Social: [Closed] The "I am a Prabhupada disciple" card

Have you heard it?

They come and demand to be respected because they did this or that decades ago. Now they dont do anything but still they want that respect.

Of course it is not ordinary to be a prabhupada disciple but to use that to get things you want or exploit others is not correct.

Have you seen this in your environment?

How to deal with this?

There are people that somehow even cheat on having being initiated by Srila Prabhupada to partake of the adoration, honor etc that ensues.

This is normal, Kali-yuga stuff, the cheaters and the cheated.

The only cure is to respect everyone in the same level and extra respect and admiration when it is really due, that means when you experience the devotional qualities of a "Prabhupada man" by yourself.

In other words stop oneself being a "little Prabhu" as explained by Wilhem Reich in his book "Little men".

Cause little men are the reason why the rascals enjoy power.

Either way individual karma or the arrangement of krishna both need the supreme personality of godheads blessing to acheive anything...even to cheat you indeed need to be blessed by the supreme cheater krishna.

Just let it go and let Krsna handle it.

Or if you can't do that, then talk to your guru or aspiring guru, or another one of Prabhupada's immediate disciples that you know well and see if they can do something about it. If not...

Just continue on with what you're doing and let Krsna handle it.

Swarup Das:I'm a Prabhupada disciple and you're not, nahnny nahnny nah nah ... too bad for you .... you lost out ... you missed the boat ... poor poor pitiful you ..... so envy me if you want ... it's alright ... I would if I were you.

:)))))) ROTFL

My dear Pandu das ,i have just read your comments and your well intentioned but purely sentimental letter which encorporates sadly the latest changes to have been propounded by those wishing to corrupt Srila Rupa goswami Prabhupada's devotional legacy.My freind and siksa guru tamala krishna goswami actually is one of those who signed that letter ,which the ''ritviks'' use to justify their humble attempts to turn iskcon into a christian facsimilie.However he was very adamant that srila prabhupada never intended to change the accepted vaisnava process and invent another mayavadi distortion .Co-operation has always been built on the solid foundations of sadhu and sastra,it would have been far more effective had you approached these senior vaisnava's with sastric quotes and glorification .What this mayavadi - ritvik inspired group fails to get is that there is infact no ''ritvik archarya'' in our line,except in the furtile minds of those envious devotees wanting to change our AC Bhaktivedanta swami srila prabhupada's legacy to satisfy their motive to become his direct disciples or to minimise those who were personally more empowered by their individual close sevice of srila prabhupada himself. .Hence the apparent resultant anger and your subsequent criticism ,was naturally seen by his disciples as relevant and indeed worthy.Why not just accept the fact that we are disciples of his disciples?As Madva Archarya comments ...the farther is always the farther...and the son is always the son.Not as the ritviks contend that the son can become also the farther.

Just a few remarks:

> Personally I don't have full faith in any of his disciples.

If you met all of them, it's unfortunate. It suggests SP wasn't able to make even one sincere disciple... hmm.
That's where the ritvik position leads to.

Sitting at SP disciples's table is just a formal honor thing, not to be envied. It's not related to how much his disciples really follow and please Prabhupada, which is the real thing.

Hypocrisy is not per guru-sastra-sadhu, so it can't be accepted. Quite simple.

Garudadhwaja Prabhu, we're not in disagreement. Pandu Prabhu may not met anyone sincere but that doesn't mean there's none as ritviks want to suggest (so no one than SP can be a guru) which is offensive to those sincere ones. Therefore I say 'all of them' and 'even one'.

I can't say much about Narayana M. There are conflicting viewpoints and my own experience of him is very limited. I only know that NM followers try to advertise NM to ISKCON audience while ISKCON followers don't go to NM camp to do the same. Wonder if this goes on in other sampradayas. I'm not surprised if someone dislikes it.

I haven't met all the gurus, nor am I saying that none of them are qualified. I don't know that. All I'm saying is that in my 13 years of associating with ISKCON I haven't found any guru who inspires my full confidence in his instructions. I accepted a harinam guru five years ago based on surrendering to the advice of some devotees and trying to have faith in what the GBC says, but that did not work out very well. Last year I started looking at the historical evidence available to me related to Srila Prabhupada's orders about initiation after his disappearance, and it looked to me that he called for deputies initiating on his behalf. I can also see how others may weigh the evidence differently and reach a different conclusion. Therefore I don't insist that others are wrong for accepting a modern initiating guru, only that it doesn't appear to be for me. Whatever helps a person to chant Hare Krishna is great, but personally it kills my enthusiasm to hear that I have to accept an intermediary to Srila Prabhupada. Accepting an initiating guru is a very personal thing, and I am very much attached to Srila Prabhupada, at least as far as my spiritual attachment goes. Srila Prabhupada saved me from immersion in mayavada philosophy by his Bhagavad-gita As It Is opening my eyes to Krishna for a few hours, and that changed everything for me. Maybe I've misunderstood and am just not qualified to be a disciple, but I am very reluctant to artificially act as if I have full faith in someone when really I don't. Srila Prabhupada said that he didn't care for many stars, that he wanted one moon. Does anyone think he got that moon? He apparently didn't say so, and I haven't seen anyone like that. If someone else has found that moon, then great for them, but I am not so fortunate or maybe I'm not fooled, and I'm not going to be convinced artificially by force.

