Dear folks, PAMMHO AGTSP
1) GBC TORTURES DEVOTEES UPDATE
2) ADRI SPEAKS ABOUT THE GAUDIYA MATHA
PADA EDITORIAL
We'd like you all to notice that some life members from Pune, India are now stating that the GBC are not merely thinking that they are minor small potatoes "Jagat-gurus," Krishna's dearmost associates, spiritual masters fit to be worshipped by all living beings in the universe, sum totals of the demigods, assistants to the gopis, etc., but they are so bold, violent and outrageous, that these GBC must think that they are GOD. Otherwise how could they act like they do?
Of course, we have been saying that their party are more like minor league perverts and gangsters. Gangsters always act bold, violent and outrageous, such as the recent tossing of Srila Prabhupada' murti into the trash by some GBC goonda's story (which we include in this issue). If they would throw his murti into the trash, would they not try to throw himself into the trash with poison? We think so.
Besides, if they were REALLY trying to play at being bogus incarnations of God, they would at least speak nicely and try to fool people, like so many other fraud incarnations have done etc. Violent gangsters on the other hand have no interest in, or patience for, "playing" at anything for any length of time. They simply want what they want and they want it now.
Anybody who gets in the way is at peril, even if it is a pure devotee. So they recently attacked some nice devotees in Pune India, and now the word is out there that some GBCs are rascal goons in the local community. This will happen more and more, as we have warned for years. There is a big fever just before death, and their violent mood could get worse before it gets better, so beware. This also is how the Gaudiya Matha guru imbroglio melted down, there were violent murders.
We are also very happy to see the stronger writings of Adridharana and the IRG of late. Very hard hitting material. It has been evident that the GBC are loose cannons. And in his latest writing Adridharana begins to address the GBC's "philosophy roots," i.e. their being in league with various deviants from the "Gaudiya Matha" with their 1978 and onward "philosophical advisors," Gaudiya Matha cheerleaders, backers, supporters, yes men, cohorts, "position paper" ghost writers and their overall mutualism of ideas. In point of fact, the 1978 GBC report, ghost written by Sridhara Maharaja, still stands as a valid GBC document.
It is also noteworthy that the saboteurs of the Gaudiya Matha in the 1930s, those who launched a violent homosexual guru and dissident murdering "guru cult" in that era, are still glorified by Narayana Maharaja as "acharyas" even now, despite that Srila Prabhupada said they are not acharyas but severe offenders. Narayana Maharaja also says that Bon Maharaja is his "Pujyapada," an acharya, and we all know that Bon is also accused of being a homosexual and exploiting his followers for sex, and Bon is also called an envious snake by the real acaryas.
So, both the GBC and Gaudiya Matha prop up the snakes, and even homosexual sector, as their idea of gurus. In short, the GBC and the Gaudiya Matha both endorsed the cult ritualistic worship of homosexual pedophiles as Krishna's "living" successors. Severe deviants, of which even the karmis do not even dream of doing: supporting the worship of homosexuals and pedophiles as good as God.
What is also very odd is that after Sridhara Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja both backed violent homosexual guru cults, if not dissident murdering cults, which were using violence for the purpose of supporting homosexuals and pedophiles being worshipped as good as God, and other criminal acts, their groups now say that our writing style is "attacking." Yet, it is their mad cult ideas which ended up causing attacks on people with molestation, physical violence, murder, etc. and they are complaining about mere strong language?
What about all these molestations, bannings, beatings, and murders their policies created? Srila Prabhupada said simply that the Gaudiya Matha deteriorated into violent schisms, homosexual pooja, and so on. Well known facts. And the creators of these violent schisms were folks like Sridhara Maharaja, and this is all related by Srila Prabhupada. All well known facts. Then Narayan Maharaja comes along and says that Sridhara Maharaja, founder of the vaishnava murderer's fanatical homosexual worship cult in the 1930s, is his idea of a pure devotee acharya?
Then VNN comes along and supports both Sridhara Maharaja and Narayan Maharaja, main architects of the "cult enforced worship of homosexual pedophiles" project(s): and both projects used murder of Vaishnavas as a tool of enforcement, yet VNN is alarmed by mere bad language. VNN supports the GBC's anal sex with children shiksa and diksa guru projects, as was clearly mixed by both of their "shiksa advisors," but if you protest, they complain about bad language? That is what the GBC does? That means that VNN endorses the cult ritualistic worship of homosexual pedophiles guru club's founders, backers, cheerleaders, etc. The GBC relied on both of these shiska advisors, now advertised on VNN, for years and we all know it. Violent perverts posing as God's successors camps are "nice," complaining is "not nice."
Anyway, we never sat homosexuals and pedophiles in Krishna's pure devotee's seat and forced children to worship such odious serpents, forcing them to face a concentration camp of horrors, like the GBC's "shiksha advisor's" policies created? And we are the aggressors? Not hardly. Nor did we support the worship of these serpents after the molestation and murder was well known, after 1986, the way that Narayana Maharaja has done.
