[PADA: To sum, it is an insult to constantly imply, as Rocana's team does every day, that Srila Prabhupada is now the post mortem, i.e. dead, gone and de facto irrelevant guru? Worse, Rocana says that Srila Prabhupada's idea of worship of the bona fide acharyas makes him a sort of detestable "ritvik pundit." Rocana also says Srila Prabhupada is a deviant from the Vedas, since Srila Prabhupada says we must worship the bona fide acharyas whereas Rocana says: "this is not found in the tradition." Rocana also complains that Srila Prabhupada's idea to make a Governing Body (and have some of them acting as priests) is exactly what the Christian Church does, so Rocana complains that Prabhupada is a mundane relgioninst. Rocana is directly attacking Srila Prabhupada as the real deviant. Thanks pd]
Rocana's Posthumous Church
"The Church Of Ritvik" By Rocana dasa/
[PADA: Rocana prabhu was a big supporter of the post 1977 GBC gurus after Srila Prabhupada departed, serving dubious "gurus" like Hansadutta, Kirtanananda and others. He seems to have fallen off their train wreck in the later 1980s, only when the GBC was running out of vouchers and payments to give to their loyalists like Rocana. Meanwhile, we had been writing papers critical of the GBC as were being published in the "Vedic Village Review" and elsewhere, and yet he remained oddly -- silent. Although he says he has "reformed" and he wants to join us to promote "The Sampradaya Acharya" Srila Prabhupada, he then goes back to the policy of (which is at least what Atreya Rsi calls it) "stabbing Prabhupada in the back"; the GBC policy of promoting that Srila Prabhupada is the "dead and gone post - samadhi guru." It thus appears that he has re-joined the GBC since: he is writing a paper giving the GBC's exact "living guru" arguments, indeed Rocana is using the GBC's terms such as "post samadhi," and then he is submitting his "through the back door" GBC paper to be published on the "GBC friendly" web site called "CHAKRA." Rocana is thus back -- to officially attacking the people who want to establish the worship of the Sampradaya Acharya Srila Prabhupada.]
* Rocana dasa (RD): Introduction: In my previous paper, entitled "Sampradaya Acarya," I choose to exclude a number of sections in order to maintain focus on the central theme. In this paper, I hope to clearly explain the degree to which I differ from philosophical exponents of post-samadhi diksa.
[PADA: First of all, Rocana correctly says that that Srila Prabhupada is "the Sampradya Acharya," a term used even by us Prabhupadanugas, and this term was even used in Hansadutta's "reform" book some years ago. Yet then Rochana suddenly switches hats and becomes a disciple of (the GBC's guru) Ravindra Swarupa's saying: Srila Prabhupada is dead, gone, "posthumous," "post mortem," and in sum: Srila Prabhupada is now the "post samadhi" diksha guru. And let us not forget that Rocana's co-writing team members such as: Ravindra /Jayadvaita/ Tamal/ et al., had previously referred to Srila Prabhupada as the "posthumous" guru only a few short years ago. That is, until they received so many complaints from folks like us that they had to change their "posthumous" term to "post samadhi." So the idea they are painting is clear: that Srila Prabhupada is "post" i.e. "posthumous" and he is thus "dead." It seems that first Srila Prabhupada was poisoned to make him "dead" physically, and then along came the Tamal/ Gaudiya Matha deviants/ Ravindra/ Rocana/ Kailasha Chandra team who conspired to make him ideologically "dead" with their "guru is (posthumous) dead" dogma.
We know of no other bona fide relgion with either Vedic or Western roots that teaches "our guru is the dead and posthumous one." We also know that if Rocana had come into Prabhupada's room before 1977 and said, "Who are we going to worship as 'living' when you are the -- dead, gone and Posthumous one," he would have been laughed out of the room in derision, but as we know, when the cat is (allegedly) away, the mice will play. Now Rocana asks, "Why worship a dead body like that of the Sampradaya Acharya's? What about reading my papers, after all, I am living"? He has become Ravindra's twin brother. Of course people also thought like Rocana even when Krishna was present. "Once this blasted Krishna fellow is out of our hair, then we will declare He is dead and gone, and we will be worshipped as 'the living Kings, the living expert authorities, the living this and living that,'" because Srila Prabhupada says, they were envious of Krishna even when He was here, plain and simple. And similarly Srila Prabhupada says that the Gaudiya Matha's "living guru" project was based on the fact that they were "envious of my guru maharaja." And so Srila Prabhupada says that just like they tried to get rid of Krishna, they may try to get rid of me.
Rocana's "posthumous guru" idea was thus mentioned many times by Srila Prabhupada as part of the deviant teachings of the post 1936 Gaudiya Matha in India: "As soon as it was announced that guru maharaja is dead, I am so advanced I can kill guru and become guru" (Srila Prabhupada 1976). Thus Rocana's second idea, that Srila Prabhupada is the "posthumous guru," is all part of the terminology coined by the GBC's ideological (siddhanta) leaders, such as the Gaudiya Matha's deviants and their followers such as Jayadvaita and Ravindra swarupa? Of course the GBC's advisors such as Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, BV and BP Puri Maharajas, and similar others have also said the same thing, they all supported the worship of the GBC's homosexual and pedophile guru lineage. Their collective idea is that: at least the deviants we are supporting as gurus are "living." So for the deviants, it is better to worship another deviant than a "a posthumous departed acharya."
It is an incontestable historical fact that their idea of "worship of a living body" (vapuh vada) subsequently lead to worship of homosexuals after 1936 in India. And later, when their "living bodily guru worship" (vapuh vada) was adopted by the GBC in ISKCON it lead to the same thing, worship of homosexual pedophiles and deviants after 1977. This has all been recorded in the public newspapers, and thus this fact has never been contested by the GBC or their supporters such as Narayana Maharaja. Yet notice, they are still very proud of their deviations and will not admit to their glaring mistake, never mind that their "posthumous guru" dogma has lead to weird and dangerous "living guru" cults, and then the mass molesting of thousands of children, murders, horrific publicity, and the curse of a high rate of suicides amongst their molested children victims, and so on and so forth? In other words, they said that you need to worship a living body, which is not found anywhere in the Vedic writings, then they selected deviants as the "living body" one had to worship. Rocana is essentially stating that he is still in league with this group?
Notice: Srila Prabhupada says that these "living guru" thinkers are in actual fact "killing guru" with their bogus ideology, or siddhanta. They are attacking the acharyas not necessarily with physical weapons like guns. So these "guru killers" ideologues are using their words to attack and kill the acharya. "Our guru, oh yes he is the posthumous one, our guru is the dead and gone one." That means they are "killing their guru" with their ideology. Either that or Rocana seems to be confused right from the beginning? A "Samparaya Acharya" is someone who is very much relevant now, even if he has departed physically. Whereas Rocana's adopted GBC terminology juxtaposes the "Sampradya Acharya" with his "dead, gone, posthumous, post samadhi diksha guru" ideas. Mind you, their "posthumous guru" terms do not even exist in Vedic culture or any other bona fide religion? Which bona fide religion preaches that "our guru is -- the dead one"? These terms are fabricated concoctions coming from the fertile brains of Rocana's mentors, the GBC, the Gaudiya Matha's deviants like Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, and others like Kailasha Chandra, Kundali and similar other "post mortem" "pothumous" "post samadhi" guru vadis? Where does Srila Prabhupada use their "post mortem" "posthumous" "post samadhi" terms to describe -- any -- of the acharyas?
Also notice: what they are really trying to do is to paint those of us who want to worship the bona fide acaryas are some sort of "posthumous" ghost worship cult. One woman told me that their whole terminology of "post mortem" and "posthumous guru" worship mortified her. She said their idea sounds like Rocana's team is trying to make "Srila Prabhupada's worship" appear as some kind of Caribbean Voodoo black magic "posthumous" worship cult. They are trying to scare people away from worship of the acharya. "Oh, Srila Prabhupada, yes this is worship of the posthumous." Read: worship of the acharyas is in the modes of ignorance. Meanwhile, these sophisticated self proclaimed "advanced" devotees have at one time or other promoted the worship of homosexuals and pedophiles as "Krishna' successors," including their alleged great independent scholars such as Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and BV and BP Puri Maharajas, all of the GBC's various "advisors" over the years. Rocana does not say how he differs from these thinkers? Rocana says we need to worship a living person, not a dead and gone person like Srila Prabhupada. He only differs from the GBC in that his "living guru" has no name, address or apparent real existence? Either that, or the "living guru" of Rocana's is really: Rochana himself, since Srila Prabhupada says that by minimising the acharyas one is making himself the guru?
In short, their real agenda is to say that the worship of Srila Prabhupada is really some kind of ignorant "tama guna" ghost worship of a "post mortem" departed person, like the people who worship ghosts. Meanwhile, while they have blocked the door to the worship of Srila Prabhupada, they have opened to door, certainly as a collateral result, to the worship of homosexuals, pedophiles, and murderers. So they are blocking the door of worship the bona fide acharya and thereby they are directly or indirectly opening the door to worship of all sorts of unqualified persons, and deviants, as has occurred. Again, this is what happened in the Gaudiya Matha. Notice too, that they are vehement bullies in their process of stopping the worship of Srila Prabhupada, which is why Srila Prabhupada says that these Gaudiya Matha thinkers are "envious of their guru," they made false replacements for their guru and "they insisted on it."
Srila Prabhupada was also very angry when "Time Magazine" asked on the cover "Is God Dead"? He was furious. And since Krishna is also one of our parampara's acharyas, Rocana's team is thus lumping even Lord Krishna in as one of their "post samadhi diksha acharyas"? Why are we saying that God is (post mortem) dead! Ravindra Swarupa says, "If Srila Prabhupada is still living, write him a letter and see if he replies." Similarly, the communists in Bengal also ask the same question, "If there is a God, then write Him a letter and see if He replies"? So Srila Prabhupada says that the communists as well as these "Brahma Sampradaya Renegades" are really atheists. Moreover these renegades seem to take some kind of glee that God and Guru are apparently absent. "Yes, the bona fide acharyas are all post mortem. Write them a letter? Of course, if you write a letter to us 'living' Brahma Sampradya Renegades or us communist atheists, we can reply." So they are sometimes killing Guru by poison, and when that does not work, by their poisonous rhetoric, "Guru and God are posthumous." Of course there are many other similar branches of renegades from the Brahma Sampradaya who try to say, "Krishna died five thousand years ago, He is dead and gone, He is an ordinary mortal," and so on. Same idea, "Krishna is posthumous."
Similarly, there is no other "tradition of religion" except for Rocana and his fellow GBC, Gaudiya Matha deviants and other associates like Kundali and Kailasha that refer to their guru as "the former, posthumous, post, dead and gone one." "He reasons ill who thinks vaishnavas die" says Srila Thakura Bhaktivinode. So Rocana is giving the same identical arguments and he even incorporates the concocted terms as the deviants, "Guru is (post mortem) dead." Again, this is the identical argument used by deviants from the Gaudiya Matha, the GBC and their clones like Kundali and Kailasha -- all along? So they are all renegades from the Brahma Sampradya since no other bona fide acharyas or their bona fide followers have EVER reffered to ANY previous acharyas as the "post (dead and gone) samadhi diksha gurus," because for starters Krishna is one of the "previous acharyas." So they are saying that "God is dead" since He is another "post samadhi guru" in their equation. And thus they are simply infuriating Srila Prabhupada thereby: "Krishna is another post (dead) samadhi guru."]
* RD: For many years, I have been unfairly stigmatized by members of ISKCON as being a Rtvik advocate, although I have been ostracized by the Rtvik inner circle since 1996.
[PADA: Rocana has never been "ostracized" by anyone, he has willingly chosen to associate with his "Guru is post mortem dead (and de facto God is dead)" crew. We have asked him to discuss his "point" with us for 20 years and he refuses to debate perhaps more than a few lines of oblique discussion with us, either privately or publicly, just like Narayana Maharaja, Kailasha and the GBC. They never reply to our points, they just repeat the GBC's "the guru is post mortem" slogans? Maybe he is frustrated since he first of all supported as his "living gurus" the GBC/ Kirtananda/ Jaggadish/ et al. empire in Canada for many years. Let us not forget that Rocana's guru lineage, that he still cites terminology from, is: the child abuser and child molester guru project. And again, Kirtanananda also used to say that Prabhupada is the dead and gone person, so we need to worship a living person (like a homosexual deviant). So Rocana is still repeating Kirtanananda's ideology? He is still tethered to these people? Worse, since Rocana refuses to identify who his "living guru" is, despite our asking him for over the past ten years, he simply makes it sound like maybe -- the homosexual pedophiles are -- still his idea of a guru lineage? He has not targeted where our worship is supposed to go, he simply says, we cannot worship posthumous persons like Srila Prabhupada? By the way Rocana's idea that "Prabhupada's worship is ritvik heresy" simply means he is helping thousands of people walk away to the Gaudiya Matha and so on. He and the GBC are their best recruiters.]
