From Sampradaya Sun;
See the Difference
BY: APRAKRITA DASA
Oct 24, 2010 — MONTREAL, ONTARIO, CANADA (SUN) —
HH Gour Govinda Swami, ‘Q&A', The Worship of Sri Guru, Chapter 3:
"One has to hear. It is not that, "All right, tapes are there, I'll hear the recorded tapes." sabda-brahma will never descend. […] You should be greedy. Physical contact is required. You must hear directly, not just by listening to tapes. Sabda-brahma will never descend through a tape. One must hear from a physically present Sri Guru."
Srila Prabhupada Letter, November 13th, 1975:
"The potency of transcendental sound is never minimised because the vibrator is apparently absent." [Srimad-Bhagavatam, 2.9.8, purport] "You should have a fire sacrifice and the second initiates should hear through the right ear the mantra on my recorded tape."
He Reasons Ill....
Regarding Aprakita prabhu's submission:
From Caitanya Caritamrta, Madhya lila 22.53-55 (Verse 53 is from SB 7.5.32): "'Unless human society accepts the dust of the lotus feet of great mahatmas - devotees who have nothing to do with material possessions - mankind cannot turn its attention to the lotus feet of Krsna. Those lotus feet vanquish all the unwanted, miserable conditions of material life.' The verdict of all revealed scriptures is that by even a moment's association with a pure devotee, one can attain all success. 'The value of a moment's association with a devotee of the Lord cannot be compared even to the attainment of the heavenly planets or liberation from matter, and what to speak of worldly benedictions in the form of material prosperity, which is for those who are meant for death'." (Verse 55 is from SB 1.18.13)
I'm sure if we were to ask devotees which they would choose - to be in a room with Srila Prabhupada present whether Srila Prabhupada was either speaking or not speaking, as opposed to being in a room (either alone, or together with other devotees) to hear a tape of Srila Prabhupada's speaking - all of the devotees would choose the first. (Just on the side, I would much have preferred to have my Guru Maharaj, His Divine Grace, Srila Prabhupada, personally give me the Gayatri Mantra; allowing me to sit close to Him, His showing me with His Own very Lotus Fingers, how to count, and with His Lotus Mouth, speaking the words directly to me, possibly even allowing me to ask Him a, or some questions, either with relation to the Gayatri Mantra, or some other question(s). (I would much have preferred this, then hearing the Gayatri Mantra from a tape, my TP showing me how to count on my fingers.) What an opportunity, to be able to be in the physical presence to hear the pure devotee speak, and to be able to see His transcendental activities. (Devotees know how they would even "swoon" to see a hand gesture of His Divine Grace.)
How many of us have heard from other devotees their recitation of Srila Prabhupada's lila, which, (I believe) for so many more (if not all) of us has more impact (is more "closer to home") than hearing the pastimes of Srimad Bhagavatam. The pure devotee is explained to be the person Bhagavat - the living Bhagavatam, the pure representative of the spiritual world; the pure representative of Krsna Himself. This applies to all pure devotees.
Although so many of us have not had personal association with Srila Prabhupada, in terms of being in His manifest "physical" presence, and have had Srila Prabhupada's association through His books and tapes, the presence of Srila Prabhupada and other pure devotees is manifested through Their love. It is this love which pierces and cuts through the layers of Maya, enters into and affects our hearts, thus enabling the change of heart. It is not simply a matter of spoken or written words, but the (pure spiritually-based - descending from Goloka Vrndavan -loving) consciousness behind those words which affects our hearts. Thus the potency of those words is due to the love emanating from the pure devotee who has spoken/written such words.
Every word and gesture of Srila Prabhupada had such a deep effect on the hearts of those who were aspiring with hopes to become devotees. Srila Prabhupada Himself said that the vapuh was there so that we would accept the vani. At the same time, we all have at least some understanding of the value of the vapuh.
I'm fully convinced that Srila Gaur Govinda Maharaj was a pure devotee, who had proper and complete understanding of the value of both vapuh and vani, and the impact of both; thus, his speaking what he said, which you quoted. At times various devotees (even some of the ISKCON gurus, GBCs and sannyasis), quote something Srila Prabhupada said, such devotees adding on, "Srila Prabhupada was wrong."
When I hear something Srila Prabhupada said/wrote, at which my mind poses a question, I simply accept the understanding that what was expressed by Srila Prabhupada was "beyond my perview," that I'm simply just not understanding properly because I have not reached that level of intelligence and/or realization to be able to understand.
