BY: TAMOHARADASA (ACBSP)
Mar 28, CANADA — Harakumara prabhu speaks correctly. Within Srila Prabhupada's pastimes, it is seen that he left the Gaudiya Matha in order to manifest his own preaching organization, ISKCON, thus to save the world. As disciples, his example for us all is foremost and must be considered definitive when we try to understand what is to be done, and what is not to be done.
Those who argue against his actions by saying where is the sastra, well what can we say? I, myself, will not be providing that today. I, for one, take his example as enough of sastra to suit the need. (As Harakumara Prabhu states, also, there is tradition of this enough.) Ultimately, though, the spiritual master's actions and example are enough. He knows that which you do not. Had one such knowledge, he would see that the guru acts in exact accordance with sastra, and in accordance with the highest levels of Mahaprabhu's mercy and will.
Either you accept Srila Prabhupada, or not. What he did, he did, and you follow or not. Either you are better than the uttama jagad guru, and can insert your own speculative understandings, or you accept his real and actual example without quibbling. He knows things that you haven't even dreamed existed yet.
There is no contradiction of sastra, neither are you in a position, if you are his follower, to judge him or override his orders. Full surrendered faith in guru is what is required. The example is there; if you are a diksa guru, then prove it, and go form your own organization, not piggy-back like a fly on the vyasasana of Srila Prabhupada's temples and devotees, taking his glory and his assets to use for your own purposes. It is common etiquette, even.
Hare Krsna.
To Whom It May Concern
BY: HARAKUMARA DASA
Mar 29, TORONTO, CANADA (SUN) — Sundry Responses in the Second Person Singular.
1. Mahavidya prabhu ["Quite Correct]:
Why do you say "the viewpoint [singular] held by Harakumara and Krsna das prabhus"? I don't much appreciate my person or views being lumped in with those of anyone else. Especially so since I never disputed the words spoken to you by Srila Prabhupada at his 1973 Vyasa-puja at Bhaktivedanta Manor; neither do I disagree with them. Krsna dasa is a separate individual with his own views. If you have a dispute with Krsna dasa over this instruction of 1973, or over anything he has written about you personally, then you may take up the issue with Krsna dasa. Why are you trying to drag me into it?
You write that Srila Prabhupada said "become a Spiritual master" and you mention that you did not ask [for whatever reason] "exactly what type of guru do you have in mind, Srila Prabhupada?" But aren't you interested in the answer to that important question? You state that Srila Prabhupada "did leave us with a vast legacy in His books, letters and lectures". So here is a part of that vast legacy from his lecture du jour (75/3/28, Mayapura---Everyone of You--Become Guru):
"The cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is that you become, every one of you, you become a guru. How to become guru? Now, yare dekha, tare kaha 'krsna'-upadesa [Cc. Madhya 7.128]. Simply that qualification is sufficient. Don't adulterate the 'krsna'-upadesa. You simply present what Krsna says as it is. Then every one of you will become a guru."
In other words, everyone will become a SIKSA-GURU, and when Srila Prabhupada talks about becoming guru generally, that is usually what he means. So why are you so obsessed with becoming a diksa-guru? [Since you are constantly talking about 'outside/inside' ISKCON, you mean diksa-guru, because one can be a siksa-guru anywhere at all.]
You write, "I have never read or heard of Srila Prabhupada telling any of his approximate 5,000 disciples to become a bona fide [diksa- (why are you constantly leaving that word out?)] spiritual master and then leave ISKCON." BUT, I have never read or heard of Srila Prabhupada telling any of his approximately 5,000 disciples to become a bona fide [diksa-] spiritual master and then stay inside ISKCON. And in December 1980, Tamal Krsna Gosvami stated that Srila Prabhupada never told anyone that. SO WHY AREN'T YOU MORE CONCERNED WITH THE LACK OF THAT SPECIFIC ORDER?
