Dear folks, PAMHO. AGTSP.

[PADA is an online newsletter going out to over 1,000 devotees and Hindu's. Please let us know if you have comments, or if you are not interested. We try our best to keep our mailing list in order. Jai Srila Prabhupada!]

Please let us know if you wish to add other addresses or cancel your subscription. PADA also may or may not endorse all of the statements found in our featured letters.

ALSO the names of the GBC as well as accounts of their activities are sometimes unverified at this point, we are merely allowing readers to express their experiences, and we encourage others, including those named, to feedback. Comments / corrections on the history section are also encouraged..

PADA'S MOST WANTED LIST: Keep us apprised of the whereabouts of Jayapataka, Hridayananda, Bhakticharu and other GBC, thanks.

ROCANA DASA's "Church Of ritvik" pt.2

The Hare Krishna Society's Rtvik Position

(Rocana Dasa) RD: The Hare Krishna Society (HKS) was formerly known as the Krsna Consciousness Movement. The HKS has put their philosophical focus on the initiation process instituted by Srila Prabhupada during his ISKCON lila, namely, that both Rtviks and siksas must take responsibility to properly train the candidates before and after initiation. They are adamant in proclaiming that their version of Rtvik philosophy is not simply a theory, but rather an irrefutable absolute truth based on solid evidence. Consequently, those who don't accept their conclusions are essentially viewed as mad elephant-like offenders on account of not surrendering to follow the "direct order of the Spiritual Master".

[PADA: The Hare Krishna Society (HKS) and its exponents have never stated that those who do not follow its views are "mad elephant offenders" as Rocana implies. While PADA is not an official spokesman for the HKS, we share many similar ideological points. On the other hand, Rocana has rejoined or never left the GBC's ideologues who are calling Srila Prabhupada: the post mortem, posthumous, post-samadhi diksha guru? The guru is "eternally in samadhi," but Rocana says no, the guru is in partial-samadhi, pre-samadhi, current samadhi, post-samadhi, all total concoctions. Meanwhile, this group is openly implying that those who disagree are "offenders." And yes, as a matter of fact, many of the exponents of Rocana's view think it is "the absolute truth." Furthermore, some exponents of this view have orchestrated devotees being vilified, oppressed, banned, beaten and even killed, -- dissenters to their view? Rocana produces no evidence that this has occurred to opponents of the HKS?]

RD: Of the two main Rtvik camps, the HKS version of Rtvik is more closely aligned to the local siksa guru scenario that was in existence during pre-samadhi ISKCON.

[PADA: This sounds, at first, like some gibberish? Let us look at Rocana's words more carefully, he complains that "The Hare Krishna Society (HKS)" upholds the "siksa guru scenario" that existed while Srila Prabhupada was physically present? So he is implying that the HKS is deviant because, it upholds the directives that were given by Srila Prabhupada? And moreover it was Srila Prabhupada himself who said, after I depart, do not change anything, hence: the neophytes will continue in their role as instructors (shiksha). He will continue in his role as the acharya and diksha guru? Thus Rocana is making it sound like "following Srila Prabhupada's orders" is some kind of deviant concoction? Srila Prabhupada ordered that the "siksa guru scenario" (a system of proxies) would continue -- after he departed? And wasn't the "pre-samadhi" era the era where ISKCON grew and flourished because it was unified in glorification of the Sampradaya Acharya, while now it is reduced to a discredited, if not bankrupt group of fractured guru camps?]

RD: It is ironic that under pre-samadhi ISKCON's organizational framework, the Rtviks mentioned in the famous July 9th letter were, in essence, truly 'Rtviks' and not 'siksas'. The siksa guru function happened at the temple level, and only rarely were the ISKCON Rtvik/GBC directly involved in imparting instruction or overseeing the spiritual development of diksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada. They simply performed the ceremonial function of chanting on beads and threads and giving names.

[PADA: This is a straw man argument? For example Revatinandana swami was "the ritvik priest" for England when I lived there in the 1970s, and he was also a big "siksha" preacher there as well. Atreya Rsi was "the ritvik" for Iran and he was also a big "siksha" preacher there as well? Indeed, even in any regular religion there is an integration of (1) the general congregation, (2) the council of elders, and (3) the officiating priests, temple leaders, sannyasas or brahmanas. All classes are supposed to work together to promote the Sampradaya Acharya? What is wrong with that model since this is Srila Prabhupada's idea?]

RD: One of the greatest obstacles the HKS faces is that they no longer have Srila Prabhupada's institutional framework within which to apply their system.

[PADA: We are in good company then, since Srila Prabhupada had all kinds of ideas how to organize a society, yet he came to America with no "institutional framework," only 40 rupees? It did not matter that there were "obstacles"? First there is the ideal, the substance, then later "the form" evolves?]

RD: After many years of trying, they have finally, officially abandoned any attempts to reform modern ISKCON and are instead working with a loosely connected network of Nama hatta programs and home temples.

[PADA: The HKS model did not "abandon" anyone. The idea is to "reform" everyone, including members of ISKCON, simultaneously, to make independent preaching. Srila Prabhupada wrote to his God brothers from time to time, trying to "reform" the Gaudiya Matha. Simultaneously, he went forward with his own independent projects. Members of the HKS have a number of contacts within ISKCON who agree in principle with the HKS position: to worship of the Sampradaya Acharya "Srila Prabhupada," the ritvik idea. One ISKCON leader recently told us that the GBC's hokey gurus are "bums" and that the exclusive worship of Srila Prabhupada must be reestablished in ISKCON. Other GBC gurus claim that they are more or less ritviks like Swarupada Damodar. He has told some of his initiates that he is a ritvik and they are Srila Prabhupada's disciples. Others are making pretend that they are ritviks like Bhakti Caru swami. There is an increasing trend in ISKCON to emphasize the worship of Srila Prabhupada (the HKS ritvik idea). Other big ISKCON men like Adridharana and Madhu Pandit told us that they too are joining us (ritviks?) in 1997. So there is steady progress within and without ISKCON, towards the HKS' position.