* RD: Admittedly, I share many philosophical conclusions with the Rtvik pandits, particularly when it comes to giving Sriabhupada his proper prominence within the contemporary Vaisnava community, and inclusion as a rare Sampradaya Acarya within our glorious parampara. Interestingly, however, I have experienced a much more ferocious, reactionary feedback from fanatic members of the Rtvik camp than I have from followers of other groups with whom I have a philosophical conflict.
[PADA: Wonderful, except that nowadays even most of the GBC say that they agree with us at PADA that: Srila Prabhupada must be given "prominence"? They have even written papers about how Srila Prabhupada must be made the "prominent acharya," not too far distant from Rocana's paper. The Devil is in the details. Yes, he is the prominent acharya, but -- your team still says that we need a living guru to actually worship today since Srila Prabhupada is gone and posthumous. So the GBC and Rocana are one, again. Since Rocana is simply a parrot for the GBC, why would we agree with his ideas? We say God and Guru are eternally living: and his team is saying the acharyas are dead, gone and "post mortem." They are including even Krishna since He too is also a "post" acharya in our lineage according to their idea? Thus, as long as Rocana and his fellow associates such as the GBC, Sridhara, Narayan Maharajas et al. refer to our succession of gurus, which includes God mind you, as "post" -- dead and gone, they will not find much support in any bona fide circles? They have never proven that Krishna and His Great Devotees are "post" mortem and thus dead, for starters? They have not shown where their concocted "dead God and dead Guru" terminology is used by any bona fide acharyas, or by Krishna? Krishna says the opposite, "Acharyam Mam Vijnaniyam," "one should consider the acharya as My very self." And they say fine, Krishna is "post" -- mortem? Thus we would say that their idea that guru is dead is the same as saying God is dead, and this is confirmed by Krishna Himself as in the above citation.]
* RD: ISKCON and the Rtviks are opposite sides of the same coin, and the tell tale traits of religiosity are manifest in the die-hard members of both opposing groups.
[PADA: No it is that your post mortem guru idea and the GBC's idea are on the same side of the coin, and you both use the same terminology? You say that we need to make some replacements for worship of the post and dead acharya, which is like the Medieval Papal system? You are the ones who are advocates of some mundane religious ideas? We are not saying that we need to make some artificial "spokesman for God" "living gurus," just as the College Of Cardinals votes in the same at the Vatican? Your team are using the GBC's arguments, the Papal system arguments, and you are even using their terminology. We never said that guru is "post" and dead like you and the GBC and the founders of the original Papal system at the Vatican. Neither does any "religionist" refer to his guru or God as "the dead one" as your team is doing. Your "post samadhi diksha" complaint against the acharyas is the foundational idea of making the Papal system, and the GBC and Gaudiya Matha's appointed and voted in guru system, thus yours is the mundane religious system? So what is the difference between your ideas and the mayavadis who say that Krishna was an ordinary man and now He is "post." Or the smartas who say that the vaishnava acharyas are "post"? You are agreeing with these folks.]
* RD: The core message of the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya is for all followers of Lord Caitanya's Sankirtan Movement to exclusively surrender to the unalloyed parampara representative, and to not blindly obey the less than perfect institutional religionists posing as Acaryas.
[PADA: Good point, except now you are switching hats again and giving the essence of the ritvik idea: "We have to worship the bona fide acharya." So this means you are contradicting yourself, just as the GBC does when they say we have to emphasize Prabhupada. You are giving the GBC argument and sometimes, the ritvik argument? You are the blind leaders of the blind followers however since the GBC names "bogus people" as their living acharyas, while you have "no one" as your living acharya? So both of you are blind.]
* RD: The signs of religiosity can be seen in efforts at stifling freedom of expression, muzzling dissenting opinions, marginalizing the brahminical process, ostracizing those not willing to follow lockstep with the elite, and demonizing anyone openly critical of the managers and their latest version of "truth."
[PADA: Exactly, anyone who does not agree with your ideas that "God and Guru are post samadhi dead guys" is treated horrendously. Your team's idea of "post samadhi" has also resulted in thousands of innocent people being banned, beaten, and killed. You siddhanta policy has also resulted in thousands of children being starved, beaten, molested and killed. Agreed, this is all the "living result" of your "post samadhi diskha guru" regime from the 1930s and 1970s. But, why are you saying your ideas are having to do with "religiosity"? Do not lump in your "God and Guru are post mortem and dead" idea with any bona fide religion since no religion on earth preaches that their Guru is -- post, dead and in sum post mortem as your team is doing?]
* RD: A technique commonly shared by ISKCON and the Rtviks is an overemphasis on the absolute necessity for newcomers to discover their diksa guru connection to the Sampradaya, and benefit from the subsequent removal of accumulated vi-karmic reaction.
[PADA: This is "the technique" has been used by all the acharyas for thousands of years i.e.: they preach that one has to be connected to the bona fide acharya -- so that he can get "divyam jnanam which destroys sins" (diksha). This is indeed one of the most prominent teachings of Lord Krishna found in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna tell Arjuna to surrender to Him so that Arjuna will be saved from -- the vikarmic reactions? Thus, according to Rocana, Krishna is a mundane religionist since He wants to right away explain the benefit of absorbing the sins and "vi-karmic" reactions, by connection to the parampara guru? Sorry, Krishna is not "overemphasizing" anything. Krishna is merely explaining the plain fact of spiritual life, that vikarmic reactions have to be nullified for spiritual progress. "Surrender to Me and I will save you from all reactions," this is practically the whole sum and substance theme of Krishna's teachings in the Gita? And yet Rocana implies that Krishna's teachings is some sort of mundane religiosity program? Worse, Rocana's idea of "blocking Srila Prabhupada's mercy" has lead to people "taking shelter" of various fools, child molesters and deviants as their means of "getting saved from sins," but this has not worked as we see? Rocana's idea is exactly like the Catholic Church, the figurehead will be paid a tithe and this removes the sins, not the worship of Jesus directly. No, this is bogus and it is not going to work. Of course Rocana also attacks the worship of Jesus as well as we shall see, despite that Srila Prabhupada says "me and Jesus are brothers."
In sum, Krishna's whole point in the Bhagavad Gita about absorbing the sins is not "over emphasis"? This is merely simple common sense: "In order to get cured from the disease, we will have to remove your tumor sir"? This is practical sense? Of course, we should want to get "removal of vikarmic reactions," otherwise how is progress going to occur if we keep the deadly tumor intact? Rocana's plan is to forget the deadly tumor, but Krishna is not such a fool as Rocana? So Krishna carefully explains this point to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. This is technically called "guru asraya." Rocana even started his paper by saying we all have to recognize the Sampradya Acharya, and that means, "he who destroys the accumulated vi-karmic reaction." That is part of his title, diksha guru? Now he says, why should we emphasize the capability of the acharya who is the person who gives this "divyam jnanam -- which destroys sins." We should not discuss or "over emphasize" his potency? Why are they forbidding us to discuss the potency of the acharya? Why should not people know that the acharyas can give "spiritual knowledge which destroys (vikarmic) sins"? Rather we should be proud that our guru has this potency? He says we have to minimize the preaching of the glories of the acharyas? Instead they want to emphasize that the acharyas, including Krishna, are all dead, gone, post mortem, and we do not.]
* RD: This emphasis ignores the many sastric declarations about the amazing purification that comes about by coming in contact with the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya.
[PADA: Sastra says: that by coming in contact with the Sampradaya Acharya one obtains divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha). That is part of the effect, one is purified of sins? Rocana says that this purification of sins is not "destroying vikarma." So what is he talking about? He does not even know what these Vedic terms mean? He has never studied the Bhagavad Gita? And besides, Srila Prabhupada says that people who simply get his books are getting -- divyam jnanam (which destroys sins). So Rocana is contradicting himself, he says we should NOT emphasize the qualities of the acharyas, that they can purify our vikarmic reactions, and then he says, we must? The problem with his type of folks is that their ideas are full of these contradictions? Again, one woman wrote to tell me, "Rocana's paper is so confusing, I cannot figure out anything he says." I wrote back and told her, "The mayavadi siddhanta is always full of contradictions."]
* RD: From his divine association flows all the knowledge required in order to properly chant the sacred mantras, beginning with the Holy Names. In addition to the Hare Krsna mahamantra, the newcomer receives from the Sampradaya Acarya detailed instruction on how to worship the Deities, Tulasi, follow Ekadasi, and so. There is no pre-requisite stated in sastra that all the purification available via engagement in devotional service first requires being initiated by the diksa guru. The real requirement is connection to the Sampradaya Acarya.
[PADA: The above is all word jugglery? The real process is that the newcomer gets instructions from the acharya (di), and by dint of following he gets purified (ksha), while "formal initiation" is not required at all, nor did we say it was? Rather, just by following -- he is connected and in that sense he is initiated. Srila Prabhupada gave "official initiation ceremonies" to many thousands of people who -- subsequently fell by the wayside. While many others who had no "formal initiation," they have continued. So the "real process" is that anyone who accepts the teachings of the acharya is de facto initiated, as we have seen. You have not read the PADA paper "Our Living Guru." a document which we printed some years ago, we said there is no need for a formal initiation. You are making up a straw man argument here. Nor do we find that Arjuna had a formal diksha guru ceremony from Krishna, Arjuna accepted the instructions, that is the essence. Rocana thinks the instructions of the guru are useless unless one has some living bags of stools body to worship? This is called vapuh vada.]
* RD: The Rtvik pandits have assigned such exalted spiritual qualifications to the bona fide diksa guru that only a divine personality with genuine Sampradaya Acarya status comes close.
[PADA: "Comes close" to what? Rocana is intentionally using confusing the terms used by the acharyas. Srila Prabhupada does not say, "This pure uttama devotee -- never came close -- to that pure uttama devotee"? Where does he apply these ideas to the pure devotees? Why is Rocana saying that there is some type of "holier than thou" pecking order amongst pure devotees? So that means you have a material idea of pure devotees?
Srila Prabhupada: "In the United States, the predominating personality is the President. However, when the next election comes, the President will have so many rivals, but in the spiritual sky the Supreme Lord has no rival. THOSE WHO WANT TO BECOME RIVALS ARE PLACED IN THIS MATERIAL WORLD, UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF MATERIAL NATURE. In the spiritual sky there is no rivalry, and all the inhabitants therein are liberated souls."
The Gopis are also supposedly considered as the highest but they are thinking Krishna's flute is doing better service? Lord Chaitanya thought, He was doing no service at all? Where is this idea, this pure devotee's service "never came close" to that pure devotees service emphasized? This is baffling, "these" pure devotees "never came close" to "those" pure devotees? He are making an "us and them," a sort of concocted caste system, as part of pure devotional service? Srila Prabhupada says that only the uttma adhikary can become a guru, and there is no "status war" among that class of devotees? Srila Prabhupada says, "one cannot become guru unless he is an uttama pure devotee," and amongst uttama gurus he says, "guru is one." This argument is also what the Gaudiya Matha deviants propose, the diksha guru, the parampara guru, he might have less qualification than uttama, so they opened their Pandora's door for their homosexual gurus?]
* RD: Consequently, they feel there is an absolute need for post-samadhi diksa from Srila Prabhupada. They ostensibly disqualify all other possible diksa guru candidates.
[PADA: No, we asked you to submit the name of your alleged potential diksha guru 20 years ago? And as we recall you went running away holding your hands in the air because you knew that we had defeated you, your guru has no name, no address, no books, he does not exist? We did not disagree, we merely challenged you to give us the name of your alleged proposed or possible diksha guru, and you de facto admitted, you would rather see people worship nobody than worship Prabhupada.]
* RD: Due to their fanatical mood, I strongly doubt whether any of the Rtvik-ites I know today would manifest the spiritual insight required to recognize and embrace the next Sampradaya Acarya, should Lord Caitanya see fit to send one in our lifetime.
