entire Vaisnava parampara."
(GBC Resolution 311, 2012)
The GBC inform us that Srila Prabhupada was available to us before we were forced to accept an Iskcon guru *and* that Srila Prabhupada is available to us after that Iskcon guru falls away. By this logic it seems the Iskcon guru’s primary role is to block the sincere follower from Srila Prabhupada for a time, creating confusion in the disciple's heart, often while syphoning service and funds away from Srila Prabhupada and his mission.
With this ‘reversal of fortune’, the disciple quickly discovers that, with the fall of their Iskcon guru, doors magically reopen and full access to Srila Prabhupada is once again socially acceptable. The disciple may feel grateful for this gift ordained upon them by the divine decree of the all-powerful GBC.
[PADA: After Ramesvara blooped, and many people left with him. Badrinarayan then said -- we have to make the disciples as official property of ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada, so they won't leave when their guru does. Of course this was never implemented.]
"Those devotees initiated by Prabhavisnu Das continue to be connected to Srila Prabhupada and our entire Vaisnava parampara."
(GBC Resolution 311, 2012)
The GBC inform us that Srila Prabhupada was available to us before we were forced to accept an Iskcon guru *and* that Srila Prabhupada is available to us after that Iskcon guru falls away. By this logic it seems the Iskcon guru’s primary role is to block the sincere follower from Srila Prabhupada for a time, creating confusion in the disciple's heart, often while syphoning service and funds away from Srila Prabhupada and his mission.
With this ‘reversal of fortune’, the disciple quickly discovers that, with the fall of their Iskcon guru, doors magically reopen and full access to Srila Prabhupada is once again socially acceptable. The disciple may feel grateful for this gift ordained upon them by the divine decree of the all-powerful GBC.
However, hearing this bewildered logic, that one must simultaneously have an Iskcon guru to be connected to Srila Prabhupada -- while also being connected to Srila Prabhupada in the absence of an Iskcon guru -- the Penrose staircase of GBC Bureaucratic legislation -- some sincere followers might be forgiven if they avoid the Iskcon guru entirely, thus saving themselves much confusion and heartache in taking this long and unnecessary sojourn that so often leaves Iskcon disciples mental, physical, financial and spiritual health diminished. Sadly, some are so damaged by their Iskcon guru experience they don’t make it back to Srila Prabhupada at all!
[PADA: Some devotees have said that was the aim and object all along, to empty out the temples so they could make it into a Hindu deity showing business.]
Should they have been fortunate enough to survive, we can only assume that disciples of fallen Iskcon gurus can now live out the remainder of their days happy in the knowledge that, “My spiritual master is Srila Prabhupada and he, and he alone, connects me to the entire Vaishnava Parampara.”
[PADA: Some devotees have said that was the aim and object all along, to empty out the temples so they could make it into a Hindu deity showing business.]
Should they have been fortunate enough to survive, we can only assume that disciples of fallen Iskcon gurus can now live out the remainder of their days happy in the knowledge that, “My spiritual master is Srila Prabhupada and he, and he alone, connects me to the entire Vaishnava Parampara.”
[PADA: Fortunate enough to survive, wow, that is right. The GBC goonda program has made it very difficult for the devotees to survive, materially and spiritually.]
========================
by SND - New Zealand, Blunt Crayon Productions.
“One has to associate with liberated persons not directly, physically, but by understanding, through philosophy and logic, the problems of life.” (SB 3.31.48)
I wanted to begin this second piece on the guru question by thanking Bhakta Matt whose comments in my first article sparked some thought - provoking responses and helped us delve a little deeper. I felt Matt conveyed the mood of many devotees (but certainly not all) that I’ve encountered over the probably 20 years I’ve been researching and discussing the guru issue within and outside of Iskcon.
It’s unfortunately common to come up against this Quick Draw McGraw condemnation for one’s alleged “demonic offences" when discussing what the GBC readily admits was a failing that led to excesses and abuses, negatively impacting our movement (below is pretty much same as Jayadvaita swami's paper):
“Whereas despite warnings by Pradyumna Prabhu and others, for many years the Governing Body Commission, being weakened due to the Zonal Acarya deviation, failed to correct these errors to the detriment of many ISKCON members.
“And whereas, despite GBC Body efforts to correct the Zonal Acarya deviation as FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM surfaced and many of the Zonal Acaryas left ISKCON, our society CONTINUES TO BE AFFECTED by the misunderstandings of that system.
