Sunday, December 4, 2016

Rocana's Church of Posthumous Pooja

Are Krishna's Successors Posthumous Dead Folks?

Rocana's Posthumous Church

"The Church Of Ritvik" By Rocana dasa/

[PADA: Rocana prabhu was a big supporter of the post 1977 GBC gurus after Srila Prabhupada departed, serving dubious "gurus" like Hansadutta, Kirtanananda and others. He seems to have later fallen off their train wreck in the later 1980s, only when the GBC was running out of vouchers and payments to give to their loyalists like Rocana. 

Meanwhile, we had been writing papers critical of the GBC as were being published in the "Vedic Village Review" and elsewhere, and yet Rocana remained oddly -- silent. Although he sometimes says he has "reformed" and he wants to join us to promote "The Sampradaya Acharya" Srila Prabhupada, he then goes back to the bogus GBC policy of (which is at least what Atreya Rsi calls it) "stabbing Prabhupada in the back"; the GBC policy of promoting that Srila Prabhupada is the "dead and gone post - samadhi / posthumous guru." 

It thus appears that Rocana has re-joined the GBC since: he is writing a paper giving the GBC's exact "living guru" arguments, indeed Rocana is using the GBC's terms such as "post samadhi," and then he is submitting his "through the back door" GBC paper to be published on the "GBC friendly" web sites. Rocana is thus back -- to officially attacking the people who want to establish the worship of the Sampradaya Acharya Srila Prabhupada.]

* Rocana dasa (RD): Introduction: In my previous paper, entitled "Sampradaya Acarya," I choose to exclude a number of sections in order to maintain focus on the central theme. In this paper, I hope to clearly explain the degree to which I differ from philosophical exponents of post-samadhi diksa.

[PADA: First of all, Rocana correctly says that that Srila Prabhupada is "the Sampradaya Acharya," a term used even by us Prabhupadanugas, and this term was even used in Hansadutta's "reform" book some years ago. Yet then Rochana suddenly switches hats and becomes a disciple of (the GBC's guru) Ravindra Swarupa's saying: Srila Prabhupada is dead, gone, "posthumous," "post mortem," and in sum: Srila Prabhupada is now the "post samadhi" diksha guru.

Meanwhile Rocana never tells us who is the current diksha guru for ISKCON? Its not Srila Prabhupada, who is it then? He never says. So he wants us to apparently, worship no one? 

And let us not forget that Rocana's co-writing team members such as: Ravindra / Jayadvaita / Tamal / Kailash et al., have ALSO previously referred to Srila Prabhupada as the "posthumous" guru only a few short years ago. That is, until they received so many complaints from folks like us that they had to change their "posthumous" term to "post samadhi." So the idea they are painting is clear: that Srila Prabhupada is "post" i.e. "posthumous" and he is thus "dead." 

It seems that first Srila Prabhupada was poisoned to make him "dead" physically, and then along came the Tamal / Gaudiya Matha deviants / Ravindra / Rocana / Kailasha Chandra team who conspired to make him ideologically "dead" with their "guru is (posthumous) dead" dogma.

We know of no other bona fide religion with either Vedic or Western roots that teaches "our guru is the dead and posthumous one." We also know that if Rocana had come into Prabhupada's room before 1977 and said, "Who are we going to worship as 'living' when you are the -- dead, gone and the posthumous one," he would have been laughed out of the room in derision, but as we know, when the cat is (allegedly) away, the mice will play. 

Now Rocana asks, "Why worship a dead body like that of the Sampradaya Acharya's? What about reading my papers, after all, I am living"? He has become Ravindra's twin brother. Of course people also thought like Rocana even when Krishna was present. "Once this blasted Krishna fellow is out of our hair, then we will declare He is dead and gone, and we will be worshiped as 'the living Kings, the living expert authorities, the living this and living that,'" because Srila Prabhupada says, they were envious of Krishna even when He was here, plain and simple. 

And similarly Srila Prabhupada says that the Gaudiya Matha's "living guru" project was based on the fact that they were "envious of my guru maharaja." And so Srila Prabhupada says that just like they tried to get rid of Krishna, they may try to get rid of me.

Rocana's "posthumous guru" idea was thus mentioned many times by Srila Prabhupada as part of the deviant teachings of the post 1936 Gaudiya Matha in India: "As soon as it was announced that guru maharaja is dead, I am so advanced I can kill guru and become guru" (Srila Prabhupada 1976). 

Thus Rocana's second idea, that Srila Prabhupada is the "posthumous guru," is all part of the terminology coined by the GBC's ideological (siddhanta) leaders, such as the Gaudiya Matha's deviants and their followers such as Jayadvaita and Ravindra swarupa? Of course the GBC's advisors such as Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja, BV and BP Puri Maharajas, and similar others have also said the same thing, they all supported the worship of the GBC's deviant guru lineage. Their collective idea is that: at least the deviants we are supporting as gurus are "living." So for the deviants, it is better to worship another deviant than a "a posthumous departed acharya."

It is an incontestable historical fact that their idea of "worship of a living body" (vapuh vada) subsequently lead to worship of deviants after 1936 in India. And later, when their "living bodily guru worship" (vapuh vada) was adopted by the GBC in ISKCON it lead to the same thing, worship of deviants after 1977. 

This has all been recorded in the public newspapers, and thus this fact has never been contested by the GBC or their supporters such as Narayana Maharaja. Yet notice, they are still very proud of their deviations and will not admit to their glaring mistake, never mind that their "posthumous guru" dogma has lead to weird and dangerous "living guru" cults, and then the mass molesting of thousands of children, murders, horrific publicity, and the curse of a high rate of suicides among their victims, and so on and so forth? 

In other words, they said that you need to worship a living body, which is not found anywhere in the Vedic writings, then they selected deviants as the "living body" one had to worship. Rocana is essentially stating that he is still in league with this group?

Notice: Srila Prabhupada says that these "living guru" thinkers are in actual fact "killing guru" with their bogus ideology, or siddhanta. They are attacking the acharyas not necessarily with physical weapons like guns. So these "guru killers" ideologues are using their words to attack and kill the acharya. "Our guru, oh yes he is the posthumous one, our guru is the dead and gone one." That means they are "killing their guru" with their ideology. Either that or Rocana seems to be confused right from the beginning? A "Sampradaya Acharya" is someone who is very much relevant now, even if he has departed physically. 

Meanwhile, these sophisticated self proclaimed "advanced" devotees have at one time or other promoted the worship of deviants as "Krishna' successors," including their alleged great independent scholars such as Sridhara Maharaja, Narayana Maharaja and BV and BP Puri Maharajas, all of the GBC's various "advisors" over the years. 

Rocana does not say how he differs from these thinkers? Rocana says we need to worship a living person, not a dead and gone person like Srila Prabhupada. He only differs from the GBC in that his "living guru" has no name, address or apparent real existence? Either that, or the "living guru" of Rocana's is really: Rochana himself, since Srila Prabhupada says that by minimising the acharyas one is making himself the guru?

In short, their real agenda is to say that the worship of Srila Prabhupada is really some kind of ignorant "tama guna" ghost worship of a "post mortem" departed person, like the people who worship ghosts. Meanwhile, while they have blocked the door to the worship of Srila Prabhupada, they have opened to door, certainly as a collateral result, to the worship of deviants and even orchestrators of murder. 

So they are blocking the door of worship the bona fide acharya and thereby they are directly or indirectly opening the door to worship of all sorts of unqualified persons, and deviants, as has occurred. Again, this is what happened in the Gaudiya Matha. Notice too, that they are vehement bullies in their process of stopping the worship of Srila Prabhupada, which is why Srila Prabhupada says that these Gaudiya Matha thinkers are "envious of their guru," they made false replacements for their guru and "they insisted on it."

Srila Prabhupada was also very angry when "Time Magazine" asked on the cover "Is God Dead"? He was furious. And since Krishna is also one of our parampara's acharyas, Rocana's team is thus lumping even Lord Krishna in as one of their "post samadhi diksha acharyas"? Why are we saying that God is (post mortem) dead! Ravindra Swarupa says, "If Srila Prabhupada is still living, write him a letter and see if he replies." Similarly, the communists in Bengal also ask the same question, "If there is a God, then write Him a letter and see if He replies"? 