He has supported violent criminal perverts in the name of pure devotees of Radharani no less, nikunja yuno siddha prabhus no less, de facto gopis no less. This is utter foolishness, and highly dangerous to boot. Whether he is guilty of absurdity or anarchy really does not matter for his victims, who were all banned, beaten, molested and murdered. The Gaudiya Matha advisors are fully implicated in supporting these corrupt regimes. Thanks Adridharana for bringing to light some of these points. PADA
Dear Prabhuji/Mataji, Please accept my most humble obeisances. Hare Krishna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada, the spiritual master of Hare Krishna movement. On 8th & 9th of this month (September 99). I was at pune (poona), Hare Krishna temple. This temple was a bungalow of one Parsi gentleman. He donated his bungalow to ISKCON for making a temple. The authorities of ISKCON directed one maharashtrian disciple of Srila Prabhupada, H.G. Krishna nam das brahmachari to develop a temple in the same bungalow.
Since Poona belongs to Maharashtra state, H.G. Krishna nam Prabhu who is familiar with the same place did wonderful job over there. Initially, the deities of Their Lordship Sri Gaur-Nitai were installed. H.G. Krishna nam Prabhu not only developed the temple but by his fantastic preaching made a large number of congregation devotees and life members in Poona. Later on , he installed the deities of Their Lordship Sri Sri Radha Kunjbihari in the same temple. H.G. Krishna nam Prabhu was the president of the same temple. Then, he gave the name of temple Sri Sri Radha Kunjbihiraji Mandir.
Now, I am going to relate to you few very shocking incidents happened over there. I was informed by H.G. Krishna nam prabhu & few life members from poona temple. Please note the following points.
1) H.H Gopal Krishna Goswami, H.H. Giriraj Swami, H.H. Shridhar Swami & H.H. Radhanath Swami--- all these G.B.C.s from mumbai went to poona temple to order H.G. Krishna nam prabhu TO THROW AWAY the deities of Their Lordship Sri Sri Radha Kunjbihariji from the temple because the deities were installed without the permission of these GBCs. From all the four H.H. Gopal Krishna goswami was the worst. The Life-member told me that they had to stick the deities at the altar with ARALDITE, a strong adhesive substance so that the GBCs cannot remove The Divine Couple from the same place.
When these GBCs failed to remove Their Lordship Sri Sri Radha Kunj Bihariji they became very upset. Out of frustration H.H. Gopal Krishna Goswami warned H.G. Krishna nam prabhu that he will take care of him in future. Indeed after sometime H.H. Gopal Krishna Goswami played very dirty politics with H.G. Krishna nam prabhu.
(2) From the above point it is crystal clear that the GBC not only occupied the post of Srila Prabhupada by becoming the diksha gurus, but they also think that they have become more than the Almighty God, Sri Krishna.
(3) Late on H.H. Gopalkrishna Goswami removed H.G. Krishna nam prabhu from the post of temple president. He place one disciple of H.H. Radhanath Swami as temple president over there. Many Life members opposed this. Now they don't come to the temple because of the same reason. H.H. Radhanath Swami & Mr. Mafatlal supported H.H. Gopal Krishna goswami in this dirty game. Now, the Poona temple is taken over by the mumbai chowpatty Temple devotees.
Still, H.G. Krishna nam prabhu resides in one small cottage in the same temple compound. Nobody from the temple gives him importance or serves him prasadam. He is staying with his old mother. He does Bhagavad Katha everywhere and practices as ayurvedic physician in the same cottage. Still many Life member and Congregation members comes to his cottage to respect him.
(4) One day, some devotees of Mumbai-chowpatty Temple who are now in poona temple went to break the lock of the house of H.G. Krishna nam Prabhu, when he was out of Poona for "Srimad Bhagatam Katha". Many Life Members opposed this illegal behavior of these devotees & protected the residence H.G. Krishna nam prabhu.
(5) Some devotees of Mumbai Chowpatty temple who are now in Poona temple brought the deity of Srila Prabhupada. This deity was old and not properly colored. It had a minor crack also. So, instead of getting the deity of Srila Prabhupada repaired or getting it immersed in water, they dumped the deity of Srila Prabhupada in DRY GARBAGE, behind the temple compound. These devotees don't have any respect for Srila Prabhupada. Atlast, one day H.G. Krishna nam prabhu miraculously found the deity of Srila Prabhupada in the same dry garbage. He got the deity repaired / colored. Now he has placed the same deity at his residence.
(6) H.G. Krishnanam Prabhu, behaves with all the devotees over there with proper Vaishnava etiquette, but they treat him like an untouchable person.
(7) Some devotees of mumbai chowpatty temple, who are now in Poona temple are harassing the Life-members who are supporting H.G. Krishnanam Prabhu. Some soft hearted life members have stopped coming to the temple. Others who are strong hearted come to the temple regularly for protecting & supporting H.G. Krishnanam Prabhu.
