Around 1976, the devotees from different parts of India and the world had initiated activities of ISKCON in different parts of South India like Bangalore, Hubli, Madras, etc. Sankirtans in the streets, enrolling Life Members, arranging programs in the houses, and arranging large public programs in pandals were being conducted. Shankabrit das, Amiya Vilas das, Purna Brahma das and Ramsharaddha das, all disciples of Srila Prabhupada, were actively involved in these activities in south India.
In 1976, Shankabrit das wrote to Srila Prabhupada about the complaints of several Life Members in South India who were not receiving the books and magazines on time. Shankabrit das also mentioned that if a centre could be opened in Bangalore, he could coordinate the smooth supply of books and periodicals to all the Life Members of South India.
Around September or October of 1976, Srila Prabhupada summoned Shankabrit das to Bombay. This suggestion to open a centre in Bangalore was not well received by the senior members of ISKCON in Hyderabad, because they saw it as some kind of “independent thinking” of Shankabrit das, who was only junior, according to them. Shankabrit das was a leading fundraiser for ISKCON Hyderabad and they did want to lose him.
But Srila Prabhupada took the communication by Shankabrit das seriously and immediately summoned him to Bombay. Srila Prabhupada heard the objections of the Hyderabad devotees, weighed the pros and cons, and overruled the objections raised by the ISKCON Hyderabad office bearers. Srila Prabhupada saw that the proposal to open a centre in Bangalore was an opportunity to expand his ISKCON mission further in South India. He did not agree that by losing Shankabrit das, the ISKCON Hyderabad project would be affected.
In that meeting, Srila Prabhupada appointed Shankabrit das as the President of ISKCON-Bangalore, and also appointed one of his senior men, Balimardan dasa, as the first GBC to oversee all activities on his behalf in South India. Srila Prabhupada separated Andhra Pradesh from the rest of South India and asked Shankabrit das if he could also revive the preaching in Madras, as Bhavabhuti das had recently left Madras and the centre was closed. Subsequently, Shankabrit das initiated the preaching activities in Madras, Thiruchirapalli and Trivandrum.
In the GBC meetings of March 1977 at Mayapur, which was attended by Srila Prabhupada, Hansadutta Goswami was appointed the GBC of South India and Sri Lanka, replacing Balimardan das. In this meeting on March 3rd, 1977, Hansadutta Goswami was authorized by a GBC resolution to open a preaching centre in Bangalore. At that time Sri Shankabrit das was actively involved in the preaching activities in Bangalore.
Around that time, Shankabrit das had come across an offer of donation of land of about 60 to 100 acres on Kanakapura Road belonging to the Maharaja of Dharampur. Shankabrit das had also approached the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, Sri Devraj Urs for allotment of land in favor of ISKCON. A meeting was convened in the chambers of Sri Devraj Urs with the Chairman of the newly formed Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and Shankabrit das. In this meeting, Shankabrit das was informed that allotment of land to ISKCON would be considered on a priority basis by BDA only if the society was registered in Karnataka. Shankabrit das discussed this matter with Hansadutta Goswami, the GBC of South India.
Srila Prabhupada’s policy on structure of ISKCON:
Srila Prabhupada had registered a society of the name International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in the State of New York in 1966. Many temples were opened in the next few years in different cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Buffalo, etc., and all of them were functioning as branches of ISKCON New York. As the temple activities expanded, it was Srila Prabhupada’s policy to incorporate separate ISKCON societies in those cities. He writes about this policy in his letter to Karandhara dasa in 1972:
“Never mind there may be botheration to register each centre, take tax certificate each, become separate corporations in each state. That will train men how to do these things, and they shall develop reliability and responsibility, that is the point.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Karandhara das, Bombay, December 22, 1972)
According to this policy, ISKCON is registered in different cities separately and there are about 50 separately incorporated ISKCON societies in the US alone.
Following the same policy, Srila Prabhupada first incorporated a society in 1971 in Mumbai, and initially his plan was to conduct the activities all over India as branch of ISKCON Mumbai. However with time, as the activities expanded in different cities, he would incorporate them as separate societies. By October 1974, Srila Prabhupada had approved incorporation of a separate society in Calcutta:
30 October, 1974
To Whom It May Concern:
As the Founder-Acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, I authorize that the Society may incorporate under the Religious Societies Act of 1860 separately in West Bengal as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Calcutta) with myself as Founder-Acharya.