[PADA: This is all speculation. This is also what the Gaudiya Matha argues, "If another pure devotee comes you will not be able to recognize him." And they were foremost in not recognizing Srila Prabhupada? And indeed most of them still call him "Swamiji," and not "Prabhupada." Yet so far the GBC and the Gaudiya Matha has only forwarded their 1936 and 1977 homosexual guru lineages? They keep saying that there is a living guru, but they have not shown us who he is, only some of the backers of the homosexual gurus, so this is all straw man argument?]
RD: From his divine association flows all the knowledge required in order to properly chant the sacred mantras, beginning with the Holy Names. In addition to the Hare Krsna mahamantra, the newcomer receives from the Sampradaya Acarya detailed instruction on how to worship the Deities, Tulasi, follow Ekadasi, and so. There is no pre-requisite stated in sastra that all the purification available via engagement in devotional service first requires being initiated by the diksa guru. The real requirement is connection to the Sampradaya Acarya.
[PADA: Agreed, the newcomer does not need a false initiation by a so-called concocted diksha guru, he only needs connection to the Sampradaya Acharya. Rocana has put on his ritvik hat here and this is good.]
History of the Rtvik Movement
[PADA: As we all know, Srila Prabhupada is the actual founder of the idea that he wanted some kind of Governing Body, and he ordered some of them to act as officiating priests or ritviks, but notice that Rocana forgets to even acknowledge that these words came from the Sampradya Acharya?]
RD: Since many readers may be unaware of the differences between the various Rtvik groups, I will attempt to present an overview of their common beliefs and a brief history of the Rtvik movement, as I understand it. The Rtvik's guru-tattva philosophy is based upon the conviction that Srila Prabhupada wished that a sincere follower of his be free to take post-samadhi diksa via his proxy representative, the "priest", or "Rtvik."
[PADA: That is what Srila Prabhupada said hundreds if not thousand of times. After I depart there will be proxies, a Governing Body. That is a proxy system, and he would remain as the Sampradaya and diksha guru. Where was Rocana when Srila Prabhupada said this, thousands of times, that after I depart the society will be managed by proxies and not another Gaudiya Matha false diksha guru process? He also said that his books would be giving the divyam jnanam, the essence of diksha, and this could go on indefinitely?]
RD: Such initiations would be conducted in basically the same manner that was in place prior to Srila Prabhupada's entering into samadhi.
[PADA: Right, that is also what he said about a thousand times, after I depart DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. Of course the GBC, their Gaudiya Matha advisors and Rocana changed the whole thing.]
RD: Proponents of the Rtvik system hold the July 9th, 1977 letter, wherein Srila Prabhupada appointed eleven regional GBC's to act as his Rtvik representatives, to be absolute proof that this system was to continue "henceforward" after his departure.
[PADA: This is totally bogus, there are thousands of statements where he said that there was just going to be a GBC after his departure, a proxy system. He merely confirmed that in one letter towards the end. He also said that he had made ritviks in a number of other 1977 conversations at that time. So he was making a GBC system and a layer of that would be a ritvik system. Of course, even if there is only "one" letter (and Rocana admits there is a letter making ritviks) that is still "absolute proof" since why would "the number of letters" have anything to do with the validity? Rocana forgets also that there were already "ritviks" chanting on the beads covering the whole society starting in the early 1970s, and this was still going on at that time, and Prabhupada said hundreds of times, do not change anything.]
RD: In addition to this letter, they have their own interpretation of an earlier conversation (May 28, 1977), and the personal testimony of one witness, Gauridasa Pandit. This hypothesis originated from the person of Yasoda nandana dasa, who is one of the founding members of a loosely organized underground movement started in the late 1970's, aiming protest at the GBC/Zonal Acaryas.
[PADA: This is again totally false. Many of us understood that Prabhupada had only made a GBC and proxy system and he had not appointed any diksha gurus even before we later on found: the hidden letters (discovered in 1984), the hidden tapes (1985), the hidden will (1985), the hidden conversations (1990), the poison tape (1997) and so on and so forth? I was arguing against the GBC for many years before meeting Yasodanandana in the mid 1980s. It was understood by all sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada for example that Jayatirtha's sex and drugs escapades were not part of the bona fide parampara. Thus, we said that they are proxies, and the GBC are thinking these deviants are diksha gurus. We said that in 1978 way before anyone read "Yasodanandana's" papers or anyone else's? Yasodananda prabhu has of course added considerable documentation to prove this was Prabhupada's order, indeed he convinced even many of Rocana's contemporaries and others to jettison their support of the GBC gurus with his documents. So "the aim" of this underground movement was to uncover more of the actual letters, tapes, conversations and eyewitness testimony, in part to protest but mainly to find out what was really ordered and to convince others of these points, as has occurred?]
PD: Most of the intellectuals who formed the inner circle of this cell were unceremoniously excommunicated from ISKCON for publicly voicing their subversive ideas. To the best of my knowledge, the membership included Pradyumna dasa, Jadurani devi dasi, Kailasa candra dasa, and Yasoda nandanana dasa. This school of radical thought wrote, printed and circulated many confrontational tracts in the early days, with limited results. Initially, they did not try to promote the return of the Rtvik process, but rather focused on the advanced spiritual qualifications required to become a bona fide diksa guru.
[PADA: This is because most of the letters, all of the audio tapes, the will, and other important documents were being hidden and suppressed by the GBC. The "focus" was adjusted as these new documents and materials surfaced, including that Prabhupada was poisoned to suppress the ritvik instruction. Rocana seems to be unaware that most of these documents were hidden and forbidden, and that when me and Sulochana began to distribute "the letters" in 1984-5, we got death threats from Ramesvara and others.]
RD: These were qualities the Zonal Acaryas sadly lacked. Naturally, the Zonals' policy of exaggerated glorification and their self-anointed honorific titles incited the disgust and outrage of this early protest group. The sastric definitions for diksa set forth by this group were so unattainable by Kali yuga Westerners that Srila Prabhupada was the only ISKCON related personality who unquestionably qualified. It was this train of thought that naturally evolved into the post-samadhi diksa concept.
[PADA: Well yes, the guru has to be qualified? That means he is not a deviant. Of course if someone says that their guru is the "posthumous" dead person, like the GBC gurus and Rocana say, they are not even bona fide neophytes since no one calls their guru "the dead one." And yes, since the GBC gurus and their Gaudiya Matha advisors supported the worship of homosexual pedophiles as their gurus, saying Prabhupada is the post mortem dead guy, we have had the perfect argument: that the GBC system of proxies should be re-established so as to eliminate the enormous guru scandals and offer instead the correct worship. Most people agree with us, even many GBC have told us, behind the scenes, that they agree with our proposal to emphasize Srila Prabhupada as the guru and not the neophyte GBCs.]
RD: The group's need for supporting documentable evidence required a re-interpretation of the same July 9th letter the Zonals had previously highlighted as their authorization to take unfettered, exclusive regional power.
[PADA: The July 9th letter was not offered to the mass of devotees, nor was the GBC's other alleged core evidence, the May 28th tape? Nor was it discussed? Nor would the GBC allowing us to discuss it?]
RD: After some time, the band of protesters dissolved their alliance. Yasoda nandana dasa resurfaced in Toronto, writing and preaching that the Rtvik solution was what Srila Prabhupada "ordered."
[PADA: This is because no one else, especially Rocana, has shown us "what else" he might have ordered?]
RD: Nityananda dasa from Louisiana was convinced, and invited Yasoda nandana and others to move into his rural community, which became the nucleus of the Rtvik movement. They soon published a periodical focused on promoting Rtvik-tattva, called "Vedic Village Review". Nityananda's businesses, which underwrote the expenses of the magazine and community, eventually ran into serious problems that forced the community to disband. Yasoda nandana and family relocated to California, where he still resides. Since that time, Yasoda nandana's Rtvik position has been adopted by many others in the movement. One of those was the renowned global traveler and preacher, British-born Kamsa hanta dasa. He embraced the cause with passionate zeal and a missionary spirit. Among Kamsa hanta's noteworthy inter-continental converts were Krsna Kanta Desai (England), Jitarati dasa (Hong Kong), Adridarana dasa (India), and Nandi kesvara dasa (Canada). In small conferences, they attempted to better organize and develop a consensus as to the finer philosophical points of the Rtvik-tattva.
Krsna Kanta and his associates then produced a manifesto entitled the "Final Order". Interestingly, the creation of this treatise was done without soliciting input from the Rtvik founder, Sriman Yasoda nandana dasa, or any of his West Coast Rtvik group. When the "Final Order" debuted, Yasoda nandana dasa and company disagreed with many key elements of the theory.
[PADA: No, we all agree on the key elements, we have to worship the bona fide acharya Srila Prabhupada? The main disagreement between the IRM and us was over -- the poison issue?]
RD: Krsna Kanta and his newly formed ISKCON Reform Movement (IRM) tried to distance themselves from the West Coast Rtviks due to the endless stream of faultfinding rhetoric the group aimed squarely at ISKCON. Krsna Kanta and company held out hope that they could convince the GBC, so long as Yasoda nandana's group was excluded. As history reveals, their efforts were thwarted by the GBC. From that time on, an increasingly contentious relationship has developed between the two main Rtvik camps.
[PADA: Well this is all irrelevant verbiage? If Srila Prabhupada did not order a GBC, then what did he order?]
RD: While Yasoda nandana dasa, Puranjana dasa and other Rtvik advocates continued to attack ISKCON, Krsna Kanta advocated a forgive-and-forget policy towards past transgressions of the GBC. This naive strategy failed and the GBC, feeling threatened by the surge of support for this "back to the beginning" movement, responded in a proactive manner by producing a number of papers and GBC resolutions opposing the Rtvik philosophy. Unfortunately, they also employed demonizing efforts that further polarized the Vaisnava community, and brought the Gaudiya Matha closer as allies against a common enemy.
[PADA: Well then, PADA was right on this point, trying to capitulate with the GBC as the IRM attempted did not work.]
RD: Adridarana dasa, the long-time president of Calcutta Temple, and other well-established Indian ISKCON leaders were swayed by the "Final Order's" powerful arguments and rejuvenated the IRM. The IRM continues to do battle with the ISKCON leadership to this day, with some success. The original Rtvik exponents from North America, still headed up by Yasoda nandana dasa, have continued to be vocally critical of the IRM, ISKCON and BV Narayana Swami. They recently began their own organization, the Hare Krishna Society.
[PADA: At the same time some of the IRM folks have said that the poison issue is probably correct, so there is some conciliation going on that Rocana is unaware of.]
RD: While I have attempted to present an accurate, abbreviated historical timeline of the evolving Rtvik movement, I have not carefully researched this history. I encourage readers to confirm the dates and details for themselves by contacting the personalities mentioned above.
[PADA: To sum, it is an insult to constantly imply, as Rocana's team does every day, that Srila Prabhupada is now the post mortem, i.e. dead, gone and de facto irrelevant guru? Worse, Rocana says that Srila Prabhupada's idea of worship of the bona fide acharyas makes him a sort of detestable "ritvik pundit." Rocana also says Srila Prabhupada is a deviant from the Vedas, since Srila Prabhupada says we must worship the bona fide acharyas whereas Rocana says: "this is not found in the tradition." Rocana also complains that Srila Prabhupada's idea to make a Governing Body (and have some of them acting as priests) is exactly what the Christian Church does, so Rocana complains that Prabhupada is a mundane relgioninst. Roach ana is directly attacking Srila Prabhupada as the real deviant. Thanks pd]
... Sorry, this world is very temporary, and your karma is very real, as many devotees, kulis, Christians, and the mass of public all know about your vicious cult policy and ideals, and this is why you are angry now, you Rocana et al. team, you have been caught, there is now a big spotlight on your cockroach gurus and supporters of your "sh*t happens" "no management" thesis, namely yourself, and cockroaches hate the light don't they? Roach on brother, that light is getting stronger every day, thanks pd
From PADA Newsletter
- 09. November, 2003
From:
angel108b@yahoo.com (Puranjana)
Rocana is still pounding the drum for his (and the GBC's) idea that "there is no such thing as a managerial body" which would manage ISKCON and orchestrate the worship of Srila Prabhupada. Why? Departed gurus are "post mortem." Therefore, there is no need for managing anything, rather one needs to worship "a living person" say for example, Rocana or his pals, so we can have full scale: mismanaging? Of course the fact that Rocana's idea "there will be no managerial body to administrate ISKCON since this is not found in the scriptures" is why we have seen so many criminal activities, including molestation, and even murders, going on in countless examples. Rocana is therefore the self appointed Pope of the "Church Of Chaos." His ideas and policies have lead to a criminal imbroglio where clearly "no one" was really managing, rather a few independent mavericks have been posturing as "gurus" and mismanaging. These alleged gurus cannot solve many practical managerial problems, indeed they could not even begin to stem the tide of criminal activity in ISKCON -- because they were creating the criminal policy (no managing is required). Chaos. Yep, "managing systems" are not found in scriptures, evidently because lawless guru cults are recommended in scriptures.