On the light of above I called the meeting of these active life members at the residence of H.G. Krishnanam Prabhu to take serious action against the spiritual criminals. I request you all my dearest IRG members/well wishers to do the needful in your own capacity. I am also the IRG member from Mumbai (Bombay) and I am trying my level best to rectify the same situation. H.G. Krishnanam prabhu is a great Prabhupadanuga and a strong follower of the ritvik system. He does not have email address. He has telephone numbers.
91 20 840259 91 20 841855
(H.G. Krishnanam Prabhu)
Thanking you
Your servant, Sri Krishna chaitanya Das
(KERSI MEHTA)
Telephone 91 22 8731788 91 22 8722632
"Adri" ( Adri@cwcom.net )
Message from Adridharan Das, Temple President of ISKCON Calcutta:
Welcome to issue 3 of our newsletter, which is a special issue edition. The following article was sent to VNN 3 times for publication, and they have refused to answer why they will not publish it. It is not the first time they have refused to publish an article from us that deals with the Gaudiya Matha. We decided to write this article since it is very clear that Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON is under increasing attack from other institutions that wish to take advantage of the fact that ISKCON itself currently operates an unauthorized and impotent Guru system.
In view of the fact that ISKCON's leadership has been either unable or unwilling to fight off this challenge, we decide that we had to write the following to protect Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON from being misled by outside influences. We will let the readers decide for themselves why VNN refused to publish the following:
======================================================
Where H.H. Narayana Maharaja Diverges from Srila Prabhupada's Teachings
This is a short paper giving examples of where His Holiness Narayan Maharaja teaches differently from Srila Prabhupada on important philosophical points. In no way is our purpose here to make any judgments about Narayana Maharaja's spiritual stature or devotional purity. He has our utmost respect as a senior practitioner of the principles of bhakti yoga. We are merely presenting factual information to adjust an impression some of his followers are promulgating, i.e., that his teachings are identical and fully in line with Srila Prabhupada's. Thus the purpose of this paper is not to show that Narayana Maharaja is in anyway inferior to Srila Prabhupada - only different. Obviously those wishing to increase their surrender and attachment to Srila Prabhupada will not be assisted by persons who contradict him, whether it is Narayana Maharaja or anyone else.
In order to make absolutely certain we have not misunderstood Maharaja, English not being his first language, we have only taken quotes from an article that appeared in the 1990 ISKCON journal entitled 'Conversation with H. H. Narayana Maharaja' where he was interviewed by H. G. Ravindra Svarupa. Prior to publication the article was read to Maharaja in Hindi by Satya-narayan das, and he was allowed to make whatever adjustments he wanted. Thus we know for certain that the quotes given below fully and correctly represent his views; especially since, to this very day, he has never retracted a single word of the article. We shall give subject headings followed by Narayan Maharaja's statements, and then point out where he differs from Srila Prabhupada.
*** Narayan Maharaja accepts the concept of re-initiation
"And in the case of a fallen guru- when one has taken diksa from a guru who falls down, and again he takes from a Bhavananda or someone, and again he falls. In that case we should watch and see that the guru is reliable (.) And when a reliable brahmana-nistha and sabda-brahma-knowing guru is found, then he certainly should be re-initiated." (GBC 1990 ISKCON JOURNAL p.21)
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada and shastra says, quite simply, "gurusuh narah matih --narakah sah" anyone who thinks that gurus fall down like ordinary men are --residents of hell--(naraka) ALREADY. Therefore the idea that the liberated acharyas, pure devotees, diksha gurus, parampara members and so on, "fall down" (as conjointly agreed by the post-1977 GBC, VNN and Narayana Maharaja) into "illicit sex with men, women and children," is totally false, and according to shastra, hellish.]
ADRI: According to Srila Prabhupada, authorized members of the disciple succession never deviate for a second, what to speak of fall into gross sinful life:
"A bona fide spiritual master is in the disciplic succession from time eternal and he does not deviate at all from the instructions of the Supreme Lord." (Bg.4.42, purport)
[PADA: Exactly. Narayana Maharaja openly teaches that Krishna's parampara acharyas deviate and "fall down" into illicit sex with men, women and children and he is de facto if not directly endorsed by VNN. Even dogs behave better than their idea of acharyas. No wonder the GBC goes there for shiksa.... ]
ADRI: He taught that if a so-called guru falls down then he was never properly authorized to initiate:
"Sometimes a spiritual master is not properly authorized and only on his own initiative becomes a spiritual master, he may be carried away by an accumulation of wealth and a large number of disciples." (NOD p.116)
[PADA: And who has been out there "rubber stamping" these unauthorized false gurus, if not "illicit sex with men, women and children" guru lineages, and worse, just after they reinstated known pedophiles? Narayana Maharaja.]
ADRI: Rather than preach that such fall-downs are indicative of a lack of authorization, Maharaja fully accepts that such things occur, and that when it happens one must be 're-initiated.' The term 're-initiated' was never used by Srila Prabhupada, and for good reason.