I also appoint the following as the Trustees: Gargamuni Swami, Bhavananda Goswami, and Jayapataka Swami.
Dated this 30th Day of October, 1974
Signed
: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
But for some reasons the registration of the society was not carried out.
“Do not Centralize”
Srila Prabhupada was against the principle of centralizing the control of ISKCON temples under one large corporate entity, and gave very clear directions against centralization:
“…but so far I am concerned, I have not got much stock in such centralized management or organization. I never wanted that any of my temples shall be dependent upon the other temples.” Srila Prabhupada in a letter to Damodar Das, Bombay, 9 Jan 1973
“Regarding your points about taxation, corporate status, etc., I have heard from Jayatirtha you want to make big plan for centralization of management, taxes, monies, corporate status, bookkeeping, credit, like that. I do not at all approve of such plan. Do not centralize anything. Each temple must remain independent and self-sufficient.”
(Srila Prabhupada in a letter to Karandhara das, Bombay, December 22, 1972)
Following this policy of Srila Prabhupada and considering the necessity to get land allotted by BDA, the then GBC representative of South India, Hansadutta Goswami directed Shankabrit dasa in 1978 to register a society by the name International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in Bangalore. Please see enclosed letter by Hans Kary aka Hansaduta das of September 18, 2008.
Registration of ISKCON-Bangalore
Accordingly on May 8, 1978, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) Bangalore was incorporated and the initial office bearers declared in the incorporation documents of ISKCON Bangalore were:
1. Shankabrit Dasa President
2. Anantha Padmanabha Das Vice President
3. Amiya Vilasa Das Secretary
4. Purna Brahma Das Treasurer
In the same year of 1978, a grand Ratha Yatra of Lord Jagannath was held for the first time on MG Road, the most prestigious road of Bangalore city. The Ratha Yatra was inaugurated by Sri Gundu Rao, the then Transport Minister. A three-day festival was also conducted near the present Chinnaswamy Stadium, next to the Gandhi Park, and nearly one lakh people attended.
The First General Body Meeting
The first General Body Meeting of the newly formed ISKCON-Bangalore society was conducted on September 1, 1979 and the following office bearers were appointed:
1. Shankabrit Das President
2. Padmanabh Das Vice President
3. Ikshvaku Das Secretary
4. Bhakta Das Treasurer
In 1979, Hansadutta Goswami was replaced by HH Jayapataka Swami as the GBC of South India. At that time, Jayapataka Swami was trying to implement and impose the Zonal Acarya System in ISKCON-Bangalore. Due to differences in opinion on the Guru issue, and disgusted by seeing Jayapataka Swami’s use of the Guru issue to divide and rule, Shankabrit das left Bangalore and moved over to Hyderabad as Regional Secretary of Andhra Pradesh (1979-80). Later in 1980, Shankabrit das moved over to Tirupathi to initiate the ISKCON-Bhaktivedanta Institute activities. He was involved in getting a piece of land allotted by Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam (TTD) in 1982 and the installation of the Presiding Deities of Sri Radha Govinda in 1984.
By 1980, all of the above-mentioned office bearers of ISKCON-Bangalore had become involved in different activities of ISKCON in different places, and they all had left Bangalore.
In 1983, Madhu Pandit das became involved in overseeing the activities of ISKCON in Bangalore, along with his responsibilities in Trivandrum temple. At that time also the GBC representative for Bangalore was Jayapataka Swami.
In 1984, Jayapataka Swami directed Madhu Pandit das to meet Shankabrit das (who was in Tirupathi at that time) to formalize the handing over of the management of ISKCON Bangalore society to Madhu Pandit das. Subsequently a meeting was held on July 1, 1984, and all the then office bearers resigned. Those actually serving in ISKCON Bangalore were brought in as members of the society and the following office bearers were elected:
1. Madhu Pandit Das President
2. Chanchalapathi Das Vice President
3. Pranananda Das Treasurer
4. Bhanu Swami Secretary
By the year 2004, Shankabrit das, Ananta Padmanabha das, Amiya Vilas das (now a Swami) and Purnabrahma das had all become involved in different activities other than that of ISKCON Bangalore. At that time, the representatives of ISKCON Mumbai met them and wanted them to file certain statements about ISKCON Bangalore. Without paying much attention to the above facts, they signed a few papers, which were later filed in the courts by ISKCON Mumbai. Only later did they realize that the statements presented in the courts did not accurately represent the facts of the matter. Hence a short account of the actual history of ISKCON-Bangalore has been recounted here above.