Srila Prabhupada gave the example, "When the Guru tells the disciple the rope is a snake, the disciple sees it as a snake, and immediately the Guru tells the disciple that the snake is a rope, the disciple sees it as a rope." (This is not to say that we are to be blind (and stupid) foolowers, but rather that in accepting a bona fide Guru, we are accepting and acknowledging both His position and ours.)
Srila Gaur Govinda Maharaj certainly knew what he was saying when he said what you quoted, "One has to hear. It is not that, "All right, tapes are there, I'll hear the recorded tapes. sabda-brahma will never descend. […] You should be greedy. Physical contact is required. You must hear directly, not just by listening to tapes. Sabda-brahma will never descend through a tape. One must hear from a physically present Sri Guru."
How many of us cry over our misfortune that we did not receive any, or more of Srila prabhupada's vapuh, and still cry for the fact that Srila Prabhupada is not still with us through His vapuh?, (some of us also crying for the fact that there were other pure devotees with whom we were not able to have their vapuh).
Certainly we know Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's verse, "He reasons ill that Vaisnavas die while living still in sound. The Vaisnava dies to live, and living, spreads the Holy Name around," yet even the pure devotees cry in separation from those pure devotees with whom they have have such personal association. At one point Srila Raghunath das Goswami, after the departure of Svarup Damodar (who left after Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's departure), was going to jump from Giriraj Govardhana in separation, yet Sanatan and Rupa Goswamis convinced him to not do so. Thus, we can have at least some understanding of the value of the vapuh of such pure personalities who have come to bestow their mercy upon us.
Your servant,
B. Radha Govinda Swami
Hare KRSNA
Replies
Dear Aprakrita maharajah; Pamdo.
Prabhu and old friend, In your frenzy to protect the legacy of Srila Prabhupada, you build a case against Srila Gour Govinda Swami, who was very dear to Srila Prabhupada. This is like smiling to the master, then kicking his nephew !
Gour Govinda Thakura never supported any bogus teachings. In fact, the bogus GBC's were very ill-disposed towards him for exposing their cheating, that's a fact. Gour Govinda is a pure sannyasi, never even came within an inch of deviating from his vows or purity of character, except inasmuch as he had to associate with nonsenses in ISKCON in his service to our spiritual master's society. This required purity.
Those who associated with Gour Govinda witnessed his miracles following Prabhupada's footsteps. There is no question of the purity of his birth and activities throughout his too short life with us.
A pure devotee is never to be criticized, as even if he is wrong on some point, Krsna accepts him as right. I lived in close association for some time with Gour Govinda in 1977-1979, and I can say that not once ever did he waste a moment or fail to control his every senses totally in Krsna's service. Never.
Why are you so surprised that the Jagad-guru Srila Prabhupada has extended supreme mercy, and that the pure Vaisnava devotee Gour Govinda Swami is providing tradtional scriptural understandings? Srila Prabhupada is a big city jet-set world wide preacher, while Gour Govinda Swami is of a much simpler rural traditional Vaisnava Orissan culture, and he was presenting sastric tradtition. We Western disciples of Srila Prabhupada are simply blessed by Prabhupada's innovative special mercy, otherwise unheard of in the three worlds. Srila Prabhupada is doing something quite unique.
Anyway, the vehemence against this purest Vaisnava and his wonderul disciples, who are also exemplary servants of Srila Prabhupada, is not helpful, and so you may be wiseand thoughtful to consider ceasing these unnecessary attacks. Millions of Vaisnava admirers of Gour Govinda Swami in Orissa and around the world disagree 100% with your opinions in this regards.
Your friend, pamho.
BY: ROCANA DASA
Oct 26, 2010 — CANADA (SUN) — I would like to respond to the recent article by Tamohara dasa Vanaprastha, entitled "Traditional Scriptural Understandings", written in response to Aprakrita prabhu's submission, "See the Difference". Both of these devotees are friends and Canadians I've served with in the past.
In his article, Tamohara dasa has made various comments to Aprakrita dasa that I feel are uncalled for, and I take them somewhat personally on Aprakrita's behalf. Aprakrita dasa was simply speaking for himself, offering a single point of comparison in quotations from Gour Govinda Swami and Srila Prabhupada. It can hardly be said that he was 'building a case against' HH Gour Govinda Swami. We appreciate that Aprakrita dasa pointed out to us one of the many things Gour Govinda Swami has said that cause one to question his understanding of Srila Prabhupada, and how closely aligned he was with Prabhupada. Aprakrita dasa had every right to highlight this seeming contradiction.