“Thus, the GBC Body, both individually and collectively, wishes to express its deepest apologies to, and beg the forgiveness of, the followers of Srila Prabhupada who were offended or hurt by our past decisions resulting in the EXCESSES AND ABUSES of the zonal acarya system and its ONGOING RAMIFICATIONS." [Emphasis mine]
(GBC Resolutions, 1999)
[PADA: 1999, was the same year when we were involved in the $400,000,000 child molesting lawsuit against the GBC. They knew they were in trouble at that stage.]
“Whereas despite warnings by Pradyumna Prabhu and others, for many years the Governing Body Commission, being weakened due to the Zonal Acarya deviation, failed to correct these errors to the detriment of many ISKCON members.
“And whereas, despite GBC Body efforts to correct the Zonal Acarya deviation as FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM surfaced and many of the Zonal Acaryas left ISKCON, our society CONTINUES TO BE AFFECTED by the misunderstandings of that system.
“Thus, the GBC Body, both individually and collectively, wishes to express its deepest apologies to, and beg the forgiveness of, the followers of Srila Prabhupada who were offended or hurt by our past decisions resulting in the EXCESSES AND ABUSES of the zonal acarya system and its ONGOING RAMIFICATIONS." [Emphasis mine]
(GBC Resolutions, 1999)
[PADA: 1999, was the same year when we were involved in the $400,000,000 child molesting lawsuit against the GBC. They knew they were in trouble at that stage.]
The ramifications of this serious mistake that changed the geopolitical guruscape after Srila Prabhupada’s departure continue to reverberate still. The GBC concede they committed offences against Pradyumna Prabhu and the many Godbrothers and Godsisters who spoke up against that unlawful takeover, and that the noise generated from their aggressive response drowned out the good advice being offered.
Right was defeated by wrong. And yet in spite of this fairly recent, known history, we find that to question the current system, which is almost a mirror image of its precursor, is to experience a similar reflection of attitudes, prejudices, retaliatory ad hominem attacks, and that familiar hierarchical distain and disregard that forced the GBC to fall on their sword and issue humbled apologies in the first place!
In a sense, the GBC confession almost lulls one into a false sense of security, thinking we could have a softer, more mature and open Governing Body that has learned from its past mistakes.
[PADA: Narcissistic psychopathic people are expert at fake apologies and making themselves look like the victims.]
A creeping intuition haunts our society as devotees search the rationale behind statements like this, penned by one of the architects of post-zonal guru legislation:
”What we were trying to do now you have to understand had never been done. It had just never been done…
“How to do it? To me the only way you can do it is to try this, and if that doesn’t work try this….. until you finally find what works out…. I DON’T THINK IT’S NOT BONAFIDE.” [Emphasis mine]
(Ravindra Svarupa Das, Issues in ISKCON Guru Reform lecture, 1999.)
(The reader may wonder if perhaps, in their mood of experimentation, they could have maybe tried the system Srila Prabhupada put in place. I mean you're trying stuff right? Why not Jam Today?)
It’s also interesting to note how some members of Iskcon who seem more than willing to speak up strongly against their countries' governmental overreach in responding to the global pandemic, remain silent or even take an ‘anti-challenge’ stance in regards to the governance and laws within their own global devotee community. Conditioning and fear instilled by leadership in any environment is unhealthy, and bannings and excommunications don’t necessarily make a problem go away.
[PADA: Yep, we also have the Sanat / Mukunda / Prahlad / HKC Jaipur guys sending me links to their site stating "we need to take down the globalist Zionist banking system." Oh great, they cannot remove a full-on predator deviant from sitting in a big seat in their own church, and they are going to remove the world's bankers from their seats.
”What we were trying to do now you have to understand had never been done. It had just never been done…
“How to do it? To me the only way you can do it is to try this, and if that doesn’t work try this….. until you finally find what works out…. I DON’T THINK IT’S NOT BONAFIDE.” [Emphasis mine]
(Ravindra Svarupa Das, Issues in ISKCON Guru Reform lecture, 1999.)
(The reader may wonder if perhaps, in their mood of experimentation, they could have maybe tried the system Srila Prabhupada put in place. I mean you're trying stuff right? Why not Jam Today?)