In the BTP 17 item “ISKCON guru rules out his own tape ministry”, we quoted HH Gaura Govinda Swami (“GGS”), an ISKCON guru who died in 1996 but who is lauded by the entire GBC as a great saint, stating in his book:
“One has to hear. It is not that, “All right, tapes are there, I’ll hear the recordedtapes.” 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.”
HH Gaura Govinda Swami
(HH Gour Govinda Swami, ‘Q&A’, The Worship of Sri Guru, chapter 3)
Thus in one fell swoop, GGS declared Srila Prabhupada’s entire tape ministry as useless (not to speak of his own and those of his fellow GBC gurus!). However, we see from the statements from two ISKCON GBC voted-in gurus below that GGS’s philosophy has been completely rejected:
“There is more that comes out from this tape machine than just plastic tapes (shakes a tape). What really comes out of that tape recorder on these tapes is divya-jnana, or transcendental knowledge.” (HH Indradyumna Swami ‘darshan’ - Text COM:1974636, 1999)
“Vani, the vibrational presence is the instructions we receive from the spiritual master [...] It can be on an audio or video recording. Or it can be written in a letter, book, or article. No matter in which way the instruction is given and received, it is fully active and potent.” (HG Sankarshan Das Adhikari, Lecture, November 9th, 2007)
Thus ISKCON’s own gurus have effectively rejected GGS’s status as a great ISKCON saint. Srila Prabhupada also completely destroys GGS’s bogus philosophy:
1) He states that transcendental sound is not dependent on “physical contact” of the Guru:
“The potency of transcendental sound is never minimised because the vibrator is apparently absent.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam, 2.9.8, purport)
2) He proved this by initiating hundreds, if not thousands, of his disciples by tape (gayatri mantra), e.g.:
“You should have a fire sacrifice and the second initiates should hear through the right ear the mantra on my recorded tape.” (Srila Prabhupada Letter, November 13th, 1975)
OPEN LETTER TO NARAYANA MAHARAJA 08 July 1999, by Gaurahari dasa
Dear Narayana Maharaja,
There is no reason for me to use Vaisnava etiquette with you because you are not even a true Vaisnava by your duplicitous harmful behavior which has devastated my relationship with my wife and dear disciples. You are acting like an insensitive devil for initiating my wife Premanidhi dasi without me her husband and Guru. You knew I was having reservations about taking initiation after only knowing you for one week.
Our wonderful marriage and Guru disciple relationship has been shattered by your irresponsible action and my wife's naive sentimental approach to you for initiation. My wife and I are both suffering intense emotional trauma now because of your hasty inappropriate and insensitive actions. You took advantage of my wife's sentiments without carefully evaluating our situation. What bonafied Guru does such things? I have already heard that two other marriages have been destroyed because of your initiating the female spouse, one of which I know for sure was against the husbands wishes. You are acting like a duplicitous ego maniac, masquerading as a symbol of humility. I got your number now loud and clear! Krishna has been sending me so many reports of your preaching that is actually offensive to Srila Prabhupada, but you dare call him your friend. Well that may have been true years ago but people can change if they get off track.
My wife also changed from being a very close loving, friend, wife and disciple into one of your nefarious fanatical extensions trying to help you take over the world of Srila Prabhupada's devotees. How duplicitous you are showing yourself to be. You are so proud to allude to being an elevated Mahabagavata Manjari, but by your duplicitous insensitive behavior and how you devastate the lives of others, you act like a ignorant worm.
In your own words which confirm directly that this is true, on the occasion Visvarupa Mahosoava-Sept 1994 in a conversation with Giraraja Maharaja from a unedited transcribed of a lecture of yours you said, "Your Srila Prabhupada is paliya dasi of Srimati Radhika, but I am paliya dasi of Kamsa." By your behavior I accept this statement of yours to be a sign from Krishna about your true hidden nature. People think that demons always have to appear to be physically ugly looking creatures, but according to the experience of Hanuman when he met Ravana he appeared so beautiful and handsome that Hanuman thought that he should be a very great soul. Only until he began to analize Ravana's deeper true nature beyond the externals could he perceive the real truth. Well you look very good on the surface and in my personal, experience now I know just what is lurking underneath that skin and devotee uniform you are wearing. Even the fallen angel Lucifer in the bible is said to be able to disguise himself as an angel of light. I have analyzed the impact of your shakti, duplicitous character, and qualities, enough to place you as a very confidential servant of such a being that you yourself stated that you represent.