Of course, Tamohara dasa does not address the contradiction itself in any way. Instead, he wants us to know that he is a very firm follower of Gour Govinda's and that he had a few years of association with him, back in the 70's. That's all well and good, but the fact is that prior to Gour Govinda Swami's departure, he was a very controversial figure in ISKCON. He had polarized, to a certain degree, many of Srila Prabhupada's followers – those who appreciated and understood him to be what Tamohara dasa claims he is, and those who had doubts, and felt that he wasn't 100% inline with Srila Prabhupada. This includes the GBC at the time. Of course, the GBC men have sullied their own reputations and became an easy target for those who say they were wrong about Gour Govinda. In his article, Tamohara dasa admitted that the GBC were ill-disposed towards the Swami, and says it was because he was exposing their cheating. I would like Tamohara dasa to provide us with written proof that Gour Govinda "Thakur", as he calls him (he doesn't call Srila Prabhupada 'Thakur'), exposed their cheating. Tamohara dasa says it's a fact, so let us hear the actual facts.
From Tamohara dasa's perspective, Gour Govinda Swami is a pure devotee and he never deviated one inch. That's his personal perspective and he's welcome to it, but it's not the perspective of everyone. I have written a number of articles on this subject in the past, including "Searching for Sadhu? Danger Ahead", which was part of a back-and-forth debate with another of Gour Govinda's followers. I had questions back then, and I still have questions today.
I have recently been challenging Madhavananda das, one of Gour Govinda Swami's most active supporters today, on his comments in a series of articles and lectures he produced regarding the Swami's teachings and the subject of Putana and false gurus. In that discussion, I've mentioned some of the points elaborated on in today's article. Madhavananda has also been active in his Facebook blog, wherein he supports the various ideas Gour Govinda left us with. One of these is the idea that there are always pure devotees, and if you're pure enough yourself, if you're sincere enough, then Krsna will lead you to them. Gour Govinda Swami made it abundantly clear that he was such a pure devotee living guru, a pure representative of Srila Prabhupada and the Sampradaya. He also made it clear that Srila Prabhupada's followers and disciples could go to him for siksa, and he encouraged those who were discouraged or upset by the leaders to come to him for shelter and instruction.
Gour Govinda Swami was promoting himself as a bona fide Spiritual Master -- someone you could take diksa from. And this, of course, is what Madhavananda das has done, after being cheated by the Zonal Acarya, Rameswar. Tamohara dasa seems to have taken the same course. He states that he took siksa from Gour Govinda for two years, although at the present time he considers himself to be a dedicated Rtvik adherent. That appears to be quite a contradiction, however. On one hand, Tamohara is claiming that he supports Gour Govinda Swami, which means that according to him, Gour Govinda is a bona fide diksa guru. Yet according to the Rtvik philosophy, there are no bona fide diksas in ISKCON that one could or should take shelter of after Srila Prabhupada's departure. And if Tamohara dasa, like most other Rtviks, believes that all ISKCON diksa gurus are unbonafide because Srila Prabhupada never gave them a direct order to be diksa, than the question arises – what makes Gour Govinda Swami different?
We have studied the website about Gour Govinda Swami provided by Madhavananda das, and find a number of interesting articles there. In at least two of these, Gour Govinda states that "everything is in Srila Prabhupada's books". This statement is found in the preface to Gour Govinda's 'Mathura Meets Vrindavan', and also in 'Prabhupada's Mission'. While the basic statement is certainly agreeable, that 'everything is in Srila Prabhupada's books', what causes me serious concern are some of the other statements made in these articles, such as the following qualifier:
"Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada said, "Everything is in my books." He has given everything, but it is in seed form. He has only given a hint. Now you have to dive deeper and deeper, to the deepest region, then you will collect the invaluable gems that are there."
While Gour Govinda Maharaja is specific in saying that Srila Prabhupada has only given everything in 'seed form', he is not so specific in saying just where all the invaluable gems are. Where is that deepest region? Is it also in Srila Prabhupada's book? Or must it be found elsewhere, to be discovered under the direction of someone like Gour Govinda? And now that Gour Govinda has departed, what is the position? Must we now hear from Madhavananda das, his prominent disciple? Is Madhavananda now the only one who can decode Srila Prabhupada's hints, leading us to the deeper regions that Srila Prabhupada didn't lead us to? Or perhaps another of Gour Govinda's senior disciples?
Over the last few decades we've all experienced the expertise of Indian preachers, and how they can say things in such a way that it can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the personal position of the listener and their relationship with the speaker. This was evident with B.R. Sridhar Maharaja, with B.V. Narayana, and here we find it with Gour Govinda Swami. The underlying message that I get from this paragraphs is, 'you have to go through me'. You have to become my disciple, either siksa or diksa, to understand what Srila Prabhupada was 'hinting' at. Only I can lead you to the deepest regions, lead you down the path. This is a familiar message – we have heard B.V. Narayana preach like this for years. Of course, Srila Prabhupada never stated this to be a fact, and I personally disagree with it.