So Srila Prabhupada says that the communists as well as these "Brahma Sampradaya Renegades" are really atheists. Moreover these renegades seem to take some kind of glee that God and Guru are apparently absent. "Yes, the bona fide acharyas are all post mortem. Write them a letter? Of course, if you write a letter to us 'living' Brahma Sampradya Renegades or us communist atheists, we can reply." So they are sometimes killing Guru by poison, and when that does not work, by their poisonous rhetoric, "Guru and God are posthumous." Of course there are many other similar branches of renegades from the Brahma Sampradaya who try to say, "Krishna died five thousand years ago, He is dead and gone, He is an ordinary mortal," and so on. Same idea, "Krishna is posthumous."

Similarly, there is no other "tradition of religion" except for Rocana and his fellow GBC, Gaudiya Matha deviants and other associates like Kundali and Kailasha that refer to their guru as "the former, posthumous, post, dead and gone one." "He reasons ill who thinks vaishnavas die" says Srila Thakura Bhaktivinode. So Rocana is giving the same identical arguments and he even incorporates the concocted terms as the deviants, "Guru is (post mortem) dead." Again, this is the identical argument used by deviants from the Gaudiya Matha, the GBC and their clones like Kundali and Kailasha -- all along? So they are all renegades from the Brahma Sampradya since no other bona fide acharyas or their bona fide followers have EVER reffered to ANY previous acharyas as the "post (dead and gone) samadhi diksha gurus," because for starters Krishna is one of the "previous acharyas." So they are saying that "God is dead" since He is another "post samadhi guru" in their equation. And thus they are simply infuriating Srila Prabhupada thereby: "Krishna is another post (dead) samadhi guru."]

* RD: For many years, I have been unfairly stigmatized by members of ISKCON as being a Rtvik advocate, although I have been ostracized by the Rtvik inner circle since 1996.

[PADA: Rocana has never been "ostracized" by anyone, he has willingly chosen to associate with his "Guru is post mortem dead (and de facto God is dead)" crew. We have asked him to discuss his "point" with us for 20 years and he refuses to debate perhaps more than a few lines of oblique discussion with us, either privately or publicly, just like Narayana Maharaja, Kailasha and the GBC. They never reply to our points, they just repeat the GBC's "the guru is post mortem" slogans? Maybe he is frustrated since he first of all supported as his "living gurus" the GBC/ Kirtananda/ Jaggadish/ et al. empire in Canada for many years. 

Let us not forget that Rocana's guru lineage, that he still cites terminology from, is: the deviant guru project. And again, Kirtanananda also used to say that Prabhupada is the dead and gone person, so we need to worship a living person (like a deviant). So Rocana is still repeating Kirtanananda's ideology? He is still tethered to these people? Worse, since Rocana refuses to identify who his "living guru" is, despite our asking him for over the past ten years, he simply makes it sound like maybe -- the deviants are -- still his idea of a guru lineage? 

He has not targeted where our worship is supposed to go, he simply says, we cannot worship posthumous persons like Srila Prabhupada? By the way Rocana's idea that "Prabhupada's worship is ritvik heresy" simply means he is helping thousands of people walk away to the Gaudiya Matha and so on. He and the GBC are their best recruiters.]
* RD: Admittedly, I share many philosophical conclusions with the Rtvik pandits, particularly when it comes to giving Srila Prabhupada his proper prominence within the contemporary Vaisnava community, and inclusion as a rare Sampradaya Acarya within our glorious parampara. Interestingly, however, I have experienced a much more ferocious, reactionary feedback from fanatic members of the Rtvik camp than I have from followers of other groups with whom I have a philosophical conflict.

[PADA: Wonderful, except that nowadays even most of the GBC say that they agree with us at PADA that: Srila Prabhupada must be given "prominence"? They have even written papers about how Srila Prabhupada must be made the "prominent acharya," not too far distant from Rocana's paper. The Devil is in the details. Yes, he is the prominent acharya, but -- your team still says that we need a living guru to actually worship today since Srila Prabhupada is gone and posthumous. 

So the GBC and Rocana are one, again. Since Rocana is simply a parrot for the GBC, why would we agree with his ideas? We say God and Guru are eternally living: and his team is saying the acharyas are dead, gone and "post mortem." They are including even Krishna since He too is also a "post" acharya in our lineage according to their idea? Thus, as long as Rocana and his fellow associates such as the GBC, Sridhara, Narayan Maharajas et al. refer to our succession of gurus, which includes God mind you, as "post" -- dead and gone, they will not find much support in any bona fide circles? 

They have never proven that Krishna and His Great Devotees are "post" mortem and thus dead, for starters? They have not shown where their concocted "dead God and dead Guru" terminology is used by any bona fide acharyas, or by Krishna? Krishna says the opposite, "Acharyam Mam Vijnaniyam," "one should consider the acharya as My very self." And they say fine, Krishna is "post" -- mortem? Thus we would say that their idea that guru is dead is the same as saying God is dead, and this is confirmed by Krishna Himself as in the above citation.]

* RD: ISKCON and the Rtviks are opposite sides of the same coin, and the tell tale traits of religiosity are manifest in the die-hard members of both opposing groups.

[PADA: No it is that your post mortem guru idea and the GBC's idea are on the same side of the coin, and you both use the same terminology? You say that we need to make some replacements for worship of the post and dead acharya, which is like the Medieval Papal system? You are the ones who are advocates of some mundane religious ideas? We are not saying that we need to make some artificial "spokesman for God" "living gurus," just as the College Of Cardinals votes in the same at the Vatican? Your team are using the GBC's arguments, the Papal system arguments, and you are even using their terminology. We never said that guru is "post" and dead like you and the GBC and the founders of the original Papal system at the Vatican. 

Neither does any "religionist" refer to his guru or God as "the dead one" as your team is doing. Your "post samadhi diksha" complaint against the acharyas is the foundational idea of making the Papal system, and the GBC and Gaudiya Matha's appointed and voted in guru system, thus yours is the mundane religious system? So what is the difference between your ideas and the mayavadis who say that Krishna was an ordinary man and now He is "post." Or the smartas who say that the vaishnava acharyas are "post"? You are agreeing with these folks.]

* RD: The core message of the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya is for all followers of Lord Caitanya's Sankirtan Movement to exclusively surrender to the unalloyed parampara representative, and to not blindly obey the less than perfect institutional religionists posing as Acaryas.

[PADA: Good point, except now you are switching hats again and giving the essence of the ritvik idea: "We have to worship the bona fide acharya." So this means you are contradicting yourself, just as the GBC does when they say we have to emphasize Prabhupada. You are giving the GBC argument and sometimes, the ritvik argument? You are the blind leaders of the blind followers however since the GBC names "bogus people" as their living acharyas, while you have "no one" as your living acharya? So both of you are blind.]

* RD: The signs of religiosity can be seen in efforts at stifling freedom of expression, muzzling dissenting opinions, marginalizing the brahminical process, ostracizing those not willing to follow lockstep with the elite, and demonizing anyone openly critical of the managers and their latest version of "truth."

[PADA: Exactly, anyone who does not agree with your ideas that "God and Guru are post samadhi dead guys" is treated horrendously. Your team's idea of "post samadhi" has also resulted in thousands of innocent people being banned, beaten, and killed. You siddhanta policy has also resulted in thousands of children being starved, beaten, molested and killed. Agreed, this is all the "living result" of your "post samadhi diskha guru" regime from the 1930s and 1970s. But, why are you saying your ideas are having to do with "religiosity"? Do not lump in your "God and Guru are post mortem and dead" idea with any bona fide religion since no religion on earth preaches that their Guru is -- post, dead and in sum post mortem as your team is doing?]