A few comments in response to PurushaVyaghra's remarks... "But they do not critcise or blasphame ISKCON gurus. Still they get kicked out..." I find that very disturbing, but fortunately I haven't had that problem yet. I was practically kicked out for a few years when I questioned a contemporary guru's judgement once, but I was able to come back after apologizing. Since then I've been doing my best to avoid making any disturbance in my local community.
"Who would want to take initiation from them if Srila Prabhupada is made available as Guru?" Well some devotees might feel more inspired by a contemporary guru. Some disciples came in by their preaching and feel more connected with the modern gurus. For me though it was not like that at all. I became convinced about Krishna before I ever met a devotee, simply through Bhagavad-gita As It Is that I found used in a bookstore after I'd started a spiritual quest. It is very natural for me to think of Srila Prabhupada as my guru, and not through some other guru who steps in between after the fact.

Hare Krishna.

>I find that very disturbing

Sorry to disturb you Pandu Prabhu but i know one brahamachari who joined Vrindavana temple. He never criticised or said anything bad about any of ISKCON gurus. But when devotees would ask "Who is your Guru?" He will answer Srila Prabhupada. So the word went to temple authorities and he was called in a meeting to give explanation. He was frank and told honestly that He considered Srila Prabhupada as his Guru. He was asked to take Diksha from one of the present ISKCON acharyas, which he refused to do. After that he was asked to leave temple.

PurushaVyaghra:>I find that very disturbing Sorry to disturb you Pandu Prabhu but i know one brahamachari who joined Vrindavana temple. He never criticised or said anything bad about any of ISKCON gurus. But when devotees would ask "Who is your Guru?" He will answer Srila Prabhupada. So the word went to temple authorities and he was called in a meeting to give explanation. He was frank and told honestly that He considered Srila Prabhupada as his Guru. He was asked to take Diksha from one of the present ISKCON acharyas, which he refused to do. After that he was asked to leave temple.

Since I'm not in Vrndavana I can't say much about that, but perhaps there they think devotees are expendable. Around here devotees are few, and there is no outside preaching. An average Sunday program has about 15-30 devotees. My family and I count as seven, so if we go away the loss is noticed at least numerically. Since I do my best to be respectful, there seems to be no danger of expulsion. However if I were to get a rtvik initiation I think I would have to be prepared to be not welcome there.

In the case above, it doesn't say the devotee considered himself an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Maybe he did, but it's not specified here. I know at my harinam initiation, my guru told me that Srila Prabhupada is my "primary guru," and I also always thought of it like that. I accepted a secondary guru just to formally connect me with Srila Prabhupada, though I felt the relationship was already established informally.
[br /} Many times when I've discussed and debated initiation with devotees opposed to the notion of Srila Prabhupada continuing to give initiation, they say that it's primarily a siksa sampradaya and that Srila Prabhupada is the primary guru of ISKCON, etc. However, when the question is asked, "Who is your guru?" we all know what that means. Although my harinam guru said Srila Prabhupada is my primary guru, that secondary guru eventually gave me orders that I did not feel were appropriate and could not in good conscience follow. I've heard this called the "bait and switch," and that seems about right.

VEDA:Thanks for clarification, Pandu Prabhu. Historical evidence related to BSST shows that he did the same with deputies. Yet after his tirobhava there were regular gurus. I also had a siksa guru who left ISKCON before initiating me and since that time I accept SP and his sisyas as siksa gurus, keeping diksa as an open future possibility. My conclusion based on g-s-s is that it's better not to accept diksa than to partake in apasiddhanta. > it kills my enthusiasm to hear that I have to accept an intermediary to Srila Prabhupada Yet he's an intermediary to Krsna. As Krsna wants ('devotee of My devotee is My devotee').

That's fine. It's a question of purity. Srila Prabhupada's purity is proven to me, but others' are not.

I consider Gour Govinda M. to be that moon, without meeting many other SP's sisyas.