You have presented Srila Prabhupada's letter to Tusta Krsna Svami, but as shown that letter refers to being a diksa-guru OUTSIDE ISKCON. That is what Tusta Krsna wanted to be, and Srila Prabhupada's words in that letter are so clear that they speak for themselves. So the maxim that "if you become qualified [diksa-guru] you must leave ISKCON" is not "according to Harakumara prabhu"; it is according to Srila Prabhupada. What is the use of saying that you are "to listen to ... my own Spiritual Master" when you are not willing to accept the face value of what he wrote? The reality is that "Srila Prabhupada wanted anyone who became qualified [diksa-guru] to leave ISKCON", because that is the law of disciplic succession, as he stated in the letter. If a so-called diksa-guru does not leave ISKCON, then he is not qualified.
But what is your position? Do you want to be a diksa-guru inside the Matha of your "own Spiritual Master", ISKCON? If you do, then let me pose a few questions. Are you qualified in a spiritual sense? Are you krsna-tattva-vetta? Have you realized Krsna tattvatah, in truth? If so, then why are you unable or unwilling to follow the law of disciplic succession (like Srila Prabhupada did) by establishing your own matha outside ISKCON? Why do you want to become a so-called diksa-guru, to join the ranks of our illusioned and conditioned god-fellows, within the limited confines of ISKCON? Do you really want to become another one of them? Really, prabhu!
2. Gokulananda prabhu [Then the Business Is Nice]:
Prabhu, if you are experiencing an unwanted or unwonted feeling of tremulous trepidation, then I am here today to inform your precipitate imprudence that the fault is yours. Do you really expect that you can begin your essay with an attack on "the utter concocted nonsense written by Harakumara Dasa", then decline to show where and how in my article you cited, and then just walk away unscathed, without being called on it? Not around here, you can't. So if you are feeling some unwelcome heat, then you are free to review your options: you may want to stay out of the kitchen, or while you are in the kitchen, you may wish to avoid irresponsible lingual activity (i.e. mind your tongue). Responsible journalism means backing up what you write, specifically and explicitly, as well as answering the points that are raised.
[Speaking of journalism and citation, just by the way, it is interesting that the uncomfortable Gokulananda's citation of my previous article, "Gokulananda's Necktie Party was, contrary to the usual customary practice of the Editor, not hypertexted to enable the reader's instant access to rapid understanding of what the writers are discussing. I would not for a minute suspect that the Editor's close acquaintance with Gokulananda prabhu had anything to do with that. Perhaps it was just a long and tiring day for him. Perhaps he felt 'hot under the collar'. Perhaps he felt "compelled" to hide or bury something. Or, perhaps it was just ... The First Circle ... or ... O, well! ...]
[[Ed. Alas, the efforts of your Sun editors are oft-times flawed. We assure the worried Harakumara prabhu that friendly relations with Gokulananda did not bend our favour in the least.]]
Gokulananda prabhu, your quotation from Srila Prabhupada's lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 1.16.25 (75/1/21, Hawaii), which cites Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa (and is not much different in implication than the HBV verses that you previously quoted), does not solve your problem in resolving the issue because you are still left to explain how it is that Srila Prabhupada, who does not act contrary to Sastra, did not overtly do this with most of his disciples. It would be much better for you to "reject the mind's weak arguments".
3. Tamohara prabhu ["Fly or Sisya?]:
Thank-you, prabhu, for presenting to our understanding this slice of absolute truth (sri-guru-carane rati) in such a tasteful (and polite) fashion.
I hope that one and all are in good health and in buoyant Krsna conscious spirits.
To Whom it May Also Concern
BY: MAHAVIDYA DASA (ACBSP)
Mar 31, UK (SUN) —
Harakumara dasa has my unreserved apologies.
I should not lump him in with Krsna das.
Both of them are completely separate individuals.
However ...
Harakumara prabhu chooses to interpret the law of disciplic succession in his own way.