Gour Govinda Swami goes on to say that Srila Prabhupada's purports are 'unique':
"Prabhupada's purports need explanation. The Bhaktivedanta purports are unique."
Again, we do not agree with this characterization. "Unique" is not a word that applies to Srila Prabhupada's purports because, as Srila Prabhupada has stated innumerable times, he is simply repeating what the previous Acaryas have already stated. Srila Prabhupada has repeated without changing, stating the Truth in a clear form. That does not make his purports "unique", but just the opposite. Sri Krsna is speaking through Srila Prabhupada, he's speaking on behalf of the Sampradaya Acaryas, making it very, very clear what is our philosophy. But Gour Govinda Swami actually disagrees with this:
"This vaisnava philosophy is very difficult because it has its own specific language. But Srila Prabhupada, our revered spiritual master, was an especially empowered person, and he explained it in the English language. Many times the English language has no words to properly convey the meanings. In this purport Prabhupada tried his best to translate the ideas into English, but sometimes he just used the original Sanskrit words because you cannot find the English equivalent."
So according to Gour Govinda Swami, these ideas can only be properly expressed in the original texts they were written in, whether it's classical Bengali for the Caitanya-caritamrta and many writings of the Goswamis, or the Sanskrit. Gour Govinda Swami not only hints, but gives the reader the clear impression that he's a person who can understand all these things: Bengali, Sanskrit, English – and all the secret codes that Srila Prabhupada has introduced and hinted at, but did not explain. This is total nonsense.
In the article entitled "Prabhupada's Mission", comprised of excerpts from chapters 12 and 13 of Gour Govinda's 'My Revered Spiritual Master', he expands upon what he's stated in the preface to 'Mathura Meets Vrindavan". He says that in the West, we're all just mlecchas and yavanas – a statement that always sets off warning bells in my head. Yes, it's true, but it's also true that throughout the whole planet, even in India, most people are mlecchas and yavanas in this age. And it's our philosophy -- Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's philosophy -- that anyone can become a Vaisnava, anyone can become a brahmana, anyone can become a pure devotee regardless of their background. Srila Prabhupada has stated this many times in his lectures, pointing to his western disciples as proof positive that it is a fact. That is part of our philosophy. But here, Gour Govinda Swami makes it sound like the western people cannot understand the advanced teachings of Mahaprabhu, especially Caitanya-caritamrta, even though interestingly enough, one of the first books Srila Prabhupada published after coming west was the Teachings of Lord Caitanya.
In 'Prabhupada's Mission', Gour Govinda Swami talks about Lord Buddha being an incarnation, but one Who was preaching against the Vedas. The reason he includes a mention of the Buddha incarnation is because he's equating Srila Prabhupada to Lord Buddha. According to him (under the heading 'Work of an Acarya'), Srila Prabhupada can also be likened to Shankaracarya. It's right there for everyone to read:
"Similarly, you cannot understand why Prabhupada said what he did. Tat-kalika, at that time it was needed. But not for all time. He was laying the foundation. Before building a mansion, you should lay the foundation, and the foundation should be very strong. Then you will be able to build a big mansion, skyscraper. If the foundation is not strong the skyscraper will collapse. Prabhupada laid the foundation. Then he left if for you: "Now you build a mansion." That time has now come. Don't stay in the foundation only."
This is how Gour Govinda Swami is referring to Srila Prabhupada – that Srila Prabhupada's teachings are not for all time, he was just 'laying the foundation', and that foundation is not a place where you can reside, until returning home, Back to Godhead. That what Srila Prabhupada said is hard to understand – in fact, "you cannot understand".
He goes on to make it very clear that he is comparing Srila Prabhupada to Shankaracarya, even though Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu forbade us to associate with Mayavadis. In this article, Gour Govinda Swami says that Mahaprabhu stated that Shankaracarya helped us, and he's therefore an Acarya, but at the same time he forbade us to hear his philosophy. And in this context, he is likening Srila Prabhupada to Shankaracarya. He is essentially saying that Srila Prabhupada only gave us the foundation, but even so, we consider him Acarya, just like Shankaracarya.
He goes on to talk about fools who criticize, i.e., fools who are criticizing Srila Prabhupada, namely Prabhupada's godbrothers and other swamis like himself who are Indian by birth and consider themselves more advanced than us due to having a more pious birth and upbringing. So he says that Srila Prabhupada did what was needed at the time. In other words, he preached and wrote and presented his books according to time, place and circumstance, just to lay a foundation.