But what is the effect of his preaching? I only heard of Gour Govinda Maharaj due to Srila Prabhupada, and that was after GGM's disappearance. Similarly I came to ISKCON only due to Srila Prabhupada's writing. "Would have" is always speculative, but it does not seem like I would have ever heard of any of the ISKCON gurus if not for Srila Prabhupada's great worldwide preaching. I'm also very impressed by Srila Prabhupada's acarya predecessors, but even they would be unknown to me if not for Srila Prabhupada's preaching work. So for me the whole thing rests upon Srila Prabhupada's service. Gour Govinda Maharaj may have done something to increase Srila Prabhupada's fame, but from my perspective it seems to a relatively insignificant degree.

> if Srila Prabhupada is made available as Guru Not in any genuine sampradayas. So far I haven't seen any precedence. With it ritvikvada would be already a norm.

Precedence has value but also its limits. For the sake of preaching, there are many firsts in the relatively recent past. For example, 200 years ago the sastras were all copied by hand. One could have argued that the mechanical printing of books was bogus, except that it was authorized by a big acarya. (Indeed GGM argued that the mechanical transmission of mantras via tape recordings was bogus, in contradiction to Srila Prabhupada's instructions and implementation.) Or one can say that there was no precedence for women brahmanas worshipping Deities on the altar. The arguemnt can be made that sastra prohibits the wearing of a shirt on the altar, yet it's done now because Srila Prabhupada authorized it. There are many examples. As the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON, it is his perogative to establish the rules for perserving what he had created, but instead his disciples are placing limits on his authority according to their interpreation of sastra and precedence.

When I debate the question of what Srila Prabhupada ordered for initiations after his disappearance, the opponents of the rtvik method always want to avoid looking at his actual orders and instead go to other sources basing their answer on their interpretation of sastra, parampara, etc. Srila Prabhupada was asked the question directly, and he gave an immediate, direct answer. This was followed by a written order saying the same. It is not our perogative to modify that order by looking to other indirect evidence which we interpret contrary to his direct response.

Kyros,

1. In the first paragraph, Srila Prabhupada defines his usage of "acarya" in that context as a siksa guru.

2. You're presenting a private letter to an extrordinarily disloyal disciple as evidence that Srila Prabhupada authorized him to initiate disciples. This was a disciple who already had his own disciples from before he met Srila Prabhupada, which suggests that Srila Prabhupada was trying to restrict him rather than authorize him.

3. This private letter was not published until the mid-eighties. If it was supposed to justify stopping the rtvik system Srila Prabhupada instituted, it should have been presented in 1977 or early 1978.

4. Is there any evidence that Srila Prabhupada wanted this private letter to define ISKCON's policy on initiations? Why was it not sent to all the TPs and GBCs like the July 9 letter? Is it proper that an order given in a relatively public letter to the leaders be modified by an earlier private letter to a deviant disciple?

5. It's interesting that Tusta Krsna never became a diksa guru in ISKCON. Instead he left ISKCON.

Like I said before, I don't have time for to get into a big debate now, so I hope these points are sufficient to counter the presentation of Tusta Krsna letter to justify overriding the July 9 letter.

>But as a matter of etiquette it is the custom that during the lifetime of your Spiritual master you bring the prospective disciples to him, and in his absence or >disappearance you can accept disciples without any limitation. This is the law of disciplic succession. I want to see my disciples become bonafide Spiritual Master >and spread Krishna consciousness very widely, that will make me and Krishna very happy.

Srila Prabhupada initiated 10,000 disciples. If you base your arguments only on this letter, then why we have only 100 Gurus, we should have 10,000Gurus why others are restricted. All the Matajis initiated by Srila Prabhupada should also be Gurus. They are equally as disciples of Srila Prabhupada as male devotees. What about Tamal Krsna and BhaktiTirtha. They are gone. Why their disciples are not allowed to become Gurus. Their Guru is gone. As per this rule they have right to become Gurus now. What about their parampara. Why no one is worried about parampara of TKG and BTS? Why parampara lovers don't care about TKG and BTS paramparas why they are worried only about parampara coming from Srila Prabhupada.

The reason is "Amar Ajnaya". Srila Prabhupada's last letter July9 gives specific instructions about how initiations should go on. In a matter of argument, last instruction is the most important. It overrides all the general rules. Like ISKCON gurus say during their preaching "Last instruction of B.Gita is most important which is "Manmana Bhava Madbhakto" so it is the most important out of all instructions. So last instruction is most important.

>
> You can see initiation letters signed by Srila Prabhupada e.g. in
> Vedabase.
>

I looked this morning but couldn't find them there. I'd appreciate a clue for where to look.