I read the same quotes from Srila Prabhupada differently.
I never wrote that instruction,
Srila Prabhupada did.
I simply repeated it.
I didn't say "the law of disciplic succession"
Srila Prabhupada did.
Neither did I write the purports to the Caitanya Caritamrta.
Srila Prabhupada did.
Harakumara prabhu is welcome to pick and choose whatever parts of Srila Prabhupada's legacy suit his agenda.
Srila Prabhupada wanted all his disciples to become qualified in every way.
I am assuming that instruction included Harakumara Prabhu, myself, and approx 5,000 other godbrothers and sisters.
When Srila Prabhupada says "bona fide guru" or "bona fide spiritual master", does that not include diksa guru?
Or…
does it just mean the parts that suit Harakumara prabhu?
It is easy to see how in the post-samadhi scenario proposed by Harakumara prabhu,
Harakumara prabhu may maintain a siksa guru status.
He may present himself as a spiritual master.
A guru.
However…
There is no need whatsoever for Harakumara prabhu to accept any ongoing responsibility for anyone.
Not one soul.
After all....
all that karma will be loaded onto Srila Prabhupada,
unlimitidly,
not Harakumara prabhu.
Many thanks Harakumara prabhu.
Remember,
according to Harakumara prabhu
they are Srila Prabhupada's disciples,
not Harakumara prabhu's disciples.
Harakumara prabhu may or may not instruct you,
should he be inclined.
but conveniently
for Harakumara prabhu,
he has no obligation to ever accept responsibility for you,
or for anyone.
No acceptance of karma for Harakumara prabhu.
Neither,
also very conveniently,
will any neophyte ever need to study Harakumara prabhu to evaluate him,
to decide if he is actually a bona-fide spiritual master.
Harakumara prabhu will remain simply a siksa guru, at best.
Of course, should any of Harakumara prabhu's approx 5,000 godbrothers or sisters become qualified in every sense as defined by Srila Prabhupada,
CC Madhya 8.128,
i.e., vartma-pradsaka, siksa guru and ...diksa guru,
Harakumara prabhu would have them leave ISKCON.
No doubt
Harakumara prabhu will be evaluating everyone and deciding
who is unqualified enough to stay in Harakumara prabhu's vision for ISKCON.
To Fly or Not To Fly
BY: MAHAVIDYA DASA (ACBSP)
Mar 30, UK (SUN) —
An interesting article from Tamohara Prabhu, "Fly or Sisya?"
If I may comment.
By fly, I am assuming (I am hoping) he is referring
to non bona-fide "gurus" sitting on the Vyasasana.
Who would disagree with him? Certainly not I.
Looking through Siksamrta, it is easy to see Srila Prabhupada
gives the same instruction on many different occasions.
He very clearly warns against prematurely taking disciples.
He very clearly warns against being "artificial".
About being "bogus".
Clearly,
we have many negative experiences to justify these statements.
However…
Srila Prabhupada had/has approximately 5,000 disciples.
Not 11 or even 80.
No doubt Tamohara prabhu has evaluated each and everyone
of Srila Prabhupada's disciples before reaching his conclusions
as to who or who doesn't
qualifies as a bug.
One would assume he is prepared to discriminate.
Of course,
Tamohara prabhu himself will not fall into the category of an insect.
Should, however,
even one of Srila Prabhupada's disciples (out of the approximately 5,000)
be/become a bona fide spiritual master,
and dare to sit on a vyasasana in one of Srila Prabhupada's temples,
(although perhaps not authorised by Tamohara das)
then,
is he or she still to be considered a "Fly"?
Will Tamohara prabhu be deciding if prabhu is or is not a bug ?
Crucially...
What criteria will Tamohara prabhu be using?
The argument has been raised that Srila Prabhupada set an example
by leaving the Gaudiya Matha to conduct His own mission.
But…
Why was that?