Rocana's idea is that there is no actual need for a conjoined managerial body since everyone has to seek out their own independent (mismanager) guru, and "take direction" exclusively from that independent guru -- and not an overall oversight/ management group. Indeed, like Rocana the independent gurus often poke fun at their guru brothers, what to speak of attacking the whole management body idea, in either ISKCON or the Gaudiya Matha. This encourages the idea that there is no need to "work with" any other person, group or body. Again, the "system" is (allegedly) that there will be maverick gurus who are engaged in -- a chaotic -- lack of management. Thus, one only has to work with one's (self appointed) guru. Each guru thus produces his own "geographical zone" of disciples, temples, books, audio tapes and "ministry" and therefore the overall worldwide preaching diminishes in favor of multiple small gurus with their independent zones and hence small projects. This is why it is said, "A church divided cannot stand." Nor do the independent guru franchises really care about the overall institution. Worse, sometimes they are actually happy that a fellow guru franchise fell apart, they are happy the overall institution is failing so they can sqeeze some profit from the wreckage.
This is also what occurred in the Gaudiya Matha, "dozens of gurus with a few disciples" says Prabhupada sardonically, "cockroach gurus." And in the cockroach guru breeding grounds we have found our Mr. Rocana after 1978, placing big Pope hats on these cockroach gurus, saying this is the "method of management ordered by Prabhupada." Yes, "What Prabhupada always said was that there has to be a huge pack of cockroach gurus wearing big Pope hats, and no Governing Body." I seem to recall he said that every day? Or so claims Rocana? Yet poor fellow Rocana now sees that his big plan to place Pope hats on his favorite cockroach gurus has failed. Yet Rocana and his ilk still say that Prabhupada never ordered any system of managing for after his departure, trying to blame Prabhupada for their own concocted ideas and resultant mismanaged imbroglio.
Rocana's idea is simple: "Prabhupada engineered the chaos." No, Prabhupada ordered a worldwide managerial system, and he said what he -- did not -- want was Rocana's maverick independent guru system. Rocana claims he does not want ISKCON to deteriorate into "religiosity," which means he is roughly comparing Prabhupada's "Governing Body" system to "The Protestant Church." Yet Rocana's system leaves us with -- no one at the helm at all? At least if there is a problem in the Protestant Church you can call the local priest for some sort of resolution. And if you are not happy with his efforts you can go over his head, to the regional board. And if that does not work, you can go to the national Church Council and so on and so forth. However, under Rocana's system, who ya gonna call? There is "no one at home in the manager's office." Maybe there is a maverick guru in the office, eating ghee soaked French fries, wearing a Howard Johnson's Motel towel, while he is getting massaged by Madame Frederick, his health counsellor. Yet "the guru" often says he does not want to be troubled by "the problems"? So there is really almost no one actually managing anything under Rocana's system. Of course if one is under their system, one may expect to be starved, beat, molested, killed and generally mistreated under their maverick "guru" regime, and/or Rocana's "management is not in the scriptures" system. Then Rocana types handily say, "Your mistreatment is an act of God. It is your karma. It is all Krishna's mercy" (that we supported the people who were jack booting your face in). I am not hitting you, my stick is." Swell!
In Rocana's model, there is no priest with a regional or national council to help and/or administrate and control the priest, rather there is simply the local maverick independent guru. And if the local guru happens to have a machine gun and all his followers carry guns, as occurred here in Berkeley, so what? Go tell the guru he has to quit his gun racket by yourself, while Rocana sits safely at home having tea and crumpets, you can go ahead and get yourself killed for protesting "gurus with guns," what is the problem? And if you get killed "it is your bad karma," at least according to Rocana's types. Of course if you are a child who is molested, then that too is your "bad karma." Rocana think he is karma free, for supporting this maverick guru system and faultfinding the management system, yet he fails to realize he is one of the founder father pillars that created the false guru system (and its molesting and murder result) and yet he is still faulting the "responsible management system" as bogus "religionists." Yep, the Christians are bogus religionists, they have some system of law and order, and because of this nonsense system, Puranjana is still alive. No. We want a cowboy, wild west badlands situation, no law and no order, no system of checks and balances, since this is not found in scriptures?
There has certainly been no apparent "management body" to deal with critical issues under Rocana's scheme. And as we have all seen, if we bring a problem to the false guru's attention, we do so at our peril, since the guru's "goondas" might beat on our door at night with aluminum baseball bats and threaten us with violence, as occurred in Los Angeles under Ramesvara. That is the practical result of Rocana's maverick independent guru system. Management problems are suppressed and thus ignored. Simple problems, like say for example getting enough food to the gurukula students, become instead insurmountable obstacles that defy any solution. No one can solve these problems since no one is actually in charge of the problem? The false guru says, I am not a manager since the governing and "managing" body system -- is not found in scriptures? For example, Satvarupa resigned from the GBC -- but he remains as the guru? He is still getting paid to manage, but he is not managing. And as soon as we say, let us find a manager, Satsvarupa says no, there is no manager, there is only the guru? Thus children are molested, cows are starved to death, dissenters are killed, and no one is "responsible" for any of this? Thus Rocana's "system of managing" is summed up nicely on bumper stickers we see all around San Francisco on the backs of cars, "Sh*t Happens." Chaos. How will Prabhupada's society be managed then? Rocana says: sh*t happens. Swell!
And now that he and his colleagues are up to their eyebrows in their own stinky pie creation, they are still proud. They say, this "sh*t happened" because they were right, there is no management system found in scriptures, read: all of the people who are banned, beat, molested and killed under our regime and policy were "getting their bad karma." Hmmm, well Rocana and his pals are going to be on the receiving end of this same karma pretty soon, and for many lifetimes it seems? Or as some gurukula students have told us, "A lot of these people could not believe in karma." At least those who have sincerely repented can hope to get free of this karma, but some are not repenting, like many of the GBC, Narayana Maharaja, and Rocana types. They said "no managing," and as a result they got people starved, beat, molested and killed, and that means, they were right? Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin, they were all independent mavericks too, they are our heros?
A similar pattern is also found all over Bengal and India in certain respects, there is the local village guru with half a dozen disciples, and he does not work with other local or national gurus. Thus there is a natural state of social dysfunction -- as we see ample evidence of in Bengal and India with a myriad of independent guru cults. Chaos. It is therefore easy for some of the "gurus" of Bengal and India to get away with many crimes, even molesting followers, or having illicit sex with wives of followers, and embezzling funds, and then there are gurus with drug taking problems, and so on, since there is -- nothing -- to control them, well maybe the police? Chaos. This is the result of Rocana's policy making model as it has existed in Bengal for centuries. There is no management system, there is the maverick independent guru imbroglio. One nice seer, "a man who can see things from a distance" in Puri said to our associate, "I see one young woman laying dead in a ditch, she was killed, she was pregnant with a guru's child, and so the guru had her killed." This is the result of maverick guru cults. This is the model we should follow?
Rocana has supported the GBC's guru system and he currently endorses his "mini-guru" pals like Kundali and Kailasha chandra. Thus Rocana's idea mimics the GBC, Gaudiya Matha, Narayana Maharaja, Tripurari, Sridhara, Turya dasa, Siddhaswarupa, Kailasha chandra, the smartas, or even the sahajiyas (they have about fifty ka-zillion living gurus in Bengal) -- maverick independent gurus. Yet as we see, all of these living gurus, and all their horses and all their men, could not stop the break down of Bengal, or the Gaudiya Matha, or ISKCON. Nor could they stop the maverick guru criminality problems, nor the molestation problem, nor most other problems -- ad infinitum. Nor could all these living gurus combine together to knit a four inch square tea cup mat for that matter. That is because their guru model is by nature independent, so there is no unified social structure, no unified preaching, no overall infrastructure, no oversight committee, no moral or legal laws, nor is any such combined effort sought or desired by their M.I.G. program: Maverick Independent Gurus.
And as we see these folks always say, the words "Governing Body" are not found in the scriptures, blah, blah, blah. Therefore, even though a very famous "Hindu" guru in India was reported to be molesting young boys, indeed I read some of the reports of the victims and it was disgusting, nothing was ever done because the "living guru" model means there is no easy solution to address such a dilemma since: how can one "control the guru"? Thus Rocana's model creates avenues for such chaos, criminality, if not molesting, abuses and even murders since he says the management system (which would be the body that controls things like abuses and molesting etc.) is not a valid concept, it is persona non grata, only the maverick independent "guru" (MIG) model exists. So, the management body is a joke, especially since they are worshipping a post mortem dead body, therefore who cares for their authority?
Isn't this what Ramakrishna said, why worship Krishna, He is not here? So you have to worship me? Yes, even Krishna is post mortem? This is all very fine for some local peasants in Bengal, but is this idea going to work on a worldwide scale to manage an institution? How will the real problems of the institution be managed? Krishna is now also post mortem? Not to worry! We can thank His Holey Divinity, the self appointed Pope of the Church Of Chaos, Dr. Frog Rocana, who claims to be still among the living while his gurus (which includes Krishna) are all post mortem. Hiranyakasipu could not "see" Krishna either? Hmmm, worship of the post mortem, well why not worship a molester beeja guru, is what Rocana supported. This is what Tamal also said, it is no longer practical to worship Prabhupada since, he is not here. So, it is no longer practical to worship God, or guru, or Jesus since they are "not here"? Of course worshipping a braying mountain goat who eats old shoes and tin cans would be better than some of the "gurus" Rocana and his pals have forwarded ....!
And what happens when the independent maverick guru is found to be mismanaging on a colossal scale, like Harikesh? Well then he asks for a million dollars so he can bail himself out and keep up his opulent lifestyle at the expense of the institution? And guys like Trivrikrama say that paying a milion dollars to get rid of Harikesh is a bargain price. And Ramesvara left with cash, so did Hansadutta, so have others, so not only do these false gurus mismanage, it may require a big "pay off" to ultimately get rid of the bum? What kind of "managing" is this: when the mis-manager is proven to be engaged in illicit affairs and/or fraud, we have to "pay him off" to get rid of him? Meanwhile, the maverick independent gurus (M.I.G.) are the only valid idea, never mind this model is worldwide famous for abusing people and taking advantage of people's religious sentiments, and "ripping off" funds? Rocana also says, we do not want any religiosity system. We do not want any responsible management for the institution. We do not want to have anyone to call and complain to when things get out of control. We do not want the schools to have accountable and responsible management for our kids. We want more chaos, as is destined under his system of maverick independent gurus. We want a sub-violent cult of chaos?
In sum, like minded criminals do not want any overall governance of their society. They want the mass of innocent people to be subject to their exploiting without any laws and restrictions, such as a Governing Body. Lawlessness, antinomianism, that is what they want. Thus they want their multiple independent guru empire, they do not want a unified worldwide religion or society. This is their Pandora's box, an extreme ideology actually, which leads to a break down of the social structure: "There is no such thing as a managerial body, there are only maverick independent gurus." This makes social problems which defy any practical solution. This is why there are huge problems like embezzling, molesting and so on which are not attended to. Ever. And some of the molested children told me this as well, their problems experienced under Rocana's jack boots regime will never actually go away for them for their entire life. So what? They are cannon fodder for Rocana's lawless, no accountability, no management system of self-styled maverick gurus. And Rocana supported the molester beejers pooja project, while we protested it all along, so is this all just: sour grapes? Is he mainly angry at himself?