* RD: A technique commonly shared by ISKCON and the Rtviks is an overemphasis on the absolute necessity for newcomers to discover their diksa guru connection to the Sampradaya, and benefit from the subsequent removal of accumulated vi-karmic reaction.

[PADA: This is "the technique" has been used by all the acharyas for thousands of years i.e.: they preach that one has to be connected to the bona fide acharya -- so that he can get "divyam jnanam which destroys sins" (diksha). This is indeed one of the most prominent teachings of Lord Krishna found in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna tell Arjuna to surrender to Him so that Arjuna will be saved from -- the vikarmic reactions? Thus, according to Rocana, Krishna is a mundane religionist since He wants to right away explain the benefit of absorbing the sins and "vi-karmic" reactions, by connection to the parampara guru? 

Sorry, Krishna is not "overemphasizing" anything. Krishna is merely explaining the plain fact of spiritual life, that vikarmic reactions have to be nullified for spiritual progress. "Surrender to Me and I will save you from all reactions," this is practically the whole sum and substance theme of Krishna's teachings in the Gita? And yet Rocana implies that Krishna's teachings is some sort of mundane religiosity program? 

Worse, Rocana's idea of "blocking Srila Prabhupada's mercy" has lead to people "taking shelter" of various fools, and deviants as their means of "getting saved from sins," but this has not worked as we see? 

Rocana's idea is exactly like the Catholic Church, the figurehead will be paid a tithe and this removes the sins, not the worship of Jesus directly. No, this is bogus and it is not going to work. Of course Rocana also attacks the worship of Jesus as well as we shall see, despite that Srila Prabhupada says "me and Jesus are brothers."

In sum, Krishna's whole point in the Bhagavad Gita about absorbing the sins is not "over emphasis"? This is merely simple common sense: "In order to get cured from the disease, we will have to remove your tumor sir"? This is practical sense? Of course, we should want to get "removal of vikarmic reactions," otherwise how is progress going to occur if we keep the deadly tumor intact? Rocana's plan is to forget the deadly tumor, but Krishna is not such a fool as Rocana? So Krishna carefully explains this point to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. This is technically called "guru asraya." 

Rocana even started his paper by saying we all have to recognize the Sampradya Acharya, and that means, "he who destroys the accumulated vi-karmic reaction." That is part of his title, diksha guru? Now he says, why should we emphasize the capability of the acharya who is the person who gives this "divyam jnanam -- which destroys sins." 

We should not discuss or "over emphasize" his potency? Why are they forbidding us to discuss the potency of the acharya? Why should not people know that the acharyas can give "spiritual knowledge which destroys (vikarmic) sins"? Rather we should be proud that our guru has this potency? He says we have to minimize the preaching of the glories of the acharyas? Instead they want to emphasize that the acharyas, including Krishna, are all dead, gone, post mortem, and we do not.]

* RD: This emphasis ignores the many sastric declarations about the amazing purification that comes about by coming in contact with the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya.

[PADA: Sastra says: that by coming in contact with the Sampradaya Acharya one obtains divyam jnanam which destroys sins (diksha). That is part of the effect, one is purified of sins? Rocana says that this purification of sins is not "destroying vikarma." So what is he talking about? He does not even know what these Vedic terms mean? He has never studied the Bhagavad Gita? 

And besides, Srila Prabhupada says that people who simply get his books are getting -- divyam jnanam (which destroys sins). So Rocana is contradicting himself, he says we should NOT emphasize the qualities of the acharyas, that they can purify our vikarmic reactions, and then he says, we must? The problem with his type of folks is that their ideas are full of these contradictions? Again, one woman wrote to tell me, "Rocana's paper is so confusing, I cannot figure out anything he says." I wrote back and told her, "The mayavadi siddhanta is always full of contradictions."]

* RD: From his divine association flows all the knowledge required in order to properly chant the sacred mantras, beginning with the Holy Names. In addition to the Hare Krsna mahamantra, the newcomer receives from the Sampradaya Acarya detailed instruction on how to worship the Deities, Tulasi, follow Ekadasi, and so. There is no pre-requisite stated in sastra that all the purification available via engagement in devotional service first requires being initiated by the diksa guru. The real requirement is connection to the Sampradaya Acarya.

[PADA: The above is all word jugglery? The real process is that the newcomer gets instructions from the acharya (di), and by dint of following he gets purified (ksha), while "formal initiation" is not required at all, nor did we say it was? Rather, just by following -- he is connected and in that sense he is initiated. Srila Prabhupada gave "official initiation ceremonies" to many thousands of people who -- subsequently fell by the wayside. While many others who had no "formal initiation," they have continued. So the "real process" is that anyone who accepts the teachings of the acharya is de facto initiated, as we have seen. You have not read the PADA paper "Our Living Guru." a document which we printed some years ago, we said there is no need for a formal initiation. 

You are making up a straw man argument here. Nor do we find that Arjuna had a formal diksha guru ceremony from Krishna, Arjuna accepted the instructions, that is the essence. Rocana thinks the instructions of the guru are useless unless one has some living bags of stools body to worship? This is called vapuh vada.]
* RD: The Rtvik pandits have assigned such exalted spiritual qualifications to the bona fide diksa guru that only a divine personality with genuine Sampradaya Acarya status comes close.

[PADA: "Comes close" to what? Rocana is intentionally using confusing the terms used by the acharyas. Srila Prabhupada does not say, "This pure uttama devotee -- never came close -- to that pure uttama devotee"? Where does he apply these ideas to the pure devotees? Why is Rocana saying that there is some type of "holier than thou" pecking order amongst pure devotees? So that means you have a material idea of pure devotees?

Srila Prabhupada: "In the United States, the predominating personality is the President. However, when the next election comes, the President will have so many rivals, but in the spiritual sky the Supreme Lord has no rival. THOSE WHO WANT TO BECOME RIVALS ARE PLACED IN THIS MATERIAL WORLD, UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF MATERIAL NATURE. In the spiritual sky there is no rivalry, and all the inhabitants therein are liberated souls."

The Gopis are also supposedly considered as the highest but they are thinking Krishna's flute is doing better service? Lord Chaitanya thought, He was doing no service at all? Where is this idea, this pure devotee's service "never came close" to that pure devotees service emphasized? This is baffling, "these" pure devotees "never came close" to "those" pure devotees? He are making an "us and them," a sort of concocted caste system, as part of pure devotional service? Srila Prabhupada says that only the uttma adhikary can become a guru, and there is no "status war" among that class of devotees? 

Srila Prabhupada says, "one cannot become guru unless he is an uttama pure devotee," and amongst uttama gurus he says, "guru is one." This argument is also what the Gaudiya Matha deviants propose, the diksha guru, the parampara guru, he might have less qualification than uttama, so they opened their Pandora's door for their bogus gurus?]

* RD: Consequently, they feel there is an absolute need for post-samadhi diksa from Srila Prabhupada. They ostensibly disqualify all other possible diksa guru candidates.

[PADA: No, we asked you to submit the name of your alleged potential diksha guru 20 years ago? And as we recall you went running away holding your hands in the air because you knew that we had defeated you, your guru has no name, no address, no books, he does not exist? We did not disagree, we merely challenged you to give us the name of your alleged proposed or possible diksha guru, and you de facto admitted, you would rather see people worship nobody than worship Prabhupada.]

* RD: Due to their fanatical mood, I strongly doubt whether any of the Rtvik-ites I know today would manifest the spiritual insight required to recognize and embrace the next Sampradaya Acarya, should Lord Caitanya see fit to send one in our lifetime.

[PADA: This is all speculation. This is also what the Gaudiya Matha argues, "If another pure devotee comes you will not be able to recognize him." And they were foremost in not recognizing Srila Prabhupada? And indeed most of them still call him "Swamiji," and not "Prabhupada." Yet so far the GBC and the Gaudiya Matha has only forwarded their 1936 and 1977 homosexual guru lineages? They keep saying that there is a living guru, but they have not shown us who he is, only some of the backers of the homosexual gurus, so this is all straw man argument?]