Why did Srila Prabhupada leave the Gaudiya Matha?
Because
it was just running so nicely?
Everyone was co-operating to the max?
After reading Srila Prabhupada's letters in Siksamrta,
may I suggest
He wanted His ISKCON to be much much more.
He wanted His disciples to become qualified and
co-operate.
Even when Srila Prabhupada came to the west,
His Godbrothers did very little to help.
The history is there,
read it in Siksamrta.
Read it in Srila Prabhupada's own letters.
Now we are being told...
Should you become as qualified, as Srila Prabhupada wanted,
you must leave ISKCON and start your own society.
you must...
Prove you are qualified by leaving ISKCON.
Prove your love and dedication for your Spiritual Master by going elsewhere.
Have not we heard this conception elsewhere?
Why not prove our qualification by making ISKCON a success?
One would think
on such an important issue Srila Prabhupada would give
clear, definitive, explicit instruction.
"Become a bona fide guru then leave."
"Prove your love for me by leaving ISKCON."
As yet, I have never read or heard Srila Prabhupada do so.
The Fly in Waiting
BY: HARAKUMARA DASA
Mar 31, TORONTO, CANADA (SUN) — Another interesting (but not disinterested) 'just don't get it' article has been forthcoming from the more than six active fingers of Mahavidya prabhu. It is a small mystery why he entitles his latest unprogressive excursion "To Fly or Not To Fly when it is becoming increasingly evident to all literate pedestrians who verbally journey on a daily basis inside this site that he would just love to fly, over it all. Usually, persons in the global hamlet who exercise existential dilemmas of dual wings do end up, flying. Jumping out of the mire of doubtful duality, they eventually aver that to fly is better than not to fly, and so they fall to the fly side, because it's fly season. And why not? There's much more than mire just around the corner.
Not merely one to take things lying down, like a stick on the ground, the non-pedestrian Mahavidya, as it seems, wants to become a Prabhu of a different order, a higher gen(i)us, a better sort within the court-yard of ISKCON, the better for him to "co-operate" in a two-tier realm where co-operation has all but flown away. Mahavidya wants to have ISKCON sticks of his own, the better to sort them out. He wants to fly on an on-going luft-hansa vacation, all expenses paid, from seat to seat, urbi et orbi, in an orbit where the golden sun never sets over the lowly prostrate earth. (Ah, that last snare of Maya...)
Supernal lights, in the ISKCON heights;
Eight miles high, better to FLY;
Soar away, ever to praey---
What a bloke, before the CROAK.
But in the forceful course of antediluvian maha-amphibian time, what goes up must soon go down (Bg 9.21) the croaker fly-trap. Feeling some non-participatory compassion toward flies which rush into mouths of blazing fire (Bg 5.29; 11.29), and not one to be shy about throwing out any cracked crock (round about which flies love to gather), "if I may comment".
1. Mahavidya, by his line of questioning, seems to be unaware that the Dipterian Ascription does not originate with Tamohara prabhu, but with Srila Prabhupada. It is his "Fly on the Lap of the King" metaphor. As such, any venerated 'diksa-guru' who rises "to sit on a vyasasana in one of Srila Prabhupada's temples" is certainly a Fly (not a bug), on the Lap of the King. The polite Tamohara has actually euphemized the metaphor to a fly "on the vyasasana". So, where's the gratitude? (What's the buzz? Are there Venus fly-traps in Srila Prabhupada's temples?)
[Whither and wherefor are the Flies on the Lap of the King, Mahavidya?]