[PADA: Are there any words in shastra like "punar-diskha" i.e. another diksha? Not that we know of? "Diksha" means to receive pure divyan jnanam (di) which destroys all sins (ksha). People who are inclined to pose as acharyas, and then engage in "illicit sex with men, women and children," cannot even save themselves from sins. Sri Isopanisad says: they are the most dangerous elements in human society, destined for the lowest regions of hell. The GBC, VNN, Narayan Mahraja, and company, say these people are or were "giving diskha"? That means they do not know dick.]
ADRI: If the guru was unauthorized then he was never giving diksa in the first place, and therefore there is no question of the disciple ever having been initiated'. If he has not been 'initiated' then where is the question of 're-initiation'. Remember initiation is not just a ceremony, but is defined as the authorized transference of transcendental knowledge from guru to disciple. The term 're-initiation' is thus meaningless and implies a deviation from the teachings of our parampara as given to us by Srila Prabhupada.
If a guru falls down then he could not have been authorized by the predecessor acarya in the disciplic succession, and could therefore not have initiated anyone with transcendental knowledge. There is not one single example in all of Srila Prabhupada's teachings of a former authorized member of the disciplic succession falling into illusion.
*** Narayan Maharaja teaches 'living guru' philosophy
"And for a newcomer, it is sure that he should be initiated by a living guru."
ADRI: In answer to Ravindra Svarupa's point that the Vaisnava guru is always living, Maharaja said: "But not in eyesight."
He later added: "The meaning of parampara is living guru, present guru." (all from p.22 ISKCON Journal)
[PADA: Yes, Narayan Maharaja has supported "vapu vada," i.e. worship of a bag of stools. He said that since Tamal has a body which is "present," i.e. he is in a bag of stools and is breathing, he is a guru, never mind that Tamal had already reinstated a known pedophile as a guru and he had committed a host of other deviations.]
ADRI: The Maharaja offers no scriptural support for his 'living guru' 'physical presence' philosophy. Certainly the above statements are never made by Srila Prabhupada, and hence must be rejected by anyone claiming to follow Srila Prabhupada:
[PADA: This "living guru" idea is originating perhaps from the 1930s deviant Ananta Vasudeva, who destroyed the Gaudiya Matha saying you need to worship a living body. This is also the idea of the Medieval "Papal" system. Worship of a "living body." This is never found in shastra, rather this is the lowest form of ignorance. You must worship a bag of stools? The height of foolishness.]
ADRI: 'The potency of transcendental sound is never minimized because the vibrator is apparently absent'. (S.B.2.9.8, purport)
'So we should associate by the vibration, and not by the physical presence. That is real association.' (SP Lecture, 18.8.68, Montreal)
'Therefore we should take advantage of the vani, not the physical presence.' (SP letter to Suci Devi dasi, 4.11.75)
If it was a fact that in order to be initiated the disciple must have the guru in his 'eyesight', then many hundreds or even thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were not properly initiated, since they never saw his physical body even once. This 'physical presence' idea was rejected by Srila Prabhupada over and over again and is never mentioned in any sastra, yet it forms a corner stone of Maharaja's particular brand of Vaisnavism. Furthermore nowhere does Srila Prabhupada ever teach that the current link in the disciplic succession must be 'living', as in 'physically present' in order to remain current.
[PADA: This is also what the smarta brahmanas say. You need to worship the living seminal or ecclessiastical link. Srila Prabhupada says this is rejected by Rupa Goswami.]
*** Narayana Maharaja teaches that a madhyama adhikari can give full initiation
[PADA: What is a Madhyama then? Is he having "illicit sex with men, women and children" as Narayan Maharaja's guru lineage has done? No. A Madhyama is supposed to be brahma-nishta, not less than dogs? So, Narayan Maharaja has not even clarified what is a proper Madhyama. He confutes and confuses all levels.]
Narayan Maharaja: "If a man is not uttama Vaisnava, even if he is madhyama adhikari stage, if he is simple and sincere, he should be treated as guru and we can take initiation from that person." (page 22)
ADRI: In a section of the C.c dealing specifically with initiation Srila Prabhupada says the exact opposite:
"The guru must be accepted from the topmost platform of devotional service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must be accepted from the topmost class." (C.c.Madhya, 24.330,purport)
As is self-evident this directly contradicts Narayan Maharaja's assertion. Certainly a madhyama can accept disciples in an instructing sense, but such followers are warned:
'...they cannot advance very well towards the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance.' Therefore: 'One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari.' (The Nectar of Instruction, text 5, purport)
*** Narayana Maharaja teaches that a madhyama adhikari can only give partial initiation. At another point in the conversation, Narayana Maharaja seems to contradict this concession for madhyama adhikari Diksa Gurus when Ravindra Svarupa asks the following question:
RS: "Let me ask another question. You said earlier that a madhyama adhikari is qualified for giving diksa." NM: "To some extent" RS: "To some extent" NM: "Yes, to some extent.