It’s also interesting to note how some members of Iskcon who seem more than willing to speak up strongly against their countries' governmental overreach in responding to the global pandemic, remain silent or even take an ‘anti-challenge’ stance in regards to the governance and laws within their own global devotee community. Conditioning and fear instilled by leadership in any environment is unhealthy, and bannings and excommunications don’t necessarily make a problem go away.
[PADA: Yep, we also have the Sanat / Mukunda / Prahlad / HKC Jaipur guys sending me links to their site stating "we need to take down the globalist Zionist banking system." Oh great, they cannot remove a full-on predator deviant from sitting in a big seat in their own church, and they are going to remove the world's bankers from their seats.
Legends in their own minds. It is a diversion so they can feel self-important, while doing nothing to actually help. Worse, most people think their Hitler-anuga program is meant to discredit Krishna. All sorts of people complain to me about these guys all the time.
They think their idea is great, but Srila Prabhupada says the Hitler-anugas are worshiping bodily identity dog consciousness. Even one karmi woman wrote on their forum, "you people are more bodily identified than me." And how did you guess, they promoted Radhanath's cheer leaders as a means of "defeating PADA." So they are also promoting the pedophile messiah's program. Same thing, they would rather have people promote the worship of pedophiles or mundane WW II leaders -- than Srila Prabhupada.]
Another pushback we often hear is that this stuff happened long ago, or as Bhakta Matt expressed it, “it’s old and flogged” and “a waste of time.” The often held belief is that our GBC men have steadied the ship and so there’s no need for the common foot soldier to go digging around in the past. Or as Dhira Govinda prabhu writes (and I’m paraphrasing), “The GBC tell you they’ve done the thinking for you, so no need for any further thought.”
Another pushback we often hear is that this stuff happened long ago, or as Bhakta Matt expressed it, “it’s old and flogged” and “a waste of time.” The often held belief is that our GBC men have steadied the ship and so there’s no need for the common foot soldier to go digging around in the past. Or as Dhira Govinda prabhu writes (and I’m paraphrasing), “The GBC tell you they’ve done the thinking for you, so no need for any further thought.”
It’s Iskcon’s very own cat-in-a-basket. No one’s exactly sure how it came into being but only that it must be ‘true’, right? And so it’s implied, sometimes not so sublty, that those who passively go along with the status quo are the good devotees…. and then there’s the rest of us.
While I understand that it’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea to get their head into this subject, it’s also true that not everyone who studies the historical evidence in an objective way will be automatically, by default, anti-Iskcon, nor perhaps the keeper of unruly elephants.
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness should not be an oligarchy or totalitarian rule (obviously), and no one should have to fear being shamed into silence for speaking their truth or respectfully questioning the leadership. What happened to Pradyumna prabhu and others you’d think would have taught us something.
While I understand that it’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea to get their head into this subject, it’s also true that not everyone who studies the historical evidence in an objective way will be automatically, by default, anti-Iskcon, nor perhaps the keeper of unruly elephants.
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness should not be an oligarchy or totalitarian rule (obviously), and no one should have to fear being shamed into silence for speaking their truth or respectfully questioning the leadership. What happened to Pradyumna prabhu and others you’d think would have taught us something.
It is possible that rather than wanting to simply burn the house down with everyone inside, the motive driving open inquiry and discussion is born of a collective love and sense of gratitude for His Divine Grace, and a desire to see his legacy preserved. As to whether such discussions are pleasing to Krishna, that’s probably best left up to Him to decide.
———
It is my opinion that the movement operates a confusing system wherein the Iskcon guru is held aloft as absolutely essential *and* unceremoniously dispensed with when required. The sudden demise of the guy you worshipped as the transparent via medium just yesterday qualifies you to be directly connected to Srila Prabhupada today! A strange dichotomy. As someone put it almost too simply the other day, “So why bother with an Iskcon guru at all?” Fair question.
“That disciples of a suspended guru when offering bhoga to the deities must offer through Srila Prabhupada to the disciplic succession.
“That disciples of a suspended guru while performing arotik to the Deities should offer the various articles through Srila Prabhupada to the disciples succession.”
(GBC Resolution, 1987)
In the GBC’s estimation, Srila Prabhupada is available if and when they place your Iskcon guru into a state of suspended animation. We wonder what would happen if the entire Iskcon guru system was suspended and seasoned devotees in good standing were handed the service of connecting aspiring disciples to Srila Prabhupada? Isn’t a genuine follower at least as qualified as a pretender guru who later falls down? The 1987 Resolution is like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
“The GBC Body hereby accepts the following statement of principles:
1. The Founder-Acarya
“Because of his position as that personality empowered by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to fulfill His divine prophecy that Krishna consciousness be spread throughout the world, Srila Prabhupada is given unique and exceptional worship and respect….