One of Gour Govinda Swami's main themes is that you shouldn't leave ISKCON, no matter what. This is regardless of the fact that ISKCON was based on Srila Prabhupada's teachings, which according to the Swami were just foundational… they weren't the complete understanding of Vaisnava philosophy. But if you leave ISKCON you're definitely going to hell. Of course, he doesn't clarify what that means, 'leaving ISKCON'. Does it mean leaving the existing ISKCON, which was established based on Srila Prabhupada's teachings even though, as he himself admits, the leaders have deviated from those teachings and the teachings of the previous Acaryas? He goes on to denigrate such persons, saying:
"Prabhupada was teaching Westerners, mlecchas and yavanas, eating beef and drinking liquor. They were hippies – mad fellows taking strong drugs, LSD, and marijuana. What they can understand of this philosophy? He did what was needed for them at that particular time. He did a great job and brought us to the path. Otherwise so many persons would not have come here. But now the time has come to understand this philosophy."
Of course, at the time he was speaking this, many of us had been closely following the principles and not doing all these things, eating beef and taking drugs. We were serving and following Srila Prabhupada, so we had stopped doing those things, and followed the Sampradaya Acarya, assisting in his mission. But we still can't understand the philosophy? That doesn't make any sense. In fact, that is NOT the philosophy.
Gour Govinda states that Prabhupada wrote his books only to be given to persons like mellechas and yavanas, but that's not true either. Srila Prabhupada said he wrote these books for his disciples, and for all those who are sincerely seeking the Truth. He didn't write the Teachings of Lord Caitanya or the Nectar of Devotion for drug-taking meat eaters. What to speak of the fact that in the Caitanya-caritamrta it's stated very clearly that Lord Caitanya opened the floodgates of love of God and distributed it indiscriminately to everyone. So it may be a fact that many of the books Srila Prabhupada wrote and we distributed went to people in the lowly category Gour Govinda emphasizes, but still many sincere followers took up the instructions. Gour Govinda's remarks in this regard are very reminiscent of what we've heard over the years from B.V. Narayana.
Gour Govinda Swami says that Srila Prabhupada 'did a great job, and brought us to the path'. Reading this statement, you might think Srila Prabhupada wasn't on the path himself, or his teaching just brought us to the path, but could go no further. Then he says, "But now it is time to understand the philosophy." So it wasn't time for that before, while Srila Prabhupada was in his manifest lila? Or after his departure, as people read his books?
When you carefully read what Gour Govinda has written in these articles, you can see very clearly why the leaders at the time, including myself as I recall, had a hard time understanding what Gour Govinda Swami was actually preaching. He was essentially saying, if you feel disturbed or you can't get shelter in ISKCON, you can come take siksa from me. In fact, he says that right in this article:
"Don't leave ISKCON. Take siksa from me if you have some doubts. I am prepared to clarify them. But don't leave ISKCON."
Responding to our remarks on these many statements of Gour Govinda's, I know his supporters are going to say well, English is his second language, and certain things are lost in translation, they can be easily misinterpreted, etc., etc. Again reminiscent of the apologists from B.V. Narayana's camp. But these statements are not easy to misinterpret. They are consistent. They are repeated. The followers of Gour Govinda Swami at the time did not challenge them. And to this very day, the GBC have decided not to challenge what Gour Govinda has written. They have given institutional approval to Madhavananda das and the Bhubaneswar chapter of ISKCON, which is loyally following Gour Govinda Swami's version of Srila Prabhupada's teachings. As I've stated in my articles on the Putana issue, Madhavananda das is not even subtle in saying that he disagrees with some of the ISKCON leaders. He doesn't consider them bona fide followers, but false gurus. But Madhavananda appears to be getting little or no pushback from the leaders.
So there are many big questions to be answered about the preaching of Gour Govinda Swami. I challenge Tamohara dasa and Madhavananda das, and any of those who have a strong feeling of dedication and support for Gour Govinda Swami to clarify these points for the edification of all our Sun readers. Please explain these things, so we can all benefit from understanding the statements made by Gour Govinda Swami. But while you're at it, I suggest you not depict Srila Prabhupada as a "jet set worldwide preacher", as Gour Govinda Swami has. 'Big city jet set worldwide preacher' is not a term I would use on any occasion to describe Srila Prabhupada. In fact, someone reading this comment might conclude that Gour Govinda Swami was more in line with Vaisnava tradition than Srila Prabhupada himself.
We're getting more than just confusing messages from Gour Govinda Swami, Madhavananda das, and now Tamohara dasa. But rather than give us all these sentimental platitudes and personal opinions about how advanced Gour Govinda Swami was, we suggest that his followers simply clarify his comments for us, in writing and with citations, so we can clear up some of the main reasons why myself, Aprakrita dasa and many others have doubts and questions about who Gour Govinda Swami really is.