Some in ISKCON have gone vastly even further than the ritvik issue, agreeing with the poison case. It is a matter of fact that the GBC has made countless "position papers" about "the ritviks," proving we have a major impact upon the ISKCON society. When the GBC are not obsessed with "the ritvik issue," they are obsessed with other issues forwarded by us -- such as the child molesting issue. Or they are obsessed with other HKS issues such as "changing the books." They are now obsessed with the poison issue. These issues were forwarded by us and the so-called ritviks. So the ritviks are having a major impact upon ISKCON, otherwise the GBC would not be full time engaged in making counter propaganda, fighting lawsuits and so on? We have not "abandoned" ISKCON, rather we are making major inroads there. More ISKCON leaders and members write to tell us that they accept the HKS principle that Srila Prabhupada is the guru, and not the GBC's charlatans.]

RD: The HKS emphasizes the principle of 'no change', but as the time factor moves everything forward, these advocates of 'pure Rtvik-ism' are forced to adapt their 'absolute' system to meet the practical requirements of an ever-changing world. The original system was wholly and solely within the context of an Acarya-led institution.

[PADA: Vedic preachers and even Christian ministers travel to far off lands to preach about their Sampradaya Acharya with no need for a big "institutional context"? Why does "the preacher" need a big institution? The preacher just preaches about the acharya either within or without the institution? Where does Srila Prabhupada say that preaching requires "the context of an institution"? This sounds like Rocana has joined the Catholic Church? Also notice Rocana derides "pure ritvikism": worship of Srila Prabhupada? Rocana makes this sound like some sort of awful disease: "It is the pure ritvikism guys. They want to worship Srila Prabhupada, but how can they do that since they have no big buildings"? This is Catholic Church part two.]

RD: In order for them to implement a Rtvik system today, they would need to be able to interact with Temple Presidents who were the actual siksas in Srila Prabhupada's system.

[PADA: This is what Krishna Kanta Desai of the IRM told us in 1997, that without PADA working within the GBC and ISKCON, we could not make any progress. These insecure people need some big buildings and structure to "implement" anything. Yet, if we study the history of our Vaishnava preachers in general, they usually have little or no "institutional backing" structure. Preaching can go on with or without cooperation -- in or out of ISKCON? Where does Srila Prabhupada say that we need the cooperation of a corrupt institution in order to preach? This is another straw man argument. We never linked our "progress" to any "changes in ISKCON"? Of course, as a matter of fact, we have changed things dramatically in ISKCON? Our plan was and is: to revive the worship of Srila Prabhupada. It is happening by default. As these bogus living gurus fall by the wayside, more and more people are naturally thinking that the steady platform is to work under the PADA and HKS idea: worship of the Sampradaya Acharya? We are not even paddling and yet we are winning the boat race? And when Narayan Maharaja departs, his mission will fizzle into battling camps and they too will eventually go "back to Srila Prabhupada" in time.]

RD: Instead, key organizers of the HKS are faced with making the needful modifications, although they are self-confessed conditioned souls.

[PADA: Perhaps we are all conditioned souls? Another straw man argument. Yet even us confused conditioned souls have more sense than to call our guru: the port mortem, posthumous, post samadhi dead and gone one, like Rocana and his Gaudiya Matha and GBC clones? Even the conditioned souls have some respect for their departed souls. They never even call their dead parents "the posthumous ones," what to speak of using this term to describe -- their guru? The conditioned souls are vastly more advanced than those who use these insulting terms and labels for their guru?]

RD: Those in the organization who are responsible for proposing modifications must be viewed by the members as "specially empowered ones" authorized by Srila Prabhupada to introduce these monumental changes to the original system.

[PADA: Srila Prabhupada said do not change anything? Rocana is the person proposing "monumental changes"?]

RD: The HKS founders are also obliged to "authorize" Rtvik candidates based on their perceived spiritual qualifications and their professed devotion to Srila Prabhupada.

[PADA: This is what Srila Prabhupada ordered, he said to make some officiating priests. What other system does Rocana propose? And why does Rocana refuse to debate us for 20 years and tell us: who his new living guru is?]

RD: Unlike the ISKCON Reform Movement, the Hare Krishna Society rejects the concept that this post-samadhi diksa program is to be followed for the next ten thousand odd years, as the IRM proposes.

[PADA: This is also somewhat irrelevant since Srila Prabhupada said that the ritvik system was supposed to be followed "henceforward," he did not specify how long it would exist. We have debated this point independent of the HKS for many years. Although indeed, "henceforward" might exist for 10,000 years? Srila Prabhupada also said he might order a future guru "on my order," and so on. Thus, later on the IRM's spokesman Yaduraja agreed with PADA: that Srila Prabhupada's idea is that "another diksha capable guru may appear." Yet they added speculation that if another diksha devotee comes, he has to operate outside of IRM's legally controlled buildings? The IRM essentially says that they are legal Pharisee smartas who will make legal restraining orders to prohibit other pure devotees? "The gopis are slapping legal court papers on one another." Another Gaudiya Matha. Anyway, this 10,000 years argument was proposed by the IRM as their attempt to divide and conquer the ritvik effort and make themselves the "holier than thou pure 10,000 years advocates." Yet this has back fired miserably for them since they never produced any direct quotes to substantiate their position from the July 9th letter or anywhere else. Later on Yaduraja finally agreed that "The Final Order" is bogus on its 10k idea. And the IRM spokesman then agreed with PADA: another pure diksha capable devotee may appear. In sum, they confuted themselves. Anyway, let us review the IRM position:

First, after 1977 the IRM leaders fumbled the ball by supporting the GBC's "enforced cult ritualistic worship of homosexual pedophiles regime" as "Vishnupadas" (etc.), as they did for 20 years (1977 - 1997). Then in 1997 the IRM said that they accepted the PADA / Prabhupadanuga view, except that PADA has to now be silent so that the IRM could re-form Tamal and Hrdayananda and other cofounders of the concocted pedophile "Vishnupada" worship -- into the IRM's "next wave of ritviks in ISKCON"? The IRM wanted PADA and others to "work under the authority of" the core corrupt deviants the IRM leaders had supported for 20 years? As Srila Prabhupada says, put a crown on the head of dog and he is still a dog? We said to the IRM, the exponents of homosexual pedophile worship should be put in jail for criminal neglect of ISKCON's children, -- not made into the newly crowned kings?

Worse, there was not even a tinge of remorse on the part of the IRM's leaders for all of these thousands of cases of child molesting, and murders of dissenters etc., that they helped orchestrate by support of deviants and their molester worship? Then the IRM further fumbled the ball by saying that in the July 9th letter (or some other mysterious unknown document) they have found "direct quotes" about the ritvik system exclusively lasting for ten thousand years? And so we offered the IRM a reward of $108,000 to show us where their "direct quotes" are, and we are still waiting for these alleged quotes for over ten years now. Read: there are no such quotes and they are simply big bluffers making things up as they go along -- like the GBC, Narayana Maharaja and other big bluffers like Kailasha Chandra.

Then, in order to support their deviant "10,000 years plan," again which was never stated by Srila Prabhupada, the IRM directly behaves like the GBC (and Narayana Maharaja: who recently attacked Prahlad as -- a materialistic devotee?) by attacking a great soul. Thus, in order "to defeat PADA" the IRM directly attacked Haridasa Thakura by saying: he is only a shiksha level of devotee: thus he has no power to give anyone "divyam jnanam which destroys sins" (diksha)? He is impotent. And so we countered by sending the IRM tons of quotes about the glories of Haridasa Thakura, for example that his association was indeed liberating all kinds of people (i.e. giving diksha). We also pointed out that Haridasa Thakura was making so many devotees by his powerful preaching, he was physically attacked "like Jesus." And in sum we pointed out that Haridasa Thakura was never given the position of minor league "shiksha only" devotee by Srila Prabhupada or Lord Chaitanya, rather he is like our PRAHLAD and our Jesus? Haridasa is recognized as the Nama Acharya of Lord Chaitanya's ENTIRE movement? Haridasa Thakura is considered as one of the most elevated souls in Vaishnava history, but according to the IRM, he is only a minor league shiksha devotee -- like Krishna Kanta Desai, a bookkeeper? Oddly, Haridasa's being attacked is sometimes compared to Prahlad being attacked, and NM attacked Prahlad while the IRM attacks Haridasa? Peas in a pod?

Still, despite our substantial countering the IRM's wild attacks on the great acharya with numerous solid quotes, the IRM leaders persist in behaving exactly like the GBC and NM in continuing to attack these great devotees with false siddhanta and minimizing their great work. Haridasa Thakura is a person that Srila Prabhupada says is our acharya, and the IRM criticizes and minimizes that he is only a minor league siksha devotee, a regular congregation preacher like they allegedly are? PADA further asked IRM spokesman Yaduraja, "What happens if someone like Haridasa reappears"? And Yaduraja said the IRM would give someone like Haridasa the post of making flower garlands in the temples, but they will forbid him from giving "divyam jnanam which destroys sins." If he breaks their law and preaches, then what, the IRM will -- sue him for trespass? While bookkeeper Krishna Kanta Desai will be allowed unlimited facility for his "big preaching"?

In sum, Haridasa would be forbidden by the IRM from giving divyam jnanam which destroys sins, i.e. he would have to do what they want us at PADA and everyone else to do: sit down and shut up? So the IRM are self admitted smartas and Pharisees, they admit that if a pure devotee appears, they will impede, harass, minimize, forbid, and restrict and legally sue that pure devotee, like the smartas and the Gaudiya Matha. The IRM thinks that Haridasa is some type of devotee only capable of doing some simple tasks in the temple, they said he could make flower garlands, again just as they are only capable of doing. So they are trying to bring down Haridasa to their level, again this is Pharisee smarta-ism.

So this is why Srila Prabhupada says that the envious fools of the Gaudiya Matha simply tried to drag the acharyas to their level. "We IRM are shiksha level, thus, so are the acharyas." The IRM is simply another version of the Gaudiya Matha deviants who minimize these great souls, mahajanas and acharyas, they are only shiksha devotees like bookkeeper Krishna Kanta Desai. Of course, maybe by the mercy of Krishna Kanta Desai a person like Haridasa might be allowed entrance into a temple, but only if Haridasa shuts up and makes flower garlands. Of course never mind this, even while Haridasa was here these same smarta thinkers like the IRM were saying he could not liberate others in the capacity of diksha liberation. And that is also why the IRM's leaders supported the worship of homosexual pedophiles for 20 years, they were agreeing with Rocana's "posthumous guru" point, i.e. Haridasa is another posthumous person in their model as well. In any event, the idea of the bona fide acharyas is: we should try to attract future pure devotees, not to make plans how to kick them out of the building, restrict and impede them?

Then the IRM spokesman Yaduraja said that Srila Prabhupada's worship will only go on "as long as ISKCON is extant." Read: his worship will stop when the corporation called ISKCON goes bankrupt since: "Srila Prabhupada is only a collection of mundane money and buildings"? This is more or less what Narayana Maharaja infers indirectly. Later, Yaduraja sort of modified the IRM idea saying: if Krishna sends another pure devotee, he has to start his own mission separate from (IRM's and) ISKCON's buildings. This is all about "the buildings" it seems? And so the IRM keeps telling us, we have a big building in Bangalore! See how big we are! Well yes except the GBC has even bigger buildings, and the Pope has even bigger buildings, and IBM corp. has even taller buildings than the Pope, indeed "Smiley Steve's Dancing Girls Of Decadence" has a huge big building in San Francisco? Are we worshippers of buildings? So the IRM says that the pure devotee is to be forbidden to enter this building or that building, this sounds like the Pharisees part two?

Besides, right now ISKCON is as flat as a pancake, in case the IRM has not noticed. Thus, just in case Krishna somehow or other sends heavenly help to revive ISKCON, we have to drive Krishna's help away with a pitchfork? Apparently Advaitacharya was a deviant since He also prayed for divine persons to come and help suffering humanity? Suppose Krishna sends a pure devotee to come and sit on our lap and give us a sweet ball, we chase him off "our" property yelling, "Get out, go find your own building, this one is mine"! This is exactly how the Gaudiya Matha behaves towards the pure devotees? This is how the smartas treated Haridasa? Where does Srila Prabhupada say this is the method to treat pure devotees? Then again the IRM hijacks ritvik devotees as they did with Kapindra's followers, and again this is the GBC's and Narayana Maharaja's tactic. Then again the IRM harasses all the other ritviks such as Dhamaghosh, Kapindra, PADA, Yasodananda, et al. and no wonder, since they admit their authority is the GBC and CHAKRA? And now Rocana is joining in that chorus?

Then the IRM further fumbled the ball by splitting their whole IRM mission into two battling factions over the poison issue. Yet, credit has to be given to Rocana since he joined the N-14 council and managed a web site for the poison investigation, which helped us a lot especially in the beginning. As for the IRM, they lost half their manpower when they declared that the IRM was "going to war" against the poison case. Indeed, the deviant sector of the IRM declared that they were going to work hand in glove with the GBC on this issue and poke holes in and even attack the investigation, as they have done. Of course the IRM will not spend two paisa to start their own "better" investigation, they rely on the CHAKRA's already discredited crack pots as their spokesmen on this issue?

So they are simply harassing anyone else's attempt to help Srila Prabhupada, while endorsing the web site of bogus audio experts (who are merely bad recorders of rock and roll music)? In short, the IRM's authority on the poison case are: certified liars? Of course never mind this, the IRM's leaders harassed us all along in exactly the same way over the child molestation case, since they protect not only guru poisoners but mass molesters of children in the name of "Vishnupada." And as usual they are still saying PADA is bogus as they did all along while the children were getting molested, since they protect poisoners, child molesters, and other deviants. This is their "no change" siddhanta. Adridharana dasa of Calcutta could perhaps be sued for criminal neglect for sitting on his thumbs, indeed bank - rolling the bad guys, while all the children in his area were getting molested. The IRM has done some good work by allegedly supporting the ritvik program, but then they say the poison issue is invalid and they harass all the other ritviks, worse than the GBC harasses them, but what is their position?

The good news is that PADA and the HKS sort of indirectly acquired some of these former IRM members when they split up, to help us with the poison case. In 1997, Adridharana told us that he was there in the room in 1977 when Srila Prabhupada made his poison complaint, and it was very alarming to him at the time. Then Adridharana suddenly said, "What complaint, there is no poison complaint, since Tamal says there is none"? Then the IRM said that we all have to consult with Tamal (the main suspect) and the GBC over the poison issue and the IRM still advertise the GBC's web site as the IRM's authority. So in this way PADA keeps getting letters, "Does PADA think that IRM's Adridharana is involved in the poisoning of Srila Prabhupada since he is harassing the investigation at every step, and he is thus still protecting the main culprits, and he still advertises Tamal as his authority. And worse, the IRM leaders already defended the poisoners with their silence for 20 years"? And I say, "Well, what do you think"? In any case, it really does not matter if the IRM has speculations about these things, they have a whole history of supporting falsity. And thus they are still supporting such falsity. This does not mean there is no truth anywhere else?

RD: As I understand the HKS position, they accept the possibility that Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu might send another nitya-siddha Acarya.

[PADA: This is what Srila Prabhupada says, when I order, he becomes guru. The real argument is, that he has not yet given that order?]

RD: As previously mentioned, this raises the question of whether or not the HKS's organizational leaders will be willing or spiritually qualified to identify and accept such a descendent divine personality.

[PADA: Well maybe, but since Rocana and the IRM leaders had already identified homosexual pedophiles as their gurus, we have doubts they could identify anyone who is bona fide either? Neither Rocana, nor the IRM leaders, nor the Sridhara and Narayana crew, has ever even apologized to the thousands of molested children which occurred under their heavy boots of support for that molester guru regime either?]

RD: By admitting to the potential for such an advent, they are basically saying that their alterations are temporary. But as we know, nothing in our philosophy is to be considered temporary.

[PADA: What? Srila Saraswati started a mission and Srila Prabhupada later said, "The Gaudiya Matha is useless." Rocana says, that same Gaudiya Matha is: an eternal entity? No, the instructions are eternal. The instructions are that we have to worship the bona fide acharya, and when there are gaps (no living acharya is present) then -- worship the last acharya in the chain.]

RD: The Jesus Comparison

One of the dangers of the Hare Krishna Society's philosophical approach to solving the initiation problem is that it will inadvertently leave the door open to an evolvement from the spirituality of the Acarya's Movement to the mentality of religiosity condemned by the Shaktavesa Sampradaya Acarya.

[PADA: Rocana's above statement is very misleading? He almost makes us think he is going to compare "the worship of Jesus" to "Rocana's plan." Yet, and as he always does for the past 20 years, he fails to tell us exactly what is his "living guru" plan? Does he think that the thousands of "living gurus" in Bengal, the sahajiya's model, is a good model to follow? How is Rocana's plan superior to the worship of Jesus? He never tells us what his practical idea is -- at all? Thus, let us review a little bit of history. So far, Rocana's "living guru" and "posthumous guru" colleagues, from both post 1936 and post 1977, have forwarded homosexuals and deviants as their "examples" and comparisons of "gurus like Jesus." Yet this model has already been thoroughly rejected? Or again, if his example is India, we find thousands of living and allegedly non posthumous gurus in say Bengal province, but this is yet another dis-unified disaster?

Although we can agree that Srila Prabhupada sometimes says that the smartas and the Christians are mundane religionists, Rocana still fails to tell us who are the bona fide examples he is "comparing" the ritviks to? Which guru is his alleged "bona fide religionist" worshipping, if not someone like Jesus or Srila Prabhupada? He says he is "comparing" the worship of Jesus to his idea, then he fails to say what his idea is? Hence, one woman wrote to PADA that his paper sounds like gibberish? Meanwhile, there are many quotes from Srila Prabhupada where he says that Jesus is my brother, that Jesus paved the way for his preaching, that Jesus has given the Western world some culture, that he may be killed just as Jesus was killed (!!!), and so on and so forth, in sum there are numerous examples where Srila Prabhupada glorifies Jesus? In addition, we have heard hundreds of testimonies from Krishna devotees from all over the world who always tell PADA, "The Christians are often better behaved than many devotees, especially the living gurus"? So Rocana's plan has opened the door for homosexuals to be worshipped as "Jesus like acharyas"? How is that superior to -- the Christians? He fails to explain?]

RD: Already, the HKS solution appears very similar to what historically unfolded after Christ's departure. Christ had disciples at the time of his departure, and they had followers themselves, but Paul decided that they needed a church, and everyone should just worship Christ and not honor any of the disciplic lines.

[PADA: What? Where does Srila Prabhupada say that anyone has to worship any person other than Jesus in the Christian model? Where does Srila Prabhupada mention Rocana's alleged other "disciplic lines" within the Christian faith? Srila Prabhupada simply does not support such dubious concoctions. Rather, Srila Prabhupada says that we have to worship Jesus through the priest? Again, Srila Prabhupada does not mention these alleged other "disciplic lines"? Where are these other "disciplic lines" of Jesus mentioned by Srila Prabhupada? Rocana and similar others place words in Srila Prabhupada's mouth -- which he never stated?

And since Paul and the other disciples of Jesus were preaching "on behalf of Jesus" they formed a united preaching effort and Church. The Gaudiya Matha was also ordered to preach unitedly, acting as proxies for their acharya? Why is this such an evil thing? The Christians had a de facto Governing Body of elders, and so they united to worship their Sampradaya Acharya, and more or less the followers of Jesus still do this up till today. Of course some of them later on gave Rocana's argument, that we need a "living person" to worship, and thus Rocana is more or less arguing on behalf of the college of Cardinals who vote in the Pope? "Jesus is posthumous, so we need to make a Pope" Rocana is giving the exact identical argument of -- the mundane religionists he supposedly criticizes?

And so most of the Christians worked together unitedly to promote their Sampradaya Acharya. Again, why is this such a bad thing? By doing this, they made their Sampradaya Acharya the most famous Acharya on the planet? Yet for Rocana this is not a good thing. The Christians united and thus made their acharya famous and glorified all over the planet, but this is not a good proposal? We Krishna devotees are not supposed to want to see our Acharya become famous as well? Why not? Rocana also makes it sound like Paul made a mistake by emphasizing the exclusive worship of his acharya, but clearly this was not a mistake. That was Paul's intent, and indeed it has worked wonderfully to make Jesus the most popular acharya on planet earth?

Yet Rocana attacks Paul's plan by saying -- Paul did not recognize the other disciplic lines, but Prabhupada mentions -- none? Or is Rocana talking about his colleague's concoction, the voted in Pope's disciplic line? No, the Christian's "disciplic line" was and is to worship Jesus. That was Paul's intentional plan. This plan has kept many bogus disciplic lines out of the Christian faith, whereas Rocana's speculative idea of many disciplic lines has clearly lead to -- the worship of false Popes, and in the Krishna faith, the worship of homosexual pedophiles as Jesus like? Rocana's idea has created a "Jesus Comparison" of linking homosexuals as

"Jesus like." Where is the remorse in this poor Rocana fellow and his GBC, Kailasha et al. compatriots? Paul's idea has kept Jesus separated from these deviants? Clearly Paul had the better idea? Thus people are not so confused in the Christian faith as a rule. They generally do not think that deviants are Jesus like gurus, whereas juxtaposing deviants with Srila Prabhupada has made a huge mishmash of "fallen guru" ideologies?

Thus Rocana's "comparison" simply falls on its face since he does not mention where Srila Prabhupada explains where there are other qualified acharyas in the Christian lineage? Nor has Rocana answered these questions for 20 years, for example: where were Paul and the other disciples of Jesus instructed by Jesus that they were qualified to absorb sins, as Jesus is still doing today, according to Srila Prabhupada? Who else is fit to take that specific role? Rocana fails to mention? Who else should have been worshipped as the successor to Jesus? Rocana names not one single person? And thus Rocana has zero "comparison" examples of his alleged "other lines"? He implies there are some "other lines of succession to Jesus," but notice, he fails to provide even one example? Rocana: Oh yes, there are so many other lines! PADA: OK, sir can you give us the name of one of them? Rocana: Well, no....

So first of all Rocana has to identify where there are examples of other successors to Jesus who can function as the sin absorbing diksha gurus of that faith? For that matter, Rocana has identified no one who can do that in the Krishna faith either? He merely implies: there is, there may be, there might be, someone. So this is all speculation. You'd think that with 2,000 years of Christian history under his belt Rocana could come up with at least one example for his alleged "comparison," but he has zero. And so Rocana might appear 2,000 years from now, and he will still be totally stumped to answer, "Who is the pure devotee who came after Srila Prabhupada"? Maybe there will be a future pure devotee, but maybe not. He implies many other lines of pure devotees have come after Jesus departed in the Christian faith, but he cannot name -- even one?

RD: The HKS's focus on the prospect that Srila Prabhupada was purposely poisoned to death by his senior disciples has produced more emotional drama.

[PADA: Again -- this is quite odd? We all know that one of the first people to get involved with "the poison case" and who joined the N-14 council was, Rocana dasa? He was one of the original people who founded the N-14 poison investigation committee idea? Now he says, he was a victim of "emotional drama" to do that? So, if your father says he is being poisoned, you are supposed to sit like a rock and not show any emotions? Why? This is also what the IRM says too, "The poison case is all emotionalism," since they are also dead rocks? No. The Srimad Bhagavatam says we should cry over the departure of our guru, while Rocana says this is all emotional pandering? So, if Rocana's father says he was poisoned, Rocana would sit like a rock and not care at all? That means he is incapable of emotion? Even Krishna was crying when He wrote to the gopis. Krishna is an emotional wreck? Even and ordinary man cries -- when his father complains he was poisoned? Even an ordinary man has more empathy, compassion, heartfelt feeling and sensitivity than these great "devotees"?

Why should we not feel emotion for our guru? The N-14 council was not "created to produce emotional drama," rather it was created to "get to the bottom of the poison issue," as Rocana originally said it was, and it has. Indeed we have had great success with this investigation and thousands upon thousands of people are now convinced about the issue. And these thousands of people are preaching about it and making headway all over the planet, so that eventually there will be hundreds of thousands, millions, billions and so on? That Jesus was crucified for example, this is not a emotional drama issue, it is a historical fact? Billions of people accept this as a historical fact?]

RD: Their persistent promotion of this idea hasn't resulted in the ground swell of acceptance first anticipated. Many disgruntled disciples have stopped supporting the present day ISKCON as a result of being effected by the poison arguments, but few of them have actively aligned themselves with the HKS Rtviks as a result.

[PADA: So what? Rocana admits that many people have accepted the poison issue, that means our process has worked on many levels. Maybe they did not support the HKS, so what?]

RD: The Rtvik exponents are fond of quoting (out of context) the incidences when Srila Prabhupada commented upon Jesus being the founder -acarya of his succession. In the HKS Mission Statement they say:

Srila Prabhupada: "...the Christians are following Christ, a great personality. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. You follow some mahajana, a great personality... You follow an acarya. Like the Christians -- they follow Christ, an acarya. The Muhammadans -- they follow an acarya, Muhammad. That is good. You must follow some acarya ... Evam parampara-praptam." (Conversation, May 20, 1975, Melbourne)

As we read above, Srila Prabhupada is stressing the need to follow the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya - which in our disciplic line is Himself. It is a commonly accepted fact that the lineage begun by Jesus has been broken in many (and all ways) for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Consequently, there are innumerable religious sects and denominations.

[PADA: Yes, but there are many more camps and "divisions" in Rocana's model, perhaps hundreds and thousands of sects and denominations in India? And as we know, there are similar countless divisions amongst "Krishna followers," and even amongst Gaudiya Matha followers? Yet the main unified essence is that many of these sects worship as their acharyas someone like Ramanjua, Madhava, Sri Chaitanya and many of them accept Krishna, just as most Christians accept certain points of agreement? Still, Rocana fails to explain, how has the situation in India fared any better than the Christians? Again, Rocana fails to tell us why all the followers of his idea, the countless "living guru" camps of India, has created any form of unified -- anything? Actually, Rocana's model of "living gurus" in places like India is vastly more divided and chaotic than the Christians in many respects? Certainly, there is no reason to say India's camps of "living gurus" are a vastly more unified model than the Christians, since clearly, they are not?

Worse, in India there are often examples of sectarian violence amongst some of these "guru camps," whereas violence amongst the multifarious Christian groups in America and the World nowadays, is very rare indeed? Srila Prabhupada simply says that all of these "living guru" camps in India, as well as in the so-called living guru camps of the Gaudiya Matha and so on, they are all hodge podge, if not useless? How is this "living guru" example any better? At least the Christians can get together and produce many practical programs by dint of their unified ideas. Whereas, doing anything equally in India is near impossible as we all know, mainly because of the dis-unity of these various "living guru" camps?

It appears that Rocana has never thought out the conclusions of his statements? There may be some unity among the living guru camps in India, perhaps, but in the Christian model, one can go anywhere in the world, whether America, Europe, China, South America, Russia, Africa, Australia, or almost anywhere, and find a place to worship one's Sampradya Acharya? So this is clearly the more unified model than anything Rocana has proposed, despite his claim the Christians are all divided? The Christians are divided on details, but they all accept the main principle essence: that one has to worship the Sampradaya Acharya. It is the opinion of the PADA editor that we could learn a lot from the "unity in diversity" of the Christian model of worship of their Sampradaya Acharya. Simply stated, their system works vastly better than the infighting amongst living guru camps in India.]

RD: These churches have been arguing amongst themselves as to which is closer to the true teachings, and their arguing has continued for nearly half the duration of Kali Yuga.

[PADA: Yes, and the same thing has been going on amongst your wonderful "living guru" camps in India? You are a black pot calling the kettle black?]

RD: Would the Rtviks now like us to believe that Srila Prabhupada wished for us to emulate them based on a few quotes? Why focus on Jesus, when our own tradition has spawned many Sampradaya Acaryas equal to or greater than Jesus?

[PADA: Rocana says that Srila Prabhupada is "post samadhi," he can no longer accept people's sins and act as their diksha guru, while the Christians say that Jesus is their "living guru" and He is still taking their sins? And Srila Prabhupada agrees with the Christians that Jesus is indeed taking the sins of Christians EVEN NOW. So Rocana is saying the Krishna acharyas are -- less than Jesus?]

RD: Since the time of Jesus' lila, our sampradaya has been host to the advent of Lord Caitanya and his many Sampradaya Acarya representatives. In fact, within the last 150 years we have been benedicted by the visitation of three such exalted personalities. Perhaps Lord Caitanya will see fit to send others in the not too distant future.

[PADA: Maybe, there are sometimes many acharyas appearing and sometimes there are big gaps. We are simply supposed to follow the orders of our acharya in the meanwhile, and he said: make a Governing Body and conduct his worship, distribute his books, build up his temples, initiate new people on his behalf, and so on.]

RD: In their Mission Statement, the HKS offers the following quotes: "Actually, one who is guided by Jesus Christ will certainly get liberation." (Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers, Chapter 9)

[PADA: This is a great quote. Yes, this is true, worship of the acharya is bona fide even if he is "post samadhi"!

Srila Prabhupada: "'Living.' The spiritual master is not the question of 'living.' The spiritual master is eternal -- the spiritual master is eternal. So your question is 'without a spiritual master.' Without a spiritual master you cannot be -- at any stage of your life. You may accept this spiritual master or that spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept. You say 'by reading the Bible.' When you read the Bible, that means you are following the spiritual master, represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ. So in any case, you have to follow a spiritual master. There cannot be the question 'without a spiritual master.' Is that clear?" (Questions and answers following a lecture, October 2, 1968, Seattle)

RD: According to the evidence and conclusions presented by the Rtviks, the Sampradaya Acarya saw fit to introduce a morphed form of Christian-like baptismal initiation called Rtvik. Like Jesus, Srila Prabhupada is expected to absorb and absolve all the sins of the converts. He is expected to accept these initiates, regardless of their qualifications.

[PADA: No, from 1965 Srila Prabhupada wanted the institution to be managed in such a way that newcomers would be trained and tested -- before initiations. He wanted the new people to have some minimal qualifications. He never said let us initiate anyone, regardless of qualifications? This is a straw man argument? And again, what is wrong with a morphed form of Christian acceptance of the Sampradaya Acharya?]

"So you have to learn from guru by three processes. What is that? First process is you must surrender. Tasmad gurum prapadyeta. Surrender. You have to find out such an exalted person where you can willingly surrender, "Yes." Therefore it is enjoined in the sastras, before making a guru, try to study him, whether you can surrender there. Don't accept any guru all of a sudden as fanatic. No, don't do that. That is the injunction. And guru also must study the disciple who wants to become a disciple; must study him, whether he's fit for becoming a disciple. This is the way of making relationship between guru and disciple. Everything is there provided we take them seriously. Then we can train up how to become bona fide disciple, how to find out bona fide guru, how to establish our relationship with guru and act accordingly and make our life successful." Srila Prabhupada Lecture, 08-22-73, London

Those who are 'baptized' by the Rtvik priests can then present themselves as bona fide diksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Given that most of the advocates of Rtvik-ism were born and raised as Christians before being saved by Srila Prabhupada, it doesn't take much imagination to envision just where this slippery slope might lead.

[PADA: What? This is bad? The "slippery slope" is that thousands, maybe millions and billions of people will accept Srila Prabhupada as their guru? And this is a slippery slope to -- what? Yes, being connected to a Sampradya Acharya absolves one of sins, this is a common idea in all religions?]

RD: In their mission statement, the Hare Krishna Society inserts the misleading quotation below in order to convince themselves and others they are open-minded spiritualists. In reality, the Church of Rtvik has already converted over to being a sect of narrow-minded religionists.

[PADA: Well yes, let us have an open mind and open the guru rubber stamping process, and then the floodgates will pour forth another "millions of living gurus" mish-mash as we already see in the model of the GBC, the Gaudiya Matha, and indeed all over India. Anyone who says this is wrong, as Srila Prabhupada did, is "close - minded"? Rocana is from the Church of open the floodgates for all kinds of gurus, and this is clearly not working well in the model of the GBC, Gaudiya Matha or India. There is no unity. Whereas the Christian idea to "close the floodgates for all types of living gurus" has at least produced a unified preaching effort? They are also spared the extreme "guru scandals" we have had, since their "guru" is not involved in scandals, just their wayward priests? Again, we might learn a thing or two about the built in safe guards their system holds.]

RD: Members of the Hare Krishna Society agree to encourage and promote istha-gosthi among ourselves and others, to discuss the proper conclusions of Vaisnavism and their practical application, based upon Srila Prabhupada's teachings. I can personally testify that I have repeatedly tried my level best to engage in discussion with the pandits of Rtvik-tattva, to no avail. My efforts have repeatedly met with harsh, reactionary, un-Vaisnava-like behavior such as I never before experienced from any quarter of the movement over my 35 years in Krsna Consciousness.

[PADA: Rocana has never once engaged PADA is any form of debate? He recently said that our replies "cause him to think and to laugh." Fine, but that is not a formal rebuttal? He refuses to debate with us in public or in writing for 20 years? No wonder since his ideas have GBC roots? The good news is that his writings are a sort of guide book for the misguided, he gives almost every single argument that the GBC, Gaudiya Matha and similar smarta and sahajiya cults give. This is why we took the trouble to reply, he summarizes most of the hoopla we find in the GBC and Gaudiya Matha ideologues. In that sense we congratulate Rocana for doing this.

To sum then, Rocana, Kailasha Chandra, Tripurari swami, the GBC, the Gaudiya Matha deviants, the Hindus in general, the sahajiya sects of Bengal, all of these people support the system of multiple mini-guru franchises, rather than an integrated system of universal worship of the Sampradaya Acharya. Thus Rocana and Kailasha Chandra types seem to have no apparent organization at all, since they are trying to make themselves self styled holier than thou mini-gurus. So they are combating the GBC's and Gaudiya Matha's mini-gurus -- and yet they also oppose the ritviks who worship the Sampradaya Acharya? And all of this apparently to boost themselves up as the real "higher authorities." Yet notice they are not taken too seriously in any quarter since they do not seem to have any real grasp of their own siddhanta, as we pointed our herein? Rocana cannot even figure out who his living guru is, or if he exists at all, exactly as Jayadvaita argued to PADA in 1985?

Thus Rocana types are another version of the GBC and IRM. Nevermind that no one accepts the IRM's 10k concoctions; that Haridasa is not giving divyam jnanam which destroys sins; and what to speak of the IRM endorsements of the GBC and Tamal and their bogus NTIP book full of fraudulent testimony on the poison case. Nor has the IRM yet come to grips with the fact that the PADA version of the poison issue is gaining ground daily with devotees of all types, including some of the IRM's devotees, Gaudiya Matha devotees, Brijabasis, Hindus, scholars, audio experts, FBI men, lawyers and so on and so forth accepting, while their view is withering on the vine?

Next, if we look at the system of multiple mini-guru franchises in the Gaudiya Matha, Srila Prabhupada says: that is deviation, severe offense, and in sum a disaster which ruined that mission. We need not add much more to that. Similarly, if we look at the system of multiple mini-guru franchises in ISKCON, they too are self absorbed in their teeny franchise while thousands of people in their charge are being banned, beaten and killed, and the children are being starved, beaten and molested. This is vastly apparent when we look at the past 25 years of GBC reports, there is mainly only talk about: how big is my guru seat, my guru photo, my guru book; how to make more deviants into GBC gurus; how the GBC needs to kick out this or that GBC guru, and no or very little talk about -- the suffering citizens.

Next, if we look at the system of multiple mini-guru franchises in say for example Bengal, this is why these mini-gurus fiefdoms were unable to unite and defeat the wildfire spreading of Ramakrishna mission there. Srila Prabhupada says this "dragged all of Bengal to hell." Like the GBC, many of the Bengal mini-gurus also self-absorbed in their little village guru franchise, and not the overall situation. So this is another version of the GBC. The GBC were ineffective while all of the children in their charge were "dragged to hell." The GBC could not do anything practical because they are sitting around counting their pounds, shillings, pence, writing books about their silly wonderful realizations ad infinitum. This is exactly the pattern that occurred in Bengal, the mini-guru franchises could not form a united preaching effort under the banner of the Sampradaya Acharya and defeat the Ramakrishna mission. The Muslims also took over a huge chunk of India because the "Vedic princes" could not unite to defeat a common enemy, they could not see the larger picture.

Of course Srila Prabhupada gives the Ramakrishan mission this much credit, at least they preach unitedly under their acharya and thus they are able to make progress -- at least from the institutional growth point of view? So we cannot build any such institution if we simply follow the mini-guru franchise example, and indeed we will be stomped upon, and made of no consequence, even by any charlatan since they will at least be able to make some united effort, while we cannot? Notice, the worship of some charlatans like Ramakrishna, the GBC gurus, or their supporters like Sridhara and Narayan, or the Bengal sahajiya gurus, never occurs in -- the local Lutheren church. Does it? That is because there is a strong bulwark of focus on the Sampradaya Acharya there, which cannot be penetrated by these charlatans.

So Rocana's idea that there are "many disciplic lines" is exactly what the GBC, Gaudiya Matha, the Bengal sahajiya gurus, and similar other deviants preach. And as we see, they are as Srila Prabhupada says "a hodge podge." Read: a hopeless imbroglio. Therefore, maybe we ought to reconsider the system of a unified preaching effort, using proxies, and emphasis on the Sampradaya Acharya, namely Srila Prabhupada. Or we may end up being another laughing stock GBC, Gaudiya Matha, Hindu and Bengal mini-guru franchise imbroglio, which is rejected by every sane man on the planet as a dysfunctional train wreck. And -- it is. Thanks pd]