> Then the initiation letters would be signed by his ritviks but after his
> tirobhava these ritviks would have to turn into normal gurus. Otherwise
> it's apasampradaya.
>

According to you. Please show me where Srila Prabhupada said the rtviks he appointed would automatically become actual diksa gurus. I would expect to see that stated in the July 9 letter, but it's not there. On the contrary, the July 9 letter references the May 28 conversation asking Srila Prabhupada about "initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us."


> > Based on this I would say the letter-test is not valid.
>
> It's valid to prove that there is some guru, not just an imagination....Like nowadays there are self-proclaimed
> members of ISKCON who create a bad name for ISKCON by their
> pseudobusiness, etc.
>

However, if this is really an issue, I'd like to see the initiation letters for all the acaryas in our Sampradaya. Otherwise maybe someone was just making a joke or pretending. No, really... This is just stupid.

Shall we turn this around and conclude that Kirtananda didn't create a bad name for ISKCON because he had his initiation letter?

How does having an initiation letter define a disciple's behavior?

I don't have an initiation letter from Bhaktimarga Swami. I guess you would say that means I'm not his disciple. If only it were that easy.


> > Srila Prabhupada's purity is proven to me, but others' are not.
>
> Ok, your POV. Others may see purity in his disciples as well. But ritviks
> try their best to denigrate all his disciples...
>

You cannot generalize the conduct of ritvik supporters. Just a few weeks ago I spent the day at the local temple literally serving the servant of the servants of the servants of an ISKCON guru whom I know to be very anti-rtvik. I continue to serve in ISKCON because of the positive service that's done there, and I try to minimize potential conflicts. I can also understand how the more inimical rtvik supporters feel, believing Srila Prabhupada's order was usurped and ISKCON hijacked, but I try to suppress that feeling in myself for the sake of cooperation.

I accept that others may see purity in Srila Prabhupada's disciples. I've said that. However, I cannot rightly accept a guru for myself based on what others think. I'm faced with capitulating on that point or getting out of ISKCON, both of which I consider a gross injustice. At this point I'm leaning toward the latter, which makes me very sad.


> The proposal that changes in some minor issues validate also the change in
> diksa is offbase, imho.
> Even acarya can't change such a thing without being challenged to show
> also sastra and sadhu support.


Anyone can challenge anyway. The current ISKCON guru system is being challenged too. Why not challenge that women cannot worship Deities on the altar? The GBC changes what they want and keep what they want. They've even done that with the "Law of Disciplic Succession" quoted previously here. There is now a GBC resolution allowing disciples of current gurus to also become initiating gurus, and at least three have done that.

“Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge. [break] ...knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.”
(SP Press Interview, October 16, 1976, Chandigarh)


>
> Another reason why ritvik system isn't viable is that SP authorized only
> few of his disciples to initiate. After their tirohava the system would
> naturally end. What about the future?

Rtviks are just priests. Do you think the GBC can authorized gurus but not priests?

>
> For me the ritvik issue is a test of knowledge of g-s-s. Who can accept
> ritvikism is likely to accept also other apasiddhantas.

You're begging the question. You cannot assume "ritvikism" is an apasiddhanta in the face of evidence that Srila Prabhupada ordered it, unless you mean to challenge his authority.


> The rtvik idea appeared only in the middle of 80's.
>

That is not a coincidence. Srila Prabhupada's letters were not made available publicly until 1986 when Solocana obtained and released them. It hardly seems a coincidence that he was murdered shortly thereafter and that the end of the Zonal Acarya era followed soon after. I exchanged a few e-mails with Ameyatma Prabhu some months ago, and as I recall he said he didn't see the July 9 letter until the mid to late 90's.

Accusations cannot arise until the evidence is discovered.

> I looked this morning but couldn't find them there. I'd appreciate a clue for where to look.

I don't have Vedabase installed on this computer, my first one is in service shop.
You can find them by searching for instruction to chant 16 rounds and follow 4 regs. Well, it's
not very helpful in searching but... ;)

> Please show me where Srila Prabhupada said the rtviks he appointed would automatically become actual diksa gurus.

As I said, that hapened in GM after tirobhava of BSST. The standard way.

For me one letter and the last will (the only two pro-ritvik docs) can't outweigh numerous quotes in SP's books about "disciples of my disciples", the standard in all genuine sampradayas.

> However, if this is really an issue, I'd like to see the initiation letters for all the acaryas in our Sampradaya. Otherwise maybe someone was just making a joke or pretending. No, really... This is just stupid.