When some good sense appeared in my own mind to leave that bewildering festival at Badger and I did not show up for the initiation ceremony, you toyed so coily with my wife. You said duplicitously that you could not initiate her without me, knowing well her sentimental fanatical mentality at the time and knowing exactly the betraying words for her Guru and husband she would now express. She begged you like a trained dog you were guiding through a hoop to stroke your huge but hidden false ego, "Gurudeva I don't care about my husband, (and indirectly she also meant her previous Guru), just initiate me"!
You actually loved that you could gain such control over her so quickly. Well it takes two to play this game of the cheaters and the cheated. My wife was a participant and is not just an unwilling victim. I also almost fell for this powerful trickery of the illusory potency by being in touch with this mind and emotionally bewildering shakti you emanate. It imitates very cleverly the real bhakti lata creeper of devotion, by showing the illusory mirror image of it to those who desire to jump ahead of where they should actually be situated in there spiritual life. Then they enter the world of "false replicas" of Vaisnavas, Radha and Krishna, but in name only. No pure genuine spiritual rasa can be experienced. Only material, sentimental tears flow from this fountain of bewilderment.
You have your place in this world, and service to Krishna. You represent the last mirror image which hides and or tramples upon the genuine bhakti lata bija if one actually has it sown with one's heart. Who ever sees you, the subtle false ego layer you really represent, passes a very formidable subtle test from Krishna. A weakened devotee of God who surrenders to you automatically becomes initiated into the act of betrayal of the true spirit of God. I know this personally because I also succumbed to denying the genuine truth of the spirit of devotion by succumbing to this bewildering shakti energy of yours which is now channeled powerfully through my wife. You knew if my wife came back to me I would be affected and quite possibly become your convert. I also experienced this false realm of the subtle sensuous sentimental world that masquerades as pure love. An illusory world that is not built on the solid foundation of Vaisnava truth but on the contrary, that world of truth has to be dismantled and destroyed if it exists in order for one to enter into the illusory realm you dwell in.
Truth and falsehood cannot coexist in this realm that on surface seems like a honey filled paradise of love, but is actually a pit of poison. To enter this realm I had to deny and surrender every God given true experience of genuine devotion I was gifted with, by the grace of my real Gurus Christ and Srila Prabhupada. When I experienced this shakti induced realm of bewilderment you give others so easily and freely, I was more than willing to shut out completely all my previous connections and relationships in the past, even the spiritual relationships I had carefully cultivated for many years. This is the nature and style of this shakti of yours and why I know it is a false reality.
Receiving the genuine bhakti creeper of devotion from a genuine Guru like Srila Prabhupada has a very different and truly purifying effect. I just heard from an old friend and dedicated Prabhupada disciple that several of his old friends had their personalities radically altered after surrendering to you and your shakti. So much so that he could not relate to them anymore. He felt this was very suspicious. If you would truly know who you are and who you really represent it would probably be too much for you to bear and you might hang yourself like Judas did when he realized that he was actually a betrayer of Christ. He also did not know that he represented the shakti energy of betrayal. He thought he was more intelligent than Christ and was helping Jesus in his mission. Well, he did indirectly and became one of the most infamous men in the history of the world. You, also are playing such a part by claiming to be helping Srila Prabhupada, but in truth you are destroying his work and the work of those who honestly represent him. Just like Judas, who was blinded by the intellectual prowess of over developed intellects and cunning behavior, you only appear to be a true Vaisnava but you are Vaisnava in name only.
You cannot personally demonstrate relishing the intimate spiritual rasa that you claim to represent. Your material sentimental shakti does not impress me anymore. In verse 138 of Sri Caitanya Candramrta, Srila Prabodhananda Sarasvati explained the type of devotional service that you are clearly performing as quote "and somewhere the splendid path of pure devotional service is performed in name only. Oh Lord Caitanya where have you gone? I do not anywhere see the path of pure devotional service." Just what is the type of pure devotional service that Lord Chaitanya performed? When he spoke or heard about the name, beautiful form, and melodious pastimes of Radha and Krishna his heart melted like butter and his voice choked with sincere and powerful waves of the most elevated of pure emotional ecstasy. This is the real fruit of pure devotional service the Supreme Lord desires to sow within this world. Those who were and are fortunate to attain even a small portion of this fruit become eternally liberated. You, having immense intellectual knowledge of rasa, is very different than gaining the rare capacity, by the mercy of Lord Caitanya, to relish rasa. Remember the story of the illiterate Brahmin who was considered by Lord Caitanya to be the true authority on Bhagavad-Gita, simply because he cried when he relished Krishna's 'picture of humility' of lovingly serving Arjuna as his charioteer?
