Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1992-95:I don't know the original reference for this is, but it's mentioned in at least a few places on the Internet. One site seems to indicate that it is covered in _Betrayal of the Spirit_. Whether it is true or not, I don't know; but considering the nature of the topic, I would not expect to see any word of the issue on ISKCON sites, which invariably whitewash unflattering facts.
TKG's understanding of guru-ship takes a further radical twist as he begins preaching that Srila Prabhupada had not given the 'highest understanding' and that everyone should take guidance from the 'rasika* guru' Narayana Maharaja, who one former GBC chairman described as:
'...a crooked and talented pretender or impostor, who has seduced, beguiled
(Ravindra Svarupa das, 'Taking Srila Prabhupada Straight', 1998)
As a result of his sustained deviancy the GBC suspended TKG for the second time.
1995:
TKG now denounces his previous four years of proselytising on behalf of Narayana Maharaja as a 'mistake', admitting that he was in fact wrong to say that everyone needed a rasika-guru. Of course by now the damage had been done, reverberations of which continue to this day with Narayana Maharaja grabbing huge chunks of ISKCON all over the world. Still, TKG's capitulation allowed him to be once again re-instated as an ISKCON guru. He was back in the guru business yet again.
You should remember that HH Sivarama Swami HH Tamal Krishna Swami HH Giriraja Swami and so many others all worshipped Srila Narayan Maharaja with love honor and reference and they only stopped, when threatened by the rest of the GBC that they would loose their positions and disciples if they continued their association with Srila Narayan Maharaja. I still remember the GBC letter on the notice board in Bhaktivedanta Manor. (http://srilanarayanmaharaja.com/?q=node/28)Here's more detail (awkwardly translated courtesy of Google):
The tension finally came to a head at the anniversary celebration of Srila Prabhupada's entering the sannyasa order, traditionally held at the Narayana Maharaja's temple where the actual sannyasa ceremony had taken place in 1959. Tamal Krishna Goswami and Giriraja Swami Prabhupada rather than glorifying, used the occasion to praise the Narayana Maharaja, his association is recommending all of ISKCON. Narayana Maharaja spoke next. He pointed out that there were many higher Prabhupada's teachings that could have given his disciples had been more advanced. He implied that Prabhupada's missionary work was elementary and ISKCON Devotees were now ready for the more advanced stage of Krishna consciousness, which he could give.(http://tinyurl.com/yg92jy4)
Though none at the meeting voiced their protest, and the indignation evoked by these speeches reverberated world-wide. Many felt that things had gone too far and that the GBC must now take a firm stand. Narayana Maharaja's followers, however, would not back down, believing that he was misunderstood, they met other ISKCON leaders in India, Europe and North America to promote their cause. But they had not correctly anticipated the response, especially from the North American temple presidents. This influential group, the same who were primarily responsible for putting an end to the zonal-acarya era, demanded those following Narayana Maharaja be stripped of their positions. Many feared that the movement was heading for a major Schism.
This time the GBC was companies. The Rasika-bhakti controversy was first on the 1995 annual meeting's agenda. A week of thorough investigation of the implicated members brought in line. They admitted that by promoting a non-ISKCON authority and his teachings, they had relativised Prabhupada and his teachings. Many neophyte Devotees were already following their example and, as Prabhupada had predicted during the gopi-bhava affair, missionary activities were being minimized to focus on personal spiritual advancement.
Asked to suggest what they might do to make amends, the leaders involved with the controversy tendered their resignations, which the GBC promptly refused. They further volunteered to refrain from initiating new disciples or visiting Vrndavana until their case could be reassessed the following year. They promised to disassociate themselves entirely from Narayana Maharaja and to correct any misunderstandings created by their past behavior. When the year passed, the GBC was not entirely convinced of their Contrition and at the March 1996 meeting insisted on maintaining most of the restrictions.
