Sunday, June 4, 2017

Bhakti Vikas Swami vs Sanaka Rsi (BVKS admits GBC hiding SP's documents)

Serious Accusations, But False

BY: H.H. BHAKTI VIKASA SWAMI

After a hectic visit to Mayapur (that was long previously scheduled), I am gradually catching up with pending matters, including discussions on the Sampradaya Sun regarding child abuse. Sanaka Rsi Prabhu has made serious accusations against me. He wrote:

"We have one conversation where Srila Prabhupada agreed to use corporal punishment, against an overwhelming amount of instances where he spoke strongly against it…" I cited several quotes, not one, that at face value show Srila Prabhupada endorsing corporal punishment.

[PADA: BVKS missed the whole point? The GBC's mis-treatment of school children went "far and away" beyond what is considered as acceptable maltreatment -- even in the karmi society, which is why the GBC was sued for $400,000,000 by the karmi courts. And the GBC lost in court, because they could not defend their malefic behavior towards these children. 

Its not really about whether some minor forms of wrist slapping -- may or may not -- be allowed to be used on minors in certain cases. I got wrist slapped when I was in grade school, its not caused me serious trauma for the rest of my existence. This is a smoke screen for the real issue, these children were severely mis-treated way beyond minor wrist slapping, indeed the victims were treated so badly the leaders of the GBC guru regime that orchestrated their mis-treatment had to plead "no contest" in court aka guilty as charged (see report below). 

Yet the main leaders who orchestrated this regime, such as Jayapataka, Bhavananda, Hari Sauri, Radhanath, Kuladri, etc. are still apparently in charge, which is why many / most of the ex-kulis are alienated from ISKCON. They do not see that justice is being served against the regime that caused their abuse. 

For example, PADA just got yet another letter from yet another very frustrated and angry ex-kuli, where he says awful things about the current GBC's leadership folks who "managed" his "school" experience. Honestly, the only reason I cannot print his letter is because it is 50 percent cursing and expletives. 

That is the first issue at hand, the highly EXCESSIVE abuse that took place, and the complicit leadership that orchestrated the abuse regime, and the fact they refuse to step down and do the honorable thing and resign. Nor has any effort been made to legally prosecute hardly any of these people for what is self-evidently bare minimum criminal neglect -- at best, or severely criminal action against these children -- at worst. 

After bankrupting ISKCON and ruining almost wholesale the second generation from participating in the society, the people who caused that process need to leave at the very least, criminally prosecuting them would be much more reasonable. And ordinarily, they would be made to leave in any other civilized organization. The main body of leaders would boot these orchestrators out, just to get a little credibility of the top management of that organization. Instead, the GBC props up the orchestrators of that regime as their biggest leaders or even acharyas.]   

Sanaka Rsi Prabhu continued:

"Maharaj, your presentation has been disingenuous and manipulative. I did not say that you quoted out of context because the quotes you provided were not relevant to the conversation, as you suggested. But rather because you have provided an edited version of the conversation, that created a slanted perspective."

The only editing I did was to present a part of the conversation (as is standard practice; no one quotes whole conversations) and to add a translation of some of that part which was in Hindi. In fact, Sanaka Rsi Prabhu himself edited what I quoted by leaving out part of what I quoted.

Sanaka Rsi Prabhu continued:

"You seem to believe that somehow the Hindi portion of that conversation is unrelated to the rest. Essentially you are trying to take it out of its context, as if the fact that Prabhupada spoke that part in Hindi makes it a new conversation that took place in a different time, space and context, which is nonsense."

Speculation. I simply included the Hindi part where it occurred within the conversation.

Sanaka Rsi Prabhu continued:

"But what is perhaps your biggest blunder, is that you failed to inform the readers that the transcript of the conversation you provided in your article was an edited collage of different bits of the same conversation that you had selectively pieced together so as to create a version that incidentally happens to be more supportive of your agenda than the actual exchange that took place."

These are heavy accusations that would certainly frame me IF THEY WERE TRUE. But they are NOT. There is no collage. Nothing is selectively pieced together. There is no tampered quote, as he claims. I simply cut and pasted that section from the Vedabase and added Hindi translation. In fact, he "tampered" with what I had quoted, by leaving out a line by Yasodanandan Prabhu.

Sanaka Rsi Prabhu then gives a detailed explanation of how I have "fabricated a distorted account of the events that indicates that Srila Prabhupada was as equally disposed towards the use of corporal punishment as he was towards alternatives." Although he presumes this to be my "agenda," I was simply presenting (as I wrote) "several other quotes wherein Srila Prabhupada expresses approval of stringent corporal punishment," that "somehow, in discussions about child abuse within ISKCON … never seem to be cited." 

I was presenting a case that, although some statements of Srila Prabhupada's concerning corporal punishment express total prohibition, there are others also with a different message, so the issue is not as cut and dried as Sanaka Rsi Prabhu has made out. For a thorough, balanced discussion of any topic all evidence has to be considered. (Admittedly it is often difficult to discuss this particular subject in a balanced manner.)

He calls on me for "publicly acknowledging the gravity of this misrepresentation of your spiritual master." But there is no misrepresentation, no collage, no selective piecing together, no tampering. In summary, he has accused me of being "disingenuous and manipulative" but it is these ABSOLUTELY FALSE CHARGES that are disingenuous and manipulative. (How can anyone think that they can get away with posting such bull dung and not be called out for it? I urge readers to check for themselves the original against what I posted.)

A major point has been overlooked in the discussion of corporal punishment in the early days of ISKCON gurukulas in India. Those days were very different indeed: corporal punishment was legal in ISKCON and in India; within India, it was widely accepted and approved of. This of course does not justify corporal punishment, nor is it an endorsement of excesses; but it should be understood that attitudes have greatly changed within one or two generations.

Even more importantly, the standard quotes cited in this discussion were largely unknown until after the period in which corporal punishment was common in ISKCON schools. Srila Prabhupada's letters were not published until well into the 1980s, and even then it took time for devotees to read and research them. The whole collection of Srila Prabhupada's audio recordings was released in the early 2000s (and at a price of $1,800, was not affordable to all) and it would take years to hear them all even by listening to several a day.

[PADA: OK so the GBC hid documents, for example -- they hid the letters, the will, the appointment tape, the 1977 conversations, and they suppressed eye witness testimony with contrived banning, threats and even violence. And one big leader told Sulochana he would be "dead meat on a hook" if he published the letters, and shortly after that, he was dead in fact. BVKS is supporting a regime that suppresses the words of the acharya?; And murders people who present these words to the public?] 

BVKS: Would devotees in the 1980s have administered corporal punishment had they known Srila Prabhupada's position on it? Is it reasonable to hold persons guilty when almost certainly they were unaware that what they were doing was forbidden by Srila Prabhupada? 

[PADA: So the GBC hid the letters, as a result Srila Prabhupada's instructions were not followed, as a result they were sued for $400,000,000. Isn't that a crime itself, and cause to have all of them removed?]

Their superiors (the managers of ISKCON Mayapur and Vrindavan) must have known that they were administering corporal punishment, and they did not forbid it – and in those days the mandate to follow authorities was embedded in the psyche of ISKCON devotees. If authorities approved something, it had to be okay.

[PADA: OK so the GBC had orchestrated blind GBC groupies and cultish behaviors going on, and anyone who questioned was banned, if not beaten if not shot to death. What kind of management is this? And why are these managers still in charge?] 

Sanaka Rsi Prabhu refers to my "agenda." Here it is: my agenda in this matter is to oppose the one-sided, destructive propaganda against the only disciple of Srila Prabhupada who has dedicated his entire life for children by developing a traditional gurukula in the style that Srila Prabhupada wanted. Anyone who actually cares for children would be delighted to recognize the extraordinary good that Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami has done, rather than trying to drag him down by citing mistakes (even severe mistakes) that he has made.

[PADA: RE: Bhakti Vidya Purna swami, see report below.] 

Why does Sanaka Rsi Prabhu NOT see the many parents who enthusiastically endorse Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami's contributions by continuing to send children to him? Why does he not see the several children who grew up under him and are still with him, or elsewhere in Mayapur, and who now have their own children? Why deny this? What is the "agenda" here?

[PADA: What about the thousands of ex-gurukulis who have left the institution wholesale, never to return?]

Why have dozens of parents all over the world, who know full well the reported history and could send their children anywhere in the world, have still chosen Mayapur gurukula? Are those parents all stupid? The ongoing propaganda against Mayapur gurukula would make them seem so.

[PADA: Mayapura is where the GBC is teaching children that acharyas are often engaged in illicit sex. Why are children being trained to believe that God's gurus / successor and messiahs are often debauchees?]

Everyone knows that there have been serious allegations against Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami, even fairly recently. But those accusations have been countered, mostly by his students and ex-students, on Facebook and elsewhere. Why does Sanaka Rsi Prabhu not inform others about that? What is his "agenda"? (These countering statements are presently being retrieved and collated and soon should be up in one place on the internet.)

Is not api cet su-duracarah applicable here?