RD: From his divine association flows all the knowledge required in order to properly chant the sacred mantras, beginning with the Holy Names. In addition to the Hare Krsna mahamantra, the newcomer receives from the Sampradaya Acarya detailed instruction on how to worship the Deities, Tulasi, follow Ekadasi, and so. There is no pre-requisite stated in sastra that all the purification available via engagement in devotional service first requires being initiated by the diksa guru. The real requirement is connection to the Sampradaya Acarya.

[PADA: Agreed, the newcomer does not need a false initiation by a so-called concocted diksha guru, he only needs connection to the Sampradaya Acharya. Rocana has put on his ritvik hat here and this is good.]

History of the Rtvik Movement

[PADA: As we all know, Srila Prabhupada is the actual founder of the idea that he wanted some kind of Governing Body, and he ordered some of them to act as officiating priests or ritviks, but notice that Rocana forgets to even acknowledge that these words came from the Sampradya Acharya?]

RD: Since many readers may be unaware of the differences between the various Rtvik groups, I will attempt to present an overview of their common beliefs and a brief history of the Rtvik movement, as I understand it. The Rtvik's guru-tattva philosophy is based upon the conviction that Srila Prabhupada wished that a sincere follower of his be free to take post-samadhi diksa via his proxy representative, the "priest", or "Rtvik."

[PADA: That is what Srila Prabhupada said hundreds if not thousand of times. After I depart there will be proxies, a Governing Body. That is a proxy system, and he would remain as the Sampradaya and diksha guru. Where was Rocana when Srila Prabhupada said this, thousands of times, that after I depart the society will be managed by proxies and not another Gaudiya Matha false diksha guru process? He also said that his books would be giving the divyam jnanam, the essence of diksha, and this could go on indefinitely?]

RD: Such initiations would be conducted in basically the same manner that was in place prior to Srila Prabhupada's entering into samadhi.

[PADA: Right, that is also what he said about a thousand times, after I depart DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. Of course the GBC, their Gaudiya Matha advisors and Rocana changed the whole thing.]

RD: Proponents of the Rtvik system hold the July 9th, 1977 letter, wherein Srila Prabhupada appointed eleven regional GBC's to act as his Rtvik representatives, to be absolute proof that this system was to continue "henceforward" after his departure.

[PADA: This is totally bogus, there are thousands of statements where he said that there was just going to be a GBC after his departure, a proxy system. He merely confirmed that in one letter towards the end. He also said that he had made ritviks in a number of other 1977 conversations at that time. So he was making a GBC system and a layer of that would be a ritvik system. Of course, even if there is only "one" letter (and Rocana admits there is a letter making ritviks) that is still "absolute proof" since why would "the number of letters" have anything to do with the validity? Rocana forgets also that there were already "ritviks" chanting on the beads covering the whole society starting in the early 1970s, and this was still going on at that time, and Prabhupada said hundreds of times, do not change anything.]

RD: In addition to this letter, they have their own interpretation of an earlier conversation (May 28, 1977), and the personal testimony of one witness, Gauridasa Pandit. This hypothesis originated from the person of Yasoda nandana dasa, who is one of the founding members of a loosely organized underground movement started in the late 1970's, aiming protest at the GBC/Zonal Acaryas.

[PADA: This is again totally false. Many of us understood that Prabhupada had only made a GBC and proxy system and he had not appointed any diksha gurus even before we later on found: the hidden letters (discovered in 1984), the hidden tapes (1985), the hidden will (1985), the hidden conversations (1990), the poison tape (1997) and so on and so forth? I was arguing against the GBC for many years before meeting Yasodanandana in the mid 1980s. It was understood by all sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada for example that Jayatirtha's sex and drugs escapades were not part of the bona fide parampara. 

Thus, we said that they are proxies, and the GBC are thinking these deviants are diksha gurus. We said that in 1978 way before anyone read "Yasodanandana's" papers or anyone else's? Yasodananda prabhu has of course added considerable documentation to prove this was Prabhupada's order, indeed he convinced even many of Rocana's contemporaries and others to jettison their support of the GBC gurus with his documents. So "the aim" of this underground movement was to uncover more of the actual letters, tapes, conversations and eyewitness testimony, in part to protest but mainly to find out what was really ordered and to convince others of these points, as has occurred?]

RD: Most of the intellectuals who formed the inner circle of this cell were unceremoniously excommunicated from ISKCON for publicly voicing their subversive ideas. To the best of my knowledge, the membership included Pradyumna dasa, Jadurani devi dasi, Kailasa candra dasa, and Yasoda nandanana dasa. This school of radical thought wrote, printed and circulated many confrontational tracts in the early days, with limited results. Initially, they did not try to promote the return of the Rtvik process, but rather focused on the advanced spiritual qualifications required to become a bona fide diksa guru.

[PADA: This is because most of the letters, all of the audio tapes, the will, and other important documents were being hidden and suppressed by the GBC. The "focus" was adjusted as these new documents and materials surfaced, including that Prabhupada was poisoned to suppress the ritvik instruction. Rocana seems to be unaware that most of these documents were hidden and forbidden, and that when me and Sulochana began to distribute "the letters" in 1984-5, we got death threats from Ramesvara and others.]
RD: These were qualities the Zonal Acaryas sadly lacked. Naturally, the Zonals' policy of exaggerated glorification and their self-anointed honorific titles incited the disgust and outrage of this early protest group. The sastric definitions for diksa set forth by this group were so unattainable by Kali yuga Westerners that Srila Prabhupada was the only ISKCON related personality who unquestionably qualified. It was this train of thought that naturally evolved into the post-samadhi diksa concept.

[PADA: Well yes, the guru has to be qualified? That means he is not a deviant. Of course if someone says that their guru is the "posthumous" dead person, like the GBC gurus and Rocana say, they are not even bona fide neophytes since no one calls their guru "the dead one." And yes, since the GBC gurus and their Gaudiya Matha advisors supported the worship of homosexual pedophiles as their gurus, saying Prabhupada is the post mortem dead guy, we have had the perfect argument: that the GBC system of proxies should be re-established so as to eliminate the enormous guru scandals and offer instead the correct worship. Most people agree with us, even many GBC have told us, behind the scenes, that they agree with our proposal to emphasize Srila Prabhupada as the guru and not the neophyte GBCs.]

RD: The group's need for supporting documentable evidence required a re-interpretation of the same July 9th letter the Zonals had previously highlighted as their authorization to take unfettered, exclusive regional power.

[PADA: The July 9th letter was not offered to the mass of devotees, nor was the GBC's other alleged core evidence, the May 28th tape? Nor was it discussed? Nor would the GBC allowing us to discuss it?]

RD: After some time, the band of protesters dissolved their alliance. Yasoda nandana dasa resurfaced in Toronto, writing and preaching that the Rtvik solution was what Srila Prabhupada "ordered."

[PADA: This is because no one else, especially Rocana, has shown us "what else" he might have ordered?]

RD: Nityananda dasa from Louisiana was convinced, and invited Yasoda nandana and others to move into his rural community, which became the nucleus of the Rtvik movement. They soon published a periodical focused on promoting Rtvik-tattva, called "Vedic Village Review". Nityananda's businesses, which underwrote the expenses of the magazine and community, eventually ran into serious problems that forced the community to disband. Yasoda nandana and family relocated to California, where he still resides. Since that time, Yasoda nandana's Rtvik position has been adopted by many others in the movement. One of those was the renowned global traveler and preacher, British-born Kamsa hanta dasa. 

He embraced the cause with passionate zeal and a missionary spirit. Among Kamsa hanta's noteworthy inter-continental converts were Krsna Kanta Desai (England), Jitarati dasa (Hong Kong), Adridarana dasa (India), and Nandi kesvara dasa (Canada). In small conferences, they attempted to better organize and develop a consensus as to the finer philosophical points of the Rtvik-tattva.

Krsna Kanta and his associates then produced a manifesto entitled the "Final Order". Interestingly, the creation of this treatise was done without soliciting input from the Rtvik founder, Sriman Yasoda nandana dasa, or any of his West Coast Rtvik group. When the "Final Order" debuted, Yasoda nandana dasa and company disagreed with many key elements of the theory.