sri_govinda_das:Bhakta Paul Howard if you want to be a follower of ISKCON,why do you descend to a site that is full of Blaspheme and criticism of ISKCON gbc members...?Who unable to see that the American Yatra is indeed suffering because of their inability to see the good in other devotees.Where does srila Prabhupada say that we should drag down the GBC...AND ISKCON SOCIETY ?This..Bogus IRM site will not take you anywhere except keep you ignorant ,envious and disturbed.If you're competent, why don't you write a refutation to TFO and get it approved by the GBC? As I understand it, all their opposition papers have so far contradicted each other and been withdrawn due to errors.
sri_govinda_das:As krishna says within Bhagavad gita.15;15....sarvasya ca ham hrdi sannivisto mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca..vedias ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedanta krd veda vid eva caham .....i am seated in everyones heart,and from me come rememberance ,knowledge and forgetfulness.By all the veda's i am to be known.......So krishna has given you what you wantforgetfulness of your eternal nature as ''servant of the servant''....ritvik -nonsense attacks the other servants of srila Prabhupada like his grace Bhakti tirha swami.As you said yourself previously ....you had a problem with his sincere devotees glorifying him on his vyasa puja for hours,while they did not do the same for srila Prabhupada.......Sorry but bhakta paul howard that is indeed the spiritual process,one has to bow down and indeed become the ''servant of the servant''of the guru personally present.
ISKCON Law as amended in the 1999 GBC resolution 6.4.8.1.2 states: "ISKCON members shall celebrate Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa-puja ceremony as the preeminent Vyasa-puja ceremony in ISKCON. All ISKCON members are requested to write an annual Vyasa-puja offering to Srila Prabhupada. Vyasa-puja for ISKCON gurus other than Srila Prabhupada should only be observed on one day a year. This celebration may be held in the temple room. ISKCON members conducting Vyasa-puja ceremonies for ISKCON siksa and diksa gurus shall observe them in a modest way, significantly less elaborate in duration and cost than Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa-puja...Why should disciples of an ISKCON guru, with the guru's consent, be able to violate ISKCON law without repercussion?
ISKCON law 6.4.8.2:"No one in ISKCON will be addressed either publicly or privately with honorific title "His Divine Grace" or the honorifics ending in "-pada". Disciples may address their ISKCON diksa or siksa gurus as "Gurudeva" or "Guru-maharaja"."I have seen you apply the honorific "His Divine Grace" to Tamal Krsna Gosvami repeatedly in this forum, in fact in the above comment. How is it that you flaunt ISKCON law and yet consider yourself a member in good standing?
407. [ACTION ORDER] DEADLINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION It is therefore resolved THATall ISKCON diksa and siksa gurus and other authorities are responsible to instruct initiated devotees and aspiring initiates in the above mentioned details of worship and see that they are implemented no later than Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa-puja celebration in 1999. After that time, devotees who fail to uphold these practices shall be subject to censure.Have your gurus failed to instruct you in this matter, or did you reject their instruction?
Srila Prabhupada:A guru can become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.
(Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)
sri_govinda_das:My dear Bhakta Paul Howard i take your valid rectification seriously....Hence forth i shall call my guru the'' supreme servitor of his divine grace''or The foremost servant of his divine grace.So how does ''supreme servitor of his divine grace ,srila Tamala -krishna goswami sound to you Prabhu?Why not just use the accepted honorifics, "His Holiness" for sannyasis and "His Grace" for others? Also, as quoted above, the GBC has ruled, "Disciples may address their ISKCON diksa or siksa gurus as "Gurudeva" or "Guru-maharaja."
Srila Prabhupada:The Lord herein confirms that if one is overestimated, glorification is just another form of blasphemy.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Madhya 10.182
ccd:http://www.scribd.com/doc/18502294/Ananta-VasudevaI have been hearing about this version of events from several different sources over the years and it makes a lot more sense to me than stories circulating in Iskcon, especially the one about poisoning and suicide.