“His books, instructions and legacy (tapes, etc.) are promoted worldwide as the primary treasure of the Society, while the contributions of other Vaisnavas are all subservient to his.”
(GBC Resolutions, 1999)
After sidelining our Founder-Acarya for so long, GBC efforts to bring more clarity to Srila Prabhupada’s position and status actually run the risk of waking the giant as they unwittingly stoke the fire of skepticism and our thirst for truth. The more they describe the qualities of, and accessibility to, His Divine Grace, the more convinced we might feel that Srila Prabhupada is enough to shelter, inspire, and guide us back to Godhead.
“Thus it is the duty of the ācārya to publish books that will help future candidates take up the method of service and become eligible to return home, back to Godhead, by the mercy of the Lord.”
(SB 10.2.31, purport)
The GBC appear to be walking a fine line of ‘talking Prabhupada up - but not too much.’ The deeper any of us dive into the bonafides and origins of the current Iskcon guru system, the more we may experience a growing sense of uneasiness. This feeling not helped by the GBC’s default mandate following each successive guru failure and system malfunction.
“All initiated disciples are requested to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and organization, to remain faithful in ISKCON…. They should not worship Harikesa Das, take siksa from him, or follow his order.”
(GBC Resolutions 1999)
If a fraudulent guru who spiritually abuses his disciples and discredits the movement can still be considered to have connected the sincere to Srila Prabhupada, then isn’t the current system simply an unreliable, and at times destructive distortion of the perfect method Srila Prabhupada established in the early 1970s? And most importantly for those of us who have experienced the betrayal of a so-called guru, “no devotees were harmed in the making of the A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami system!”
———
It is my opinion that the movement operates a confusing system wherein the Iskcon guru is held aloft as absolutely essential *and* unceremoniously dispensed with when required. The sudden demise of the guy you worshipped as the transparent via medium just yesterday qualifies you to be directly connected to Srila Prabhupada today! A strange dichotomy. As someone put it almost too simply the other day, “So why bother with an Iskcon guru at all?” Fair question.
“That disciples of a suspended guru when offering bhoga to the deities must offer through Srila Prabhupada to the disciplic succession.
“That disciples of a suspended guru while performing arotik to the Deities should offer the various articles through Srila Prabhupada to the disciples succession.”
(GBC Resolution, 1987)
In the GBC’s estimation, Srila Prabhupada is available if and when they place your Iskcon guru into a state of suspended animation. We wonder what would happen if the entire Iskcon guru system was suspended and seasoned devotees in good standing were handed the service of connecting aspiring disciples to Srila Prabhupada? Isn’t a genuine follower at least as qualified as a pretender guru who later falls down? The 1987 Resolution is like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
“The GBC Body hereby accepts the following statement of principles:
1. The Founder-Acarya
“Because of his position as that personality empowered by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to fulfill His divine prophecy that Krishna consciousness be spread throughout the world, Srila Prabhupada is given unique and exceptional worship and respect….
“His books, instructions and legacy (tapes, etc.) are promoted worldwide as the primary treasure of the Society, while the contributions of other Vaisnavas are all subservient to his.”
(GBC Resolutions, 1999)
After sidelining our Founder-Acarya for so long, GBC efforts to bring more clarity to Srila Prabhupada’s position and status actually run the risk of waking the giant as they unwittingly stoke the fire of skepticism and our thirst for truth. The more they describe the qualities of, and accessibility to, His Divine Grace, the more convinced we might feel that Srila Prabhupada is enough to shelter, inspire, and guide us back to Godhead.
“Thus it is the duty of the ācārya to publish books that will help future candidates take up the method of service and become eligible to return home, back to Godhead, by the mercy of the Lord.”
(SB 10.2.31, purport)
The GBC appear to be walking a fine line of ‘talking Prabhupada up - but not too much.’ The deeper any of us dive into the bonafides and origins of the current Iskcon guru system, the more we may experience a growing sense of uneasiness. This feeling not helped by the GBC’s default mandate following each successive guru failure and system malfunction.