I never said I am any big big authority in this regards, or in any regards. All of us either grow or choose to remain stultified in a cage of temporary designs. Rocana; you do not have access to the long history of Aprakrita and others going out of their way to attack Gour Govinda Swami in other venues, and our interactions involved over a long time, so kindly note that jumping in, you are not only mistaken, but you are socially rude. Neither do you know persoanly anything about Gour Govinda except your second hand re-works. I am very proud to have served a pure devotee, any pure devotee. But you seem to take this as a character flaw, that I defend Gour Govinda, or any pure or innocent Vaisnava, from attacks by the envious persons, such as the hard ritviks, like I am on an ego trip? Those who acccuse are often revealing their own mentalities. for example, there is no question but that Srila Prabhupada is a jet setting jagad guru. He himself repeatedly mentioned how he travelled all over the world and brought Krsna consciousness to the modern world, used tape recorders etc. You want to make this an insult?? That is a perverted fault-finding mentality.
Also, don't you know that Lord Krsna is very pleased when his devotees are glorified? You seem to have a problem with that, Rocana. You suggest I do not honor Srila Prabhupada, but honor Gour Govinda Swami more?? Haha! Now THAT is out and out abusive and intentional aparadha if ever I heard any! Wow! You must really be hard up to try to do my reputation damage! That is a good sign for the strength of what I said, that my words and glorification of the devotees is annoying you so much you have to stoop to this. This is out and out character assassination, and I demand an apology. Thats just plain insulting and ridiculous, frankly, and it is going out of your way to offend. This is rascaldom of the nth. degree, admit it. This is a cheap attack revealing you have no substance except your acid imaginary words. I am not overly worried, and frankly don't give much of a darn, as the devotees know me better than to accept this lie as even remotely possible.
You keep trying to paint a diversity of devotees into corners by labelling them "ritivik", then defining what that is, like you are the final authority in these matters. This seems to be your general strategy; make up the rules, pretend you are the authority by dint of volume, then slam any body that does not match your own set of doctrines. This is called laziness and cheating. You are not the world's dictionary, and you are mistaken in labelling me in this way, I tell you straight, If you actually read my materials or visit my current website, https://puredevoteeseva.ning.com/, you would know that what you are blathering about is not correct. Kindly cease this false labelling and then abusing, it is a straw man argument and has become too typical of your site. You are destroying your own relevance by obviously false accusations.
I am sorry that what was intended to be a conversation has, as usual, been purposefully turned into an insult match and word jugglery extavaganza on your part, whereas frankly my intent was simple and pure. Rather than encouraging reparte and solution, you favor insults and word jugglery arguments. I quit sampradaya sun due to all the prajalpa and abuse of others, and I see this has not changed much. In all, noting the overall mood and intent here, I offer my obeisances and well wishes, and depart less than satisfied with my so-called godbrothers' moods.
I shall not be responding further, as Rocana prabhu; you have simply placed words in people's mouths artificially and incorrectly, and I cannot be bothered to respond any further. My conversation with Aprakrita has been hijacked. You don't have the guts to print this.
BY: APRAKRITA DASA
Oct 26, 2010 — MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA (SUN) — Hare Krishna. First, let me say that my main language is French, and my English is not so good. Sorry for the errors of grammar in this article. Second, why, Tamohara dasa Vanaprastha, did you call me ''maharaja'' in your article? I feel it's a mockery.
I have no doubt HH Gour Govinda Swami was dear to Srila Prabhupada, not deviating from his vows, and was controlling his senses. In my article, I just presented that what he was stating is completely different than what Srila Prabhupada said.
Like many thousands of disciples I am also a disciple of Prabhupada, and I don't accept this change coming from Him. I feel very disturbed about that. A disciple doesn't have to change anything coming from his spiritual master. If, like you said, he was presenting sastric tradition, why he changed what his spiritual master said? It's not a good example for his disciples. By this bad example they can do the same in the future, and in this way continue to change the sastras. It'll be very dangerous for many future generations. We all have to be very careful about that.
You wrote: "A pure devotee is never to be criticized, as even if he is wrong on some point.'' I don't know if HH Gour Govinda Swami was a pure devotee, but I have some doubts because Prabhupada said:
''Therefore a devotee of Lord Krsna is actually a perfect brahmana. His situation is transcendental, for he is free from the four defects of conditional life, which are the tendencies to commit mistakes, to be illusioned, to cheat and to possess imperfect senses. A perfect Vaisnava, or Krsna conscious person, is always in this transcendental position because he speaks according to Krsna and His representative. Because Vaisnavas speak exactly according to the tune of Krsna, whatever they say is free from these four defects.
