Social: Is zonal acharya system still in effect in ISKCON?

...but with more "acharyas" added?

not as it was but in spirit...yes!

I have had first-hand testimony from someone involved on the inside of a Spiritual Master who's disciples insist/heavily persuade any newcomers to take initiation from this spiritual master and if they don't they are given the cold shoulder and made to feel very unwelcome. This spiritual master is responsible for many zones around the world so I guess it's a case of zonal acarya system gone very very wrong.

ccd:
first you say, problem is gurus are treated as s**t, then the problem is with disciples. Wouldn't THAT desire to keep things as they were at all cost, with any argument, the real problem?

rasa108:From what I can see and have experienced, in most cases the disciples mood is a reflection of the Spiritual Master....

That's natural.

no-one should be persuaded or pressured to take initiation from a particular spiritual master....I would not appreciate that from a disciple of any spiritual master - in fact this behaviour would disqualify that option for a spititual master.

This doesn't follow. It only shows that guru XY has a certain number of neophyte disciples (which guru doesn't?). To judge his merits acc to them is not sound. Better idea one can get from an association with his advanced disciples.

rasa108:

ccd:Thats a problem with the disciples not with the system. I could be wrong...

From what I can see and have experienced, in most cases the disciples mood is a reflection of the Spiritual Master....no-one should be persuaded or pressured to take initiation from a particular spiritual master....

But is it not the same when Prabhupadas discisples or followers say, that he is the acharya for the next 10K years? Is it the same or is it different? I agree that to some degree gurus views reflect in disciples, I do not agree that he is to blame, but rather to be educated:-) So what is your view, its okay to push Prabhupada but its not okay to push any of his disciples or followers? Interesting, because the answer to this question created so many maths instead of one created by our guru, BSST.

Pandu das:

ccd:

rasa108:

ccd:Thats a problem with the disciples not with the system. I could be wrong...

From what I can see and have experienced, in most cases the disciples mood is a reflection of the Spiritual Master....no-one should be persuaded or pressured to take initiation from a particular spiritual master....

But is it not the same when Prabhupadas discisples or followers say, that he is the acharya for the next 10K years? Is it the same or is it different? I agree that to some degree gurus views reflect in disciples, I do not agree that he is to blame, but rather to be educated:-) So what is your view, its okay to push Prabhupada but its not okay to push any of his disciples or followers? Interesting, because the answer to this question created so many maths instead of one created by our guru, BSST.

Because Srila Prabhupada is the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON, it is reasonable to say that his teachings are the proper standard for ISKCON. Various devotees are more or less qualified to be a guru in ISKCON according to their adherence to Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

I am not talking about teachings. I do talk about being persuaded or pressured to take shelter from a particular spiritual master. Why is it okay for one devotee and not okay for another? I have no problem with it, but we need to be consistent do we?

I mean its simple. If you accept our guru, Prabhupada, you are welcome. If you of some other guru, get out. Is it fair? Is it what Prabhupada wanted? Did Prabhupada himself indicated that this was to be the system. After all that was the reason Jayatirtha, Tripurari, Alanath Swamis were kicked out. Is it not the zonal system and the root of it? How can you expect a worldwide unity and Lord Chaitanyas movement if this is not changed? (I am Prabhupadas disciple myself, but instead of "Serve my master, do as he said." I would suggest "Cooperate - that what my master wanted").

rasa108:.obviously at that time he was the only initiating spiritual master and therefore everyone understood that SP would initiate them...

yes he was. But clearly there are so many others now in the west with their own gurus. What to do with them - not let them in to the zone?

Am truly amazed at the comparisons between ANY nowadays guru to SP. Truly amazed that such a thing can happen only 30 years after His dissapearance. With such daring "devotees", who needs demons?

Kula-pavana:

mishra:Am truly amazed at the comparisons between ANY nowadays guru to SP. Truly amazed that such a thing can happen only 30 years after His dissapearance. With such daring "devotees", who needs demons?

Let me be absolutely clear here: none of Prabhupada disciples I have ever met comes even remotely close to the level of Srila Prabhupada in terms of knowledge or devotion.