As I previously wrote, "Does the Krsna consciousness movement not allow any possibility of reform?" Must a person who has made mistakes in the past be eternally condemned for them? Should we remember Valmiki as a sinner? Shall we reject the Ramayana because it was written by an ex-robber? Do we condemn Jagai and Madhai, or instead glorify Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mercy upon them?

I strongly urge those who would negatively judge Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami and the Mayapur gurukula to first personally visit there and see for themselves. Spend time, imbibe the pure atmosphere of the dham, speak with Maharaja and his students, ex-students, and staff, and parents and other members of the broader Mayapur community. No one will pretend that the gurukula is perfect, but the overwhelming opinion of those who are on the spot, living there, is that a very good job is being done in accord with Srila Prabhupada's wishes.

[PADA: We already know what Mayapura is teaching, they are teaching children that God's gurus / messiahs / successors are often debauchees. That has nothing to do with Vaishnava teachings. Its a severe aparadha to say acharyas are usually deviants, debauchees, drunkards, criminals and illicit sex deviants, what to speak of teaching children that acharyas are often sexual predators, drunkards and debauchees. Why is BVKS supporting this teaching process?]

What does Sanaka Rsi Prabhu have to offer in comparison? If he cares so much for children, what is he positively doing for them? He has had enough time in his life to set up a gurukula in the manner that Srila Prabhupada wanted. All he can do is bash others who have literally given their life to fulfill Srila Prabhupada's instructions in this regard.

The suggestions to have clear guidelines regarding child abuse, as proffered by Krsna Dasi and Sanaka Rsi Prabhu, are well taken and I am going to work on them. It won't happen overnight. Incidentally, one of the leaders of the gurukula in Mayapur whom I recently spoke with told me that he had proposed to Sanaka Rsi Prabhu that they work together to make comprehensive guidelines on child protection issues, that could be used by ISKCON schools worldwide. Sanaka Rsi Prabhu declined.

[PADA: You cannot say that teaching children that acharyas are often debauchees is "the guidelines of ISKCON"?]

By the way, everything that I have published on Sampradaya Sun has been written by me. I may send articles for review by others prior to publication, and I may incorporate certain suggestions and changes. But if my name is on it, it is by me. The Sun editors may make editorial changes to my articles, which explains why they might slightly differ to versions published on my website.

I plan one more article on these topics, concerning Indradyumna Swami. Then I'm finished. I am under no obligation to engage with anyone who employs lies and deception to paint me in the worst possible light. That shows very poor character, and our acaryas have warned us to avoid bad association.

[PADA: Right, lets look at the type association BVKS wants to have for himself and his followers ...] 

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

[PADA: Summary of Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami issue ...]


An article written by Dhira Govinda prabhu (former CPO Director) states that the child abuse that took place in the Mayapur Gurukula is "the most severe in the history of ISKCON." 

I regard Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaj, who for several years served in the capacity of headmaster, as the individual who, more than anyone else, is both directly and indirectly responsible for a significant amount of the deplorable abuse that has been inflicted on children in the Mayapur Gurukula.

In the history of education, both in ISKCON and outside, corporal punishment has been an unfortunate but relatively common reality. There are two elements in the actions of Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami, however, that place him unequivocally in the league of the more severe offenders. The first is his deliberate negligence of the ongoing sexual abuse that was perpetrated against the children placed under his care in the Mayapur Gurukula. The second is the uncommon and exceptional brutality of the corporal punishments which he personally inflicted on his victims.

Statistically, a significant number (about 30 percent) of sexually abused children in turn go on to abuse younger children. This is exactly what took place in the Mayapur Gurukula. Many young children were raped by teachers and students alike, under the supervision and knowledge of Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami. The boys that had been sexually abused went on to violate the children of the younger age group in turn. In this manner newcomers were initiated into this diabolical cycle.

I do not know what Maharaj's current opinion of these dark events is, but in the past he has made statements to the effect of "It was not a very serious thing; after all, it's human nature, and it comes and goes like the seasons."

The fact that Maharaj did not do what was necessary to protect these boys, even after knowing that they were being sexually abused, is inexcusable. Although I am not in a position to evaluate the far-reaching repercussions of the legacy which Maharaj's deliberate negligence leaves to ISKCON and to the world, it is safe to assume that it is one of untold pain and ongoing abuse.

The trauma these men experienced as boys, when they were subjected to Maharaj's unforgiving beatings, is unspeakable. The inhumane canings Maharaj inflicted on his victims, often leaving them in a state of shock from the sheer force of his strikes, is still fresh in their memory. Mature men have confided to me that still to this day their hearts are troubled by the ridicule and public humiliation that Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaj decades ago subjected them to.

I recently met a Gurukuli friend of mine who related the following account: "On a festival day a group of Gurukula boys had managed to steal the entire Mahaprasad offering. After eating to their fill, the boys, probably hyperactive on the sugar overdose, began to play with the left-over Mahaprasad, throwing it around in a disrespectful manner.

"When Maharaj came to know about the incident, he became enraged and ordered them to line up outside his hut; there were about 30 boys. He began caning them one at the time. Some of the boys, knowing what was coming, in apprehension urinated in their clothes while standing in line waiting their turn. Fortunately for some, by the time Maharaj had beaten about half of the boys, being fatigued he stopped the caning and dismissed the group."

Maharaj had a collection of sticks. Before inflicting his punishments, he would take his time. With a frightening smile he would pick one and ask his soon-to-be victims if that was the stick of his choice; he would then pass on to the next stick in his collection to repeat his cruel performance.

The following is an account of one former Mayapur gurukuli: "He [Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami] is notorious for his expertise in lacerating the skin off the back of the children with one single hit of his special, bendy, bamboo cane. He would get the boys to kneel forward and hold their ankles with their hands, so as to form an arch of some sort with their body. He would then hit the boys on the back, causing the tip of the stick to whip around, striking their chest.

"Many boys recall that he preceded his beatings with a sadistic ritual intended to increase the fear of his victims. He would smile and wiggle his eyebrows gleefully, while bending the cane full circle and making whipping sounds with his mouth. Several boys suffered shock after those canings."

"The father of a prospective student questioned Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami about the sexual abuse that was said to be taking place in the Mayapur Gurukula at the time. Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami gave him what I call the 'Kirtanananda stance on sex.' He said something to the effect of, 'Sex, whether it is between you and your wife, not intended for procreating, or between a teacher and a boy, is illicit. It is all sex' — as if morally and karmically they are on the same level. This is from a man whose job is to protect and guide the children.

"Why has he not acknowledged his mistakes and offered an apology? If he does not feel he has done anything wrong, I am compelled to question his motives and qualifications. Today Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaj is an authorized initiating Guru, a Sannyasi, and still runs his own Gurukula in Mayapur specialized in 'training brahmanas'."

Eventually Jayapataka Maharaj himself disposed of Maharaj's collection of torture instruments.

The nature of some blunders is so severe to come to be beyond redemption. I regard Maharaj's actions to be just that — not in the Christian sense of eternal damnation, but certainly in the sense that his current involvement with children is indefensible — as well as reason for serious concern, especially when we take into account that Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami has yet to make reasonably adequate public acknowledgments or apologies, not to mention appropriate amends to his victims.

In ISKCON we are often warned of the danger of committing offences towards senior vaisnavas such as Maharaj. This is something that as aspiring devotees we naturally ought to pay special attention to, and while I am aware that I am far from having found an adequate balance, I feel it is also appropriate to point out that the enormity and nature of the offences Maharaj committed to young and defenceless Vaisnavas are considerably more disturbing, of greater concern and consequence; and they are yet to be addressed.

While I can imagine that this article may offend the sensitivities of some, I am of the opinion that if as a society we had the willingness, maturity and the integrity to adequately address the improprieties of our members, especially our leadership, there would be no need to resort to addressing these unpleasant topics in public. The sad truth is that there are not many individuals that can honestly say that they have found amongst authorities in ISKCON the firm willingness to coherently and transparently address misconduct, and to offer the necessary shelter to victims. Unfortunately, this comes to be especially true when the perpetrator enjoys the friendship and protection of the leadership.

To the best of my knowledge, Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami's crimes are at least as severe as Dhanurdhara Swami's. Yet for reasons that defy logic, justice and common sense, Dhanurdhara Swami has come to be branded as the personification of the worst child abuse that has taken place in the history of ISKCON, and he is not allowed to initiate disciples or hold positions of authority in our movement — ever. In stark contrast, we have Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami, who is running two schools and initiating disciples.

Not many know that over the years when he was the principal, Dhanurdhara Swami made considerable efforts to remove pedophiles from the Vrindavana Gurukula. In at least one occasion he went to great lengths to remove one particular individual that had been re-employed in another Gurukula. In comparison, whatever attempts Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami made in this regard were woefully inadequate and significantly less effective than Dhanurdhara Swami's. In addition to this, Dhanurdhara Swami's later endeavours towards amends, rectification, apologies and genuine remorse have been far more tangible and have, therefore, shown more sincerity than those of Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami. If we also take into account that the abuse that occurred in Mayapur is more severe than what took place in Vrindavana, we must conclude that Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami's transgressions are more severe.