As well as contradicting his own previous assertion; in downgrading the madhyama adhikari's ability to give initiation, and saying they can only do it 'to some extent', Narayana Maharaja presents us with the novel concept of 'partial initiation'. Certainly Srila Prabhupada never taught that some authorized diksa gurus can only transmit a portion of the transcendental knowledge required for liberation. The diksa guru who only initiates 'to some extent' is an entity never mentioned by Srila Prabhupada, and therefore no ISKCON devotee can accept this idea as bona fide.
[PADA: This opens the door for all kinds of speculation. Here is your diksha guru, you have to worship him as good as God, but he is only a guru --to some extent? This is like saying, here is your money. but it might not be money, it might be counterfeit, but it might be bona fide. Who knows? Or worse, it might only be bona fide "to some extent." You get a bundle of dollars, but maybe only one is real, who can say? What kind of standard is this? No society could function with such bogus standards.]
*** Narayan Maharaja teaches that a kanistha adhikari can initiate
"Say there is no madhyama adhikari. Suppose we are all kanishta adhikari. Then within the kanishta group, if one is on a higher level than me, he should be treated as guru. He will be vartma-pradarsaka-guru, or he can initiate." (p.24)
[PADA: Once again Narayan Maharaja has insulted the bonas fide level of Kanistha adhikari, who is a devotee who follows the braminical standards. His "gurus" have not even followed the standards for dogs and pigs, in sum they are not even Kanisthas.]
ADRI: Above Narayan Maharaja clearly states that a kanishta adhikari, or someone on the lowest platform of devotional service, can initiate disciples. This seriously contradicts Srila Prabhupada's teachings on guru tattva:
"When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru." (C.c.Madhya, 24.330,purport.)
[PADA: And Narayan Maharaja says that when you ban, beat, molest and assassinate vaishnavas, you should be worshipped as good as Hari, the Personality of Godhead?]
*** Narayan Maharaja teaches that a kanistha adhikari can not initiate
Later in the conversation the Maharaja seems to contradict himself: 'Uttama adhikari and kanishta adhikari cannot be guru.'
[PADA: So why has he supported the GBC as gurus if he knew all along they could not have been gurus?]
ADRI: We understand from Srila Prabhupada that in order to preach, an uttama adhikari will act on the madhyama platform; but he is still an uttama adhikari. Indeed he 'must' be on the topmost platform before there is any scope for occupying the post of initiating guru, on this Srila Prabhupada could not be more emphatic. And if kanishta adhikaris cannot be guru we wonder why the Maharaja had just said they could initiate?
In summary, Maharaja has presented the surprising scenario that the less qualified one is, the more qualified they are to give initiation. Let us look again at the statements he has made:
1) Uttama adhikari's cannot initiate. 2) Madhyama's can only initiate to 'some extent'. 3) Kanistha adhikari's can initiate fully.
However Maharaja simultaneously contradicts the above statements by saying that a kanistha adhikari can not initiatiate, and also that a madhyama adhikari gives full initiation.
[PADA: That is why Srila Prabhupada says we should not make our temples hotels for crazy people who cannot understand shastra and make self-confuting statements that simply bewilder and discourage others, and who might support gangsterism in the name of guru.]
*** Narayan Maharaja teaches one does not need specific authorization to initiate
"Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has not said or given any document that Swamiji (Srila Prabhupada) will be guru. But yet he is guru. (.) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura has not mentioned that so many others will do acarya, yet they have done. This is the system." (P.23)
[PADA: What is the system? That homosexual pedophile lineages are gurus? That is the system Narayan Maharaja has supported? Who authorized him to support that deviation? What does he know then about the real system?]
ADRI: Srila Prabhupada clearly taught that one must only take initiation from someone who has been authorized by his own predecessor acarya:
"One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorized by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa-vidhana." (S.B.4.8.54, purport.)
One might argue that all Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's disciples were authorized to initiate. However, there are several problems with such a hypothesis.
1) At the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's passing there was only an instruction to co-operate under a GBC. There was no order for everyone to start initiating.
2) That no one was authorized is evidenced by the fact that the most senior and influential disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta decided to vote in one initiating acarya, Vasudeva. If they had all been clearly authorized to initiate then why did they not all just start initiating straight away?
3) This proves that the 'system' Narayan Maharaja confidently refers to above was not known to most of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's leading disciples. Certainly Srila Prabhupada never taught it.
4) Srila Prabhupada said none of his Godbrothers were qualified to be acarya, and stressed that authorization was essential. When advising one of his disciples against taking initiation from one of his Godbrothers he wrote:
"On the whole you may know that he is not a liberated person, and therefore, he cannot initiate any person to Krishna Consciousness. It requires special spiritual benediction from higher authorities." (SP Letter to Janaradhana, 26.4.68)
Yet according to Maharaja the 'guru' in question (Bon Maharaja) had received such a benediction, along with every member of the Gaudiya Matha who began initiating.