“All initiated disciples are requested to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and organization, to remain faithful in ISKCON…. They should not worship Harikesa Das, take siksa from him, or follow his order.”
(GBC Resolutions 1999)
If a fraudulent guru who spiritually abuses his disciples and discredits the movement can still be considered to have connected the sincere to Srila Prabhupada, then isn’t the current system simply an unreliable, and at times destructive distortion of the perfect method Srila Prabhupada established in the early 1970s? And most importantly for those of us who have experienced the betrayal of a so-called guru, “no devotees were harmed in the making of the A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami system!”
A recent poll showed that 0% of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples had experienced their guru fall down and abandon them. As the old saying goes, sometimes it’s better to leave well enough alone.
“Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.”
(Sri-Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya 4.111 purport)
I agree with Dhira Govinda Prabhu who writes with clarity,
“So, for one who most primarily, directly and personally receives transcendental, transformational divya-jnan, knowledge, from Srila Prabhupada- well, then, Srila Prabhupada is their direct and current link to Sri Krsna’s disciplic succession. I don’t really see any substance to the stance that Srila Prabhupada isn’t giving divya-jnana, regardless of when someone came to his movement.”
Another argument we often hear is that nowadays you can’t write a letter to Srila Prabhupada asking him to accept you. We’re told we can’t be directly connected to His Divine Grace because he can’t write back in acceptance. But by this logic, neither can the GBC write to His Divine Grace asking him to assume that responsibility when one of their approved gurus falls.
“Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.”
(Sri-Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya 4.111 purport)
I agree with Dhira Govinda Prabhu who writes with clarity,
“So, for one who most primarily, directly and personally receives transcendental, transformational divya-jnan, knowledge, from Srila Prabhupada- well, then, Srila Prabhupada is their direct and current link to Sri Krsna’s disciplic succession. I don’t really see any substance to the stance that Srila Prabhupada isn’t giving divya-jnana, regardless of when someone came to his movement.”
Another argument we often hear is that nowadays you can’t write a letter to Srila Prabhupada asking him to accept you. We’re told we can’t be directly connected to His Divine Grace because he can’t write back in acceptance. But by this logic, neither can the GBC write to His Divine Grace asking him to assume that responsibility when one of their approved gurus falls.
And yet they assure us we’re connected; no letter required! In fact, while we’re on the subject, neither could the GBC write Srila Prabhupada to get clearance and approval for their Zonal Acarya / Guru Reform legislative conjurings.
So if the GBC feel they have the supreme authority to sanction a dishonest man to connect someone to Srila Prabhupada, then why not authorise and empower regular devotees in good standing who have no interest in playing make-believe to act as officiating acaryas? At least Srila Prabhupada signed off on that system. And it seems a lot less messy than this post-1977 creature.
“They shall, of course, still be considered as my disciples, not that they shall become your disciples, but you will be empowered by me to chant their beads and that is the same effect of binding master and disciple as if I were personally chanting."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, January 4th, 1973).
If you wade through the years and reams of shifting GBC rules, laws and resolutions re: falling, half-fallen, fallen, and outright demoniac gurus, alongside their ongoing confusion around how to deal with the thousands of unfortunate disenfranchised disciples, you’ll realise you’ve never read any of this overly complicated stuff in Prabhupada’s books.
“So there is nothing to be said new. Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken in my books. Now you try to understand it and continue your endeavor. Whether I am present or not present, it doesn’t matter.” (Arrival Speech – May 17, 1977, Vrndavana)
By following the Bhaktivedanta Swami system, aspiring disciples would be solidly connected, thus swelling the Iskcon ranks under one unifying master who will never cheat, steal, lie, hurt, or decimate anyone's spiritual life. Iskcon would have a spiritual master who draws people in, not drives them away. The system would also dispense with the need for our GBC to agonise over suspensions, sanctions or sackings, in playing favourites, or in engaging in desperate cover-ups. Every new member would be protected from the shady dealings of exploitative charlatans we now know can dwell within our ranks.
And, those acting as initiators would be protected from themselves, and from the dangers of being victimised by the excesses and abuses that have hounded unqualified Iskcon gurus since the systems inception.
“As far as my blessing is concerned it does not require my physical presence. If you are chanting Hare Krishna there and following my instructions, reading the books, taking only Krsna prasadam etc., then there is no question of your not receiving the blessings of Lord Caitanya whose mission I am humbly trying to push on.”
Your ever well-wisher,
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.