Nrsingha:ccd- "Prabhupada voted for an acharya after the disappearance of BSST." The link doesn't seem to mention such in relation to SP.It sure does. At least two separate sources confirm that. ------------------------- > "Within a few months it became clear that the cooperation could not last, and KB and some others left. In the beginning, practically all sided with AV, Prabhupada also." ------------------ "Yes. This was noted by Jati Shekhar Prabhu." ---------------------------------
Nrsingha:So where does it mention that SP 'VOTED'? Thanks.I think you have a point there. SP did not have a right to vote as only senior GM leaders were able to vote at that time, but SP apparently actively supported AV in his bid for acharyaship of GM.
ccd:In other words Chaitanya Math is the first splinter group. Only those who were with Kunja Baba (Tirtha) supported him. I do not know if Bon supported him. Later all others who wanted to start initiating independently had to open their own maths, that is how it fell apart. (and that is what Ritiviks and Guru Kripalikes are proposing, initiate outside of Iskcon...) One of the main supporters of AV was Sridara Swami of Navadivpa who shortly ended up living in Prabhupada's attic... before opening his own branch. Now in this context 'officiating acharya' means, acharya 'within' institution, the acharya that does not have to start his own branch to be the boss. Cooperate people...This is a very good analysis and an important point. Devotees who were initiating on behalf of Srila Prabhupada prior to 1977 were NEVER CALLED OFFICIATING ACHARYAS! Obviously SP was introducing these 11 disciples to a new responsibility in his mission: being an officiating acharya. That seems to line up with the GM history, where you had BOTH the GBC and the 'officiating' or 'institutional' acharyas, at least for a time being. CCD, you should write a paper on that point and post it on Dandavats and Sampradaya Sun. It is much needed.
Kula-pavana: Devotees who were initiating on behalf of Srila Prabhupada prior to 1977 were NEVER CALLED OFFICIATING ACHARYAS! Obviously SP was introducing these 11 disciples to a new responsibility in his mission: being an officiating acharya.He said "officiating acarya" meant the same as "rtvik acarya" or "rtvik," and the "new responsibility" that they had was specified in the July 9 letter:
July 9, 1977, letter:In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee's initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada ..."
Pandu das: He said "officiating acarya" meant the same as "rtvik acarya" or "rtvik," and the "new responsibility" that they had was specified in the July 9 letter:IMO Prabhupada wanted to implement the same system that existed for some time in GM right after BSST disappearance. The sannyasis became 'officiating' or 'institutional' acharyas within the mission, initiating disciples on their own behalf (just like the traditional gurus do) - as opposed to leaving the mission and starting their own organization. The main reason ritviks don't want to accept this on face value is because several of the 11 chosen disciples were in fact not qualified to be gurus (like the two active homosexuals pretending to be sannyasis for example), and they don't believe Prabhupada was so wrong naming them for that position. Truth is, they were not qualified to be ritviks either...
Nrsingha:ccd is too motivated to write a 'Officiating Acarya' paper. He is bound by his bias! Overrides Satyam.We are all biased.
NityanandaChandra: Did Sampradaya Sun ever solve issues and problems? Did chanting Krishna's holy name ever solve problems? What do you think?Apparently after chanting holy names for close to 4 decades some devotees think it's OK for a 40 year old guy to have casual sex with a 13 year old girl... go figure.... ------------ Maybe chanting Hare Krsna does not help with solving criminal problems in society? Ever thought of that? ---------- In the society some solutions are administered by the brahmanas who prescribe chanting, and some solutions are administered by the kshatriyas by hanging or beheading the criminals. Apparently the society requires various solutions for various problems.
Nrsingha:Give it a rest Pandu! You r not the Knower! NO ONE KNOWS!! Ysvt.I thought I was just pointing out what should be obvious based on the record that's been made publicly available. I don't see the point of speculating when there is a written proclamation answering the question. On May 28 Srila Prabhupada said he would appoint some officiating acaryas, then confirmed rtvik was synonymous with that; and the July 9 letter opens with a reference to that conversation. So why would you freak out when the relevant portion of the July 9 letter is quoted?
sri_govinda_das:Actually all of us know what is the proper siddhanta in this circumstance....we follow the etiquette learn to accept from those personally present!They are especially empowered to share with us the particular environment and mood of the instructions.Srila Prabhupada obviously placed trust in Kirtananda, who then disobeyed him. Kirtananda's followers murdered Sulocana as he was working on an exposee of that fact. So it's just not realistic to suggest that Srila Prabhupada trusting a disciple automatically means that disciple has no self-interest and won't betray that trust.