[PADA: No, we all agree on the key elements, we have to worship the bona fide acharya Srila Prabhupada? The main disagreement between the IRM and us was over -- the poison issue?]

RD: Krsna Kanta and his newly formed ISKCON Reform Movement (IRM) tried to distance themselves from the West Coast Rtviks due to the endless stream of faultfinding rhetoric the group aimed squarely at ISKCON. Krsna Kanta and company held out hope that they could convince the GBC, so long as Yasoda nandana's group was excluded. As history reveals, their efforts were thwarted by the GBC. From that time on, an increasingly contentious relationship has developed between the two main Rtvik camps.

[PADA: Well this is all irrelevant verbiage? If Srila Prabhupada did not order a GBC, then what did he order?]

RD: While Yasoda nandana dasa, Puranjana dasa and other Rtvik advocates continued to attack ISKCON, Krsna Kanta advocated a forgive-and-forget policy towards past transgressions of the GBC. This naive strategy failed and the GBC, feeling threatened by the surge of support for this "back to the beginning" movement, responded in a proactive manner by producing a number of papers and GBC resolutions opposing the Rtvik philosophy. Unfortunately, they also employed demonizing efforts that further polarized the Vaisnava community, and brought the Gaudiya Matha closer as allies against a common enemy.

[PADA: Well then, PADA was right on this point, trying to capitulate with the GBC as the IRM attempted did not work.]

RD: Adridarana dasa, the long-time president of Calcutta Temple, and other well-established Indian ISKCON leaders were swayed by the "Final Order's" powerful arguments and rejuvenated the IRM. The IRM continues to do battle with the ISKCON leadership to this day, with some success. The original Rtvik exponents from North America, still headed up by Yasoda nandana dasa, have continued to be vocally critical of the IRM, ISKCON and BV Narayana Swami. They recently began their own organization, the Hare Krishna Society.

[PADA: At the same time some of the IRM folks have said that the poison issue is probably correct, so there is some conciliation going on that Rocana is unaware of.]
RD: While I have attempted to present an accurate, abbreviated historical timeline of the evolving Rtvik movement, I have not carefully researched this history. I encourage readers to confirm the dates and details for themselves by contacting the personalities mentioned above.

[PADA: To sum, it is an insult to constantly imply, as Rocana's team does every day, that Srila Prabhupada is now the post mortem, i.e. dead, gone and de facto irrelevant guru? Worse, Rocana says that Srila Prabhupada's idea of worship of the bona fide acharyas makes him a sort of detestable "ritvik pundit." Rocana also says Srila Prabhupada is a deviant from the Vedas, since Srila Prabhupada says we must worship the bona fide acharyas whereas Rocana says: "this is not found in the tradition." Rocana also complains that Srila Prabhupada's idea to make a Governing Body (and have some of them acting as priests) is exactly what the Christian Church does, so Rocana complains that Prabhupada is a mundane relgionist. Rocana is directly attacking Srila Prabhupada as the real deviant. Thanks pd]

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Bhagavad Gita (Francaise version)

Become Free of Designations (Sanskriti Magazine)

Lord Chaitanya Inquires from Ramananda Raya (ISKCON Times)

About Initiations and Cooperation

PADA: At the present time we do not need to stress so much on formal initiations, because its an emergency situation, and some people are scared that the initiations program is being used to control and manipulate others (even in some forms of the so-called ritvik camp). In many USA ISKCON temples there are not enough people to serve the deity, because there are not enough initiated people, and we have that problem too. 

So the official ISKCON programs overall are dysfunctional and deteriorating especially in the West, and the deity programs are suffering badly. Jayapataka tried to save the day and he sent in some Bengalis in certain temples to do the pooja, but some of his men were not very interested in actual devotional activity and they left as soon as they got their immigration green card, and some of them were having problems by associating with women etc. This just happened recently, where a JPS temple cook got his green card and he quit the temple and he went to work at a karmi's restaurant. 

So if we can get some serious persons to do the service, we may not be able to formally initiate this person at the present time because we are just starting to get off the ground and we have little formal programs organized. At the beginning of ISKCON we had all sorts of people doing services without being initiated, because we were in a sort of new born baby state -- as we are now -- by our just re-starting things at present, so we cannot make initiations mandatory when we have not got this process managed on a larger scale and we are not very organized as a whole. 

As long as people are trained to do the proper pooja and offer things with the proper prayers and so on, they are acting as brahmana de facto, formal initiated or not. We should thus train people first of all and make web sites which show people how to do all the programs, deity pooja, kirtanas etc and I am working on that now with some Bangalore folks, but if others want to help lets do it. 

Make videos of how to do poojas, kirtananas and so on, we will post that. Everyone can do this without the formal initiation at the present time, because a lot of people are not even going to any formal temples now, we need a grass roots small temples and home programs system first of all. 

As for cooperation with the IRM and others, yes, we should do that. However Krishna Kanta told me not to sue the GBC for the original books because "then I would be working with Hansadutta." Well we needed Hansadutta because the case required some original trustees, and without that we would have had no case. We won the case and started printing original books, and yet KK still holds a grudge against us for doing that. Apparently, he does not want us to have the legal rights to print books? Why does he want the Jayadvaita book to have the only legal rights? 

And then Krishna Kanta stirred up his groupies like Sanat / Mukunda / Prahlad / HKC Jaipur folks to attack us, they also think there is no need for Srila Prabhupada to have any legal rights to his original books. In fact these guys all said we need to get PADA off the internet, self-apparently, they only want Jayadvaita to have the legal rights to these books. They all want us to go away, which is what Tamal said needs to be done. Why are they repeating exactly what Tamal says? Worse, they have no plan to get legal rights for original books themselves. Whose side are they on here?

So, as soon as we say, Srila Prabhupada wanted original books, these guys all ganged up to stop us and try to have us driven off the whole landscape, which is of course what Tamal wanted all along. They never answer the first question: Why do they want to have Jayadvaita be in charge of the books and not Srila Prabhupada? So this is a problem, as soon as we say Srila Prabhupada wanted original books, these guys all attack us. Why? 

None of them never did anything to get these rights. And they never will, which is of course why some people think they are secretly having sympathy for the GBC's cause? Why do they always attack the people who made the original cause celebre for legal rights to get the original books program going? 

Then Krishna Kanta held an IRM meeting around 1999 saying he is "going to war with PADA over the poison issue." And worse, he and Adridharana then wrote an article for the GBC's book made by Tamal. How did you guess, KK got his band of Sanat / Mukunda / Prahlad / HKC folks to say "PADA is a liar" -- just at the exact time we launched the case. So they are always trying to discredit these issues, again, which is what Tamal always wanted them to do. They claim to be working for Srila Prabhupada while acting as Tamal's biggest sock puppets. 

I am saying Srila Prabhupada is complaining of being poisoned, they are saying we are all nonsense, thus -- it is bogus for us to adress all this. If the people addressing this are bogus, then the whole issue is bogus, so they are actually attacking Srila Prabhupada, not me? Why are they attacking Srila Prabhupada's statements and joining with the GBC to write articles for Tamal's book? 

Then Krishna Kanta said he was going to war with me because I was addressing the child molesting and so on, and he said I was using bad language on this issue. How did you guess, his groupies Sanat / Mukunda / Prahlad / HKC folks all said that is right, they all wanted the molesting and suicides process to continue. We should NOT have this process stopped as we did, which is again, what Tamal wanted? Why do they say it is wrong to stop Srila Prabhupada's children from being molested? And yep, they had no plan to stop this themselves, and neither did the GBC.  

Its pretty evident there is some very deep attachments for the GBC going on here. Krishna Kanta did say he wanted to help the GBC send me to the Carribean for "a very long extended vacation" so he could "negotiate a deal" with Jayapataka. Swell, me going there means, I'd be a better target for assassination in a foriegn place. KK has no idea what the GBC would do to me if they thought they'd get away with it. All of my friends said, this is a plot to get you off shore so they can assassinate you, so this is either very naive or -- KK is with them? Or what?  