Why are you amazed. We are comparing Prabhupada to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. You are not amazed about that? Its natural. For example, there are saits in ISKCON who are very much like Prabhupada, say Gour Govinda Swami. Why such fanatical push for 'my guru' is by far better then ANYONE. Whats wrong with you guys?

GLAD I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT !
kulapavana said:
1. It is a continuation of the original ISKCON culture, where dvotees pressured all newcomers to accept whatever Prabhupada said and did as completely spiritual and perfect.

2. Back then also a lot of people left when they felt that there was a discrepancy between reality and what was presented to them (like the Moon issue).

3. Nowadays at least these gurus do not dare to claim that whatever they say and do must be taken as completely spiritual and perfect.

4. As a matter of fact Srila Prabhupada never made such claims either, but his disciples assumed that this is what it meant to be a pure devotee.

5. I remember the fairytales of 'eternally liberated associates of Srila Prabuhupada' descending from Goloka to help him with his mission told in the late 70's and 80's told by rank and file Iskcon devotees...

6. There was an entire machinery of myth making already in place and more than 11 people were involved in it.
<<< >>>

each one of these telling little ditties have massive implied premisses that might question one to ask "and who is your guru prabhu?", because clearly there is a lack of respect for Srila Prabhupada that no sane spiritual aspirant would harbor. for example, #2 as it is written implies both that the author neither accepts the Vedic version of astronomical calculations, nor does he even feel that Srila Prabhupada was correct on the matter.

#3 implies that claims of Srila Prabhupada's spiritual perfection are both false and that ISKCON of Srila Prabhupada's day practiced a level of deception that even those who may now be considered by some as charlatans would not be so offensive as to make.

#4 attempts to shift some of the blame for this deception on to some errant, misinformed, neophyte disciples

#5 would clearly seem to negate the validity of Srila Prabhupada's claims that even in a half empty theater in boston, all the demigods of the universe were present.

#6 finds blame enough in the movement, pre samadhi to go around and notes accurately that "more than 11 people were involved in it". surely they were, but not apparently all seeking the same sort of results. some people sought immediate satisfaction for whatever penances and austerities they may have performed while some others did such acts as a matter of duty, expecting nothing in return from the Lord.

still glad i didn't say those things...

kulapavana said:
" I'm glad you did not at least argue with #1."
response: #1 was the top of a list that could have been very, very much longer.
character limits on submissions limit the amount of incredulous outrage that
must be expressed at such balderdash, opinionated speculation. again, the
question of "who is your guru?" and does he agree with your understanding
of spacial relationships are forefront in any discussion. if your lineage clearly
harbors these diametric oppositions to positions that many others hold sancrosact,
you must agree that unity of spiritual pupose would have to be sacrificed on the altar of one or the others dogmas.

kulapavana further speculated:

"That was a statement of facts. Even the ancients could see with a naked eye that the Moon is closer to Earth than the Sun by watching the pattern of light and shade on the Moon when these two objects are visible at the same time in the sky. If the Moon was further away than the Sun, it would always be full. Feel free to check it out for yourself. And btw. Vedic Jyotir shastras have correctly estimated distances to Moon and Sun, as well as the diameters of these bodies. "

response: before i would "feel free to check it out for yourself", i would have to
harbor the desire to do so. i do not. the time i have remaining in this mortal form
will not be spent in speculation attempting to weaken our faith in the instructions
of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami maharaj, regardless how well intended such advice may
be given. regarding the dichotomy between the Vedic version and the modern
materialistic astronomers space theories, we need only to point to the two
dimensional, flat earth theories the westerners touted 500 years ago to show
how the defects of "the perfect explanation", by materialists, is ALWAYS a
flawed theory..

SB 5:21:11, the purport:
In Bhagavad-gita (10.21) Krishna says, nakshatranam aham sasi: "Of stars I am the moon." This indicates that the moon is similar to the other stars. The Vedic literature informs us that within this universe there is one sun, which is moving. The Western theory that all the luminaries in the sky are different suns is not confirmed in the Vedic literature. Nor can we assume that these luminaries are the suns of other universes, for each universe is covered by various layers of material elements, and therefore although the universes are clustered together, we cannot see from one universe to another. In other words, whatever we see is within this one universe. In each universe there is one Lord Brahma, and there are other demigods on other planets, but there is only one sun.
SB 5:21:12 purport:
Thus the chariot of the sun-god, which is trayimaya, or worshiped by the words om bhur bhuvah svah, travels through the four residences mentioned above at a speed of 3,400,800 yojanas [27,206,400 miles] in a muhurta.
<<< >>>

not that "everything revolves around the sun" as you currently speculate here.
sorry, i remain unconvinced by your "proof" thus far, but i remain open to consider
your other points.

janmastami das:[ response: before i would "feel free to check it out for yourself", i would have to harbor the desire to do so. i do not. the time i have remaining in this mortal form will not be spent in speculation attempting to weaken our faith in the instructions of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami maharaj, regardless how well intended such advice may be given.

Blind faith is dangerous and not in the least recommended in our Vaishnava tradition - of all people in the world you should understand that concept. Prabhupada did not want blind followers, and he wanted his disciples with scientific aptitude to present Vedic knowledge in a scientific way. Blind faith was instrumental in making possible the 'zonal acharya' abuses.

Blind faith and justifications of blind faith are a peculiar combination... Glad I do not have blind faith (or do I?)

SB 5:22:8
TRANSLATION

Above the rays of the sunshine by a distance of 100,000 yojanas [800,000 miles] is the moon, which travels at a speed faster than that of the sun. In two lunar fortnights the moon travels through the equivalent of a samvatsara of the sun, in two and a quarter days it passes through a month of the sun, and in one day it passes through a fortnight of the sun.

PURPORT

When we take into account that the moon is 100,000 yojanas, or 800,000 miles, above the rays of the sunshine, it is very surprising that the modern excursions to the moon could be possible. Since the moon is so distant, how space vehicles could go there is a doubtful mystery. Modern scientific calculations are subject to one change after another, and therefore they are uncertain. We have to accept the calculations of the Vedic literature. These Vedic calculations are steady; the astronomical calculations made long ago and recorded in the Vedic literature are correct even now. Whether the Vedic calculations or modern ones are better may remain a mystery for others, but as far as we are concerned, we accept the Vedic calculations to be correct.

<<< >>>

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta translated Surya siddhanta which is considered a Vedic authority on astronomy and astrology, Surya siddhanta lists the distance from the earth globe to the moon as being about 258,000 miles. Using radar and lasers, scientists have obtained very accurate estimates of the earth-moon distance. This distance is about 238,000 miles. Thus the Vedic understanding is in reasonable agreement with the modern science on this issue.

Bhag. 5:22:8 is very clearly NOT talking about the linear distances between Sun and Moon just like it is not talking about the linear speed of these two celestial objects. Prabhupada was not the expert on Vedic astronomy, but Srila Bhaktisiddhanta certainly was. He spent 2 decades studying this subject in great detail and his Bengali translation of Surya siddhanta and other jyotish classics prove that Moon is closer to the Earth than Sun.

The zonal 'acharya' system depended completely on taking a lot of things purely on faith, despite clear and obvious indications that you were being duped. This business is still going on. People like Devamrita and Radhanatha swamis for example were so 'blind and ignorant', that they were completely duped by crooks and criminals like K-swami. They defend themselves by claiming they had 'faith' in K-swami and that is why they blindly followed him. Like having blind faith somehow is a good thing that justifies everything. Now they demand from their disciples more blind faith by presenting themselves to be highly advanced gurus. You are a fool if you believe their old story ('we were fooled by the K-swami on account of having lots of faith in him'), and you are a fool if you believe their new story ('we are qualified to be your guru'). In the same fashion the evidence for the Moon distance is right in front of you, yet you refuse to accept it, claiming blind faith in your guru's pronouncement on this subject.

That is the connection I see.

Janmastami prabhu, how do you know what facilities I avail myself of? It has been over a year since I last visited an 'Iskcon facility', and that particular facility was originally bought largely with my personal money that I made before joining Iskcon. I'm not even sure anybody thinks I'm an Iskcon member, let alone a member in good standing.

I deeply respect Prabhupada as my main siksa guru, but I do not follow him blindly, nor do I blindly accept his pronouncements on science or astronomy as perfect and complete just because they come from him. On the subject of Vedic astronomy my siksa guru is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

CCD:"Blind faith and justifications of blind faith are a peculiar combination... Glad I do not have blind faith (or do I?)"

I've taken blind faith to mean accepting a spiritual master without properly ascertaining his qualifications. (Can he awaken our pure love of God?) Once we have determined that the spiritual master is bona fide, we learn from hearing from him and seeing through the eyes of sastra.

"So anyone who has got unflinching faith in God and similar faith in guru, then the Vedic purpose becomes revealed to him. Yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau, tasyaite kathita hy arthah. The Vedic mantras and their artha becomes revealed. This is the process."
Srila Prabhupada, Arrival Lecture -- San Francisco, July 15, 1975

I take the words "unflinching faith" to mean that even if a bona fide guru says something that contradicts our sense perception or mental speculation, that we accept the guru's version. If we follow the so-called scientists, it's a very, very long way back to Godhead.
http://vedabase.net/iso/9/en

"Guru means "heavy," or "superior." That is the law. So our process of Vedic knowledge is that we get knowledge from the superior just like Brahma, Lord Brahma."
The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, December 28, 1972

If we consider our material senses and intelligence to give superior information compared to the guru's teachings, then we are rejecting the parampara system that Krishna came to re-establish. Sometimes devotees talk of checking the spiritual master's words against "reality," but their idea of reality is mahamaya as seen through their defective facilities of perception. Actual reality is understood by submissive hearing from a bona fide guru.

The purpose of Vedic instruction is to bring us back to Godhead through development by awakening pure love of God. Rejecting the teachigns of a pure devotee in disciplic succession in favor of mental speculation might make one a respected jnani, but it is a deviation from the path of cultivating pure devotional service.

mishra:.. and who is your guru on rasa? Ramananda raya? :)

I have not gotten that far... :)

Dandavats....
May a fool enter your forum for the first time? I have skimmed over the above discussion, and wondered why the fifth verse of Srila Prabhupada's Upadesamrta has not been quoted......"One should mentally honor the devotee who chants the holy name of Lord Krishna, one should offer obeisances to the devotee who has undergone spiritual initiation and is engaged in worshipping the deity, and one should associate with and faithfully serve that pure devotee who is advanced in undeviated devotional service, and whose heart is completely devoid of the propensity to criticize others" In the purport, Srila Prabhupada states that a kanistha adhikari, one on the lowest level of devotional service, may take disciples, but those disciples will not be able to progress very well under his insufficient guidance. Therefore, it is crucial for the prospective disciple to ascertain....Who is the uttama adhikari?
Let us examine for a moment some of the characteristics we remember of great acaryas in the past.....hasn't there always been a sense of humility associated with the presence of those who are truly great? Hasn't there been ALWAYS a FEAR that to present oneself as someone greater than others will induce pride and all of the attendant maidservants of pride? So the question is, if a truly realized master were to come to know that some of his disciples were "pushing" him on others, wouldn't this guru, if he were truly great, become furious at the conduct of such disciples? Because being a guru is not a popularity contest.....it is a matter of the gravest commitment, and the most serious communion with the Supreme Lord AT EVERY MOMENT. At any given second, the snares of maya can catch hold of one who is weak, inattentive, and desiring sense enjoyment. So, a true guru is not interested in hordes of followers.....he is interested in his own relationbship with his spiritual preceptor, and Sri Sri Radha and Krsna. That devotion is so powerful, it is awe-inspiring. It is a power so unmistakably different from the desire for material prestige. When it is found, there is a force behind the person possessing it that might possibly throw skeptics to their knees......many stories have been told of persons gazing at Srila Prabhupada for the first time, and prior to that first meeting, thinking, "Who is this old man".....but upon being in his presence, feeling immediately a sense of his power and devotion. His presence would bring immediate tears to people's eyes, persons who thought that he was just "another fake".
It takes careful scrutiny to truly discern who is pure, and it also takes studying Srila Prabhupada's books, and the books of our entire parampara, AS ORDERED BY SRILA PRABHUPADA HIMSELF, to have any ability to analyze a pure devotee. I humbly pray that those of you who love to debate, develop the shastra caksus to know how to debate according to the conclusions of our acaryas.

I disagree with thinking that gurus in our sampradaya can be right in some things and wrong in others, and therefore "choosing" gurus according to themes and personal tastes. In short, I was being cynical.