[PADA: And wasn't Bon a homosexual too?]
5) Narayana Maharaja cannot possibly claim to know the content of every single exchange between Srila Prabhupada and his Spiritual Master. So how can he, in good faith, state so categorically that Srila Prabhupada was not the recipient of such a "special spiritual benediction"?
[PADA: This is called mental speculation, He is questioning how Srila Prabhupada was made a guru, simultaneously, stating that deviants were made into gurus.]
6) Since Narayan Maharaja accepts Srila Prabhupada as a perfect acarya, then he must accept Srila Prabhupada would not preach that one needed authorization from ones own guru before initiating, if he had not gained such a 'benediction' before he himself started initiating. Srila Prabhupada practiced what he preached, the definition of acarya.
*** Narayan Maharaja rejects the ritvik system. "We don't follow any ritvik system". (page 23)
[PADA: Yes, he has followed the homosexual pedophile guru system, and not the bona fide ritvik system founded by Krishna and Srila Prabhupada.]
ADRI: His main reason for rejecting the July 9th order seems to be based on the idea that he has not heard of such a system being employed previously:
"In our Gaudiya Vaisnava line there is no ritvik".
[PADA: Now Narayan Maharaja says that Srila Prabhupada is not in the Gaudiya Vaishnava line? Srila Prabhupada says, "ritivk," and Narayana Maharaja says our guru is bogus and not in the line? Well no wonder since he has sat Srila Prabhupada's poisoners at his feet and formed a mutual admiration society in the company of these serpents calling them "Radharani's dear Tamal tree." A big insult to Srimate Radharani to boot.
Just who then, is in Narayan Maharajas' line? According to Narayana maharaja himself? Illicit sex with men, women and children sex hounds, murderers and poisoners, that's who. Srila Prabhupada only made a GBC, bas, to claim they are gurus only makes them into ego maniacs.]
ADRI: Of course this ignores the fact that there was a ritvik system running within ISKCON for the last few months of Srila Prabhupada's appearance. In rejecting the very notion, Narayan Maharaja is rejecting a system Srila Prabhupada personally set up and allowed to run 'in our Gaudiya Vaisnava line'. This 'precedent' argument is itself illogical and self-defeating since there is no example of a disciple rejecting the order of his guru purely on the basis that such an order had not been issued previously. All acaryas set precedents, otherwise there would be nothing to look back and compare with. So Maharaja's assertion that such a system has not occured before, even if it were true- (and we have no way of knowing what went on in all the world movements in previous Kali yugas just after the appearance of the Golden Avatar) - would still be irrelevant, since acaryas invariably set new precedents; albeit in line with sastric injunctions.
Since Maharaja fails to offer any injunction from Srila Prabhupada's books that might prohibit the deployment of officiating priests to carry out initiations on behalf of a departed acarya, we can only assume he has no real philosophical validity to his opposition. Thus he remains conspicuously at odds with Srila Prabhupada's explicit orders, such as the July 9th institutional directive.
*** Narayana Maharaja accepts the ritvik system but states it is not called ritvik
"Only in a case where a guru is very far away from someone. (.) But it is not called ritvik."(p.23)
[PADA: Yes, Narayan Maharaja's system is called the homosexual pedophile child raping guru system. Anal sex too. What kind of system is this? And he says Bon is a guru too, another alleged homosexual?]
ADRI: Yet Srila Prabhupada himself called the 11 nominated devotees "ritvik- representative of the acarya" (July 9th letter). And what happened to the idea of the disciple needing to be within the 'eyesight' of the guru. How will the disciple see the guru if he is 'very far away'?
"If someone is in America and the guru is in India, and the guru cannot go to America and the American cannot come to India, then, at that time, a devotee in America can officiate and give hari-name, japa-mala and so on, if the guru orders."
The disciple would certainly need exceptional eyesight to see a guru from that distance! And where are the previous examples of such a system? If the Maharaja feels that a system is invalid if it has not been practiced in the past, how is it that this type of initiation is suddenly so acceptable? When has inter-continental diksa ever taken place before with no physical contact between the guru and disciple? What happened to the physical eye to eye contact that Maharaja previously deemed so essential?
*** Narayana Maharaja accepts that ritviks were appointed for after departure
Srila Prabhupada also referred to the 11 ritviks as 'officiating acarya' on May 28th 1977; and in the following exchange we see Narayan Maharaja confirm that these nominees were meant to act after his departure: Ravindra Svarupa: In fact, that word (ritvik) was not introduced by Srila Prabhupada but by Tamal Krishna Goswami. Srila Prabhupada himself said "officiating acarya".
Narayan Maharaja: Well, that can be done. He has told me like this. Ravindra Svarupa: He? Narayan Maharaja: Swamiji. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. I asked him in Vrindavan, what arrangement have you done for after your. And he told me that in different countries I have given this trust to our devotees to do the work of acarya, and they will do. And that after his demise he said they will preach and give hari-nama and diksa. He has told me also.