(Srimad Bhagavatam 4.21.42 Purport - Instructions by Maharaja Prthu)
But here, we see that HH Gour Govinda Swami did make a mistake.
The main goal of what I posted on Sampradaya Sun was to show he was making a mistake. This mistake can badly influence others, especially his disciples.
I feel you are probably still angry with me because of the exchange we had together few months ago in an email thread when you were talking about LOVE, and I showed the comment you posted on YouTube. Your comment was: ''they prefer murderers and pedophiles for such an honor, likre the poisoner tamal, the rat murderer radhanatha, the chld abuser Bhavananda, etc ad nauseum.''
Your old friend, in his frenzy to protect the legacy of Srila Prabhupada,
Aprakrita dasa
Referring to http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/10-10/editorials6680.htm Srila Gour Govinda Swami's statement in regards to Srila Prabhupada's statement, is not a matter of a "mistake" (or a contradiction). Both Srila Prabhupada's and Srila Gour Govinda Swami's statements are correct. There is no contradiction in the two statements, (if we are seeing such), otherwise we may have to "find fault" with Sri Isopanisad's 5th mantra, "The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything," as well as some of the other appearingly "contradictory" Vedic mantras, i.e., Svetasvatara Upanisad's 3.19 mantra, apanipado javano grahita pasyaty acaksuh sa srnoty akarnah...: "The Supreme Lord has no hands and feet but He can accept whatever is offered to Him. Though He has no eyes, He sees. He has no ears but hears..."
Srila Gour Govinda Swami in his statement is stressing the benefit that is to be derived from hearing through personal association with elevated Vaisnavas. Even during Srila Prabhupada's "physically manifested" presence, Srila Prabhupada had His own disciples (even when not on such elevated level), give class, even in His presence, (meaning, that Srila Prabhupada was sitting there listening).
In regards to Srila Prabhupada's and Srila Gour Govinda Swami's statements, it's a matter of understanding what appears to be "the difference(s)," "the "contradiction." We know Srila Prabhupada is completely present in His full potency within His books and tapes, but how many of us are on that platform of spiritual advancement that we fully imbibe this? My understanding of Srila Gour Govinda Swami's statement is that taking into consideration the conditioned state of so many of us, due to our own lackings, we aren't all able to imbibe as complete a benefit reading from Srila Prabhupada's books/hearing from Srila Prabhupada's tapes as opposed to receiving Srila Prabhupada's personal association, and that of (truly) elevated - even pure - devotees, who by their purity, would be able to reinforce to us what Srila Prabhupada has written/spoken. (This should not be taken to mean that we stop reading and listening to Srila Prabhupada's books and tapes.) To reiterate, Srila Prabhupada is fully present with full potency in His tapes and books, but how many of us are imbibing this? (Proof of this is the fact that many of us have stopped our strict following of Srila Prabhupada's basic instructions, despite our reading Srila Prabhupada's books, and listening to Srila Prabhupada's tapes.)
To prove how in our own spiritual lacking we accept as "more tangible'" such personal association, let me give these examples: Srila Prabhupada in His murti is sitting in the temple room on the Vyasasana, yet we know that many of us would be exhibiting a difference in our behavior (and, for some, dress), if (in our understanding), Srila Prabhupada "was 'really' (sitting) there." Another example: How many devotees break one or more of the four regulative principles with Srila Prabhupada's picture(s) and/or books/tapes present in a room where they are doing so? We know that if Srila Prabhupada were to be "physically present" in that room, they would not be doing such activities. Thus, in our lacking, it is we who relate differently to the physical presence of Krsna's representative(s). So this is one practical application of Srila Gour Govinda Swami's statement. (There are other applications.)
I'm sure at least most of us, if not all would agree that if we were given the opportunity of being in the physical presence of Srila Prabhupada even if Srila Prabhupada was not speaking, as opposed to hearing Srila Prabhupada speaking from a tape, or our reading from His books, without His being physically present, we would choose the first.
Thus, I find no contradiction in the two statements presented by Aprakrita prabhu in his http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/10-10/editorials6674.htm article.