So this is the problem, Krishna Kanta never consults with me, he says he is going to war with me, and he never has any discussion or istagosthi with us, ever. He never writes to us, or communicates about anything, instead he writes bad things about us on his site and attacks all the other parties. 

So if he wanted unity, he would not be telling people he is going to war with the other parties. and make all sorts of propaganda against us. He also has the idea that children are better off watching Bugs Bunny, because he said our Krishna children's video was a bad idea, this is simply another example of how he has no clue how to help the overall program. 

He more or less says -- the millions of children who are watching our Krishna children video -- would have been better to watch Bugs Bunny? Yep, the Sanat / Mukunda / Prahlad / HKC Jaipur all joined in, they too wanted children to watch Bugs Bunny rather than Krishna. 

Worse, he says we cannot have any formal initiations until we get the GBC to do that. He has no practical idea how to manage these things. At least some formal initiations are going on, and we should encourage re-building this where its possible. ys pd

Friday, December 2, 2016

Why doesn't ISKCON fund Its devotees in need?

[PADA: OK this poor child has a serious medical problem, but the GBC is self-evidently not helping her family solve that problem. Why not? Why do only the elite few gurus get unlimited medical expense help, and others, ok not so much?

One ex-gurukuli told me, its like North Korea, Kim Jong Un lives like a Heavenly Demigod, others, they may have to eat dirt? Meanwhile, the GBC is spending allegedly $20,000,000 suing the ritviks, so they can buy new Mercedes for their lawyers. Why is there always a spare millions on hand for suing people, but not much to help the citizens?

And why haven't the GBC's / mamagers helped this child a long time ago since its been an ongoing problem for some time now? ys pd]   

Thief becomes a devotee (Srila Prabhupada video)

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Who is running ISKCON.US?

This site was supposed to be the spokesperson's for Hrdayananda's "Krishna West," but it seems to have a much more broader Srila Prabhupada and Krishna attacking / pro-academia version of the Vedas agenda. It appears that the site manage, Mr. Shenkar, would rather have us all surrender to mundane academia's version of the Vedas rather than Srila Prabhupada's. 

And where is the GBC when it comes to controlling who has legal rights to use of the title and name of "ISKCON"? As soon as we say deviants are not acharyas -- using the name of ISKCON -- then the GBC spends $20M suing us for misuse of "their legal ISKCON title." 

So, if we are saying acharyas are not deviants -- then the GBC are saying we have no authority to be using the name of ISKCON. Yet if someone uses the name of ISKCON to say mundane academia is superior to Srila Prabhupada's writings, that agenda is allowed by the GBC to use the name and title of ISKCON. Why is the GBC aiding, abetting and allowing the promoting pro-academia versions of the Vedas and attacking Srila Prabhupada's version, by allowing the title of ISKCON to be used for this purpose? Is this the real GBC agenda, to make Krishna into a mundane figurehead who is to be described by mundane academics, and not by the acharyas? ys pd  


Those Who Would Destroy ISKCON


ISKCON is under constant assault from the agents of Kali. Here, I am not referring to deprogrammers, "anti-cultists" or fundamental religionists whose exclusivism condemns Vaishnavism as the devil's work... their position is obvious. I am referring to the many senior members from within ISKCON itself as well as those from ISKCON's lunatic fringe.

From within ISKCON we see senior members who want to go into mundane charity work, such as opening hospitals and eye clinics. We see sannyasis who cheapen their esteemed ashram by associating with women, or who loan money (with interest) from their sizable bank accounts. We see hatha-yoga classes in temple rooms, right in front of the Deities.

Now, concerning the lunatic fringe who want to change ISKCON: I ran across a website, "", which, according to internet WHOIS records, is run by Alexander Shenkar. One of the articles on the website is "Is ISKCON a Cult?". "Cult", in this sense, is not defined as "a system of religious veneration", but is used in the perjorative, sinister sense. 

The conclusion of the article is "yes". But what is most telling is the comments section for the article. One person asks, "How would you change ISKCON?", and the webmaster writes, "I would remove Prabhupada murtis and Prabhupada's books from temples. Then I'd commission academics to translate SB and CC to replace Prabhupada's version."

This is how the agents of Kali work. They want to change things. But in a room conversation will Bill Faill (a reporter) on October 8, 1975, Srila Prabhupada said: "This movement is very, very old and standard. It is never changed. As soon as you change it, then the potency of the movement is lost."

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Leah Remini: Surviving Scientology

ISKCON is getting more Sahajiya (Hanuman das)

Message-ID: <> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:00:18 +0000 Subject: Re: opening the russian front From: Hanuman das To: Bhakti Raghava Swami, Sacinandana Swami, Jayadvaita Swami, Kadamba Kanana Swami, Lokanath Swami, "Virabahu (das) ACBSP (GBC)", Gopal Krsna Goswami, "Kavicandra Swami (GBC Japan)", Sesa das, Sankarsana.ACBSP, Bhaktivaibhava Swami, Bhakti-bhusana Swami, "", Basu Ghosh Das,, dina.sharana.acbsp

Dear Sacinandana baba,

Please accept my humble obeisances.

All glories to Ramesh baba.

Having received no reply, today I launched my Russian campaign. This is preemptive strike against Ramesh followers in Russia. Now, I challenge you, please try to insult Srila Prabhupada by bringing Brajraj Sharan and other Ramesh nonsense followers to ISKCON Russia. Let's see how well that goes, now when I warned devotees in advance about true nature of Ramesh nonsense.

All your GBC friends, like Radhanath Swami, who says in his book that Ramesh baba is "his lifelong friend" can't help you any longer. Because real truth is out in the open, and real truth is that Ramesh baba is sahajiya, Prabhupada told us not to associate with sahajiyas.

By associating with Ramesh baba, taking instructions from him, by staying in his temple, and by bringing his followers to Croatia, you betrayed Srila Prabhupada. And before that, you gave us the present of association with mayavadi Krishna das. Now, with Russia included, I make my target at 10,000 views for my videos. 

After that, all that will be left is that you leave ISKCON, dress as gopi, and join Ramesh temple. And you can take your secretary with you and finally associate with her publicly without being in fear.

your servant,
Hanuman das

[PADA: Right, and other GBC gurus are also associated with Ramesh Baba like Indradyumna, so why is the GBC allowing this program to develop inside ISKCON and their own GBC program? Right, the Babajis do not even accept the guru line of Srila Prabhupada, and they harassed Srila Saraswasti when his party went there in the 1920s, why are we connecting with the same people who object to our sampradaya? ys pd]

The Value of Discrimination (Narasimgha dasa)

By Narasimgha dasa

The Value of Discrimination: Lord Krishna said, “This man is an assassin and murderer of your own family members. Not only that, but he has also dissatisfied his master. He is but the burnt remnants of his family. Kill him immediately.” (S.B. 1.7.39)

In spite of this unequivocal instruction from Lord Krishna who was personally present, both Arjuna and Draupadi wanted to spare evil Ashvattama for the sake of being kind and gentle to all Brahmins and brahmana-bandhus. Neither Srila Prabhupada nor Lord Sri Krishna faults them for their sentiment because such rare sentiments illuminate the matchless quality of great Vaishnavas. Such kind and forgiving qualities can’t imitated by ordinary devotees. It would be beyond the imagination of lesser devotees to forgive a false Brahmin who had mercilessly and enviously attacked and killed ones sons — just for spite — while they were sleeping.

It would also be impossible, and beyond our duty or power, to forgive:

1.) those who secretly fed poison to Srila Prabhupada

2.) those who went along with persons who tried to hide this incident due to political motives.

Devotees who are not great paramahamsa uttama-adhikaris should hear carefully Srila Prabhupada’s final conclusions on these matters.