We are thus glad Rocana is crowning himself as the self appointed Pope for the church of criminal chaos in the name of God's successors. We are glad Rocana is wearing his new Pope hat for a "religion" which is really a huge pile of problems he does not want to solve and which indeed defies successful solution. We are glad Rocana says that Protestant Christians are archaic and doctrinaire, because they have some systematic method of managing their religion and their society. And while they may have some percentage of molesting in certain situations they do not have massive wholesale molesting as we have seen in ISKCON. The Protestants are evil fools since they have a system for trying to keep molesters and criminals out of their seats of leadership, and deviants are NEVER worshipped under their system. They are evil "religionists" says Rocana who is apparently angry as he thinks of how the Christian people would check and defy the program he supported of making molesters into Vishnupada/ Jesus, Rocana's annointed Popes. Of course Siddhaswarupa attacks the Christians, so does Tripurari, so does the GBC, they are all birds of a feather. Srila Prabhupada never faulted the Christians for worshipping Jesus. He said this is a good thing since Jesus is a bona fide pure devotee, and "me and Jesus are brothers." Is this why Rocana is angry when he finds that Jesus is still being worshipped, "Why is this post mortem dead guy still being worshipped"? Why isn't vacuum cleaner salesman Kailash chandra being worshipped instead? Rocana is simply saying what the GBC and guys like Kailasha said in 1984?
We are glad Rocana offers no solution to repair the damaged society which was ruined by his "Church Of Chaos" ideas, this proves he never had any solution. What an idyoot though, since Rocana wants his cake and he eats it too? He says the GBC are wrong because they -- did not manage their guru's schools. Well Rocana says they are not managers, this is not found in scriptures, they are maverick gurus, so how can MIGs --manage? Rocana is at the top of the list of people who should now be sued. He supported the policy that lead to the molesting by harassing those of us who called for an accountable managing system: "Not found in the tradition of Rocana's Church Of Chaos and bogus Popes." So Rocana's system is a band of confrontational gurus and as for managing: passivity and buck passing. People who are banned, beat and molested have no avenue to address their issues. As soon as we say, there has to be a practical system of Governing Body, Rocana says, this was never ordered, never mind it was ordered and discussed THOUSANDS of times by Prabhupada. So this is another de facto attempt to poison Prabhupada indirectly by insulting him severely: Prabhupada did not know what he was talking about, he left no system of management, he wanted Dr. Frog Rocana's Church Of Chaos and bogus Popes? While Rocana already made huge Pope hats for fools, drug addicts and molesters he still has a stack of hats left to place on more of the same, while he says those of us who wanted accountable managing: are the fools?
Prabhupada never said that he wanted a system of management after he departed? Or if he did, he violated the scriptures by so doing? What! Then Rocana says he has a brilliant plan to "reform" the bad managing, and so he participated in the infamous 1986 "50 man committee," and their whole goal was to add more gurus, including some more homosexuals like Rohini Kumar, the guru disease became an epidemic. How did that help? Rocana simply spread the maverick independent guru disease, and their crowning glory was that they reinstated a homosexual pedophile as "Vishnupada" simultaneously when many of Rocana's committee pals got voted in as gurus. And the leaders of the 50 man committee condemned me and Sulochana for attacking their molester guru project, and they still do.
So this is a classic problem in history, there is the "shared responsibilities" model and the "monopoly of power" model. Clearly in modern times the shared managerial body idea works best in all spheres of organizations, whereas the monopoly of power system, the system of Popes and Kings and "living maverick gurus," is discredited due to abuses. That is the undeniable reality. So we can have a supreme leader vs. governing body debate, the problem being, the supreme leaders the GBC and their Rocana clones have forwarded have fallen on their faces, and badly. In any case, the policy making of placing a crown on a dog and making him the king, the Gaudiya Matha/ Sridhara/ Tripurari/ Tamal/ Turya/ Siddhaswarupa/ Rocana tower of Babel chaos system, has not worked. The model of governing body and shared responsibilities does work in all kinds of government, religious and corporate examples.
Then there is Rocana and his living gurus, still trying hard to squeeze a profit from the wreckage of ISKCON. These people created a condition where there no one was managing of the children's abuse, women's abuse, devotee's abuse, embezzling, beatings, murders, ad infinitum because they decapitated the whole idea of a managerial body as -- "not found in scriptures." Their criminal chaos in God's name is their scriptures, and thus they are all implicated in insulting God thereby, all of them, the GBC, Sridhara, Narayana, BV and BP Puri, Tripurari, Sudhir, Siddhaswarupa, Turya, ad infinitum, they all said that there is no managing system found in scriptures and they all supported the criminal maverick guru system. Srila Prabhupada said that there was supposed to be a managing system in 1936, but instead that there were envious fools, severe offenders, and in sum a pack of Rocana's and his cockroach gurus that destroyed that system.
Rocana thinks that with his system "the buck stops no where" for all the criminality in Prabhupada's mission. Sorry, the buck stops right at your feet Rocana. You are responsible for creating all this madness, chaos, molesting and murder in the name of Krishna and ISKCON with your bogus preaching. If you want to know why all the molesting and murder and chaos has gone on in ISKCON, and "in HIS name," go look in a mirror Rocana, and see who is responsible. And see who will be held accountable by the higher authorities for these odious policies. It is YOU! No wonder some of the gurukulis tell me some of you do not believe in karma, how could you support any or all of this policy and believe there is a God? God had better be "post mortem" as far as you are concerned, because if He exists and people have to answer for their crimes, or support of criminal systems and policy such as your "no managing" idea, like yourself, Sridhara/ Narayana/ BP and BV Puri, the GBC/ Turya/ et al. -- you are number one on that list since you still insist the Church Of Chaos is God's plan for saving the world. That means you are insulting God. You supporters of the maverick gurus have so much of the gurukulis blood, Sulochana's blood, and countless other's blood on your pearly white gloves, it is hard to think how you will ever wash it off. Blaming Prabhupada for your mistakes and saying he had not ordered a managing system means you are dipping your hands in even more blood. You are attacking him direct or de facto, and remember, this is the mantra the poisoners say, "he did not order a managing system, just maverick gurus." Rocana is a parrot of the poison sabha's main thesis. Of course the Pharisees said the same thing, why manage a religion and worship Jesus, this is bogus ritviks.
Therefore this is an area where washing your hands off -- is not possible. At all. But perhaps that suits all you bogus Pope-ophiles just fine. As people were burned at the stake in the 13th century the victims were told, "There is no system of managing to worship Jesus, you violated our maverick Papal/ guru system and wanted to worship Jesus. You failed to worship our Pope, so you are an evil ritvik." Yep, you Papal mavericks have been around for centuries burning and harassing us, problem is, we are all "on to you guys." And so are most of the modern Christians, they are constantly slamming you guys in the courts and the Christian police saved my life since they know that your maverick guru system is FRAUD NUMBER ONE. Another major problem is, yes kiddies, there is a Krishna. And no, He is not happy you scuttled His managing system and clamored for your false Popes, which ruined His religion. You have no authority to ruin Krishna's religion. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nor do you have the authority to support systems which destroy His devotees and which creates chaos for the poor devotees and their children, but then again Prabhupada says that demons love chaos, that makes it easy for them to operate. Sorry, this world is very temporary, and your karma is very real, as many devotees, kulis, Christians, and the mass of public all know about your vicious cult policy and ideals, and this is why you are angry now, you Rocana et al. team, you have been caught, there is now a big spotlight on your cockroach gurus and supporters of your "sh*t happens" "no management" thesis, namely yourself, and cockroaches hate the light don't they? Roach on brother, that light is getting stronger every day, thanks pd
[PADA: Well thanks, your ideas ruined the whole mission, and you are proud! Amazing. thanks pd]
Credit Where Credit's Due - BY: ROCANA DASA
Jul 06, 2007. CANADA (SUN) — Here at the Sun we have received, of late, a few submissions by none other than Puranjana dasa of PADA fame. It appears that my article "Practical Siddhanta" has sparked his interest. In his usual 'style', he has clipped out and commented upon various aspects of the article, providing me with a long page of his predictable rhetoric.
Admittedly, I have declined to post most everything submitted by him over the last two years, and I continue to hold that position. We have set certain editorial boundaries for the Sun, and they reflect our unwillingness to promote fanatics or writers who regularly rant. So you'll not find Puranjana dasa's submission on this site. If you really want to read it, you can find your wa to his Blog.
[PADA: Thanks for giving PADA credit. Let us review a few historical facts Rocana prabhu, to examine what is factually "fanatical." After 1977, we started out by saying that there is no proper "managing" for ISKCON because the "Governing Body managers" initially deputed by Srila Prabhupada were now artificially catapulted to the status of "diksha" gurus and Srila Prabhupada's "Vishnupada successors." And since the diksha guru cannot be "managed" (as Sridhara Maharaja pointed out "none should protest") -- ISKCON was thus heading towards the same self-appointed guru -- anarchy -- that ruined the Gaudiya Matha. And more importantly, the ISKCON "diksha gurus" were now sitting at the feet of BR Sridhara Maharaja, the founder father of the 1936 homosexual guru imbroglio of the Gaudiya Matha. This was a wrong-headed policy. We were and are correct about this.
The basic argument given by the deviants (that you went along with) is that we need to have "living guidance" from "a living diksha guru," yet your team's gurus were not qualified to act in that capacity. Meanwhile, your program kicked out the thousands of devotees who were actually giving "the living guidance" and nowadays many of the "gurus" live offshore and rarely even visit their temples to provide the so-called "day to day" guidance. So this is all bluff, they are not even giving "the living guidance." Meanwhile you and they argue that no one can act as a proxy (such as a priest) for the guru, we need a replacement for the guru. Yet your alleged replacements were faulty, no kidding since if we study the actual teachings of Srila Prabhupada, he said they were not even fit for sannyasa in 1977. So you (and/ or Sridhara/ Narayana/ Gaura Govinda/ Tripurari swamis) have never explained: how you came to conclude they were "diksha gurus" if they were clearly not fit for sannyasa?
Nor have you ever explained why, if no one is allowed to act as a proxy "because this is not found in shastra," you are yourself preaching all day long -- acting as a proxy? You are saying no one else is allowed to preach on behalf of the guru (the agent / ritvik concept), because this is not found in shastra, but you are doing that yourself 24/7 -- because you are greater than anyone else? This was also your pal Kundali's idea, "No one is allowed to act as a proxy, but I will write ten thousand pages of material, acting as a proxy." So you are merely trying to drive away all the other proxy preachers by making yourselves the exclusive conduits, which makes your whole process almost identical to the bogus gurus? No wonder you are supportive of their deviant theology then? Srila Prabhupada wanted ALL of us to be his proxies, whether we call them preachers, priests, or whatever, who cares, not some artificial exclusive agents like you or the GBC gurus. No one else can act as a proxy, except His Divine Grinch -- Rocana, or they are not following shastra? You are the main strutting peacock around here! We got that already!
Anyway you and Kundali et al. did a good job, you "preached up a storm" that "no one else should preach as a proxy (just me, I'm special!), this is bogus and not in shastra" and your policy thereby kicked out about 20,000 proxies / preachers from ISKCON. You destroyed the entire "proxy" preaching principle and process, and you are still hard at work trying to destroy the few preachers who are left, job well done! Everyone asks us about this, "Why is Mr. Rocana preaching for the past 30 years -- as a proxy for the guru, saying there is no such thing as a proxy for the guru"? And we generally reply, well Jesus says, "Oh ye hyprocrites, sons of vipers."
Rocana Prabhu, clearly you sided with the ersatz, self-appointed diksha gurus and their Gaudiya Matha "advisors." Yet it was clear by 1980 that your "diksha gurus" were in fact -- lawless tyrants. And yet your team of deviants prevailed because your ilk was backed up by powerful allies like Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, Bhagavat dasa, Gaura Govinda Maharaja, Tripurari Maharaja and many others, mainly influenced by the Gaudiya Matha (as was your former pal Kundali). Your party's main complaint against Srila Prabhupada -- as spoken for example by Narayana Maharaja was: "There is no such thing as a managerial body (proxies) because there is always a living diksha guru present." And this was the same argument many of the same deviants gave in 1936 to create their homosexual guru imbroglio: "We cannot have proxies, we need (artificial) replacements," resulting in murders and the public media discrediting the Krishna religion in the 1940s. Of course you have promoted many side attacks on Srila Prabhupada, you printed for example numerous of Kundali's attacks on Srila Prabhupada's jiva tattva (also from the bogus Gaudiya Matha).
And you supported that deviant process for ISKCON, and you still do, you still say we need the Gaudiya Matha's living diksha guru process and not Srila Prabhupada's proxies process. You are a disciple of the Gaudiya Matha deviants, plain and simple, which is why you are so attracted to the Kundalis. And you follow exactly that deviant process, you helped make bogus diksha gurus, saying there is no proxy process found in shastra because Srila Prabhupada's preaching for forty years about the need for proxies -- is bogus, and your policy had the same identical effect as it did in the Gaudiya Matha, you burnt the mission to ashes. And you still argue for the bogus living diksha guru process and discount the proxy process that was ordered by your guru, because you are angry that maybe four or five people are still left preaching somewhere when there used to be thousands. You want to eliminate all the proxy preaching process and have no one preaching on behalf of Srila Prabhupada, except maybe a few exclusive conduits like -- yourself. Why are you the only proxy, simultaneously saying proxy process is bogus, when the only one who benefits are the attackers of Srila Prabhupada?
Only you can preach as a proxy, and you are saying no one else can preach as a proxy, so you are saying basically what Hansadutta was saying in 1978? And you are still saying Srila Prabhupada is bogus because he only authorized proxies, saying his proxy process is "not found in shastra." Meanwhile, you are yourself a proxy? So you are attacking your guru, and your own self, simultaneously? Simultaneously, you and your bogus diksha gurus began to say that Srila Prabhupada's actual "appointed living successor," i.e. his living books, is no longer able to give "divyam jnanam wich destroys sins" (diksha). You still cite that bogus mantra even now every day: "My guru said he would live forever in his books, he was wrong, my guru is dead and his books are dead." And by minimizing his books, you created so many deviant apa-siddhantas which evolved and they even began to change the books due to this minimizing process.
Srila Prabhupada says I will live forever in my books, that will be my living representation / succession, and Rocana and his Gaudiya Matha pals said, stomp on that living plant, it is dead! So there is arsenic poison and there is preaching poison, same effect, "kill guru." And how did you guess, Narayana Maharaja cites "there is nothing wrong" with Sridhara Maharaja's making homosexuals into diksha gurus. "Kill guru and become guru." History was repeating, plain and simple. The Gaudiya Matha minimized their guru, and his books, sold their guru's book printing press, edited his books, made false gurus, dis-mantled the Governing Body. We all knew that -- didn't we Rocana prabhu? And you began to promote this exact same system, saying that those of us who protest are "ranters." You just don't get it, you burnt your guru's house to the ground with your policy, just as "there was a fire in the matha" after 1936.
In short Rocana, you followed the bogus Gaudiya Matha's styled group of thinkers and you clearly sided with the founder fathers of the 1936 homosexual guru imbroglio and helped them dismantle the concept of a proxy / managerial body for the ISKCON society, citing that "there is no such thing as managers and priests in the tradition." And so Rocana, your team chopped off the legs of any sort of managerial process, resulting in massive criminality and child molesting infesting "every nook and cranny" of ISKCON, since your process had essentially destroyed the managerial system with bogus -- and no small amount of criminal -- diksha gurus. And while we were pointing out the resultant victimization of devotees and children -- thanks to your policy of chopping off the legs of the managerial process, Rocana and his ilk said, "Who cares about these fanatical ranters, we need to back the bogus diksha gurus." And so this put us under the reign of folks like Hansadutta (our local "diksha guru" under Rocana's "traditional guru" scheme).
The clear result of Rocana's policy was -- and still is -- that ISKCON descended into a state of total tyranny, criminal chaos, a lawless anarchy. And even during the early years we said that Srila Prabhupada had ordered ONLY a managerial system, proxies, and not bogus diksha gurus, and Rocana and his ilk were shouting us down citing the need for their bogus diksha gurus. In short, we wanted law and order and managing, and manageable proxies, whereas Rocana backed the criminal tyrant megalamanic bogus Vishnupadas, saying that is "the real tradition." Rocana oddly still argues that Srila Prabhuada is not qualified enough to be the current diksha guru for ISKCON, saying that Srila Prabhupada's books are not potent enough to give us divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha). From the 1960s to the end of the 1970s these books had sufficient "divyam jnanam which destroys sins" (diksha) to make tens of thousands of devotees, but now suddenly Rocana magically pulled the plug out of Krishna's book's potency and he said these books are dead and not potent, you need a living person. No wonder the Gaudiya Matha folks cite Rocana's writing!
So your team attacked your guru's order, attacked your guru's books, attacked your guru's devotees by saying they cannot act as proxies, attacked the children by supporting a violent anti-children regime, and all the while you are saying "this is the bona fide system, Srila Prabhupada's idea of proxy managers is bogus, who needs managing when we can have a violent bogus Vishnupada criminal enterprise?" And of course Rocana's team had a handful of deviants in their pockets to give us to replace the pure divyam -- diksha system, managed by proxies, given by Srila Prabhupada. And these idiot gurus wrote all sorts of their own bogus books which thankfully, Rocana is today exposing such as the bogus "Lilamrta." We thus have to also give credit to Rocana for making a partial turnaround!
Who then is potent enough to be the next diksha guru? Rocana has lost his former fire and become a little reluctant and glum here, nowadays he is refusing to say, because we severely exposed all his previous attempts to make bogus replacements for Srila Prabhupada. The only thing Rocana knows for sure is that Srila Prabhupada is bogus because he said he "will live forever" by his books which will be giving the divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha), and that Srila Prabhupada wanted some system of "managers and priests" to make an orderly, law-abiding society to distribute his divyam jnanam -- and give people a bona fide source of diksha. Rocana says, "My guru wasted his whole life writing books, which were giving diksha and making thousands of devotees while he was alive, but which will have no potency to give diksha as soon as his body is not present" citing his pals like the bogus 1936 "homosexual diksha guru" Gaudiya Matha leaders.
Rocana is the boss of the Vedas, he decides when the Vedas have potency and when they do not! Anyway, good job Rocana, by your minimizing your gurus books, hardly any of his books are being distributed nowadays and many of the bogus gurus books are being distributed instead. And you did a good job of saying the books have no potency to give divyam jnanam, because many folks believe that thanks to you. Now they are reading the sahajiya books of the Gaudiya Matha, and smoking pot, you did a great job here! Anyway, back to the point, why can't we follow the order to have a proxy system? OK, like a church has. A church has at least some sort of check and balance process: a priest (ritvik), a council of elders (a brahminical board), regional council members (a Governing body), and yet this is awful for Rocana because it is all too much like "law and order" for apparent anarchists like Rocana.
Hence Rocana (de facto) said, "Why duplicate the church and have a law abiding orderly society, and worship of a bona fide pure devotee, when we can have criminal tyrants and child molesters posing as our guru's replacements"? Or what? "That way, people like Puranajan will maybe be found strangled and stuffed into a dumpster, and then we won't have to deal with his rants anymore, what a bonus"! Or what? That is how it looked from our view point. Rocana in sum said that the only thing we find in our tradition is: his bogus diksha gurus, and that is the plan he backed and he still does, he still says we need a living guru and we have to abandon Srila Prabhupada. Rocana is not happy that there are still a few people left preaching, "Get out now, go find yourself an actual living guru, leave"! Rocana is quite angry that three people are running some temples here and there, he wants no one to be left at all! The de facto message: "Get out, go find another guru, Prabhupada is bogus because he thinks we need managers and not criminal messiahs"! There is no such thing as proxies, not found in shastra, but I am a proxy myself, don't look behind that curtain Dorothy! And catch my lies and hypocrisy! Which ruined ISKCON ...
By 1986 Rocana was even part of the team that was trying to "reform the gurus," since Rocana had no idea that gurus do not need reform, but priests do! Interestingly, Rocana once agreed with PADA that Srila Prabhupada is correct to say that Jesus can still be the diksha guru for the Christians and "absorb the sins," but in the next breath Rocana is belitting Srila Prabhupada along with the others in this group, saying our guru is nowhere near as potent as Jesus. So Rocana is defending the Christian Church process, saying only Jesus is potent enough to be the "post-samadhi" diksha guru, while oddly claiming we are the "bogus church of Christians" when we say our guru has equal potency? Rocana is confuting himself more than anyone else. We might actually debate Rocana someday, but first he has to quit debating with himself.
In other words it seems Rocana and his team make up anything they have to -- as they go along -- to make their bogus diksha guru process work, as long as it minimizes Srila Prabhupada or his books, or his orders etc. and creates a general state of lawless disorder. Meanwhile, by 1980 we began pointing out an odious side effect to Rocana's team's "traditional guru" policy, many of the children in ISKCON were being abused, mistreated and / or molested because their "guru regime" contained child molesters. As we began to publicly protest this particular issue more vociferously, we were met with the same argument Rocana is still giving today: "Who cares about the victimization that Rocana's false diksha gurus are creating, this is all fanatical ranting."
This was the same response we got from most of our God brothers over the banning, beating, molesting: "Puranjana is a fantical ranter" and it is amazing: some folks like Rocana are still saying that! Sorry, we have been proven absolutely correct: worship of child abusers produces child abuse webs and nests. The "fanatical ranters," as it turns out, are those of you who opposed our exposing this issue, especially if we would ask the ex-children victims. And thus Rocana's team has acted all along as enormous three hundred pound football blockers against the ISKCON children. Just as the kids were supposed to catch Srila Prabhupada as their diksha guru, these big oafs knocked our ISKCON children over and barked at them, "Srila Prabhupada is not your diksha guru, go get a 'living' guru from anywhere else, either the bogus GBC (oh boy, some of these "diksha gurus" are child molesters!); Or go to the Gaudiya Matha and work with Kundali's Gaudiya Matha pals, the people who supported the 1936 homosexual guru process; Or go to the bogus GBC's molester pooja "advisors" like Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, BV and BP Puri etc.; Or else leave ISKCON and find some living guidance elsewhere, who cares about ISKCON except the ranters?"
And now the result of Rocana's team's preaching is: many of the ISKCON children even here in Berkeley are worshiping Narayana Maharaja (under the umbrella of Hrdaya Govinda and Narmada) because he is their "living guru," following Rocana's barking orders to find any guru -- except Srila Prabhupada. Yet we cannot help but notice there is a pot smoking problem among them, if not a mental break down problem, in sum a problem of severe depression due to their folowing Rocana's barking dog orders to abandon Srila Prabhupada and find another so-called living diksha guru. More bluntly and to the point, your team's preaching has destroyed most the children of ISKCON, and it has bankrupted and ruined ISKCON as well. In short, first of all your team aided and abetted the process of assaulting the children physically by forcing them to worship child molesters as their diksha gurus, and now you are still attacking the children of ISKCON with your psychological warfare "reject Srila Prabhupada and find another guru," and it is working quite nicely.
Nobody wants your "post-samadhi, posthumous, non-living guru" as your team INSULTS Srila Prabhupada. "My guru is a dead carcass, he has no potency to give you anything, go to another mission and find someone else who is living." Alright, and that has destroyed ISKCON. You tossed everyone overboard in search of someone, anyone, as long as it is not Srila Prabhupada. Rocana, you have now got everyone madly looking for another guru and not Srila Prabhupada. You and your big football blocking reformers like Bhagavat dasa are still acting as blockers from getting Srila Prabhupada's mercy. And the result is, the poor children who were barely able to survive your team's physical assault policy and process are going down under your next wave of assault, psychological attacks.
Well, your team squashed them, and so now you proudly claim a victory? You totally blocked many or most ISKCON children from getting Srila Prabhupada as their guru, you still do that up to today, and as such you totally ruined their future and the future of ISKCON thereby, and we were "ranting" for pointing your incredible wanton destruction of ISKCON? You poured gasoline on the fire, and killed tens of thousands of spiritual lives, and that is "the tradition"? Of the Gaudiya Math deviants ....? Rocana prabhu, with all due respect, the result of your team of "moderate reform devotees" -- blocking and obfuscation us on the molesting issue, blocking the children from getting a bona fide guru, was: most of the children were molested which caused many of them to reject Krishna, and now you are inciting them to reject Srila Prabhupada further and run off to the Gaudiya Matha in search of your elusive "living guru" because of your fellows discrediting our opposition as "rants."
Sorry, we have been bringing to light serious criminal and apa-siddhanta problems, and how these problems are resulting in a peril to ISKCON and its children. These issues are not "fanatical rants" -- to the victims. Rocana prabhu, had your team of "reformers" heeded our warnings early on, probably many of the children would not have have been starved, beat and molested as was created by acquiescing with this process. And at least many of them would have a bona fide guru by now, but your team wants to block the children -- and empty out ISKCON. Fine, how is that pleasing your guru? Sorry, our objecting to the mistreatment of children is not "ranting mantras." Rather those who have attacked our cause celebre issues, the issues we forwarded, are responsible for aiding and abetting the mess ISKCON is in, the molesting of children in ISKCON, and the exodus of the children to find one of your alleged "living gurus." You are madly pounding the drum for the pied piper of false gurus, and you emptied out all of the children from your guru's mission, and you are proud of that? Amazing!]
[** RD: That said, I do feel moved to comment on some of the content Puranjana recently sent me. In the spirit of a swan taking some milk from the water, I did find some of the points he's made to be valid, once I filtered out of the vociferous mantras he's become so renowned for. In my opinion and the opinions of many others - including his associates who believe in the Rtvik position - Puranjana prabhu's fanatical verbiage is found to be quite counter-productive.]
[PADA: It depends. Some of of the molested children write to us quite angry at PADA, because they think we were not giving stronger "fanatical verbiage." And folks like Sanat and Mukunda indeed apparently want to kill us because they think we did not protest strongly enough, never mind they were servants of the molester regime themselves. Now, out of frustration that there is no process of managing or justice in ISKCON, they actually wrote that they want to see all of the molested kids "die in a blood bath" as well, to really give Krishna a bad name! And even worse, they are now saying that Srila Prabhupada was somehow made the leader of a branch of the illuminati, whatever all that is about? So this is merely one sample of millions of kinds of madness your policy of elimination of any managing -- in favor of the tyranny of bogus diksha gurus -- has created.
In sum many folks think we should have taken vastly stronger measures. Of course they are really more angry at you Rocana, for your party's acquiescing with the child molester worship process for such a long time. At least we at PADA took some measures to help. In any case, our views are not considered as "fanatical rants" by the most of the "reasonable and sane" folks we have met in the media, police, Federal Marshalls, Mendocino Sheriffs, lawyers, judges, CBS TV news, the courts, Rolling Stone Magazine writers, New York Times writers, Time magazine writers, San Francisco Chronicle writers, Fresno Bee writers, Kathy Kuspy of West Virginia Newspapers, Dr. Stilson Judah, Jai Narayana Singh of Houston's Hindu Radio hour, many Brijabasis, Brijabasi doctors, the Gainseville FBI, officer Joe Sanchez and officer Tom Westfall, audio forensic experts, poison forensic experts, child molesting experts, local police, and thousands of PADA friendly devotees and thousands of molested children, in sum everone else is in the universe "a fanatical ranter" -- except Rocana and your pals?
Ummm, Rocana this hardly seems likely. Rather the above folks all agree with PADA when we are pointing out that -- by not following the ritvik system (managers) -- and instead making an artificial "worship of pedophiles as gurus" process ... the children are in peril. PADA's idea of a lawsuit also saved some children from committing suicide, and all this is "counter-productive"? To whom? The police EVEN TODAY agree that PADA editor's life in STILL in peril, all because we advocated for the children. Why are children's issues, or any of the other issues we have forwarded over the past 30 years, "vociferous rants"? Rocana you never explain this for the past 30 years? The real question most people ask us is: why didn't people like Rocana join PADA in complaints over these very serious criminal issues which afflicted ISKCON and its children? "What rock were these (Rocana) guys hiding under," that was the question we got from CBS television. Frankly we do not have a good answer for the media, the molested children, or anyone else, do we Rocana prabhu?]
[** RD: Still, one has to admit that he is one of the pioneers of the protest movement. He claims he goes back to 1978. While I can't verify that, as the saying goes: you can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their back. Puranjana has, from a psychological point of view, probably been severely impacted by his experiences, particularly when his good friend Sulocana was murdered. Not surprisingly, Puranjana took great objection to my "Church of Rtvik" paper, as did his Rtvik colleagues. Somehow or other, he came up with the uniquely strange conclusion that in the distant past, I was adversely influenced by Kundali dasa.]
[PADA: As we recall, Kundali was saying that Srila Prabhupada cannot be the current sampradaya guru / diksha guru / present parampara link, and you had agreed with him formerly, and you still say Srila Prabhupada is not the current diksha guru. Hence you are still a de facto disciple of the Gaudiya Matha. You said our idea that Srila Prabhupada is the current link is "Christian Church idea" and hence you wrote "The Church Of Ritvik" -- de facto citing Kundali's "rants." Ravindra Swarupa also says that the current worship of Srila Prabhupada is like the Christians who worship Jesus citing your "Ritvik Church." So you have directly or by innuendo cited Kundali and even Narayana Maharaja. Yet your paper's title gives you away, anyone who worships a person like Jesus (or Srila Prabhupada) is part of some mundane "Ritvik Church." Meanwhile, your "Church" has no guru, at least we have one! Meanwhile, a newer devotee claims that you wrote that the new people who worship Srila Prabhupada are your God brothers, i.e. he is their diksha guru. You seem to be all over the map here? One day you wake up and you are on our side, the next day you are going to bat for the idea that the acharya is the posthumous dead guy, what is up?
Anyway you and Kundali are wrong, Srila Prabhupada says it is fine that Lord Jesus is worshipped by priests, and you personally told us you agreed! And so you are attacking Jesus' worship, and our idea that we need to worship Srila Prabhupada. You and Kundali said our idea of worship of Srila Prabhupada "is not in the tradition, this is Christian Church idea." Yet it is Srila Prabhupada who gave us the ritvik order. And why can't people worship Jesus through ritviks, Srila Prabhupada says this is bona fide, you say Srila Prabhupada is "not in the tradition"? Why constantly attack your own guru's ideas as bogus -- your own guru? Rocana, you seem to be saying: "Srila Prabhupada is the founder of the bogus church of ritviks, he must have forgot to make some nice living deviants for us to worship, OK we have some, the Gaudiya Matha folks that Kundali worships." "My guru says he will be worshipped after he departs, my guru is a -- Christian"! What!]
[** RD: Frankly I've never agreed with Kundali's position, and particularly his methodology, although I hosted him for a few days in my home. We had some interesting discussions… when I could get a word in edgewise. I've also published a fair bit of Kundali's material in the past in HareKrsna.com, and I certainly agree with some of what he has to say. Over the last ten years he seems to have dropped off the map, so I'm not sure if his position remains the same today. I can say that he never did convince me of anything, and that my Sampradaya Acarya position now is not at all inline with his philosophical conclusions, as I understand them.]
[PADA: Kundali "dropped off the map" because he was saying we need to have a living diksha guru, and when we challenged him to give us the name of his living guru, he could not find one. He did the honorable thing and left the debate because he was defeated. And you have been in agreement with him saying that rejecting Srila Prabhupada as our diksha guru is "the tradition." Rocana prabhu, why are you saying that Srila Prabhupada's books are no longer giving divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha)? Is this not sucking the life out of your own guru, guru mara vidya. "My guru is impotent, dead, gone, finished," what makes you different from the bogus gurus? Or Kundali?]
[** RD: Since we're talking of the past and what my influences have been I'm happy to admit here, as I've done in my paper, just what some of these influences have been. My association with Yasodanandana dasa, who is a very close associate of Puranjana's, certainly helped me to sharpen my ideas on guru tattva, and this association helped me come to some of the conclusions I have today. The problem I had with Yasodanandana and Puranjana, and that whole faction of the Rtvik movement, is that when I wanted to discuss/debate with them some of the philosophical aspects of their Rtvik-vada, I was shut down and shunned immediately.]
[PADA: You said -- and still say -- we need to have a living diksha guru. We said, ok great, give us the name of your living diksha guru and we will investigate his bona fides. You never gave us the name of your living diksha guru, nor did Kundali. Kundali was at least shamed by our asking him the question he could not answer, "Who is your current living diksha guru"? We say Srila Prabhupada is the current living diksha guru, you say that "is not in the tradition." Then you say: he is the current sampradaya acharya? You are giving us complex hoops, hurdles, contrary riddles, so the result is that the children are all running off elsewhere.
The good news is that now you are straddling the fence, you say he is the current sampradaya link, yet you say he is not the person giving us any knowledge (divyam jnanam), you just jettisoned his words / vani? Who authorized you to toss out his vani as "not giving divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha)"? Why are you minimizing your guru, and be warned, do so at your peril. He said he would live on forever in his books, his books are thus his current living successor. You say his books are dead, there is no divyam jnanam (diksha) there, never mind his books initiated tens of thousands of people already, people who never met him in person. Really -- don't want to remind you of the fate of people who do this, not pretty to say the least ...]
[** RD: I was never given the opportunity to discuss the differences I had with them philosophically.]
[PADA: Wrong. We have asked Rocana hundreds of times to show us, "what is the specific arrangement made by Srila Prabhupada to conduct ISKCON after his departure"? Rocana never replied for 30 years! Kundali said we need to go to the Gaudiya Matha, and that is what the bogus GBC also gurus said. And so when Rocana was promoting Kundali he began to use Kundali's slogans, "but worship of Srila Prabhupada is not in the tradition, this is the church idea" and so on. Rocana has never shown us what are the specific orders, whereas we have done so in many of our documents. Rocana merely says that Srila Prabhupada is bogus because he established worship of himself as the pure devotee for after his departure, and his books have no potency to give divyam jnanam, so Rocana is de facto recruiting for the Gaudiya Matha -- as was Kundali.
Rocana!, you have never answered any of our questions for the past 30 years, what more opportunity do you need? Srila Prabhupada said there will be a Governing Body, and ritviks, and that means he will continue as the diksha guru because his books will give the divyam jnanam, the essence of diksha. Now you are sucking the life out of his books! And now that most of the children were molested, many of them hate Krishna, they have almost all rejected ISKCON, many are smoking pot, you and guys like Narayana Maharaja think -- you won something grand?]
[** RD: They, like all fanatics, wouldn't ever consider that what they believe in has any degree of untruth or could possibly be asiddhantic. As I make clear in Church of Rtvik, I don't accept their Rtvik-vada position except to the degree that they emphasize putting Srila Prabhupada firmly at the center.]
[PADA: Now you are contradicting yourself, (a) we need to have Srila Prabhupada in the center since he is the current living acharya, yet (b) No one can be his follower, since then we would be worshipping a departed guru like the The Church of ritvik -- Christians? The good news is you are partially citing us. You originally said that our view, that Srila Prabhupada is the current link, is apa-siddhanta "Churchianity," yet now you are yourself using our term, that he is the current link. If Srila Prabhupada is "firmly in the center" and "the current link" then he is the one who is giving the "divyam-jnanam which destroys sins" (diksha) not another as you infer. You keep saying there is some other person who is giving us the pure divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha), so you want to minimize your guru and indeed suck his living potency out, yet you and Kundali are unable to give the name of your alleged living person? Either give us the name of your current living guru, or admit you have none.
You do not have the name of another person who is capable of giving the "pure divyam jnana which destroys sins" (diksha), and so you are angry that we exposed you as bluffers. So Kundali has backed off from his bluffing, that is all. And Rocana's saying that Srila Prabhupada is now the current link is good, but the link has no potency to give divya jnanam, we need a living Pope, this makes Rocana the Churchianity person. Rocana has been looking for his living Pope for 30 years, and he has turned thousands of people over to the Gaudiya Matha to get a living guru, so Rocana is Narayana Maharaja's best asset. Again, at your peril Rocana prabhu!]
[** RD: The gist of what Puranjana dasa had to say to me recently is that I stole some of their thunder, i.e, that I used some of "their" philosophical points in my Sampradaya Acarya theme. Puranjana points to my use of the term "Sampradaya Acarya", which he says was first coined by his camp in the years immediately following Srila Prabhupada's departure. In fact, the term was coined by Srila Prabhupada himself, not by any of us followers. Upon keyword searching the early papers published by Yasodanandana and company that we have in hand, we discover three instances of their use of the term "Sampradaya Acarya", as follows:
"One of the members of the self-appointed acarya party declared "Who cares for Madhva and Ramanuja! We are followers of Srila Prabhupada's" sampradaya acarya and how their new status had to be accepted by all of the other members of the Acarya's mission."
The Tradition of Debate, Part 3, by Yasodanandana dasa, 1996
"4) changes the sacred Bhagavad-gita purports of the Acarya, Srila Prabhupada, then what kind of spiritual master is he? Does he truly represent the pure and original teachings of the Sampradaya Acarya, Srila Prabhupada? We suggest that such a guru does not represent the original acarya and any devotee should exercise utmost caution about hearing from such a person. …
And sastra has to be understood for its practical application according to the order of the Sampradaya Acarya, Srila Prabhupada. Thus, it is the duty of Srila Prabhupada's disciples to act as humble ritvik representatives of the actual Acarya, Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada is the actual current link and actual authority for the true followers of the Krsna Consciousness movement."
Mythology Revival by Yasodanandana dasa, Nov 17, 1994
In the first quotation above, the term "Sampradaya Acarya" was actually quoted as having been used by an ISKCON authority. In the next two instances of use, the author certainly refers to Srila Prabhupada as a "Sampradaya Acarya", but there is absolutely no explanation of what he understands that to mean. We must therefore assume that he uses the term in the same way Srila Prabhupada had used it in the past. Aside from that, there is nothing to characterize a position regarding the Sampradaya Acarya designation. In my paper, on the other hand, I have offered a great many supporting statements for my positions, and have approached the Sampradaya Acarya designation from a variety of angles, both philosophically and practically. Granted, there may be other papers published by Yasodanandana, Puranjana or other early Rtviks that I'm not aware of. If so, I trust Puranjana will call them to our attention.
[PADA: We have all used the terms "sampradaya acharya" and other terms like "eternal preceptor guru," to put an English slant on things. The point is that Srila Prabhupada said he would live forever in his books. Rocana disagrees, saying there is no divyam jnanam in the books, the books are dead for Rocana. And Srila Prabhupada says his books were and are the source of the divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha), and many devotees read and became devotees without meeting Srila Prabhupada in person through getting diksha from his books. Rocana tosses this process out, the books are going to give divyama jnanam, how bogus, this is what the Gaudiya Matha deviants said and Rocana is their favorite disciple
Why would Rocana now say his guru's books are not potent any longer, and join Kundali? You Rocana fellows say his books cannot give the divyam jnanam which destroys sins, you are the boss of Srila Prabhupada. That is why we cannot debate you, you are saying you are your guru's boss and you have sucked all the potency our of his books, his books can no longer give knowledge which destroys sins (diskah) says Rocana, and his allies such as Sridhara, Narayana, Bhagavat dasa, Kundali, ad infinitum. And while all the children were getting molested, Rocana, Sridhara, Narayana, Bhagavat das, Gaura govinda swami, Kundali etc. were all arguing that our guru has no potnecy, these folks never rallied together with us to argue over the molesting issue, trying to get a "reformer" post from the so-called guru reform, to busy to bother with the plight of the citizens.]
[** RD: As further evidence that I 'stole their ideas', Puranjana also points to my focus on the List of 32 Acaryas presented by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and Srila Prabhupada, which can best be described as nitya-siddha shaktyavesa avatars. We all agree that Srila Prabhupada should be represented and worshipped as just such a personality. We also agree that Srila Prabhupada should be considered the most recent representative of this level of Acaryas. In Puranjana dasa's presentation, however, he claims that this List of 32 only goes back 5,000 years. But if he looks at the list again he'll see that Lord Brahma is included, along with other Acaryas who have been existing for uncountable years, back to the beginning of creation. So while he believes his position is absolute, Puranjana dasa himself makes mistakes in this regard.]
[PADA: Fine, the point is that either five thousand years or five million years, 32 guru means there are gaps. You agree, that means you have given up your idea that there is always a living person, goody!]
[** RD: While I understand Puranjana's wish that he and his Rtvik associates not be forgotten for their early contribution to the debate, I think it's clear that there is a gulf of difference between my assertion of the Sampradaya Acarya position and his own. But at the end of the day, what does it matter who 'coined the term'? In fact, Srila Prabhupada gets that honor, himself. So let us busy ourselves in trying to understand who the nitya-siddha maha-bhagavata Sampradaya Acarya is, rather than waste our time arguing over who had an idea first.]
[PADA: Rocana, your idea is that the sampradaya acharya is unable to give divyam jnanam which destroys sins, never mind he said he would live forever in his books? We are not arguing "terms," we are saying the current link is the living link, you are saying you have a current link, who is a dead link, so you are shooting youtself in the foot and confuting yourself. First of all, you are cobbling together bits and pieces of Sridhara Maharaja, Kundali, Tamal and who knows what else, and you never give us any detailed idea of what were the actual orders of Srila Prabhupada, except you are telling us he is a bogus Christian because he said he would have some proxies? So you are wasting everyone's time by cobbling together pieces of speculation.]
[** RD: Puranjana mentions an interesting point on the question of the time gaps, which Srila Prabhupada himself said we should not be concerned about when we look at the List of 32 and the lineage. He notes that Krsna Himself made a point of saying in the Bhagavad-gita that there are time gaps and that He's come to reinstate the disciplic succession, and He has to come time and time again to do so. As I've said in my paper, this is essentially the definition, or one of the aspects of the Sampradaya Acaryas. In many cases, they did re-establish or reinforce the Sampradaya through various means, primarily through siddhanta.
Another interesting point Puranjana dasa makes that I agree has some validity is what he calls "Rtvik through the backdoor". This term refers to ISKCON's policy wherein they say that if you become initiated by one of their voted-in gurus, it means that simultaneously one has to develop the consciousness that they're the property of ISKCON or Srila Prabhupada. So the disciples have to somehow or other reconcile this philosophical dilemma and try to figure out where their absolute loyalty lies - with their supposedly eternal diksa guru, or with the GBC/ISKCON and ostensibly Srila Prabhupada?
Of course, ISKCON's policy on the guru issue is that they give no guarantees, even though the guru is given their 'rubber stamp' authorization, albeit with the disclaimer that they can't guarantee the guru isn't going to fall down. But in the event they do, the disciple still has Srila Prabhupada as a 'safety net'. And from their point of view, of course, you'll still be part of ISKCON, who will strongly encourage you to get re-initiation… just to hedge your bets. So in a sense Puranjana dasa is right… this is really a form of Rtvik-ism.]
[PADA: So if the bogus GBC is being forced to admit that the ritvik idea is best, why cannot Rocana? Why not agree, the disciples belong to Srila Prabhupada (the ritvik idea)?]
[** RD: Of course Puranjana dasa and his particular camp of Rtviks have certain distinguishing characteristics when it comes to their preaching of the Rtvik siddhanta, namely that they like to point to the similarities between what happened after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati departed and what happened in ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada left. Granted, there are many similarities and some of their points are well taken in that regard. I haven't made the effort to carefully study Gaudiya Matha history enough to come to the same absolute conclusions they have, but basically my position is that in both cases, the Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON re-established the concept of the diksa lineages, which in itself does not siddhantically line up with the concept of the Sampradaya Acarya level of parampara. In the case of both institutions, they didn't make the clear distinction between the parampara concepts which they were preaching and that of the parampara being maintained by Sampradaya Acaryas throughout the ages. They did not emphasize how or why we should make a clear distinction between a diksa lineage that is branching out from these Sampradaya Acaryas, and the actual branch or level that is constituted by the Sampradaya Acarya himself, i.e., those you find on this List of 32.]
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada makes it more clear, he says that because the Gaudiya Matha deviants dismantled their Governing Body (de facto ritvik system) they were "severe offenders, cock roach gurus, hog and dog disciples, bugs sitting on the King's lap - biting the King, asara, black snakes, snakes with jewels, rascals, envious, motivated, foolish, and so on. Why not just cite Srila Prabhupada?]
[** RD: Another aspect of the diksa lineage concept promoted in both groups of disciples (Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON), is that they made some glaring mistakes in the sense that they voted in or appointed personalities who in short order, completely exposed themselves as being imitation or fallen personalities. These mistakes undermined the whole principle that both Sampradaya Acaryas tried to establish and arrange to have held in place during their post-samadhi period -- in other words, the cooperation of the sadhana-bhaktas under the concept of a GBC, so that their missions would not be undermined and diluted.]
Puranjana dasa often makes statements I find quite humorous, and the follow statement struck me as being both funny and accurate. He referred to the fact that the GBC are now forming a committee to discuss who is Srila Prabhupada, saying they're: "only just now opening a discussion called, "Who Is Srila Prabhupada -- Actually"? So they have been imitating him for 30 years, but just now they are trying to figure out, who are they imitating? "We have been printing counterfeit money for 20 years, maybe we should try to understand: what is real money, and why is everyone so upset at our counterfeit gurus"?"
Of course, Puranjana dasa has many themes that he harps on, one of them being the voting-in of gurus. We both agree this is asiddhantic. That was also a Gaudiya Matha idea. Puranjana claims that a lot of these ideas -- whether it's voting in gurus or re-initiation -- have been implanted in ISKCON on account of their association with various Gaudiya Matha personalities. This may be true. He doesn't give any real evidence one way or the other. Granted, it is suspicious that this happened in both eras, but at the same time after the departure of personalities who are Sampradaya Acaryas or maha-bhagavatas, in our tradition or other traditions, we see the phenomenon of religiosity replacing pure spirituality established by advanced devotees. Whether or not that can be prevented entirely is another matter, because until and unless someone of siddha status defeats the religionists, it's hard to hold back the tide.
In our circumstances today, we still have an opportunity, as individuals at least, to make the discernment between what is contaminated siddhanta and what is the pure siddhanta coming from Srila Prabhupada. So long as we're ready to seriously study Srila Prabhupada's teachings and be able to humbly extract from our own consciousness any contamination that has already been planted on account of impure association, we can develop that degree of discernment.
Although Puranjana dasa in his presentation tries to avoid it, the real difference between my understanding and his is essentially the heart of Rtvik-vada - the concept that we have been given permission by Srila Prabhupada to actually take diksa initiation from him, post-samadhi. I say that this concept is not supported by direct evidence from Srila Prabhupada, nor is there anything in the past teachings of the Sampradaya Acaryas to support this idea. Nor do I feel it is necessary or absolutely essential in order to carry on the parampara or Srila Prabhupada's spiritual mission. According to my position, to be connected to the Sampradaya is the main point, and to deny or restrict Krsna is impossible. After all, it's up to Krsna to empower a guru to purely represent the Sampradaya Acaryas, and to say that Krsna cannot empower someone to be a diksa or siksa, or to empower them through the heart as Caitya Guru is, in itself, an asiddhantic concept. You cannot restrict Krsna.
[PADA: Yet Rocana restricts Krishna, he says that Krishna cannot have a "post-samadhi" repesentative? Rocana says Krishna's words are dead, the Bhagavat Gita gave thousands of diksha initiations, but now -- Krishna is dead! Notice Rocana cites his real authority, Mr. Ravindra Swarupa's "post samadhi guru." Ravindra Swarupa says Srila Prabhupada is posthumous, and Rocana has picked up his terminology. Wasn't Ravindra one of your dear reformer pals? "All glories to Posthumous pada, Ravindra Swarupa"!]
[** RD: In today's circumstances, from my personal experience, I haven't detected anyone that I would consider an absolutely pure representative of Srila Prabhupada or any of the previous Acaryas. I do admit and concede that there are a lot of very sincere sadhana-bhaktas who are attempting to follow the process and understand the siddhanta to the best of their abilities. And to that end, Krsna is reciprocating with them. Given that I haven't been traveling extensively over the last ten years, there are undoubtedly many more such individuals than I'm aware of.
My position is that in this day and age, one of the ways we can protect ourselves individually or institutionally from going astray is that we humbly open ourselves up to being challenged by other sincere followers of the Sampradaya Acaryas. In a spirit of humility, we must be ready to discuss and defend our position or perspective and be open to the fact that we have not reached perfection, therefore we may be making mistakes through contamination. Whether it be hard-core Rtviks, hard-core ISKCON-ites, or fanatical disciples from any of the various camps that have manifested today, we don't find this humble spirit. And that goes for Puranjana dasa, as well. I've made numerous attempts to debate guru-tattva with the Rtviks, but they have never been willing to engage in a debate with me. And that includes the Rtvik camp Puranjana and Yasodanandana prabhus associate themselves with. I have posted a lengthy exchange I had with them regarding my challenge to debate. Perhaps one day in future they'll come forward and respond, upholding the Vaisnava tradition of debate that Yasodanandana himself has so eloquently described in the past.
[PADA: Well thanks, your ideas ruined the whole mission, and you are proud! Amazing. thanks pd]
please
also see:
Deconstructing Rocana by PADA
Rocana's
Masquerade - The Sampradaya Sun Exposé
Rocana's
and Iskcons bogus philosophy - PADA DEBATES ROCANA
ROCANA says: Srila Prabhupada does not
speak clearly, only Rocana does?
Reply
to Rocana dasa's speculation about chanting mantras and preaching in South India
Rocana contradicts Srila Prabhupada's teachings
and says: "the eternal guru" is "ridiculous"
Chant Hare
Krishna and be happy!
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!