Your servant,
B. Radha-Govinda
Hare Krsna
Having been subjected to having personal interaction with Jayadvaita Swami over the years, asking him about his changes to Srila Prabhupada's books, and seeing the various writings placed, it seems to me very likely that it's possible Dryadvaita Swami was envious that it was Hayagriva prabhu who was given the service of editing Srila Prabhupada's "Bhagavad-Gita As It Is" and not himself, thus Jayadvaita Swami's making his changes, including the drastic reduction, (then re-editing it, to make it more like the original), of the 2.1 verse: "Sanjaya said: Seeing Arjuna full of compassion and very sorrowful, his eyes brimming with tears, Madhusudana, Krsna, spoke the following words," to "Sanjaya said: Seeing Arjuna, his mind depressed, Madhusudana, Krsna, spoke the following words." (Dryadvaita Maharaj's edition makes it sound like Arjuna was a Prozac patient.) Krsna's pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada gives such a vivid discription of Arjuna's heart in this verse, and Jayadvaita totally reduced it to a dry "nothing" It should also be noted that Dryadvaita Swami at one point was seriously considering taking out the capitalization of all the pronouns in relation to Krsna from Srila Prabhupada's books. I had written to him my objections, at the time he was desireous of doing so).
It's one thing to change the word "warmth" from Srila Prabhupada's 13.6,7 purport, (which was obviously heard improperly from the person transcribing Srila Prabhupada's speaking on the dictaphone), to "form" - "Then there are the five objects of the senses: smell, taste, form, touch and sound. Now the aggregate of these twenty-four elements is called the field of activity." - but it's another thing to make some of the other (horrendous) changes that Jayadvaita Swami has made.
I'm sure devotees are also aware of the SB 1.5.11 verse, tad vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo
yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api namany anantasya yaso 'nkitani yat srnvanti gayanti grnanti sadhavah: Please note Srila Prabhupada's statements at bottom.)
Srila Prabhupada said that we Americans like to do things "bigger" and "better" than others. Thus, Jayadvaita in regards to that, wanted to do "more" than the Mayavadis, who step over the head of Guru. Jayadvaita wanted to step over (or on) the head of Guru and Krsna (by his desire to decapitalize all pronouns referring to Krsna and Srimati Radharani. All glories to our pundit, Dryadvaita, who has such disregard for our Guru Maharaj, and disregard for the devotees, who, even when posing with humility, questions regarding his decided book changes, get Dryadvaitas sharped-tongued, chastising answers, showing his feelings of "Who the hell are you to be asking me such questions...How dare you ask me, you insignificant worm..."
Thank you Jayavaita for your humility and fidelity to Srila Prabhupada, and your being an assistant to Kali's devices in helping to slap Srila Prabhupada in the face, along with your slapping so many serious followers of His Divine Grace.
In a room conversation in Jaipur, January 19, 1972, Srila Prabhupada spoke the following in regards to SB verse 1.5.11 ("That literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest."):
Srila Prabhupada: "These people or this revolution is meant for killing the sinful resultant actions of the people. This revolution. Janata agha, agha means resultant action of sinful life. Janata agha viplavah. Viplavah means revolution, this very word is used. Tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api. Such revolutionary literature, even they are not properly composed. Yasmin prati-slokam abaddham. Not according to the grammatical rules and other rhetorical rules, but the, I mean to say, thoughts and the effects of such revolutionary literature is required. Not the grammatical. The so-called rascals, they are concerned with the grammatical. But those who are actually worker, they are concerned with the thoughts. What is the thought is there? Therefore, it is said that tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api, namany anantasya yaso “nkitani yat.
If there is simply the attempt is there how to glorify the Supreme Lord, that is a fact. It doesn”t matter whether it is written in correct language or incorrect language, it doesn”t matter. If the whole thought is targeted to glorify the Supreme Lord, then namany anantasya yaso 'nkitani yat grnanti gayanti srnvanti sadhavah. Then those who are actually sadhu, even in spite of all these defects, because the only attempt is to glorify the Lord, then those who are sadhu, those who are devotee, they hear it. Srnvanti gayanti grnanti. Not only hear, they chant also the same thing. And not only chant, but grnanti, they apply in their actual life.
This is the Bhagavata sloka. Is it clear now? Yes. Tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo. If the thought is revolutionary for transcendental realization, even it is not properly composed from grammatical and literary point of view, because the attempt is there for glorifying the Supreme Lord, all devotees, all great sages, saintly persons, sadhavah, grnanti, they accept. Yes. Grnanti srnvanti, hear with attention, and gayanti, and chant also. This is the principle. The only center is whether it is meant for awakening God consciousness. That is the central point, not the language(?). But it does not mean that it should not be correctly written. Correctly or incorrectly, if it is spoken by realized soul, that is important. Srnvanti gayanti. Somehow or other, if the attempt is to glorify the Supreme Lord; otherwise, if the attempt is to kill the Supreme Lord… Just like Dr. Radhakrishnan, what is the value of such erudition? A rascal. That is called (Sanskrit), jugglery of words. It has no value."
Your servant,
B. Radha-Govinda
Hare Krsna