“The specific words used in this sloka arevama-swabhava, ‘mild and gentle by nature.’ A good man or woman accepts everything very easily, but a man of average intelligence does not do so. But, anyway, we should not give up our reason and discriminatory power just to be gentle. One must have good discriminatory power to judge a thing by its merit. We should not follow the mild nature of a woman and thereby accept that which is not genuine.” (S.B. 1.7.42, Purport)

Had he been killed for his heinous sins, as Lord Krishna had advised, Ashvattama may have been much better off. Instead he was fully humiliated, denuded of the magical jewel in his forehead, and cast out into the cold with nothing but a curse that made him suffer in his wretched body for another 2,000 years.

“Such a death sentence for the murderer [as Lord Krishna advised] is the lowest possible punishment offered to him, and it is said in the smriti-shastras that men who are punished by the king on the principle of a life for a life are purified of all sins, so much so that theymay be eligible for being promoted to the planets of heaven.” (S.B. 1.7.37, Purport)

Only anitya-siddha parishad of Krishna, acting fully under the direction of Lord Krishna’s internal yoga-maya, can second-guess the Supreme Lord’s advice. It’s obviously better for other devotees, and the whole world in general, that we must not second-guess Srila Prabhupada’s instructions or try to imitate great uttama-adhikari devotees. Srila Prabhupada warned, “By imitating amaha-bhagavata, one will eventually become degraded.”

Monday, November 28, 2016

ISKCON is going Ritvk! (BV Padmanabha Maharaja)

"ISKCON is starting to become like a ritvik Catholic Church"

BV Padmanabha Maharaja

BV Padmanabha Maharaja originally joined ISKCON in the 1970s. Later he joined Gaudia Math and participated in International Pure Bhakti Yoga Society. As a sannyasa he spends time in Vrindavan, India and travels the world.

[PADA: Except, the Catholic Church has a "voted in" Pope system, and the GBC has adopted a similar system -- their "2/3 show of hands" -- voted in gurus. And Sridhara Maharaja is one of the persons who told the GBC to "vote in more acharyas" (like the Papal system). And Narayana Maharaja says that Sridhara Maharaja is an acharya, so the acharyas started this system -- of voting in conditioned souls as their co-acharyas? BV Padmanabha is glorifying the people who initially made the Papal / guru vote system in ISKCON, while claiming it is a deviation?  

Why does Narayana Maharaja support Sridhara Maharaja and his program -- that acharyas approve of conditioned souls, and their illicit sex, drugs and other deviations process -- to be voted in as Krishna's successors and acharyas? Does NM even know who is Krishna, for starters? Krishna is all pure, thus HIS successor has to be all pure. Why doesn't the NM clan even know this basic ABC point of siddhanta? In 1936 Sridhara Maharaja made a bi-sexual deviant as the acharya of the Gaudiya Matha, and that makes Sridhara Maharaja a bona fide acharya himself?   

And when these alleged acharyas get caught taking drugs and having illicit sex, then Sridhara Maharaja says we should STILL keep them in the acharya's seat and "none should protest." Why does NM think we should worship illicit sex and drugs as our acharyas, and keep these deviants in the Vyasa seat even when they are caught deviating, and the founder father of this bogus idea -- Sridhara Maharaja -- is an acharya? The founder father of the worship of illicit sex as acharya, is also an acharya himself? Where does Krishna say we need to worship Sridhara and Narayana maharaja's illicit sex guru process as HIS successors and acharyas?

And their system of guru voting is much more like the Papal voting system, its not like the priest system / church council process of the Lutheran Church. And this bogus guru voting system was given to the GBC by these "outside advisors." And after these deviant people gave ISKCON this bogus guru appointment and guru voting system, Narayana Maharaja then says, Sridhara Maharaja is our acharya. The founder father of the worship of illicit sex acharyas is -- our acharya? No, Srila Prabhupada says Sridhara Maharaja is the leader of the SEVERE OFFENDERS Bagh Bazaar party.

Worse, NM also says -- Tamal Krishna swami is Krishna's diksha guru successor (acharya). Tamal is a diksha guru who can absorb sins like Jesus? Why does NM confuse Tamal with someone like Jesus, when none of the rest of us do? Tamal used to lecture that his two favorite people are NM and Bhavananda, wow, peas in a PADA! 

And Narayana Maharaja was very PROMINENT in the post-1978 ISKCON GBC's advisory group -- "advising" the GBC's guru voting block sabha, and indeed NM was helping Satsvarupa Das Goswami write the bogus "Guru Reform Notebook" -- where their foolish guru voting concoction was first being detailed and organized. In short, Narayana Maharaja was aiding and abetting the entire bogus GBC and their bogus guru voting process, and he was hanging out with all of the leaders of that devious ecclesiastical guru voting program like Tamal, Satsvarupa Das Goswami, Giriraja, Indradyumna, Sivarama and all their associated pals. And worse, NM thought these people are all equal to Jesus and they are diksha gurus who can absorb sins like Jesus. Didn't Rupa Goswami say ecclesiastical guru voting programs are -- bogus?

If the Catholic Church's Papal voting system is bogus, why has Narayana Maharaja been the biggest cheer leader of helping those who are placing this identical Papal / guru voting system into ISKCON, and he has been the biggest adviser to the people making this bogus system? And worse, NM said we critics are bogus for attacking his guru voting program and its main henchmen architects, ok like Sridhara Maharaja and Tamal? 

Even worse, Sridhara Maharaja founded the bi-sexual acharya's deviation of 1936, where dissenters were beaten and killed. And this is what NM thinks acharyas create? Why does NM say that the founder father of the illicit sex -- and then beating and killing of vaishnavas project -- is an acharya? Devotees are being banned, beaten, having their faces pushed into dogs stools, and some are being killed, and Narayana Maharaja says the founder father of this deviation is -- an acharya?]   

"Just consider Prabhupada your guru? No need to have another guru. What is this called? Ritvik"

[PADA: Why is accepting a pure devotee as our guru called ritvik? Where does Srila Prabhupada say that anyone who worships a pure devotee is to be called a ritvik? He never said, after I depart, no one can worship me because that will be the ritvik deviation? The followers of Madhvacara are bogus for worshiping him as the acharya?]

Leaders in ISKCON have a term they like to use, Oh, he is a GBC or a Guru in good standing and we've all heard this before: In good standing. But many of those who were in good standing are no longer standing. One after the other they fell down, then more fell, and then more fell, ... and one after another fell. How many years of history do we have to have of gurus falling down!?

[PADA: OK so BV Padmanabha wants us to associate with his "outside gurus" process, but these same outside gurus -- ok like BR Sridhara Maharaja, BV Narayana Maharaja, BP Puri Maharaja, Fakir Mohan, Radha Kunda babajis and others, they all encouraged and supported the GBC and their constantly falling down / ecclesiastical / guru voting -- guru's program -- and worse, many of them came from the Gaudiya Matha where they had a "guru falling down" fiasco going on over there as well. 

And in fact often these outside folks were the people who gave the GBC's gurus "shiksha advice," which helped the GBC gurus write a number of their bogus post-1978 position papers, and these outside people acted not only as the GBC's ghost writers but as the GBC's "rasika authorities" and so on -- which supported, empowered and enabled the falling down / voted in / guru process of the GBC. 

BV Narayana Maharaja was perhaps the worst offender in this group because he was constantly associated with Tamal Krishna and his band of falling down gurus, and he eventually emerged as the GBC guru's biggest cheer leader. 

BV Puri maharaja, to his credit, said that BV Narayana Maharaja's follower Satsvarupa's writing about his passing stools enema, and the colors of the saris of the gopis, all in the same few pages of a book, proves that BV Narayana Maharaja is "worse than any sahajiyas" because at least the sahajiyas do not create a program of writing about their passing stools and the gopis all in the same few pages of a book. BV Padmanabha does not even know that we cannot support a program of writing about our passing stools -- and the gopis -- in the same few pages of a book?]

Because they are not taking sadhu sanga. All of their anarthas come out, and they become overwhelmed and commited so many offenses. I'm not saying this of all of them. I am not saying that. There are some who are sincere. No doubt. But I have seen that those who are in that category, they're very careful about committing offenses against Srila Narayan Maharaj.