The remarkable difference in the way the CPO handled these two landmark cases in the history of ISKCON is not so much due to the nature of the crimes committed — for, while in some regards they are actually quite similar, in other ways Bhakti Vidya Purna's wrongdoings are far more serious. In my opinion this is not due to an excessive punishment meted out to Dhanurdhara Swami either, but rather in the efforts made by their respective groups of victims to campaign for justice. It so happens that amongst Dhanurdhara Swami's victims there is a much higher count of vocal western students, who tirelessly fought a campaign, which lasted over a decade, to obtain some justice, whereas most of Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami's victims were more-introverted Indian boys, who have long since disappeared, in the oblivion of time, from the attention of ISKCON.

The grossly disproportionate inequality in the treatment that has been reserved for these two men hints of a lack of integrity and suggests that CPO policies are not operated in respect of ethics, impartiality and objective justice itself;. Rather, it would seem that the CPO takes too much account of political pressures, recommendations, conveniences, status and acquaintances. It indicates that if the CPO is to survive, it is in desperate need of radical reforms.

It is important to emphasize that, in the CPO files for Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami, Maharaj's own admissions and the testimonies of his victims offer detailed accounts of his negligence and misconduct. Nothing that I mention here is news.

In a public letter to Dhira Govinda prabhu, Ramadevi prabhu wrote: "By writing this article in this way you have seriously undermined the local CPT and the CPO Director without knowing anything about them. You have basically dismissed the whole world of child protection. Reading this could well put somebody off from coming forward to report abuse."

In 2006 an article was published about a CPO inquiry concerning allegations of Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaj's misconduct involving some of the girls in the Mayapur girls school. The allegations that initiated the inquiry had accused Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami of encouraging young girls to give each other full-body oil massages, under his supervision; and he is alleged to have bathed a young pre-teen girl with his hands, on at least one occasion.

It was public knowledge that the inquiry had taken place, and in December 2006 Ramadevi dasi had stated in a public letter that, upon completing the investigation, the Mayapur CPT would publish its findings. Today, four and a half years later, we are still waiting for the official outcome of the investigation to be disclosed.

Is there some truth to these allegations? Was Maharaj found guilty or innocent? If the inquiry uncovered some degree of guilt, what sanctions were enforced? What measures were put in place to ensure the protection of the children? The lack of answers to these basic questions is what destroys the credibility of the CPO more than Dhira Govinda's words ever could, for action always speaks louder than words.

Ramadevi dasi offers that Dhira Govinda's allegations may undermine the authority of the CPO and could unduly discourage victims from seeking help. From my perspective, none of Dhira Govinda's statements, whether accurate or inaccurate, can possibly discourage victims from reporting abuse to the CPO or destroy its reputation more effectively than the articles, mentioned above, by Ramadevi prabhu herself, where as a CPO representative — who, I assume, is acquainted with Maharaj's dossier at least as well as I am but probably better — she takes such a strong public stance in defence of a known offender of the calibre of Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaj.

I see the stance she has taken as truly undermining the credibility of the CPO. It is uncalled for, morally questionable and regrettable. I wonder how Mataji can possibly justify this to herself, to the community and to the children she has made a commitment to protect.

There are not many things that will damage the reputation of the CPO more efficiently than the astonishing incongruence in the way the cases of Dhanurdhara and Bhakti Vidya Purna Swamis have been handled. Nothing will ever destabilize the credibility and authority of the CPO as effectively as having a man personally responsible for such severe child abuse as Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami now looking after 60 children and 17 acres of Srila Prabhupada's land while offering "guidance" for two schools, in defiance of the CPO sanctions that clearly forbid him from working with children; and worst of all, with the approval of ISKCON's elite, in Mayapur itself, the very same backdrop of his past misdeeds.

Neither Dhira Govinda's nor anybody else's words can undermine the credibility of ISKCON and the CPO more than the influence and authority which known sexual offenders — the likes of Bhavananda and Satadhanya — have been steadily regaining in Mayapur.

The circumstances at hand beggar belief. This is most damaging, and brings ridicule on the authority, judgment and uprightness of the CPO and Srila Prabhupada's movement at large. If the CPO's credibility and its support from the Vaisnava community fall short, its very existence will come under great peril, and with it so will the future of our society.

Some will argue that today Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami is fully reformed, much different from the man he had been in the years gone. Whether he is reformed or not is a topic for debate that would doubtlessly find scores of supporters on either side of the argument. However, even if he is reformed, this cannot and does not justify his current involvement with children; for it is disrespectful to his victims, and it is not aligned with the values of the Vaisnava society we are striving to create.

While I would very much like to hope that Maharaj is indeed reformed, his lack of efforts to acknowledge responsibility for his wrongdoings and to make amends, coupled with his continued involvement with children as well as the more recent allegations, suggest otherwise. I am left with reservations in this regard. It is my opinion that a truly reformed man, as a genuine sign of regret, would have the courage, humility and decorum to apologize, to endeavour to make amends, to resign and to find service opportunities in a different capacity.

To be entrusted into the care of qualified and screened individuals who do not have a history of child abuse is the indisputable, God-given right of all children; as members of a spiritual society, it is our duty to ensure that this right of our children is honoured.

We are no longer in the '70s or the '80s; we are now in the year 2011. Why is it that still today within the leadership of the Hare Krsna movement there are individuals who object and resist giving to child protection the importance and value it deserves? Is it really too much to ask of ISKCON to spare us the unnecessary threat, pain and embarrassment of having our schools run by men responsible for such severe abuse to Srila Prabhupada's children? Surely we have a sufficient number of qualified devotees in ISKCON with a clean track record, and we need not have such individuals involved with our children.

The truth is that no self-respecting, materialistic, contemporary society, let alone a Vedic or Vaisnava one, would ever entertain the possibility of allowing a man responsible for half of Maharaj's crimes, to come anywhere near children. I wonder why it is that so many in ISKCON seem to find this perfectly acceptable. I suggest that the mentality that has allowed this could very well be behind many of the challenges which our society continues to face today.

The problem is not so much in Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami's or Ramadevi prabhu's actions. These are simply symptoms. I see the real problem in the way our society has been addressing (or fails to address) problems. Attempts to deny, hide and downplay problems are common practice. These are in and of themselves problems. In some ways they are even greater problems; they are attempts to take shelter in deceit. By acting in this manner, purity is lost. This is what allows child abuse and all sorts of other atrocities to perpetuate and flourish.

The current affairs beg the question: "What does having Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami serving as the 'guide' of two schools, at the international headquarters of our society, say about the moral, ethical and human values that ISKCON advocates and stands for, and what does it say about ISKCON's position on child protection?"

I strongly urge ISKCON and the CPO to reconsider the case of Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami and his involvement in the schools in Mayapur. It is my recommendation that he no longer be allowed any further involvement whatsoever with children — for life. I regard this as the minimum appropriate course of actions; it will be an important and necessary step for child protection in ISKCON; it will honor his victims and reinforce the credibility of the CPO and our society at large.

The following are some words from Maharaj's class, reported on Dandavats, which I mention at the beginning of the article: "So when we see something that is not ideal, that is simply the modes of nature. The modes of nature will do what they will do. The soul is not actually involved.... So material needs are an illusion...otherwise lip service is really cheap. It is one of the cheapest things.... What is the mentality behind it? That is what defines it."

For the benefit of those amongst us that have not yet achieved such transcendental vision, I humbly request Maharaj to take responsibility for his past blunders and have the decorum to resign from any further involvement with children; for the benefit of his victims and himself, I recommend that he offer a long-overdue, unreserved apology and to do everything in his power to make amends and to obtain his victims' forgiveness. For the benefit of ISKCON at large I plead for Maharaj to demonstrate with courage and with the integrity of his future actions how an authentic Vaisnava leader handles a challenging situation.

A good friend of mine recently pointed out that our society is neglectful about issues affecting whether or not the second generation feels protected and takes to Krsna consciousness; this indicates that we have our priorities out of order — unless, of course, this is intentional.

The wager at hand is infinitely greater than the specifics of this case that may be considered at a first glance. What is at stake here is the future of our society; it is about the importance that ISKCON wishes to place on the protection of its children. It is about the value that we are going to give, not only to the reputation and credibility of ISKCON inside and outside the movement, but to our own reputation and credibility as well. It is about the kind of legacy we intend to leave to posterity. This is about taking an unequivocal stance, and setting a precedent, not only for the protection of our children, but also for the protection of the children of our grandchildren.


Choices such as this are the ones that shape the future of individuals and societies. How do we envision our future?

Saturday, June 3, 2017

RE: Srila Prabhupada's Poisoning (Update)

POSTING FROM TRUTH COMMITTEE 

RE: SRILA PRABHUPADA’S POISONING

(June 3, 2017) We are seeing some conversations and opinions online from those totally uninformed of the actual evidence that conclusively proves that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned with lethal amounts of cadmium from (at a minimum) February to November 1977. Highly accurate NAA tests on three of Srila Prabhupada’s hair samples that were provided by the GBC’s agents were found in 2002-2005 to have sky-high, unprecedented levels of cadmium, a deadly heavy metal that is virtually undetectable unless specifically tested for. 

Recent Facebook discussions were dominated by those who offered emotional and pseudo-logical dissertations on their faulty opinions and analyses of the evidence that they had forgotten to study or never seen. Several Facebook group administrators shut down all our discussions on the subject, deleted posts, and shut out those who had sent in facts and figures to be considered. 