Notice that Narayan Maharaja admits Srila Prabhupada had mentioned the term 'officiating acarya', and that they were meant to give diksa after his demise. Not only does Maharaja immediately accept a term with no direct mention in sastra, once more contradicting his earlier insistence on precedent, but he also inadvertently helps support the ritvik position. If Srila Prabhupada had wanted diksa gurus for after his 'demise' then why talk about something with no mention in any sastra, namely 'officiating acaryas'? Why did he not say 'I shall be ordering diksa gurus for after my departure' if that was what he had intended?
On the one recorded occasion where Srila Prabhupada used the term 'officiating acarya', he equated it with the word 'ritvik' (May 28th 1977) and according to the final July 9th order ritviks were indeed meant to give diksa after his 'demise'. Since they were 'officiating acaryas', not acaryas in their own right, they would give diksa only on Srila Prabhupada's behalf. Please note that according to Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada gave this answer specifically with regards to what was to occur after his departure, not before. So Narayan Maharaja here accidentally supports the ritvik position by agreeing that Srila Prabhupada wanted 'officiating acaryas' or 'ritviks' for after his departure. Unfortunately Maharaja seems unaware of the clearly prescribed role of these 'officiating acaryas'. Perhaps he had not been shown the July 9th letter by the GBC.
*** Narayan Maharaja applies the term 'acarya' to persons Srila Prabhupada criticized
".Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Thakura- he did not mention who will be guru after his demise. But there is a system in our sampradaya. So Tirtha Maharaja, Madhav Maharaja, Sridhar Maharaja, our Gurudeva, Swamiji- Swamiji Bhaktivedanta Swami- they all became acaryas."
Above Maharaja mentions persons such as Tirtha Maharaja as being acaryas as part of a bona fide system 'in our sampradaya'. Yet Srila Prabhupada described such persons as envious rascals. Srila Prabhupada described Tirtha Maharaja as an 'envious snake' intent on causing trouble; he said Madhava Maharaja was 'especially' in the business of 'poison'; and that Sridhara Maharaja had 'disobeyed the order of his guru maharaja'. Though Srila Prabhupada encouraged his Godbrothers to co-operate with ISKCON, and was affectionate to them, he clearly did not endorse them as being qualified acaryas:
"But Sridhara Maharaja is responsible for disobeying this order of Guru Maharaja, and he and others who are already dead unnecessarily thought that there must be one acarya. [.] So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure. [.] Actually amongst my Godbrothers no one is qualified to become acarya." (Letter to Rupunuga, 28/4/74)
Obviously there is a vast gulf in the perception of what constitutes a bona fide acarya between Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada. Looking at the above quote from Narayana Maharaja in relation to his professed conversation with Srila Prabhupada just prior to his departure, the following is worth thinking about:
If Srila Prabhupada had told Narayan Maharaja he was going to appoint just 11 officiating acaryas for after his departure, according to Maharaja, he would have gone completely against the 'system in our parampara'. Remember in Maharaja's 'system', after the departure of the guru any disciple can give initiation as and when he feels ready. For Srila Prabhupada to appoint just 11 of his thousands of disciples as officiating acaryas would go completely against what Maharaja considers correct practice. Thus just why Maharaja felt the appointment of 11 'officiating acaryas', or ritviks, was the 'system in our sampradaya' is far from clear, especially since he completely rejects the very notion now. It would seem he is rather confused over just what is acceptable practice in our sampradaya, and what Srila Prabhupada actually ordered for after his departure.
*** Narayan Maharaja rejects the very existence of the word ritvik
I have not seen the word "ritvik" in our Vaisnava dictionary. (.) We have seen no such word as "ritvik". (p.23)
[PADA: He has never read Srila Prabhupada's works, or any religious writings it seems. "Priest" (ritvik) is found all over the Srimad Bhagavatam. Indeed, the word "priest" is used maybe a thousand times in Srila Prabhupada's writings. Even Krishna's family had a priest. Narayan Maharaja is saying what, that Krishna is bogus for having a priest?]
ADRI: In the Srimad Bhagavatam the word "ritvik" and its derivatives are mentioned over thirty times. Thus the Maharaja is not only at odds with Srila Prabhupada, but also with one of the most important Vaisnava scriptures!
[PADA: And the English word priest is used hundreds or maybe thousands of times in a mainly English work.]
Conclusion
*** Narayan Maharaja teaches the following in opposition to Srila Prabhupada:
1. That authorized initiating gurus can fall down. 2. That the term 're-initiation' has some place in Vaisnava theology. 3. That diksa is dependent on the physical presence of the guru. 4. That the guru must be within the 'eyesight' of the disciple in order for initiation to take place. 5. That a madhyama can initiate. 6. That a madhyama can give partial diksa 7. That a kanishta can initiate. 8. That one does not need to be authorized by one's guru before starting to initiate. 9. That we should not follow the final order on initiation issued by Srila Prabhupada on July 9th 1977. 10. That envious persons who spent decades fighting over property, and who voted in a bisexual initiator, are examples of bona fide acaryas. 11. That the word ritvik does not exist in vaisnavism.