[PADA: The whole reason Narayan Maharaja was introduced into ISKCON is because the GBC declared he is their shiksha guru / rasika guru authority. No one heard about him before the GBC approached him and placed him in the post of de facto rasika acharya of ISKCON and the GBC.

The real reason so many GBC gurus fell down is that they are not qualified to take sins as diksha gurus, and they are overwhelmed by that process. It never seems to have occurred to NM that neophytes cannot act like Jesus and take sins? 

Rather NM encouraged these neophytes to take disciples and make pretend they are another Jesus. NM was tossing them into the shark infested Jesus wanna be waters. Srila Prabhupada says, if we neophytes try to act as diksha gurus we will be absorbing sins, and this will make us get sick, fall down or both, ok and maybe die from such illness, why does NM want to see many vaishnavas fall down, get sick, and die from said sickness, due to taking sins without authority?]     

They have very much respect for him. So, this is the standard: If someone is advancing in bhakti, they will want to have sadhu sanga. But in ISKCON they have made this rule that you cannot have any sadhu sanga outside of the walls of this institution. Not allowed!

[PADA: Totally false. The GBC gurus are constantly associated with outside people, including Sridhara and Narayana Maharajas, BP Puri, BV Puri, Fakir Mohan, Babajis, Tantric ghost busters, psychics, astrologers, therapists (who they might end up having sex with) ... you name it. There has been a huge pile of these advisers and associates over the years. And these advisers helped shape the current policy and current mess.]

So what kind of rule is this? Do we find that anywhere in the sastras? This is the point. ISKCON is starting to become like the Catholic Church. It's true. It's true. And it has only been three decades after Prabhupad's disappearance. 

You've heard of the Ritvik philosophy? Correct? You all have heard of this? Right? Now, ISKCON does not accept the Ritvik philosophy. You know this? Right? They have written papers: No, no. Ritvik philosophy is wrong. But do you know that they are practicing Ritvik in ISKCON? Do you know that? 

I'll tell you how they are practicing Ritvik: There was a disciple and his guru fell down. So then they would tell him, Ok, your guru fell down. No problem. We have more gurus. You can get another guru. So then he would follow the instructions of his leaders and take a second guru in ISKCON. But he wouldn't be so fortunate because the second guru also fell down. And I m not just saying this. There are many circumstances like this in ISKCON. I think the record so far is four gurus. Yeah, I've heard. But anyway, he would take a second guru again. But then that second guru would fall down.

[PADA: But that is the system that Narayana Maharaja helped Tamal and Satsvarupa set up? They started this guru voting system in 1986 and NM was their adviser and friend on helping them implement this system, and NM is mentioned many times by all of these people, like Tamal, Satsvarupa, Sivarama, Indradyumna, Giriraja etc. as being their confidential adviser, if not rasika adviser. And NM is mentioned in the Guru Reform Notebook itself as one of the prime consultants for that book. So the first wave of gurus fell, then a second wave was voted in, third wave and etc. and this whole process was given to the GBC by these outside advisers.]

So now by this time the ISKCON leaders are a little reluctant to tell him to take a third guru. They want to encourage him somehow. But they are not very confident now to tell him, Oh, you should take another guru. So many years ago they have already started to tell that disciple, Don't worry, you don't need another initiation. It doesn't matter your guru fell down. It doesn't matter because you're initiated in ISKCON. You're connected with Prabhupada.

[PADA: Hee hee, well yes, they are being forced to adopt the right idea because the bogus idea they got from Sridhara and Narayana Maharaja, vote in more dubious gurus when the first wave of dubious gurus crashes, does not work.]

Just consider Prabhupada your guru. No need to have another guru. What is this called? Ritvik. This is called Ritvik. I will go directly to Prabhupada and I will be his disciple. No need for any other intermediary. 

[PADA: As long as your intermediaries keep falling down, why would anyone want to worship such a fallible process? As soon as Gaura Govinda Maharaja departed, many of his people ran off to Narayana Maharaja and Fakir Mohan, ok and now those "living gurus" are dead as well. So their people will now be running around like lost ghosts seeking yet another alleged live guru. Our Prabhupadanugas process does not have this problem, we all worship Srila Prabhupada as the acharya and this is gradually creating a stabilized society. 

Aren't these followers going to run off to yet another living person, who will die soon? You cannot build an institution based on changing the worshiped leader every decade, especially if these leaders are falling down or they are fools like NM who support falling down guru projects, because the line of consistent authority breaks down constantly? So the society is always in a state of continual chaos of change of worship process, which is not going to attract many folks to it.]

And now-a-days its pretty much the general policy that if any disciple's guru falls, they don't tell him any more to accept a second guru. Now they just tell him, you are re-connected with Prabhupada. So if this continues for a hundred years more then it becomes very much like the conception of Christianity where Prabhupada is like Jesus Christ and everyone just has to accept him. 

[PADA: Right, we would not want to have a successful mission where billions of followers could get organized and build a huge program like the Christians have done! We would also not want to have organized programs like farms, cow care, child care, elder care, care for the poor, feeding the needy congregation members (like the Mormons are doing), and have world class temples and churches full of people! We want an empty shell of a few people constantly running off to find the next live person, next live person, building temporary personality cults of independent maverick acharyas who are fighting among themselves even, and then everything disintegrates under our feet! 

Never mind all the scandals, bad publicity, lawsuits and other problems associated with this alleged living guru program, which causes even more disintegration. Not sure what is the harm of having everyone worship the pure devotee, when we see first hand how this creates a religion where billions want to participate, and huge programs and projects are thus possible.]

But Srila Prabhupada never preached this himself. Ever. None of the other gurus in our sampradaya ever preached this philosophy. In fact all of them demonstrated by their own example, including Chaitanya Mahaprabhu himself, including Sri Krishna himself, including Rama Chandra himself; they all had gurus, living gurus. So this is the main problem. The main problem ISKCON has created is to ban pure Vaishnavas, to ban devotees within ISKCON from having association with pure Vaishnavas who are outside of the institution. This is the main problem.

[PADA: OK wait a minute, we need to associate with pure devotees, the same people who helped the GBC introduce their bogus guru voting concoction; The same people, like Sridhara Maharaja, who say acharyas go mad after money, women and followers?

Even when Narayana Maharaja was physically here, a bunch of his followers were our neighbors, and there was a powerful smell of pot smoke coming from their house constantly. You could get loaded just walking past the place. Later, the daughter of a GBC guru became the main leader of the NM program here in San Francisco area. She went to a friend's house, where she lighted up a giant blunt and she then passed out for two hours. Is this the living guidance we want to give people? Where is the living guidance?

And now there is a big cat fight going on among the biggest NM leaders and gurus over the fact that one of their gurus is alleged to be having illicit sex. And one NM guru says he cannot go to Mayapura to complain about this, or he will be beaten to a pulp by the fanatical followers of this alleged guru. 

And that does not include the giant cat fight they are having over the two camps that disagree over the rasa of Srila Prabhupada, where there has been reported shunning, banning, death threats etc going on. You cannot artificially rubber stamps acharyas. Sorry!

Srila Prabhupada said he should continue to be the acharya and this system would be managed by Governing Body Managers, not gurus. NM does not agree. And the list of other things where NM does not agree with vs Srila Prabhupada's statements is long and shocking.   

As usual, these people never mention the name of the living sadhu we have to now take shelter of. Same problem with Kailash Chandra, Rocana, Torben Neilsen, Ajit Krishna, et al. they have no idea who we should worship now instead of Srila Prabhupada?

NM has also said that Srila Prabhupada is wrong, we do not originate with Krishna in His leela or sport, and he got Kundali, Uttama Sloka and others to join his attack on the acharya. Whereas Srila Prabhupada says that his God brothers did not agree with this because they are TINGED WITH MAYAVADA. Why are we associating with these mayavadas? Anyway, this is good news, ISKCON is going ritvik, we are winning either direct, de facto, front door, side door, back door, through the hole in the roof, etc. Hee hee! ys pd