Admittedly, the subject is difficult to cope with and reactions will be strong. Many devotees have cognitive dissonance on this issue and cannot focus enough to actually look at the evidence which includes the recently disclosed cadmium hair tests.

Some say that Srila Prabhupada mentioned poison in reference to mustard seeds, or bad medicine, or years of toxic build-up in the body, but not about actual malicious poisoning. One who reads the Nov. 9-10, 1977 conversations will see otherwise, that Srila Prabhupada and all his caretakers WERE speaking about homicidal poisoning with rakshasas, murder, poisoned food, lawyers, poisoning cases, and even asking about who poisoned Srila Prabhupada.

Some also say that cadmium is everywhere, so what? Srila Prabhupada’s cadmium could have come from rice, Ayurvedic medicines, or anywhere. But they do not seem to understand that cadmium is found at different concentrations, at various levels from harmless to lethal. 

That is the key thing- how much cadmium? For example, yes, Cadmium dust is everywhere, but in rare situations the dust can be lethal, as it was on Montserrat, a Caribbean island which experienced a sudden violent volcanic explosion in 1995 that caused the main town of Plymouth to be buried under several feet of dust and ash.

Similarly, an average normal person will have 0.065 ppm cadmium in their hair. Srila Prabhupada had about 250 times more than that, or an average of 15.75 ppm cadmium. This is a volcanic amount. Below we have one of our many expert opinions on the meaning of these levels. Please encourage everyone who will speak about the subject to be at least properly informed first.

(From Chapter 32, Book One: The Poisoning of Srila Prabhupada’s Body):

FIRST EXPERT OPINION: DR. PAGE HUDSON

FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, NORTH CAROLINA

Immediately I thought of the former North Carolina Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Page Hudson, Jr., M.D. A forensic pathologist, he taught at Eastern University of North Carolina and had already reviewed my first book, Someone Has Poisoned Me. He had specialized in studying and solving a series of heavy metal poison murders in North Carolina during the 1980’s and 1990’s. His work had been detailed in several popular books about these arsenic poisonings.

I prepared a brief summary of Srila Prabupada’s 1977 illness and symptoms and, including the test results on samples A and D, sent a letter to Dr. Hudson, asking for his insights and comments on Srila Prabhupada’s medical history and the cadmium toxicity. His reply:

“I suggest Medical Toxicology: Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning, by MJ Ellerhorn and DG Barceloux, 1988. It also has additional references. […] but they are remarkably few who possess expertise with this material.”

He then made some observations based on his professional and medical experience:

“One ppm is considered a rather hefty load of cadmium. About 20 ppm is distinctly abnormal. Wasting, kidney disease, and the spillage of sugar are certainly consistent with cadmium toxicity, but unfortunately are common with many other conditions and diseases… It appears to me that if the cadmium concentration is correct, the exposures to the material must have been small and over a period of months. To administer intentionally this poison in this fashion would call for amazing subtlety and patience.”

“I reasoned in a vague sort of way that a person reaching the high concentration the subject did would more likely have received multiple doses or had chronic exposure to reach the hair level he did – without having some clinically acute, dramatic episode marking the exposure. Perhaps Dr. Morris might find very irregular peaks in the cadmium concentrations if there were a serial analysis of the hair, measuring from the root.

"But the cadmium may have done irrecoverable damage months before death and all subsequent hair growth may have been drawing from the body pool of cadmium – without new exposures.”

COMMENTS: Serial analysis of Srila Prabhupada’s hair would be difficult because his hair was cut every month, being less than 1 cm in length, insufficient for this type of testing, as was done with Napoleon’s case study with hair that was several inches long. 

Interesting points made by Dr. Hudson:

He surmised a case of multiple doses and chronic exposure, and an administering of cadmium with “amazing subtlety and patience.”

Cadmium poisoning results in symptoms very similar to many other conditions and diseases.

That 20 ppm is distinctly abnormal; even 1 ppm is a rather hefty load.
Dr. Page Hudson’s accomplishments and credentials are included in Appendix 7.
Below we can see how much cadmium Srila Prabhupada had in his hair and body; it was something like the Montserrat volcanic explosion or a huge elephant in a tiny closet!

CADMIUM LEVELS: Comparison chart with amounts of Cadmium in ppm, from 0 to 16 ppm

Inline image 1

CADMIUM LEVELS: Comparison chart showing amounts of Cadmium in ppm, from 0 to 16 ppm.

1.      SRILA PRABHUPADA: 15.75 ppm, 250 X normal
2.      Worst waste dump: 4 ppm, 60 X normal
3.      Highest Value at ARL: 2 ppm, 30 X normal
4.      Dr. Hudson: “hefty load”: 1 ppm, 15 X normal
5.      Average Exposed Industrial Worker: 0.387 ppm, 6 X normal
6.      Average Normal Unexposed Person: 0.065 ppm.

If anyone has any questions about this or any other evidence, please write to Nityananda das at: srigovinda@gmail.com The poisoning report will be out in June 2017 as a free downloadable E-book, titled Kill Guru, Become Guru: Book One: The Poisoning of Srila Prabhupada’s Body, 800 pages, 100 chapters. 

Also please see the YouTube video on how the forensic scientific breakthrough by the private investigation into Srila Prabhupada’s disappeance came about (6255 views in 30 days!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIBqNBMbPvY

Wake up people! (Citisakti Dasi)

Dear Devotees:

Critical information is written in letters of Srila Prabhupada dated July 9th and 10th, 1977. Just remember that to disregard the instructions of the spiritual master is a grave offense. Anyone who is a disciple or follower of His Divine Grace needs to read these letters or you are just cheating yourself.

Thank you, Puranjana Prabhu, for your very informative comments based on FACTS:

"Srila Prabhupada wanted a direction of management, with elected temple presidents and GBC rotating etc. None of this was ever implemented, rather the GBC said we are now diksha gurus, equal to Jesus, and we can absorb sins like Jesus, and then they started getting sick, falling down and dying from taking sins, and then, their followers kept sending out messages "ohh boo hoo guru maharaja took too many sins, he is falling, he is sick, he is dying etc." well duh, he was told not to take sins. 

He was told if he did that he would get sick, fall down, or die. And yet that is what they did, they declared themselves to be messiahs, and when the messiah ran off with millions, so what, because, who can challenge the messiah? Hah hah. So all of the 11 got sick, fell down, or both, or died. and now the guru of Russia ran off "being sick and having a mental breakdown," and that all happened when people asked, where is the money he collected for the temple?"

Please, devotees, listen up! It has taken me years to mentally digest all this information because I DID NOT WANT TO BELIEVE IT, so if you initially have a problem with it, it is very understandable

I have an old body & could die any day, so I have nothing to gain by posting this kind of information. I want to be a part of "ISKCON" as much as any other devotee, but most of the leaders in ISKCON are not truthfully representing Srila Prabhupada. This is abominable! We cannot ignore this because it makes Srila Prabhupada look bad and makes a mockery of Lord Chaitanya's wonderful benediction for humanity. Something has to be done. I wish I was "somebody" so that I could do it!

Please take a look at Puranjana Prabhu's website:http://krishna1008.blogspot.com and also please read "THE FINAL ORDE
R.
Hare Krishna
KRISHNA1008.BLOGSPOT.COM

Friday, June 2, 2017

Jadurani / Narayana Maharaja: Defeated Srila Prabhupada? (Edited by Syamarani didi)

[PADA: A devotee of Narayana Maharaja forwarded us this article to "prove" Srila Prabhupada's jeeva tattva is not correct, i.e. that we fell from Vaikuntha. And they are boasting they have defeated Srila Prabhupada's arguments. 

We did not include the many citations from Srila Prabhupada we gave previously on this issue in order to keep it more compact. We have cited many quotes in other articles to back up the points made herein, and you can study the previous articles if you want to get the actual citations we reference here, for example this article from the past: ys pd] 

http://krishna1008.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-fall-of-jeeva-soul-pt-1.html



The Final Proof: The Jiva Did Not Fall From Goloka 
(BV Narayana Maharaja)





Edited by Jadurani dasi / aka Syamarani didi

Murwillumbah, Australia; Feb. 16, 2002 (Evening - Part 2)

Tridandiswami Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja

Narayana Maharaja: Paramahamsa Babaji Maharaja replied, "Religion is one, and that religion is love and affection for the Supreme Lord. Only this love and affection is real Vaisnava-dharma, Sanatana-dharma, or Bhagavad-dharma. This sometimes transforms, however, as water transforms into ice, or fog, or steam. 

When it becomes ice, one can throw it at anyone and it will cause injury, but water will not do so. Similarly, love for Krsna, the intrinsic mood of the jiva, has now been transformed. 

[PADA: Narayana Maharaja says (A) at one time we all loved Krishna, and this love was somehow "transformed" from the original, but then he says, (B) we were never in a loving exchange with Krishna originally. How did our original love "transform," if this love was never experienced in an actual exchange, because we were not even in the realm of exchanges? 

Worse, NM says we originated in tatastha, but we are the tatastha? 