2. The hopeful Mahavidya states that he is assuming/hopeful that the truthful Tamohara is, by the aerial dipterian analogy, "referring to non bona-fide "gurus" sitting on the Vyasasana". In such a case, he says, he would agree, provided good discrimination (often in overly short supply) would apply, because Srila Prabhupada insisted on becoming qualified. But then he plops a whopper, sure to please any dipterian regime, by rhetorically hypothesizing "Should, however, even one of Srila Prabhupada's disciples ... be/become a bona fide [diksa-] spiritual master, and dare to sit on a vyasasana in one of Srila Prabhupada's temples, ... then is he or she still to be considered a "Fly"?" For flies seeking grounds for their behavior, this fresh approach is sure to be attractive, but any brahmana with his wits about him would not go there. If the disciple were a bona fide diksa-guru, then he would be krsna-tattva-vetta, and so he would not "dare" to do anything, because he would be 100% surrendered to Krsna. Furthermore, he would not dare to do such a thing, usurping his Guru's vyasasana, but would follow the law of disciplic succession by establishing his own matha outside ISKCON, as all bona fide diksa-gurus do. Failing to do this is a stigmatum of disqualification, like a spot on a fly.
[What's in it for you, Mahavidya?]
3. The vagarious Mahavidya then proceeds at speed to blowback, by shooting himself in the foot. He slyly flies to minimize our Guru Srila Prabhupada's glorious achievement "by leaving the Gaudiya Matha to conduct His own mission" (mahajano yena gatah sa panthah) and tries to relativize the eternal law of disciplic succession (dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam) by implying that His Divine Grace established ISKCON only from accidental (historically circumstantial) causes. Srila Prabhupada is a bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapta-mahapurusa and a Sampradaya Acarya; all his actions are profoundly substantial, and in particular in regard to the law of disciplic succession. Fortunately for us, it is easy to see through Mahavidya's avidya when he implies that Srila Prabhupada left the Gaudiya Matha only due to its disintegration.
But is ISKCON "just running so nicely" with everyone "co-operating to the max"? (No?) Then, even if our Diksa-Guru left the Gaudiya Matha only for those reasons, why do the Flies on the Lap of the King not fly out of ISKCON to build their own mathas??? Why do these so-called diksa-gurus not follow our real Diksa-Guru's example in spreading Krsna consciousness "very widely"? Since Mahavidya has been complaining here for a long time about ISKCON, I am beginning to wonder whether his right-brain knows what his left-brain is doing. There is certainly no lateral thinking going on here.
[Take care, Mahavidya, and don't let the flies gather on that bandage.]
4. Or maybe there is only one side. Regarding the law of disciplic succession, as was clearly shown in my "Very Widely, Without Any Limitation", [[link, compliment of the Editors]] Srila Prabhupada referred to becoming diksa-guru outside ISKCON in his letter to Tusta Krsna, and the conditions he mentions in that letter can only be fulfilled outside ISKCON. So why is Mahavidya continuing to deny the evidence in such a refractorily irrational way? Why so one sided?
What about this: Srila Prabhupada never gave anyone an order to "become a bona fide [diksa-] guru then" STAY IN ISKCON, as confirmed by Tamala Krsna Gosvami (who should know). After all consideration, "one would think on such an important issue Srila Prabhupada would give clear, definitive, explicit instruction" (Mahavidya's words). So why is the partisan Mahavidya trying (flying) to discredit only the 'outside' version (which has support), when the 'inside' version has no support from Srila Prabhupada whatsoever? Is it that he wants to join the intra-ISKCON Dipterian Swarm? Does he want to become one of them? Is he a fly in waiting?
[Why are you apologizing for the Flies on the Lap of the King, Mahavidya?]
5. The rosy-eyed Mahavidya has written that Srila Prabhupada "wanted His disciples to ... co-operate". But how can there be any co-operation without unity? To become diksa-gurus inside ISKCON generates much disunity because it creates parallel lines of authority by dividing loyalty between the so-called diksa-gurus and other Social agents. It sets up two tiers of devotees within one matha: one gets good-as-God worship, the other is just a Dasa; one gets daksina donations, the other is not entitled to anything; one gets the red carpet treatment whenever he lands; the other had better not fall sick or fall to the land. ("Inside la Raza, everything; outside la Raza, nothing", is not a formula for social unity.) Then further disunity ensues from the competition among the many diksa-gurus. For all these reasons, co-operation is not possible. Unity, and the resulting desired co-operation, is only possible when there is only one rightful diksa-guru in ISKCON, the Founder-Acarya.