(Letter to Bal Krishna- Melbourne 30 June, 1974).
*Title courtesy of Lewis Carroll,
from "Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There"
So if the GBC feel they have the supreme authority to sanction a dishonest man to connect someone to Srila Prabhupada, then why not authorise and empower regular devotees in good standing who have no interest in playing make-believe to act as officiating acaryas? At least Srila Prabhupada signed off on that system. And it seems a lot less messy than this post-1977 creature.
“They shall, of course, still be considered as my disciples, not that they shall become your disciples, but you will be empowered by me to chant their beads and that is the same effect of binding master and disciple as if I were personally chanting."
(Srila Prabhupada Letter, January 4th, 1973).
If you wade through the years and reams of shifting GBC rules, laws and resolutions re: falling, half-fallen, fallen, and outright demoniac gurus, alongside their ongoing confusion around how to deal with the thousands of unfortunate disenfranchised disciples, you’ll realise you’ve never read any of this overly complicated stuff in Prabhupada’s books.
“So there is nothing to be said new. Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken in my books. Now you try to understand it and continue your endeavor. Whether I am present or not present, it doesn’t matter.” (Arrival Speech – May 17, 1977, Vrndavana)
By following the Bhaktivedanta Swami system, aspiring disciples would be solidly connected, thus swelling the Iskcon ranks under one unifying master who will never cheat, steal, lie, hurt, or decimate anyone's spiritual life. Iskcon would have a spiritual master who draws people in, not drives them away. The system would also dispense with the need for our GBC to agonise over suspensions, sanctions or sackings, in playing favourites, or in engaging in desperate cover-ups. Every new member would be protected from the shady dealings of exploitative charlatans we now know can dwell within our ranks.
And, those acting as initiators would be protected from themselves, and from the dangers of being victimised by the excesses and abuses that have hounded unqualified Iskcon gurus since the systems inception.
“As far as my blessing is concerned it does not require my physical presence. If you are chanting Hare Krishna there and following my instructions, reading the books, taking only Krsna prasadam etc., then there is no question of your not receiving the blessings of Lord Caitanya whose mission I am humbly trying to push on.”
Your ever well-wisher,
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.
(Letter to Bal Krishna- Melbourne 30 June, 1974).
*Title courtesy of Lewis Carroll,
from "Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There"
[PADA: A devotee summed up their general policy: anyone can be guru as long as it is not Srila Prabhupada. We can worship Jayatirtha, Bhavananda, Sridhara Maharaja, Narayan Maharaja, babajis, Kirtanananda in a samadhi, or anyone else, but not Srila Prabhupada. Mahanidhi for example is now preaching that there are many Gaudiya Missions with many different gurus and anyone can go there for shelter. Yep, anywhere, except Srila Prabhupada. They are clearly envious of Srila Prabhupada and they do not want him to be established as the guru for everyone. ys pd]
Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (1975 edition)» Ādi-līlā » Chapter 1 » Text 46:
ācāryaṁ māṁ vijānīyān
nāvamanyeta karhicit
na martya-buddhyāsūyeta
sarva-deva-mayo guruḥ
Synonyms
ācāryam—the spiritual master; mām—Myself; vijānīyāt—one should know; na avamanyeta—one should never disrespect; karhicit—at any time; na—never; martya-buddhyā—with the idea of his being an ordinary man; asūyeta—one should be envious; sarva-deva—of all demigods; mayaḥ—representative; guruḥ—the spiritual master.
Translation
“One should know the ācārya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods.”
Purport
This is a verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.17.27) spoken by Lord Kṛṣṇa when He was questioned by Uddhava regarding the four social and spiritual orders of society. He was specifically instructing how a brahmacārī should behave under the care of a spiritual master. A spiritual master is not an enjoyer of facilities offered by his disciples. He is like a parent. Without the attentive service of his parents, a child cannot grow to manhood; similarly, without the care of the spiritual master one cannot rise to the plane of transcendental service.
The spiritual master is also called ācārya, or a transcendental professor of spiritual science. The Manu-saṁhitā (2.140) explains the duties of an ācārya, describing that a bona fide spiritual master accepts charge of disciples, teaches them the Vedic knowledge with all its intricacies, and gives them their second birth. The ceremony performed to initiate a disciple into the study of spiritual science is called upanīti, or the function that brings one nearer to the spiritual master.