Or NM says we originated with Karandadaksayi Vishnu, the incarnation that cares for the ALREADY FALLEN. 



Makes material world for the already fallen

How can we originally love someone -- whom we have no original experience of, or original connection to? I love someone, but I was never with this someone, or had any experience of this someone, or had any actual loving exchanges with this person? This makes no sense? Love means a factual exchange, but NM says this factual exchange never took place. 

If NM's version sounds impersonal, it is. 

We all loved Krishna at one time, but we had no association with Him. This is clearly mayavada. I love someone, but never had association or connection to that someone? This is making little sense. No, Krishna is someone, we are also someone, and we have an original PERSONAL exchange or relationship together. We are persons, and so is God, and thus everything has a PERSONAL origin.] 

NM: Now we love each other, or we love dogs, cats, our own bodies, or boyfriends and girlfriends, and this is called anitya-dharma. That love originally comes from Goloka Vrndavana. 

[PADA: What? Now NM says our original consciousness and position of love is -- the love we experienced in Goloka Vrndavana, and / or Vaikuntha, but we were never there? We experienced this Goloka love, but we were never there to experience this love? (???) Who were we loving if we were never with the lover? 

Which is why Srila Prabhupada says -- contradiction means mayavada. NM says the love we originally experienced comes from Goloka, but we never experienced it? A contradiction, par excellence. Our consciousness originally comes from Goloka, we had this Goloka love originally, but at the same time we do not come from there, and we did not experience this loving exchange? (???)

How does this work, our consciousness comes from there, but we do not come from there, because we are separate from our consciousness? This sounds like mumbo jumo. No, we ARE the consciousness, that is WHO we are! If our consciousness is in Goloka, we are there as well, because our consciousness determines WHERE we are located. If we are in Goloka consciousness, we are there or we are taken there in short order, because we go where the quality of our consciousness dictates.] 

NM: That love is in the heart of jivas, but now it has been transformed, as water transforms into ice when the temperature is low. 

[PADA: OK again, same problem, we originally had this Goloka love for Krishna, and it was transformed, but -- wait for it -- we never had this Goloka love originally? Another head spinning contradiction. Where did our original state of Goloka love come from? Why did it transform? How did it transform? NM has no explanation. Srila Prabhupada says, it transformed because we became envious of Krishna. That is the logical explanation, there is a CAUSE for the transformed state.]

NM: Due to maya, our real dharma, prema for Krsna, has now been transformed and changed, and now we are 'loving' each other. In this world, 'love' is perverted and has become lust, but in its pure stage, it is love and affection for Krsna and it comes from the hearts of the gopis and Vrajavasis.

[PADA: Sounds good! Our original love for Krishna is just like the gopis and vrajavasis, but has now been transformed and changed into material love. Except? Meanwhile Narayana Maharaja says we have had no original love for Krishna, because we were never there with Krishna. How is the love transformed, if it never existed? The original vrajavasi love becomes perverted, but we were never there, so we did not experience it. If this love never existed, there is no cause for it to transform?  

Srila Prabhupada says that our original love for Krishna is like milk, and when tamarind is added, the milk becomes soured and transforms, and so our original Krishna consciousness is transformed into material. NM says, there was no original milk, we started out as soured tamarind milk? God made a bunch of Satans as His children?

Then NM says no, we actually have had our original Goloka milk consciousness? What! Worse, some NM followers tell PADA that we originated in the material world through Maha Vishnu, nope, He takes care of souls who have ALREADY fallen. Some souls start out as saints, some start out as Satans? No. Satan was in heaven and HE FELL from there.]

NM: Paramahamsa Babaji Maharaja quoted Caitanya-caritamrta:

jivera 'svarupa' haya - krsnera 'nitya-dasa'
krsnera 'tatastha'sakti' 'bhedabheda-prakasa'
suryamsa-kirana, yaiche agni-jvala-caya
svabhavika krsnera tina-prakara 'sakti' haya

["It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krsna has three varieties of energy." (Cc Madhya 20.108-109)]

[PADA: The original eternal constitutional position of the living entity is to be a servant of Krishna, then NM says we were never there doing any service, and this service mode is not our original position. How can one say: (A) the original swarupa of the living entity is to be ETERNALLY Krishna's servant, and then (B) have NM say, we never were Krishna's servant? OK, so where were we for all eternity before falling here? We were all asleep for eternity until now? That is basic Christian church jeeva tattva!]

NM: krsna bhuli' sei jiva anadi-bahirmukha
ataeva maya tare deya samsara-duhkha

["Forgetting Krsna, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore, the illusory energy (maya) gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence." (Cc Madhya 20.117)]

[PADA: Except, Narayana Maharaja says there is no original forgetfulness of Krishna, because we were never with Krishna to forget Him. We forgot Krishna, but we were never with Him? I forgot what Australia looks like, oops, but I was never there? How do we forget something we never experienced? We can only forget something we have had previous experience of.] 

NM: We are eternally Krsna dasa, servants of Krsna, but now we are Krsna bhuli; we have forgotten Him. The words 'krsna bhuli' are used here. It means 'the jiva forgets Krsna', but what does this actually mean? It seems to mean that the jiva was once engaged in Krsna's service, but now he has forgotten that service.

[PADA: Oh oh, here we go. Srila Prabhupada says we are all originally in Krishna's leela or sport, serving Him, and now NM say that is not correct. Except, how do we forget someone we never connected with? We forgot our service, but we were never there serving? 

We forgot Krishna, "seems to mean," something else? This is called bogus personal interpreting of shastra. This is like Mahatma Gandhi saying, Bhagavan "seems" to indicate Krishna, but it indicates something else, an allegorical person. The concept of "forgetting Krishna" is very simple, we had to have been with Him in order to have forgot Him.]

Actually, this is not true. This is not the meaning. There is defect in worldly languages. They are not perfect, and therefore they cannot purely express what is the nature of our svarupa (constitutional form). To clarify the meaning of 'krsna bhuli', Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami writes in the next line, "krsnera 'tatastha'sakti' 'bhedabheda-prakasa.'" 

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada's explanation that we originate with Krishna is "defective worldly language." Why does Jadurani always end up "editing" these documents where she says that Srila Prabhupada's words are "defective worldly language." The only way their idea works is to attack Srila Prabhupada as defective and using worldly language?]

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has clearly explained all these truths. You should very carefully note this down in your heart and on your paper. He took his understanding from Srila Sanatana Gosvami's Srimad-Bhagavatam and from Sri Jiva Gosvami's Sat-sandarpa, and then he wrote:

[Pundarika dasa reads from Jaiva Dharma, Chapter Sixteen:] 

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada told us this version of Jaiva Dharma has been edited and should not be read or cited.]

NM: "Innumerable jivas appear from Sri Baladeva Prabhu to serve Vrndavana-vihari Sri Krsna as His eternal associates in Goloka Vrndavana, and others appear from Sri Sankarsana to serve the Lord of Vaikuntha, Sri Narayana, in the spiritual sky. 

Eternally relishing rasa, engaged in the service of their worshipable Lord, they always remain fixed in their constitutional position. They always strive to please Bhagavan, and are always favorable to Him. By virtue of the spiritual sakti, they have the strength to stay fixed in their devotion, and they have no connection with the material energy. 

In fact, they are unaware that there is a deluding energy called maya. Since they reside in the spiritual world, maya stays far from them and does not affect them at all. Always absorbed in the bliss of serving their worshipable Lord, they are eternally liberated and are free from material happiness and distress. Their life is love alone, and they are not even conscious of misery, death or fear."

[Srila Narayana Maharaja:] They are all liberated. They don't know what is maya and what is this material world. Who knows? We know. We have come from tatastha-sakti, from a manifestation of Baladeva Prabhu called Karanadaksayi Visnu, who is situated on the marginal line, in the Karanabdhi (Causal Ocean).


[PADA: Now we are really getting things mixed up. The jeevas are coming from Karanadaksayi Vishnu, fine except, He is the incarnation who takes care of souls who have ALREADY FALLEN. Now NM is saying Krishna creates some souls in Vaikuntha with Him -- and some not in Vaikuntha and without Him, which is Christian theology, some souls start in heaven with God, some do not. That means NM is saying God is biased with His children, some start out in a better situation than others, biased. No! The souls that "start out" with Maha Vishnu are ALREADY FALLEN, they did not START there.


Upendra: "The innumerable universes are generated from skinholes of this Karanodakasayi Visnu, and in each one of the universes the Lord enters as Garbhodakasayi Visnu."

Prabhupada: Again, after creation of the universes, He enters each and every universe. This universe is filled with water, half. What you are seeing, that is half only. And half is filled with water. In that water Visnu again lying, expanding. This is Visnu's power. He can expand in innumerable identities. 


[PADA: Another problem, the tatastha jeevas came from a place called tatastha jeevas? No. The jeevas themselves are called the tatastha shakti. The jeevas are not a region or a place, they are spiritual sparks. Spiritual sparks are not a place? We have not come from the tatastha shakti, we are the tatastha shakti. Nor did we originate here in the material universes under Karanadaksayi Vishnu, which means our origin is to be in the hellish material world. Why is NM saying God originates some of His children in hell? He is preaching Christian jeeva tattva!]