Previously it was not done neither needed. Nowadays Kali yuga advanced that people do all kinds of nonsense, even pretending to be someone they're not, and to stop them in a court case one needs proofs.

Initiation letter has nothing to do with later (mis)behavior of a discicple. That should be obvious. Everyone has a free will.

> I don't have an initiation letter from Bhaktimarga Swami. I guess you would say that means I'm not his disciple. If only it were that easy.

There must be some record in his possession that he accepted you. SP also had his "Initiated disciples" book, mentioned in the Vedabase.

> You cannot generalize the conduct of ritvik supporters.

Right. What I said is based on what is on their websites and Back to Prabhupada mag, their main propaganda tools.

> Anyone can challenge anyway. The current ISKCON guru system is being challenged too. Why not challenge that women cannot worship Deities on the altar? The GBC changes what they want and keep what they want. They've even done that with the "Law of Disciplic Succession" quoted previously here. There is now a GBC resolution allowing disciples of current gurus to also become initiating gurus, and at least three have done that.

There were women pujaris in the beginning of ISKCON, afaik. There are also precedences to initiations while one's guru is still physically present. From my POV, these are minor things in comparison to the diksa system. ISKCON will go on with them this or that way but as apasampradaya it's finished. New chance coming up in 8 billion years.

> “Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge. [break] ...knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.”
(SP Press Interview, October 16, 1976, Chandigarh)

Formality, yet considered quite serious by g-s-s (HBV, etc.).

> Rtviks are just priests. Do you think the GBC can authorized gurus but not priests?

My understanding is that GBC can't and doesn't 'authorize gurus'; it only gives a 'non-objection nod'.
GBC as a body is not an initiator. And when it'd authorize ritvikvada (Krsna forbid), I'm out of ISKCON, to avoid the maha aparadha attached to it.

> You're begging the question. You cannot assume "ritvikism" is an apasiddhanta in the face of evidence that Srila Prabhupada ordered it, unless you mean to challenge his authority.

It's not at all obvious he ordered it. There are only two proofs, to me not very convincing ones, and a huge contradicting evidence in his books, etc.

> That is not a coincidence. Srila Prabhupada's letters were not made available publicly until 1986 when Solocana obtained and released them. It hardly seems a coincidence that he was murdered shortly thereafter and that the end of the Zonal Acarya era followed soon after.

The Village Voice Review ritvik writings by Rupavilasa, Karnamrita and Nityananda appeared in 1989 and GBC rejected them in its 1990 Resolution. It'd mean it took them three years to invent ritvikism. But as per Ajamila's and Jahnu's (link below) account the ritvikism was born even earlier, in the middle of 80's.

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/iskcon-internal/284238-where-do-ritviks-come.html

Sulocana was murdered in connection to New Vrindavan crimes he wanted to reveal, afaik.

> Accusations cannot arise until the evidence is discovered.

Accusation against apasiddhanta based on g-s-s is enough for Vaisnavas in general.

I don't see any need to spend more time on this.

VEDA:
> Please show me where Srila Prabhupada said the rtviks he appointed would automatically become actual diksa gurus.
As I said, that hapened in GM after tirobhava of BSST. The standard way.

Standard it may have been, but Srila Prabhupada created a worldwide Vaisnava society out of whatever mlecchas came to the door. It was a new kind of institution, and it was Srila Prabhupada's perogative to protect it as he saw fit. My interest is simply: What did Srila Prabhupada order? For that I'm looking primarily at his written and spoken words specifically addressing that issue. What BSST did with his society of disciples presumably drawn from almost entirely within Vaisnava culture within India is something else. They are vastly different circumstances, making it perfectly reasonable to have different arrangements.

For me one letter and the last will (the only two pro-ritvik docs) can't outweigh numerous quotes in SP's books about "disciples of my disciples", the standard in all genuine sampradayas.

You can call it "one letter," but it happens to be one letter that is a direct order on what to do about the issue in question. You're essentially saying that you don't accept that a direct order is more relevant than a general instruction, and I disagree. If Srila Prabhupada said a hundred times in his books, "I like milk," but directly asked you for a glass of water, would you give him milk or water?

Similarly, the Last Will and Testament isn't an insignificant document. It's a direct order.

> However, if this is really an issue, I'd like to see the initiation letters for all the acaryas in our Sampradaya. Otherwise maybe someone was just making a joke or pretending. No, really... This is just stupid. Previously it was not done neither needed. Nowadays Kali yuga advanced that people do all kinds of nonsense, even pretending to be someone they're not, and to stop them in a court case one needs proofs.

this is similar to my point above concerning tradition. Previously there had never been a worldwide Vaisnava society of devotees mostly drawn from mleccha families. Therefore Srila Prabhupada ordered a suitable system to protect his work. It is not at all unreasonable, and the direct evidence

> You cannot generalize the conduct of ritvik supporters.
Right. What I said is based on what is on their websites and Back to Prabhupada mag, their main propaganda tools.

The BTP editors are frequently challenged about their criticism of ISKCON leaders, and their standard response is that they are never accused of publishing anything untrue, only unflattering. Is it better that devotees should be ignorant about hypocritical conduct by religious leaders and thereby follow blindly?

There were women pujaris in the beginning of ISKCON, afaik.

I don't personally have any objection to women on the altar. My point is that this was something that Srila Prabhupada instituted in ISKCON that was directly and indirectly contradicted in sastra. Yet it is not challenged presumably because of the obvious practical value.

There are also precedences to initiations while one's guru is still physically present. From my POV, these are minor things in comparison to the diksa system. ISKCON will go on with them this or that way but as apasampradaya it's finished. New chance coming up in 8 billion years.

I'm interested in Srila Prabhupada's point of view. As I quoted above, Srila Prabhupada said, "Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing." There are many similar quotes. If a devotee considers Srila Prabhupada his diksa guru rather than picking from a contemporary guru, how would it destroy anything? It seems to me that it would protect rather than destory. You say it is apasampradaya, but Srila Prabhupada never said a guru cannot give initiation after leaving his body. There is no apparent reason why he cannot continue to initiate disciples at least until another big acarya appears. The only issue is getting it authorized in the temples he founded.

it is all because of 'prabhupada disciple card' - is it?

Kyros:Well there you have it, Srila Prabhupada deviated from Vaishnava siddhanta.

So your understanding of Vaisnava siddhanta is the standard by which Srila Prabhupada should be judged? Hasn't he proven himself enough for you to just accept what he said?

Veda Pr. says:
"Again, we need more than a direct order of a guru. We need also sastra and sadhu. Their pro-ritvik stances were not presented so far."

Scriptures are like a boat. Srila Prabhupada is the boatman. Without boatman boat is not of much significance. It can not take one to the other shore. Here by other shore I mean the spiritual world and this shore mean the material world. Srila Prabhupada is the boatman who could frequently travel between these two shores. He knows perfectly well about both worlds. Even if the boat gets broken, the expert boatman will find a way to take you to the other shore. Even if there is no boat, he will find some technique to transport you to the other shore. He is the expert one. And that boatman is Srila Prabhupada. Boat is not of much significance. Boatman can make alterations into the boat according to his passangers because he has the responsibility to transport them.

Here the fundamental difference is of the attitude. one group is trying to see scriptures through Prabhupada. other devotees are trying to see Prabhupada through scriptures. For me, what Prabhupada said that is scripture. That is Shastra. What Prabhupada said to follow specifically that is more important than any scripture, his words are sastras.

Those who claim that Srila Prabhupada is dead because he is physically not present, for them he was always dead. Even in 1970s when he was present on this planet, he was still dead for them. Those who don't consider him dead they can still feel his presence in his books, in his vani.

There is no word in English to translate the word guru because the relationship between guru and disciple is basically Eastern. No such relationship has ever existed in Western culture and tradition, so no one in the West can understand what a guru is. At the most they can understand what a teacher is. The guru must himself be enlightened, A teacher need not be self-realized, but a guru must be. A teacher can give secondhand information from scriptures or traditions.

So Srila Prabhupada is the enlightened Guru, the expert boatman and he can still be felt, realized through his books. If he is dead and his presence can not be felt then why do we worship him every morning. Why he established that tradition? It is against shastras. Which other Guru in Gaudiya tradition has ordered his disciples to worship him for next 10,000 years.

I apologise in advance if I have committed any offence to any Vaisnava.

Hari Bol.

Pandu das:

Kyros:Well there you have it, Srila Prabhupada deviated from Vaishnava siddhanta.

So your understanding of Vaisnava siddhanta is the standard by which Srila Prabhupada should be judged?

Yes, because my understanding is backed by guru, sadhu, and sastra.

Hasn't he proven himself enough for you to just accept what he said?

Accept Prabhupada didn't say we should continue the rtvik style initiation after he leaves the material world.

The question asked was:

Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.

Literally, "no longer with us" doesn't mean "you've passed onto the next world." Especially to a literal man like Srila Prabhupada. Most, if not all Indians wouldn't even think of it like this. Hell, my dad's been living here in America for over 20 years and he still has hard time understanding phrases like these.

This is not a difficult subject to understand.

>by Vyasadev by reading his Mahabharata, etc. and no parampara would be needed.

Please do not forget that even though 5000 years have passed, whenever Guru celebrates his birthday its called Vyasa Puja. This word Vyasa Puja has some deep meaning in it. And when Guru's birthdate is not known his birthday is celebrated on Vyasa Purnima, which is birthday of Srila Vyasa deva. Because Guru is a representative of Vyasa deva. At least theoretically. Though Srila Vyasa deva did not order his disciples to worship him for next 10,000 years but Srila Prabhupada obviously did. He had a vision for ISKCON for next 100000 years. Srila Prabhupada's position is unique and can not be compared to Narada or Vyasadeva. Narada or Vyasadeva did not establish ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada did. We do not worship Narada or Vyasa deva in each temple of ISKCON every morning but we do worship Srila Prabhupada. And this all is done by his order. If he is gone forever and is not able to play any important part in our lives then what is the point in worshipping him every morning. We do not worship Narada or Vyasadeva each morning. We can put Srila Prabhupada also in that category and just worship him once a year on his appearance day or disappearance day.

When Srila Prabhupada established this system of worshipping him in Archa form in each ISKCON temple, what was his logic behind doing that. Why he wanted future generations of devotees to worship him and remember him every day? A Guru of the caliber of Srila Prabhupada, his words and orders weight much more than all sastras together. As by the definition of the word Guru. Guru means heavy "the gravitational force who pulls you like a magnet." And Srila Prabhupada obviously does.

VEDA:PurushaVyaghra Prabhu, you're not reacting to my remark why it's not possible to become a diksa disciple by reading a guru's book. > A Guru of the caliber of Srila Prabhupada, his words and orders weight much more than all sastras together. Your reference? I haven't read him claiming this. Always only g-s-s.

I'm listening to Srila Prabhupada right now, and he just said, "To accept guru means: Whatever you say, I'll accept." Unfortunately when I went to check the reference I accidentally lost my spot, but it's CD 11, morning walk, either Hyderbad or Johannesburg.

To me that's vastly different from hearing from the guru and then checking sastra to see if he's deviating.

I know when I hear from anyone other than Srila Prabhupada, I compare it to what Srila Prabhupada said. I was supposedly initiated by a "living" guru, but I only judge him according to Srila Prabhupada as the standard. So who's really my guru?


I don't see the quotes about Jayagopala or Sri Sita as at all definitiive for settling the question of an acarya's ability to initiate after his disappearance. The quote regarding Balwant is more to the point, but still the circumstance is substantially different and we're left to speculate on what exactly is the rule being applied and whether the presumed rule applies in the current circumstance. What is being asserted at present is that Srila Prabhupada purposely arranged a system for priests to give initiation on his behalf. Actually everyone knows he did that, but the question is whether he had the authority to continue it after his disappearance or whether his disciples had the authority to terminate Srila Prabhupada's order without his express approval and despite evidence that he intended for it to continue. It's not that Srila Prabhupada agreed to initiate somebody and then suddenly died. We're talking about whether an Founder-Acarya has the authority to make a planned arrangement for future initiations in his line.

As a matter of fact there is a GBC paper that says he did have that authority. The following is taken from a GBC paper entitled `ritvik Catechism’ which was prepared by H.G. Badrinarayan Dasa, H.H. Umapati Maharaja and H.H. Giridhari Maharaja. These devotees were members of a special GBC sub-committee set up to address the ritvik issue. Their paper begins:

"Q. Could Prabhupada install a rtvic system?
A. Of course he could. He told us that there are timingala fish, that the moon is fire covered with ice, that Bhu Mandala is a flat plane. And we have accepted it. So it is not a question of our willingness or unwillingness to accept that Srila Prabhupada, as the founder/acarya, could establish a new system of initiation. Rather it is a simple question of knowing and accepting what Srila Prabhupada actually said..."

Kyros,
That's an interesting quote but I don't think we're reading it the same way. I don't see where it says that after accepting a person as guru, everything he says and does has to be corroborated with sastra. Sastra and sadhu verify that he is a guru, and based on that we can put faith in him. Personally I didn't get my faith in Srila Prabhupada that way though, but that's another story. Very briefly... I was studying brahmavadi and mayavadi philosophy and practicing raja yoga and kundalini yoga, when I left home to go meditate as a hermit in the forest. On the way I found Bhagavad-gita As It Is and became absorbed in reading it. While reading in the middle of the night, everything suddenly came together and I entered a trance and saw Krishna standing there. He spent much of the night with me and among His parting advice was, "If you want to learn more about Me, read Srila Prabhupada's books." Everything about my spiritual life is based on that night with Krishna. My faith is rooted in Srila Prabhupada because he revealed Krishna to me, even though only for a few hours; and Krishna certified him as His pure devotee. I eventually tried accepting someone else as my guru due to ISKCON pressure, but it was wrong and I cannot entertain it again. Anyone else can say whatever they like, but I'm simply taking Srila Prabhupada's version and I trust how I understand him. I wish devotees would accept that, because I don't think I'm going to change. Frankly it is completely stupid that devotees don't want me to say Srila Prabhupada is my guru. I sometimes wonder if they really believe in Krishna at all.