One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a śūdra. The sacred thread on the body of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya is a symbol of initiation by the spiritual master; it is worth nothing if worn merely to boast of high parentage. The duty of the spiritual master is to initiate a disciple with the sacred thread ceremony, and after this saṁskāra, or purificatory process, the spiritual master actually begins to teach the disciple about the Vedas. A person born a śūdra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a disciple the right to be a brāhmaṇa if he finds him perfectly qualified.
In the Vāyu Purāṇa an ācārya is defined as one who knows the import of all Vedic literature, explains the purpose of the Vedas, abides by their rules and regulations, and teaches his disciples to act in the same way.
Only out of His immense compassion does the Personality of Godhead reveal Himself as the spiritual master. Therefore in the dealings of an ācārya there are no activities but those of transcendental loving service to the Lord. He is the Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead. It is worthwhile to take shelter of such a steady devotee, who is called āśraya-vigraha, or the manifestation or form of the Lord of whom one must take shelter.
If one poses himself as an ācārya but does not have an attitude of servitorship to the Lord, he must be considered an offender, and this offensive attitude disqualifies him from being an ācārya. The bona fide spiritual master always engages in unalloyed devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
By this test he is known to be a direct manifestation of the Lord and a genuine representative of Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu. Such a spiritual master is known as ācāryadeva. Influenced by an envious temperament and dissatisfied because of an attitude of sense gratification, mundaners criticize a real ācārya. In fact, however, a bona fide ācārya is nondifferent from the Personality of Godhead, and therefore to envy such an ācārya is to envy the Personality of Godhead Himself. This will produce an effect subversive of transcendental realization.
As mentioned previously, a disciple should always respect the spiritual master as a manifestation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, but at the same time one should always remember that a spiritual master is never authorized to imitate the transcendental pastimes of the Lord. False spiritual masters pose themselves as identical with Śrī Kṛṣṇa in every respect to exploit the sentiments of their disciples, but such impersonalists can only mislead their disciples, for their ultimate aim is to become one with the Lord. This is against the principles of the devotional cult.
The real Vedic philosophy is acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, which establishes everything to be simultaneously one with and different from the Personality of Godhead. Śrīla Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī confirms that this is the real position of a bona fide spiritual master and says that one should always think of the spiritual master in terms of his intimate relationship with Mukunda (Śrī Kṛṣṇa). Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, in his Bhakti-sandarbha (213), has clearly defined that a pure devotee’s observation of the spiritual master and Lord Śiva as one with the Personality of Godhead exists in terms of their being very dear to the Lord, not identical with Him in all respects.
Following in the footsteps of Śrīla Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī and Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, later ācāryas like Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura have confirmed the same truths. In his prayers to the spiritual master, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura confirms that all the revealed scriptures accept the spiritual master to be identical with the Personality of Godhead because he is a very dear and confidential servant of the Lord. Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas therefore worship Śrīla Gurudeva (the spiritual master) in the light of his being the servitor of the Personality of Godhead.
In all the ancient scriptures of devotional service and in the more recent songs of Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and other unalloyed Vaiṣṇavas, the spiritual master is always considered either one of the confidential associates of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī or a manifested representation of Śrīla
Nityānanda Prabhu.
[Synonyms,Translation and Purport by His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta swami Prabhupada reproduced herein by this
menial servant.]
menial servant.]
A GURU WHO IS A CONDITIONED SOUL MUST BE GIVEN UP :
ReplyDelete"One should not submit to a degree that would allow a (guru-) rascal to harm you. It is inexplicable how such "gurus," who openly live in sin, manage to retain unconditional devotion from a portion of their disciples!
So, can we blame someone who hesitates to submit unconditionally to a guru-whether the guru is good or bad? Of course, one must be absolutely certain of a person's truthfulness before even conditionally accepting him or her as one's spiritual director. A mentor must be a person who possesses the qualities that will improve our spiritual condition.
A good mentor will require our sincere and complete faithfulness. In turn, a good disciple will surrender completely in the footsteps of his mentor. However, such submission on the part of the disciple must be neither irrational nor blind. It will be complete only if the mentor himself remains perfect. The disciple retains the right to abandon his loyalty to the preceptor if he suddenly becomes convinced that the preceptor is a conditioned person like him. A good preceptor, in turn, is also obliged to reject a disciple who is not sincere in his desire to follow his precepts."
―Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. December 1928. Sajjana Toshani, Vol. 26, № 7, 1928г.