NM: The jivas are not coming to this world from Goloka Vrndavana, nor are they coming from Vaikuntha. They are coming form the marginal line, from the glance of Karanabdhisayi Visnu. Among them, those who look towards Vaikuntha are liberated, and they go there at once without delay. Conversely, those who look toward this world will come here.

[PADA: OK Narayana Maharaja says that all have original Goloka love, then he says this is experienced in the tatastha marginal line, but there is no such thing as the tatastha marginal line, we are the tatastha ourselves. Nor does he explain how people in the so-called tatastha region experience original Goloka consciousness, but they are not in Goloka? 

They have original Goloka consciousness, but they are not allowed there? 

Why are they excluded from Goloka if they have original Goloka consciousness? We have a bunch of jeevas who have original Goloka consciousness, but they are not allowed there? Why would Krishna banish people from Goloka if they have original Goloka consciousness?, and He would put them in the tatastha region, which does not exist?]
  
NM: Jivas are independent because Krsna has made them so. This independence is like a special jewel, and the jivas can use it properly or misuse it. If they using it well, they will quickly go towards Vaikuntha, and if they misuse it they will have to suffer.

[PADA: But if there is no activity, planets, teachings etc. in the marginal so-called tatastha region, how will people know how to choose anything? God makes us choose, but He gives us no tools to use for making the choice?]

NM: Here is an example. If you have a sharp sword or knife and you drop some very small and round mustard seeds on it so that they falls in the middle of the sword, some will fall over to one side and some will fall to the other. The jiva has got some independence to go here or there. This is not the fault of Krsna, but rather it is their independence to look here and there. If they look towards Vaikuntha or Goloka Vrndavana, Yogamaya will at once help them and they will go there. On the other hand, those who look towards the material world will be attracted by Mahamaya. Krsna is not at fault here. 

[PADA: But if there is no activity or teaching in the so-called tatastha region, how can people make an educated choice?]

NM: You cannot understand this in your present stage, but when you come in our stage, then you will realize something. At present you should chant, follow your guru, and follow all these teachings. 

Don't conclude that the jivas have come from Goloka. Although Srila Swami Maharaja never said that the jivas fell from Goloka, some of his disciples try to prove that he has said the opposite. But I know the truth. He has told me, and it is also in sastra. Srimati Syamarani dasi has collected so many of Srila Swami Maharaja words, confirming that he never accepted that the jivas came from Goloka Vrndavana.

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada says we all originated in Krishna's leela or sport, why is Jadurani helping NM "prove" that we originated in the "tatastha region" which sounds very much like impersonal brahman?]

NM: na tad bhasayate suryo
na sasanko na pavakah
yad gatva na nivartante
tad dhama paramam mama

"That supreme abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire or electricity. Those who reach it never return to this material world." (Bg 15.6)

Goloka is such a dhama that there is no maya. Rather, only Yogamaya is there. A person who is seriously chanting, remembering and following, passes through the stages of sraddha, nistha, ruci, asakti, and prema, after a long, long, long time. If he has gone to Goloka Vrndavana Dhama and is serving Krsna, there is no chance at all to fall down. There is no example at all in the Vedas, Upanisads, or any other scriptures.

[PADA: But Srila Prabhupada says even if you go to Vaikuntha, you can still fall back here again, if you choose to.]

Srila Gour-Govinda Swami used to say very boldly that those who wear big kanti-mala and chant, "Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna," at the same time being duplicitous, hypocritical and critical, are kali-cela, disciples of Kali. They are not Vaisnavas because they have none of the symptom of a Vaisnava. Such persons think that they can vote to determine siddhanta or to determine who is acarya or guru. This is totally against Vaisnava law. Experts are experts. Guru is guru.

[PADA: Why did NM say these disciple of Kali Yuga can be worshiped as rati keli siddhas, and they are gurus? And this is also not the point, the GBC had no bearing on this, it is Srila Prabhupada who said we originate with Krishna, not the GBC? Why did Gaura Govinda Maharaja stand up and defend keeping Tamal in the acharya seat in 1993, if Tamal is a Kali chela? And why was NM hanging out with Tamal all the time, and harassing us for challenging NM's "dear Tamal tree of Radha"?] 

Who made Srila Swami Maharaja guru? Has Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura made him acarya? Has he given him a certificate saying, "After me you will be acarya, and you will do such and such"? It's ones own service that makes one acarya or guru. There was no duplicity in him, and he was very kind and merciful to all.

[PADA: No it is not one's service, one has to get the order to be acharya from his acharya.] 

NM: He realized this fact and he served like that. Similarly, Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura has not made our Guru Maharaja an acarya. He did not tell him, "After me, you shall be acarya," but still he has become a very famous acarya - strong like a lion. Those who serve their Gurudeva properly will become acarya. Who made Sri Sukadeva Gosvami acarya? Who made Sri Jiva Gosvami acarya? Who made Srila Gour-Govinda Maharaja acarya? 

[PADA: Gaura Govinda Maharaja was made acharya when the GBC reinstated sex with taxi drivers as their acharya. He was made acharya by the votes of the GBC, and he was one of the biggest defenders of keeping Tamal in the post of guru.]

NM: It would be quite absurd to think that liberated souls in Goloka Vrndavana can ever be covered by maya. You should have strong faith that the jivas did not fall from there. They have come from the marginal point. They have come from Karanabdhisayi Visnu and from tatastha-sakti. Jiva himself is tatastha-sakti.

[PADA: Karanadaksayi Vishnu takes cares of the souls who have fallen. Worse, NM says we come from tatastha, and we are tatastha. We created ourselves? What happened to Krishna, thought He created us!]

[Srimati Syamarani dasi:] Throughout Srila Prabhupada's books he confirms Srila Gurudeva's statements that the jiva never fell from Goloka Vrndavana. In the First Canto Srimad-Bhagavatam, first chapter, first verse, last line, it's stated:

dhamna svena sada nirasta-kuhakam satyam param dhimahi

Srila Vyasadeva says, "I meditate on that Absolute Truth, Sri Krsna, who eternally resides in His own abode which forever free from the illusory representations of this material world. This means that at no time is there any amount of maya in Krsna's abode. In the Third Canto Srimad-Bhagavatam, in the history of Jaya and Vijaya, Pariksit Maharaja asks Sukadeva Gosvami, "How is it possible that Jaya and Vijaya could have fallen down from that realm? 
I don't believe it." 

Any pure devotee will not believe it. Srila Prabhupada writes in the purport of the Seventh Canto, Chapter 1 (Text 35), "Therefore it is to be understood that when Jaya and Vijaya descended to this material world, they came because there was something to be done for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Otherwise it is a fact that no one falls from Vaikuntha." Jaya and Vijaya had a desire to please the Lord. All the associates of the Lord have only one desire: to give Him pleasure.

[PADA: Except there are many other quotes where he says we did fall from Vaikuntha.]

It's not that this is a new teaching or something that is hidden deep in Caitanya-caritamrta. I joined Prabhupada in New York in October, 1966, and two months later I heard him speak this same thing in his morning class. [Dec. 17, 1966: Karanabdhi-pare. Just on the other side of the Causal Ocean, this material energy is situated. Virajara pare paravyome nahi gati. And this material energy has no entrance in the spiritual kingdom.

Now, the description of the spiritual world is that there is no rajas-tamah. These modes of passion and modes of ignorance is not there. Suddha-sattva. Suddha-sattva means simply goodness, pure goodness, without any tinge of passion and ignorance. So pravartate yatra rajas tamas tayoh sattvam ca misram na ca kala-vikramah. There is no mixed goodness; simply goodness. And na ca kala-vikramah: And there is no influence of time. This is the description of the spiritual world: There is no modes of passion, and there is no modes of ignorance, and there is no influence of time." That means there is simply pure goodness. And in pure goodness we can understand our constitutional position: we can understand what is God, what is creation, everything.]

Srila Gurudeva often quotes a verse from Bhagavad-gita, as does Prabhupada. In his translation and commentary of Bhagavad-gita, Prabhupada writes that when one experiences a higher taste, he leaves the lower taste.

One gives up lower engagements when he experiences a higher taste. Even in the stage of ruci, taste, one has no desire for material pleasures. In asakti, in bhava, what to speak of prema, and what to speak of the devotees who are enraptured, enjoying the pleasures of Goloka Vrndavana; there is no desire for such mundane pleasures. Krsna says in the Gita that one who takes shelter of His spiritual energy is free from maya. That spiritual energy is Yogamaya, and Yogamaya is an expansion of Srimati Radhika. For one who serves Radha and Krsna, there is no question of every having the desire to come to this material world.

Someone wrote Prabhupada a letter and asked, "Did we ever see Krsna?" Prabhupada replied, "Yes, we saw Krsna, just as the child was with the father before coming out of the mother's womb."

["Regarding your second question, have the conditioned souls ever seen Krsna? Were they with the Lord before being conditioned by the desire to lord it over material nature? Yes, the conditioned souls are parts and parcels of the Lord and thus they were with Krsna before being conditioned. Just as the child must have seen his father because the father places the child in the womb of the mother, similarly each soul has seen Krsna or the Supreme Father." (Letter to Jagadisa, Los Angeles, 25 April, 1970)]

In other words, he was saying that we never saw Krsna. We were with Krsna because we came from Krsna - from His tatastha-sakti. That person who came out of his mother's womb never actually associated with the father previously. Later on he meets his father.