Institutinal Cataclysm: Over the years there have been 5 different official transcripts of the same short (approx. 30 seconds) conversation, and 4 official interpretations. It was with a view to clearing up this issue of authenticity that the GBC passed a resolution in 1997 to have the tape investigated by a forensic examiner. This was done through a special committee set-up for this task, who engaged the services of world renowned forensic investigator, Norman Perle. On September 22nd, 1997, Mr Perle released a report of a preliminary analysis that was done on a COPY of the tape. A preliminary analysis is usually done to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for conducting a much costlier and more in-depth forensic investigation. Normally if the preliminary analysis, which only runs some basic checks, finds evidence that casts doubts on the reliability of the evidence, a full forensic examination is recommended by the investigator on the ORIGINAL version of the tape, to conclusively determine the nature and scope of any possible tampering. This is what the report concluded:As far as I know, the portion of the tape beginning with Satsvarupa's quesiton and ending with Srila Prabhupada's response, "Rtvik. Yes." has never been challenged by any devotee; therefore I consider it reasonably valid evidence. Until the original tape is released for a complete forensic analysis, I don't see any reason to consider it authentic.
GBC appointed forensic investigator (22/9/97), N. Perle: “In conclusion, this recording exhibits strong signs suggestive of falsification. I do not believe that these deficiencies might possibly be the product of some mechanical process or problem within the recording or duplication process and I believe that they exist at what is considered to be a higher degree than that of a coincidence. I strongly recommend that an independent Forensic Analysis be conducted the Master recording in order to determine the authenticity and originality of the evidence. This analysis requires what is represented as the original recording and the original tape recorder upon which this recording was represented to be made.”The conclusion, in the words of the GBC’s own appointed examiner, is that until such a forensic analysis is done on the ORIGINAL tape, we have no grounds for assuming the reliability and authenticity of the evidence. Thus until the investigation is done the GBC effectively have no evidence on the table.
sri_govinda_das:You do not have any right to quote my guru....in context or out.You should follow your IRM website and stay away from iskcon....Mayadevi has you completely...just surrender further to her....hare krishna i bless you.I have never claimed to be free from maya. But if Mayadevi has me "completely," how is it that I manage to chant 16 rounds each day, care for Tulasi in my home, worship Srila Prabhupada and listen to his lestures daily, etc.?
Nrsingha:Our bias manifests in diiferent ways. His conditioned bias would interfere in that instance.I do not mind if you write an article dave. I certainly would not want to publish it anywhere where it will look biased.
Kula-pavana:It does line up well with GM history and with Sridhara Swami's variations on the same problem. Problem is how to keep institution together.ccd:In other words Chaitanya Math is the first splinter group. Only those who were with Kunja Baba (Tirtha) supported him. I do not know if Bon supported him. Later all others who wanted to start initiating independently had to open their own maths, that is how it fell apart. (and that is what Ritiviks and Guru Kripalikes are proposing, initiate outside of Iskcon...) One of the main supporters of AV was Sridara Swami of Navadivpa who shortly ended up living in Prabhupada's attic... before opening his own branch. Now in this context 'officiating acharya' means, acharya 'within' institution, the acharya that does not have to start his own branch to be the boss. Cooperate people...This is a very good analysis and an important point. Devotees who were initiating on behalf of Srila Prabhupada prior to 1977 were NEVER CALLED OFFICIATING ACHARYAS! Obviously SP was introducing these 11 disciples to a new responsibility in his mission: being an officiating acharya. That seems to line up with the GM history, where you had BOTH the GBC and the 'officiating' or 'institutional' acharyas, at least for a time being. CCD, you should write a paper on that point and post it on Dandavats and Sampradaya Sun. It is much needed.