*** Narayana Maharaja also contradicts himself by simultaneously stating the following:
1a) That a madhyama adhikari gives full diksa. 1b) That a madhyama adhikari only gives partial diksa.
2a) That a kanistha adhikari can initiate. 2b) That a kanistha adhikari cannot initiate.
3a) That he rejects a ritvik system in toto. 3b) But he accepts the ritvik system that Srila Prabhupada set up both for his presence and for after his departure.
4a) That he rejects a system based on the fact that there is no precedence for such a system.
4b) That he accepts the ritvik system Srila Prabhupada set up in his presence even though there is no precedence for such.
5a) He states that the initiating guru must be 'living' in the 'eyesight' of the disciple.
[PADA: And by that he means you must see a homosexual pedophile lineage?]
5b) He accepts that one can be initiated even if the guru is not in the 'eyesight' of the disciple by ordering an officiator to act on his behalf from another continent.
6a) That the standard system of disciplic succession in our sampradaya involves every disciple initiating on his own initiative.
6b) That a system of only appointing 11 officiating acaryas is also bona fide.
It should be noted that we have only looked at one brief exchange between Narayana Maharaja and a member of the GBC. Yet even in such a short text we have found many serious discrepancies. It may be that Maharaja or his followers can justify his views on the basis of teachings outside of Srila Prabhupada. But it should be clear to the reader that no amount of justification will make Narayana Maharaja's teachings the same as Srila Prabhupada's - and that is what is at issue here.
Most significantly we have shown how Narayana Maharaja admits that not only did Srila Prabhupada appoint officiating acaryas to perform initiations for after his departure, but that Srila Prabhupada actually personally revealed this intention to him when he was ill in Vrindavan. Srila Prabhupada defined 'officiating acarya' as meaning the same as 'ritvik' - both on the May 28th tape, and in the July 9th letter that refers back to the May 28th tape. Thus by Maharaja's own words we learn that Srila Prabhupada told him he wanted to remain as the initiating acarya for ISKCON. Hence there is no need for any ISKCON devotee to seek diksa from Narayana Maharaja, since he agrees that only Srila Prabhupada should be giving diksa within ISKCON.
In light of all the above we would humbly suggest that whatever Maharaja's spiritual credentials, and we are sure they exceed our own many times over; as aspiring followers of Srila Prabhupada, wishing to remain chaste to his teachings, His Holiness Narayan Maharaja is not someone we can take guidance from. Respect from a distance has to be the only safe policy in this instance. We hope His Holiness will forgive any offense as none was intended.
IRG
[PADA: Narayan Maharaja will go down in history as the person who sat at his feet Srila Prabhupada's poisoners. And then he puffed them up to think they were fit for gopi lila and tried to fool the world with this rubbish to drag the universe to hell. All this, after they had placed know pedophiles in our guru's seat, causing mass raping children, and they also murdered people who objected. He will go down with these fools he supported and still supports with his bogus dogma that they are or were gurus fit for rasika and not mere GBC/ ritviks. He will eventually be vilified along with the perverted idiots he helped sit in our guru's seat, as will all who supported this evil rotten crew of snakes. This is A FACT!] --------------------------------------------
SITES TO CHECK OUT: NEW! http://members.xoom.com/manvantar/index.htm (about Sulochana) http://www.vedabase.com (coming soon) http://tsa.ppp.ripco.net/das/articles.htm
POISON TAPE audio and pada newsletters: * http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/3933
POISON TRANSCRIPT http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/3933/19990519.htm
* NEW: http://www.winink.com/tkg/ * http://members.tripod.de/gbc * (e-mail) gbc_staff@lycosmail.com * (french) http://pages.infinit.net/pragosh/home.html * http://www.unlimited-resources.com/anubhavananda.html * http://www.irg.zetnet.co.uk/ * http://members.aol.com/gauridas * (SPANISH) http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5708/ * Cyber gurukula: (http://www.com.org/hb/ptd/cyber_gurukula.htm). * Rocana's site: http://www.islandnet.com/krsna/ * Poison issue: http://www.islandnet.com/krsna/vada/poison/poison.htm * Vipramukhya and Jayadvaita's "illicit sex guru" rationalizations: * http://www.islandnet.com/krsna/vada/iskcon/right.htm * [appointment tape fraud] http://www.artnet.net/~yasoda/index.htm * Gaura-Nitais Homepage (deutsch) http://www.vlbg.at/privat/gaura-nitai/index.htm * VNN news: http://www.vnn.org
To:
Subject: Read the story that VNN refused to publish
To contact the author, please send e-mail to Pada at the following address: pada@pon.net
Here are links: