BV Narayana Maharaja, Gaudiya Math, Differentiations

I don't know what you mean here. I was only addressing what I thought was a misinterpretation of the way you identified the use of Narayana Maharaja's statements concerning "Bhagavata Parampara". I just don't think he was using the concept as a cognate for "Sampradaya Acarya". Whenever I have read about "Bhagavata or siksa parampara" it is used to stress the concept of disciplic succession based on tattva rather then an official diksa lineage.

This concept was used to deflect criticism on the gaudiya sampradaya because of gaps in the disciplic succession. The idea is that to be a bona fide member of the disciplic succession you don't need to receive diksa in an unbroken line of gurus. All that qualified you for inclusion in the parampara was the siksa initiation. Anyone who recieves the siska of the previous acaryas and or the Bhagavata, is considered to be in the disciplic succession. This has been called the Bhagavata or siksa parampara.

Your conception of the "Sampradaya acarya" is not cognate with that conception. They are two different things. A person doesn't need to have ever heard of Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada to be in the Bhagavata parampara. All that is needed is to have heard the message of the Bhagavata, from any bona fide source. The sampradaya acarya concept is based more on siksa from a particular source, and really it is closer to the diksa parampara concept then the siksa parampara or Bhagavata parampara concept.

I'm not arguing against your philosophical points, I just don't think that Narayana Maharaja was intending to mean what you suggested. At least I have never come across anyone using the term Bhagavata parampara in any other way then what I have stated.

Then you said:

I'm not saying that they're rejecting Gaudiya siddhanta.

Like I said, I didn't think you meant to say that. But without clarifying the terms, this was what appears to have been said by you. If someone didn't know what your concept of sampradaya acarya was, and then read your definition of it as cognate with Bhagavata parampara, then it appears you are saying that only followers of Srila Prabhupada are in the Siksa parampara. Which is the opposite of the siksa parampara concept. You have no need to ever have heard of Srila Prabhupada to be in the siksa parampara, that is the whole point of the concept. It is not person specific, it is Bhagavata tattva specific. For example: If Srila Prabhupada had never come to the west, had never printed books, and had remained in India, if you had then come across the books of Jiva Goswami, or the Bhagavatam etc, in order to be considered a bona fide disciple all that you would need is to study those writings and apply them. Then you would be in the Bhagavata parampara and elgible to make disciples, if and when you became qualified. You would not need to have received the siksa or diksa from a particular current acarya. This is the concept of the Bhagavata parampara.

Your sampradaya acarya is really a type of guru parampara because it stresses a connection to an individual acarya, as opposed to siddhanta.

Then you said:

Of course it is only my interpretation. I thought that was implied since there is no way I could know besides directly asking him. It just seems the logical understanding, otherwise it is a meaningless statement to say that a disciple cannot fall down. Any other interpretation makes no logical sense.

Falling down can only mean one of two things. Either leaving the service of the Guru, or not following sadhana and the rules and regulations attached to that practice. Since many people who are initiated disciples, stop practicing sadhana, and stop following the rules and regulations, therefore he couldn't have meant that as "falling down". They are still initiated disciples. And in that paradigm they have indeed "fallen down".

So saying a disciple cannot fall down in that context is meaningless, they do fall down all the time. The only explanation that makes sense, is what I posted i.e A disciple cannot fall down because once he stops serving the guru he is not a disciple anymore, the person may "fall down" (stop all connection to guru and bhakti), but he is no longer a disciple. A disciple in this context, by definition, is a disciple only as long as he is surrendered. That seemes to be the only logical use of the statement by Narayana Maharaja.

Of course I could be mistaken, it was just logical deduction.

Respectfully

Shiva das

Posted by shiva das @ 11/26/2004 03:11 PM PST

Dear Shiva dasa,

Thanks for your continued comments. I've been giving careful thought to our discussion, so it's taken me a little longer to respond.

This discussion is challenging in part because of our differing interpretations of what BV Narayana Maharaj has said. It appears that you are focusing primarily upon what you feel BV Narayana's intended message was, and I'm focusing on what I understand to be the Sampradaya Acarya's intention on the same topic. I have already made clear what my perceptions are on Narayana Maharaja's character, motivations, and sincerity. You, in turn, have made it known that you don't share my distaste for this personality. The impression I get from your comments is that you are quite fond of him. You appear to be somewhat well versed in his teachings, or at least familiar enough so as to offer a positive defense of his message. To me, this indicates that you are comfortable with the way he presents Srila Prabhupada, and are therefore presumably comfortable with his moon-struck story surrounding his intimate relationship with our Srila Prabhupada. As I admitted in the previous post, I tend to be suspicious of BV Narayana's statements, especially when they are in direct relation to Srila Prabhupada. The article in question, which was presented in 1995 at a disappearance ceremony for Srila Prabhupada, is a good example of that.

In the presentation we've been discussing, BV Narayana and/or his editors felt moved to include "Sri Guru-parampara" by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada. The ninth verse and translation/purport is shown as follows:

sri varsabhanavi-bara, sada sevya-seva-para
tahara dayita-dasa-nama
prabhupada-antara"ga, sri svarupa-rupanuga
sri kesava bhakati-prajnana
gaudiya-vedanta-vetta, mayavada-tamohanta
gaura-vani-pracaracara-dhama (9)
The most distinguished Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, whose initiated name was Sri Varsabhanavi Dayita dasa, was always engaged in divine service to Hari, Guru, Vaisnava. An internal and intimate disciple of Prabhupada following in the line of Svarupa Damodara and Rupa Gosvami was Sri Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami.

Having full knowledge of Vedanta philosophy according to the Gaudiya sampradaya, Srila Kesava Maharaja annihilated the darkness of all mayavada arguments. He has served Navadvipa Dhama so much, and his life is an example for both practicing and preaching Mahaprabhu's message.

They go on to include the following:

tara pradhan pracarako, sri bhaktivedanta namo
patita-janete doya-dhama

His foremost disciple-preacher was Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who has spread the message of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu throughout the world and is thus a reservoir of mercy and compassion for all fallen souls.

kesava priya mahajana vamana narayana haya
gaura-vani tadera prana-dhana

Most dear to Sri KeSava Gosvami were the saintly personalities Sri Vamana Gosvami and Sri Narayana Gosvami, whose life and soul are the teachings of Mahaprabhu.

Please note that an uninformed reader is likely to conclude that Srila Prabhupada is a disciple of Srila Kesava Maharaja, who of course is BV Narayana's Spiritual Master. Naturally we know that is not an true characterization. Granted, Srila Kesava Maharaja was Srila Prabhupada's sannyasa guru, but never did Srila Prabhupada himself identify Srila Kesava Maharaja as his guru in the manner that this verse depicts.

BV Narayana's presentation goes on to include the following, which gets us to the crux of the matter:

or: tara sisya aganana, tara madhye prestha hana
sri bhakti-prajnana kesava
tara sisya aganana, tara madhye anyatama
sri bhaktivedanta narayana (9)

or: Out of Prabhupada's countless disciples, Sri Bhakti Prajana KeSava Gosvami was his dearmost. And out of the countless disciples of Sri Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami, one of the most prominent is Sri Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja.

Overall, we are given the essential message: 1) that Srila Kesava Maharaja was Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's dearmost; 2) that Srila Prabhupada was Srila Kesava's "foremost disciple-preacher"; and 3) that of all Srila Kesava's disciples, BV Narayana is one of the most prominent.

I previously wrote:

It appears that you, too, may have been bamboozled by the expert word jugglery of the Gaudiya Matha spokesmen, who've been having to deal with these proclamations since the time Srila Prabhupada made them. This would put you in the majority, as it seems most of ISKCON has adopted a similar attitude.
My previous paragraph to the one you posted is: The question is, are we committing an offense in concluding that we should disregard these decrees and statements as, in your words, simply being "personal rebukes" that "weren't ideologically driven"? What sort of Bhagavat Acarya places such rebukes within his purports to scripture! By very definition, everything a Bhagavat Acarya says, particularly in a sastric context, must be viewed as having a strong ideological basis.

You replied by saying:

As illustrated by the example given above, the term "expert word jugglery" refers to the common practice of Gaudiya Matha preachers to expertly discount Srila Prabhupada's pointedly honest statements concerning the spiritual inertia of his Godbrothers. In a manner similar to the Gaudiya Matha preachers, you parrot their phraseology with your use of the characterization, "unimportant personal rebukes with no ideological bases". Your use of language leads me to conclude that you are also "taken in" i.e., "bamboozled" by their rhetoric. I, on the other hand, identify this shrugging off of Srila Prabhupada's intended meaning to be dishonest and therefore offensive. Of course, I relate to Srila Prabhupada as a Sampradaya Acarya and the most recent representative of the Bhagavat Parampara. By adopting this perspective, I'm insulated from being taken in by this nonsense manipulative preaching.

In all honesty, I have a difficult time wrapping my head around the Gaudiya Matha's idea of a "tattva" parampara. I find their supposed logic a form of word jugglery. To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never explained the parampara in such ethereal terms. However, it is true that one of the principle criticisms Srila Prabhupada directed towards his Godbrothers was their disregarding the instructions of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati in the matter of not appointing successor Acaryas and cooperating together for the sake of effective preaching. Instead, they re-activated the mundane guru parampara system rather than maintaining Srila Sarasvati's Bhagavat System. Falling to this temptation resulted in many disastrous events which directly contributed the fractionalization of the original Matha. I view all this "tattva" talk as a clever verbal camouflage intended to disguise their selfish intentions and egregious mistakes. They employ confusing rhetoric of "tattva" rather than acknowledge the Gaudiya Matha's departure from the instructions of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. It was this deviation – not confusion over gaps in the Gaudiya Sampradaya – that I believe the rhetoric is designed to conceal.

This concept was used to deflect criticism on the Gaudiya sampradaya because of gaps in the disciplic succession. The idea is that to be a bona fide member of the disciplic succession you don't need to receive diksa in an unbroken line of gurus. All that qualified you for inclusion in the parampara was the siksa initiation. Anyone who receives the siska of the previous acaryas and or the Bhagavata, is considered to be in the disciplic succession. This has been called the Bhagavata or siksa parampara.

How certain are you that this term "Bhagavat Parampara" and the definition applied to it by Narayana Maharaja was actually expounded upon by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati? Can you provide evidence that it came directly from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, or was it a product of one of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers? I have never read this in either Srila Prabhupada's or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's writings, and would appreciate a reference if you have one.

When one speaks of Sampradaya, one is not only referring to its tattva. Although tattva is a primary ingredient there is also the sadhana, then also there is the mood as well as the degree of emphasis on preaching and the methodology for accomplishing our evangelical goal. A focus of Srila Prabhupada's criticism of his Godbrothers is that they didn't embrace the preaching mood in a manner desired by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. In an essay written by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta called "L' Envoi", he begins by saying "The happy day has come when we are destined to spread the message of our Great Master to distant corners of the earth …..This extension of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's spiritual gift to foreign countries is our humble offering at his feet". Of course, he goes on to eruditely emphasize the importance of accomplishing this task. This prioritization is also characteristic of the past Sampradaya Acaryas, as much as this preaching mood is a part of our tattva. I could articulate innumerable ways that Srila Prabhupada's mood and methods differed from his Godbrothers in this aspect, but I'm sure you've heard them all.

Your conception of the "Sampradaya acarya" is not cognate with that conception. They are two different things.
1] A person doesn't need to have ever heard of Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada to be in the Bhagavata parampara. All that is needed is to have heard the message of the Bhagavata, from any bona fide source.

I'm not so certain you have fully grasped the exact "concept" surrounding the Sampradaya Acarya. On top of that, I have conceded that my concern during this debate is centered around Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's and Srila Prabhupada's vision of the Sampradaya compared to this tattva idea of BV Narayana's. It appears there is a profound difference between the two. I admit that I'm not certain as to whether or not Srila Bhaktisiddhanta coined the phrase "Bhagavat parampara", but I suspect it originated with one of his disciples. We see that in the verses below, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati titled his poem "Guru Parampara", although he is essentially describing what Narayana Maharaj terms the "Bhagavat Parampara". Consequently, I believe my position stands, as our Srila Prabhupada did, cent percent in line with the transcendental Madhva Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya as depicted by those great personalities I respect.

You also seem to minimize this difference when you state:

"They were bad mouthing Prabhupada, they complained about a change of rituals, they complained about a change of focus in his preaching from the way they preached and taught e.g Prabhupada gave a more holistic approach, the rest gave a more narrow "manjari bhava" centric approach.

Your choice of the world "holistic" sparks a wildfire of heated discussion, because it can mean so many things, none of them flattering. Srila Prabhupada's preaching not only produced unparalleled results in devotee conversion and training, book and prasadam distribution, translating and commenting upon, printing and distributing essentially all the most important Vaisnava texts, what to speak of creating major temples in our holiest of places, but more importantly he zeroed in on the essence of our devious western cultural philosophical indoctrinations such as evolution, science, western religiosity, etc. What moves you to label this inconceivable achievement as simply ‘holistic' is a mystery to me. Rather, it is the proof positive and sign from above of a true Sampradaya Acarya. Srila Prabhupada is a sacred gift directly sent by Lord Sri Caitanya -- a compass we should all be following. If you had made these statements public during Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON lila period, you could have expected plenty of flak. Today, such remarks seem commonplace. Can it be the insidious influence of Gaudiya Matha preaching? You tell me!

Following and staying on the path of the Sampradaya Acaryas is a foundational principle. Parampara by definition means succession, which implies that the most recent manifestation of the lineage should be followed if for no other reason then the fact that the present/latest Acarya is empowered/authorized to present the total teachings of the Sampradaya according to time, place, and circumstance. Whatever adjustments are required to achieve the goals of the past Acaryas are the responsibilities the Sampradaya Acarya. Lord Caitanya expected and predicated that the chanting of the Holy Names, or Krsna Consciousness, would be heard throughout the planet. Srila Prabhupada, amongst all of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples, was empowered/chosen to successfully satisfy this divine desire. Why is this so difficult for you and others to comprehend? Before the undue influence of the agencies of Gaudiya Matha, essentially all Srila Prabhupada's disciples felt as I do.

2] The sampradaya acarya concept is based more on siksa from a particular source, and really it is closer to the diksa parampara concept then the siksa parampara or Bhagavata parampara concept.

I don't understand what exactly you are trying to communicate here. "Siksa from a particular source?" If you are suggesting that I think we should all be taking siksa from Srila Prabhupada (i.e., all those considering themselves part of our Sampradaya) because he is the Sampradaya Acarya, then you are correct. But following the footsteps of the Sampradaya Acarya isn't on par with simply taking normal siksa. I don't want to be accused of inventing terms like maha-siksa, but essentially, given that Srila Prabhupada is the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, everyone who is currently a follower of the Six Goswamis should look to Srila Prabhupada's teachings and pastimes as the expression of all the previous Sampradaya Acaryas. So in essence, Srila Prabhupada should be considered the primary siksa for all those presently considering themselves as being members of the Sampradaya.

Then you wrote:

[Rocana] I'm not saying that they're rejecting Gaudiya siddhanta.
Like I said, I didn't think you meant to say that. But without clarifying the terms, this was what appears to have been said by you. If someone didn't know what your concept of sampradaya acarya was, and then read your definition of it as cognate with Bhagavata parampara, then it appears you are saying that only followers of Srila Prabhupada are in the Siksa parampara. Which is the opposite of the siksa parampara concept

It is a fact that we use and define certain terms in this debate differently, and it has created some confusion. For expediency in this discussion, I had to assume that the reader was familiar with my paper entitled "Sampradaya Acarya". I had previously made sufficient commentary on my perceived definition of Bhagavata parampara (which is termed "guru paramapara in the paper, in keeping with Srila Prabhupada's use of the term). Keep in mind, Narayana Maharaja chose to include in his VNN posting Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's "Guru Parampara" poem, wherein he lists the exalted members of our Sampradaya. True enough, he points out what type of guru relationship (diksa or siksa) those persons named in the poem had with one another. Srila Prabhupada also presented the same list. He said for us not to worry for the gaps. I tried to make myself clear in my paper that these listed personalities are the true and transcendental members of the parampara and they are exclusive Sampradaya Acaryas.

Srila Prabhupada emphasized time and time again that he is simply repeating the siddhanta spoken by all the previous Sampradaya Acaryas. The significance of Srila Prabhupada's pastimes is that by chanting, hearing and comprehending his books/teachings, one is receiving the messages written by the Six Goswamis. Practical application of this philosophy is really "mission impossible" without Srila Prabhupada's association. Your hypothetical examples contain some theoretical possibility, but are practically improbable. In our most recent Vaisnava history, according to Srila Prabhupada, Lord Caitanya chose to send a nitya siddha in the person of Srila Bhaktivinodha Thakura to resurrect Krsna Consciousness. The Thakur, in turn, prayed to Lord Caitanya to send another nitya siddha to assist him in preaching. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati then appeared as his own son. I propose that our Srila Prabhupada is yet another nitya siddha representative empowered to appear so as to complete the mission. Anyone who accepts this vision as being true and accurate must then come to the next logical conclusion, which is that the Supreme Lord felt it necessary for us Kaliyuga victims – particularly those born in the western world -- to be benedicted in this manner by his emissary. Lord Caitanya wasn't satisfied that somehow or other, if we chanced upon Jiva Goswami's books, we'd have everything we needed.

You have no need to ever have heard of Srila Prabhupada to be in the siksa parampara, that is the whole point of the concept. It is not person specific, it is Bhagavata tattva specific. For example: If Srila Prabhupada had never come to the west, had never printed books, and had remained in India, if you had then come across the books of Jiva Goswami, or the Bhagavatam etc, in order to be considered a bona fide disciple all that you would need is to study those writings and apply them. Then you would be in the Bhagavata parampara and eligible to make disciples, if and when you became qualified. You would not need to have received the siksa or diksa from a particular current acarya. This is the concept of the Bhagavata parampara.

Your assertion is that the parampara is tattva specific, not person specific. True enough – except that if it weren't for the persons, the tattva would not be carried forward. You're suggesting that one doesn't need to hear from the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, but can rather be connected to the Sampradaya by hearing from any of the past Sampradaya Acaryas. I'm emphasizing the importance of hearing from the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, because as we see in Srila Prabhupada's books, he is commenting on what the Goswamis and the previous Sampradaya Acarya's have written, and is therefore making it comprehensible by persons in this day and age.

I appreciate your attempts to make me comprehend BV Narayana's definitions of Bhagavat Parampara, but I don't accept your explanations on the impersonal tattva concept of how Krsna Consciousness functions. We are following a very personal conception of achieving perfection, which implies not just speaking tattva but practically applying it to time, place, circumstance and ultimately to the individual disciple. Realized tattva is in reality Krsna Consciousness, thus the need for a Guru who presents practical sadhana, overall mood and preaching methods, and individual instruction, encouragement and engagement. So long as the common Acarya recognizes and carefully follows the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, he is qualified to be guru: siksa, diksa or any other prefix.

Many innocents were adversely affected by this type of irresponsible inactivity. This type of fall down is of a far greater magnitude than a neophyte leaving the "service" due to falling victim to the pushing of their material senses. As we are presently discussing Narayana Maharaj and Srila Prabhupada, I would go so far as to say that in my opinion, Narayana Maharaj is falling down in a grander manner and on a higher level, which is therefore more difficult for neophytes to detect. I speak of Narayana's minimalization of the exalted position of Srila Prabhupada, the genuine Sampradaya Acarya. He goes further by usurping Srila Prabhupada's disciples into his personal service on the pretext of giving them siksa association. He does this rather than enlivening them to re-activate their service to their true diksa guru. I feel this preaching strategy is an example of maha-fall down. The most glaring examples are Jadarani devi and Dhristadyumna dasa, but as we know there are plenty of others who have been convinced to switch their allegiance completely over to Narayana Maharaja. I am well aware of the conflicting opinions arising out of the correct definition of taking siksa, but here again is an example of the many differences between Srila Prabhupada and BV Narayana. I also don't buy into all this nonsense rhetoric that BV Narayana views/depicts Srila Prabhupada as one of his siksa gurus. I'll leave it at that for now, as I've written more extensively on this subject in other papers.

Falling down can only mean one of two things.

The use of the term "fall down" is equivalent to saying someone is sick. In other words, it can refer to any number of maladies ranging from the common cold to terminal cancer. The spiritual body, so to speak, is infinitely more complex than the physical one. Even your "two things" are expansive categories rather than simple explanations. I could give far more detail to these categories but for lack of time. Let me briefly comment on your line items:

1] Leaving the service of the Guru.

This phrase could mean any number of actions, attitudes, and motivations depending on the persons involved. The assumption is that the "Guru" is a bonafide member of our Sampradaya and the disciple is properly initiated. We have both witnessed many regrettable examples, both within ISKCON and the Gaudiya matha communities, wherein supposedly faithful followers have been exposed over time to not be the dutiful servant they have promoted themselves to be. There is no telling at what point in time they actually "fell down". Many of our past leaders have made an art form out of pretending to be more advanced than they really are. Even though they were exhibiting many symptoms, their public supporters and/or disciples refused to acknowledge the obvious for fear of "fall down". On a society wide level, the supposed watchdogs; the GBC, sannyasis, and other senior associates turned a blind eye to deviation.

2] not following sadhana and the rules and regulations attached to that
practice.

This genre of fall down is another nebulous, catch-all rubric. Firstly, unless some devotee confesses to not following strictly, it is nearly impossible to ascertain to what degree they are actually following sadhana and the regs. It is so easy to create an appearance of being a strict follower when in fact this is not the truth. We both know of plenty of examples of this phenomenon. Then there is the question of which devotees are on what level of advancement in relationship to these rules, regs and sadhana. Srila Prabhupada is the perfect example. He spent his morning sadhana writing and then lecturing, whereas we were supposed to be following the standard sadhana/morning program he prescribed. We can both recall that many of the so-called leaders wouldn't religiously attend this program nor publicly chant japa. So, who or how is anyone else going to determine whether or not some other Vaisnava is following or fallen as it applies to this practice? We can also venture into the realm of committing offenses to the holy name, the deities, and the devotees, while at the same time outwardly appearing to be following strictly.

I have witnessed and personally experienced this "fall down" term being used for political and vindictive ends. Therefore, I tend to be more guarded about injecting these cloudy phrases, particularity in such an authoritative setting as a public lecture celebrating Srila Prabhupada's Disappearance Day. Srila Prabhupada typically used this term when referring to the jivatma falling down from the spiritual world into the material world, but BV Narayana's application is quite different and therefore somewhat suspect in this context.

You stated:

Since many people who are initiated disciples, stop practicing sadhana, and stop following the rules and regulations, therefore he couldn't have meant that as "falling down". They are still initiated disciples. And in that paradigm they have indeed "fallen down".
So saying a disciple cannot fall down in that context is meaningless, they do fall down all the time. The only explanation that makes sense, is what I posted i.e A disciple cannot fall down because once he stops serving the guru he is not a disciple anymore, the person may "fall down" (stop all connection to guru and bhakti), but he is no longer a disciple. A disciple in this context, by definition, is a disciple only as long as he is surrendered. That seems to be the only logical use of the statement by Narayana Maharaja.

You offer what you believe to be the only "logical" explanation of what BV Narayana could have meant by "fall down" in relation to disciples actually being considered fallen. In one sense that is a non-debatable truism, but in the context of the lecture in question -- given by this most contentious personality – use of this term is exacerbated by the fact that he chose to leave the subject open to interpretation. This makes me suspect his motivations. Just see how we [older devotees] are "interpreting" the meaning in such a different way. My mind always reflects on just how a newcomer or vulnerable person would assimilate the term within this paradigm. I dare say, most unaware types would conclude that surrendering to and serving BV Narayana Maharaj would save them from "fall down".

Hi Rocana, thanks for your thoughtful response.

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 12/01/2004 04:04 PM PST

You, in turn, have made it known that you don't share my distaste for this personality. The impression I get from your comments is that you are quite fond of him. You appear to be somewhat well versed in his teachings, or at least familiar enough so as to offer a positive defense of his message. To me, this indicates that you are comfortable with the way he presents Srila Prabhupada, and are therefore presumably comfortable with his moon-struck story surrounding his intimate relationship with our Srila Prabhupada.

Actually I have made my position on Narayana Maharaja well known on other forums. I have made many criticisms of the way he tries to portray himself as the topmost acharya. He has made comments stating that he is Prabhupada's successor, I find this to be inconsistent with the words of a realized soul. Especially when there are and were many other gaudiya acaryas, many years his senior, still around with their own missions. I am not and never have been a supporter of Narayana Maharaja. I know that he has said unpleasent things about Sridhar Maharaja, and in general his preaching seems to be geared towards gaining recognition as the topmost devotee. Also some of his most confidential disciples spread the idea around in their preaching that "Prabhupada gave the ABC's, and Narayana Maharaja is giving the post graduate conception". They also present the idea that since Prabhupada asked Narayana Maharaja to take care of burial service, that this was a sign that Narayana Maharaja was chosen to be Prabhupada's anointed successor, Narayana Maharaja is as far as I know, not distancing himself from the words of those topmost disciples, and I assume that they are simply repeating what he has told them. Also I have heard that Narayana Maharaja is telling some of his disciples that he is such and such manjari, and has had Jadurani paint a picture of him in his "manjari swarupa". I find all of these things to be highly inappropriate. So, since you have never read any of my criticisms of Narayana Maharaja, I can understand your misunderstanding behind the motives of what I wrote.

Holistic does not "mean so many things". Here is the standard definition:

a. Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.

b. Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts

I was actually saying that Srila Prabhupada was giving a more thorough teaching in his presentation of Gaudiya siddhanta then many of his godbrothers and their disciples. I used the word "holistic" to contrast with the manjari bhava centric teaching style we find among most of Bhaktisiddhanta Gaudiya's outside of Prabhupadas influence. Prabhupada gave the correct "holistic" vision of rasa, while most of the rest are [in my opinion] misguiding and misguided in their single minded focus on presenting Gaudiya siddhanta as exclusively about trying to become a manjari. They constantly preach and relate the idea that Gaudiya siddhanta's sole concern is in trying to teach everyone how to follow the practices that will reveal their manjari swarupa.

Prabhupada did not do this. He did not slant all of his preaching towards the singular goal of trying to convince everyone that they need to follow the process of trying to realize their manjari swarupa. Instead he taught the authorized process which all bona fide acaryas have taught since Mahaprabhu's time. That is: There are 5 rasa's, everyone is different, Gaudiya teachings are meant to elevate you to the level where your eternal relationship will be revealed to you. It can be a parent, a gopa, a manjari, it can be any of a number of relationships. The bona fide acaryas in our line never teach the way many do and have in the recent past. So "holistic" was meant in it's literal sense. Prabhupada taught siddhanta holistically, as opposed to many others who teach apasiddhanta by trying to teach the idea that Gaudiya siddhanta is exclusively trying to bring everyone into the practice and vision of being manjari. Narayana Maharaja does this, as do many others. They are all teaching apasiddhanta by this practice of selective and coercive teaching style.

If you are not destined to be a manjari, and if you are in one of these manjari bhava cults, then you are being led down the wrong path. The bona fide acarya does not teach the way many of these "acaryas" teach. This is what they teach about one's eternal mood, this is from The Caitanya Siksamrta by Bhaktivinoda Thakura:

"Among the angas of bhakti mentioned in vaidhi bhakti such as kirtana , those which are favorable for his service are accepted by the practitioner of rägänugä. Those aspiring for däsya rasa copy the mood and gestures of Patraka and other servants; those desirous of sakhya rasa copy the mood and gestures of Subala and other friends; those desirous of parental rasa copy the mood and gestures of Yañodä and other elders; and those desirous of madhura rasa copy the mood, service and gestures of the Vraja gopis.

...There are two types of taste of greed: temporary and natural. Sometimes devotees hear about the qualities of Nanda or Subala, derive great bliss and sometimes show similar sentiments, but this bliss and the show of sentiments are short-lived. This is called temporary greed. There is no use in such a show. It is necessary for the guru to carefully examine which rasa -däsya, sakhya, vätsalya or madhura-gives natural greed. Detecting ones natural sentiment, the guru will give teachings according to that mood. If this is not done, then the instructed mood will not be permanent, due to the unsuitability to the disciple. It should be noted that not all seekers will be qualified for madhura rasa. If a guru finds it impossible for him to decide the rasa of the disciple, he will honestly admit his inability to the disciple and direct him to approach a suitable guru. The disciple has no alternative but to take shelter of the lotus feet of the bona fide guru."

Then from Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu (1.2.295):

When an advanced, realized devotee hears about the affairs of the devotees of Vrndavana -- in the mellows of santa, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya and madhurya -- he becomes inclined in one of these ways, and his intelligence becomes attracted. Indeed, he begins to covet that particular type of devotion. When such covetousness is awakened, one's intelligence no longer depends on the instructions of sastra or on logic and argument.

From Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the Cc:

CC Madhya 22.159: Actually the inhabitants of Vrndavana are very dear to Krsna. If one wants to engage in spontaneous loving service, he must follow the inhabitants of Vrndavana and constantly engage in devotional service within his mind.

CC Madhya 22.160: The devotee should always think of Krsna within himself and should choose a very dear devotee who is a servitor of Krsna in Vrndavana. One should constantly engage in topics about that servitor and his loving relationship with Krsna, and one should live in Vrndavana. If one is physically unable to go to Vrndavana, he should mentally live there.

CC Madhya 22.161: Krsna has many types of devotees -- some are servants, some are friends, some are parents, and some are conjugal lovers. Devotees who are situated in one of these attitudes of spontaneous love according to their choice are considered to be on the path of spontaneous loving service.

Now again from Sri Caitanya explaining Raganuga to Sanatana Goswami:

CC Madhya 22.153: If one follows in the footsteps of the inhabitants of Vrndavana out of such transcendental covetousness, he does not care for the injunctions or reasonings of sastra. That is the way of spontaneous love.

PURPORT by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura says that a devotee is attracted by the service of the inhabitants of Vrndavana -- namely the cowherd men, Maharaja Nanda, mother Yasoda, Radharani, the gopis and the cows and calves. An advanced devotee is attracted by the service rendered by an eternal servitor of the Lord. This attraction is called spontaneous attraction. Technically it is called svarupa-upalabdhi. This stage is not achieved in the beginning. In the beginning one has to render service strictly according to the regulative principles set forth by the revealed scriptures and the spiritual master. By continuously rendering service through the process of vaidhi bhakti, one's natural inclination is gradually awakened. That is called spontaneous attraction, or raganuga bhakti.

Now, Narayana Maharaja does not preach in this manner, nor do many other "acaryas". They try and steer everyone towards manjari bhava. Narayana Maharaja has even siad that if you are not following the path of manjari bhava you are not a Rupanuga. This kind of preaching is apasiddhanta, it is not "holistic" in the sense that it takes a single bhava and tries to enforce a vision of Gaudiya siddhanta around that single goal, for everyone. A holistic approach is the authorized method i.e you are not supposed to separate manjari bhava and make that as the singular raison d'etre of Gaudiya vaisnavism.

So why do many "acaryas" do that ? My only thought is that they are in ignorance and want to convince others that they are the topmost devotees i.e gopis.

I dare say, most unaware types would conclude that surrendering to and serving BV Narayana Maharaj would save them from "fall down".

Very astute. I was being more generous, but your reasoning may in fact be the truth.

As for all the rest about the meaning of Bhagavat parampara. Bhaktisiddhanta wrote about the Bhagavata marga in "Brahmana O Vaisnava" : "This Tattva-vada, or Pancharatrika system, is not acceptable in the opinion of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Rather, He taught the path of bhagavata-marga."

The various ideas you have about the sampradaya acarya are not the same thing as the true meaning of Bhagavata parampara. I assumed Narayana Maharaja was using it in it's proper way. You could be right and he could have been using it in your way.

This is what the Bhagavat parampara or siksa parampara is supposed to mean:

From a lecture on the Bhagavatam by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami.

"Sravanam kirtanam visnoh smaranam--this is bhagavata-marga. And arcanam vandanam dasyam sakhyam atma-nivedanam--that is pancaratrika, arcanam. So out of the nine--nine, eight, seven, six, five--whatever you do, that is sufficient because absolute. Any item, even one item, you can, if you perform perfectly, that is sufficient. But there are nine alternative items. Just like Haridasa Thakura, he simply chanted, sravanam kirtanam. He did not establish any Deity, but he got perfection. There were many others. Just like Pariksit Maharaja. At the last stage of his life he simply concentrated in hearing Srimad-Bhagavatam. Sravanam. So if sravana is perfect, that is sufficient. Any one of the nine items, if it is done perfectly, that is sufficient. Pariksit Maharaja, he did not go to the temple. He sat on the bank of the Ganges, and he was very serious because he knew that "I am going to die within seven days. Let me finish as soon as possible simply hearing of Srimad-Bhagavatam." He was intelligent. Otherwise... Not that simply he was hearing. He was questioning, as you have seen in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. So he was very scholar. It means as the spiritual master, Sukadeva Gosvami, was a great scholar in Sanskrit, the king was also a great scholar. Therefore quickly he was reciting, and he was understanding. And as soon as there was some difficulty, he was immediately questioning.

So both the spiritual master and the disciple, they became perfect simply by sravanam kirtanam. This is Bhagavata-marga. Simply by hearing and chanting. The spiritual master chanted, recited Srimad-Bhagavatam, and that is being imitated."

This was what I considered the meaning of Bhagavat parampara to be. Anyone can achieve the perfectional stage without anything else then coming into contact, in some form or another, with Bhagavat tattva. And then they can continue the parampara. The parampara is not limited by time and space i.e direct diksa parampara.

This is obviously a different concept then the sampradaya acarya, which stresses the importance of, and hearing from a specific person or persons.

So I think there was some misunderstanding. I really didn't have anything of substance against what you wrote, like I said, I think it was just semantics. :)

Posted by Shiva Das @ 12/02/2004 01:58 PM PST

I just looked at that article on VNN again. I find it typical of the Narayana Maharaja Manjari Cult that they attributed a poem from Bhaktisiddhanta without mention of the fact that someone added the following to the poem which is not part of the original.

sri varsabhanavi-bara, sada sevya-seva-para
tahara dayita-dasa-nama

prabhupada-antara"ga, sri svarupa-rupanuga
sri kesava bhakati-prajnana
gaudiya-vedanta-vetta, mayavada-tamohanta
gaura-vani-pracaracara-dhama (9)

The most distinguished Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, whose initiated name was Sri Varsabhanavi Dayita dasa, was always engaged in divine service to Hari, Guru, Vaisnava. An internal and intimate disciple of Prabhupada following in the line of Svarupa Damodara and Rupa Gosvami was Sri Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami.

Having full knowledge of Vedanta philosophy according to the Gaudiya sampradaya, Srila Kesava Maharaja annihilated the darkness of all mayavada arguments. He has served Navadvipa Dhama so much, and his life is an example for both practicing and preaching Mahaprabhu's message.

tara pradhan pracarako, sri bhaktivedanta namo
patita-janete doya-dhama

kesava priya mahajana vamana narayana haya
gaura-vani tadera prana-dhana

Most dear to Sri KeSava Gosvami were the saintly personalities Sri Vamana Gosvami and Sri Narayana Gosvami, whose life and soul are the teachings of Mahaprabhu.

or: tara sisya aganana, tara madhye prestha hana
sri bhakti-prajnana kesava
tara sisya aganana, tara madhye anyatama
sri bhaktivedanta narayana (9)

or: Out of Prabhupada's countless disciples, Sri Bhakti Prajana KeSava Gosvami was his dearmost. And out of the countless disciples of Sri Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami, one of the most prominent is Sri Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja.

[End]

Why would they do this ?

They say that Bhaktisiddhanta wrote the poem, but neglect to mention that the above was added by some unknown author.

Does Bhaktisiddhanta include himself in the original poem ?

Yes. He wrote:

"I have no real interest in devotional services and I am a poor and lowly tridandi sannyasi named Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati."

Yet in the revised edition attributed to Bhaktisiddhanta we find that Narayana Maharaja is essentially given the position as inheritor of the mantle of topmost devotee.

And then they call Narayana Maharaja the "most dear" to Kesava Maharaja.

This sums up their mentality. They slickly misuse words to imply and relegate Srila Prabhupada as being a disciple of his own Godbrother so they can make it seem like Narayana Maharaja is Prabhupada's Godbrother, and that Narayana Maharaja is "more dear" to their Guru Kesava Maharaja, thereby we end up with Narayana Maharaja as superior to Srila Prabhupada.

Clearly this is meant to fool people who don't know the real story.

Why ?

$$Ka-Ching$$

Also one more thing. In your last post you wrote:

I admit that I'm not certain as to whether or not Srila Bhaktisiddhanta coined the phrase "Bhagavat parampara", but I suspect it originated with one of his disciples. We see that in the verses below, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati titled his poem "Guru Parampara", although he is essentially describing what Narayana Maharaj terms the "Bhagavat Parampara".

The Guru Parampara poem is combination of diksa and siksa lineages.

Madhvacarya and a handfull of Tattvavadis are part of the Guru parampara, while they would not be a part of the Bhagavata parampara.

We cannot accept the Tattvavadi's as being in the Bhagavata Parampara because they reject Sri Radha Krishna, Sri Caitanya as Bhagavan and so much else that we accept. We interpret the Bhagavatam differently.

So even though we belong to the Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya, the Diksa or Guru parampara is not the same thing as the Bhagavata parampara.

There is a distinction between Bhagavata parampara and Guru parampara.

Posted by Shiva das @ 12/02/2004 06:25 PM PST

Dear Shiva das,

Thank you for your posting, which was interesting, as always. I appreciate your gracious mood, and am glad to have more detail about your position and experience. I'll respond in more detail shortly, and I look forward to continue discussing with you.

Dear Rocana and Shiva prabhus,
Dandavats. Heartfelt thanks to both of you for churning this topic, thereby producing so much appreciation in my heart for Srila Prabhupad and my own inconcievable good fortune to be his lowly disciple. Special thanks to Rocana prabhu for maintaining this site and investing so much time and energy promoting these truths concerning the true position of Srila Prabhupad in our Gaudiya heritage. May he bless you more and more.

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 12/03/2004 05:53 PM PST

Your servant,
Sarva-drk das

Posted by Sarva-drk das @ 12/05/2004 12:34 PM PST

Dear Vaisnavas,
please accept my pranams.

All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga!

I have read the article of Sri Rocana Prabhu on Chakra Website.
As an aspirant to become a follower of Om Visnupada Astottara-sata Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, i feel the need to reply something.

First of all i would like to tell you and many others who call Srila Narayana Maharaja just "Narayana Maharaja" that this is not the proper etiquette to mention the name of a highly advanced vaisnava in public or open letters. He is almost 84 years old (much senior to all of us), has served his Gurudeva his entire life flawlessly, preaches Mahaprabhus message everywhere and is wellknown and respected all over the world including the learned Vaisnava-comunities in Vrajamandala, Navadvipamandala and Sri Ksetra Puri Dhama. One should adress such a personality at least with the title Sri, Srimad, Sripad, Pujiyapad or Srila. That you adress even Om Visnupada Astottara-sata Sri Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja who is the sannyasa-guru of Srila Prabhupada only as "Kesava Maharaja" is clearly showing your lack of knowledge and etiquette.

I am well aware of the fact that most members of IRM and others who try to spread kusiddhanta (wrong conceptions) and sadhu-ninda (vaisnava-aparadha) in the name of "protecting the teachings Srila Prabhupada" are not able to listen to good advice nor are they open to receive the truth. I only reply as a matter of duty and to inform the simple hearted and sincere devotees about facts so that they may not be misguided.

Sri Rocana Prabhu writes in his article:

Narayana Maharaja acknowledges here that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur followed the bhagavata parampara. He goes on to say that the guru parampara is included in the bhagavata parampara. While Narayana Maharaja unfortunately does not offer any clarification as to what the specific difference between these two lines is, he clearly indicates that there is a difference. The essential question that goes unanswered is what exactly is the difference between the two.

Reply: The essential difference between the two is that it may be that a guru in diksa-parampara may not be that elevated or prominent as the siksa-guru. In that case the siksa-guru is mentioned as the next link in bhagavat-parampara as it is the case of so many of our acaryas (Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakuras diksa-guru is Sri Vipin-Bihari Goswami but according to Srila Prabhupada we worship Srila Jagannatha Dasa Babaji Maharaj as his Guru is in bhagavat-parampara). If the diksa-guru shows all the necessary qualifications (mood of worship, realisation, etc.), he is both diksa-guru and member of the bhagavat-parampara (Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja was the diksa-guru of Srila Prabhupada and was also of such a high caliber that he is included in bhagavat-parampara). Thus guru-parampara is included in bhagavat-parampara.

Vaisnava history tells us that after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's departure, His senior disciples decided to reinstate the guru parampara.

Not all senior disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura appointed the new Acarya. Because Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati instructed all to hear from Sri Ananta Vasudeva Prabhu, some took it as he was the most qualified. So they made him Acarya to uphold the institutional structure. Soon later he failed in following the Vaisnava-principles and then a big chaos broke out. You cannot say all, because that would also include Srila Prabhupada who was at that time a faithful, fullfledged member of the Gaudiya-Math. Some where maybe of different opinion and some where pushing there viewpoint over others because they had the political power to do so at that time.

RD: Narayana Maharaja's own Spiritual Master, along with his fellow Gaudiya Matha spiritual masters, re-instituted the concept of guru parampara...

This line makes no sense at all.

RD:
...but they did not do so on the authorization of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. In fact, they reinstated a guru parampara system that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had essentially rejected.

Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja left the institution together with the most prominent disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura after the chaos started and founded the Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti in Calcutta together with two others, who where non-other then Sri Narottamananda Prabhu and Srila Prabhupada (at that time Sri Abhaya Caranaravinda Prabhu) he founded Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti to protect the pure concepts of their Gurudeva. This move must have been transcendentaly authorised by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura because this disciples where most bonafide. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati did not appoint any acarya to show that the acarya is not to be appointed, but if anyone is qualified in all repects as Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja was then there is no fault at all. Also Srila Prabhupada was never appointed as acarya but he became a very powerful acarya directly in line with his gurudeva, there is nothing wrong with that. One can become guru if one has all qualifications of a bonafide guru but to appoint somebody as acarya to rescue the structure of an institution might be the wrong way. Srila Prabhupada also never appointed any of his disciples as Acaryas in 1977 as acknowledged by the GBC in 1998.

RD:
Narayana Maharaja states that the guru parampara is part of the bhagavata parampara. At the same time, he gives many examples in the bhagavata parampara where the guru parampara line is not followed.

Guru-parampara means diksa- or even more clearly pancaratrika-parampara, where nama and mantra are received by a qualified, living diksa-guru. There is no Acarya in bhagavat-parampara who has not undergone diksa-samskara according to pancaratrika-viddhi. Bhagavat-parampara included in guru-parampara means that non of the great acaryas in bhagavat-parampara rejected the viddhi-marga or the rules and regulations of excepting diksa-samskara by a living diksa-guru.

If we look at the continual history going back to Lord Brahma, we see that the bhagavata parampara is transcendentally independent of the guru parampara

This is not true in any way and there are no examples of this. There is no Acarya in the four sampradayas who received nama and mantra from a guru who has already departed from this world. In the case of Madhvacaryas initiation Sri Vayasadeva was physically present and gave him diksa directly.

RD:
What is most questionable in Narayana Maharaja's presentation is his insinuation that everyone who is strictly following the guru parampara from Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur is also, by nature, part of the bhagavata parampara.

Bhagavat-parampara means following completely, externally and internally following and serving the gurus innermost desires. Who is fully realized and a follower of the transcendental moods of his guru is member of bhagavad-parampara.

To say that they did not follow the strict rules of guru-parampara is completely bogus. Srila Narayana Mahararaja never said that and it is not mentioned in his class. It seems that Sri Rocana Prabhu has not understood what guru-parampara means, otherwise how can he write like this?

RD:
Narayana Maharaja makes the point that anyone who understands and accepts the teachings that are enunciated by the bhagavata parampara is essentially initiated, saying, "Initiation is a matter of heart and mood."

The understanding of heart and mood is not intellectual work. It is only possible by receiving the special mercy of Hari, Guru and Vaisnavas. Who is disregarding the instruction of sastra and not following all rules and regulations of vaidhi-bhakti mentioned therein, someone who is not pure and simple-hearted cannot expect the special mercy of the Mahajanas.

Narayana Maharaja also says that a disciple can't fall down. This statement has no real meaning in the absence of an explanation of what "falling down" means.
"Falling down" is one of the most famous expressions nowadays in the community of devotees worldwide and not at all meaningless without detailed explanation. "Falling down" means to leave the shelter of guru, sadhu and sastra. Someone who has attained a higher platform on the path of realisation by guru and Krishnas mercy and later comes down to a lower platform due to inattentiveness, offenses, etc. is considered fallen. A sannyasi for example who had lost his taste in domestic affairs and was situated in the highest order of life, but later again enjoyed his senses and acted selfishly against the order of guru is considered to be fallen or a vantasi, an eater of his own vomit. In his class, Srila Narayana Maharaja intended to say, that someone who is a real disciple cannot divert from the path of devotion due to the intimate bond he has with the guru. Somebody who has krsna-prema cannot forget Krishna for a even a blink of an eye. In the same way does a real disciple never forget his guru. To be a real disciple one has to be liberated. A real disciple serves the manobhista of his guru in both, this world and the eternal realm.

Who is going to determine who is directly in line with the siddhanta, behaviour and moods of the true bhagavata parampara, or the Sampradaya Acaryas?

Only a maha-bhagavat can recognize a maha-bhagavat. Who wants guidance in spiritual matters must therefore approach a genuine spiritual master who sees the truth. Even though rare, such living spiritual masters who are the manifestation of Bhagavans krpa-sakti are always present in this world for those who are sincere seekers of the ultimate goal of life.

Naturally, all gurus are expected to promote the idea that they are qualified, but how does the neophyte disciple or follower actually know who's in line and who isn't?

The bonafide spiritual master does not have to promote himself. He his selfeffulgent like the sun. His preaching is succesfully spreading around the globe and he walks elegantly amidst barking dogs like a razor blade through warm butter. The neophyte cannot dicern who is a bonafide spiritual master with his material senses. By dint of his previous sukrti he will come in contact with sastra and sadhus. Even though the qualifications of a bonafide spiritual master are explained in the scriptures, the neophyte might be cheated by an imposter or by his own faulty vision. The only way for the neophyte is to take shelter at the lotusfeet of Sri Krishna in the heart, the Paramatma. By praying to Him, Krishna will send him a real living guru if he is completely sincere. Ones sincerity or sraddha is depending on ones sukrti and samskaras from this life or previous lifes.

If one who is in the guru parampara falls down, is he no longer in the guru parampara?

Somebody who is acting against Hari, guru, vaisnavas and sastras, who is acting whimsically or is engaged in sinful acts is neglected by his boanfide guru for the timebeing unless he repents and corrects his attitude. One can say that in the real sense he was never initiated. Real initiation is the attainment of transcendental vision and the complete eradication of karma, sins, etc. There are two kinds of diksa. Vidvadrudhi is the ritualistic initiation where diksa-mantras are given, yajna is performed,where the candidate shaves his hair keeping a sikha, he receives a vaisnava name and thinks: "now i am initiated". Avidvarudhi is the internal process of diksa or real diksa which is completed after going through five stages. The ritualistic diksa must be taken but if one does not follow, then there is never real initiation, only an outward show. The day where one receives the diksa-mantras is like enroling in school and receiving transcendental vision, real or complete diksa, is like succesfully passing the exams and being a teacher oneself. To be in guru parampara one has to be a guru, as the name says: "guru-parampara". Everyone can be the receipient of mercy from guru-parampara however, but definitly not a representative of its divine concepts. Real preaching does only one who is able to rescue a soul from maya by distributing transcendental sound.

Narayana Maharaja writes:
"Guru-parampara is included in bhagavata-parampara. Those disciples who are fully following Gurudeva's mood and teachings are in the bhagavata-parampara." Narayana Maharaja likes to include Srila Prabhupada and his own guru as both being in the bhagavata parampara, and there's much innuendo that all of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples who didn't fall down are also members of the bhagavata parampara.

Everybody who is qualified is in bhagavat-parampara. Its members cannot fall down. But not everyone who did not fall down is in bhagavat-parampara. A madhyama-uttama-adhikari may take a limited number of disciples, he can initiate and give some of his realisations. He does not fall down and soon he enters uttama-kanistha-level if he himself keeps company of an uttama-bhagavat. He is guru but he is not uttama-uttama-bhagavat. There are gradiations of uttama-adhikaris also. the members in bhagavat-parampara are of the highest caliber, coming down from the spiritual realm, givers of the highest prema, such devotees are rare.

Yet our Srila Prabhupada went so far as to call many of his Godbrothers useless, and certainly indicated that he did not accept them as being in the bhagavata-parampara.

Srila Prabhupada never called Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja nor Srila Narayana Maharaja useless and nowhere in his bonafide books or letters will anyone find such a statement about these two!!! Srila Prabhupada has said many things against some of his Godbrothers but he also apologized in his last days for all what he said and that it was only for preaching and protecting the weak faith of his disciples.

This means that Srila Prabhupada did not place these Godbrothers in the same category as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and all the others who Srila Prabhupada listed in the bhagavata parampara.

Srila Narayana Maharaja is not putting every guru in parampara in the same category as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Where does Sri Rocana Prabhu has this idea from?

Narayana Maharaja, on the other hand, is not clear about which one of his Spiritual Master's Godbrothers should and should not be included in the bhagavata parampara.

This paragraph is simply an example of sadhu-ninda. Nowhere in his classes or books does Srila Narayana Maharaja show that he is not clear about guru-tattva. By saying that Srila Narayana Maharaja is unable to dicern who is a vaisnava and who is not, Sri Rocana Prabhu has practically said that Srila Narayana Maharaja is a kanistha-adhikari who is devoid of tattva-jnana and discrimination. Srila Prabhupada considered Srila Narayana Maharaja to be an ideal guru-sevaka and both where intimate friends, this no one can deny. How Sri Rocana Prabhu will please his spiritual master by exercising his uncontrolled tung in such a way is beyond my immagination.

This Paragraph is nothing but Sri Rocan Prabhus speculation to suit his purpose of creating division between two empowered acaryas. If Sri Rocana Prabhu would be so kind to give evidence from Prabhupadas Books where Srila Prabhupada shows his understanding of bhagavat-parampara i will be very happy to proof that all of his trying to spread this kind of poison is completely useless. Srila Prabhupada differs not an inch with Srila Narayana Maharaja on the point of guru-parampara. However, the unity between the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Narayana Maharaja can be only seen by nonenvious persons who are free from politics.

Srila Prabhupada never, ever made the statements that Narayana Maharaja has made in this article, namely that he considered that Narayana Maharaja's Spiritual Master, who was Srila Prabhupada's Godbrother, is a member of the bhagavata parampara. While Srila Prabhupada took sannyasa initiation from Kesava Maharaja, from the time that he started ISKCON onward we find no reference to the fact that Srila Prabhupada considered Kesava Maharaja to be in some exalted position as the other Sampradaya Acaryas and bhagavata parampara members.

What Sri Rocana Prabhu says here is completely wrong and evil.
In his lecture on the 21st October 1968 in Seattle (BBT Folio) Srila Prabhupada called Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja a true renunciant, transparent medium of his guru, a holy person, a vaisnava, an ocean of mercy, a representative of the Lord. Twice in his speech he said that he went to Krishnas abode after his departure and he called him "His Divine Grace Om Visnupada Sri Srimad Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja preceptor of our spiritual master". He glorified his sannyasa-guru even to such an extend that he took a prayer of Srila Raghunath Dasa Goswami to Sanatana Goswami and changed it so that Srila Kesava Maharajas Name appeared where there was the name of Srila Sanatana Goswami. Srila Kesava Maharaja gave the gopi-mantra to Srila Prabhupada and the empowerment to preach (sannyasa). Their relationship was very very intimate, they where bosomfriends. Sri Rocana Prabhu is supremely ignorant about the value of this intimate relationship, fully covered by maha-maya he unfortunatly knows no better to write foolishly.

For that matter, Srila Prabhupada never mentioned the fact that Narayana Maharaja was his siksa disciple, that he accepted him as such, and that such a relationship existed.

In a letter to Srila Narayana Maharaja from Butler, Pennsilvania in 1968 Srila Prabhupada writes: "Our relationship is certainly based on spontaneous love. That is why there is no chance of us forgetting one another."
What more can be said? There are many more Letters of Srila Prabhupada and many facts that show Srila Prabhupadas intimate relationship with Srila Narayana Maharaja. These Letters still exist in original handwriting by Srila Prabhupada in Bengali and English. Sri Rocana Prabhu thinks that Prabhupada must tell him directly who is his siksa-disciple even though it is shown by his dealings with Srila Narayana Maharaja. The dealings between siksa- guru and siksa-disciple are of intimacy and confidential but Sri Rocana Prabhu stays outside of such loving relationships and has no access to them. Did he ever accept and thought about that Srila Prabhupada said that Srila Sridhara Maharaja is his Siksa-guru? Actually his poor presentation shows only that he does not know what is diksa and what is siksa and that he has know realisation of both. To recognize the dealings between vaisnavas one has to be a vaisnava himself.

Regardless of the sweet words spoken by Narayana Maharaja and his seeming glorifications of Srila Prabhupada, he avoids discussing the differences between them.

R:

There are no differences. A Swan knows how to extract the essence. Srila Prabhupada did so many things in his preaching that where outwardly not at all as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati did things. The maha-mantra sung together, use of Harmonium during Kirtan, installation of Radha-Krishna without Mahaprabhu, ladies and gents mixed, names of deities, dresscode, the temple program, standards...etc, so many things, but was he not empowered? Was he not a maha-bhagavat? Was he not in line with his Guru?
There was no fault in Srila Prabhupada ever, nor will there ever be! Even though outwardly for the wordly eye there where many differnces there where no differences in the real sense. His guru and Krishna, the whole parampara dictated him how to preach succesfully, he was fully connected and fully in line. One can find so many differences when one does not understand what the nature of suddha-bhakti and the guru-disciple relationship is. The descending of prema-bhakti is crooked like Krishna himself. Materialists will never be able to measure this movement, to put it in a box, to catch it. They will be cheated and left behind bereft of nectar. Did Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura live like Jagannatha Dasa Babaji Maharaja? Did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati spend his daily live like Srila Goura Kishora Dasa Babaji? Did Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura mechanically perform exactly the same activities as Srila Narottama Thakura? If the answer on these questions is no, then what is the harm when Srila Narayana Maharaja would differ from Srila Prabhupada outwardly or in his preaching? As Srila Prabhupada showed is changing of institutional Standards, preaching strategy and so on no criteria to ascertain who is the acarya. Why then does Sri Rocana Prabhu come up with such childish points?

In fact, he insinuates that there is no difference, that he and Srila Prabhupada were in agreement on these points. Yet Srila Prabhupada publicly admonished his Godbrothers for not following the mood of the bhagavata parampara, or as Narayana Maharaja says, the "siddhanta, behaviour and moods". That was the reason Srila Prabhupada concluded that they were not part of the bhagavata parampara.

Now Sri Rocana Dasas mind speculates to the maximum degree, what can be done? He thinks that "Only when Srila Narayana Maharaja also critizises the Gaudiya Math Acaryas will i accept that he is in line with Srila Prabhupada" what a stupidity. "Srila Prabhupada said that none of his godbrothers are in line and Srila Narayana Maharaja says that they are in line!" What a big problem!!! What a big deviation!!! Srila Prabhupada apologized for saying things like this, that can be heard on tape. Why did he apologize? He established the Bhaktivedanta Charity Trust, a platform to cooperate with his godbrothers, why? Trustees of which are Srila Bhakti Dayita Madhava Gosvami Maharaja and Srila Bhaktivaibhava Puri Maharaja, useless people engaged as trustees? He said in his final days that THE WAR IS OVER and he apologized!!! These where his final words. Does Sri Rocana Prabhu and the final-order interpreters have no ears?

Srila Narayana Maharaja said so many times that those who follow Srila Prabhupadas instructions and his mood are true disciples. They can be anywhere, not only in ISKCON. It seems that Sri Rocana Prabhu never had the association of Om Visnupada Astottara-sata Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja who was a very pure devotee and diksa-disciple of Srila Prabhupada.

Srila Narayana Maharaja did not speak of ISKCON in his Lecture. One can be a bonafide disciple of Srila Prabhupada without staying within the Institution of ISKCON.

It's obvious that Narayana Maharaja wants his audience and followers to think one thing namely, that Srila Prabhupada is part of the bhagavata parampara, Narayana Maharaja's guru is equally part of the bhagavata parampara, and Narayana Maharaja himself is therefore also part of the bhagavata parampara.

Srila Prabhupada told his disciples that he is the representative of God and that he is guru. What is the harm when Srila Narayana Maharajas does so too and calls himself a member of bhagavat-parampara? Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja is a crest jewels in bhagavat-parampara there is no doubt about it. What is the problem with all that?

But the question remains? who else is in the bhagavata parampara?

R:

There is a lot of space in Bhagavat-parampara. Srila Jiva Goswami, Srila Narottama Thakura, Srila Srinivasa Acarya, Sri Syamananda Prabhu... all of them where present at the same time and had wonderful relationships. There was no narrowmindedness. Whoever is qualified is in bhagavat-parampara. Still maha-bhagavatas of such caliber are rare.

What of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers?

Are in bhagavat-parampara when they have all the qualification.

How many of those does Narayana Maharaja consider have fallen down?

Stupid question.

Does Narayana Maharaja consider that ISKCON gurus are in the bhagavata parampara?

When they are qualified, yes.

Your servant Krsna Das

Posted by krsnadas @ 12/09/2004 08:15 PM PST

Dear Shiva dasa,

Obeisances and glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thanks again for your recent posting. It has been interesting to consider your various points, and to attempt to clarify my position in relationship. Sorry it took me so long to respond, but we've opened up quite an extensive discussion here!

Over the course of this discussion, we've touched upon quite a number of different topics, including our personal opinions on Narayana Maharaja's character and activities, and Narayana Maharaja's version of the "Guru Parampara" poem. I appreciated your further comments on the term "holistic". To a great extent, our discussions have been an exploration of definitions of a number of terms:

bhagavata parampara
guru parampara
siksa parampara
tattva parampara
Sampradaya Acarya

Since your last posting, I've done further reading on these subjects. In particular, I read the "Supremacy of the Bhagavata Parampara" article by BV Narayana, and now realize that this angle of discussion is likely the source of your use of this term. Assuming that's correct, it certainly helps me to understand the context you're writing from.

Generally, you seem to use the terms "bhagavata, siksa, and tattva parampara" synonymously. As I clarify below, I don't accept bhagavata and siksa parampara to be synonymous. And, I don't accept the term or the concept of tattva parampara as I currently understand you to be using it. The discussion had been made more complex as we consider the "Sampradaya Acarya" concept in the mix.

Here's a brief summary of what I understand from our discussion up to this point:

We have not yet concluded that we're in agreement on my definition of Srila Prabhupada as Sampradaya Acarya. While you haven't opposed the concept, you also haven't embraced it. You have stated that you understand the Sampradaya Acarya concept to be closer to the diksa parampara concept then the siksa parampara or Bhagavata parampara concept. Then again, you've said you think the Sampradaya Acarya is synonymous with siksa parampara, as opposed to guru parampara (line of bodies). You've also said you see Sampradaya Acaryas as closer to guru parampara, because it stresses connection to an individual Acarya rather than to siddhanta. I would be interested to hear your definitive position on this.

I previously stated that in his recent VNN article, Narayana Maharaja uses the term "bhagavata parampara" synonymously with my use of "Sampradaya Acarya", in that he points to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's poem "Sri Guru Parampara" as describing the bhagavata parampara. This particular article of BV Narayana's is best understood in the context of his "Supremacy of the Bhagavata Parampara" article written in 1998, which can be found at: http://www.vnn.org/world/WD9812/WD05-2621.html.

After reading this article I surmised that in fact, my original impression of the Bhagavat parampara is indeed in line with both Sampradaya Acaryas (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivedanta) presentation of the guru parampara and therefore coincides with my concept of the exclusivity of the rarified Sampradaya Acarya. I continue to be mystified by your expressed opinion of Bhagavat parampara as being exclusively tattva and not a "line of bodies". Granted, some of the language used by BV Narayana Maharaj might lead one to your conclusion. Overall, however, his use of the term Bhagavata parampara is in defense of the Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya linage as presented by "jagad guru Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupadaji" in comparison to the Pancaratrika parampara as presented by "some sahaijya Vaisnavas".

I still question who actually introduced the term "bhagavat parampara", and particularly the definition applied to it by Narayana Maharaja and his guru, Sri Srimad Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja. In the article mentioned above, it is difficult to determine how much of the content is originally from Kesava Maharaja and what is Narayana's additional expansion. To my knowledge, this term and usage was not introduced by either Srila Prabhupada or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. I suspect it was introduced by one of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers, most likely Kesava Gosvami Maharaja. You've given an opinion of what Narayana Maharaja means by his use of the term, but so far you have provided no citations for it, so that is still an open question.

My own definition of the bhagavata parampara is that it is made up exclusively of Sampradaya Acaryas, and specifically, of those 32 Sampradaya Acaryas listed by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada. Given that they refer to this list as being the "guru parampara", I consider that to be the bona fide descriptive term. Until a citation is provided to support use of the term "bhagavata parampara" rather than "guru parampara" as a means of describing the list of 32 Sampradaya Acaryas, then I consider the latter to be accurate. Having now read "Supremacy of the Bhagavata Parampara", I better understand Narayana Maharaja's use of the term "guru parampara". As he used it in that article, he was in fact describing the Pancaratrika parampara. In the lecture most recently posted on VNN, it appears that Narayana Maharaja assumes that those present have familiarized themselves with terms exclusive to his "branch". This illustrates the degree to which converts to BV Narayana's camp have to essentially learn a new vocabulary in order to fully comprehend what he is saying. If, in his more recent VNN posting, he had prefaced the term "guru parampara" with "Pancaratrika guru parampara", much of the confusion would have been eliminated.

Early in our discussion, the term "guru parampara" was introduced in the context of diksa and siksa lines due to the fact that Narayana Maharaja introduced it in that way (sans "Pancaratrika") in his recently posted VNN article. I pointed out the discrepancy in terms, and emphasized that Narayana's use is different than Srila Prabhupada's and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's. Instead, Narayana Maharaja states that guru-parampara is included in bhagavata-parampara, and those disciples who are fully following are in the bhagavata-parampara. Having not read his earlier "Supremacy" article, it was very difficult for me to decipher his intended meaning.

History shows the bhagavata parampara (Sampradaya Acaryas) is transcendentally independent of the traditional guru Pancaratrika parampara. I do not accept that an accurate explanation of the Bhagavata Sampradaya is that it is a siksa lineage. Rather, it allows for a siksa connection and doesn't insist on an exclusive diksa relationship. On the other hand, I opine that our Sampradaya is completely transcendental and is therefore not restricted by any guru definitions or time restrictions. We should have complete faith in the proclamations of the Sampradaya Acaryas, and especially the most recent.

You stated that bhagavata parampara is synonymous with siksa parampara, i.e., parampara of tattva, and that it is the opposite of guru parampara, or a line of ‘bodies'. This is still very confusing to me. Perhaps you care to elaborate?

You equate "guru parampara" with a line of bodies, just as Narayana Maharaja equates "guru parampara" with siksa/diksa lines. In his "Supremacy" article, he is actually referring to the Pancaratrika guru parampara. However, Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta use the term "guru parampara" to refer to the 32 Sampradaya Acaryas whom you (and Narayana) refer to elsewhere as being the bhagavata parampara. This inconsistency in use of terms has created confusion throughout the discussion. On one hand, it is simply an exercise in semantics, but on the other hand, there are some important siddhantic truths that need to be clarified. Again, we would need to determine how/where the term "bhagavata parampara" was first introduced in order to codify your definitions of terms. For example, you wrote:

"Anyone who receives the siksa of the previous acaryas and or the Bhagavata is considered to be in the disciplic succession. This has been called the Bhagavata or siksa parampara. I'm not arguing against your philosophical points, I just don't think that Narayana Maharaja was intending to mean what you suggested. At least I have never come across anyone using the term Bhagavata parampara in any other way then what I have stated."

I do not consider bhagavata parampara to be synonymous with siksa parampara, in that the personalities who are members of the bhagavata parampara are in that category due to their potency and realization, and regardless of whether they're in siksa or diksa relationships. The bhagavata parampara is transcendentally independent from classifications of diksa or siksa line, therefore the two are not really synonymous. If we consider that this term was probably coined by Srila Kesava Maharaj as a literary way in which to explain our transcendental linage – in the context of his debating with sahaijya critics -- then I suppose it could well be a matter of semantics. Regardless, I still would not tend to use "Bhagavata parampara" in my writings, as I prefer to use terms in context as Srila Prabhupada used them.

You state that guru parampara is based on and structured within a siksa paradigm, and a guru parampara that does not recognize or utilize the siksa or Bhagavat sampradaya is not considered to be in the sampradaya. You therefore conclude that Narayana Maharaja was not using the concept of bhagavata parampara as being synonymous with "Sampradaya Acarya", and that my Sampradaya Acarya concept is not the same as the true meaning of "bhagavata parampara".

First, according to your previous definition of guru parampara, it is a ‘line of bodies'. Consequently, you can't say that it is structured within a siksa paradigm, since a diksa line also falls within the definition of a ‘line of bodies'. Second, you state that a guru parampara that doesn't recognize the Bhagavata Sampradaya isn't bona fide. Third, you conclude that Narayana was therefore not using bhagavata parampara synonymously with Sampradaya Acarya. The logic of that conclusion escapes me. Can you explain how your conclusion falls out of these two assertions? Fourth, you conclude that my Sampradaya Acarya concept is not the same as the true meaning of "bhagavata parampara". Again, I don't understand the logic behind your conclusion. Can you elaborate?

You understand bhagavata or siksa parampara is used to stress the concept of disciplic succession based on tattva rather then diksa lineage. I agree to the extent that the bhagavata parampara only includes persons who are completely in line with the siddhanta on the level of a Sampradaya Acarya. You suggest that this concept was used to deflect criticism on the Gaudiya sampradaya because of gaps in the disciplic succession, but it appears to me that they were actually dealing with the sahija critics by using the Pancaratrika parampara template. It's also important to note that in the "Supremacy" article, it is clear that the Pancaratrika guru parampara is used by Kesava Maharaja to explain to critics that our lineage does, in fact, follow the Pancaratrika system by virtue of a line of both siksa and diksa relationships. This, too, weights against your use of the term "guru parampara" as being synonymous with siksa parampara.

Aside from that, I still think that the Gaudiya Matha's rhetoric around tattva was used partially to deflect other issues and agendas, such as the confusing mess these Godbrothers created during the period directly after the departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Our Srila Prabhupada made it known that he was very upset about their course of action.

You think I misinterpreted the way Narayana Maharaja used the term "bhagavata parampara". You don't think he used the term as being synonymous with "Sampradaya Acarya", because you think he uses it to stress the concept of disciplic succession based on tattva rather then an official diksa lineage. However, that statement does not disqualify the Sampradaya Acarya concept, which is also based on tattva, not diksa or siksa lineage. Basically, if we just accept the rarified supremacy of the nitya siddha Sampradaya Acaryas, then whatever they state as being our actual parampara we accept. Therefore we can transcend all this confusion. I present our Srila Prabhupada as the most recent member of the line of Sampradaya Acaryas. As such, he chose to not elaborate in such detail over this issue. Consequently, it may be best to avoid getting too enmeshed with this "tar baby" of an issue. Admittedly, the comments made by Narayana Maharaja's article in commemoration of Srila Prabhupada's departure entangled me. While it has been enlightening to go down this road of discussion with you, it also makes me even more appreciative of the benefits of committing exclusively to the Sampradaya Acarya rather than going out into the wide world of so-called Acaryas looking for siksa association. Over the years I have discovered just how different Narayana Maharaj and his branch are from Srila Prabhupada. I only wish more of my Godbrothers and sisters could see just what they have gotten themselves into by accepting Narayana Maharaj as their siksa guru.

You conclude that my concept of "Sampradaya Acarya" is different than "bhagavata parampara" because even if one has never heard of the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, he can get connected simply by hearing the message of the Bhagavata parampara from any bona fide source. You quoted references to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's and Srila Prabhupada's use of the term "bhagavata-marga", suggesting that their use of this term equates to the proper meaning of the terms "bhagavata parampara" or "siksa parampara". You again emphasize that my "Sampradaya Acarya" concept is not the same as the true meaning of Bhagavata parampara.

You wrote:

From a lecture on the Bhagavatam by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami.
"Sravanam kirtanam visnoh smaranam--this is bhagavata-marga. And arcanam vandanam dasyam sakhyam atma-nivedanam--that is pancaratrika, arcanam. So out of the nine--nine, eight, seven, six, five--whatever you do, that is sufficient because absolute. Any item, even one item, you can, if you perform perfectly, that is sufficient. But there are nine alternative items. Just like Haridasa Thakura, he simply chanted, sravanam kirtanam. He did not establish any Deity, but he got perfection. There were many others. Just like Pariksit Maharaja. At the last stage of his life he simply concentrated in hearing Srimad-Bhagavatam. Sravanam. So if sravana is perfect, that is sufficient. Any one of the nine items, if it is done perfectly, that is sufficient. Pariksit Maharaja, he did not go to the temple. He sat on the bank of the Ganges, and he was very serious because he knew that "I am going to die within seven days. Let me finish as soon as possible simply hearing of Srimad-Bhagavatam." He was intelligent. Otherwise... Not that simply he was hearing. He was questioning, as you have seen in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. So he was very scholar. It means as the spiritual master, Sukadeva Gosvami, was a great scholar in Sanskrit, the king was also a great scholar. Therefore quickly he was reciting, and he was understanding. And as soon as there was some difficulty, he was immediately questioning.

So both the spiritual master and the disciple, they became perfect simply by sravanam kirtanam. This is Bhagavata-marga. Simply by hearing and chanting. The spiritual master chanted, recited Srimad-Bhagavatam, and that is being imitated."

That is indeed a very nice excerpt from Srila Prabhupada's teachings. I can see how you extrapolated your understanding of "Bhagavat parampara" from the term "Bhagavat-marga" as used by Srila Prabhupada above. Whether you and BV Narayana would agree on your explanation is another matter.

I understand the above quote to have yet another meaning which is similar to yours, but not entirely the same. In the above passage, Srila Prabhupada is emphasizing the necessity of hearing from the correct authoritative source in conjunction with the prerequisites of the sincere disciple. "Both the spiritual master and the disciple, they became perfect simply by sravanam kirtanam."

In his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 7:5:23-24, Srila Prabhupada also writes:

"Hearing of the holy name of the Lord (sravanam) is the beginning of devotional service. Although any one of the nine processes is sufficient, in chronological order the hearing of the holy name of the Lord is the beginning. Indeed, it is essential. As enunciated by Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, ceto-darpana-marjanam: by chanting the holy name of the Lord, one is cleansed of the material conception of life, which is due to the dirty modes of material nature. When the dirt is cleansed from the core of one's heart, one can realize the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead--isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah.

Here he is also distinguishing between the concept of being able to thoroughly engage in any one of the nine processes in order to gain perfection, and the imperative requirement to hear and chant. By hearing and chanting in accordance with directions set forth by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu for this age, one can realize Krsna. Everyone must hear and chant as a prerequisite to engaging in any or all of the other devotional practices: "Sravanam kirtanam visnoh smaranam--this is bhagavata-marga.

It's interesting to explore these passages in the context of our discussion. You appear to be asserting that Srila Prabhupada's use of the term "bhagavata-marga" is somehow synonymous with the term "bhagavata parampara", which we have been discussing up to now. You're saying that the conclusion one can extrapolate from Srila Prabhupada's statement is that you can hear from any one of our Sampradaya Acaryas, and in that way gain access and therefore the mercy and realizations that distinguishes our Sampradaya from others? If your answer is yes, I disagree, because the essence of the principle of parampara is that the most recent manifestation of the Sampradaya is empowered to present our siddhanta in the most comprehensive manner according to time, place and circumstance. The most recent Sampradaya Acarya is empowered to make whatever adjustments are required so as give the conditioned souls the greatest opportunity to comprehend.

You wrote:

This was what I considered the meaning of Bhagavat parampara to be. Anyone can achieve the perfectional stage without anything else then coming into contact, in some form or another, with Bhagavat tattva. And then they can continue the parampara. The parampara is not limited by time and space i.e direct diksa parampara.
This is obviously a different concept then the sampradaya acarya, which stresses the importance of, and hearing from a specific person or persons. So I think there was some misunderstanding. I really didn't have anything of substance against what you wrote, like I said, I think it was just semantics. :)

I appreciate your cooperative mood, but I think that our disagreement is much more than simply a matter of semantics. It is a fundamental philosophical disagreement as to the nature of ‘parampara'. You're saying that one can be connected to the Sampradaya by making the connection at any point along the lineage -- for example, by reading Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, or the Six Goswamis. Hypothetically, that is possible. However, if that connection does not lead one to conclude that Srila Prabhupada is the most recent representative of these past Sampradaya Acaryas, then in my mind the connection will not result in receiving the full mercy of the Sampradaya. It is my opinion that all that these past Acaryas have taught can be most completely and easily understood by studying and surrendering to Srila Prabhupada's teachings, vision and methodology. An indication that a certain personality is, in fact, a Sampradaya Acarya is their manifest ability to encapsulate the tattva as well as the preaching mood of the past Sampradaya Acaryas in such a way as to get tangible phenomenal results.

We certainly agree in our analysis of the poem published by Narayana Maharaja on VNN, and I am happy to see that we share a similar vision of BV Narayana and his group. Your comments in the last posting shed even more light on the whole "religiosity" phenomena, which seems to be one of the major deviations unfolding within our Sampradaya's history. I have shared in previous papers my perspective that the modern manifestation of Narayana Maharaj is but one of the many examples of the transformation from the spirituality of the Sampradaya Acarya into mundane religiosity.

A more mature version of the Indian style religious sects was present at the time of the lilas of Srila Bhaktivinoda And Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. In fact, the "Supremacy" article is another example of how the fight continued after their departure. These great Acaryas were aggressively preaching against all the un-bonafide sahija groups misrepresenting the teachings of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. The reasons as to why this transformation is a predictable recurring historical event can be found within our siddhanta as it is presented by the genuine Sampradaya Acaryas. When pure devotees depart, spiritually unqualified pretentious fools try to take their place. The only way they can maintain their power is to implement religious practices and water down the philosophy.

Of course, when we add the ingredient of western style institutional religiosity to the mix, voila! We are witness to modern day ISKCON and the born-again Rttviks. All these groups exploit the sastric principle of the necessity of the candidate being initiated into the Sampradaya. They all claim exclusivity and control of the initiation process. It's all such foolish nonsense, for no one can control the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If He so wishes, He can shine His Benediction Moon on anyone, at anytime. For Him, there are no restrictions.

God tends to work in predetermined ways, primarily through His bonafide via media, the Sampradaya Acaryas. Yet there is always the exception to the rule, and the Lord is free to act in mysterious ways. The problem we have as "less that perfect" individuals is being adequately pure of heart so as to identify when something is God's will or when someone is misrepresenting themselves as His bonafide representative. That said, I can agree that the exception can and occasionally does happen, but for the most part Lord Sri Krsna acts through His intact parampara system. I can imagine some sincere soul contacting Krsna through the medium of print in the form a book presented by one of the previous Sampradaya Acaryas, or perhaps hearing or reading the chanting of the mahä mantra from the lips of a pure devotee. Even in the examples of kripa-siddha perfection, such as Narada Muni, there was the principle of coming in direct contact with very advanced devotees and rendering service. Your concept of the Bhagavat parampara, as I understand it so far, can't be ruled out but is basically an improbable construct. If the term "Bhagavat parampara" was indeed presented by a Sampradaya Acarya, then I have my doubts that they meant it to be understood in the eternal manner in which you present it.

In closing your last posting, you wrote:

The Guru Parampara poem is combination of diksa and siksa lineages.
Madhvacarya and a handful of Tattvavadis are part of the Guru parampara, while they would not be a part of the Bhagavata parampara.

We cannot accept the Tattvavadi's as being in the Bhagavata Parampara because they reject Sri Radha Krishna, Sri Caitanya as Bhagavan and so much else that we accept. We interpret the Bhagavatam differently.

So even though we belong to the Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya, the Diksa or Guru parampara is not the same thing as the Bhagavata parampara.

There is a distinction between Bhagavata parampara and Guru parampara.

You state above that there is a difference between guru and bhagavat parampara, and that this distinction is supported by the fact that we are in the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya, which also includes certain Tattvavadi's who interpret the Bhagavatam differently. Consequently, there must be a distinction between bhagavata and guru paramparas: the Tattvavadis are in the guru parampara, but they are not in our bhagavata parampara.

First, we can only assign proper weight to these statements if the derivation of the term "bhagavata parampara" is introduced with citations. Otherwise, it is simply an arbitrary or convenient designation. I have presented above my viewpoints as to where I think this term originated and for what purpose. I can only repeat that whatever the Sampradaya Acaryas have stated must be accepted as truth without succumbing to undue speculation. Below we find more than sufficient explanation given by Srila Prabhupada.

Second, if I understand correctly, the distinction in tattva you refer to above falls outside of the realm of the Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya.

"Out of the four sampradayas, the Sri Madhvacarya-sampradaya was accepted by Madhavendra Puri. Thus he took sannyasa according to parampara, the disciplic succession. Beginning from Madhvacarya down to the spiritual master of Madhavendra Puri, the acarya named Laksmipati, there was no realization of devotional service in conjugal love. Sri Madhavendra Puri introduced the conception of conjugal love for the first time in the Madhvacarya-sampradaya, and this conclusion of the Madhvacarya-sampradaya was revealed by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu when He toured southern India and met the Tattvavadis, who supposedly belonged to the Madhvacarya-sampradaya."

Caitanya-caritamrta, Madyam lila 4:197

So the Brahma Sampradaya is divided into two schools: the Gaudiya Vaisnavas and the Tattva-vadi Madhavas (the Dvaitas). Of the Dvaita school, the Haridasa movement is prominent. The founding acarya of the Haridasa was Sri Narahari Tiirtha, a direct disciple of Madhavacarya, who preached a simplified version of Madhava's tattva. The Haridasa's worship Vittala and other manifestations of Lord Krishna.

If you conclude that the Tattvavadis under the Haridasa movement are not part of our line of Sampradaya Acaryas (or bhagavata parampara), I would agree. We do not find them mentioned in the list of 32 Sampradaya Acaryas. Instead, we read in Madyam 4:197 that these Tattvavadis "supposedly belonged" to the Madhvacarya-sampradaya:

We also read:

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted the chain of disciplic succession from Madhva Acarya, but the Vaisnavas in His line do not accept the tattva-vadis, who also claim to belong to the Madhva-sampradaya. To distinguish themselves clearly from the tattva-vadi branch of Madhva's descendants, the Vaisnavas of Bengal prefer to call themselves Gaudiya Vaisnavas. Sri Madhva Acarya is also known as Sri Gaudapurnananda, and therefore the name Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya is quite suitable for the disciplic succession of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. Our spiritual master, Om Visnupada Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja, accepted initiation in the Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya."

Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi lila 1:19

The Tattvavadis do not belong to the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya. They may consider themselves to be in Madhvacarya line, but we do not accept them as bonafide descendents of Sri Madhva's tattva. Madhvacarya is among the list of our Sampradaya Acaryas, but his Tattvavadis descendents are not in our line, i.e., are not in our "bhagavata parampara". Consequently, they do not constitute or represent a division between "bhagavata" and "guru" parampara in the context you present it, and certainly don't prove anything about the definitions of such a proposed division.

Again, we are left attempting to debate a distinction in terms without benefit of proper epistemology of "bhagavata parampara". Perhaps we can both engage in further research on the matter.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 12/11/2004 12:50 PM PST

Dear Krsna das,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga. All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.

I've read through your presentation here in the Krsna Blog and appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond. Of course, you're responding only to the original article, and the course of this discussion has gone far beyond that now. Your contribution has shed some light on the discussion, however. While Shiva das was, in a sense, trying to represent your position, he is not a full-fledged member of your group. Your comments in regards to how your group deals with Srila Prabhupada's commentary on his Godbrothers will help the readers to understand exactly what your group's position is. I plan to address this more in my next posting, but let me say that naturally, I don't accept these explanations. Your comments do not have the same weight and validity as Srila Prabhupada's comments in purports to the Caitanya-caritamrta and other recorded conversations. You'll hear more from me on the subject in the near future.

I find it rather tactless that you open up your presentation by giving us a little lesson on etiquette in regards to properly addressing BV Narayana Maharaja. You've made it known you are his disciple and hold him in high regard, and that's very nice, but it hardly means that etiquette calls for us all to address him in the same way you do. I complement you for taking the time to defend him in the way that you have, but please keep in mind that my position is not the same as yours. In fact, my whole concept of Sampradaya Acarya clearly articulates the difference in status that I understand A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to have in comparison to Narayana Maharaja. Further, Narayana Maharaja is my spiritual cousin, in a sense, and even though he's older in years, it's not obligatory for me to address him as you would like me to. Keep in mind that everyone addresses His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada as "Srila Prabhupada", particularly when writing something that requires repetitive use of his name for reference. I think it's somewhat inappropriate that you try to correct us in the way you did in this informal setting.

It will be easier to go forward in this conversation with you if we may understand your actual position. Are you, or were you previously, a siksa or diksa disciple of Srila Prabhupada's before coming into relationship with Narayana Maharaja as "an aspirant to be a follower"? Given that your name is "Krsna dasa", is this the language of humility, or are you actually an initiated disciple of someone?

I also want to make clear, in case you are not, that I am by no means a Rtvik. You're welcome to read my paper, "Church of Rtvik", wherein I challenge their entire concept. I'm not a member of the IRM or any other Rtvik associated group. I'm simply trying to present what I understand to be the proper understanding of Srila Prabhupada's position as a nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya within the parampara.

Your abbreviated historical presentation of what transpired after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur departed is interesting in that it shows how your group views that history of events. This is certainly not the same as how Srila Prabhupada views it. The way that you have implicated Srila Prabhupada in some of the erroneous decisions that were made is bordering on a serious offense in my estimation. More on that, and on the rest of your article, to come shortly.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 12/11/2004 02:00 PM PST

Haribol Rocana. You have given alot of thought and I enjoyed reading your post.

I'll give a few comments.

You said :

"The Tattvavadis do not belong to the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya. They may consider themselves to be in Madhvacarya line, but we do not accept them as bonafide descendents of Sri Madhva's tattva."

Maybe, maybe not. Still the fact is Mahaprabhu only accepted parts of Madhva's teachings. The Dvaita philosophy is different from Acintya-Bheda-Bheda. Regardless of whether the Tattvavadis are bona fide followers of Madhva or not, Gaudiya's reject much of what Madhva taught. So I cannot see Madhva as anything more then a diksa connection. Even though Baladeva Vidhyabhusana cites 9 teachings we have in common with Madhva, there are many other teachings that we differ on. So since you said that the list given in the Guru Parampara is cognate with Sampradaya Acaryas, and you state that the Sampradaya Acarya is for all practical purposes the only relevant connection to Krishna Bhakti until the next Sampradaya Acarya, we are left with Dvaitavadis as being the only practical connection to Krishna Bhakti for quite some time.

Yet we can find people like Jayadeva who were teaching about Radha Krishna before Madhva, and therefore there must have been others as well. The concepts of Jayadeva were certainly well known. In fact Mahaprabhu Himself said that the Gita Govinda is the ultimate revelation.

So Jayadeva and others like him are not listed in the Guru Parampara, but certainly his position is unparalleled. Gaudiyas do not study the writings of Madhva, yet Jayadeva is considered essential. So during Madhva's time we know that Jayadeva's writings were known, there must have been many who believed as Jayadeva otherwise why would Jayadeva have been so celebrated ? The point I am making is that you give indispensability to the names in the Guru Parampara. I disagree with that. What I believe is that the Guru Parampara is a mechanism used to authenticate the sampradaya among Vedic traditionalists. I don't give it the same indispensibility that you do. Does the sampradaya really need to be able to show that it is connected to Madhva and through him to Vyasa ? It may be important to people who want to prove that the Gaudiya sampradaya is "authentic" because of that, and to the people who require such "proof of authentication". But the fact is that the Gaudiya's split from Madhva and have much more in common with the other Vaisnava sampradayas then they do with Madhva. Ramanuja, Nimbarka, etc, were teaching what is much closer to Gaudiya thought then Madhva. Certainly a follower of Nimbarka would have been more in line with Gaudiya siddhanta then a follower of Madhva.

So I cannot accept the idea that the names on the Guru Parampara are what you call Sampradaya Acaryas. Srila Prabhupada did indeed call Madhva a sampradaya acarya, but in that reference he also named the other founders of the 4 modern Vaisnava Sampradayas.

"Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization."
Srila Prabhupada Lecture to World Health Org., 06-06-74, Geneva

Each of them were founders of their modern Sampradayas.

The other time Prabhupada used the term was:

"So we should hear from the sampradaya-acarya by disciplic succession. As Krsna recommends in this Bhagavad-gita: evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh."
la Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita, 11-30-72, Hyderabad

In this instance he is using the term as a particular person who we should hear from through the parampara. This coincides with his other use of the term for Founder of the sampradaya. In other words the Sampradaya Acarya is the founder of the Sampradaya and the person whose teachings the parampara is based on and passing on.

Although your use of the term is not necessarily wrong, just it is not the same as the way Prabhupada used it.

To me the concept of your Sampradaya Acarya has a fatal flaw. It assumes that there is some empiric method of determining just who the relevant Sampradaya Acarya is. One man's Maha Bhagavat is another man's imposter. As we see in your comments about Narayana Maharaja. His disciples will certainly see him as the highest level devotee. And other disciples of other Guru's will see their Guru in the same way. A pure devotee is a pure devotee is a pure devotee. Whether or not he makes a huge impact in the world or has only a single follower, the fact is that the pure devotee is a via medium for God.

From Srila Prabhupada's lecture to the Gaudiya Math in 1936 at Bhaktisiddhanta's Vyasa Puja celebration:

"Gentlemen, the offering of such an homage as has been arranged this evening to the acaryadeva is not a sectarian concern, for when we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudeva or acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application. There does not arise any question of discrirninating my guru from yours or anyone else's.

There is only one guru, who appears in an infinity of forrns to teach you, me and all others.

In the Mundaka Upanisad (1.2.12) it is said:

tad-vijnartham sa gurum evabhigacchet samit-panih srotriyam brahma-nistham

"In order to learn the transcendental science, one must approach the bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession, who is fixed in the Absolute Tmth.''

Thus it has been enjoined herewith that in order to receive that transcendental knowledge, one must approach the guru. Therefore, if the Absolute Truth is one, about which we think there is no difference of opinion, the guru cannot be two. The acaryadeva to whom we have assembled tonight to offer our humble homage is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. On the contrary, he is the jagad-guru, or the guru of all of us, the only difference is that some obey him wholeheartedly, while others do not obey him directly.

In the Bhagavatam (11.17.27) it is said:

acaryam mam vijaniyan
navamanyeta karhicit
na martya-buddhyasuyeta
sarva-deva mayoguruh

"One should understand the spiritual master to be as good as I am," said the Blessed Lord. "Nobody should be jealous of the spiritual master or think of him as an ordinary man, because the spiritual master is the sum total of all demigods." That is, the acarya has been identified with God Himself. He has nothing to do with the affairs of this mundane world. He appears before us to reveal the light of the Vedas and to bestow upon us the blessing of full-fledged freedom, after which we should hanker at every step of our life's journey."

So the point I am trying to make is that there need not be a single Guru whom everyone must follow. There may be a single Guru who is more recognized and makes more of an impact then anyone else during his life, but that doesn't make that person the sole and only Guru. The Guru is a Guru because he is directly in communion with Radha Krishna. If Krishna leads you to a Guru with a big following who made a big impact, then that is your destiny. If Krishna leads you to a Guru who has not made the sme impact, that Guru is no different then any other. All authentic Guru's, Uttama Guru's, are all via mediums for the Lord. As Prabhupada said in the above, there is no question of discriminating between one Guru and another, there is only One Guru who appears in an infinity of forms.

The size and scope of an Acaryas preaching is irrelevant. The Acarya is a via medium and there may be only one bona fide Guru on earth at any specific time, or there may be many. Would you get more out of following Srila Prabhupada with his busy schedule and no time to relate to you directly, or would you get more benefit from another pure devotee who had no large following and who you could have full access to ?

Prabhupada or any Acarya who has a large following is not going to be able to give close association to all of the disciples. So in my estimation a pure devotee without a large mission, or without any mission and followers at all is better for you then one with all of that. So your concept of the Sampradaya Acarya is based on seeing a specific Guru as a superior necessity in one's spiritual path then others who are also uttama level Guru's, but in fact it may be the other way around. The uttama Guru who is not well known with a lot of followers will be superior for you, better for you, able to give you more personal time and energy. After all the message of the Bhagavata is eternal, time and place may affect the methodology of it's presentation to the masses, but the essential message itself remains the same. By hearing the Bhagavata one can come into contact directly with Paramatma. This is the essential gift of the Bhagavata.

So in conclusion, my concept of Bhagavat Sampradaya is solely about the concept of not needing to be in the diksa lineage in order to be considered an authentic teacher or Guru or disciple of the sampradaya. Anyone else can use it however they want. I use it to mean that if someone hears and undertands and realizes the true teachings of the Bhagavata, then he is qualified to be considered a representative of the Sampradaya and initiate disciples.

Posted by Shiva Das @ 12/11/2004 09:24 PM PST

Dear Rocana Prabhu,

please accept my obeisances.

Thank you for answering my post.
Please take into consideration that i do not represent the ideas of a particular group of devotees. I tried to stick to historical facts , basic tattva-siddhanta and common sense. Of course the letter i wrote was spiced with feelings of my dissatisfaction of the way you are presenting Srila Narayana Maharaja and great Acaryas openly on the internet while being not familiar with the essential tattvas yourself. I thought it not be fair and also dangerous for yourself.
It does not matter if you are a disciple of Srila Narayana Maharaja or not, it is simple ettiquette to name a senior vaisnava with a honorable title, thats all. I am sure that Srila Prabhupada would be very happy if you would be able to understand such ABC`s after so many years. All vaisnavas are honorable and one expresses such honor by titles or names. At least Sri, Sriyuta, Sriman, Sripad or Pujiyapada is appropriate for almost all classes of devotees in general.

What did i say that would be an offense against Srila Prabhupada?
It is a fact that Srila Prabhupada is a founding member of Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti, Founded in April 1940 at Bospada Lane in Calcutta. He was also the editor in chief of its magazines Sri Gaudiya Patrika and Bhagavat Patrika. There is evidence in writing from Srila Prabhupadas own hands in original Bengaliscript. Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami stayed several times during his preaching tours with him for many month at his house in Prayag together with Srila Vamana Maharaja. There are many evidences for this and i can provide for you if needed. Srila Prabhupada was not anti social! He was loved by all and had loving exchanges with his godbrothers, he had no hatred towards any of them. He spend only eleven years in ISKCON but what did he do from 1922 till 1966? Srila Prabhupada had no vaisnava friends no loving relationships for 40 years and after that only with his teenage disciples??? Srila Prabhupada was not a politician! He was a pure Vaisnava with a heart overflowing with divine love and mercy!!! Some people present Srila Prabhupada as asocial and that is quite a materialistic view.
Srila Prabhupada lived in Kesavji Gaudiya Math for more then five month before and after his time in Jhansi prior to living at Radha Damodara Temple, why when he had no friends? Alone with Srila Narayana Maharaja he exchanged hundreds of letters from 66 to 77, why when he was not his friend? Srila Prabhupada had no assistance in America? Then how come that there are still so many bills and letters from Prabhupada (66-69)ordering Srila Narayana Maharaj to arrange for deities, instruments, paraphenalia and books which in turn where send immediatly? And there where so many dealings with Srila Sridhar Maharaja & Govinda Maharaja that nobody can deny.
When Srila Prabhupada used the word envious godbrothers in letters or in purports he meant ENVIOUS godbrothers and NOT ALL godbrothers! About the installment of Sri Ananta Vasudeva as Acarya and the later continued guru-appointing system not only Srila Prabhupada was in disagree. The situation became intolerable for others too and so they left the math establishing there own maths.
And not unsuccesfully. Srila Madhava Maharaja and Srila Kesava Gosvami established so many maths and preachingcentres doing hard work defeating mayavad and establishing suddha bhakti all over india. Also Srila Prabhupada established his "own" society later on. But it was nothing new what he gave, it was the same "juice" in another bottle. The Bottle was bigger but ingredients same. Gaudiya Vedanta means Bhativedanta and Samiti means society. Society of Bhaktivedanta is the same as Society for Krsnaconciousness. Ultimatly the meaning is the same only the language is different. And in millions of points all the acaryas nowadays and in the past agree, only in a few things they have different angles of vision. This is Gaudiya Vaisnava Family.
Krsna has arranged all this, there is no doubt about it.
I feel that Srila Prabhupadas special glories are clear everywhere and also in the gaudiya math he his celebrated for that, granted maybe in a different way then in ISKCON, but i know also that many vaisnavas in gaudiya matha have a deeper inside in Srila Prabhupadas Personality than we can immagine.
There are millions of devotees with different sentiments cultural backgrounds and varieties of qualification and sukrti, spiritual merit. So there are many gurus, maths, missions and so on, also very immature ones. This is very natural and cannot be otherwise. In this way Sriman Mahaprabhu is spreading his net far and wide. For most it is like a sukrti "machine" because uttama-bhakti is very rare and far away for most of us. Everybody should be respectful towards each other and everybody should see to correct himself in his seva and attitude instead of looking at others.
The hardliners say "oh there is a difference, there is a difference", they only exept the external statue of Prabhupada, nothing else, there is no room for anybody, Prabhupada would have to come himself again so that they accept siksa. How can that be? Why they expect another Prabhupada? Prabhupada is there all the time but his external appearance will most probably be never ever visible to us again. SO we have to become broadminded. We will keep our special affinity for our dear Prabhupada as we remember him but one thing must go on: That is hearing Bhagavatam and the maha-mantra from the lips of a pure devotee. By hearing that divine hari-katha ones heart becomes completely purified and one gets krsna-prema. So we have to search for such very elevated vaisnavas and hear from them , take their siksa! then we will be connected to our parampara to our own guru and to krsna. This process is going on eternally and has to be performed daily (nityam bhagavata sevaya) the service to and hearing from a bhakta bhagavad. And when my diksa-gurudeva (krsna-rupa) leaves the planet then i pray from the core of my heart and krsna will manifest as siksa-guru (krsna-svarupa), it depends on our sincerity. Diksa- and Siksa-gurus are nondifferent. This is the way, guru-tattva is one and not many.
We should respect the moods of all advanced vaisnavas even though we might not agree ourselves due to our own samskaras.
This is vaisnava culture, in this way very soon one will be able to extract, appreciate and receive properly the essence that is sabda- divine sound.
So we should be very sensitiv toward the minds of others and dont quarrel over small things. The whole world will not have the same impressions always, so different moods will arise. This is natural dynamic, the moods and likings will be endless in our MOVEMENT, as the name says.

Dear Rocana Prabhu, the only remedy to rescue our hearts from desertation is hearing from advanced and affectionate vaisnavas who share the same object in worship. Srila Narayana Maharaja is one of the last great acaryas in this world who was very close to Prabhupada, whom Prabhupada begged to help his disciples. Who will be there after him who is ready to give us so much? We dont have to agree with all ways his disciples behave or his mission is build, but what is the harm in respecting and hearing from such a great soul? what ist the harm in honoring and paying obeisances to such a vaisnava? Why not asking him directly all these questions you had instead of writing your own challenging article and putting it on Chakra? Are we in the position to challenge a Vaisnava as Srila Narayana Maharaja? Do we know him really or do we only think that we know him. What is our standard? Do we practise properly what Srila Prabhupada gave us? Do we practise Trnad api sunicena? Are we on the platform of nisthita-bhajan, ruci, asakti or even bhava? Do we know what is the meaning of the mantras we have received from Prabhupada? Only saying Prabhupada, Prabhupada, Prabhupada like a machine will not help us even if we build so many golden shrines for him, so many temples,etc. All our intellectual work will not help us at the time of death. We have to come out from the kanistha-platform and advance.
But unfortunatly, we have been cheated by our own stupid mind. We are disturbed that we are not guru, we ourselves want to be the preachers and teachers. We have become propounders of "my way", "dont you know who i am", thirty years of nama-aparadha and no taste in hari-katha, still "i am Prabhupada disciple". We are envious that our godbrothers receive garlands on the vyasasana and that they can do whatever they like but we, the discoverers of the truth behind all cheating dont get anything.
We had to leave ISKCON, but in ISKCON was all our pratistha!!! How stupid, so now we are the against party and nobody wants to hear us but our wifes. Alone at home we are rotting in maya, filled with false pride and a stone heart. Any senior vaisnava is there? Oh, he will surely cut my false ego and i will see that i have not even began spiritual life. But how can i tolerate that? Who is he that he calls him self siksa-disciple of Prabhupada? I AM the real disciple, how can he be better then me? He writes Books? Oh i also write books, so many, i am such a good writer!!! I know Krsna since 69, he is not more then me! I have understood Prabhupadas mood, how can he? He is not a direct disciple also he is from gaudiya matha, the useless ones, the demons! I AM a real disciple, i got tulsi beats from PRABHUPADA! Oh he only wants pratistha! He wants only name and fame by saying that he is Prabhupadas disciple! A pity that so many of my godbrothers are following him, they must be blind cant they see the reality! I stick to Prabhupada! I am loyal, everybody else is not true to the game! And how much he is different! Our days where so glorious, when I was tempelcommander, best airport bookdistributor, kirtanleader! We never heard anything like manjari-bhava! He is different, perhaps sahajiya! As Jesus warned his disciples from devious religious cults, Prabhupada warned us against sahajiyas! Better is stick to Prabhupada! I am on the safe side!
I AM at least the best! I have the x ray vision and see everything clearly, the ISKCON conspiracy, the gaudiya matha, my intelligence knows no bounds, i am the centre and my wife and children celebrating me. I am the hero during long drawn speeches after dinner when i am on the phone with an old friend from good ol days who praises my views as brilliant,what can be more of a testamony of my greatness. In ISKCON, in ISKCON, in ISKCON, as a Brahmacarie, as a Brahmacarie, as a Brahmacarie, Prabhupada, Prabhupada, Prabhupada.

Nothing will come out of that. We will be nowhere with such a mindset and go nowhere from there this is for sure. Prayers to Sri Krsna that he will protect us from such a crazy mentality and put us somehow or other amidst pure vaisnavas so that we can learn and our hearts be filled with warmth and sweetness for what our Srila Prabhupada came to us.

I appreciate Shiva Dasas last article, he brings relevant points from sastra and looks towards the essence. Dear Rocana, i hope you dont take offense from what i write
i wish you would be more bold to open your heart towards Srila Narayana Maharaja, he is really a saviour for us and on a more advanced level as we can immagine (thats my believe). I dont know where you are, but he will be in Hawaii, Hilo coming February, many of our godbrothers will be there. I am sure he will be glad to clarify so many of your doubts and to always help you and encourage you really in your relationship with Srila Prabhupada.

aspiring to be servant of Hari, Guru and Vaisnavas

Krsna dasa

Posted by krsna das @ 12/12/2004 03:25 PM PST

Dear Krsna dasa,

Dandavats. All glories to the Sri Guru and Gauranga.

As far as your concern for my dangerous position due to not being familiar with the essential tattva, don't worry over that, please. Be more concerned with your own spiritual advancement, beginning with the consequences of hypocrisy… a telltale symptom of Kaliyuga. For example, you wrote:

Please take into consideration that I do not represent the ideas of a particular group of devotees. I tried to stick to historical facts, basic tattva-siddhanta and common sense. Of course the letter i wrote was spiced with feelings of my dissatisfaction of the way you are presenting Srila Narayana Maharaja and great Acaryas openly on the Internet while being not familiar with the essential tattvas yourself. I thought it not be fair and also dangerous for yourself. It does not matter if you are a disciple of Srila Narayana Maharaja or not, it is simple etiquette to name a senior vaisnava with a honorable title, thats all. I am sure that Srila Prabhupada would be very happy if you would be able to understand such ABC`s after so many years. All vaisnavas are honorable and one expresses such honor by titles or names. At least Sri, Sriyuta, Sriman, Sripad or Pujiyapada is appropriate for almost all classes of devotees in general

I see that you neglected to put the "Sriman" prefix to my name. Don't I fall within some class of devotee, in general? Didn't BV Narayana Maharaj train you up to respect disciples of Srila Prabhupada with proper decorum? Better that you teach by example than by rant.

By the way, you didn't respond to my request to reveal to me and the readers of this discussion just what your position is in relationship to both BV Narayana Maharaj and Srila Prabhupada. Is Krsna dasa an initiated name? What is your service background? I don't think I know anyone by your name in the Netherlands. Who are you? Please keep in mind that the Krsna Blog is not an open ‘threaded forum' like others on the Net (IndiaDivine, for example). This is a blog, and when you post here, you are discoursing directly with me. If we're going to engage in a real dialogue, I want to know who I'm talking to. If you're not willing to personally disclose, this is not the venue for you to be preaching in.

Back in 2001, I participated in a lengthy discourse with Brahma dasa in a HareKrsna.com forum called the Dharma Mela. He was acting in the capacity of an authorized spokesman for Tripurari Swami. You are now stepping forward as BV Narayana Maharaja's ambassador. Given that you and Brahma dasa hold similar Gaudiya Matha perspectives on history and siddhanta, I reviewed my responses to Brahma dasa in that thread, and find that they are very relevant to our discussion. Since the original dialogue is no longer available on the website, I have included some of my comments again, below.

History, according to you:

It is a fact that Srila Prabhupada is a founding member of Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti, Founded in April 1940 at Bospada Lane in Calcutta. He was also the editor in chief of its magazines Sri Gaudiya Patrika and Bhagavat Patrika. There is evidence in writing from Srila Prabhupada's own hands in original Bengali script. Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami stayed several times during his preaching tours with him for many month at his house in Prayag together with Srila Vamana Maharaja. There are many evidences for this and i can provide for you if needed. Srila Prabhupada was not anti social! He was loved by all and had loving exchanges with his godbrothers; he had no hatred towards any of them. He spend only eleven years in ISKCON but what did he do from 1922 till 1966? Srila Prabhupada had no vaisnava friends no loving relationships for 40 years and after that only with his teenage disciples??? Srila Prabhupada was not a politician! He was a pure Vaisnava with a heart overflowing with divine love and mercy!!! Some people present Srila Prabhupada as asocial and that is quite a materialistic view.

In numerous conversations and letters, such as one dated April 28, 1974, Srila Prabhupada cautioned a leading GBC man that Sridhara Maharaja and two associate gentlemen (one of whom we suspect was Kesava Maharaja) had disturbed the entire Gaudiya Matha and the mission of Srila Prabhupada's own spiritual master by promoting non-realized neophytes as eternal preceptor gurus:

"So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acharya, who later proved to be a failure. The result is that now everyone is claiming to be acharya, even though they may be Kanistha-adhikari with no ability to preach. In some camps, the acharya is being changed three times a year. Therefore," Srila Prabhupada begged, "We may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp."

"In the beginning, during the presence of Om Vishnupada Paramahamsa Parivrajakacharya Astottara-sata Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada, all the disciples worked in agreement; but just after his disappearance, they disagreed. One party strictly followed the instructions of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, but another group created their own concoction about executing his desires.

"Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a Governing Body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next (guru) acharya. But just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without authority, to occupy the post of acharya, and they split in two factions over who the next acharya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order spiritual master....

Following is the letter that the Gaudiya Matha converts have learned to hate. In his letter of November 9, 1975, Srila Prabhupada ordered:

When Srila Prabhupada used the word envious godbrothers in letters or in purports he meant ENVIOUS godbrothers and NOT ALL godbrothers! About the installment of Sri Ananta Vasudeva as Acarya and the later continued guru-appointing system not only Srila Prabhupada was in disagree. The situation became intolerable for others too and so they left the math establishing their own maths.

"All my disciples should avoid all of my Godbrothers. They should not have any dealings with them nor even correspondence, nor should we give them any of my books, nor should we purchase any of their books, neither should you visit any of their temples. Please avoid them."

You will note that he didn't exclude BV Narayana Maharaja in this public announcement. Whatever is to be learned of the teachings of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura can be learned from our books. There is no need whatsoever for any outside instruction. (S.P.Letter to Gurukrpa and Yasodanandana, 25/12/73)

I never stated that Srila Prabhupada avoided associating with his Godbrothers prior to the ISKCON lila period. It seems that you are presenting a speculative, one-sided account of history. I could easily interpret the same events as indicating that Srila Prabhupada chose to live separately from Srila Kesava Goswami. He started his own matha in "Jhansi prior to living at Radha Damodara Temple", rather than reside in the ‘Kesavji Gaudiya Math'. We must assume that there were some very good reasons for his decision at that time period to separate himself, and the quotes that I presented above appear to illustrate his mind set.

Srila Prabhupada lived in Kesavji Gaudiya Math for more then five month before and after his time in Jhansi prior to living at Radha Damodara Temple, why when he had no friends? Alone with Srila Narayana Maharaja he exchanged hundreds of letters from 66 to 77, why when he was not his friend? Srila Prabhupada had no assistance in America? Then how come that there are still so many bills and letters from Prabhupada (66-69) ordering Srila Narayana Maharaj to arrange for deities, instruments, paraphernalia and books which in turn where send immediately? And there where so many dealings with Srila Sridhar Maharaja & Govinda Maharaja that nobody can deny.

BV Narayana Maharaja inherited the established institution of Srila Kesava Gosvami, maintained his ashram complex, initiated many followers, etc. BV Narayana Maharaja was attempting to preach using the same methodology as his other sannyasi Godbrothers. In other words, he had the same traditional status as Srila Prabhupada prior to his journeying to America. Historical memory reveals that it wasn't until after Srila Prabhupada's demise and the subsequent mass migration of "siksa" disciples that Srila BV Narayana Maharaja's teachings and organization began to flower. Srila Prabhupada's diksa disciples infused BV Narayana Maharaja's matha with the same enthusiasm they experienced while in the pre-samadhi ISKCON, publishing BV Narayana's lectures, and preaching. Of course, the results do not come close to matching Srila Prabhupada's successes, even though over a greater time period. This is essentially the same story as the one unfolding in Sridhar Maharaja's camp. Let's face it - they where all striving for the same goals. Was Srila Prabhupada's undeniable success story partially due to his nitya-siddha status? By proposing this hypothesis am I being offensive to other Vaisnava leaders? My intention was never to diminish the sincere Godbrothers of my Spiritual Master, but what choice do I have? Success can be measured. One has to judge by the results, especially when all are in the same game.

And not unsuccessfully. Srila Madhava Maharaja and Srila Kesava Gosvami established so many maths and preaching centers doing hard work defeating mayavad and establishing suddha bhakti all over India. Also Srila Prabhupada established his "own" society later on. But it was nothing new what he gave, it was the same "juice" in another bottle. The Bottle was bigger but ingredients same. Gaudiya Vedanta means Bhaktivedanta and Samiti means society. Society of Bhaktivedanta is the same as Society for Krsna consciousness. Ultimately the meaning is the same only the language is different. And in millions of points all the acaryas nowadays and in the past agree, only in a few things they have different angles of vision. This is Gaudiya Vaisnava Family.

I have brought up in the past the many distinct differences between Srila Prabhupada and his Godbrothers, not only on philosophical issues but in assigning priorities, dynamic mood, emphasis on preaching, adjusting traditional methods according to time and circumstance, etc. Either Srila Prabhupada was an expert political leader or an empowered Acarya, depending on your degree of faith. Srila Prabhupada implemented all the tried and true methods for enthusing, motivating and organizing all surrendered souls under his command. Considering the extreme cultural diversity and the age [Kali] we live in, the overall spirit of cooperation was nothing short of miraculous. Neither Godbrothers nor disciples have come close to matching his lifetime accomplishments. As his original mission gradually deteriorates due to reasons known to all in the Vaisnava Community, Srila Prabhupada's competitors never crease in their efforts to diminish Srila Prabhupada's legacy and relegate him to the same status as all others. Krsna das, you personifies this mentality, although you have perfected the art of guising this attitude by expounding from the hymnbook of conjured philosophical rational.

There is no real spirit of true cooperation amongst the various Acarya-lead "mathas", but one thing they all have in common is that they have perfected the fine art of diminishing Srila Prabhupada by externally appearing to praise him. The "one drop of urine" analogy fits this scenario. One way they try to undermine Srila Prabhupada is to project the subtle message that Srila Prabhupada's successes were born from mundane circumstances. Srila Prabhupada "was in the right place at the right time" (lucked-out); he knew how to relate to low-life Westerners; he applied lessons learned from being a householder raising children; past business experience helped him organize..... there are an endless litany of envious excuses. These very dangerous storytellers know how to couch all their internally derogatory thoughts in expressions of poetic philosophical lingo. The naïve can't see it for what it really is -- envy. So many devotees get co-opted into broadcasting these opinions and passing them off as "wisdom".

From Srila Prabhupada:

"Such neophytes, unable to appreciate the exalted service of the advanced devotee, try to bring the Maha-bhagavata to their platform. We experience such difficulties in propagating this Krsna consciousness all over the world. Unfortunately, we are surrounded by neophyte Godbrothers...they simply try to bring us to their platform.

NOI, P. 64

Srila Prabhupada's declared position was that his sannyasi Godbrothers should have taken a much humbler profile after the Acarya (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur) departed. This may have prevented the kind of disastrous results he witnessed as the Gaudiya Matha preaching mission was torn asunder. The inflated egos of these supposed advanced sannyasis were to blame. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's preaching momentum was never revived in any of the splintered mathas until Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON manifested. Again, this fact strengthens my position. We lived through the same scenario as the Zonals parceled off ISKCON and killed the momentum.

By the very definition of "full cooperation", all involved are required to maintain the preaching momentum by not fighting and breaking apart. Both Acaryas requested this direction. Breaking into small competing mathas is counter-productive for the preaching. One just has to honestly look at the results in both cases. ISKCON is, in reality, a loose federation of separate mathas held together by the mutual agreement amongst the separate leaders. The GBC is a toothless mirage. They all benefit from maintaining the illusion that they are members of the original homogeneous society established by Srila Prabhupada, yet when it is tested, it always fails.

Srila Prabhupada discovered that his Godbrothers were attempting to adversely influence his disciples in the same manner as they are doing now. Emphasizing Siksa guru relationships over their diksa relationship, re-naming the disciples and subtlety undermining their faith in Srila Prabhupada, was their usual MO. I contend that the offending Godbrothers' failed to appreciate that as the principle Acarya, Srila Prabhupada was simultaneously Diksa, Siksa and Acarya for his faithful followers. He had and was in the process of writing extensive purports to all the most important Vaisnava shastra. Srila Prabhupada's literary style and empowered manner was/is the most easily comprehensible preaching method available to his western disciples. The phenomenal results speak for themselves, even thirty years after his departure with so many of his Godbrothers publishing in Western languages, what to speak of some of his western disciples writing. It is still Srila Prabhupada's books, not their writings, which motivate conditioned souls from Western Cultures to surrender to Lord Caitanya.

Srila Prabhupada saw Srila Bhaktisiddhanta as always living: present, potent and actively directing the Gaudiya Matha, his spiritual mission. But somehow, the "living guru" advocates such as Srila Kesava Goswami saw their eternal preceptor guru as one non-living, absent, impotent. According to the "living guru" advocates, after his disappearance, the completely Krishna conscious eternal preceptor guru (whether Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura or Srila Prabhupada) is no longer truly living. No longer can he personally give shelter, therefore you must seek out a living siksa... following in the footsteps of Dristadhumna dasa, Jadarani devi, and Krsna dasa.

"I shall remain your personal guidance, physically present or not physically, as I am getting personal guidance from my guru maharaja"

Srila Prabhupada to Tamal Krishna, 14 July 1977

Prabhupada said: "So better remain a foolish person perpetually to be directed by guru maharaja. That is perfection. And as soon as he learns that guru maharaja is dead, `Now I am so advanced that I can kill my guru and I become guru.' Then he is finished."

Room Conversation, 16th Aug 76, Bombay

"Presently people are so fallen that they cannot distinguish between a liberated soul and a conditioned soul. A conditioned soul is hampered by four defects he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to be illusioned, he has the tendency to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. Consequently, we have to take direction from liberated persons."

SB 4.18.5

"In this verse Srila Rupa Goswami advises that the devotee must be intelligent enough to distinguish between the Kanistha-adhikari (neophyte), Madhyama-adhikari (intermediate), and Uttama-adhikari (fully liberated, completely Krishna conscious). The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has given some practical hints to the effect that an Uttama adhikari can be recognized by his ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaisnavism. One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of Uttama Adhikari. A neophyte Vaishnava or a Vaishnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an Uttama-Adhikari as a spiritual master."

N.O.I. text 5 pages 56-57

The fact remains that within the Gaudiya Matha community there already exists a "transcendental" version of Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati's and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura's pastimes, which are based on the conclusion that they are nitya-siddhas. In contrast, most of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers have passed away and only their followers remain, none of whom wish to declare their own Guru/Acarya to be of a less-exalted status than their contemporary, Srila Prabhupada.

Krsna has arranged all this, there is no doubt about it. I feel that Srila Prabhupada's special glories are clear everywhere and also in the gaudiya math he his celebrated for that, granted maybe in a different way then in ISKCON, but i know also that many vaisnavas in Gaudiya matha have a deeper inside in Srila Prabhupada's Personality than we can imagine.

While I accept that on one level, sadhana-siddha and nitya-siddha are the same, clearly the authorized Vaisnava Scholars have made the distinction between the two. Why?

"A nitya-siddha is one who is eternally Krsna's associate (like Nanda and Mother Yasoda), an expansion of Krsna's personal body, whereas a sadhana-siddha is an ordinary human being who, by executing pious activities and following regulative principles of devotional service, also comes to that stage."

S.B. 10.8.48

The Sankirtan Movement has been surcharged over the past one hundred years by three Acaryas, Bhaktivinode Thakur, Bhaktisiddanta Saraswati Thakur, and A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion-at that time I descend Myself.

Bhagavad-Gita 4.7

In the above sloka, Sri Krsna states that he has to come himself because that is the only way to counteract irreligion. We all agree that Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu was Lord Sri Krsna descended as a devotee to establish the Sankirtan Movement. We also are aware that historically, the Sankirtan movement fell into obscurity for hundreds of years. Therefore, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu sent Bhaktivinode Thakur (nitya-siddha), and he prayed for another nitya-siddha to appear as his son.

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura was declared to be both uttama and nitya-siddha by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, even though through much of his early life, his qualities remained hidden. The many incarnations of the Lord, as well as the appearance and pastimes of the nitya-siddhas, manifest according to a pre-determined plan and purpose. Why is it that the Lord and his pure representatives remain obscure for certain periods? This unfolding must be considered as part of the overall perfect plan.

All the historical evidence confirms the truth that Srila Prabhupada is one of those very rare souls who fall within the classification of Shaktavesa Avatara. These exalted personalities are nitya siddha – a pure devotee already eternally situated in their relationship with the Lord. Rather than coming Himself, the Lord (Caitanya Mahaprabhu) deputes his representative to descend so as to execute a particularly difficult mission.

It is my position that Srila Prabhupada's full manifestation of his nitya-siddha status took place during the ISKCON lila period, just as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's nitya-siddha status become evident in his later life, as was confirmed by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. Quoting from statements made prior to that period, when he was keeping his glories behind the veil, isn't proof of anything.

Beginning with Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who out of humility displayed extreme dislike for being identified in his actual position as an incarnation of Lord Sri Krsna, the yuga Avatara, as far as I know none of the eternal associates of the Lord who accompanied Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu identified themselves as such. Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati didn't publicly proclaim himself to be such due to the natural expression of humility found in all Maha-bhagavatas. Therefore, to declare that unless and until I manifest some direct quote by Srila Prabhupada wherein he declares himself to be such a devotee not only goes against the qualities of such a personality, it would disqualify him from being such.

I can understand why Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers are so reluctant to see Srila Prabhupada in the role of sampradaya Acarya. According to Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's plan, Srila Prabhupada remained in relative obscurity within their midst for so many years. Bhaktisiddanta Saraswati Thakur certainly didn't keep his desires hidden in regards to taking the message and mission of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu to the rest of the world. The challenge was open to all the disciples. In fact, the one disciple who appeared to be most qualified was Srila Kesava Goswami, but he declined to accept his spiritual master's open invitation. Perhaps it was because he was a sadhana-siddha pure devotee rather than a nitya-siddha, like Srila Prabhupada.

I am proposing that Bhaktisiddanta Saraswati Thakur was fully aware that Srila Prabhupada was the nitya-siddha representative sent by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu to carry on his deputed Mission. Each successive Acarya played their own specific role in this transcendental drama orchestrated by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. I acknowledge the role that many other sincere surrendered souls played in this amazing pastime. To the degree of their purity, sincerity, and willingness to cooperate, many devotees gained unlimited spiritual benefits. The extent to which those fortunate souls maintain their spiritual rewards depends, to a degree, on whether they recognize Srila Prabhupada's special place. To downgrade his significance - I can't comprehend this pleases Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

Krsna dasa, you incredulously display your hypocritical nature in the diatribes below. You wrote:

There are millions of devotees with different sentiments cultural backgrounds and varieties of qualification and sukrti, spiritual merit. So there are many gurus, maths, missions and so on, also very immature ones.

You go on in rant mode:

We have been cheated by our own stupid mind. We are disturbed that we are not guru, we ourselves want to be the preachers and teachers. We have become propounder of "my way", "dont you know who i am", thirty years of nama-aparadha and no taste in hari-katha, still "i am Prabhupada disciple". We are envious that our godbrothers receive garlands on the vyasasana and that they can do whatever they like but we, the discoverers of the truth behind all cheating dont get anything.

We had to leave ISKCON, but in ISKCON was all our pratistha!!! How stupid, so now we are the against party and nobody wants to hear us but our wifes. Alone at home we are rotting in maya, filled with false pride and a stone heart. Any senior vaisnava is there? Oh, he will surely cut my false ego and i will see that i have not even began spiritual life. But how can i tolerate that? Who is he that he calls him self siksa-disciple of Prabhupada? I AM the real disciple, how can he be better then me? He writes Books? Oh i also write books, so many, i am such a good writer!!! I know Krsna since 69, he is not more then me! I have understood Prabhupadas mood, how can he? He is not a direct disciple also he is from gaudiya matha, the useless ones, the demons! I AM a real disciple, i got tulsi beats from PRABHUPADA! Oh he only wants pratistha! He wants only name and fame by saying that he is Prabhupadas disciple! A pity that so many of my godbrothers are following him, they must be blind cant they see the reality! I stick to Prabhupada! I am loyal, everybody else is not true to the game! And how much he is different! Our days where so glorious, when I was tempelcommander, best airport bookdistributor, kirtanleader!

You begin by projecting the image as a peacemaker, saying "Everybody should be respectful towards each other and everybody should see to correct himself in his seva and attitude instead of looking at others." Then you immediately launch into a very critical mind dump, describing in very broad derogatory terms what you pigeon-hole as "hardliners". Where exactly you conjure up all this nonsense, except in your own cheating "stupid mind", I'll never know. You pontificate about the vast array of variegated devotees, but all those who challenge this "must take siksa" concept fall into your "thirty years of nama-aparadha and no taste in hari-katha" category.

In the following quotes, we discover the crux of the controversial matter under question:

From Srila Prabhupada:

"So my guru maharaja will be very, very much pleased upon you, and bless you with all benefits. So he wanted this, and it is not....it is not that he is dead and gone. That is not spiritual understanding...he is seeing. I never feel that I am alone."

Lecture 2 March 1975

I suppose we can assume BV Narayana's camp believes it is our sacred duty to hear directly from "the lips of a pure devotee." In other words, if we listen to Srila Prabhupada's audio tapes, read Srila Prabhupada's books, hear him chanting kirtan, bhajan and japa, we are not getting purified. According to you, we must instead "search for such very elevated vaisnavas and hear from them, take their siksa! then we will be connected to our parampara to our own guru and to krsna". I have never, ever heard Srila Prabhupada speak like this. In fact, as numerous quotes above indicate, he has said exactly the opposite.

The simple answer, obviously, is that I don't perceive BV Narayana Maharaja as being such a great soul, especially in comparison to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Srila Prabhupada. All my available devotional time is spent focusing on serving and worshiping Srila Prabhupada. He has given me enough instruction to last many lifetimes. Why do you feel, or more accurately insist, that I'm in such desperate need of taking shelter of BV Narayana Maharaja? Unless you're a friend of mine and simply haven't disclosed your identity, then you don't even know me personally. This exchange allows us to see just how you and the other groupies of BV Narayana Maharaja twist many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples' heads around with this line of emotion filled non-logic. Granted, we could all use encouragement for engaging more time in devotional service, but instead of hearing more from Srila Prabhupada, BV Narayana Maharaja's converts are directed towards the teachings and service of Narayana rather than increasing their focus on Srila Prabhupada. This is an undeniable and obvious fact. I have not heard of any great spiritual transformations taking place in those individuals surrendering to your proposal. Please don't give me the example of Dristadhumna so-called Swami, or Jadarani devi. I have little or no respect for their motivated decisions and offensive directions.

We will keep our special affinity for our dear Prabhupada as we remember him but one thing must go on: That is hearing Bhagavatam and the maha-mantra from the lips of a pure devotee. By hearing that divine hari-katha ones heart becomes completely purified and one gets krsna-prema. So we have to search for such very elevated vaisnavas and hear from them , take their siksa! then we will be connected to our parampara to our own guru and to krsna. This process is going on eternally and has to be performed daily (nityam bhagavata sevaya) the service to and hearing from a bhakta bhagavad.

You also wrote:

Dear Rocana Prabhu, the only remedy to rescue our hearts from desperation is hearing from advanced and affectionate vaisnavas who share the same object in worship. Srila Narayana Maharaja is one of the last great acaryas in this world who was very close to Prabhupada, whom Prabhupada begged to help his disciples. Who will be there after him who is ready to give us so much? We don't have to agree with all ways his disciples behave or his mission is build, but what is the harm in respecting and hearing from such a great soul? What is the harm in honoring and paying obeisances to such a vaisnava?

One of the most dangerous aspects of "taking shelter" of these erudite scholars of Vaisnava literature is that they can spontaneously quote or recite facts and pastimes from sources far beyond the experience of most disciples or followers of Srila Prabhupada. Of course, they seldom quote from Srila Prabhupada's books.

I am not stating that Srila Prabhupada was against his disciples taking Siksa, either before or after his departure. In my writings, I went to elaborate detail in an effort to clarify exactly what I am aiming at. Whatever you read, it seems that you chose to ignore it. Within Srila Prabhupada's pre-samadhi ISKCON, the Siksa guru concept was the very backbone of the organization. Sannyasis, GBC, Temple Presidents, senior disciples and responsible authorities within temples, such as Sankirtan leaders, head pujaris, head cooks, temple commanders, etc. acted as Siksa. Srila Prabhupada was very strict about the member's adherence to principles concerning Siksa disciples showing the proper respect and obedience towards what were essentially their Siksa gurus.

At the same time, one underlining prerequisite was understood: that anyone within ISKCON holding and enjoying any authority had to display complete and exclusive allegiance to the founder Acarya, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. Anyone or anything that was contrary or challenging to the ultimate authority, Srila Prabhupada, was quickly corrected or excluded. This rule was followed despite the apparent need some displayed to go outside the society for what they perceived as higher or further instruction. It wasn't that Srila Prabhupada was 100% insular in all matters, but if he perceived that the authority/siksa was attempting to diminish, undermine or not appreciate Srila Prabhupada, then he forbade that relationship. Thus the decree to stay away from his Godbrothers.

Srila Prabhupada saw himself as both the founder-Acarya and the diksa guru in a particular spiritual position that held a high degree of responsibility for initiated disciples and followers alike. This was the boundary set by Srila Prabhupada on taking siksa. His Godbrothers fell outside those parameters and therefore, we were forbidden to go there. I agree that this circumstance raises a challenge for some in light of their understanding of tradition and Shastric decrees, but as disciples we are obliged to put Srila Prabhupada's orders ahead of such directions. After all, it is the Guru who interprets the proper application of Shastra, what to speak of tradition.

You suggest that I should ask BV Narayana Maharaja directly about my concerns, but I am in no position to challenge him. It seems that out of all his supporters, you are the only one who has stepped forward to address my issues. It doesn't take much imagination to envision what would become of me if I stood-up in a public arena and challenged him face to face. It would be a life threatening experience, especially knowing that there will be many more fanatical sycophants like you in attendance. By the same token, I have written about the BV Narayana Maharaja and Gaudiya Matha Godbrothers on many occasions, giving ample opportunity for the Maharaja himself, or his senior followers, to engage me in discussion. They obviously aren't interested in doing so.

Why not asking him directly all these questions you had instead of writing your own challenging article and putting it on Chakra? Are we in the position to challenge a Vaisnava as Srila Narayana Maharaja?

In the comments above, we witness the audacity of mood of BV Narayana Maharaja, as expressed by his enthusiastic follower. We require Narayana Maharaja's association because Srila Prabhupada cannot raise us past the kanistha platform. Trnad api sunicena, indeed. This attitude is the antithesis of humility. The great Bestower of manjari-bhava is walking among us. Join the BV Narayana Gopi Bhava club! Srila Prabhupada didn't or couldn't give us the meanings of the mantras in all his writings! Our devotional service to Srila Prabhupada is only "intellectual work", and therefore useless. BV Narayana Maharaja is our only hope for salvation!

Do we know him really or do we only think that we know him. What is our standard? Do we practice properly what Srila Prabhupada gave us? Do we practice Trnad api sunicena? Are we on the platform of nisthita-bhajan, ruci, asakti or even bhava? Do we know what is the meaning of the mantras we have received from Prabhupada? Only saying Prabhupada, Prabhupada, Prabhupada like a machine will not help us even if we build so many golden shrines for him, so many temples, etc. All our intellectual work will not help us at the time of death. We have to come out from the kanistha-platform and advance.

This diatribe stands as witness to the emotional, neophyte nature of the personality Krsna dasa, who has supposedly been "saved" by taking shelter of the illustrious BV Narayana Maharaja. Your verbiage clearly demonstrates your annoying tendency to resort to non-philosophical exaggeration. Whether you actually believe the hype or are simply employing a dishonest debate technique, I'm not sure. I repeat that I have no group. I do not despise those members of other Vaisnava camps, nor have I declared perpetual war on anyone. I simply disagree with you about the same fundamental issues that Srila Prabhupada disagreed with his Godbrothers on. They remained friends who agreed to disagree. It's you and your fanatical attachment to your siksa gurus that is blowing everything out of proportion. You are basing your words and actions on a hypothesis. I'm under no illusion that I will ever persuade you to forgo your deeply rooted viewpoints. However, I feel it necessary to give the readers here in the Blog the benefit of hearing arguments from the opposing side. Considering the tone of our exchange, I doubt very much whether you would continue to extend the welcome mat to me if the shoe was on the other foot, and I were posting such comments in your virtual asrama.

But unfortunately, We never heard anything like manjari-bhava! He is different, perhaps sahajiya! As Jesus warned his disciples from devious religious cults, Prabhupada warned us against sahajiyas! Better is stick to Prabhupada! I am on the safe side! I AM at least the best! I have the x ray vision and see everything clearly, the ISKCON conspiracy, the Gaudiya matha, my intelligence knows no bounds, i am the centre and my wife and children celebrating me. I am the hero during long drawn speeches after dinner when i am on the phone with an old friend from good ol days who praises my views as brilliant, what can be more of a testamony of my greatness. In ISKCON, in ISKCON, in ISKCON, as a Brahmacarie, as a Brahmacarie, as a Brahmacarie, Prabhupada, Prabhupada, Prabhupada.

For those of us who have long-held beliefs, and who have reposed their love and faith in a particular relationship for many years now, as it appears you and I both have, I don't expect to see any change. But for those who are still investigating the alternatives, perhaps these discussions will shed some light on the principle points. Ultimately, we are forced to make our own choices. The path I'm pointing to may at first appear more difficult than the traditional Indian style "one guru-one ashram" scenario.

"He lives forever by His Divine instructions, and the follower lives with Him"
Preface to Srila Prabhupada's 1962 Bhagavatam

"Yes I am so glad that your center is doing so well and all the devotees are now appreciating the presence of their spiritual master by following his instructions, although he is no longer physically present. This is the right spirit."

Letter to Karandhara 13 September 1970

There are plenty of siksa gurus who are 100% loyal to Srila Prabhupada and who do not demand complete surrender, as does the "siksa guru" we find you following, Krsna dasa. All the hype over having to take diksa/siksa from the living guru before spiritual advancement can begin and be maintained is bogus and politically motivated. Srila Prabhupada waited 10 years to take diksa, and his Guru Maharaja is/was an obvious nitya siddha, uttama adhikari. Waiting or preparing for a lifetime should be no real problem for a sincere seeker. Srila Prabhupada is certainly not spiritually dead, and personally resides somewhere, what to speak of in the hearts of his true disciples, in his books, recorded lectures, conversations, letters, etc. We just have to become, in this lifetime or perhaps the next, purified enough to personally join him there.

Strangely enough, you ended your posting by writing:

I appreciate Shiva Dasas last article, he brings relevant points from sastra and looks towards the essence. Dear Rocana, I hope you don't take offense from what I write Do you agree with this statements made on this blog by Shiva dasa!

Shiva dasa wrote:

Shiva dasa also wrote:

I used the word "holistic" to contrast with the manjari bhava centric teaching style we find among most of Bhaktisiddhanta Gaudiya's outside of Prabhupada's influence. Prabhupada gave the correct "holistic" vision of rasa, while most of the rest are [in my opinion] misguiding and misguided in their single minded focus on presenting Gaudiya siddhanta as exclusively about trying to become a manjari. They constantly preach and relate the idea that Gaudiya siddhanta's sole concern is in trying to teach everyone how to follow the practices that will reveal their manjari swarupa.

And, he wrote this:

And this:

What they do is imply that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami was not even a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta, but instead they mention Kesava Maharaja as one. And then they imply that A.C Bhaktivedanta is a disciple of Kesava Maharaja. Taking sannyasa from a Godbrother was what A.C Bhaktivedanta did, he did not become a disciple of Kesava Maharaja. The poem implies that Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja are Godbrothers, and that Prabhupada is Kesava's disciple, not Bhaktisiddhanta's. And then they call Narayana Maharaja the "most dear" to Kesava Maharaja. This sums up their mentality. They slickly misuse words to imply and relegate Srila Prabhupada as being a disciple of his own Godbrother so they can make it seem like Narayana Maharaja is Prabhupada's Godbrother, and that Narayana Maharaja is "more dear" to their Guru Kesava Maharaja, thereby we end up with Narayana Maharaja as superior to Srila Prabhupada.
Clearly this is meant to fool people who don't know the real story.
Why ?
$$Ka-Ching$$

So Krsna dasa, which of these comments from Shiva dasa do you feel best bring "relevant points from sastra" that look "towards the essence"?

In closing, thanks for allowing us to experience the mind and words of a "saved" BV Narayana Maharaj follower. I'm afraid I conclude that you are a very poor emissary for your group and cause. Try studying the teachings of the genuine Sampradaya Acaryas.

please accept my pranams, all glories to Srila Prabhupada, all glories to Sri Guru-parampara!

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 12/16/2004 11:50 AM PST

Dear Rocana Prabhu,

Please excuse if i have comitted any offense or pierced your heart in my last posting. Again you want to know my position, but what is so important about my position? I was initiated by Srila Prabhupada in 1971. Since 76 i live in Amsterdam.
Sri Hayesvara Prabhu was an old friend of mine. Through him i came first time in contact with the books of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. I also had the good fortune to have the association of our worshipable superior godbrother Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja. In 1996 in Prabhupadas cenntenial year, after his disappearance Srila Narayana Maharaja started to travel the globe and he also came to Holland, since then i try to associate as often as possible and hear from him. Nowadays i feel very happy. Even though some godbrothers want to tell that i left Srila Prabhupada i do not feel so at all.
I remember him always and enjoy his association through my siksa-gurus who are manifestations of his mercy. In association of Srila Narayana Maharaja i feel Srila Prabhupadas presence very strongly, the same energy. And i learned to reconcile, harmonize so many points in Prabhupadas books which seemed to be contradictory in the beginning.
You may call me a fanatic but i think i am not fanatic. I know many who speak like you and share the same viewpoints on Srila Narayana Maharaja including ISKCONs Gurus, Rtviks and some of the Gaudiya Matha and Paramadvaiti preachers. They oppose and envy Srila Narayana Maharaja...

From Srila Prabhupada:

NOI, P. 64

...yes, history repeats itself.

I tried my level best to understand you guys but sorry there is no way that i can accept your school of thought. The concepts of initiation and continuity of parampara is not given by Srila Prabhupada or sastra. I personally feel that your concepts are selfmade out of fear to surrender to a living guru. Many so called disciples did whatever they want during Prabhupadas manifested pastimes and they did so afterwards, they are always independent in their day to day dealings and cannot tolerate that their independent moves will be restricted by the sharp knife of sastric injunctions and discipline from superior guidance. Nowadays everybody takes whatever he deems fit for him self from Prabhupadas books thinking himself a bonafide reader. I will not critizise anybody but i will never be ready to accept such a guru-bhogi and guru-tyagi attitude.
You said that the concept of taking siksa was there in ISKCON too but you must also know that when Krsna himself manifests as siksa guru then this siksa-guru is pure and non-different, on the same level or higher in realisation then the diksa-guru. And at least when you come to stages of asakti and bhava you will need a bhajan-siksa guru who is qualified for that who will help you advance. Again and again and again GURU IS ONE AND NOT MANY. Please try to understand this, it is Srila Prabhupadas teaching. I appreciated that Shiva dasa brought at least this point.
That vani, following the instruction of the guru is the backbone of vapu, is clear. Without serving and surrender ones direct darsana and hearing will have not much effect on the heart of the listener. But to say that vapu is not so important is a very strange phenomena. Srila Prabhupada certainly said that we have his association by vani, but it is not the same as the power vapu has. Dear Rocana Prabhu, when Srila Prabhupada would be amongst us in your house giving Bhagavatam class in the living room, would you sit down in the kitchen and read the Bhagavatam there, saying it`s the same and of same value as direct hearing? Come on, our rememberances of direct association with Srila Prabhupada are jewels in our lives nowadays and rasayanas in difficult times. We had that wonderful experience and we are so proud of it. Why should we say that no body can have the experience with a living pure devotee nowadays and that sincere seekers will find no living pure spiritual master for the next ten thousand years? This is nowhere supported by sastra and Srila Prabhupada never said in his Books that he his the only and the last one! Please show me evidence from sastra where Srila Prabhupada said that he is the ultra- extraordinary only guru, transcendentally higher then everybody else even higher then his guru-parampara. When you don´t find quotes in sastra then please tell me why you think so.

Will you say that nowadays everything depends on electricity? One day i visited the Calcutta-ISKCON Rtvik temple two years ago. It was sunday and after Kirtan they put an old tv on the vyasasana and tried to manage showing a video of Srila Prabhupada, because these days they only showed videos instead of live class. So of course the electricity didnt work as most of the time in india. Finally they brought the tv out, started Gaura-Arati and distributed Prasadam, without reading or any hari-katha. Is this the meaning of Prabhupadanuga? I think only following externally, only saying Srila Prabhupada is the Standards, the management, the structure, the life-membership, the style and so on is not very high glorification of Srila Prabhupada. Most of the temples and externals do not even exist anymore, does that mean Prabhupada dissapeared?
Srila Narayana Maharaja is glorifying Srila Prabhupada to the maximum degree speaking of him very respectfully, dedicating all his preaching to him. He glorifies him in length and breath as topmost servant of Srila Rupa Gosvami, as transcendental maha-purusa very near and dear to Srimati Radhika, who was send by her to this world for the very special task of giving what Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu came to give, to the whole world. He does not disrespect Srila Prabhupada in any way and does not minimize him in any way. When he says that Srila Prabhupada could not give everything he means that we, his disciples were not ready at that time to receive, he never says that Prabhupada was unable to give the highest realisations.
From my experience with Srila Prabhupada, Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja it is clear that without guidance you cannot read Srila Prabhupadas Books on your own and draw the right conclusions out of them. The purports of the acaryas are sabda-brahma transcendental sound and not ink on paper. One has to receive this transcendental sound vibration being submissive, surrendered and ask relevant inquiry. This ettiquette to receive the absolute truth must be followed under anugatya in sadhu-sanga, meaning constant guidance by somebody who is more advanced then oneself. Then the descending process will work.
Would you kindly explain to me how do the "only Prabhupada" people think initiations should take place nowadays? When you meet a new person who wants to be a devotee and be initiated, what do you tell him to do? Will you say read only Prabhupadas Books and you are initiated? And when he wants to ask his then so called diksa-guru Srila Prabhupada questions, what should he do? Talking to a book? Or pray looking towards the clouds waiting for an answer? When he wants to have special experiences and direct association with Srila Prabhupada what should he do? Watching a set of Videos? All this is not guru-tattva.

Anyhow, there are many points that i would like to show you in connection with your postings and whole webpage but it will take so much time, i am also not sure if you are anyhow interested in knowing. You said that when you would challenge Srila Narayana Maharaja directly that it would be live threatening for you and so on. Of course devotees like you who have come in a challenging mood do not always receive a satisfying answer, because they do not ask submissivly, even when Krsna would come personally himself He could not make them understand because they have an inappropriate, challenging mood. Really they dont want to know, they simply show off. Absolute Truth cannot be received in such a way.
One has to be humble and unprejudiced in front of a sadhu otherwise true knowledge cannot be received. Even though you may come in an doubting or sceptical mood, when you are sincere and open for the truth then for sure you will receive all help and love, from the whole party of Srila Narayana Maharaja because he is our well wisher and not an enemy. To Kamsa Krishna looked like death personified, so it depends on you.

I will send another post immediatly giving you all evidence from Srila Prabhupadas Books (from an old article on the internet). I hope Vaisnavas visiting this page will take time to reflect upon these quotes from sastra deeply.

Thank you,

Hare Krishna

Aspiring to serve Hari, guru and vaisnavas

Krsna-krpa das

Posted by Krsna das @ 12/17/2004 09:11 AM PST

[Editors Note: Krsna dasa posted an article originally published in VNN on September 06, 1998 by Sridham sakha dasa entitled "Personality Cultism is Anti-Vaisnava". We have deleted the text from the blog to keep this long thread manageable. The article may be viewed in its entirety here: "Personality Cultism is Anti-Vaisnava". The following text was appended to the end of Krsna dasa's posting.]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Shortly after the physical disappearance of Srila
Bhaktivinode Thakura, some of his disciples were of the
opinion that they could continue to make spiritual
advancement by reference to his teachings alone. However,
this is against siddhanta, and therefore Srila Bhaktisiddhanta
Saraswati wrote the following paper to draw attention to their
deviation. I think that its correlation with the current world
vaisnava situation is obvious enough to forgo any need of
pointing it out. I am posting it at the same time as my paper
"Personality Cultism Is Anti-Vaisnava", because I have used
some material from it:

THAKUR BHAKTIVINODE

We avail of the opportunity offered by the Anniversary
Celebrations of the advent of Thakur Bhaktivinode to reflect
on the right method of obtaining those benefits that have
been made accessible to humanity by the grace of this great
devotee of Krishna. Thakur Bhaktivinode has been
specifically kind to those unfortunate persons who are
engrossed in mental speculation of all kinds. This is the
prevalent malady of the present Age. The other Acaryas who
appeared before Thakur Bhaktivinode did not address their
discourses so directly to the empiric thinkers. They had been
more merciful to those who are naturally disposed to listen to
discourses on the Absolute without being dissuaded by the
specious arguments of avowed opponents of Godhead.

Srila Thakur Bhaktivinode has taken the trouble of meeting
the perverse arguments of mental speculationists by the
superior transcendental logic of the Absolute Truth. It is thus
possible for the average modern readers to profit by the
perusal of his writings. That day is not far distant when the
priceless volumes penned by Thakur Bhaktivinode will be
reverently translated, by the recipients of his grace, into all
the languages of the world.

The writings of Thakur Bhaktivinode provide the golden
bridge by which the mental speculationist can safely cross
the raging waters of fruitless empiric controversies that
trouble the peace of those who choose to trust in their
guidance for finding the Truth. As soon as the sympathetic
reader is in a position to appreciate the sterling quality of
Thakur Bhaktivinode's philosophy the entire vista of the
revealed literatures of the world will automatically open out to
his reclaimed vision.

There have, however, already arisen serious
misunderstandings regarding the proper interpretation of the
life and teachings of Srila Thakur Bhaktivinode. Those who
suppose they understand the meaning of his message
without securing the guiding grace of the Acarya are
disposed to unduly favour the methods of empiric study of his
writings. There are persons who have got by heart almost
everything that he wrote without being able to catch the least
particle of his meaning. Such study cannot benefit those who
are not prepared to act up to the instructions lucidly conveyed
by his words. There is no honest chance of missing the
warnings of Thakur Bhaktivinode. Those, therefore, who are
misled by the perusal of his writings are led astray by their
own obstinate perversity in sticking to the empiric course
which they prefer to cherish against his explicit warnings. Let
these unfortunate persons look more carefully into their own
hearts for the cause of their misfortunes.

The personal service of the pure devotee is essential for
understanding the spiritual meaning of the words of Thakur
Bhaktivinode. The Editor of this Journal, originally started by
Thakur Bhaktivinode, has been trying to draw the attention of
all followers of Thakur Bhaktivinode to this all-important point
of his teachings. It is not necessary to try to place ourselves
on a footing of equality with Thakur Bhaktivinode. We are not
likely to benefit by any mechanical imitation of any practices
of Thakur Bhaktivinode on the opportunist principle that they
may be convenient for us to adopt. The Guru is not an erring
mortal whose activities can be understood by the fallible
reason of unreclaimed humanity. There is an eternally
impassable line of demarcation between the Saviour and the
saved. Those who are really saved can alone know
this.Thakur Bhaktivinode belongs to the category of the
spiritual world-teachers who eternally occupy the superior
position.

The present Editor has all along felt it his paramount duty to
try to clear up the meaning of the life and teachings of Thakur
Bhaktivinode by the method of submissive listening to the
Transcendental Sound from the lips of the pure devotee. The
Guru who realises the transcendental meaning of all sounds,
is in a position to serve the Absolute by the direction of the
Absolute conveyed through every sound. The Transcendental
Sound is Godhead, the mundane sound is non-Godhead. All
sound has got these opposite aptitudes. All sound reveals its
Divine face to the devotee and only presents its deluding
aspect to the empiric pedant. The devotee talks apparently
the same language as the deluded empiric pedant who had
got by heart the vocabulary of the Scriptures. But
notwithstanding apparent identity of performance, the one
has no access to the reality while the other is absolutely free
from all delusion.

Those who repeat the teachings of Thakur Bhaktivinode from
memory do not necessarily understand the meaning of the
words they mechanically repeat. Those who can pass an
empiric examination regarding the contents of his writings
are not necessarily also self-realised souls. They may not at
all know the real meaning of the words they have learnt by the
method of empiric study.Take for example the Name
"Krishna". Every reader of Thakur Bhaktivinode's works must
be aware that the Name manifests Himself on the lips of His
serving devotees although He is inaccessible to our
mundane senses. It is one thing to pass the examination by
reproducing this true conclusion from the writings of Thakur
Bhaktivinode and quite another matter to realise the Nature
of the Holy Name of Krishna by the process conveyed by the
words.

Thakur Bhaktivinode did not want us to go to the clever
mechanical reciter of the mundane sound for obtaining
access to the Transcendental Name of Krishna. Such a
person may be fully equipped with all the written arguments in
explanation of the nature of the Divine Name. But if we listen
to all these arguments from the dead source the words will
only increase our delusion. The very same words coming
from the lips of the devotee will have the diametrically
opposite effect. Our empiric judgment can never grasp the
difference between the two performances. The devotee is
always right. The non-devotee in the shape of the empiric
pedant is always and necessarily wrong. In the one case
there is always present the Substantive Truth and nothing but
the Substantive Truth. In the other case there is present the
apparent or misleading hypothesis and nothing but un-truth.
The wording may have the same external appearance in both
cases. The identical verses of the Scriptures may be recited
by the devotee and the non-devotee, may be apparently
misquoted by the non-devotee but the corresponding values
of the two processes remain always categorically different.
The devotee is right even when he apparently misquotes, the
non-devotee is wrong even when he quotes correctly the very
words, chapter and verse of the Scriptures.

It is not empiric wisdom that is the object of quest of the
devotee. Those who read the scriptures for gathering empiric
wisdom will be pursuing the wild goose chase. There are not
a few dupes of their empiric Scriptural erudition. These
dupes have their admiring under-dupes. But the mutual
admiration society of dupes does not escape, by the mere
weight of their number, the misfortunes due to the deliberate
pursuit of the wrong course in accordance with the
suggestions of our lower selves.

What are the Scriptures? They are nothing but the record by
the pure devotees of the Divine Message appearing on the
lips of the pure devotees. The Message conveyed by the
devotees is the same in all ages. The words of the devotees
are ever identical with the Scriptures. Any meaning of the
Scriptures that belittles the function of the devotee who is the
original communicant of the Divine Message contradicts its
own claim to be heard. Those who think that the Sanskrit
language in its lexicographical sense is the language of the
Divinity are as deluded as those who hold that the Divine
Message is communicable through any other spoken
dialects. All languages simultaneously express and hide the
Absolute. The mundane face of all languages hides the Truth.
The Transcendental face of all sound expresses nothing but
the Absolute. The pure devotee is the speaker of the
Transcendental language. The Transcendental Sound makes
His appearance on the lips of His pure devotee. This is the
direct, unambiguous appearance of Divinity. On the lips of
non-devotees the Absolute always appears in His deluding
aspect. To the pure devotee the Absolute reveals Himself
under all circumstances. To the conditioned soul, if he is
disposed to listen in a truly submissive spirit, the language of
the pure devotee can alone impart the knowledge of the
Absolute. The conditioned soul mistakes the deluding for the
real aspect when he chooses to lend his ear to the
non-devotee. This is the reason why the conditioned soul is
warned to avoid all association with non-devotees.

Thakur Bhaktivinode is acknowledged by all his sincere
followers as possessing the above powers of the pure
devotee of Godhead. His words have to be received from the
lips of a pure devotee. If his words are listened from the lips
of a non-devotee they will certainly deceive. If his works are
studied in the light of one's own worldly experience their
meaning will refuse to disclose itself to such readers. His
works belong to the class of the eternal revealed literature of
the world and must be approached for their right
understanding through their exposition by the pure devotee. If
no help from the pure devotee is sought the works of Thakur
Bhaktivinode will be grossly misunderstood by their readers.
The attentive reader of those works will find that he is always
directed to throw himself upon the mercy of the pure devotee
if he is not to remain unwarrantably self-satisfied by the
deluding results of his wrong method of study.

The writings of Thakur Bhaktivinode are valuable because
they demolish all empiric objections against accepting the
only method of approaching the Absolute in the right way.
They cannot and were never intended to give access to the
Absolute without help from the pure devotee of Krishna. They
direct the sincere enquirer of the Truth, as all the revealed
scriptures do, to the pure devotee of Krishna to learn about
Him by submitting to listen with an open mind to the
Transcendental Sound appearing on His lips. Before we
open any of the books penned by Thakur Bhaktivinode we
should do well to reflect a little on the attitude, with which as
the indispensable pre-requisite, to approach its study. It is by
neglecting to remember this fundamental principle that the
empiric pedants find themselves so hopelessly puzzled in
their vain endeavour to reconcile the statements of the
different texts of the Scriptures. The same difficulty is already
in process of overtaking many of the so-called followers of
Thakur Bhaktivinode and for the same reason.

The person to whom the Acarya is pleased to transmit his
power is alone in a position to convey the Divine Message.
This constitutes the underlying principle of the line of
succession of the spiritual teachers. The Acarya thus
authorised has no other duty than that of delivering intact the
message received from all his predecessors. There is no
difference between the pronouncements of one Acarya and
another. All of them are perfect mediums for the appearance
of the Divinity in the Form of the Transcendental Name Who
is identical with His Form, Quality, Activity and
Paraphernalia.

The Divinity is Absolute Knowledge. Absolute Knowledge
has the character of indivisible Unity. One particle of the
Absolute Knowledge is capable of revealing all the potency
of the Divinity. Those who want to understand the contents of
the volumes penned by the piece-meal acquisitive method
applicable to deluding knowledge available to the mind on
the mundane plane, are bound to be self-deceived. Those
who are sincere seekers of the Truth are alone eligible to find
Him, in and through the proper method of His quest.

In order to be put on the track of the Absolute, listening to the
words of the pure devotee is absolutely necessary. The
spoken word of the Absolute is the Absolute. It is only the
Absolute Who can give Himself away to the constituents of
His power. The Absolute appears to the listening ear of the
conditioned soul in the form of the Name on the lips of the
sadhu. This is the key to the whole position. The words of
Thakur Bhaktivinode direct the empiric pedant to discard his
wrong method and inclination on the threshold of the real
quest of the Absolute. If the pedant still chooses to carry his
errors into the Realm of the Absolute Truth he only marches
by a deceptive bye-path into the regions of darker ignorance
by his arrogant study of the scriptures. The method offered by
Thakur Bhaktivinode is identical with the object of the quest.
The method is not really grasped except by the grace of the
pure devotee. The arguments, indeed, are these. But they
can only corroborate, but can never be a substitute for, the
word from the living source of the Truth who is no other than
the pure devotee of Krishna, the concrete Personal Absolute.

Thakur Bhaktivinode's greatest gift to the world consists in
this; that he has brought about the appearance of those pure
devotees who are, at present, carrying on the movement of
unalloyed devotion to the Feet of Shree Krishna by their own
wholetime spiritual service of the Divinity. The purity of the
soul is only analogously describable by the resources of the
mundane language. The highest ideal of empiric morality is
no better than the grossest wickedness to the
Transcendental perfect purity of the bonafide devotee of the
Absolute. The word 'morality' itself is a mischievous
misnomer when it is applied to any quality of the conditioned
soul. The hypocritical contentment with a negative attitude is
part and parcel of the principle of undiluted immorality.

Those who pretend to recognise the Divine Mission of
Thakur Bhaktivinode without aspiring to the unconditional
service of those pure souls who really follow the teachings of
the Thakur by the method enjoined by the scriptures and
explained by Thakur Bhaktivinode in a way that is so
eminently suited to the requirements of the sophisticated
mentality of the present Age, only deceive themselves and
their willing victims by their hypocritical professions and
performances. These persons must not be confounded with
the bonafide members of the flock.

Thakur Bhaktivinode has predicted the consummation of
religious unity of the world by the appearance of the only
universal church which bears the eternal designation of the
Brahma Sampradaya. He has given mankind the blessed
assurance that all Theistic churches will shortly merge in the
one eternal spiritual community by the grace of the Supreme
Lord Shree Krishna Chaitanya. The spiritual community is not
circumscribed by the conditions of time and space, race and
nationality. Mankind had been looking forward to this far-off
Divine Event through the Long Ages. Thakur Bhaktivinode
has made the conception available in its practicable spiritual
form to the open minded empiricist who is prepared to
undergo the process of enlightenment. The key stone of the
Arch has been laid which will afford the needed shelter to all
awakened animation under its ample encircling arms. Those
who would thoughtlessly allow their hollow pride of race,
pseudo-knowledge or pseudo-virtue to stand in the way of
this long hoped for consummation, would have to thank only
themselves for not being incorporated in the spiritual society
of all pure souls.

These plain words need not be misrepresented, by arrogant
persons who are full of the vanity of empiric ignorance, as the
pronouncements of aggressive sectarianism. The
aggressive pronouncement of the concrete Truth is the crying
necessity of the moment for silencing the aggressive
propaganda of specific untruths that is being carried on all
over the world by the preachers of empiric contrivances for
the amelioration of the hard lot of conditioned souls. The
empiric propaganda clothes itself in the language of negative
abstraction for deluding those who are engrossed in the
selfish pursuit of worldly enjoyment.

But there is a positive and concrete function of the pure soul
which should not be perversely confounded with any utilitarian
form of worldly activity. Mankind stands in need of that
positive spiritual function of which the hypocritical
impersonalists are in absolute ignorance. The positive
function of the soul harmonises the claims of extreme
selfishness with those of extreme self-abnegation in the
society of pure souls even in this mundane world. In its
concrete realisable form the function is perfectly inaccessible
to the empiric understanding. Its imperfect and misleading
conception alone is available by the study of the Scriptures to
the conditioned soul that is not helped by the causeless
grace of the pure devotees of Godhead.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura,
The Harmonist, December 1931, vol. XXIX No.6

Posted by Krsna das @ 12/17/2004 09:21 AM PST

Krsna das prabhu, I am afraid all of your preaching in the last two posts were based on a misunderstanding of Rocana Prabhu's position.

He is not a ritvikvada.

He does not preach that Srila Prabhupada is the only way.

His concept is what he calls the "Sampradaya Acarya".

This concept is that the parampara is inspired at different times by specially empowered Acaryas. He does not preach that Srila Prabhupada is and will be the last one for the next 10,000 years.

The Ritvikvadas preach that only Srila Prabhupada can initiate disciples for eternity within Iskcon.

Rocana teaches that until the next "Sampradaya Acarya" becomes manifest, Srila Prabhupada's methodology and style of preaching is the standard to which all should try and follow.

If I am not wrong, He is not saying that you cannot take diksa or siksa from other Vaisnavas. He is saying that the Sampradaya Acarya is the most relevant teacher of his times. He compares Srila Prabhupada to the names in the Guru Parampara.

There were many vaisnavas not named in the Guru Parampara who intiate and have siksa disciples. But the names on that list Rocana calls Sampradaya Acaryas.

They are specially empowered to teach the best form or method of preaching for their particular time, place and circumstance.

Rocana does not say Srila Prabhupada will be the last one.

So whether you agree with this concept or not, it is not the ideology that you seem to think he propounds.

He does not say only Prabhupada for all time. He says that Prabhupada's style is the best for these times.

Rocana's attitude towards Srila Narayana Maharaja has to do with what Srila Prabhupada said about his godbrothers, and what He sees as Narayana Maharaja's deviations.

I don't think he just rejects anyone but Srila Prabhupada. He rejects specific persons for specific reasons.

Even though I have made criticism of Srila Narayana Maharaja, it is only because of things he has said and done.

I enjoy reading what he has to say sometimes. But not always. In my view he makes a common mistake among many of the followers of Sri Caitanya.

Outside of the followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura there are a great many people who consider themselves devotees of Sri Nitai Gauranga.

They are mostly intent on trying to discover their manjari swarupa.

They for the most part regard the line starting with Bhaktisiddhanta to be bogus. They regard Bhaktisiddhnata's treatment of them to be a sign of his being an apostate.

What was the big squabble about ?

Bhaktisiddhanta was against the syle of their Sadhana and their presentation of Mahaprabhus teachings.

Bhaktisiddhanta taught that the path of Sadhana Bhakti in the line of the 6 Goswamis is meant to be taught in a certain way. He believed that the many Babajis etc, who were accepting disciples and preaching, were teaching improperly.

They were intent on preaching a manjari bhava centric ideology. They would initate a person into his manjari swarupa and give that person a type of lila smaranam to meditate on. They would teach this to neophytes. All of the their teaching was centered on relating everything to the concept of manjari bhava. They taught that the best thing to do is to live in a holy dham and practice bhajan by meditating on ones manjari swarupa.

Bhaktisiddhanta considered all of that to be improper.

He taught the original teachings concerning rasa, and concerning the discovery of one's siddha deha, one's perfected form in the pastimes of Sri Radha Krishna.

He claimed that those Babajis and Caste Goswamis etc, they were all deviating from the original teachings.

This is a complicated issue but has mainly to do with the presentation of Sadhana Bhakti and the teachings about rasa and manjari bhava.

To this day those outside of Bhaktisiddhanta's line criticize us as being apostates because we do not accept their manjari centric, lila smaranam centric, siddha deha centric ideology.

The teachings of Mahaprabhu and the 6 Goswamis presented an ideology of a variety of eternal bhavas and rasas. The practice of Sadhana Bhakti is not concerned with those things. In their teachings, by the practice of Sadhana Bhakti, one's natural inclination to follow in the footsteps of a resident of Vraja, ones natural inclination to relate to Radha Krishna in a specific Bhava and Rasa, will spontaneously manifest.

That is what Sri Caitanya taught. That is what Bhaktisiddhanta taught, that is what Bhaktivedanta taught.

They did not try and present Gaudiya tattva as being exclusively about manjari bhava. That is a big mistake if one were to do that. That is the main reason Bhaktisiddhanta is considered to be an apostate by the Babajis and many others.

Presenting Gaudiya tattva in a manjari centric method, is improper. It is not the original method taught by Sri Caitanya to Sri Rupa and Sri Sanatana.

The manjari bhava centric ideology crept gradually into the Gaudiya world after the departure of the 6 Goswamis. Gradually it displaced the original teachings in popularity.

Bhaktivinoda started to change things. But Bhaktisiddhanta was the one who really drew a line in the sand. And ever since there are those who follow Bhaktisiddhanta, and those who consider him an apostate.

The truth is that Bhaktisiddhanta went back to the original teachings before they became changed into a manjari bhava centric, siddha deha centric ideology.

Bhaktivedanta Swami continued in that methodology.

Srila Narayana Maharaja is not.

That is why you can read Jadurani's [Syamarani is her new nickname] statement where she says that Srila Prabhupada gave the ABC's and that Srila Narayana Maharaja is giving the advanced degree.

And also you have echoed that sentiment in your post above. you said that Srila Prabhupada of course knew of the higher tattva, but that he did not feel that anyone was ready to receive it.

This is an amazing conclusion to reach considering that the Caitanya Caritamrta he translated and commented on, is considered to be the advanced degree within the Gaudiya school.

So what are those "advanced" things Srila Narayana Maharaja is teaching that Srila Prabhupad did not ?

He is going back to Pre-Bhaktisiddhanta style preaching.

He is teaching a manjari bhava centric ideology.

That is the so called "advanced degree" he is giving.

Srila Prabhupada wrote all about manjari bhava in his Caitanya Caritamrta. If you read it carefully you will find everything is there.

What Srila Prabhupada did not do is slant the teaching of sthayi bhava and rasa tattva towards manjari bhava.

Narayana Maharaja does do that. That is not teaching "advanced degree". That is teaching improperly.

A Bhakta will naturally be attracted towards a style and mood of service. It is inherent with the Bhakta. Everyone is different. If you teach that everyone should try and realize their manjari swarupa, then your followers will do that.

That is not the proper method when teaching about those topics.

adikara avicara rupanuga kore na
anartha anvita dase rasa siksa deya na

"The followers of Srila Rupa Goswami are never neglectful in assessing any one's spiritual qualifications. The followers of Srila Rupa Goswami never instruct a servant who is engrossed in material impediments about the science of intimate devotional mellows."

na uthiya vrksopari phala dhari tane na
rupanuga krama patha vilopa to kare na

"One should never climb into a tree, grasp the unripe fruits and forcibly pull them off. Similarly, the followers of Srila Rupa Goswami never abolish the initial systematic process of devotional service."

asakta komala sraddhe rasa katha bole na
anadhikarire rase adhikara deya na

"A devotee should never speak on the topics of devotional mellows to one who has weak, pliable faith. A devotee should never attempt to bestow the qualification for rasa upon one who is unqualified to receive it."

svalpa sraddha jane kabhu jata rati mane na
svalpa sraddha jane rasa upadesa kore na

"Those who possess little faith are never recognized as being highly developed in loving devotional attachment. Those who possess little faith are never to be instructed in topics concerning transcendental mellows."

Srila Narayana Maharaja not only disobeys these warnings, he teaches rasa tattva in an un authorized way. He teaches exclusively about manjari bhava.

This is how these topics are supposed to be taught, and as Bhaktisiddhanta warns, the intracacies of these topics are not supposed to be preached to neophytes.

The Caitanya Siksamrta by Bhaktivinoda Thakura:

Then from Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu (1.2.295):

From Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the Cc:

Narayana Maharaja has stated, I have read in a lecture of his, that if a devotee is not in manjari bhava then he is not a Rupanuga.

Since our sampradya is known as the Rupanuga sampradaya, this kind of teaching by Narayana Maharaja is coercing everyone into trying to become manjaris.

That is not the correct teaching of the sampradaya. If you tell your students that the best thing they can be is a manjari, then of course they will all try and see themselves and view their relationship with Radha Krishna in that mentality.

They will naturally want to be a Rupanuga, and they will naturally want to attain the highest position for themselves.

This is why these topics are not to be discussed with neophytes and why they are not to be presented in a manjari bhava centric fashion.

Everyone is different. Everyone is supposed to develop their relationship with Radha Krishna naturally. They will naturally be attracted to a specific Bhava and Rasa.

If you interfere with that process by teaching they are supposed to manjaris, only manjaris are Rupanugas, manjaris, manjaris, manjaris. Then you do a disservice and are not qualified to teach.

This is what is supposed to be taught:

by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami

"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura says that a devotee is attracted by the service of the inhabitants of Vrndavana -- namely the cowherd men, Maharaja Nanda, mother Yasoda, Radharani, the gopis and the cows and calves. An advanced devotee is attracted by the service rendered by an eternal servitor of the Lord. This attraction is called spontaneous attraction. Technically it is called svarupa-upalabdhi. This stage is not achieved in the beginning. In the beginning one has to render service strictly according to the regulative principles set forth by the revealed scriptures and the spiritual master. By continuously rendering service through the process of vaidhi bhakti, one's natural inclination is gradually awakened. That is called spontaneous attraction, or raganuga bhakti."

So your "Advanced degree" is no such thing.

siddhanta vihina hoile krsne citta lage na
sambandha hinera kabhyu abhideya haya na

"Without knowledge of transcendental truth (siddhanta), no one's heart can ever be spiritually attuned with Lord Krishna. If one lacks knowledge of his relationship with Krishna (sambandha), then proper execution of devotional service in relationship to Him (abidheya) is impossible."

If you are being told that you should aspire to be a manjari, and you are not destined for that, then the above warning is given.

sambandha vihina jana prayojana paya na
ku siddhante vyasta jana krsna seva kore na

"One who lacks knowledge of sambandha, the relationship between Krishna and the living entities, can never attain prayojana, the supreme goal of life [namely pure love of Godhead, Krishna prema.] One who is distracted by bogus philosophical conclusions about devotional service (ku-siddhanta) is not performing actual devotional service to Sri Krishna."

mahajana patha chadi navya pathe dhaya na
aparadha saha nama kakhana i haya na

"The followers of Srila Rupa Goswami never leave they path of the great devotees (mahajanas) and run to pursue a "new" path. One who commits offenses can never realize the holy name of Krishna at any time."

anartha thakara kale rasa gana kore na
anartha thakara kale siddhi labdha bole na

"While still contaminated with anarthas, one should never sing songs about the Lord's confidential pastimes. After these impediments are purified (anartha-nivritti), one never speaks of the holy name of Krishna as if it were a mundane sound vibration."

guru mahajana vakye bheda kabhu haya na
sadhanera pathe kanta sad guru deya na

"There can never be any difference between the explanations of the bonafide spiritual master and the teachings of the great devotees (mahajanas). The pure spiritual master never puts thorn-like deterrents on the path of one's execution of practical devotional service (sadhana)."

adikara avicara rupanuga kore na
anartha anvita dase rasa siksa deya na

bhagavata padya bole ku vyakhya to kore na
loka samgragera tare krama patha chade na

"The true devotees of the Lord never reite the verses of Srimad-Bhagavatam and offer bogus interpretations. For the sake of attracting larger numbers of followers, true devotees never abondon the correct systematic practices of devotional service. "

vaidha bhakta jane kaabhu raganuga jane na
komala sraddhake kabhu rasika to jane na

"Devotees who are still on the platform of following regulated scriptural injunctions (vaidha-bhaktas) cannot yet understand anything about the exalted stage of the raganugas, practitioners of spontaneous devotional service. Those who possess weak faith cannot yet understand the realm of the rasikas, relaters of pure transcendental mellows."

svalpa sraddha jane kabhu jata rati mane na
svalpa sraddha jane rasa upadesa kore na

asakta komala sraddhe rasa katha bole na
anadhikarire rase adhikara deya na

rasika bhakata raja kabhu sisya kore na
rasika janera sisya ei bhava chade na

"The highest devotee, who is like a king among the rasikas expert in relishing devotional mellows, never thinks that he has disciples. The student of such a rasika, however, never give up the mood of being the disciples of this exalted devotee."

Posted by shiva das @ 12/17/2004 03:12 PM PST

Dear Krsna dasa Prabhu,

Please accept my pranams. All glories to Srila Prabhupada, all glories to Sri Guru-parampara!

Please don't put yourself in anxiety over "piercing my heart" with nonsensical, offensive talk. Before we proceed further, I would like to enlighten you as to some rules of etiquette in regards to participating in blogs, and writing in general. Firstly, it would be appropriate for you to address the comments and responses I made previously before you begin "shooting from the lip". I suggest you write in a spell-check word processing software. Take some time to go over the content and correct the glaring errors. Secondly, when you feel compelled to post some other article that you yourself haven't written, have the common courtesy to identify the author and title, source and date. The second of your recent posts was in fact written by Sridham sakha dasa, titled "Personality Cultism is Anti-Vaisnava", posted Sept. ‘98 on VNN. Had it not been for the superior writing style and scholarly nature, I would have assume you were the author. Thirdly, I feel it is a sign of both laziness and ridiculousness when someone feels moved to paste in reams of sastric quotes without any personal comments. We all have books and Vedas bases, thanks.

Thanks for sharing the insight into your devotional background. Your initiated name from Srila Prabhupada is Krishna dasa? Your history is also telling. It seems you are a long time active member of the siksa seekers club. Each of us unique spirit souls travels down his or her own chosen path to enlightenment. Of all the "worshipable superior" personalities you listed, which ones did you actually render direct service to for any extended length of time? Did you move to Navadvipa or Orissa or Mathura to live in the asrama of your siksa guru? If not, then I assume that in fact, you only gained their association whenever they infrequently visited your place of residence. What, pray tell, is the difference between that scenario and my reading and hearing from Srila Prabhupada exclusively? Is the quality of the occasional association you experienced with your myriad of siksa gurus qualitatively better than my hearing directly from Srila Prabhupada's books, tapes and associating with my Godbrothers/sisters? Siksa doesn't mean associating with personalities who like to present themselves as great lofty Acaryas.

You wrote:

And I learned to reconcile, harmonize so many points in Prabhupada's books which seemed to be contradictory in the beginning.

That's where we entirely differ in opinion. I suspect that you couldn't or wouldn't surrender to the directions of the true Sampradaya Acarya, your diksa guru Srila Prabhupada. Instead, you went out looking for someone who would not assert the same degree of potent pressure on you. It's Srila Prabhupada who has the "sharpest knife of sastric injunctions and discipline". Srila Prabhupada is the heaviest guru, and as such is pushing you to give-up your material attachments. This is the opposite of your conjecture that your siksa gurus are more intense. As far as I've heard, these siksa gurus you mentioned are known to be far more mellow and compromising with their disciples than our Srila Prabhupada. The contradictions, which you fail to mention specifically, appear to me to be tests of your sincerity to serve and accept Srila Prabhupada. Regardless of which guru you repose your faith in, it is impossible to instantly realize the knowledge offered by the exponents of our exalted tradition.

You should be well aware that this statement is juxtaposed to Srila Prabhupada's teachings. In my case, I did enjoy more direct "vapu" association with Srila Prabhupada than many disciples. Even so, I don't place these moments on a higher spiritual platform than the experience of hearing from Srila Prabhupada from reading his books or even listening to lectures. History proves your theory to be incorrect, as many of those who gained the greatest access to direct association with Srila Prabhupada fell down and in doing so, caused a far greater harm to Srila Prabhupada's movement compared to those who served faithfully in his absence (vani). This also applies to Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati's closest disciples. In fact, Srila Prabhupada only had relatively limited direct physical association and he turned out to be the most important disciple insofar as fulfilling Srila Bhaktisiddhanta desires.

But to say that vapu is not so important is a very strange phenomena. Srila Prabhupada certainly said that we have his association by vani, but it is not the same as the power vapu has.

Please spare us having to read your ridiculous analogies! They are inappropriate and don't illustrate anything. The question remains, what do you do with your life after hearing from the Sampradaya Acarya? We all have to deal with our circumstances as fate hands us our life. Srila Prabhupada very expertly, diligently and dutifully handed the unexpected reality to thousands of young, eager, western born disciples coming forth, willing to learn and serve. He informed us that he was writing his books primarily for the sake of his disciples. All those siksa gurus you mentioned, have they written even a fraction of the number of books that Srila Prabhupada did in such a short period of time? I think not.

Dear Rocana Prabhu, when Srila Prabhupada would be amongst us in your house giving Bhagavatam class in the living room, would you sit down in the kitchen and read the Bhagavatam there, saying it's the same and of same value as direct hearing?

I recall back in the ISKCON lila period, a small cadre of disciples' only self-declared service was to follow Srila Prabhupada around the world. They wouldn't surrender to serve in a temple or in some project as Srila Prabhupada ordered. Instead, they obsessed with the vapu principle being supreme, as you do now. This was an annoying circumstance for Srila Prabhupada to tolerate. It is the same obsessive mentality exhibited by the groupies who follow, surround and hound movie actors and rock stars.

Granted, I have some jewels of remembrances of associating with Srila Prabhupada from that period. In all honestly I prefer that inquisitive persons ask me philosophical questions rather than prod me to recite my remembrances of my pastimes with Srila Prabhupada. I avoid reading all these published popular biographies. I put little credence in their accuracy and find them uninspiring. Even Hari Sauri's Diaries are questionable and imperfect. We are all less than fully realized, and were even more neophyte during that period, so how bonafide are our sentimental remembrances likely to be? What is the spiritual value of "sharing" one's historical memory from those early encounters? The risk is that the reminiscing reciter inadvertently exaggerates in order to amplify their self importance. They run the risk of projecting an incorrect philosophical conclusion based upon an encounter which took place many years ago.

Come on, our remembrances of direct association with Srila Prabhupada are jewels in our lives nowadays and rasayanas in difficult times. We had that wonderful experience and we are so proud of it. Why should we say that no body can have the experience with a living pure devotee nowadays and that sincere seekers will find no living pure spiritual master for the next ten thousand years?

Due to the perceived political need of the leaders, gurus, sannyasis and older disciples to be viewed as intimate associates of Srila Prabhupada, there has been a proliferation of these unverifiable biographies. Personal aggrandizement of the writer rather than of Srila Prabhupada is inevitable. At the same time, the copious biographers have allowed the unflattering biography of Srila Prabhupada known as the Lilamrita by Satsvarupa to stand as ISKCON's official depiction. In reality, this Lilamrita was created as one of many political ploys by the expounders and enjoyers of the Zonal Acarya system. This concocted creation subtly and poisonously projects the Zonals apa-siddhantic conclusions and contributes to their ambitious motivations, which were rooted in deeply envious attitudes towards Srila Prabhupada. All the other Zonal Acarya propaganda has been "officially" refuted and rejected by the GBC of ISKCON, as most of the participants have departed in disgrace. A conscientious historical "cover-up" is trying to put this period behind them. Unfortunately, however, the Lilamrita remains.

As Shiva das kindly informed you, you have me confused with the Rtviks. I am not a Rtvik, and have described my position on that subject in great detail in my paper, Church of Rtvik".

Srila Prabhupada never said in his Books that his only and the last one! Please show me evidence from sastra where Srila Prabhupada said that he is the ultra-extraordinary only guru, transcendentally higher then everybody else even higher then his guru-parampara. When you don't find quotes in sastra then please tell me why you think so.

In response to the rest of your statement above, my reply, taken from my Sampradaya Acarya paper:

Srila Prabhupada writes in the Caitanya-caritamrita, Madhya lila 25:9 Purport:

"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura then comments: "Without being empowered by the direct potency of Lord Krsna to fulfill His desire and without being specifically favored by the Lord, no human being can become the spiritual master of the whole world. He certainly cannot succeed by mental concoction, which is not meant for devotees or religious people. Only an empowered personality can distribute the holy name of the Lord and enjoin all fallen souls to worship Krsna. By distributing the holy name of the Lord, he cleanses the hearts of the most fallen people; therefore he extinguishes the blazing fire of the material world. Not only that, he broadcasts the shining brightness of Krsna's effulgence throughout the world. Such an Acarya, or spiritual master, should be considered non-different from Krsna-that is, he should be considered the incarnation of Lord Krsna's potency. Such a personality is "krsna lingita-vigraha"- that is, he is always embraced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. Such a person is above the considerations of the varnasrama institution. He is the guru or spiritual master for the entire world, a devotee on the topmost platform, the maha-bhagavata stage, and a paramahamsa-thakura, a spiritual form only fit to be addressed as paramahamsa or thakura."

In sastric depictions of Krsna's appearances -- particularly Lord Sri Krsna 5,000 years ago, and Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu 500 years ago -- we find a common theme. Very few of the individuals involved in the lila fully realized, especially philosophically, that these extraordinary personalities were the Supreme Personality of Godhead. How many souls assembled on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra appreciated that Arjuna's chariot driver was God? Lord Caitanya refused to hear mention of his true identity as an incarnation of the Lord. Our Sampradaya Acaryas have mercifully given us their complete vision and deep understanding of The Supreme Personality of Godhead's pastimes. Yet few seem to realize that the same principle applies to the appearance of the nitya-siddha, shaktavesa avatara Sampradaya Acaryas.

Srila Prabhupada made it abundantly clear that he considers his Spiritual Master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, and his divine father, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, to be Sampradaya Acaryas sent by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. All objective evidence points to the fact that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada is situated on the same spiritual platform. Yet from all our established contemporary Vaisnava communities, particularly the Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON, we don't find a commitment to this perspective. I'm not speaking of flowery, sentimental depictions, but of philosophically formulated "creeds" that all members are sworn to uphold.

Understandably, Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers lacked the insight to detect his spiritual status prior to the ISKCON lila period. The unfolding of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur's true identity is quite similar, what to speak of Srila Rupa And Sanatana Goswami. The Sampradaya Acaryas' declaration of the exalted spiritual status of Jagannatha and Gaura Kishora dasa Babjis stands as yet another example. Spiritually preparing oneself to develop the empowered perception in order to precisely identify who are advanced devotees and who are imitations is essential to success.

His Godbrothers denigrated A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami for adopting the honorific title "Srila Prabhupada" -- the same endearment given their exalted Spiritual Master, Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati. This disagreement was exacerbated by Srila Prabhupada's endorsement of non-traditional practices within ISKCON, such as those relating to the worship of the guru: daily elaborate guru-pujas, use of throne-like vyasasana, and allowing his disciples to glorify him in what his Godbrothers considered to be an ostentatious manner. In reality, Srila Prabhupada was finally declaring himself to be the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya that he truly was all along.

Throughout his ISKCON lila, Srila Prabhupada projected a humble persona, giving all credit for his success to his Guru Maharaja. He related to his disciples in the mood of a kind father, thanking them for their sincere efforts, and never abusing his power and opulence. All these factors contributed to the disciples' image of Srila Prabhupada as being the one and only living Sampradaya Acarya. The society-wide reverential mood and daily guru puja practice introduced into ISKCON by Srila Prabhupada reinforced the concept that it was his desire to have his followers view him as a nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya.

Nice little story, but again, I'm not an advocate of the Rtvik-vada concept! I find the described procedures as absurd as you do. Please do not infer that I approve of these ideas or practices.

The perception that you articulate above and carry forth to the public is obviously not shared by all those who have had direct experience of hearing BV Narayana lecture. Others have taken the time to read transcriptions of his lectures and have discovered some disrespect. I for one have concluded that it is simply a waste of my time to attend lectures or read BV Narayana Maharaja's lectures unless they are directly addressing Srila Prabhupada, such as the original lecture that sparked this blog. I consider it a danger to my spiritual advancement to hear from BV Narayana Maharaja. Srila Prabhupada has ordered us all to steer well clear, so I simply obey this order and feel all the better for it. Others, such as our friend on this blog, Shiva dasa, has obviously looked into the teachings in greater detail and has shared his analysis with us all throughout this blog especially in the last post. I concur with his conclusions, cent per cent. He is my siksa guru in this matter.

Srila Narayana Maharaja is glorifying Srila Prabhupada to the maximum degree speaking of him very respectfully, dedicating all his preaching to him. He glorifies him in length and breath as topmost servant of Srila Rupa Gosvami, as transcendental maha-purusa very near and dear to Srimati Radhika, who was send by her to this world for the very special task of giving what Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu came to give, to the whole world. He does not disrespect Srila Prabhupada in any way and does not minimize him in any way. When he says that Srila Prabhupada could not give everything he means that we, his disciples were not ready at that time to receive, he never says that Prabhupada was unable to give the highest realizations.

Srila Prabhupada and sastra have taught us that Paramatma fulfills the living entity's heartfelt desires in every way, including providing them with the guru/teacher they hanker for. Obviously, BV Narayana Maharaja fits your desired needs at this point in your spiritual journey. Who am I to challenge or change that arrangement? You are endowed with divine free will, as are we all. You can't understand why it is that we chose to reject BV Narayana Maharaja and likewise, we can't comprehend why you are so much attracted -- especially considering the simpler, safer alternative of exclusively reposing your loving affection exclusively in the Sampradaya Acarya, Srila Prabhupada.

You have tried to describe in unflattering, elaborate detail the personality types who "enviously" chose to reject and criticize your savior, BV Narayana Maharaja. I will refrain from venturing down the same fault finding road. The various psychological mindsets that cause unchaste disciples to abandon their primary guru and then "fall in love" with their diksa guru's competitor is worth exploring at a future date.

First, the key phrase above is "from my experience", which is personal and doesn't apply to everyone. Secondly, there is vast difference between the teachings and mood of Srila Goura Govinda Maharaja and BV Narayana Maharaja when it comes to glorifying and publicly presenting Srila Prabhupada. I ask you to present some verifiable evidential quote originating from Gour Govinda that can prove to us that he agrees with your statement above concerning everyone requiring guidance while reading Srila Prabhupada's books. In other words, you, as a diksa disciple of Srila Prabhupada, need a siksa guru's "constant guidance" in order to understand Srila Prabhupada's purports. You may feel that you need to submissively surrender in this way, but your decisions and conclusions are just that, your own. Let us also not forget that Caitya guru, known as the Lord of the Heart, Supersoul, or Paramatma, is an active participant in the realization process for the sincere disciple struggling to understand his spiritual master's words, which are not simply "ink on paper".

From my experience with Srila Prabhupada, Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja it is clear that without guidance you cannot read Srila Prabhupada's Books on your own and draw the right conclusions out of them. The purports of the acaryas are sabda-brahma transcendental sound and not ink on paper. One has to receive this transcendental sound vibration being submissive, surrendered and ask relevant inquiry. This etiquette to receive the absolute truth must be followed under anugatya in sadhu-sanga, meaning constant guidance by somebody who is more advanced then oneself. Then the descending process will work.

The abbreviated definition of "initiation" is the admission of a neophyte disciple into the unadulterated philosophical and transcendental mysteries handed down by a succession of past Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya Acaryas. As Srila Prabhupada stated (from my "Sampradaya Acarya" paper):

Would you kindly explain to me how do the "only Prabhupada" people think initiations should take place nowadays? When you meet a new person who wants to be a devotee and be initiated, what do you tell him to do? Will you say read only Prabhupada's Books and you are initiated? And when he wants to ask his then so called diksa-guru Srila Prabhupada questions, what should he do? Talking to a book? Or pray looking towards the clouds waiting for an answer? When he wants to have special experiences and direct association with Srila Prabhupada what should he do? Watching a set of Videos? All this is not guru-tattva.

"Well initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge... knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing."

Srila Prabhupada Press Interview, 10-16-76, Chandigarh

The past Acaryas have established the principle that a sincere candidate can be connected to the Sampradaya via the advanced siksa guru. In fact, one of the distinguishing common features of Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada is that both emphasized and reinforced the concept and principle of siksa guru being as important as diksa.

"Thakura Bhaktivinoda was not official Spiritual Master of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja. Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja was already renounced order, Paramahamsa, but Thakura Bhaktivinoda, while He was even playing the part of a householder, was treated by Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja as Preceptor, on account of His highly elevated spiritual understanding, and thus He was always treating Him as His Spiritual Master. The Spiritual Master is divided into two parts; namely, siksa guru and diksa guru. So officially Bhaktivinoda Thakura was like siksa guru of Gaura Kisora das Babaji Maharaja"

Srila Prabhupada Letter to Dayananda, 05-01-69

In the minds of the leaders of these religious groups, giving prominence to the siksa guru threatens to undermine their power base. Diksa initiation is their greatest tool for maintaining power. The telltale indication that religiosity is eclipsing spirituality is the degree of aggressive close-mindedness aimed at those perceived to hold and expound opinions that differ from the camp's 'absolute' creed. The member's unquestioning allegiance to the religious group's unique perspective on tattva is paramount, insulating the group supporter from scrutiny of other sastric considerations. Accurate appraisal of an individual's character, motivation, qualities, behavior, and so on, become based not on the principles found within the Sampradaya siddhanta, but rather on loyalty to the organization. By definition, the "science of self-realization" depends upon the spiritualist's objectivity and inquisitiveness, which is the antithesis of blind obedience to religious doctrine interpreted exclusively by those protecting their power base.

The bonafide Acaryas, representatives of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, indiscriminately distribute the transcendental knowledge that culminates in Pure Love of Godhead. Anyone who has developed a thorough understanding of the essential intentions of the nitya-siddha Acarya is a true Guru, whatever prefix one assigns to the Guru title. Unfortunately, the role and importance of the siksa guru in spreading the Sankirtan Movement is not emphasized in the institutional context.

Not only is the siksa position a safe alternative because it eliminates the risks of philosophical deviation, it also provides many practical spiritual benefits. The sastric definition of siksa guru encompasses a much wider range of potential spiritual relationships than does diksa. Siksa requires no absolute eternal commitment on the part of either disciple or guru, so there is less chance for aparada if the relationship declines.

As you see from the quoted material above, I am a strong advocate of siksa relationships, as was Srila Prabhupada, but the prerequisite for anyone being a siksa guru assisting Srila Prabhupada is that they recognize him as the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya, in a manner such as I describe in my "Sampradaya Acarya" paper. As I have repeated on many an occasion, I don't perceive BV Narayana Maharaja as a bonafide siksa guru for those pure followers/disciples of Srila Prabhupada. He may well be a qualified diksa/siksa guru within whatever Gaudiya Matha branch he professes to represent, but that is not the same thing. Despite his poetic glorifications of Srila Prabhupada, everything else about him, including his mannerisms, teachings, preaching style and so on are not in synchronicity with Srila Prabhupada. Siva dasa goes a glorious job in his last post explaining the profound philosophical differentiations. He has sprouted his own limb and it isn't connected to either of the Sampradaya Acarya main branches. You, Krishna dasa, may be compared to a monkey jumping all over this tree in a futile search for fruits and flowers. Sad! Because the original branch, Srila Prabhupada, has the juiciest fruit on the tree.

You wrote:

Don't be so intellectually lazy. I invite you to critique my site and any or all of my writings. You will know that I'm interested by the effort I put forward in responding to you. I am interested in hearing what you have to say so long as you take your time and make a real effort in the exchange. Just don't have your hopes up that you will be able to convince me to see things (and persons) your way.

It's more a question of whether or not BV Narayana Maharaja and company will provide me an equal opportunity to elaborate upon my position. He, like so many of these "super-gurus", are not accustomed to the concept of a one-on-one debate. They prefer being surrounded by starry-eyed sycophants such as yourself. Various Gaudiya Matha institutions have challenged BV Narayana Maharaja in a similar manner as Shiva dasa has done, but none of these august personalities has gotten any response from His Divine Grace, BV Narayana Maharaja. What chance do we mere mortals have?

You said that when you would challenge Srila Narayana Maharaja directly that it would be live threatening for you and so on. Of course devotees like you who have come in a challenging mood do not always receive a satisfying answer, because they do not ask submissively, even when Krsna would come personally himself He could not make them understand because they have an inappropriate, challenging mood. Really they don't want to know, they simply show off. Absolute Truth cannot be received in such a way.

It maybe comforting for you and your in-crowd friends to characterize all us non-believers as demons. The truth is that I refuse to display false humility and reverence in order to please you and your worshipable BV Narayana Maharaja. We are not presenting ourselves to BV Narayana in search of knowledge, help or love. For all these spiritual assets, I go directly to my ever-well wisher, Srila Prabhupada. We would go to see BV Narayana Maharaja in order to have an honest debate. However, I doubt he would be interested in that sort of encounter with us, being we're so demoniac and all.

One has to be humble and unprejudiced in front of a sadhu otherwise true knowledge cannot be received. Even though you may come in an doubting or skeptical mood, when you are sincere and open for the truth then for sure you will receive all help and love, from the whole party of Srila Narayana Maharaja because he is our well wisher and not an enemy. To Kamsa Krishna looked like death personified, so it depends on you.

This material world we all live in is so dark and demoniac. We find ourselves discussing Krishna Consciousness on a level incomprehensible to practically any other living entities, save and except a very few fortunate Vaisnavas. From this birds eye perspective, we should all remain friends and allies. But as far as working closely together to spread Krsna Consciousness through preaching, I'm afraid we are too far apart. I wish you well in your endeavors and pray that someday you will find your way back to Srila Prabhupada's camp. That's where you will find me!

Yes, my english is terrible and i am not proficient in these internet discussions, please excuse.
Everybody got his samskaras of Krsna-Conciousness in a different way, different time and circumstances. Thank you for taking time and presenting your perspective.
This is the way i have understood you so far:

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 12/21/2004 08:01 PM PST

Dear Rocana Prabhu,

You had a glorious time in Srila Prabhupadas days. These samskaras are your live and soul. You realised the mistakes made by ISKCON-leaders and holded on to your samskaras and promptings from Srila Prabhupada within your heart.
You associated with like-minded godbrothers and thus you felt protected in your relationship with Srila Prabhupada. Your sincerity led you to the conclusion that siksa is more prominent then diksa in our line. You are also aware of the fact that a real guru must be an uttama-adhikari like Srila Prabhupada. You think that there is no full need to hear directly from a siksa guru who is on the same level as Srila Prabhupada,also because there is non. You think that to be really in Prabhupadas line one must except him as the sampradaya-acarya after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and that there was or is up to day no one equal to him, internally and externally. One can study his books and tapes and thus be connected with him, because these commentaries and tape recordings are non-different from him. You do not say that there is no chance that there are pure devotees on the planet, but you do not want to associate with them or read their books as long as they do not very clearly except Srila Prabhupada and his spirit and standards as the only ones set for worldwide preaching, and him as the prominent sampradaya-acarya after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura.
As long as you do not see that others preachingstyle is very similar as Srila Prabhupadas, you prefer to wait and be sheltered in this frame of thought giving all of your energy to Srila Prabhupada.
In your conviction it is the safest path for all who want to be directly linked with Srila Prabhupadas personality to do like wise. You fear that reading other present acaryas books or association might destroy or contaminate yours and others bond with Srila Prabhupada, thus you restrain from that. Hearing from any member of any Gaudiya Matha you consider disloyal to Srila Prabhupada because Srila Prabhupada spoke harsh about his godbrothers who did not appreciate his success but critizised him. The way the indian and nowadays also western Gaudiya Math devotees preach and present Vaishnavism to the world not giving full prominence to Srila Prabhupada you do not like to tolerate. You feel they do not give him the right credit he deserves and in doing so they minimize him and undermine the faith of his followers. You think that this is a great symptom of kali because Srila Prabhupadas standards where set for the upliftment of the whole world just 30 years ago and that there should be no room for anybody trying to create a different picture, because there is no need, everybody, the Gaudiya Matha and others, must accept Srila Prabhupada and his standards truly as the most bonafide and succsessful method of preaching nowadays, and there will be no confusion if everybody accepts that.
Since the nowadays ISKCON-leadership is giving prominence to their own concocted ideas and because selfish individuals have destroyed much of the movements enthusiasm by their becoming gurus and falling down, they are also not better then others who are not in direct line of style with Srila Prabhupada.
You feel confident that you and those who think like you are in Srila Prabhupadas Camp and others are not, even though they might be bonafide in their own group, you wish them well and pray that one day they may find their way to Srila Prabhupada as he is really to be understood.
Not fitting in your frame of mind, those who present themselves as real followers of Srila Prabhupada like someone as Srila Narayana Maharaja, his followers or others who are outside your conclusions you sometimes offend, critizise, minimize, slander and rebuke.
You feel confident doing that because in your opinion it is your seva, protection of Srila Prabhupadas legacy from outsiders and a protection of your own believes. You find quotes in Srila Prabhupadas Books that underline some of your statements thus you consider yourself on the righteous side.

I have learned a lot from the discussion in this blog. I like to appologize if i have put anyone in inconvenience. I have no further point to make. Thank you.

Haribol.

Krsna das

Posted by Krsna das @ 12/22/2004 04:15 AM PST

Dear Shiva dasa,

Obeisances and all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Again, thank you for the interesting and well-presented commentary. In your last posting, you questioned the degree to which Lord Caitanya accepted Madhva's teachings, and you pointed to Jayadeva's writings in comparison to Madhva's.

At various points along the way, you have stated what you think the list of 32 names in the Guru Parampara is not, but you haven't given us a definitive statement of what you think the list of 32 is. Why do you think Srila Prabhupada followed Srila Bhaktisiddhanta in repeatedly reciting this exact list? Why did he include this specific list in his introduction to Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, in the context of guru parampara? If it's true that the list of 32 simply reflects a 'mechanism to authenticate the sampradaya among Vedic traditionalists', but it does not reflect some other important lineage of personalities who more truly or accurately represent our philosophical line, then why do you suppose Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did not articulate and emphasize that list, instead? If there was a more relevant lineage for us to know about, as you suggest, why would the Acaryas not clearly delineate it as such?

So Jayadeva and others like him are not listed in the Guru Parampara, but certainly his position is unparalleled. Gaudiyas do not study the writings of Madhva, yet Jayadeva is considered essential. So during Madhva's time we know that Jayadeva's writings were known, there must have been many who believed as Jayadeva otherwise why would Jayadeva have been so celebrated? The point I am making is that you give indispensability to the names in the Guru Parampara. I disagree with that. What I believe is that the Guru Parampara is a mechanism used to authenticate the sampradaya among Vedic traditionalists. I don't give it the same indispensability that you do. Does the sampradaya really need to be able to show that it is connected to Madhva and through him to Vyasa? It may be important to people who want to prove that the Gaudiya sampradaya is "authentic" because of that, and to the people who require such "proof of authentication". But the fact is that the Gaudiya's split from Madhva and have much more in common with the other Vaisnava sampradayas then they do with Madhva. Ramanuja, Nimbarka, etc, were teaching what is much closer to Gaudiya thought than Madhva. Certainly a follower of Nimbarka would have been more in line with Gaudiya siddhanta then a follower of Madhva.

Your comments about the Gaudiya's split from Madhva may have some credence from an academic viewpoint, and perhaps one day we can explore the history of tattva in the Vaisnava sampradayas in greater detail. In the discussion at hand, however, your introduction of the Madhva Jayadeva debate serves to illustrate one of my primary points: all the mysteries of our Vaisnava history have been dealt with by the past Acaryas. Srila Prabhupada has stuck very closely to everything that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta stated in this regard. It really doesn't benefit us to cast our speculative minds and intelligence back over history to try and sort these matters out. This is the beauty of accepting someone of Srila Prabhupada's spiritual stature. If the significance of the Madhva Jayadeva tattva issue were of great importance to our Krsna Consciousness, then Srila Prabhupada would have clearly elaborated upon it. Instead, he basically said don't be disturbed by the big gaps, don't worry about it, here's the list, it's the same list that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has. The real debate facing us today is whose name goes at the end of the list.

The primary reason we are discussing this issue is due to the pervasive influence of personalities within the Gaudiya community who accept the list as it was presented by Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati, but replace Srila Prabhupada's name with that of their own Spiritual Master (a Godbrother of Srila Prabhupada). In some cases, they place their own name on the list thereafter. Of course, this also applies to the ISKCON diksa gurus.

So why is it that these jagat gurus, Srila Bhaktisiddanta and Srila Prabhupada, chose to simply present their list of members of our Sampradaya without the kind of detail which you mention in your last post? Is this an invitation for us to "fill in the blanks", or should we understand that as Srila Prabhupada said, "don't be concerned", because in real terms it doesn't make an iota of difference to our spiritual advancement. What does impact us all is the fact that within our Gaudiya Vaisnava landscape there exist big camps. One camp is BV Narayana Maharaja's group and another is ISKCON, under which certain sub-camps are more heavily influenced by Gaudiya Matha philosophy than others. In my opinion, the ISKCON diksa guru system originates from a Gaudiya Matha template, with a western slant. By and large, everyone is contaminated to some degree. If we are interested in preaching Krsna Consciousness, then we have no other choice but to adopt our own "official" vision of what is happening out there in the big world of Vaisnavism. I'm realistic in the sense that my goal is not to change ISKCON, BV Narayana Maharaja or the Rtvik-vadas, or to try and convert the already committed. Instead, I've tried to develop my own carefully considered answers to the inevitable questions I'm presented with by any variety of diverse seekers. They ask for input in hopes of bringing some clarity to the confusing cacophony of conflicting ideas and processes to be found.

First, we have to acknowledge that the title "Sampradaya Acarya" exists. It was used by Srila Prabhupada to describe certain individuals. It follows that someone was obviously able to recognize and characterize Sampradaya Acaryas as being such, otherwise the designation would not exist. How that term specifically relates to the list of 32 names in the Guru Parampara is open for discussion. Granted, there is little detailed information to be found on the subject in Srila Prabhupada's books. But regardless, whether or not one, a few, or many are able to discern a given truth at a particular time is irrelevant to the existence of the truth. You can't say that the Sampradaya Acarya concept is flawed because individuals may not be able to agree at a given time on who they perceive such a personality to be. This would be akin to saying that the concept of guru is flawed because individuals may not be advanced enough to judge whether or not someone is qualified to be guru. If the aspirant cannot see that the guru is qualified, the guru is not consequently disqualified, nor is the construct of 'guru' flawed. One man's guru is another man's imposter -- but the guru/disciple construct still exists.

When you wrote your second to last post [above] I hadn't yet submitted my reply to Krishna dasa, wherein I pasted in a section from my "Sampradaya Acarya paper". I am again highlighting that text below, since it is my response to this inevitable question of recognition of the Sampradaya Acarya.

Srila Prabhupada writes in the Caitanya-caritamrita, Madhya lila 25:9 Purport:

I hope that my explanation on recognition of the Sampradaya Acarya is understandable. If it is not, I would appreciate your direct comments on it, as relative to the preceding discussion. Granted, it has, since time immemorial, been a problem for less advanced individuals to appreciate and recognize the very advanced, simply because they are on the upper echelon of transcendence. This problem applies to all sorts of situations. For example, there was a period after the disappearance of Lord Caitanya and Nityananda that the Vaisnava community was in heated disagreement as to the exact philosophy of that lila, and that debate raged until Krsna dasa Kaviraja wrote the Adi-lila section of Caitanya-caritamrta. This is now considered gospel by all of us because it is authorized by the Sampradaya Acaryas, but during the period before the Adi-lila was written, this same issue of recognizing spiritual personalities was at the forefront.

You suggest that I incorrectly coined the term 'Sampradaya Acarya' by using a quote wherein Srila Prabhupada is referring to past Sampradaya Acaryas who were actually the modern founders of their Sampradayas, such as Ramanuja, Visnu Swami and Madhva:

"Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization."
Srila Prabhupada Lecture to World Health Org., 06-06-74, Geneva

Your inference is that it would be incongruent to include Srila Prabhupada's name with the other four Acarya's names, and therefore Srila Prabhupada must not be a Sampradaya Acarya. However, we also hear the following from Srila Prabhupada in his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 2:9:6:

"Thus Brahma was initiated by the Krsna mantra, by Lord Krsna Himself, and thus he became a Vaisnava, or a devotee of the Lord, before he was able to construct the huge universe. It is stated in the Brahma-samhita that Lord Brahma was initiated into the eighteen-letter Krsna mantra, which is generally accepted by all the devotees of Lord Krsna. We follow the same principle because we belong to the Brahma sampradaya, directly in the disciplic chain from Brahma to Narada, from Narada to Vyasa, from Vyasa to Madhva Muni, from Madhva Muni to Madhavendra Puri, from Madhavendra Puri to Isvara Puri, from Isvara Puri to Lord Caitanya and gradually to His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, our divine master."

In this instance, Srila Prabhupada is speaking very specifically about the genesis of the Brahma Sampradaya, listing the direct disciplic chain as including both Madhva and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Clearly, in this context, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is included as being on par with all the other names in the direct disciplic chain. While the term "Sampradaya Acarya" is not mentioned here, in my mind this list is clearly more than a "mechanism used to authenticate the sampradaya among Vedic traditionalists", as you previously characterized it to be.

You may have some problem with my use of the term "Sampradaya Acarya" but you've read my thesis, and hopefully recognize that nowhere am I proposing that Srila Prabhupada should be looked upon as the establisher of a modern day lineage. We are still predominantly under the influence of the Yuga Avatara, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. In fact, I am hypothesizing that the three successive nitya-siddha Acaryas are a predictable futuristic extension of that same divine lila, just as Srila Madhva Acarya heralded the coming of Sri Gaurasundara. If you can suggest a more appropriate name than "Sampradaya Acarya", then feel free to do so.

Again, allow me to point out that my conclusion is prefaced by an explanation as to the appearance of the three nitya-siddha Acaryas, namely Srila Bhaktivinoda, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and Srila Bhaktivedanta. Basically, I assert that together, they were essentially extensions or manifestation of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's lila – specifically, the aspect of the Lila that hadn't been fulfilled, namely spreading Krsna Consciousness worldwide. This was effectively carried out by these three appointed Acaryas and as such, I conclude that they are Sampradaya Acaryas on a similar level as Ramanuja. No Vaisnava Sampradaya was technically started in Kaliyuga. Rather, they were resurrected by nitya-siddhas sent by the causeless mercy of the Lord to reestablish principles of religion at the appropriate time, place and circumstances.

Even Shankara Acarya and Lord Brahma, let alone western manifestations such as Christ and Mohammad, are understood to be great Acaryas. Christ and Mohammad were not preaching pure tattva on the level presented by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and as such they are not considered part of our present Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya. Srila Prabhupada said that the Christians are not even to be considered a Sampradaya because they have no real bhashya. While their spiritual impact was enormous, how can it be compared to the impact of the three nitya-siddha Acaryas in the Gaudiya Sampradaya, who preached pure Krsna Consciousness across the entire world?

In this forum we are debating on whether or not BV Narayana Maharaja is preaching the siddhanta purely. You have helped to convince me that he isn't! Do his followers benefit from his preaching? No doubt they do, but compared to who and what. Christianity? Islam? Certainly not compared to Srila Prabhupada. That is our argument.

As for the question of all gurus ultimately being manifestations of the Supreme Lord, you quoted from Srila Prabhupada's lecture to the Gaudiya Math in 1936 at Bhaktisiddhanta's Vyasa Puja celebration:

"Thus it has been enjoined herewith that in order to receive that transcendental knowledge, one must approach the guru. Therefore, if the Absolute Truth is one, about which we think there is no difference of opinion, the guru cannot be two. The acarya deva to whom we have assembled tonight to offer our humble homage is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. On the contrary, he is the jagad-guru, or the guru of all of us, the only difference is that some obey him wholeheartedly, while others do not obey him directly.

That is, the acarya has been identified with God Himself. He has nothing to do with the affairs of this mundane world. He appears before us to reveal the light of the Vedas and to bestow upon us the blessing of full-fledged freedom, after which we should hanker at every step of our life's journey."

This issue of gurus being manifestations of Lord Krsna is an aspect of our philosophy that rests on our personalist conception of the absolute. The individual's sojourn back to Godhead may require them to be involved with many gurus, over many lifetimes, just as many devotees were previously Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists before having come to Krsna Consciousness. The converts' past /realizations were no doubt a needed prerequisite in their ability to comprehend our super excellent tattva. From the viewpoint of the individual's purification or spiritual advancement, we understand that it takes many lifetimes, thus many gurus, to come to pure Krsna Consciousness. So in that sense, Krsna as Caitya guru is providing all these opportunities stretching over lifetimes for the sincere spirit soul to eventually break free of Samsara and enter again into the eternal planets. But, to use this arrangement to relegate all the "gurus" as being totally and equally "one" and therefore to be considered equal just doesn't make sense to me.

Why is it that the Goswamis have gone to such detail to provide us with their unparalleled knowledge, just so we can discern the spiritual levels of everyone in the material world -- especially those promoting themselves as bonafide gurus? So much has been writing by them about choosing an Uttama Adhikary as a guru rather than someone of a lesser stature. If they are all "one", then where's the need to distinguish? We should just leave the discrimination to Lord? If we follow this "guru is one" logic, it is akin to saying that if anyone feels that they are spontaneously attracted to BV Narayana Maharaja, then by this logic they are divinely destined to have him as their next guru. All this is by Krishna's arrangement, so there's no need for them to use the knowledge provided by the Sampradaya Acaryas, as we are doing, to make an analysis. This "all gurus are one" argument is currently being exploited by the opportunists like Narayana Maharaja who are recruiting Srila Prabhupada's servants.

I have a different understanding of Srila Prabhupada's comments in the quote you gave above: "only one guru, who appears in an infinity of forms to teach you, me and all others." In other words, the guru isn't God. The Supreme Lord has manifest in many ways within this material world. Through guru, sastra, and sadhu we can accurately distinguish just how He has accomplished this task. Everything ultimately originates with Krsna; even the material energy is coming from Him. We can learn from many sources and circumstances once we are benedicted by the Sampradaya Acaryas with the transcendental "eyes to see" and "ears to hear". The more connected directly to the Sampradaya, the clearer our vision and our hearing becomes. Being in the very best possible spiritual position is what we are discussing here.

It may be true that we shouldn't unnecessarily disturb the minds of those who are not receptive to what we are trying to present, in this case, that Srila Prabhupada is a Sampradaya Acarya and his Godbrothers are not. I do try to stay civil and respectful, even when confronted with irrational, emotional obstinacy by the lovers of the lessors. Which isn't easy, mind you. But it helps to remember the quote you provided, thanks.

The Guru is a Guru because he is directly in communion with Radha Krishna. If Krishna leads you to a Guru with a big following who made a big impact, then that is your destiny. If Krishna leads you to a Guru who has not made the same impact, that Guru is no different then any other. All authentic Guru's, Uttama Guru's, are all via mediums for the Lord. As Prabhupada said in the above, there is no question of discriminating between one Guru and another; there is only One Guru who appears in an infinity of forms.

I highlighted the key statement above: authentic and Uttama. This is what we are talking about in our present circumstance. Theoretically, everything you have stated is absolutely true. We are assuming that on this planet today, it is unlikely that there is an authentic Guru outside of the Vaisnava community in question, namely branches coming from Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati. I'm not trying to limit the Lord's potency to manifest an Uttama adhikary, but we are trying to be practical. You're suggesting that one of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers could very well be on an equal spiritual level to Srila Prabhupada, despite the fact that he didn't have a large following. Who am I to claim otherwise? I now have choice. Do I go out and try to find out for myself? Maybe I'm missing out on a great opportunity to take siksa. Or do I take Srila Prabhupada's directions to heart when he states that there is no need to do that? In fact, he forbids me to do so.

You may be saying that I have no right to say that Srila Prabhupada is a Sampradaya Acarya, and all others should be appreciating him as such and following his example. But keep in mind that I'm not stating that Srila Prabhupada should be seen as the one and only diksa guru candidate, even if the spiritual bar is Uttama Adhikary. Maybe there is another nitya-siddha on the planet. Srila Prabhupada didn't seem to indicate that to be the case during the ISKCON lila period, but it's certainly possible. But what I can be quite sure of is the fact over the last 100 years, since the departure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, no other Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Vaisnava has appeared who has made as enormous an impact on worldwide preaching of Krsna Consciousness as Srila Prabhupada has.

As a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada's, the dilemma I find myself in is this: if Srila Prabhupada is a Sampradaya Acarya and I don't acknowledge this as being a fact, am I committing an offense? Or am I perhaps being offensive to another pure devotee, although unknown to me, who I'm declaring is not on the same elevated level as Srila Prabhupada (i.e., error by omission)? Given a choice of the two, I choose to accept the risk of the latter in order to avoid the risk of the former. I honestly feel that Srila Prabhupada is pleased with my taking this position. Throughout many writings, I have given copious reasons as to why I have chosen the to view Srila Prabhupada as the present Sampradaya Acarya. By doing so, I have successfully sorted out, in my own mind, many other perplexities and dilemmas previously troubling me. I know that a number of these dilemmas still haunt many of Srila Prabhupada's followers. I haven't as yet gotten into explaining them all, but I'll mention a few: gurukula child abuse, keeping certain personalities on the GBC, aloof attitude towards Godbrothers, the opulent level of Guru worship, changes/improvements in the sadhana process, accepting the title 'Srila Prabhupada', changing the books, and the list goes on.

By accepting Srila Prabhupada in this capacity I find my mind is so much more peaceful, temptations of the mind and senses diminish, and the demons of doubt fly away. Everything seems to become so much clearer for me. I can now answer many nagging questions plaguing so many Godbrothers simply by adopting this perspective. The activities and teachings of ISKCON, the Gaudiya Matha and the Rtvik-vadas are cleared up for me. I'm not in anxiety, wondering whether or not I'm missing out on some wondrous association with some other "Maharaja". I'm still out here in the world debating and listening to all challengers. I accept that it may be that I'm wrong, but so far no one has been able to convince me otherwise, not even you Shiva dasa, although you are a very good debater.

The question of size and scope of an Acarya's preaching being irrelevant has some truth to it, as do your points about the obvious advantages of intimate and frequent association. However, these hypothetical scenarios do not address the present situation under discussion, because both Srila Prabhupada and now BV Narayana fall into the category of constant worldwide travel, compared to the "mission-less" pure devotee with a few followers. Who and where this mission-less pure devotee is, is a mystery. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and more recently Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada, emphasized the need for widespread preaching efforts. These two jagat-gurus demonstrated and encouraged the beneficial effects of cooperative and organized preaching. Besides this, they focused on book publishing and distribution along with kirtan and prasadam. That is their formula for executing the orders of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Naturally, this includes pure execution of devotional practices and the education/training of the converts. Within the context of such an over-all program, there is surely room and accommodation for the type of guru you feel is more individually ideally suited for a person such as your good self.

This was all apart of Srila Prabhupada's big plan, which is still in a non-manifest sate. There were imperfect models in place during the ISKCON lila period at regional temples, rural communities, and preaching programs. Srila Prabhupada would undoubtedly have preferred that the local representatives/siksa gurus were advanced or pure devotees, as would the temple inhabitants. Srila Prabhupada understood the need you described, and made accommodations for fulfilling that spiritual need with whatever persons and facility the Lord provided. Srila Prabhupada invited his Godbrothers and/or their disciples to join him, precisely so as to fulfill that need. It is my conjecture that one of the reasons they didn't respond to this plea is that they knew that all the "volunteers" would have to work under Srila Prabhupada and thus acknowledge his authority and superiority. This required submissive mood is essentially what I'm trying to portray within my Sampradaya Acarya idea. Empowered leadership is required to push forward the Worldwide Sankirtana Movement effectively. Both the great jagat-guru personalities provided us with everything required. We were unable to utilize all that they gave, but still we have to recognize who they are as Sampradaya Acaryas and follow accordingly in a surrendered mood.

I'm acknowledging that modern day ISKCON as unfortunately failed to surrender and follow this formula, which is a crying shame. But that doesn't mean we all have to fall back on the old Gaudiya Matha formula, which also failed. What I have been trying to say is that there is a means and method to accomplish this dream/goal, but it initially requires establishing the principle of the Sampradaya Acarya. After that, a practical managerial template has to be adopted along with a constitution, by-laws, bill of rights, and all the other ingredients that are needed and proven to be valuable in any smooth, functioning community. I am basing this idea on the principle that presently there isn't a living absolute ‘pure devotee' authority to be in charge. Only we sincere but imperfect types seem to be available. Isn't that what you are looking for in your Maui Varnashrama Community?

I believe we have a mandate from the most recent Sampradaya Acaryas to go forward with this modern practical democratic managerial concept. I can envision you fulfilling the communal need for an in-residence brahminical guru-type who teaches/preaches primarily from Srila Prabhupada's books and pastimes. The reason we are all in conflict these days is that on the Gaudiya Matha, side of the river, there appear to be gurus who are more qualified than those directly from Srila Prabhupada's branch. None of us are spiritually advanced enough to predetermine the actual level these other professional gurus are on. One thing we do know for certain is that if we "surrender" to them, they won't be teaching us from Srila Prabhupada's books and they won't be practically presenting him as a personality equal to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. In my opinion, such an attitude is an automatic disqualification. I feel this is what Srila Prabhupada would want and encourage us to do. I would also venture to say that the type of persons whom you are targeting with your preaching efforts would be more comfortable with the scenario I'm painting, rather than the sort of traditional guru-disciple situation which you seem to be highlighting above.

I encourage all my friends and followers of Srila Prabhupada to give-up the "impossible dream" and start looking at what we have been given, by the mercy of Lord Sri Krsna. We should follow Srila Prabhupada's example of using everything in Krsna's service. Those devotees who are chasing after the mirage of perfection, either in the form of the pure Gaudiya Matha Guru, the Rtvik back-to-the-so-called-original ISKCON-lila period, the present day ISKCON hodge-podge vision of utopian existence, or the Varnasrama visionary revivalist movement.

There are so many maybes in this world, but I try not to get distracted by chasing down hypotheticals. I'm satisfied with being connected to Srila Prabhupada in this lifetime. I've reached that goal, now I have to get busy actually serving him in pure devotion. That's a difficult enough task.

So your concept of the Sampradaya Acarya is based on seeing a specific Guru as a superior necessity in one's spiritual path then others who are also uttama level Guru's, but in fact it may be the other way around.

So in conclusion, my concept of Bhagavat Sampradaya is solely about the concept of not needing to be in the diksa lineage in order to be considered an authentic teacher or Guru or disciple of the sampradaya. Anyone else can use it however they want. I use it to mean that if someone hears and understands and realizes the true teachings of the Bhagavata, then he is qualified to be considered a representative of the Sampradaya and initiate disciples.

The uttama Guru who is not well known with a lot of followers will be superior for you, better for you, able to give you more personal time and energy. After all the message of the Bhagavata is eternal, time and place may affect the methodology of it's presentation to the masses, but the essential message itself remains the same. By hearing the Bhagavata one can come into contact directly with Paramatma. This is the essential gift of the Bhagavata

I don't see how you imagine my "theory" is in direct conflict with your "Bhagavata Sampradaya" idea. I'm not promoting the idea of diksa lineage as the be all and end all. Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's "list" isn't based on diksa. Whether or not someone hears, understands/realizes the teachings of the Bhagavata through the Book Bhagavata or the Person Bhagavata, or even directly from Caitya guru, I say they become a representative to the degree they are purified as a result of hearing. I'm only stating that it appears to me that the mechanism for which the Bhagavata is most commonly disseminated is by the Sampradaya Acarya principle. Those who follow the Sampradaya Acarya as his pure hearted representatives are most likely to be teaching pure Bhagavata tattva.

Hi Rocana, that's quite an earful. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on these topics and it's obvious you have given a lot of consideration on how to best advance Krishna consciousness.

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 12/28/2004 07:43 PM PST

That is really what you are saying. Many people want to quibble over this or that minor detail, but the real question we need to confront is how to proceed in the mission of Sankirtan.

The salient points you made, I feel, were how to present the Guru question and controversy to newcomers. That's what is of prime importance. And on that point I agree with you. The path that Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math Guru's have taken, is in my opinion, creating a situation where newcomers are encouraged to see Krishna consciousness in terms of Guru worship, rather then in self realization.

Srila Prabhupada may have started a daily Guru Puja ceremony that was different then the Gaudiya Math, but that was a necessity. In India the Guru concept is part of the psyche of the people. They understand the Guru to be the direct manifestation and representative of God.

In the west that concept was and is totally foreign. The religious or spiritual conceptions of non Vedic traditions do not rely or advocate the absolute position of any human. Into this milieu Srila Prabhupada instituted the Guru Puja ceremony and was criticized for it by many in the Gaudiya Math. They thought he was being ostentatious. In fact he was trying to change the way the non Vedic peoples viewed religious leadership.

A priest or rabbi or yoga instructor were seen as being teachers with religious learning, but they were not seen as beings who were channeling God, as beings who were totally transcendental. The Vedic traditions are different in the way the Guru is seen, as opposed to how a priest is seen.

So Srila Prabhupada needed to change the way people viewed the religious authority figure. He wasn't being egotistic or desiring worship. He needed to make a change in peoples vision on the importance of the Guru. The position he took offended many in the Gaudiya Math, they were unable to relate to the context of Srila Prabhupadas preaching methods.

So when the Iskcon Guru's continued with that methodology, presenting themselves as Guru's for Guru Puja, understandably that created a lot of annoyance among their Godbrothers. Although in principle they were following in Srila Prabhupadas footsteps, in practice they were doing it for the wrong reasons.

When Srila Prabhupada accepted worship it was in the mood of instructing non Vedic disciples in a crash course on basic Vedic religious precepts. He did not make Iskcon into the A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami sect, he made it into the Radha Govinda sect. The center of everything was not Srila Prabhupada, he always preached about "the Guru who claims he is God, he is dog." He was always pushing and instructing disciples away from forming a personality cult around him.

What happened in Iskcon was the opposite. The Guru's formed personality cults around themselves, consciously so. Not all to the same degree though. Still they misunderstood what Srila Prabhupada had set out to do with the Guru Puja ceremony, and with the repetitive teachings about the position of the Guru.

They did not understand that what Srila Prabhupada had done was for the purpose of transforming cultural mindsets. They convinced themselves that they were following in the footsteps of Srila Prabhupada, but they did not know why he had done what he did.

So what happened is that they thought that they needed to be seen and treated like Srila Prabhupada had been. They thought that the Guru centric cults that grew up around them was the proper methodology taught to them by their Guru.

The difference was in quality.

Srila Prabhupada was detached. He did what he did for a purpose other then to gain worship and service from others. He understood that he was playing a role that was necessary for the time and place.

As Bhaktisiddhanta has said:

rasika bhakata raja kabhu sisya kore na
rasika janera sisya ei bhava chade na

We can tell Srila Prabhupada was like this description. While he encouraged worship of himself, it was really about training neophytes into a new religious paradigm. In fact he always consulted with his disciples and took their advice on many issues. His was not a fascist regime.

Compare that to what happened in Iskcon. The Gurus in Iskcon were motivated largely or in some cases exclusively by the desire for worship and service. They not only considered those whom they initiated to be their own disicples, they also used and abused those disciples without a second thought, they threatened those disciples at times, like Moses on the mount demanding submission, all in the name of the authentic path they were following in the footsteps of.

They created and maintained Guru cults, personality cults. Their cults were centrally about service to their desires, and their desires were centrally about exploiting others for their own personal reasons.

Whereas Srila Prabhupada was constantly pushing Krishna into the center, and warning about not forming a personality cult around himself, the new Iskcon Guru's, did just the opposite. They created fascistic regimes centered around themselves, Krishna was a prop in their little dramas.

I haven't been in and around an Iskcon temple for a long time, so I couldn't say how much has changed. Supposedly it has totally changed, but I have no first hand experience of that.

I have had very little direct association with Narayana Maharaja followers, and I have only been to two of their programs. But from my online dealings with them, they seem to be intent on making Narayana Maharaja the center of their preaching. It's all about how we should "accept the pure devotee", we "need to hear from the pure devotee", we are envious rascals if we "don't accept the pure devotee's position over ourselves" etc etc etc

To me this seems like another personality cult. Although it is very different then the Iskcon Guru cults.

The Iskcon Guru cults were centered around young to middle aged men when they started. While most had taken sannyasa, that was a business decision rather then authentic renunciation by a learned and elderly sadhu. They took sannyasa so they would gain a position within the society. Their Guru cults were then driven by their desires for enjoyments of various types, and their disicples were treated in different ways depending on how much and what kind of service they could provide the Guru. It was strictly a materialistic relationship.

With Narayana Maharaja it is something very different. He is old and not capable of enjoying like the Iskcon Gurus. His motivations for allowing a Guru cult to form around him, must be about something different then material well being and sense enjoyment.

I can only conclude that he is sincere in his belief that he is doing the right thing. He believes in what he says and preaches. He honestly believes that he is a manjari, and that his mission is to spread manjari bhava. In fact this is quite common among many Gaudiya vaisnavas. Madhava and Jagat at their forum [as well as Nitai et al] present the same ideas and style and intent as Narayana Maharaja. Even though they reject Bhaktisiddhanta to one degree or another, and have accepted diksa and siksa from various babajis, they have the same essential focus and preaching style as Narayana Maharaja.

And because this focus and intent and style of a manjari bhava centric preaching style, is and was so different then what Srila Prabhupada taught, they conclude, with the blessings of their Gurus, that they are receiving a more elevated level of tattva.

This therefore inspires them to create personality cults in their enthusiasm to convince others of their own "mature understanding" or their "special Gurus, giving the post graduate conception, while Srila Prabhupada only gave out the ABC's".

Philosophical learning from the Bhagavata takes a back seat to ruminations on rasa lila. Learning the intricacies of the material world the soul and it's interactions with Paramatma, is the "ABC's". Hearing about rasa lila is where "the nectar is". Developing your inner manjari is "what it's really all about".

They think they have stumbled onto a gold mine, when in reality they have fallen into a ditch.

This is all done at the prodding of Narayana Maharaja and various babajis who think they are doing the right thing in creating cults of manjari wannabees.

Bhaktisiddhanta was against that type of preaching, as was Bhaktivedanta. The true path of Sri Caitanya is for the focus to be on the Bhagavatam. The philosophy of the Bhagavatam gives the soul entrance into the world of Paramatma. This is it's purpose. While the various rasa shastra's have their purpose in detailing lila, they are not meant to be replacements for the Bhagavatam. The jiva soul can be elevated to direct communion with Radha Krishna via Paramatma by hearing the Bhagavatam. The premature fantasies of manjari bhava adepts in the name of raganuga bhakti, is veering off a direct road to your final destination in order to go off and stare at flowers in the field.

It is a useless waste of time, and in fact creates misconceptions about the nature of your eternal relationship with God. While you are out meditating on wearing a sari and feeding Rupa Manjari betel nuts, Krishna sits within your heart, being ignored in favor of some future fantasy for the purpose of self worship. What the manjari bhava adepts are really doing is trying to attain the most pleasure they can gain.

They all believe that since the sastras tell us that the gopis are enjoying the most, and that they are the topmost devotees, that then they should try and attain that position.

It is all about worship for the sake of attaining heavenly pleasures. They may make many flowery statements about their love and emotions for Radha Gopinath, but it is all an attempt to gain position. They even admit this.

They have the ideology that raganuga bhakti means that your position in Vraja is dependent on your desire to be there, in a specific capacity. If you want to go to Vraja you must choose to follow the path of meditating on being so and so in Vraja. They have concocted a version of Gaudiya siddhanta which makes them the controlling factor. They misconstrue the deeply symbolic esoteric teachings about following in the footsteps of the residents of Vraja into a premature imitative ideology.

This is why they are so enamored over manjari bhava teachings within their ideology of raganuga bhakti.

They see all else in the Gaudiya tradition as preliminary to the raganuga manjari bhava stage. Once they desire to be manjaris, nothing else is of any value anymore. Everything that preceded that point, was really only to get them to that point.

This is one of the reasons so many either reject Srila Prabhupada, or write his teachings off as preliminary.

They are being taught that raganuga bhakti is real bhakti. In this paradigm raganuga bhakti is all about fantasizing about being a manjari.

Real raganuga bhakti is not about any specific technique or mood, it is about spontaneous service. Instead of doing service or sadhana because your are told you have to do it i.e following a prescribed path of elevation, Real spontaneous devotion is based on desire to please rather then desire to gain from that service.

That is the crucial difference.

The manjari bhava ideology of the babajis and Narayana Maharaja, takes the position of trying to gain from their so called raganuga bhakti endeavors.

They believe that they must choose what they want to be, and then follow the prescribed method to attain that. They believe this is raganuga bhakti.

It is not real raganuga. It is not spontaneous loving devotion. When you do the prescribed sadhana for a specific position in Heaven, then that is not done out of spontaneous love, it is done out of desire for a heavenly reward, it is not real raganuga bhakti.

But they are convinced that it is. They have a very literal and usually shallow understanding of these topics, they receive these ideas in very grandiose terms from their teachers, but it is all for nought. The premature calculative reasoning of these so called raganuga bhaktas leads nowhere.

Real raganuga arises from a bhaktas deep realization of the message of the Bhagavatam. It is a natural result of self realization. The many so called Guru's who try and teach the false path of manjari bhava raganuga, are sentimentalists, and or cheaters. They have no real appreciation of Sri Caitanya's message because they really don't understand what that is. They leave the path of self realization for the path of self indulgent fantasizing about some future reward in Heaven. They think this is the height of God consciousness, in fact they are convinced of it.

They are so puffed up with their pretentious exalted states as manjaris, as being special, that they lose sight of the real purpose of the Bhagavata. They only taste the honey from the outside of the jar, they cannot see beyond their own misconceptions because they have become legends in their own minds. They view sastra as a tool for their enhancement of their position. Real raganuga is not about desire for position as some future reward, it is about being with Radha Krishna in the here and now, being yourself.

Anyways, I got a little off tangent. But newcomers are being swayed left and right, as well as long time devotees, to join up with some self professed rasa guru, and then they try to become manjaris instead of trying to become self realized. It's such a huge mistake being made, and it is so all pervading outside of Iskcon, and I assume within Iskcon to some extent as well.

Those teachings are poison to newcomers. Poison to oldtimers as well. Imagine being a new bhakta and you are told you are going to be little girl in heaven, and you need to start meditating on that, everything else is secondary to that.

What would you think ?

These so called rasa Guru's are nothing but disruptive to peoples spiritual development. They are complete and utter wastes of time. Their big attraction is twofold. They speak in flowery ways, and their followers are ignorant. Both the Guru's and followers are ignorant of so much, yet they are convinced of their superior status among vaisnavas. There are many reasons for that, I have just got into it a little bit here.

Shiva Das

Posted by Shiva das @ 12/29/2004 01:41 PM PST

Hi Shiva,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and erudite contribution. I enjoy hearing your perspective on issues. I'm certain that this sort of dialogue would be pleasing to Srila Prabhupada. Discussing issues threadbare… istagoshti at it's best.

The whole ideal of mutual cooperation directed towards spreading Krsna Consciousness was the heart and soul of the Sampradaya Acaryas. This sankirtan mood is where the mercy lies, but it is a very difficult and precise task to bring together and maintain the elements required in order that the degree of harmony needed be created. Any social scientist will tell you that first and foremost, every organization requires dynamic leadership, a constitutional framework, checks and balances, laws and a fair legal system, and a personality at the center in whom all faith and confidence may be reposed. And that's just the beginning.

the real question we need to confront is how to proceed in the mission of Sankirtan …… were how to present the Guru question and controversy to newcomers. That's what is of prime importance. ….. The path that Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math Guru's have taken is in my opinion, creating a situation where newcomers are encouraged to see Krishna consciousness in terms of Guru worship, rather than self-realization.

In a nutshell, what you have stated above is correct. The recognition, service and worship of the Sampradaya Acaryas is paramount, for they are unquestionably delivering the tattva without adulteration. This truth we can be absolutely sure of, without question or doubt. We hear time and time again from the aforementioned camps that their "approved" diksa gurus are simply following in the footsteps, or passing down the knowledge and practice perfectly, etc/. but in fact this is the most difficult of tasks. The most important prerequisite, namely, to recognize and properly [re]present the Sampradaya Acarya, is one they have failed at. This failure runs from the authorization and distribution of the Lilamrita, and changing the books, to promoting the concept that our Sampradaya is essentially an unbroken line of diksa gurus and they should be considered by all to be equal and honorary members alongside the jagat-gurus, nitya-siddhas, Sampradaya Acaryas. This is automatic disqualification. Granted, Srila Prabhupada's books are presented and as such still have tremendous potency regardless of the "improvements", but when one considers just much is/was possible, it breaks one's heart.

It is Kaliyuga, and quarrel and hypocrisy reign supreme. Srila Prabhupada and all those Sampradaya Acaryas gave us the necessary organizational tools, momentum and most importantly, the absolute knowledge, both philosophical and practical. They also gave us a mandate to apply our God-given common sense intelligence, and adapt Krsna Consciousness to our cultural milieu so as to exact practical tangible results. At the same time, we must be very careful to not change or cause any adulteration of our pure philosophy. An awesome task indeed, but not impossible so long as we are humble, sincere and pure hearted. If "freedom to speak up" is afforded and there is an active Press then many issues that leaders try to hide are exposed. Anyway, these futuristic visions may be mission impossible, considering all the Himalayan obstacles in our way, beginning with the influences of Kaliyuga. On the other hand, if Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu wishes to give it his blessing and it serves his desire for the Sankirtan Movement to be spread throughout the planet in the purest possible manner, then it's anyone's guess what could transpire.

From my perspective, there are many individual spiritual advantages in trying to pursue a purely spiritual path rather than compromising by joining the religious congregations. I'm past being "seduced" by their dishonest rhetoric and exploitation of Sastra and the words of the Sampradaya Acaryas. One cannot find perfection within this material world; it's always a trade-off. The access to unalloyed knowledge and a means to realize it is the only real way to avoid a lot of the misery caused by disappointment. Making incorrect decisions due to a poor fund of knowledge results in spending one's human form of life struggling to reverse the results of past foolishness.

I found the following verse most interesting because in it, Srila Prabhupada reveals how he made just the right adjustments to accommodate his preaching efforts considering "time, place and circumstance".

"To broadcast the cult of Krsna consciousness, one has to learn the possibility of renunciation in terms of country, time and candidate. A candidate for Krsna consciousness in the Western countries should be taught about the renunciation of material existence, but one would teach candidates from a country like India in a different way. The teacher (acarya) has to consider time, candidate and country. He must avoid the principle of niyamagraha--that is, he should not try to perform the impossible. What is possible in one country may not be possible in another. The acarya's duty is to accept the essence of devotional service. There may be a little change here and there as far as yukta-vairagya (proper renunciation) is concerned. ...What is required is a special technique according to country, time and candidate." (Madhya-lila 23.105)

Besides reducing the chanting of 64 rounds down to 16, I believe there were many other slight cultural adjustments. I've observed that many devotees fail to make the important distinction between our siddhanta and our practice. When Srila Prabhupada speaks of adjustments, he is referring only to practice and not tattva. Let's face it, all of us are having to make personal adjustments to Srila Prabhupada's sadhana practice simply so we can survive within this material world. We can change our sadhana at any time, whether it is chanting a certain number of rounds, following regulative principles, worshiping the Deity and so on. I will say with all conviction, if anyone ever meddles around with the absolute philosophy they are putting themselves in grave danger, both physically and spiritually. That level of attempted adjustment will/can cause catastrophic ramifications, regardless of the imagined intentions. It's the road to hell.

The few times I am aware of when Srila Prabhupada became so disturbed that he removed individuals from the society were when he caught them preaching bogus philosophy. On the other hand, there were innumerable circumstances when Srila Prabhupada discovered someone in a leadership capacity wasn't chanting their rounds, attending the programs or were even breaking one or more of the four regulations. In those instances, he responded in a forgiving mood, especially if the individuals appeared overwhelmed with service, particularly preaching. No one got excommunicated for not following the process perfectly, only for concocting the philosophy.

Our philosophy and traditions allow us to understand, in detail, what is the absolute ideal set of circumstances for human behavior, from Varna ashram, to divine depictions in the Ramayana, Maha-Bharata, Srimad Bhagavatam, Caitanya-caritamrta, and the pastimes of the Sampradaya Acaryas. All these examples are inspiring, but the bottom line is that we have to take all this exalted information, assimilate it and apply it realistically to our present personal circumstance. This applies to both the individual and groups of devotees trying to associate together, especially with the common goal of pleasing the Sampradaya Acaryas by their preaching endeavors.

Shiva das wrote:

I only included above the first section of your presentation regarding why you think Srila Prabhupada emphasized Guru Worship. Some critics, particularly in the Gaudiya Matha, feel Srila Prabhupada exaggerated the Guru worship process for dubious reasons. This we know for sure. I would advise any reader who hasn't read Shiva dasa's complete explanation to scroll-up and do so before continuing. It is very interesting.

I feel there is some validity to your conclusions, but I also disagree in the sense that you give the impression that Srila Prabhupada made a conscious or calculated decision to go down this route of implementing the daily guru puja and grand Vyasa-asana. I don't exactly see it in that light. It is my belief that as an inconceivably advanced Sampradaya Acarya, Srila Prabhupada was in complete awareness of what the Supreme Personality wished to have unfold before him. The Lord has his own divine reasons and goals to undertake. Srila Prabhupada unhesitatingly and enthusiastically accepted all the unexpected manifestations of Lord Sri Krsna's arrangements throughout his life, including during the ISKCON-lila period. There's no need to list all the innumerable "surprises", as we all have vivid historical memories of those glory days during Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON lila, which I'm sure were not according to any preconceived plan.

In other words, I prefer to see Srila Prabhupada and his pastimes as orchestrated by Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. In fact, his pastimes are, in a sense, future extensions of Lord Caitanya's pastimes as the Yuga Avatar. I also include Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura as being a part of this "lila" of spreading Krsna Consciousness worldwide. Jagannatha dasa and Gaura kisora dasa babajis were also transcended players in this extraordinary drama. Because I chose to view this aspect of the lila as such, I am not inclined to accept sociological, psychological, historical, cultural, or any other explanations as being complete or accurate. Overall these interpretations tend to minimize the exalted position of the Sampradaya Acaryas, what to speak of their transcendental pastimes, writings, and achievements.

I'm inclined now to see that all our problems (personal and collective), which are many, stem from our lack of acceptance/realization of the concept of the Sampradaya Acarya. Srila Prabhupada taught us that all problems have a philosophical root cause, and therefore the solution must come from correcting the siddhantic deviation. We can not, therefore, solely point blame at some un-enlightened GBC or ambitious Gaudiya matha Gurus, without pinpointing their tattva deviation. Of course, as public figures they deserve to be challenged by their constituency. While they don't view us Godbrothers as being under their umbrella of assigned duties given to them by Srila Prabhupada, our Srila Prabhupada did leave his ISKCON to all of us, not just them. While it may be far beyond the realm of possibility to change their mind-set on this issue, the Sampradaya Acarya viewpoint is my attempt to do just that. I believe it is rooted in guru tattva, which we all agree forms the core of our problems. You can choose to call it recognizing the; Maha-Bhagavats, jagat-gurus, nitya-siddhas, shaktavesa avatarsa, or simply "Krsna's arrangement" rather than my all-encompassing phrase, ‘Sampradaya Acarya'. But whatever you choose to call it, I invite all readers to focus on the "tattva" supporting it rather than simply the name I chose to describe it.

As you so eloquently expressed below:

He was always pushing and instructing disciples away from forming a personality cult around him.

What happened in Iskcon was the opposite. The Guru's formed personality cults around themselves, consciously so. Not all to the same degree though. Still they " misunderstood what Srila Prabhupada had set out to do with the Guru Puja ceremony, and with the repetitive teachings about the position of the Guru.

Everyone believes what they want to believe, especially if by doing so they greatly benefit in terms of power and prestige or the doctrine facilitates a great many of their material desires. Some of the Zonals no doubt thought in the manner you outlined above, but others also mixed in familiarity and envy, You have just touched upon one part of the iceberg of a problem, but it was like tasting one drop of ocean water. By doing so we can determine the qualities of the entire ocean.

Srila Prabhupada was detached. He did what he did for a purpose other then to gain worship and service from others. He understood that he was playing a role that was necessary for the time and place.

As Bhaktisiddhanta has said:
rasika bhakata raja kabhu sisya kore na
rasika janera sisya ei bhava chade na

Srila Prabhupada was like this description. While he encouraged worship of himself, it was really about training neophytes into a new religious paradigm. In fact he always consulted with his disciples and took their advice on many issues. His was not a fascist regime.

I love the verse you presented here, and your purport. I have explained above how my understanding of Srila Prabhupada as a Sampradaya Acarya has helped me comprehend the ISKCON lila and the aftermath of his unexpected departure. We are left to wonder, and in some respects to speculate, as to why Srila Prabhupada did things in a certain way and what was in his mind. Ultimately, Srila Prabhupada and his pastimes are inconceivable to us neophytes, especially since at the time (66-77) we were even less realized than we are today. As I said before, I think it's better to err on the side of over-glorification than on the side of minimization in such circumstances. It seems to be less risky to one's personal spiritual enlightenment. So long as we are careful to not transgress our siddhanta by falsely declaring Srila Prabhupada to be on the level of Visnu tattva, we are safe. It may take a future personality on the spiritual level of Krsna dasa Kaviraja to accurately inform us of the philosophical details of this phenomenon of spreading Krsna Consciousness worldwide by the appearance of the successive Sampradaya Acaryas over a hundred year period. For now, establishing that "sastra" will take an act of God. I just feel I have to share my personal perspective, and I'm not attempting to be seen as a prophet in this respect.

As far as understanding the minds and motives of the Zonals, that's on an entirely different level. Let's all remember we gave them the benefit of the doubt many times over. Kala and Paramatma exposed them for the charlatans they were, yet some of them are still riding atop the myth machine. Go figure, this material world never ceases to amaze me. Just as things have continued on after the last US Presidential election, which revealed the extent of all pervasive ignorance in America, we find that life goes on as it is in ISKCON today.

Srila Prabhupada taught us that individuals surrender to the Guru they deserve and desire. What does that say about the fawning loyal disciples of today's GBC approved Gurus? I am somewhat out of touch with the inner workings of the institution we once called home. From what I've heard there is a rainbow of diksa Guru notions depending upon which Guru you talk to. There's a lot of soul searching going on amongst the more sincere types, compounded by the fear of falldown. I don't see many blissful diksa gurus around these days. Many seem to be burned out, unhealthy, unhappy and in anxiety. I don't envy them in the least, and as for their disciples, nowhere I have read that everyone taking to Krsna Consciousness is guaranteed a perfect pure devotee for a diksa guru. The Sampradaya Acaryas are the only ones certified as unalloyed devotees. My advice to newcomers is to not fall for the hype of needing a living link diksa guru ASAP. The Sampradaya Acarya will provide all the knowledge and wisdom required and connect one to the Caitya guru.

ISKCON decided long ago to hang a "buyer beware" sign on their door, along with a general disclaimer: no guarantees, no refunds, no quality control, no minimum working conditions, no health care or retirement benefits. It's somewhat like the recent novel, "The Life of Pi". Worst of all, there is no surety of personal attention or proper educational training, which are supposedly the hallmarks of diksa and the expressed desire of the Sampradaya Acaryas. I don't want to paint the picture with too broad a brush, but anyone who likes to imagine that everything is just fine and dandy in ISKCON is living in la-la-land. Still, there are plenty of devotees who still see it that way. Isn't Maya devi amazing!

Shiva wrote:

I haven't been to any of his programs, nor have I ever met him in person. I've read some transcripts of his lectures and articles, and that was enough for me… along with Srila Prabhupada's words of warning, of course. What stands out or is symbolic to me is that although BV Narayana Maharaja claims he is a siksa disciple of our Srila Prabhupada, he never addresses him as Srila Prabhupada (the master from whom all masters take shelter). Instead, he calls him Swami-ji. That speaks volumes to me. I guess I've said all I can say about this phenomenon. To me, he is a symbol of eastern style religiosity, a throwback to the village "sahijya" ancestral guru, who prefer that you turn your back on the Sampradaya Acaryas. Thanks to your astute appraisal of BV Narayana Maharaja and company, which I have adopted "in full" as part of my own ‘official' viewpoint. I give you credit each time I present my conclusions on BV Narayana to others. I'll chant "Shiva dasa uvaca". Thanks! I owe you.

I wish you Aloha and a happy New Year.

Your servant,
Rocana dasa

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 01/05/2005 03:56 PM PST

On the issue of Srila Prabhupada's statements, either written or spoken,I have a couple of questions: If any conception whatsoever was there in Srila Prabhupada's heart, but wasn't spoken and written by him during his lifetime, does that mean we will not accept that such concept/realization was there? For example, Srila Prabhupada (to my knowledge) never spoke or wrote about his own svarwp in the eternal lila. Should I then assume and conclude that he had not one? Also, it is a fact that Srila Prabhupada, near the time of his departure, asked forgiveness from anyone who he may have offended by his preaching. Was he being diplomatic or did he genuinely feel he had offended? And if so, who are the persons he might have offended? What are their names? Is this questioning genuine for Srila Prabhupada's disciples and followers, or not?

Posted by Govinda dasi @ 03/13/2005 11:39 AM PST

Dear Rocana Dasa and others.

We have been taught by Srila Prabhupada, that the end result of anything done is what proves whether something was done wrong or right.

We must act in a spiritual and scientific way, not only theoritical and philosophical. That will make us mental speculators and mayavadis.

First we must now realize that pratically all of Srila Prabhupada's original leader disciples have fallen down. What is the reason? That must be searched out. On the other hand Srila Narayana Maharaja becomes more and more a maha bhagavata.

Srila Prabhupada allowed only Narayana Maharaja to lead his samadhi. Srila Prabhupada at the end of his presence, called for Narayana Maharaja, and asked that he be forgiven because he had offended his god brothers while trying to spread Krsna consciousness in the west. He was very serious about this forgiveness because he said it in tears. If someone thinks that Srila Prabhupada was merely being diplomatic, then this makes Srila Prabhupada an offender. On the other hand when a devotee forgives and ask for forgiveness, this is a sign that such a person is a maha bhagavata devotee of the Lord.

Today, not one leader of ISKCON can be fully surrendered to and trusted. Somehow they falldown after some time. Why is this? Find out the scientific reason for this. It is because they have disobeyed Srila Prabhupada's request that we forgive and ask for forgiveness. Instead we continue to criticize Srila PPrabhupada's god brothers-all of whom are not on the planet. Srila Narayana Maharaja is not a god brother of Srila Prabhupada. He is a siksa disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Apart from this Srila Narayana Maharaja is senior by the order sannyasa to Srila Prabhupada yet he remains junior to Srila Prabhupada. It was Srila Narayana Maharaja who performed the fire sacrifice at Srila Prabhupada's sannyas ceremony. It was Srila Narayana Maharaja who defended ISKCON in court when Srila Prabhupada own son made an attempt to claim ISKCON as the property of his father in a material way.

If we ask persons like Kirtananda das, Bhavananda das, and other early disciples about Srila Narayana's close frindship with Srila Prabhupada, they would continue to deny and hide it. But where these fellows now in ISKCON. Therefore we cannot continue to follow their lies against advanced devotees Srila Prabhupada recognized in fromt of his own disciples.

Not one ISKCON devotee can make real spiritual advancement without surrendering to either Srila Sridhara Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja. See how this is true by those who leave ISKCON and then surrender to these two maha bhagavata devotees who were left purposefully by Krsna, after Srila Prabhupada was called back by Krsna. Do you think Krsna will call his pure devotee back without leaving some others here with us? Do you think Krsna to be like uncaring in this way? Do you think Srila Prabhupada was faking when he asked that Srila Narayana take his apologies back to his god brothers who were still on the planet? Do you think Srila Prabhupada to be a diplomatic actor? Where are Srila Prabhupada's very senior sannyasis who should have been in close friendship with Srila Narayana Maharaja. Instead they have been removed by Krsna in so many ways. The present leaders if they continue to disrespect and propagate disresprect like Rocana das, where do you think they will go very soon? Find out thee answers scientifically within your own souls.

As for Srila Narayana Maharaja, he has to be followed, for he is the present person who can fit the shoes of Srila Prabhupada. He and only he has the final and last touch of Srila Prabhupada's transcendental body. We must try to get some of that touch from him. That is the secret.

Posted by Siddhajana dasa @ 03/14/2005 07:04 AM PST

Dear Siddha ji, I found your sentiment in your love for Narayana Maharaja to be commendable.

Although when you make statements like this:

"Not one ISKCON devotee can make real spiritual advancement without surrendering to either Srila Sridhara Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja."

I find that you are swerving off the path of sincere devotion and love for your own Guru into a quagmire of apasiddhanta.

First off Sridhar Maharaja has left our association, so why would you say that no ISKCON devotee can advance without "surrendering" to him? Srila Prabhupada has left the planet as has Srila Sridhar, why do you say that is is necessary to "surrender" to Sridhardeva Maharaja?

Why also is it necessary to "surrender" to Srila Narayana Maharaja? You say not one ISKCON devotee can advance spiritually unless they "surrender" to Narayana Maharaja. What is so "scientific" about your argument?

What do you mean by "surrender"?

Are you saying that unless an ISKCON devotee submits himself or herself as a disciple to Narayana Maharaja that they will be unable to connect with God?

You call your argument "scientific". It hardly seems scientific to me. Rather it seems sectarian and coercive.

What about all the devotees who are not in ISKCON? Do they also need to "surrender" to Narayana Maharaja? There are so many elder Vaisnavas or even non elderly vaisnavas who take disciples who are not in ISKCON. Are their disciples also lost without surrendering to your parivar?

Your argument makes no scientific sense.

You claim that because Srila Narayana Maharaja performed some service to Srila Prabhupada at a fire yajna, and at his burial, that therefore that is to be taken as some kind of hidden symbolic message that Srila Narayana Maharaja is Prabhupada annointed successor.

If in fact that was the desire of Srila Prabhupada why would he not have said that explicitly? Prabhupada knew he was going to leave his body in his last few months. Surely such a monumental decision like appointing a successor would have been paramount in his mind. He would have made it clear as the sun in the sky on a cloudless day that Srila Sridhar or Srila Narayana Maharaja were to be his successors.

When Sridhar Maharaja was about to leave the planet he made it very clear, in writing, what he wanted to be done. He appointed Govinda Maharaja as his successor, there is no doubt to that fact.

Yet the only claims from the followers of Sridhar and Narayana Maharaja's in their quest to have everyone believe that Prabhupada annointed their Guru's as successors, is much less then what one would need to show that Srila Prabhupada had a definitive desire for them to be his successors.

Where is the document or taped speech where Srila Prabhupada hands over the reins?

Such an important decision about his lifes work surely would have inspired him to have made it very clear whom he wanted as his successors.

Yet all we have is a few words of praise for Sridhar Maharaja, and a few words advising his disciples that if they felt they needed some advice from Sridhar Maharaja they could go ask him.

As for Narayana Maharaja, again we see Prabhupada asked Narayana Maharaja to take care of the burial details because his own disciples were not knowledgeable about the proper procedures. Prabhupada may also have had a long time friendly relationship with Narayana Maharaja, as he also had long time friendships with many people.

Yet to make the claim the both Sridhar Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja were specifically chosen as Prabhupadas successors, that is clearly an un-scientific claim.

Either way, why let it bother you? You have faith, you have your connection. You claim that ISKCON is offensive and fallen for not surrendering to your Guru. That claim is "scientific" in your estimation.

Well in my estimation anyone who demands submission to some Guru, telling everyone that they cannot advance spiritually unless they do so, is living in dreamland. No sastra tells us that you have to submit to a particular Guru. Sastra tells us that Krishna sends Guru to you when you become qualified. To try and force a Guru on someone, that is apasiddhanta, that is not the path of Vaisnavism.

The relationship between Guru and disciple is like a marriage. It mus be based on mutual desire, mutual taste, if it is forced on someone by coercion, then it will be without love, without respect.

Posted by shiva das @ 03/14/2005 01:14 PM PST

Dear Shiva das,

We have met internetly before on other forums. I also go by Sidd or Siddha.

Yes it is scientific and karmic. The scientific laws of spiritual life I am trying to point out.

The spiritual flaw that Srila A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada or any spiritual master in our chain of succession has left us and that we don't need to surrender is not spiritually scientific. Actually every person who is living in the west and also India as well now, if they are choosed by Krsna, that is if they have sufficient bhakti sukriti must accept and surrender to Srila Prabhupada. This also holds true now for Srila Sridhara Maharaja, who although late in coming to the west and preaching in the English language has made his contribution as per requested by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada his gurudeva and also Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada his younger god brother by age and by Krsna conscious experience according to out Srila Prabhupada lotus lips himself. In fact Srila Sridhara was like a siksa guru to most of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples. That is why he was given the title "Rakshaka" "guardian to devotees" by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada.

Another guru we(Iskcon devotees and general westerners and also those in India) have to acknowledge is Srila Bhaktipragnana Kesava Maharaja. He is the sannyas guru of our Srila Prabhupada. It was because of his and Srila Narayana's heavy preaching and influence, which Srila Prabhupada surrendered to, casue him to take up the order of sannyasa. This was stated by Srila Prabhupada himself, that he took it that his gurudeve was speaking through these two persons. This is spiritual science we are dealing with. We have forgotten the scientific aspect of it. That a spiritual master can speak through another pure personality. ISKCON devotees were told by Srila Prabhupada that proper respect should be given to all his god brothers despite what ever differences he had with them at the time. But persons like you and Rocana and the eraly leaders propagated a path of disrespect for Srila Prabhupada's God brothers and continue to teach this disrespect even to this day some almost 40 years after this was told not to do. This is madness.

Therefore madness is all pervasive in ISKCON in the form of Ritvik philosophy both from a diksa and siksa point of view. One group says only Srila Prabhupada can initiate. Another group says only Srila Prabhupada can be surrendered to for siksa and to hell with Srila Sridhara, Srila Kesava, Srila Narayana, and to hell with all other Srila Bhaktisidhanta's disciples whether we know of their actual purity or not. To hell with all the Gaudiya Maths. Is this a sane proposal or a madman's chant? Yet this is exactly what you and others preach in very nice language full of big words. Therefore the actual transcendental science has left you. You cannot see, feel, experience, appreciate inwardly the transcendental vibration coming from Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta through Srila Sridhara Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja, first because you think Krsna was careless in leaving us without a pure guru, second you think nothing of the transcendental friendship shared prior and after coming to the west, between the three personalities in our spiritual life. It is now juts not Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Our spiritual development will involve meeting other pure personalitites in this life and the ones we have coming until we are fully pure ourselves. This scientific process had begun just after the disappearance of His Divine Grace.

First through his strong friendship with Srila Sridhara Maharaja and his also learning from Srila Sridhara Maharaja, he introduced Srila Sridhara Maharaja as his siksa guru and friend-in his view the best of his god brothers who were alive at the time. He therefore surrendered-trusted him apart from his gurudeva. He also did the same with Srila Kesava Maharaja who also trusted Srila Sridhara Maharaja by taking sannyas from him as well. So really it is one spiritual and scientific chain of disciplic succession.

What ISKCON devotees who have become "maya aparitha jnana" bed ridden, due to not accepting this continued chain of transcendental authority, not by written law, but by spoken words and transcendental intentions, only to be realized and surrendered to by those who are not offensive to Srila Prabhupada's god brothers. We cannot become offensive to any person what to speak of vaisnavas we really dont know. Not one of Srila Prabhupada's eraly disciples really knew Srila Prabhupada's god brothers. There were some god brothers that were technically envious of Srila Prabhupada, were against him for accepting the title "Srila Prabhupada", coming to the west without authority from them etc, refuse to ackcknoldege Srila Prabhupada's white and black and green disciples. Refused to accept how Srila Prabhupada allowed lady disciples to live in the same building and compounds with men disciples, reduce to the chanting from the prescribed 64 rounds to 16 rounds minimum, and the list goes on. It is such god brothers Srila Prabhupada had warned, I repeat "had warned" his disciples not to associate and hear from in any way. It was therefore a fatherly protection for his disciples. He further stated that if the disciples were bent on hearing from any of his god brothers, that person should only be at least Srila Sridhara Maharaja. In other words there goes the siksa guru connection.

Because some ISKCON devotees are themselves of the same spirit of envy and jealousy of those god brothers of Srila Prabhupada, they lump Srila Sridhara Maharaja into all those god brothers of Srila Prabhupada who were outwardly and inwardly envious and jealous of Srila Prabhupada's grand success. These disciples like yourself and Rocana continue and envious parampara instead of the correct linage of transcendental appreciation, love, devotion and surrender. This was shown again and again by Srila Sridhara Maharaja, towards Srila Prabhupada. He really loved Srila Prabhupada. The transcendental autocrat Krsna, knew of this love for Srila Prabhupada, and therefore He now allows Srila Sridhara Maharaja to share the same seat with Srila Prabhupada. There is even one photo like that. In this way ISKCON devotees must also accept the siksa of Srila Sridhara Maharaja along with Srila A. C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. ONe compliments the other. One has helped to prepare the other, and one has asked the other to help prepare his disciples. Do understand this transcendental inner arrangement by Krsna? If you cannot accept this I am sorry for your present realizations. Tjis is what I meant by every ISKCON devotee and disciple and grand disciple must acknowledge Srila Sridhara Maharaja. The best acknowldgement of a guru is to read their books and lectures whole heartedly and then distribute them to others. This is what I do. This keeps me sane and understanding spiritual manuvering scientifically.

Translating these principles to Srila Narayana Maharaja, is of the same siksa acceptance and acknowledgement. It has nothing to do with writing down. It may be written or it may not be written.

We now have the experience that no one can trust any guru in ISKCON. They may falldown at any time. Simply because they have neglected the siksa guru aspect of Krsna consciousness. They have rejected the principles of "Krsna rupa Krsna swarupa". Both the diksa and siksa gurus must be prominent and of a high caliber. They must be above fall down and envious nature.

Thousands of good thinking Srila Prabhupada disciples have begun to consider sincerely the acknowledging of both Srila Sridhara Maharaja through reading and distributing his purports, and also reading and distributng the purports of Srila Narayana Maharaja. In both instances they accepted as qualified in terms of non envious of Srila Prabhupada's position, otherwise why would he acknowldge their presence and indicate to his disciples that they make take advice from these two vaisnavas. Because they were never envious and of the same class as some other god brothers of Srila Prabhupada. If Srila Narayana Maharaja was envious of Srila Prabhupada, why would Srila Prabhupada instruct him that he should carry the apologies to his God brothers. Those god brothers were the evious ones as described above. They are not Srila Sridhara Maharaja who was a close friend and siksa guru to Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada would not have requested Srila Narayana Maharaja to go to the sannyas guru of his own gurudeva and to send apologies to his friend who loved and supported him. It could not have been Srila Sridhara Maharaja. It was just those god brothers that were envious of Srila Prabhupada's position in the scheme of things. Srila Narayana knew who they were. It could not have been Srila Narayana Maharaja also, because Srila Prabhupada did not apologise to Srila Narayana Maharaja, because he was a friend and ardent supporter of Srila Prabhupada. In fact Srila Prabhupada also accepted Srila Narayana as his sannyasa guru as well. It was Srila Narayana who taught Srila prabhupada how to wear and wrap his sanyasa cloth and danda.

So there is transcendental credits going on. The credit giver is always the Supreme Autocrat first and foremost, but He gives or allows the credit to be seen and given by others. This is Krsna consciousness as I know it. Not that something is happening by luck and chance and some old historical friendship is taken lightly. Every thing in the scheme of Krsna consciousness is spiritually scientific and for an ultimate reason known only by the Autocrat Himself. It has nothing to do with what the GBC or you or I think. It has to do with what is the transcendental inner arrangements by Krsna. Krsna knew before all of us that Srila Prabhupada would be the one to come first to the west. Why? Becasue he took his gurudeva's requset seriously. Krsna knew that some credit will have to be given to Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Why? Because he never disrespected Srila Prabhupada and in fact loved andhelp to nuture him in his early days. When the time came to come to the west, it was Srila Sridhara Maharaja who sent Srila Prabhupada to the lous feet of Srila Kesava Maharaja, knowing factually that he would give him support and the order of sannyasa. While there at the ashram of Srila Kesava Maharaja, they both started the Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti, the fore runner to ISKCON as it where. Srila Prabhupada also started the League of devotees but that was not to be. When he came to the west, he was supported by Srila Narayana Maharaja in many ways. When he went back to India, the first persons he visited were Srila Sridhara Maharaja, and Srila Kesava Mahraja, and of course Srila Narayana Maharaja. They were not envious of Srila Prabhupada's western success. Instead they were emotionally supportive if not physically at first. But they were also physically to a great extent as well. Is it any wonder why disciples of Srila Prabhupada, before they can proceed on to greater Krsna conscious levels, they will have to, I repeat they will have to acknowledge these siksa guru pastimes and tattva. This is the missing links og ISKCON today. They have insulted the only true and three friends and ardent admirers and supporter of Srila Prabhupada. These are the three gurus being discussed here. Otherwise Krsna is not a fool. Try to understand this transcendental siksa science once and for all. This is my advice to you all. I will have nothing further to add on this topic.

Posted by Siddhajana dasa @ 03/14/2005 06:23 PM PST

Do you know what a tautology is when used in logic?

Wikipedia

Tautology

In logic, a tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative. Logical tautologies use circular reasoning within an argument or statement.

Sidd-You must surrender to Narayana Maharaja and Sridhar Maharaja.

Shiva-Why?

Sidd-Because they are pure devotees

Shiva-Prove it

Sidd-Srila Prabhupada said they were pure

Shiva-Srila Prabhupada said many of his disciples were pure devotees

Srila Prabhupada: "I want one student who follows my instruction. I don't want millions. Ekas candras tamo hanti na ca tara-sahasrasa. If there is one moon in the sky, that is sufficient for illumination. There is no need of millions of stars. So my position is that I want to see that at least one disciple has become pure devotee.

Of course, I have got many sincere and pure devotees. That is my good luck. But I would have been satisfied if I could find out one only."

Sidd-You must surrender to Narayana Maharaja and Sridhar Maharaja or you are offensive, this is scientific

Shiva-Can you provide proof of that statement from Sastra?

Posted by shiva @ 03/14/2005 07:09 PM PST

Sidd you wrote:

"Because some ISKCON devotees are themselves of the same spirit of envy and jealousy of those god brothers of Srila Prabhupada, they lump Srila Sridhara Maharaja into all those god brothers of Srila Prabhupada who were outwardly and inwardly envious and jealous of Srila Prabhupada's grand success. These disciples like yourself and Rocana continue and envious parampara instead of the correct linage of transcendental appreciation, love, devotion and surrender."

I've never lumped Sridhar Maharaja into a group of anyone. I've never claimed that you shoudln't hear from Sridhar Maharaja, if you say that I have, please show where you read such a thing from me.

I have criticized Narayana Maharaja based solely on things he has said which I consider to be incorrect. I have never said you shouldn't hear from him, nor have I ever said said that he was envious of Srila Prabhupada. If you have some proof that I have, please post that.

You seem to want my stamp of approval on various Vaisnavas as being pure devotees everyone should hear from, respect, worship, etc.

Just because someone claims that someone else is mighty and high and should be respected as a Jagat Guru, should we just abandon the sastric injunctions which inform us that we should study a person very very carefully before accepting them as a Guru?

This is exactly what you seem to propose. Simply accept someone whimsically as a Jagat Guru on someone's word for it.

This is what happened in ISKCON. After Prabhupada left we had official Gurus. All new people were told that the Guru's were pure devotees and that they should be surrendered to and worshipped as pure devotees. There was little ability for the prospective disciple to study the Guru. The new Bhaktas were pressured and propagandized into simply accepting that the Gurus were in fact bona fide spiritual masters.

Because of this thousands of people took initiation and submitted their entire lives to people they knew nothing about.

Yet you claim what you are doing is somehow different.

You demand and propagandize people so that they will submit their lives to the control of Narayana Maharaja. They have no chance to closely observe and study his qualifications or lack thereof. They can read his lectures, but anyone can lecture sweet flowery words from the sastra if they have a good memory.

How do they know if Narayana Maharaja really is what he and his followers claim him to be? A manjari, a devotee in his eternal rasa with Krishna, here and now?

I for one have studied his lectures and writings and have come to the conclusion that he is not what he is advertised as being.

Now you claim that I am offensive if I disagree with others about his self proclaimed grandiose position?

You claim that I can have no connection to Krishna if I do not surrender to so and so swami?

Well I can only laugh, you couldn't be furthur from reality if you tried. My connection with Radha Krishna is through the siksa, the knowledge of the Bhagavat. The Bhagavat and assorted sastra can give the understanding of what is in your heart.

From Krishna speaking to Uddhava in the Bhagavatam:

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Uddhava, the Supreme Lord gives life to every living being and is situated within the heart along with the life air and primal sound vibration. The Lord can be perceived in His subtle form within the heart by one's mind, since the Lord controls the minds of everyone, even great demigods like Lord Siva. The Supreme Lord also assumes a gross form as the various sounds of the Vedas, composed of short and long vowels and consonants of different intonations.

Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

According to My instructions, one should fix the mind on Me alone. If, however, one continues to see many different values and goals in life rather than seeing everything within Me, then although apparently awake, one is actually dreaming due to incomplete knowledge, just as one may dream that one has wakened from a dream."

Without ever having heard a single word from Narayana Maharaja I had come to the above understanding. I seriously doubt that anything Narayana Maharaja has to say will change that simple fact.

Posted by shiva das @ 03/14/2005 08:00 PM PST

Dear Shiva Das

You are in a position just as Duvasa Muni. Many ISKCON devotees are now placed in that position. They are placed in that position because they think they know more than Srila Prabhupada. It is a question of guru nistha. They do not have it. Srila Prabhupada had whole heartedly trusted these two vaisnavas and now ISKCON early leaders have brain washed you into thinking Srila Narayana Maharaja has made some mistakes in his purports and leactures. This is the height of puffedupness and madness. This is Kirtananada parampara chain you and Rocana and others are propagating. You think you know more than Srila Narayana Maharaja and Srila Sridhara Maharaja and Srila Kesava Maharaja. You justify this by saying Srila Prabhupada says not to follow his god brothers. That was some 40 years ago. You are stuck in time. You have not spiritually advanced since that time. Time to make some advancement. You have not really realized the verses you quote. Reallization will only truly come when you stop all critisism of those vaisnavas who lives are properly dedicated and surrrendered and have not fallen down in any way.

You and others are now forced like Duvasa Muni to apologize to Srila Sridhara Maharaja, Srila Kesava Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja. These three were always dear friends and helpers to Srila Prabhupada. It is on account of their help as well, and specifically their help above all others, that you got to know Srila Prabhupada. They have some credits according to Srila Prabhupada. You must apologize to them. The best way is to make a study of their lives and purports, and then surrender to their advance siksa. This you and all the rest of ISKCON devotees must now do by default. Because you all have acted foolishly by critisizing them, when you guru never told you to do this. If he critisized them, then he apologized to them at the end. But he did not critized them. He also never instructed anyone to critisize them. Who are you to critisize them. You are not in any position to do that. And that is my god brother advice again to you. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it.

Posted by Siddhajana dasa @ 03/15/2005 06:24 AM PST

Instead of demagoguery and ad hominem diatribes, why not try and actually refute the actual points I have made in this thread?

Of course that means you will have to actually read what I wrote, and then conjur up an argument in opposition to the points I made. That is what is called "a debate".

Try and look into that...umkay?

You say that my criticisms of Narayana Maharaja comes from ISKCON and then you compare me to Kirtanananda.

My criticisms of Narayana Maharaja have nothing at all to do with anything ISKCON leaders have said, if you would take the time to read what I have written in this thread you would know that.

You insist that I should surrender or at least distribute the writings of people who I have no faith in as being fully self realized. For this view you say that I am a demon. Thats a pretty simple philosophy you have. If people accept you and your Guru then they are good, and if people don't accept then they are bad.

So if you want respect as a person with a point to make, and not just regarded as a dog barking at passers by, read the arguments I made in this thread and then respond to those arguments, point by point.

Posted by shiva das @ 03/15/2005 11:57 AM PST

Dear Govinda dasi:

Thank you for your comment on this Blog thread.

As for your first question concerning Srila Prabhupada's svarupa or eternal lila, that is a subject for which Srila Prabhupada didn't fully reveal an answer. My overall theme, namely that Srila Prabhupada is nitya-siddha, in a sense answers the question. In other words, Srila Prabhupada would have had to be in a "lila" with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in order for Lord Krsna to choose or appoint (or whatever happens on that level) Srila Prabhupada to come down to the material world so as to execute his divine mission. If you accept that premise, then you can be assured that Srila Prabhupada has a Lila with Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

As for the extremely advanced concepts expounded upon by the Six Gosvamis regarding a maha-bhagavata's eternal rasa within the realm of Vrindavan, I feel that is so far beyond our spiritual qualification to even speculate upon it that it would be foolish and risky to do so. We have so many more practical considerations to worry over and seek answers for. Perhaps someday in the future, when you are sufficiently purified by strictly following the sadhana process, the answer to your question may be revealed to you by the mercy of the Lord.

Your next question refers to Srila Prabhupada's departing statement asking for forgiveness. I've addressed that in a previous blog, but let me summarize. The fact that Srila Prabhupada didn't give an elaborate explanation as to why, who, or what he meant by this expression of genuine humility doesn't mean that it is open to mass speculation. For many things that Srila Prabhupada said, it depended upon the attitude and mentality of the listener in order for them to come to the intended meaning. This is no exception. The recipient of this message is, in a sense, being tested. Love is always tested!

There is an interesting word used to describe a phenomenon found in long, deep, intimate relationships -- it is "propinquity". In other words, the persons involved in these loving relations know the other party so well that they can know what they are thinking just by them uttering a single word or a facial expression. Especially under the circumstance in question, where Srila Prabhupada was not in a position to present his attending audience with a detailed explanation, all individuals were left to draw their own conclusions as to the meaning of this expression of humility. As we have witnessed of late, the BV Narayana Maharaja followers have chosen to adopt Narayana's particular interpretation. My question to you is, are you going to do the same?

your servant,

To The intelligent Vaisnavas who visit and read hear.

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 03/15/2005 12:36 PM PST

This false proposal that Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is a member of the "Sampradaya Acharyas"

There is no where in Srila Prabhupada's books, purports, lecture tapes and letters where he proclaimed that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Prabhupada, his gurudeva and his grand gurudeva Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur are to be relegated the titles of "Sampradaya Acharyas". Further, not even Srila Rupagoswmi, and the goswamis are refered to as "Sampradaya Acharyas". This designation is mentioned by Srila Prabhupada and other acharyas only as four(4) in number. Srila Prabhupada states as follows.

A Vaisnava should study the commentaries on Vedanta-sutra written by the four sampradaya-acaryas, namely Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnusvami and Nimbarka, for these commentaries are based upon the philosophy that the Lord is the master and that all living entities are His eternal servants. One interested in studying Vedanta philosophy properly must study these commentaries, especially if he is a Vaisnava. These commentaries are always adored by Vaisnavas. The commentary by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati is elaborately given in the Adi-lila, Chapter Seven, text 101. The Mayavada commentary Sariraka-bhasya is like poison for a Vaisnava. It should not be touched at all. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura remarks that even a maha-bhagavata, or highly elevated devotee who has surrendered himself unto the lotus feet of Krsna, sometimes falls down from pure devotional service if he hears the Mayavada philosophy of Sariraka-bhasya. This commentary should therefore be shunned by all Vaisnavas.

HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

This notion propagated by Rocana das as above posts, that Srila Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivinode, have been added to the four as stated above is a bhogus and speculative idea presented by him only. Where from he is getting this idea, God alone knows. Know it factually that there are only four personalities which vaisnavas refer to as "Sampradaya Acharyas". The reason being is that each personality brought a particular eternal truth in relation the the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which must be accepted by all vaisnavas. In other words they brought the entire eternal truths in four parts only. Such named acharyas are referred to as Sampradaya Acharyas and no one else.

Srila Bhaktivinode never brought any new and eternal truth about the Supreme Person. He simply followed the six goswamis realization and siddhanta as was presented by them and Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who is Krsna and Radha combined. Similarly, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has not brought any new truths regarding the Supreme Autocrat. He has simply repeated cent per cent what he heard from his father and his diksa guru Srila Gaurakisore Das Babaji. Again Srila A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has not brought any new and eternal truths regardiing Krsna the Supreme Living Entity. He has simply repeated what he has heard from his diksa guru Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami, and his god brothers and specifically his siksa gurus, which he gradually introduced to his disciples, and they are Srila Bhaktirakshaka Sridhara Goswami, and Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Goswami. Together all have not brought and new or specific transcendental truth, which was not already told in the past. They have simply repeated and expanded, and clarified the etaernal truths. They have not brought any new and eternal truths.

In order for a personality to qualify as having the title or being referred to as "Sampradaya Acharya" that personality has got to bring and eternal truth which was never brought on the planet where he visits. When the Supreme Lord visits such a planet, He agrees with what that acharya had newly brought to the human beings on that planet. That person is refered to "Sampradaya Acharya". This desgination is reserved only for such personalities.

At the disppearance of His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktiprajana Kesava Goswamipada, Srila Prabhupada broke into tears in front of his disciples. He said in that lecture, (parapharsed) "this my god brother, he was so kind, he forcefully gave me sannyasa. " I took it that my gurudeve spoke through him". Then he said "I am eternally indebeted to this my god brother".

These are eternal truths described in various lectures which everyone should read. They are not made up stories. When a maha bhagvata bless someone, that blessing will come to pass one day. Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Goswami is being thanked and blessed by Srila Prabhupada today, in the form of allowing Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja to help his fallen disciples like myself to regain their attachment to guru seva- service to our guru. Yet some of us disrespect Srila Sridhara Maharaja, Srila Kesava Maharaja, and now Srila Narayana Maharaja. This is sinful and demoniac. It cannot be any thing other than this.

Some of my god brothers are showing symptoms of something thenically called by Krsna in Bhagavad Gita, as "mayayapahrta-jnana". It means such a person who suffers from that disease, that their acquired good knowledge is stolen away by illusion due to mental speculation and disobeying spiritual authority. Here is what Srila Prabhupada explained concerning this type of knowledgeable personalities but completely misguided at the same time.

"(3) The next class of duskrti is called mayayapahrta-jnanah, or those persons whose erudite knowledge has been nullified by the influence of illusory material energy. They are mostly very learned fellows--great philosophers, poets, literati, scientists, etc.--but the illusory energy misguides them, and therefore they disobey the Supreme Lord.

There are a great number of mayayapahrta-jnanah at the present moment, even amongst the scholars of the Gita. In the Gita, in plain and simple language, it is stated that Sri Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is none equal to or greater than Him. He is mentioned as the father of Brahma, the original father of all human beings. In fact, Sri Krsna is said to be not only the father of Brahma but also the father of all species of life. He is the root of the impersonal Brahman and Paramatma; the Supersoul in every entity is His plenary portion. He is the fountainhead of everything and everyone is advised to surrender unto His lotus feet. Despite all these clear statements, the mayayapahrta-jnanah deride the personality of the Supreme Lord and consider Him merely another human being. They do not know that the blessed form of human life is designed after the eternal and transcendental feature of the Supreme Lord.

All the unauthorized interpretations of the Gita by the class of mayayapahrta-jnanah, outside the purview of the parampara system, are so many stumbling blocks on the path of spiritual understanding. The deluded interpreters do not surrender unto the lotus feet of Sri Krsna, nor do they teach others to follow this principle."
BG Chap 7.15 Srila Prabhupada.

I am of the firm opinion, accoding to what Rocana das is purporting about "Sampradaya Acharya" is due to this disease as described above.-this knowledge is stolen away by illusion due to mental speculation. His explanation of Sampradaya Acharya is complete wrong and seems a concoction of his own mind, rather than what the previous acharyas refer to as "Sampradaya Acharya" In his attempt to glorify his gurudeva Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and who is also my gurudeva as well, he tries to lump Srila Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktivinode and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta as well as all other prominent gurus right up to Srila Rupa Goswami and apply the designation "Sampradaya Acharya". This is complete mental speculation. It cannot be found any where, where this concept is bonafide. we should simply accept what our gurudeva has told us time and time again. There are only 4 personalities with that designation, simply to distinguish them from all others because those 4 have brought specifically completely new eternal truths about the Supreme Personality of Godhead never before explained and brought to the planet. New conceptions which form part of the vaisnava complete philosophy. When Krsna Himself comes in some form and especially in the humanlike forms, He substantiates this new tattva or truth to be exactly so. The vaisnavas are interested in all 4 of the Sampradaya Acharyas realizations because they form the complete understanding of God.

Posted by Siddhajana dasa @ 03/16/2005 01:17 PM PST

Sidd-If you would have read this debate you would know that we already discussed this very topic your refer to.

From me above:

"Srila Prabhupada did indeed call Madhva a sampradaya acarya, but in that reference he also named the other founders of the 4 modern Vaisnava Sampradayas.

Each of them were founders of their modern Sampradayas.

The other time Prabhupada used the term was:

Although your use of the term is not necessarily wrong, just it is not the same as the way Prabhupada used it."

And then Rocana Dasa replied with this:

"You suggest that I incorrectly coined the term 'Sampradaya Acarya' by using a quote wherein Srila Prabhupada is referring to past Sampradaya Acaryas who were actually the modern founders of their Sampradayas, such as Ramanuja, Visnu Swami and Madhva:

In this instance, Srila Prabhupada is speaking very specifically about the genesis of the Brahma Sampradaya, listing the direct disciplic chain as including both Madhva and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Clearly, in this context, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is included as being on par with all the other names in the direct disciplic chain. While the term "Sampradaya Acarya" is not mentioned here, in my mind this list is clearly more than a "mechanism used to authenticate the sampradaya among Vedic traditionalists", as you previously characterized it to be.

So it would be nice if you read through the debate before bringing up topics which have been discussed already.

Another point.

You seem to be intent on convincing us that certain personalities should be accepted as being the highest level vaisnava acarya.

We have pointed out our reasons why we do not do so.

Instead of addressing the points we made, you simply repeat your self over and over with demands that we should worship or submit ourselves to someone simply because he was praised by Srila Prabhupada.

Yet you ignore the fact that Srila Prabhupada would sometimes resort to vaisnava etiquette when praising someone. At various times he called various disciples of his pure devotees, and even he has called all of his disciples pure devotees at times.

Should we take Srila Prabhupada literally all the time?

By attempting to utilize quotes from Srila Prabhupada that are in praise of various contemporaries, we should bear in mind the time, place and circumstance.

In the Bhagavatam we can read where Lord Shiva is praised as the Surpeme Brahman. In Brahma's praise he confers onto Lord Shiva equal status to Lord Vishnu.

From the 4th canto chapter 6

Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

My dear lord, you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it, and annihilate it by expansion of your personality, exactly as a spider creates, maintains and winds up its web

O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikunthha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.

My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramâtmâ in each and every being, and as such they do not differentiate between one living being and another. Such persons treat all living entities equally. They never become overwhelmed by anger like animals, who can see nothing without differentiation.

My dear lord, you are never bewildered by the formidable influence of the illusory energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore you are omniscient and should be merciful and compassionate toward those who are bewildered by the same illusory energy and are very much attached to fruitive activities.

Now here we see Lord Brahma praising Mahadeva as if he were the Supreme Lord.

He overly praises Lord Shiva out of etiquette and respect.

He even says that Lord Shiva is never bewildered by the illusory energy of the Lord. Yet a little later Lord Shiva asks Lord Vishnu:

O my Lord, I, who am considered to be the best of the demigods, and Lord Brahma and the great rishis, headed by Marici, are born of the mode of goodness. Nonetheless, we are bewildered by Your illusory energy and cannot understand what this creation is. Aside from us, what is to be said of others, like the demons and human beings, who are in the base modes of material nature [rajo-guna and tamo-guna]? How will they know You?

My Lord, You are the supreme knowledge personified. You know everything about this creation and its beginning, maintenance and annihilation, and You know all the endeavors made by the living entities, by which they are either implicated in this material world or liberated from it. As the air enters the vast sky and also enters the bodies of all moving and nonmoving entities, You are present everywhere, and therefore You are the knower of all.

My Lord, I have seen all kinds of incarnations You have exhibited by Your transcendental qualities, and now that You have appeared as a beautiful young woman, I wish to see that form of Your Lordship.

My Lord, we have come here desiring to see that form of Your Lordship which You showed to the demons to captivate them completely and in this way enable the demigods to drink nectar. I am very eager to see that form.

At that point the form of Mohini-Murti appeared and starting playing and bouncing with a large ball. Then her garments became loosened and were blown away by the wind. Mahadeva was then able to see her completely naked. Lord Shiva became so agaitated with lust that he became overwhelmed with desire and chased Mohini-Murti in an attempt to have sex with Her, even though his own wife Parvati was right there.

O Maharaja Parikshit, best of kings, when Lord Siva had fully discharged semen, he could see how he himself had been victimized by the illusion created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Thus he restrained himself from any further maya.

Thus Lord Siva could understand his position and that of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has unlimited potencies. Having reached this understanding, he was not at all surprised by the wonderful way Lord Vishnu had acted upon him.

Seeing Lord Siva unagitated and unashamed, Lord Vishnu [Madhusudana] was very pleased. Thus He resumed His original form and spoke as follows.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O best of the demigods, although you have been amply harassed because of My potency in assuming the form of a woman, you are established in your position. Therefore, may all good fortune be upon you.

Then after a few more sweet words from Lord Vishnu both Lord Shiva and Parvati returned home. There Shiva spoke the following.

O descendant of Bharata Maharaja, Lord Siva, in jubilation, then addressed his wife, Bhavani, who is accepted by all authorities as the potency of Lord Vishnu.

Lord Siva said: O Goddess, you have now seen the illusory energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the unborn master of everyone. Although I am one of the principal expansions of His Lordship, even I was illusioned by His energy. What then is to be said of others, who are fully dependent on maya?

When I finished performing mystic yoga for one thousand years, you asked me upon whom I was meditating. Now, here is that Supreme Person to whom time has no entrance and who the Vedas cannot understand.

So the point I am making is that if someone is praised in an elaborate way by exalted personalities, that does not necessarily mean that the praise is 100% accurate.

Srila Prabhupada praised various people as pure devotees, even disciples of his who have left the path of Bhakti altogether.

So in citing words of praise by Srila Prabhupada as being the last word on the level of a persons self realization, that is not a very logical thing to do.

Your repeated attempts to use words of praise from Srila Prabhupada as some kind of holy writ is unfounded in it's merit.

People should be judged on their own words and actions, not simply by the praise of others alone.

So when you demand that we accept somebody or another as the highest level vaisnava, simply because Srila Prabhupada said a few words of praise at one time or another, I for one cannot accept that alone as unimpeachable proof.

Otherwise we would have to accept all of Srila Prabhupadas disciples as pure devotees because he at one time or another praised them as such.

Are you ready to accept all of Srila Prabhupadas disciples as pure devotees?

If not, why do you demand that I or anyone else accept someone as a pure devotee simply because Srila Prabhupada praised them?

They stand or fall on their own merit.

Posted by shiva das @ 03/16/2005 02:25 PM PST

Shiva das uvaca
"Should we take Srila Prabhupada literally all the time?"

According to my understanding and realizations now, it is the safest position to take. When in doubt say yes to Srila Prabhupada in 2005 some 40 years after he has spoken something. Otherwise we cannot really trust ourselves, our own mind, an ISKCON devotee's mind because they may also be confused and especially where such a person speaks ill of advanced vaisnavas like Srila Sridhara Maharaja, Srila Kesava Maharaja and Srila Narayana Maharaja, all od who had personal dealings with Srila Prabhupada before we ever took birth even some of us at least, what to speak of coming to Krsna consciousness. So the answer is a definate yes, we must always accept what Srila Prabhupada says as good as what Krsna would have told us. Even in making jokes with his disciples, Srila Prabhupada was preaching something. This is why every word spoken by a maha bhagavata must be taken as if Krsna is speaking. Due to the blissful nature of a pure devotee he sometimes will make jokes. Within those pastime jokes likes eternal blessing in some form. This is the meaning of having implicit faith in the guru, and all the imports will be revealed to such a person. Do you remember that Srimad Bhagavatam cerse which describes this. Krsna makes many jokes as well, but within those jokes there are many many meanings. Similarly, Krsna's bona fide represent has that same effect. He must or else heis not bona fide at all. Is it not? Again accept exactly what he says as absolute truth whether your mind says to you "nah he doh really mean dat na"

Shiva das uvaca
You seem to be intent on convincing us that certain personalities should be accepted as being the highest level vaisnava acarya.
Yet you ignore the fact that Srila Prabhupada would sometimes resort to vaisnava etiquette when praising someone. At various times he called various disciples of his pure devotees, and even he has called all of his disciples pure devotees at times.

Yes if Srila Prabhupada referred to his disciples as pure devotees-they are pure devotees-but a madhayama adhikari-a devotee who has reached the middle platform of realization, knows there are various levels of pure devotees even beginning from the kanistha stages. When a living being has been fortunate to meet a maha bhagavata guru such as Srila Prabhupada, it is to be uuderstood by a madhayama adhikari that such a person is indeed pure. He/she is not to be taken as an ordinary person unfortunate to meet a bona fide guru who never heard the name or will never hear the names of Krsna or eat krsna prasad. Yes indeed all of Srila Prabhupada disciples are pure devotees but not all are attempting to at least reach the madhayama adhikari stages of good sighting and realization. If one remains in the kanistha stage, then one realization is very minute and would miss some statements or belittle or under value statements even in joke form by the maha bhagavata guru. Is Srila Prabhupada a maha bhagavata guru or not? If you say yes he is, then his every word should be taken as Krsna prasad. It cannot be sometime taken and sometimes not. His dealings also cannot be minimized in any way. If he says to someone that, such and such has returned to Goloka, then that must be taken without questioning. That is the safest position. He said this about His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Goswami Maharaja, not in a joking or jesture of humility or being diplomatic. He said it in extreme tears in his eyes on the passing of that uttama adhikari par excellence. Therefore it cannot be encouraged by any advanced devotee, to hear the blaspheming of such a pure devotee was described by another pure devotee, and to hear that "oh Srila Prabhupada was only being kind or only showing humility or being diplomatic at the time". This is avery diseased state to think like this. Yet I have seen this expressed by both you and Rocana das.

Shiva das uvaca
By attempting to utilize quotes from Srila Prabhupada that are in praise of various contemporaries, we should bear in mind the time, place and circumstance.

Again, who are the contemporaries-Srila Bhaktiprajnana Kesava Maharaja. This person had the fortune to wear the sannyasa robes of his gurudeva, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and saved his lfe in that way. He did tremedous service directly to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. He helped to also prepare Srila Prabhupada in influencing him to give up the thought of becoming a niskincina bhakat and staying in one place. He constantly reminded Srila Prabhupada wha

Posted by Siddhajana Dasa @ 03/16/2005 06:09 PM PST

Well it is question of guru nistha. Every thing Srila Prabhupada says in his books, tapes, lectures, passing remarks, at his death bed, while being massaged is absolute truth. If you ask those questions, then it means you dont accept everything from Srila Prabhupada. Here we are dealing with not new comers where the guru has to be tested. We have past the stage of testing Srila Prabhupada. If we accept certain things and reject others, then we have no implicit faith in Srila Prabhupada. Therefore how can all the imports of the scriptures and pastimes of Srila Prabhupada be revealed to such a person. This is exactly the problem some of us still have. We accept certain activity of Srila Prabhupada as very serious and others as merely "well he was being kind and diplomatic". This is not a description of a maha bhgavata guru.

I am not trying to convince you or anyone else, I am trying to protect the image of my diksa guru as presented by yourself and Rocana das and to remind you of the results of offending vaisnavas whether you think they are advanced or not and especially those vaisnavas have not fall down in any way.

By your questions above it is een that you do not have much faith in Srila Prabhupada. I dont know why, but I venture to say that you have been severely psychlogically damaged by this overiding thought ISKCON devotee leaders spread of Srila Prabhupada's god brothers, thinking that that is what Srila Prabhupada wanted. It is not a service to Srila Prabhupada to say that you cannot trust someone who he trusted. What you are in fact saying is that Srila Prabhupada trusted the wrong person or persons. The problem is very psychological. There have been so much trusted men in ISKCON by Srila Prabhupada, who have fall down that you cannt trust anyone else again. But have not realized the reason those men have disappointed Srila Prabhupada. The reason they have been removed by Krsna for the time being is because they insulted the trust of Srila Prabhupada, by insulting those god brothers he actually trusted. This is really and offence to Srila Prabhupada really. But in addition it also includes offenses to those vaisnavas god brothers he trusted. You also doubt the certain pastimes dealing with those god brothers of Srila Prabhupada. Who has lied Srila Prabhupada or his disciples or his god brothers in question. The answer is his disciples have told untriths to the masses of devotees including you and I. We whole heartedly believe them and this has sunk down in our psyche for many years. These lies have now become part of us as it where. So we make up these philosophies that the pastimes of Srila Prabhupada concerning these god brothers is of no importance to our spiritual lives. They dont mean a thing we keep telling ourselves because of whats inside of us. This is a psychotic state in regards to Srila Prabhupada's god brothers. As soon as we hear about Srila Prabhupada god brothers we act as though we hear about killers and murderers of our children. This is because of the poisoning we have received after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada. We say to ourselves well Srila Prabhupada did say we should not hear from his god brothers, without considering really which ones we should not hear from and if there are actually ones we could hear from. Also the GBC and leaders onced told that none of us should go to them ever, if we do we insult Srila Prabhupada. That type of mad thinking is go on in your heads. I have washed it out of my system, by a process of due consideration and research-a due diligence test in professional parlance. Then one can begin to see the light.

This question that Srila Prabhupada critisized his god brothers is a concoction by early ISKCON devotees. Srila Prabhuapada never critisized his god brothers really. He did not do this. Srila Prabhupada because of his success, were in fact critisized by some and certain of his god brothers. It was only about five or six of them actually. But they were the main leaders at the time. None of them were Srila Kesava, Srila Sridhara or his siksa disciple Srila Narayana Maharaja.

Because of the criticisms leveled at him, he warned his disciples that certain of his disciples had disagreed on his approach, while they themselves did nothing to help the world wide preaching efforts his gurudeva wanted all of them to assist in. So as a protection to his disciples who were travelling back and forth to India by then, he warned them that they becareful of associating with those who were envious of his preaching efforts and success, least they become spoiled and influenced by them. So he had to speak out against them so that his disciples did not want to go near them. However, later he began qualifying those statements by saying that if they were to go to any god brother then it should be at least Srila Sridhara Maharaja who he trusted whole heartedly. So that in fact that is not criticism of a vaisnava. If someone was bent on hurting the psyche of his disciples, it was his duty to defend his disciples. This is the science of Krsna consciouness. Similarly what I am doing is offending Srila Prabhupada and those god brothers who he trusted and were not those who criticized his preaching efforts but in fact were just the opposite-they supported him emotionally at least.

What we find in early ISKCON right after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada, is that everyone was told to hell with all of Srila Prabhupada's god brothers, because Srila Prabhupada toldd us not to go and hear from any of them and we broke that law and we went and we saw what happened to taking advice form that Sridhara Maharaja. he confused us with the guru issue and therefore we have to ban everyone from going to see him or anyone else. This was the teachings sent out to the masses in various ways. We were obedient and lived woith that for years. All the time it is completely wrong. That is what we have in our beingness. This is the actual problem in ISKCON. We are psychologically imbalanced when it comes to Srila Prabhupada god brothers, because of what was told to us ny the GBC. Srila Prabhupada did not imbalance us. In fact he told us and still tells us in those letters that some of his god brother can be gone too and especially after his leaving the planet. He named some and especially Srila Sridhara in particular. But that was not told to us by the GBC. So we have this confused psyche when it comes to Gaudiya Maths devotees and god brothers. This is a kind of psychosis on our path. So that when now Srila Narayana comes to the west and begins preaching and writing, psychotic oriented devotees says what the hell is he preaching? What is the effect he will have on us. Srila Prabhupada never said he could do like that. Whay has he come in our western world. Why is he coping Srila Prabhupada and siiting on a vyasa all by himself thinking that he can give us siksa and write books and translate BG etc, when our gurudeva has done this and we have everything already. This is a psychotic mad mind who thinks like this. This should be addressed and corrected by everyone who has it. I have detected that both you and Rocana still has that psychosis against ant thing Gaudiya math devotees. this madness. This is what I mean when I say madness. It cannot be like that. You wont beable to advance in the true science of Krsna consciousness with such deep rooted GBC oriented poisoning. This you will have to give up.

Posted by Siddhajana Dasa @ 03/16/2005 07:14 PM PST

Correction not "offending" but defending

Posted by Siddhajana Dasa @ 03/16/2005 08:40 PM PST

Change offending to defending

Posted by Siddhajana Dasa @ 03/16/2005 08:43 PM PST

Shiva das uvaca
Are you ready to accept all of Srila Prabhupadas disciples as pure devotees?

Yes. As I answered before they are all pure devotees, but they may be pure on their particular platform either, kanistha, madhayama or uttama. Within these categories there are hundreds of platforms and dispositions. This is why Krsna has said in Bhagavad Gita "A little advancement can save one from the most dangerous type of birth". They are all bhakti yogis but may fall into trouble due to maya, but Krsna saves them and they continue on in their next life. This is why it is dangerous to simply critisize for critisizing sake and not genuinely trying to explain another's problem, so that one can addresss such a problem.

You have to understand when one becomes a devotee and takes initiation or even before taking initiation on has been through all purifying processes from his past lives. When one meets a maha bhagavat guru by the grace of Krsna, that guru initiates one and takes away further karma. Once is purified to that extent. One continues on and chants the Maha Mantra and becomes further purified. What happens is certain types of anarthas remain within and thinks one is not pure and due to bad habbit from past lives one acts foolishly. But in actuality one is very bery near being a pure devotee. If one truly surrenders more by associating completely with a maha bhgavata devotee never mind it is not his gurudeva maha bhagavata, but somehow one desires to associate with a maha bhagavata devotee, Krsna will send that maha bhagavat devotee somehow. Dont ask me how and where he gets them from but they appear. One has to want o associate with a maha bhagavata devotee. This is the process. The problem is we do not want to continue associating with maha bhagavat devotees.

Posted by Siddhajana Dasa @ 03/16/2005 09:15 PM PST

Sidd- You keep repeating the same exact things over and over again as if they are some kind of magical incantation.

You have not replied to a single point I have made in my reasons for not accepting Narayana Maharaja. I assume this is because you have not read the entire debate, and therefore are unaware of my reasons, which really have nothing to do with anything Srila Prabhupada said or didn't say about his godbrothers.

You simply repeat your demands that I or anyone else must surrender to your chosen worshipable people.

If you are going to reply to this post, it would serve your argument well not to be simply repeating the same thing over and over. First go back to this Post where I give a partial critique of Narayana Maharaja.

Then you will know from what I have written, one of the reasons I reject Narayana Maharaja as the manjari he claims himself to be.

As you will see it has nothing to do with anything Srila Prabhupada said or didn't say about his godbrothers.

Then you can reply to that argument when debating with me. That is the only argument I have put forth on this blog for my reason in not accepting Narayana Maharaja as Jagat Guru.

Any other argument you make that is something other then debating the points I made on that link, is a waste or time, I have made no other argument, so far.

Posted by shiva das @ 03/17/2005 02:07 PM PST

Dear Shiva das

In fact I had already read your comments on Srila Narayana Maharaja, that same post a few days ago, and that is why I continued my posts.

All of what you say cannot be substantiated without physically proof. If you were to go to court of law, you will have to produce some hard evidence in ouder to win your case. What you have stated mostly is what you have heard other devotees say about Srila Narayana Maharaja. I am saying that I know of all these "sayings" of mostly psychotic oriented devotees such as Prithu dasa and other well known ISKCON men, who make up all these lies. That is is what they do because they are mad men. They keep falling down into deep trouble time and time again.

I have read and continue to read Srila Narayana's lectures and I am yet to come across all these things about him revealing his manjari form to any devotees. I am yet to see the painting of him in his manjari form. These things would have been all over the internet already if they were in fact true. There are devotees like yourself who try to bring up these mad statements by others as if they are facts. You are only furthering yourself in your psychotic symptom taken from personalities in ISKCON, all of whom suffered fro their offenses and continue to suffer for making such statements.

The thing is the exact thing was done to Srila Sridhara Maharaja by ISKCON devotees and especially the early leaders. I am saying it is on account of that same psychotic symptom that they lied about saying that Srila Prabhupada didnt want to have any thing to do with his god brothers and lumped everyone into thta same category.

I tell you if it werent for the internet and a few honest devotees who broke open all these hidden letters and so on which Srila Prabhupada wrote back and forth to both Srila Sridhara and Srila Narayana, those letter contained the kind of respect and most of all love shown to these vaisnavas.

Again I am saying there is no evidence of what you repeat from others. You have'nt actually seen or heard these things from the lips of Srila Narayana Maharaja himself. Even if a few disciples mis interprets what he says, you have to show the public and devotees what he is saying is not in line with the vaisnava sampradaya. Otherwise you are simply an offender thats all.

The poisoning inside devotees such as you is very tremendous. You are like zombies believing every thing you heard without you searching out yourself. This is madness. There is absolutely no proof of all these things you repeat. The exact same kind of lies was said of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. This poisoning is being passed from one ISKCON devoteee to the next. I had that poisoning myself. I was immediately turned off by merely looking at a photo of Srila Sridhara Maharaja one day. That is madness. That is insane. It ws due to what I had heard from senior ISKCON GBC men years ago. Until one day I met some devotees over the internet who showed me the way out of that mad dreamlike state that you are in. Simply quoting all lies on one of Srila Prabhupada well liked associates both in his pre ISKCON years and through ISKCON years and at the end of his time here with us. He showed his love for Srila Narayana Maharaja. he gave him the previlige of assiting his disciples in gaining more understanding about the science of Krsna consciousness. Where is Kirtanananda, Bhavananda, and all these stalwarts who were supposed to be very advanced devotees. Srila Narayana Maharaja is asking for them too. If they can come and take the proper siksa they can be reformed. They will have to. Like Duvasa Muni had to apologise to King Ambarisa for his offensive attitude and thinking. Similarly, all these ISKCON devotees will have to apologise to both Srila Sridhara Maharaja, Srila Narayana and of course Srila Prabhupada for mistrusting his siksa linage establishment. Otherwise they cannot make any more advancement and they will remain mad. You are in that linage of mad men. Do you think Kirtanananda is a sane person?

Posted by Siddhajana Dasa @ 03/17/2005 06:06 PM PST

I have been following with great interest the exchanges between Shiva dasa and Siddhajana Dasa. I am grateful that Shiva dasa is so capably responding to Siddhajna, in a way I would also respond.

Many thanks to Siddhajna for sharing his ideas and feelings in this blog. Along with Krsna dasa and Sridham sakha dasa, these representative spokesman for the BV Narayana Maharaja camp have given the readers here an opportunity to experience their basic party line, group-think, mood and viewpoint on Srila Prabhupada. Their vision on our Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya differs greatly from the conclusions presented by Srila Prabhupada. More importantly, these mouthpieces for the Gaudiya Matha position (particularly Narayana Maharaja's position) are proof positive that one cannot expect any miraculous improvement in one's spiritual advancement as a result of surrendering to their supposed "higher authority" siksa.

Rather than articulate the same points so aptly made by Shiva dasa, I will again address the issue of my use of the term "Sampradaya Acarya". Shiva dasa pasted out my earlier reply to him, which encapsulates the fact that I'm not attached so much to the term Sampradaya Acarya, but more to the well-defined concept.

To go back to the beginning, Srila Prabhupada presented to us all a short list of those personalities he considers to be uniquely exalted members of our Sampradaya. This list was originally compiled by his Guru Maharaj, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami, and Srila Prabhupada added his own name. We also know that the Godbrothers, of whom Siddhajna speaks so highly, added their names to the very same list. There are a total of 32 names on the list, and the first name is Lord Brahma. The time period represented by this list is inconceivable. My question to our opponent is, why did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati include only 31 names on the list? What is so significant about these particular 31 personalities? Let's not forget the fact that there have been innumerable bonafide representatives on the planet since Lord Brahma who have properly instructed their disciples in our siddhanta over countless ages. What category, exactly, should we place these personalities in? What name should we use to distinguish them from what Srila Prabhupada himself said were "regular gurus? Should these regular gurus feel free to add their names to this list?

I've made my opinion on this matter abundantly clear. In short, Srila Prabhupada should be on the list and his Godbrothers should not. Siddhajna strongly disagrees, for all his stated reasons.

Clearly, Siddhajna, you have "fallen in love" with the personalities you have chosen to associate with, and it is obvious to all readers you feel deeply and passionately about protecting their honor and spiritual status. On the other hand, myself, Shiva dasa, and many others have declined the open invitation to join you and your associates in what you describe as spiritual bliss. Thanks, but no thanks!

Time will tell whether we made the correct decision. I'm not worried about going to hell due to following the express orders of my Guru Maharaja, regardless of whether or not I may be incorrect about the fact that he is an empowered nitya siddha from birth. Better to be wrong in this regard than to take the path you have chosen. The reaction for serious offenses will weigh far more heavily on you if one of us proves to be wrong. Shiva das did some fabulous writing when he presented those sastric quotes which demonstrate that over-glorification is better than under-emphasis.

You do have it wrong when you interpret my statements to be criticism of the truly advanced Godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada. If there is some truth in your anecdotal stories of the past relationship they enjoyed with our Srila Prabhupada, then we can understand why they may have had such a difficult time accepting that Srila Prabhupada was, in fact, a successor, nitya siddha Sampradaya Acarya to their guru Maharaj. After all, manifesting his rightful accession to the Sampradaya Acarya status so late in life, and their having to admit that they were unaware of his latent potency, which was kept under cover for so many years while they were associating closely – that's a lot to accept. Such individuals can't find the humility within themselves to accept that they were blind to Krsna's arrangement for all those years. On the other hand, there are the disciples of Srila Prabhupada such as yourself, who were saved on account of the inconceivable potency of the Sampradaya Acarya, and who later came to minimize and essentially reject him for others. If we are correct in understanding Srila Prabhupada's lofty position, then that move on your part is very dangerous -- especially in light of the undisputable reality of Srila Prabhupada's warnings and direct orders to not go down that road. In light of all this, I can see why you are so irrationally adamant about your speculative stance.

Let's keep in mind, that we are all, to some degree, unenlightened conditioned souls and as such we are prone to make mistakes. We can't say with complete certainty that our ideas are absolutely true. In your case, you have blindly accepted BV Narayana Mahäräja as being an unalloyed devotee and therefore everything he utters on this subject you believe is unquestionably true. We don't. We accept Srila Prabhupada's orders to be absolutely accurate and to be followed without speculation as to their purpose. You think they are outdated by 40 years, despite the fact that they are enshrined in his sastric purports. I would be very nervous if I had done as you have done in light of the fact that if you are wrong, you run the risk of displeasing Lord Sri Krsna. At the least, you will have squandered an invaluable opportunity. Just as you are so passionately warning us of our great misfortune, we are cautioning you.

We all make our own decisions and we have to live by the results. You obviously felt a need to go to these personalities for assistance in your struggle to get free of the burdens of material existence and make advancement in the science of Krsna Consciousness. I, on the other hand, have absolutely no desire to go where you have gone. I am satisfied with Srila Prabhupada, and all that he has given me. It never crosses my mind that Srila Prabhupada didn't give me everything I need to reach the highest possible realm of Krsna Consciousness, nor is there any scarcity of divine mercy, inspiration, internal direction or knowledge. There is absolutely no compelling evidence, presented by you or any of your cohorts, that Srila Prabhupada ordered, desired, or even indicated that I or any of his disciples need to go elsewhere for any of the necessary components for making swift advancement in Krsna Consciousness.

Through your dissertations, you have further convinced me that the very worst thing that could happen to me is to see myself transform into a raving sycophant in the disguise of a good disciple of some other siksa guru. You are trying to ingratiate yourself with BV Narayana Maharaja and his senior representatives. As a result of submissively associating with them, you are challenging our assertions by presenting your realizations of their understanding of Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for helping me by saving me the time, effort and risk of going to the dangerous place you have gone and are now trapped. My preaching on this matter is motivated by my fervent desire to try and save others like you. My goal is to help fellow disciples resist the urge to take what appears to be an easy way out of surrendering to the hard work demanded by Srila Prabhupada of his disciples. You have fallen into one of the last snares of nescience, and I feel for you. For this reason, I am making this effort to make others aware of what/whom they are giving up. Make no doubt, by going to BV Narayana Maharaja, you are turning your back on Srila Prabhupada.

your servant,

Here is the first part of my criticism of Narayana Maharaja which you called internet rumors and not true. The font in bold will be what I posted earlier and the regular font will be new comments.

Posted by Rocana dasa @ 03/17/2005 07:20 PM PST

I have made many criticisms of the way he tries to portray himself as the topmost acharya.

He has made comments stating that he is Prabhupada's successor, I find this to be inconsistent with the words of a realized soul. Especially when there are and were many other gaudiya acaryas, many years his senior, still around with their own missions.

Narayana Maharaja Murwillumbah, Australia: Feb. 18, 2002 (eve):

"I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other. You should know this very openly. I am Bhaktivedanta and he is Bhaktivedanta, but he received this name after I did. I'm senior to him in this regard."

(That was copied from an article by Jadurani on VNN)

I am not and never have been a supporter of Narayana Maharaja. I know that he has said unpleasent things about Sridhar Maharaja, and in general his preaching seems to be geared towards gaining recognition as the topmost devotee.

This is well documented and to this day Sridhar Maharaja's sangha of devotees hold feelings of hurt and anger due to statements made by Narayana Maharaja. I won't repeat them here as they are well known to the Sridhar Maharaja sangha.

Also some of his most confidential disciples spread the idea around in their preaching that "Prabhupada gave the ABC's, and Narayana Maharaja is giving the post graduate conception".

From Jadurani (Syamarani)

"The higher siddhantas were also mentioned in his classes, and especially in his books, but at that time we did not have the adhikara, qualification, to hear or see them. The qualification would be coming, and the seeds of that qualification were being planted, but all we could hear and digest at the time was that A is for apple, B is for ball, and C is for cat.

Srila Narayana Maharaja also teaches 'A is for apple' for those who have not yet learned that. For those who have learned that, he teaches, "The cat runs." Unfortunately, some think he is saying something different from Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada planted the seed of bhakti in so many hearts, and if one seed sprouts a branch, what is the harm? If a seed that Srila Prabhupada has planted grows into a luxurious plant, what is the cause for criticism? Srila Narayana Maharaja is giving the exact same teachings, but we are able to hear more now.

We have to learn first that A is for apple, B is for ball, and C is for cat. Then we can learn, "The cat runs. Run, run, run. See the cat run." Without 'A is apple' we cannot understand full sentences, and without the sentences, ABC has no fruit. Everything is required. Everything is in Prabhupada's books, and Srila Narayana Maharaja is giving us the shovel to dig deeply into them. He is giving us the key to unlock their treasures.

Srila Narayana Maharaja is giving the exact same teachings, but we are able to hear more now. Srila Maharaja said in Salt Spring Island last week, "If I had told you twenty, twenty five, or thirty years ago what I am telling you now, you would have been totally confused. Now, more and more of what Srila Prabhupada wanted to give you is coming out."

I find this to be contradictory. If as she claims "Srila Narayana Maharaja is giving the same exact teachings", then that cancels out her argument that Narayana Maharaja has the "key to unlock their treasures". What? Did Srila Prabhupada write in some incrypted code that only Narayana Maharaja has "the key" for?

What I find interesting is both Jadurani's and Narayana Maharaja's claim is that:

"If I had told you twenty, twenty five, or thirty years ago what I am telling you now, you would have been totally confused."

This makes no logical sense when taken in the context with the previous statements of Jadurani, which really is an almost word for copy of a Narayana Maharaja lecture.

Ever since first becoming a Bhakta and starting my reading of Prabhupadas books I have never been put into a state of total confusion by anything Prabhupada wrote on Rasa or Vraja lila.

So since Narayana Maharaja said that if we had heard what he is speaking today, 30 years ago, that we would have been confused, and at the same time he says he is teaching the same thing that is found in Prabhupadas books, then we can wonder why nothing Prabhupada ever wrote about Rasa or Vraja lila, which we read 30 years ago, ever caused us any confusion.

If what Narayana Maharaja says is true, that he is teaching the same thing found in Prabhupada's books, then why weren't we confused when we read those books cover to cover 30 years ago? I for one, studied the Caitanya Caritamrta and Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu, as well as the rest of Prabhupadas books very intently, as have many others. Yet I was never once confused by anything related to Rasa or Vraja lila, it was all very plainly laid out by Srila Prabhupada, easy to understand.

Yet Narayana Maharaja "has the key", he is teaching things we would not have understood back then, even though they were in Prabhupada's books?

Sure.

They also present the idea that since Prabhupada asked Narayana Maharaja to take care of burial service, that this was a sign that Narayana Maharaja was chosen to be Prabhupada's anointed successor.

Sidd, you yourself used this tactic in your posts above.

Narayana Maharaja is as far as I know, not distancing himself from the words of those topmost disciples, and I assume that they are simply repeating what he has told them.

In fact his disciples simply repeat what he has said in lectures.

Also I have heard that Narayana Maharaja is telling some of his disciples that he is such and such manjari

Narayana Maharaja conversation, Murwillumbah, Australia: Feb.12, 2002 (morning):

"Therefore, in his service to Radhika, for rati-keli-siddhyai, a guru cannot serve in his male form. Srila Swami Maharaja and my Gurudeva are both serving there in their female forms as gopis. In that realm my Gurudeva is Vinoda Manjari, Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakura is Nayana Manjari, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura is Kamala Manjari, Srila Jiva Gosvami is Vilasa Manjari, Srila Rupa Gosvami is Rupa Manjari, and Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami is Rati Manjari. These manjaris can serve Radha-Krishna Conjugal."

[Sripad Dhrstadyumna dasa:] "And our Srila Prabhupada?"

[Srila Narayana Maharaja:] "If you fully surrender, by body, mind, words and ego, then I may tell you. Otherwise, I will not. I know who he is, but you do not know. None of the ISKCON leaders know. Your Prabhupada has cheated them all, in the sense that he has not revealed himself to them at all."

When you take Naryana Maharajas constant harping about manjari bhava, and his claim that he is the true Jagat Guru today, then the above is implicit in it's subtle message. He is more or less claiming that he knows his own manjari swarupa. He may or may not have stated that explicitly, (I have heard he has) but it is implicitly stated in numerous lectures, and it is pretty much the party line in his sangha. Any of his mid to long time followers will readily admit this if they were to be honest with outsiders.

and has had Jadurani paint a picture of him in his "manjari swarupa

The painting thing caused a scandal a while back. The retort from the Naryana Maharaja camp was that it was all a big misunderstanding. I am not so sure, maybe it's one of those things we won't understand for another 30 years, so they may not want to tell the truth to us now so as to not cause us more "confusion".

Anyways, that was only the first part of my criticsm.

Here is the rest from above:

Srila Prabhupada was giving a more thorough teaching in his presentation of Gaudiya siddhanta then many of his godbrothers and their disciples. I used the word "holistic" to contrast with the manjari bhava centric teaching style we find among most of Bhaktisiddhanta Gaudiya's outside of Prabhupadas influence. Prabhupada gave the correct "holistic" vision of rasa, while most of the rest are [in my opinion] misguiding and misguided in their single minded focus on presenting Gaudiya siddhanta as exclusively about trying to become a manjari. They constantly preach and relate the idea that Gaudiya siddhanta's sole concern is in trying to teach everyone how to follow the practices that will reveal their manjari swarupa.

Even though I have made criticism of Srila Narayana Maharaja, it is only because of things he has said and done.

I enjoy reading what he has to say sometimes. But not always. In my view he makes a common mistake among many of the followers of Sri Caitanya.

Outside of the followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura there are a great many people who consider themselves devotees of Sri Nitai Gauranga.

They are mostly intent on trying to discover their manjari swarupa.

They for the most part regard the line starting with Bhaktisiddhanta to be bogus. They regard Bhaktisiddhnata's treatment of them to be a sign of his being an apostate.

What was the big squabble about ?

Bhaktisiddhanta was against the syle of their Sadhana and their presentation of Mahaprabhus teachings.

Bhaktisiddhanta considered all of that to be improper.

He taught the original teachings concerning rasa, and concerning the discovery of one's siddha deha, one's perfected form in the pastimes of Sri Radha Krishna.

He claimed that those Babajis and Caste Goswamis etc, they were all deviating from the original teachings.

This is a complicated issue but has mainly to do with the presentation of Sadhana Bhakti and the teachings about rasa and manjari bhava.

To this day those outside of Bhaktisiddhanta's line criticize us as being apostates because we do not accept their manjari centric, lila smaranam centric, siddha deha centric ideology.

That is what Sri Caitanya taught. That is what Bhaktisiddhanta taught, that is what Bhaktivedanta taught.

Presenting Gaudiya tattva in a manjari centric method, is improper. It is not the original method taught by Sri Caitanya to Sri Rupa and Sri Sanatana.

The manjari bhava centric ideology crept gradually into the Gaudiya world after the departure of the 6 Goswamis. Gradually it displaced the original teachings in popularity.

The truth is that Bhaktisiddhanta went back to the original teachings before they became changed into a manjari bhava centric, siddha deha centric ideology.

Bhaktivedanta Swami continued in that methodology.

Srila Narayana Maharaja is not.

That is why you can read Jadurani's [Syamarani is her new nickname] statement where she says that Srila Prabhupada gave the ABC's and that Srila Narayana Maharaja is giving the advanced degree.

And also you have echoed that sentiment in your post above. you said that Srila Prabhupada of course knew of the higher tattva, but that he did not feel that anyone was ready to receive it.

This is an amazing conclusion to reach considering that the Caitanya Caritamrta he translated and commented on, is considered to be the advanced degree within the Gaudiya school.

So what are those "advanced" things Srila Narayana Maharaja is teaching that Srila Prabhupad did not ?

He is going back to Pre-Bhaktisiddhanta style preaching.

He is teaching a manjari bhava centric ideology.

That is the so called "advanced degree" he is giving.

Srila Prabhupada wrote all about manjari bhava in his Caitanya Caritamrta. If you read it carefully you will find everything is there.

What Srila Prabhupada did not do is slant the teaching of sthayi bhava and rasa tattva towards manjari bhava.

Narayana Maharaja does do that. That is not teaching "advanced degree". That is teaching improperly.

That is not the proper method when teaching about those topics.

adikara avicara rupanuga kore na
anartha anvita dase rasa siksa deya na

na uthiya vrksopari phala dhari tane na
rupanuga krama patha vilopa to kare na

asakta komala sraddhe rasa katha bole na
anadhikarire rase adhikara deya na

svalpa sraddha jane kabhu jata rati mane na
svalpa sraddha jane rasa upadesa kore na

Srila Narayana Maharaja not only disobeys these warnings, he teaches rasa tattva in an un authorized way. He teaches exclusively about manjari bhava.

This is how these topics are supposed to be taught, and as Bhaktisiddhanta warns, the intracacies of these topics are not supposed to be preached to neophytes.

The Caitanya Siksamrta by Bhaktivinoda Thakura:

Then from Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu (1.2.295):

From Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the Cc:

Narayana Maharaja has stated, I have read in a lecture of his, that if a devotee is not in manjari bhava then he is not a Rupanuga.

Since our sampradya is known as the Rupanuga sampradaya, this kind of teaching by Narayana Maharaja is coercing everyone into trying to become manjaris.

They will naturally want to be a Rupanuga, and they will naturally want to attain the highest position for themselves.

This is why these topics are not to be discussed with neophytes and why they are not to be presented in a manjari bhava centric fashion.

Everyone is different. Everyone is supposed to develop their relationship with Radha Krishna naturally. They will naturally be attracted to a specific Bhava and Rasa.

If you interfere with that process by teaching they are supposed to manjaris, only manjaris are Rupanugas, manjaris, manjaris, manjaris. Then you do a disservice and are not qualified to teach.

This is what is supposed to be taught:

by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami

So your "Advanced degree" is no such thing.

siddhanta vihina hoile krsne citta lage na
sambandha hinera kabhyu abhideya haya na

If you are being told that you should aspire to be a manjari, and you are not destined for that, then the above warning is given.

sambandha vihina jana prayojana paya na
ku siddhante vyasta jana krsna seva kore na

mahajana patha chadi navya pathe dhaya na
aparadha saha nama kakhana i haya na

anartha thakara kale rasa gana kore na
anartha thakara kale siddhi labdha bole na

guru mahajana vakye bheda kabhu haya na
sadhanera pathe kanta sad guru deya na

adikara avicara rupanuga kore na
anartha anvita dase rasa siksa deya na

bhagavata padya bole ku vyakhya to kore na
loka samgragera tare krama patha chade na

vaidha bhakta jane kaabhu raganuga jane na
komala sraddhake kabhu rasika to jane na

svalpa sraddha jane kabhu jata rati mane na
svalpa sraddha jane rasa upadesa kore na

asakta komala sraddhe rasa katha bole na
anadhikarire rase adhikara deya na

rasika bhakata raja kabhu sisya kore na
rasika janera sisya ei bhava chade na

Posted by shiva das @ 03/17/2005 09:55 PM PST