Nrsingha:ccd is too motivated to write a 'Officiating Acarya' paper. He is bound by his bias! Overrides Satyam. .Actually bias does not override satyam. You just have to understand where you stand, and present your point of view based on sastra. There is no point in speaking something that you have no experience or realization about.. And everyone has separate experiences, that are by definition subjective. That is one meaning of being an acharya, 'teach by own example."
Pandu das:Okay now we will have to listen on who is in maya and who is not. Come on Pandu you already have a perfect living guru and supreme Vasnavsi in you home. What else do you need for a living guru? Tulasidevi ki Jaya!!sri_govinda_das:You do not have any right to quote my guru....in context or out.You should follow your IRM website and stay away from iskcon....Mayadevi has you completely...just surrender further to her....hare krishna i bless you.I have never claimed to be free from maya. But if Mayadevi has me "completely," how is it that I manage to chant 16 rounds each day, care for Tulasi in my home, worship Srila Prabhupada and listen to his lestures daily, etc.?
It seems like you'll say anything to keep your fantasy intact.
Nrsingha:It is just stating the fact, that he has supported AVP. What is your problem with it? A normal thing to do, support an acharya, the system of management was not finalised by BSST, who wanted to have a GBC but had no time to implement the system, he only talked about it a couple of month before his departure. What is your motive in bringing it up?ccd- "Prabhupada voted for an acharya after the disappearance of BSST." SP.What was ur motive for writing this?
Nrsingha:Acarya means perfect example.Acharya has (obviously) quite a few meanings. It is a person who knows and teaches the AcAra or the rules, the foundation, the basis. Acharya is also a title, a position. Specifically and traditionally it is a type of guru who gives the brahmana thread.
Nrsingha:No doubt SP supported AVP.It is a third time you are asking me this question. Whatever drug you are on, I want it too, dave!!! Are getting your prescription on NHS or via BoopaIreland?Nrsingha:So what was the motive for writting it?ccd- "Prabhupada 'VOTED' for an acharya after the disappearance of BSST." SP.
Nrsingha: "You dismiss any and every fact if it does not fit into your version, that he is a direct avatara of Mother Yasoda and on the status of avatara-acharya" SP eternal svarupa what ever it may be is not of issue.I think you are forgetting that Prabhupada's lila is part of Lord Caitanya's pastimes and he is his associate. The suggestion of yours that he is an incarnate of Mother Yasoda (because having her swarupa means just that, an avatara) is preposterous and seriously lacks in realisation (which you continue to share). I think you try to 'add' to what he is by suggesting that he is more than what 'others' (like me) perceive. That can be the case, but you can not be a judge of it, for obvious for us reasons that I am not prepared to disclose on this forum. I am prepared to discuss with those who are leaking the jar of bhaktiyoga proper from the outside, but I am not prepared to make them into judges of any kind.
sri_govinda_das:Sorry Prabhu...But Rocana das is allowing blaspheme ....To freely discuss the questionable activities and twisted path of ISKCON is blasphemy? Obviously you do not understand what blasphemy is.
We do not attack our guru like a pack of dogs ....No, just cover up his last instructions, modify his published works. Generally go against his wishes and create another bogus religious institution.
Sun sampradaya refuses to publish so many things which go against Rocana's personal agenda.Start your own website and lets see if you publish a shred of an idea different from your own. One of the best things about Rochan's website is that he does not align himself with "ritviks" or ISKCON or any other splinter group. He publishes articles from a wider range of author's than any ISKCON site I have found.
It is frequented by ex -Iskcon blasphemers who have a common thread of trying to destroy Srila Prabhupada's Iskcon movement.Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON Movement? I think you're confused again, surely you mean his Krsna Conciousness movement? You've got this backwards, I'm afraid. It is one of the handful of sites on the web devoted to trying to restore Srila Prabhupada's true teachings and do so in an open and frank manner.
However if you are envious and crippled in your mentality to Srila Prabhupada's Iskcon ....yes it is indeed your site to enjoy the un-solicited attacks on devotees.I see no ISKCON, just a dried up FISKCON.