Prabhus.

The only difference between ritvik and GBC is "WHO OWNS" a disciple. Everything else is the same. Siksa is the same, standards are the same, practices are the same....

All this creating separatism is nonsense. There is almost no difference, but they make it soooo important..... All this arguing for a minor point of "who is your diksa guru".

It is clear from Srila Prabhupada, that he didn't emphasize diksa like it is emphasized nowadays in ISKCON. Actually, diksa was never emphasized as it is today in ISKCON. Something went wrong, all this fighting for diksa is not a good sign.

Need I repeat that siksa is THE important thing? It is all about connection to Krsna through serving the Lotus Feet (instructions) of Sri Guru. Diksa is formality, which comes naturally through siksa relationship. It is no big deal by itself - it only gets purpose when backed up by strong siksa. Please don't forget, we are not "born again whatever",... Vaisnavism is an uninterupted flow of service to Krsna through sampradaya. Without constant Krsna Consciousness, diksa hardly matters anything.

Forget about all this diksa fighting. In modern ISKCON diksa is grossly mistreated and distorted, due to strong western influences. What matters is accepting instructions from Guru, and following them with your life and soul.

And, yes, diksa is very important, as we can see in HBV, just as there is thousands of others very important things, also revealed in HBV. No need to take diksa out of proportion, institutionalize it, then fight court cases on it, and destroy all who don't share your views - something is not right with this kind of approach. GBC's got their brain spoiled, they are going crazy, best to avoid them and their envious madness. It is sad, that they are forgetting that it is not important who holds diksa over another, but who instructs what to the other. They limit the wonderful disciplic succession to one casual showtime act of no-objection-ISKCON-diksa ceremony. How more laughable can a wannabe vaisnava branch get? It hardly gets more pathetic than this.

Please, don't limit your conception of Guru to limited views of those, who fight with each other for ownership of disciples. Don't seek help from those, who cannot help themselves.

Take understanding from Srila Prabhupada, and you will be just fine, don't worry. As a counterweight to ritvik/vs/GBC diksa-grabbing embarrassment, please see Srila Prabhupada's quotes below.

>>>Prahlāda Mahārāja is our guru, and Kṛṣṇa is our worshipable God.

>>>They asked, “What is your idea of Jesus Christ?” I told them, “He is our guru. He is preaching God consciousness, so he is our spiritual master.”

>>>A guru, or spiritual master, can be anyone who is well conversant with the science of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore although Prahlāda Mahārāja was a gṛhastha ruling over the demons, he was a paramahaṁsa, the best of human beings, and thus he is our guru.

>>>In the list of gurus, or authorities, Prahlāda Mahārāja’s name is therefore mentioned:
svayambhūr nāradaḥ śambhuḥ
kumāraḥ kapilo manuḥ
prahlādo janako bhīṣmo
balir vaiyāsakir vayam

>>>We accept Kṛṣṇa as our guru. If He is perfect in knowledge, our knowledge is also perfect.

>>>The Sanātana Gosvāmī, he was the finance minister in the government of Nawab Hussain Shah. So he is our guru in the disciplic succession.

>>>So try to follow the path chalked out by Prahlāda Mahārāja. He is one of the mahājanas. Out of the twelve mahājanas, he is also one of them. He is our guru. So try to follow Prahlāda Mahārāja's instruction and behavior also. Just see his behavior, how he attained the stage of prema gradually.

>>>Therefore we have to go through guru. Rūpa Gosvāmī is our guru.

>>>We are not interested in all these magazines, because we are followers of Prahlāda Mahārāja. He's our ācārya. He's guru. Prahlāda Mahārāja's guru is Nārada, and Nārada is also our guru.


There is plenty more in Vedabase, (you can check yourself at http://prabhupadabooks.com/ ), but I think you get the point.

GBC's are very confused about guru-tattva, and so are ritviks. They are just two sides of the same confused coin. Don't take guidance from their confusion, or you will be confused just as they are. Take it directly from Srila Prabhupada, and be happy in Krsna Consciousness.

ys gnd