Uniting Prabhupadanugas / ISKCON History Project / Gopal K / Gaudiya Matha Influence

 

Radha and Krishna

Art by PADA

Uniting Prabhupadanugas

PADA: Well thanks prabhu. We should unite the Prabhupadanugas and I am evidently not always helping that effort. Well great! For starters, when we first wrote papers in the early 1980s we said -- this paper was penned by "The Prabhupadanugas." There were no other Prabhupadanugas at the time, it was just me writing things by myself at the outset. 

So I am the person who coined and originated using the term "Prabhupadanugas." That means, other people have simply hi-jacked my coined and originated title, hee hee. If other people calling themselves Prabhupadanugas want to cooperate with the person who first used the title, then they need to cooperate with our group. 

Meanwhile, I am not going to cooperate with people promoting folks like Bhakta das, and his saint Radhanath, or others who are against the ritviks, and who are thus not Prabhupadanugas. Everyone has to agree to certain points to be considered as a Prabhupadanuga. 

And we already have hundreds, maybe thousands, who do agree with our main points already. So the people who complain I am not cooperating with the "Prabhupadanugas," first of all -- hi-jacked the title we originated. And they have to be following our original principles, siddhanta and aim and object of the original Prabhupadanuga process -- if they expect my cooperation. 

But if they are hi-jacking the title we coined and originated -- and they are claiming I am not a Prabhupadanuga, they are not making much sense from square one. I am the originator of the use of the term and title "Prabhupadanugas" from square one, no one else was using it at the time, at least that I heard of. 

Of course, anyone else is welcome to use that title, it is certainly not my copyright, but to say they are the original Prabhupadanugas -- and we are not -- is -- fake news. "We hi-jacked the title and now we claim it is ours." Well good luck with that pardner! 

Same thing with the title of "ISKCON." Thousands and thousands of people now use the ISKCON title, but hardly any of them are following the principles, aim and object, and siddhanta of the actual ISKCON. Having a title does not mean a person is qualified to use it. 

ys pd angel108b@yahoo.com    

===============

ISKCON History Project | Bolo Hari

PADA: The "history of ISKCON project" does not seem to have any interest in our PADA version of the history. There will be competing versions fighting for the legacy. I think the official ISKCON version is collapsing and disintegrating, and unfortunately these above folks are apparently using official GBC version more than ours. Initiated by Harikesh, oh oh. In any case, our version [Srila Prabhupada should have been continued as the sole acharya for ISKCON, and not a bunch of mini-me / acharya wanna be's] is being accepted more and more and we will win in the end. ys pd

angel108b@yahoo.com

====== 

PADA: Thanks prabhu for the question about Ekayani, Gopal's ex-wife. She wrote horrible things about her encounters with him, including that he tried to toss a heavy wooden chair at her belly when she was pregnant with her son. She said he was not giving her supplies, and he supposedly also said he would not mind if she got an abortion etc. Yep, horror story. Should not have been made a guru, no kidding. Kirtanananda did not call him "Goofball Krishna" for no good reason, they knew he was a goof and not a resident of Krishna loka.  

GOPAL KRISHNA : The "Indian Guru"

The emergence of the current some 80-odd ISKCON 'Gurus' came about due to a two-part process. First the '11 zonal acaryas' appointed themselves as Gurus in 1978. Then in 1986, a new system was evolved whereby any Srila Prabhupada disciple could become a Guru provided they received a majority vote from the GBC. 

This then led to the creation of dozens more Gurus over the years. What is forgotten is that there is an elite group which does not fall into either of these categories. In 1982, a new system was made up whereby any GBC member could also be made a Guru providing they got the votes of at least 3/4 of the GBC. This one-off system was especially created to accommodate one person, Gopal Krishna Maharaja, who insisted that some 'Indian' Gurus also be made.

The appropriate GBC resolutions are given below:

That all GBC be nominated as candidates to become initiating Gurus with the requirement that they receive the blessings of 3/4 (three fourths) of the GBC members present to begin their initiating role. There after the individual GBC men who are initiating will be responsible for recommending new candidates for initiating Guru from the godbrothers within their zone. 

These names must then receive the blessings of 3/4 (three fourths) of the majority of the GBC present at the annual meeting for them to begin their initiating roles. The GBC shall prepare a paper elaborating this proposal

The following GBC members will take on the responsibilities of initiating Guru :

1. His Holiness Pancadravida Swami.

2. His Holiness Bhakti Swarup Damodar Swami.

3. His Holiness Gopal Krsna Goswami.

(1982, February 27th, GBC Resolutions 1 & 2)

Please note that apart from the 3 individuals mentioned, no other Gurus were ever made under this system.

Thus Gopal Krsna Maharaja is one of only 3 individuals who became a Guru by receiving a majority of his votes from the then current 11 'zonal acaryas'.

=================

BTG MAGAZINE ANNOUNCES THE NEW GURUS

The first 1978 BTG announced the new gurus in just six lines, and did so without offering any details or evidence from Srila Prabhupada’s letters, directives, or tapes (such as the May 28 talks or July 9 Order):

“During his last months in this world, Srila Prabhupada selected eleven senior disciples to act as initiating gurus who could accept disciples after his disappearance. Thus, now that His Divine Grace has left us and gone to the eternal, spiritual world of Krishna, there shall be not just one leader but numerous gurus to carry on this tradition.” (p36)

Of course, this was the biggest lie ever. Srila Prabhupada only appointed ritvik representatives. Later the GBC even had to admit they lied, and they publicly apologized in 1999 for the harm they had caused to devotees and the society. But, in admitting their lie, they had already modified the lie, claiming that Srila Prabhupada had given the GBC absolute managerial and spiritual authority to do as they felt necessary, and in 1987 they created an unprecedented vote-approval system for falsely authorizing initiating gurus (a new hoax). 

And the illegal original zonals that remained (5 only) were left with their ill-gotten guruship positions and went completely unpunished for their hijacking in 1978.

OBVIOUS QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT THE GURU APPOINTMENTS

After the Mar. 24, 1978 GBC announcement of successor acharyas, many doubts plagued some independent-thinking devotees:

(1) Why was the so-called guru selection or 'appointment' not announced by Srila Prabhupada himself during his manifest presence?

(2) Why did the GBC or the eleven “appointees” not announce publicly the appointment of gurus before Srila Prabhupada departed in Nov. 1977, or at least immediately afterwards, and why did they wait until the end of March 1978, remaining silent for over 4 months?

(3) Did the GBC wait until after Srila Prabhupada's departure so they would not be corrected by Srila Prabhupada?

(4) Why has this whole issue of Guru appointment and future initiations never been fully and thoroughly investigated by independent brahmanas or openly discussed in the devotee society?

(5) Why was no evidence from letters or tapes (or May 28, July 9) given to support their claim of appointed successor acharyas?

“Once they disobeyed their spiritual master’s instructions and embarked on the zonal-acharya diksha-guru course, they became lost in uncharted and unfamiliar waters. A catastrophic shipwreck was inevitable.” (Eleven Naked Emperors, Doktorski, p. 59)

As Gurukripa das asked: “If Srila Prabhupada had appointed these eleven as spiritual masters, why did they not start initiating at once? Because they all knew very well they were never appointed!”

BEGINNING OF CONTRADICTIONS AND ANOMALIES (see Ch. 10)

Thus BTG Vol. #13 No. 1/2 initiated an era of constant and complicating doctrinal and philosophical contradictions by the ISKCON GBC, which persist to the present day, many decades later. This BTG curiously contradicted their own announcement of Srila Prabhupada’s appointment of new gurus by simultaneously quoting Srila Prabhupada from late 1977: “It’s not that I’ll give an order: ‘Here is the next leader,’ Anyone who follows the previous leadership is a leader.”

So how did Srila Prabhupada appoint eleven successors and also say he did not choose the next leaders? The truth is that Srila Prabhupada actually did not appoint any successor gurus to initiate after his departure. Yet, BTG claims that Srila Prabhupada did appoint them as initiating gurus. From 1978 and on, ISKCON has continuously made conflicting statements on the guru and initiation issues, with inconsistencies and speculations, often retracting or revising positions, or never even explaining or justifying them. The anomalies have formed multiple layers, reaching levels of absurdity (see Vol. 6). 

=================

PADA: Yep. We should never have worshiped conditioned souls as acharyas, as they did in the Gaudiya Matha. That is right on. Unfortunately, Rupanuga was a big supporter of the false 11 gurus, who all ran off to the Gaudiya Math in 19878. ys pd

ESSAY (www.rupanugadas.com)

“The history of all the trials and tribulations instigated by his Godbrothers will not be lost in the annals of time. Srila Prabhupada immortalized the true story in his letters, lectures and purports, indelible shastra, for everyone's education. He set the record straight for future followers and readers. For ex., he writes:

‘Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami, at the time of his passing away, ordered all of his disciples to work conjointly to preach the mission of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu all over the world. Later, however, some self-interested, foolish disciples disobeyed his orders. Each one of them wanted to become head of the mission, and they fought in the courts, neglecting the order of the spiritual master, and the entire mission was defeated. We are not proud of this; however, the truth must be explained. We believed in the words of our spiritual master and started in a humble way --in a helpless way --but due to the spiritual force of the order of the supreme authority, this movement has become successful." (CC Adi 7.95-6) [...]

“Srila Prabhupada had offered ample opportunity to his Godbrothers to cooperate with him and work conjointly, especially Sridhara Maharaja. [Many times] he tried to convince his Godbrother to be a partner in ISKCON. But Sridhara Maharaja maintained his concept of independence, remaining at arm's length, unable to make a meaningful agreement. [...]

“Finally, on Nov. 8, 1977, when he was about to depart, Srila Prabhupada, the emblem of Vaishnava humility, begged forgiveness for his offenses to his Godbrothers. As the master of Vaishnava etiquette, he knew well the custom that at the time of death the devotee should show regret for any offenses he may have committed knowingly or unknowingly. But the truth is, as Srila Prabhupada stated during a room conversation a few days before he disappeared, ‘I have never done anything inauspicious to anyone.’ 

Factually, it was his Godbrothers' opposing behavior which had been inauspicious. And when he said, ‘The war is over,’ he was simply saying that now that he was going, the war should stop. But that war was not Srila Prabhupada's war, it was a war declared and maintained by his Godbrothers and he didn't want the war continuing against his disciples after his departure.

“Near the end, Narayan Maharaja, a God-brother’s disciple, was employed by Srila Prabhupada as a messenger to his Godbrothers. The gist of the message was: 

"Help, don't hinder them." That was it. He was not asking Narayan Maharaja or anyone else to instruct his disciples in the future on how to manage a worldwide preaching movement and he already instructed them on numerous occasions not to fight amongst themselves. He wanted Narayan Maharaja to assist in the arrangements for the upcoming samadhi ceremony and the requisite paraphernalia and rituals. 

Srila Prabhupada, after the events of 1967, never instructed his disciples to accept guidance from his Godbrothers. Just the opposite. But he did mention to the GBC that if they reached an impasse on some technicality or philosophical point they could (not should) consult with Sridhara Maharaja, and he indicated no one else. Of course, it would be hard to imagine a philosophical question which could not be answered from Srila Prabhupada-vani.

“In any case, after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance, when his ISKCON was in chaotic condition, members of the Gaudiya Math encouraged and received ISKCON refugees with open arms, thereby attaining a temporary jolt from the infusion of preaching spirit already inculcated in those devotees by Srila Prabhupada.

"Sometimes some of those devotees say that the troubles in mainstream ISKCON are due to offenses to Sridhara Maharaja and / or other members of the Gaudiya Math. But the problems in mainstream ISKCON are actually due to the same cause that has been the bane of the Gaudiya Math's existence --neglect of the orders of the Founder-Acharya. Many of Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples have left the jurisdiction of ‘mainstream’ ISKCON over the years since Srila Prabhupada's disappearance, most often for good reasons not to be delineated here.

“But leaving Srila Prabhupada himself is another thing and / or accepting another spiritual preceptor as equal to or greater than Srila Prabhupada is a great mistake, a valid excuse for which cannot be found moving hell or heaven. Generally, the Gaudiya Math's condescending attitude towards Srila Prabhupada has not changed, and they have attempted to create an artificial competition between Srila Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddhanta as to who is the last Acharya in the parampara. They consider Srila Bhaktisiddhanta to be the uncontested last great Acharya, to be presumably succeeded by all of his disciples (each of whom would be on the top of the list for their own disciples).

“Some see Srila Prabhupada and Sridhara Maharaja as the two equal successor Acharyas to Bhaktisiddhanta. One Srila Prabhupada disciple, who joined the Gaudiya Math early on, quotes Sridhara Maharaja: ‘Two eyes are better than one,’ but the implication is that by having both Prabhupada and Sridhara as equal guiding authorities, one can make better spiritual progress. And Sridhara M was still a 'living guru' at the time. But the analogy has serious flaws [...] Srila Prabhupada gives a nice example: another word for ‘swami’ is husband and when a wife is unfaithful to her swami she is considered a prostitute. Similarly for a disciple who is unfaithful to his spiritual master.

“To summarize and conclude, it was the great fault of the Gaudiya Math leaders that they could not recognize Srila Prabhupada's spiritual leadership. They could not adjust the fact that Abhaya Charan das became the ‘self-effulgent acharya’ Srila Bhaktisiddhanta predicted, and had emerged by word and deed as the obvious Acharya of them all, indeed of all the Vaishnavas and the whole world!

THIS WAS THE EIGHTH MAJOR ISKCON SCHISM

Although Srila Prabhupada had smashed the early 1970’s “gopi bhava” club in Los Angeles, the lesson was lost as the rasika guru and the focus on the intimate conjugal pastimes of the Lord was again taken up as though it was the ultimate program for success in spiritual life.

One who follows Srila Prabhupada’s clear instructions will not associate with his Godbrothers, or the Gaudiya Math, and will not trot out contradictory rationalizations to do so. Srila Prabhupada and his teachings are complete and need no supplementation, no other rasika bhakti teacher, lest consequences follow from disobeying the Acharya.

"There is nothing new to be said. Whatever I had to say, I have already said in my books. Now you must try to understand it and continue with your endeavors. Whether I am present or not does not matter." (SPConv May 17, 1977)

“Therefore, those who are in bodily consciousness and who desire sense gratification are forbidden to indulge in discussions of the transcendental pastimes of Sri Radha and Krishna.” (CC Adi 13.42)