[Gokula dasa:] Actually, within ISKCON there was two or three.

[Srila Narayana Maharaja:] I know. I have read them. Srila Swami Maharaja sometimes gave baby food to babies. When I give a baby medicine like quinine, I tell him, "Baby, baby, it is very sweet." I'm telling him something that is not true so that I can give him the medicine. Similarly, Srila Swami Maharaja has written to someone who was very low in bhakti. A letter cannot always be proof. What Srila Swami Maharaja has written in Caitanya-caritamrta and in his Gita and Bhagavata explanation is authentic. These are proofs. He can write something else for a little baby, but it is not proof.

[Gokula dasa:] Srila Gour-Govinda Maharaja said that he was doing it to encourage them. Otherwise.

It is absurd to think that any jiva can fall from Goloka Vrndavana. Any liberated soul can come with Krsna to assist in His pastimes, as Sridama and Subala do. Krsna sends them here only to help the rebellious souls. Try to remember Krsna and follow this doctrine: God is one, there is one religion, and that religion is love and affection for the Supreme Lord Krsna.

Gaura Premanande!

Transcribers: Yamuna dasi, Madhuri dasi, and Vrndavanesvari dasi
Editor: Syamarani dasi
Typist: Radhika dasi 

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

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur says “However, because of contact with matter, the imprisoned soul loses the memory of his original spiritual form in Vaikuntha. . . material rasas are perverted reflections of the soul’s original spiritual RASAS.” Prema-pradipa, p. 83

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawati Thakur: ‘It is the jivas who are the attendants IN HIS SPORTS. They become attached to matter, having deviated from their own essential nature as the result of their desire for enjoyment. But when again the soul . . . gains true wisdom of the transcendental region of God . . . he begins to get back his pure essential nature . . .’ Sri Chaitanya’s Teachings, page 323

HOW THE SOUL FALLS FROM VAIKUNTHA

"The moment the attracted souls are distracted, they glance towards maya from Vaikuntha. At that time the universe is created and material enjoyment overcomes the constitutional duties of the living entities belonging to the marginal potency of the Lord and makes them averse to Krsna. This aversion to Krsna induces the conditioned souls to become bewildered with incomplete thoughts of Brahman and Paramatma, and in their incomplete conceptions of Brahman and Paramatma they are covered by their individual material sentiments."

-- Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, in Caitanya Bhagavata, Madhya-khanda 13.084


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

PADA: NM has a discussion with the GBC in 1978, we know various eye-witnesses, and he said (A) that Srila Prabhupada had told him ALL of his followers are monkeys. Fine. Yet then, (B) NM then said that 11 of these monkey have to be worshiped as rati keli siddhas. Why does NM think that monkeys are rati keli siddha acharyas? 

If we would ask any average five year old child if monkey pooja will take one back to God, they will laugh in your face at this ridiculous idea, even children know this is utter foolishness, you cannot attain God by worship of monkeys. Why doesn't NM know what any child already knows? You can only attain God by worship of His pure devotee, whereas worship of monkeys will simply take one to a future birth as a monkey. 

Even five year olds know you cannot worship monkeys as God's successors? It really does not matter if NM knows how the jeeva falls or not, since he thinks the path to liberate the jeeva is monkey poooja. ys pd




Baseless Rubber Stamp of Guru System

Baseless Rubber-stamping System

BY: KRISHNA DASA

The GBC rubber-stamping of gurus is problematic in many ways. The prospective disciple is supposed to take responsibility for choosing a guru, but the GBC has decided that devotees are not qualified to freely choose a guru. Instead they say that they are better qualified to decide who can be a guru. So the GBC creates a list and tells devotees that they can only take initiation from someone on the list.

The GBC then admits that it doesn't know who is genuinely qualified to initiate, instead it gives "no objection" approval. So they tell us they are not responsible for the gurus that THEY have chosen. In other words, WE have to take responsibility for choosing a guru from THEIR list, even though we may be inspired by someone not on the list.

What makes matters worse, the voting system for authorising diksa-gurus in ISKCON is open to abuse and political manipulation. Where is the justification for this voting system? The GBC attempts to justify the system in the 2017 GBC Resolutions. However, they do not provide a single instance of Srila Prabhupada approving of a guru voting system. Instead they provide a quote that suggests an exam-based system:

"Next January there will be an examination on this Bhagavad-gita. Papers will be sent by me to all centers, and those securing the minimum passing grade will be given the title as Bhakti-sastri. Similarly, another examination will be held on Lord Caitanya's Appearance Day in February, 1970 and it will be upon Srimad-Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita. Those passing will get the title of Bhakti-vaibhava. Another examination will be held sometimes in 1971 on the four books, Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Teachings of Lord Caitanya, and Nectar of Devotion. One who will pass this examination will be awarded with the title of Bhaktivedanta.

I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples. Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program. So we should not simply publish these books for reading by outsiders, but our students must be well versed in all of our books so that we can be prepared to defeat all opposing parties in the matter of self-realization."
(Letter to Hansadutta -- Los Angeles 3 January, 1969)

In the course of Srila Prabhupada's preaching mission he did not, to my knowledge, re-affirm this exam-based system. So there is little reason to think that this was Prabhupada's desire before his departure in 1977. But one may ask why it is that the GBC prefer a voting system to an exam-based system? The case for a voting system is even weaker that the case for an exam-based system.

It is not possible to accurately determine a devotee's level of self-realisation, but as far as observable qualities go, a diksa-guru should exhibit good character, have good sadhana, be a potent preacher and have good sastric knowledge. The problem is that based on those criteria there are devotees in ISKCON who surpass some of the existing gurus, and yet they are not authorised to initiate. There is no justification for blocking devotees that appear to be more qualified than many diksa-gurus.

The voting system supports the GBC oligarchy and ensures that the GBC remains in complete control. In contrast, an exam-based system is closer to a meritocracy and would lead to a redistribution of power. Perhaps that is why the GBC prefers a voting system.

The number of diksa-gurus has not increased over the years, many disciples receive insufficient guidance from their guru, and many gurus express their inability to properly take care of their disciples. Under those circumstances, one wonders for how long the GBC can continue to run this system?

[PADA: Right, a devotee who passes an exam might be a guru, but what kind of guru? He would only be a priest type guru since Prabhupada also says the neophytes cannot be diksha gurus and absorb sins. ys pd]

Disappearance of Baladeva Vidyabhusana

Sripad Baladeva VIdyabhusana Tirobhava Tithi [disappearance day]

Srila Prabhupada glorifies Sripada Baladeva Vidyabhusana

Sunday, June 4, 2017 Mayapura, West Bengal, Bharata Bhumi time
compiled by Yasoda nandana dasa

Srila Prabhupada explains how Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana wrote the Gaudiya-Bhasya on the Vedanta-sutras.

Lectures : Bhagavad-gita Lectures : Bg 13: Lectures : Bhagavad-gita 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973 : 730930BG.BOM : But sometimes back, in Jaipur, there was a challenge that "The Gauḍīya Sampradāya has no commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra." So at that time Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura was requested... Because he was grand scholar, grand old man scholar, at that time living in Vṛndāvana... So he was very old at that time; so he authorized Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana, that "You do it." 

There was no need, but people are demanding, "Where is your commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra?" So Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana, with the order of Govindaji at Jaipur, he wrote the commentary on Brahma-sūtra. That name is Govinda-bhāṣya. So the Gauḍīya-Brahmā Sampradāya, they have got also commentary on Brahma-sūtra. That is required.

Conversations : 1976 Conversations : June, 1976 : Interview with Professors O'Connell, Motilal and Shivaram -- June 18, 1976, Toronto : 760618iv.tor :
Prabhupāda: So, it is actually bhāṣyāyāṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām. It is stated. This is the real commentary on Brahma-sūtra by Vyāsadeva himself, author. Vyāsadeva is the author of Brahma-sūtra, and he has written personally, under the instruction of his guru, Nārada Muni, this Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya. And it begins with the Brahma-sūtra aphorism: janmādy asya yataḥ [SB 1.1.1]. 

The Brahma-sūtra begins with these words: janmādya, athāto brahma jijñāsā. Janmādy asya yataḥ. So these things are explained elaborately. Therefore Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya, bhāṣyāyāṁ brahma-sūtra. Vedārtha paribṛṁhita. So therefore in our Gauḍīya, Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not write any bhāṣya of the Brahma-sūtra, neither the gosvāmīs, because they took it that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the real bhāṣya of Brahma-sūtra. But when.... Sometimes the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas are challenged that "You cannot be accepted as bona fide community, spiritual community, because you have no bhāṣya on Brahma-sūtra." 