So the naive Mahavidya should not expect co-operation. Why should there be co-operation between a Brahminical Assembly on one hand and a Dipterian Swarm on the other? But if Mahavidya really craves to fly inside the matha, then he may take off to give it a buzz. After all, Lord Krsna never removes the small independence of any tiny living entity who flies off course. But the intelligent devotees, who know better than that, will not co-operate. The only way to co-operation in ISKCON is for the plague of Flies on the Lap of the King to fly out the window.
[Why, Mahavidya?]
Why, Lord? But, Hare Krsna.
Tamoharadasa;
Apr 1, '08— I beg to point out concerns noted in reading recent Sampradaya Sun articles, in particular Mahavidya's (mis)use of sastra and words invented then placed in others mouths.
Let us consider practical examples, as many persons seem to be bewildered by the plethora of out-of-context incompletely quoted sastra. They conveniently accept one part, and ignore others, even within the same sastric paragraph, except when it suits their prejudiced purposes. Perhaps they are hoping that the readers are naïve fish, enough to swallow their artificial bait. So, instead, let us stick to hard observable behaviors of the Acaryas.
Mahavidya implies that siksa guru is somehow less than diksa guru, yet our Gaurakisore das Babaji Maharaja associated almost exclusively with Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and our succession is counted as coming in this line, yet Thakura Bhaktivinoda is not Garuakisore Goswami's diksa guru. Siksa and diksa should not be counted as unequal in spiritual value. One who does may have been brainwashed and coerced by the exorbitant cult worship of some current ISKCON diksa gurus, and is thus now apasampradaya, in other words thinking like a sahajiya.
Witness the fate of the first eleven ISKCON gurus: at least 9 out of eleven fell, and fell very hard.. I myself would argue all eleven fell, if we count pro-homosex opinions and association with bombs and thugs. Now roughly one third have so far met similar fates, i.e., gone down the drain, out of roughly 150 of the latest batch of demigods. The practical example teaches that one should not be anxious to become a diksa-giving spiritual master unless instructed to do so by one's own spiritual master directly, and that one must have total siddha-deha, otherwise the karma catches one by the sikha, and pulls you down to hell.
We see in all Vaisnava sampradayas that there is one diksa guru at any given math.In our ISKCON we may have dozens, up to 150, (cheaper that way, apparently). The result is infighting, party politics, and discord, temples filled with neophytes. Our main priority in life, i.e., harinama sankirtana, is dismally slackened in the temples or even nonexistent, and worst of all and the cause of all wrong causes, Srila Prabhupada and his works are minimized.. The practical examples then show us that we cannot all be diksa gurus: too many cooks spoil the broth. One must be uttama adhikari of the fullest perfection, able to talk directly face to face with God Himself.
Besides, realistically, who is stupid or desirous enough to think that we are all to become diksa gurus, on Mahaprabhu's order, when the sastra and Srila Prabhupada warn us not to even take any disciples! What? I will give you diksa, you will give me, and we will all sit on the vyasasana together! Happy days! This is an offense to Mahaprabhu to misapply his teachings, and offer some imaginary impractical interpretation.
It is an offence to preach the glories of the Holy Name to faithless persons, and those who do not want to hear. We see that by preaching to those who do not want to hear the truth, that there is precious little gained, but insults and abuses only are forthcoming.
If they are defeated, they simply throw cheap insults and invent faults A good example of this is Mahavidya's recent unfortunate railing against his well-wisher, the eloquent and humorous Harakumara prabhu. This is a practical example of a Kali-yuga mentality to be avoided, and what not to do.
Hare Krsna
Hare Krsna
Comments