Then Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa wrote govinda-bhāṣya. But Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not like or ask His disciples to write, because He thought, "This is the Gauḍīya, Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya." Not Gauḍīya—for every Vaiṣṇava. Bhāṣyāyāṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām. So we have got now Gauḍīya Vedānta-bhāṣya. Rāmānuja Vedānta-bhāṣya is there. Madhvācārya Vedānta-bhāṣya is there, all. And Gauḍīya had not. But since this challenge was made in Jaipur, then Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, he took: "Yes," and he finished, Gauḍīya bhāṣya, and it is called Govinda-bhāṣya. Actually, in India, unless one follows the ācāryas and has given commentary on the Brahma-sūtra, he's not a bona fide. Nyāya-prasthāna. Brahma-sūtra is called nyāya-prasthāna. Śruti-prasthāna, smṛti-prasthāna, nyāya-prasthāna. So any bona fide ācārya must give his understanding about these three prasthānas..

Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures : Canto 1: Lectures : SB 1.2: Lectures : Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.25 -- Vrndavana, November 5, 1972 : 721105SB.VRN :
Now, the Vedānta, in the beginning it is, the first sūtra is: athāto brahma jijñāsā. So to inquire about Brahman, the Absolute. Now, the next answer is janmādy asya yataḥ [SB 1.1.1]. Brahman, the Absolute Truth, is that from whom everything emanates. Janmādy asya yataḥ [SB 1.1.1]. Now, this janmādy asya yataḥ is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is explained by Vyāsadeva himself. Vyāsadeva is explaining Vedānta-sūtra in his book, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām **. Śrī Vyāsadeva says, "This is the real comment, or bhāṣya, of Vedānta-sūtra, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam." 

Therefore Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, Gosvāmīs, they did not write any comment on the Vedānta-sūtra because they accept Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. So why they should write again? But still, when there was such question raised in Jaipur that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava has no commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, at that time, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, he wrote Govinda-bhāṣya on Vedānta-sūtra. But still, Vedānta-sūtra does not mean to understand impersonalism. No. That's not the fact

Guest (1) (Indian man): ...cultural affairs, Orissa government. Here there is a large stack of palm leaf manuscripts. Palm leaf manuscripts. We are editing the Sanskrit manuscripts, correcting them and publishing them.
Srila Prabhupāda: Sanskrit?
Guest (1): Sanskrit.
Prabhupāda: It is published in Sanskrit?
Guest (1): Yes.
Prabhupāda: Palm beach?
Guest (2) (Indian man): Palm leaves.
Hari-śauri: Some manuscripts on palm leaf.
Prabhupāda: Oh, palm leaf.
Hari-śauri: They're translating and publishing. So he is the editor in charge of all that for the government.
Guest (1): What is the...?
Srila Prabhupāda: What is the śāstra?
Hari-śauri: What is the name of the śāstra?
Guest (1): Śāstra. I told yesterday Bhakti-bhāgavatam of Kavisurya Baladeva(?).
Srila Prabhupāda: Oh, yes, yes.
Guest (1): And ācārya, there is one... (quotes long Sanskrit verses) This is one Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa līlā by Kavisurya Baladeva of Orissa.
Srila Prabhupāda: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana?
Guest (1): Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana who commented on, wrote Śrī Bhāṣyam..
Gurukṛpa: That's the same one you just quoted? By who?
Guest (1): Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana.
Gurukṛpa: The one you just sang.
Guest (1): No. This is Kavisurya Baladeva.
Srila Prabhupāda: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana, different.
Guest (1): Different.
Srila Prabhupāda: Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana belonged to Orissa or Bengal?
Guest (1): Yes, Orissa. And he has clearly mentioned that near Tilika, Tilika Lake he was born. It is clear mentioned.
Srila Prabhupāda: But he used to live in Balasore.
Guest (1): Yes. He used to live in Balasore, and then went to Bhastrana,(?) where he wrote Bhāṣya on Vedānta-sūtra and Gītā.
Prabhupāda: Vedānta-sūtra, Govinda-bhāṣya, he wrote in Jaipur.
Guest (1): Jaipur. Yes, last time, Jaipur.
Srila Prabhupāda: I have dedicated my Bhagavad-gītā to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana.
Guest (1): Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana? Following Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana?
Hari-śauri: He dedicated it. Yes, this is... Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana.
Conversations : 1977 Conversations : January, 1977 : Room Conversation -- January 24, 1977, Bhuvanesvara 

Conversations : 1976 Conversations : July, 1976 : Conversation with Prof. Saligram and Dr. Sukla -- July 5, 1976, Washington, D.C. : 760705rc.wdc :
Prabhupāda: Brahma-sūtra-padaiś caiva hetumādbhir viniścitaiḥ [Bg. 13.5]. Very.... Nyāya-praṣṭhāna. 

But Vedānta-sūtra is explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore our Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, they did not write any comment on the Vedānta-sūtra. They accept Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the real bhāṣya. But when the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas are challenged that "You have no Vedānta-sūtra-bhāṣya, therefore you cannot be accepted as transcendental party," so Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana immediately gave Govinda-bhāṣya on Vedānta. Our Gosvāmīs, they did not write because they knew Brahma-sūtra bhāṣya, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam

Lectures : Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures : Madhya-lila: Lectures : Madhya 20: Lectures : Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 20.100-108 -- New York, November 22, 1966 : 661122C2.NY :

So Sanātana Gosvāmī, he's ācārya in this disciplic succession from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Lord Caitanya. He is the first disciple of Lord Caitanya, and from him, Sanātana Gosvāmī, six Gosvāmīs. There were six among the first followers of Lord Caitanya. And then, from next step comes Raghunātha Gosvāmī and then this author of this book, Kṛṣṇa dāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, and from him, Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura, and then from him, Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. In this way this disciplic succession is coming from Lord Caitanya. 

So as ācārya... Ācārya means one who knows the principles of scripture, properly being initiated by authority who knows things as they are, and they apply those things in their own life. They are called ācārya. Acinoti śāstrāṇi: he must know all the principles from authorities, and he should apply in his life those principles. Not that he knows but does not apply. He cannot be ācārya. Āpani ācari prabhu jīva disa (?). Lord Caitanya, He, although He is accepted as the, I mean to say, the personal, He's Kṛṣṇa Himself, still, He behaved in such a way that others can follow. He also accepted Īśvara Purī. Īśvara, Īśvara Purī was His spiritual master, Lord Caitanya's. This is the disciplic succession.

Conversations : 1971 Conversations : July, 1970 : Room Conversation -- July 18, 1971, Detroit : 710718RC.DET :

Prabhupāda: Then, from Kṛṣṇa, Nārada. From Nārada, Vyāsadeva. From Vyāsadeva to Madhvācārya, from Madhvācārya to Īsvara Puri, Mādhavendra Puri, then Caitanya Mahāprabhu, then His disciples, the six Goswāmīs, then Kṛṣṇa dāsa Kavirāja, then Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. So we are taking account very rigidly from Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and I am the tenth generation from Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains the suvarna-varna hemango citation to establish Lord Caitanya as the yuga-avatara.

suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgo
varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī
sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto
niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ

SYNONYMS

suvarṇa—of gold; varṇaḥ—having the color; hema-aṅgaḥ—whose body was like molten gold; vara-aṅgaḥ—having a most beautiful body; candana-aṅgadī—whose body was smeared with sandalwood; sannyāsa-kṛt—practicing the renounced order of life; śamaḥ—equipoised; śāntaḥ—peaceful; niṣṭhā—devotion; śānti—and of peace; parāyaṇaḥ—the highest resort.

TRANSLATION

"In His early pastimes He appears as a householder with a golden complexion. His limbs are beautiful, and His body, smeared with the pulp of sandalwood, seems like molten gold. In His later pastimes He accepts the sannyāsa order, and He is equipoised and peaceful. He is the highest abode of peace and devotion, for He silences the impersonalist nondevotees."

PURPORT

This is a verse from the Mahābhārata (Dāna-dharma, Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma-stotra). In his commentary on the Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma called the Nāmārtha-sudhā, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, commenting upon this verse, asserts that Lord Caitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead according to the evidence of the Upaniṣads. He explains that suvarṇa-varṇaḥ means a golden complexion. He also quotes the Vedic injunction yadā paśyaḥ paśyate rukma-varṇaṁ kartāram īśaṁ puruṣaṁ brahma-yonim (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.3). 

Rukma-varṇaṁ kartāram īśam refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead as having a complexion the color of molten gold. Puruṣam means the Supreme Lord, and brahma-yonim indicates that He is also the Supreme Brahman. This evidence, too, proves that Lord Caitanya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa. Another meaning of the description of the Lord as having a golden hue is that Lord Caitanya's personality is as fascinating as gold is attractive. Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has explained that the word varāṅga means "exquisitely beautiful."

Lord Caitanya accepted sannyāsa, leaving aside His householder life, to preach His mission. He has equanimity in different senses. First, He describes the confidential truth of the Personality of Godhead, and second, He satisfies everyone by knowledge and attachment to Kṛṣṇa. He is peaceful because He renounces all topics not related to the service of Kṛṣṇa. 

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa has explained that the word niṣṭhā indicates His being rigidly fixed in chanting the holy name of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Lord Caitanya subdued all disturbing opponents of devotional service, especially the monists, who are actually averse to the personal feature of the Supreme Lord.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta - 1975 Edition : Cc. Adi-lila  The External Reasons for Lord Caitanya's Appearance : Adi 3.49 .