At the airport after my wife's initiation she approached you. With a false bewildering show of humility you gave my wife an instruction to go back and humbly serve her husband. You said, "if he is too furious then wait a little." You new I would be outraged by your behavior of initiating my wife without I her husband, and Guru's permission, because you have done this before. You appear to enjoy sticking in the severely emotionally abusive knife of breaking the sacred bonds of another Guru disciple and marriage relationship that creates chaos and turmoil for them, all in the name of getting them detached, and gaining power for your own self, which in truth is an insensitive act of ripping their sacred bonds apart. How impersonal, and an action of false renunciation. What God has truly joined, let no man put asunder. We had a wonderful marriage and Guru disciple relationship. What an opportunity for you it was to destroy all that with one sharp blow. I and my wife have been experiencing the worst emotional trauma and agony because of your participation in serving her sentimental whim of surrendering her life to a man, Guru she hardly knows. How unvaisnava of you and her.
Being at your festival in Badger was one bewildering experience. I got bewildered by the very special kind of pressure and denigration of one's character that was going on there. After only a few days association with you and your shakti, my own wife began to claim that I her Guru and husband was envious of you because I had some doubts about you. She temporarily convinced me and I went into a confused bewildered state of emotional turmoil which was facilitated by the energy of your sanga of devotees.
You destroyed the faith of my two disciples in their previous Guru who were blessed with genuine devotion for God. You did it in a very sneaky, insidious and covert way. They told you I left the festival and You turned around to them and said five devastating words "his mind is not fixed"! The subtle hidden message to them was, "your guru is not qualified and is less than a neophyte. It is better that you come to me." What Vaisnava who is following the true Bhakti path should fix his mind on you without properly evaluating you for a sufficient time, which should be more than a week. My mind not being fixed on you so prematurely was actually a sign of intelligence, and my two foolish disciples leaving there Guru they both loved deeply and fixing their mind on you as their eternal Guru, was a sign of prematurely and sentimentally jumping blindly into initiation.
Return my wife to me you devil in devotee disguise! Tell her the truth, that you made a mistake by not spending enough time assessing her as a prospective disciple and that she jumped the gun, and acted from the sentimental platform by renouncing me as her Guru before she could really understand if you are actually qualified and a step up from where she was. One week was not enough for her who doesn't sufficiently know your philosophy and teachings, to adequately determine your actual devotional position. Her decision was largely based on the propaganda professed by your sanga of devotees that you are a Mahabhagavat intimate associate of Lord Caitanya, as well as some sentimental, emotional feelings that she was incapable of properly discerning in such a short time. If you have the genuine pure bhakti creeper and you have actually given this to my wife then her behavior would reflect it. She and Nitynananda would have been grateful for the wonderful foundation they had gotten from their previous Guru. But, no, they turned on him considering that he was in Maya. Well If they got genuine bhakti in the sanga at Temple of the Heart and you are giving them more of it then it would reflect in their attitude. I say you are not dispensing the real Bhakti creeper because the effect does not build on one's previous foundation of the genuine creeper of devotion. On the contrary, your twisted, slippery teachings destroy a person's faith in one's previous foundation of true bhakti. I have heard reports from responsible sources how you have destroyed the faith of some disciples in their Guru, considered to be in good standing, in order to greedily get them for yourself. To me your magnanimity and humility is all a show! You want worship and even if you get the whole world to worship you it will not be enough to satisfy your insatiable appetite! That is why you freely initiate so many people even after hardly knowing them or their background. I know of one person you recently initiated as a Brahmin and he has just previously been arrested as a sex offender and smokes pot regularly. How shameful you are for acting like a cheap guru amassing cheap disciples so that you can pollute by prematurely teaching them the most confidential aspects of Radha and Krishna's pastimes.
You are acting like the Pharisees in the days of Jesus Christ, who he said were so mischievous, and duplicitous. They were misleading the innocent by claiming they were the proper doorways to God, by twisting their minds with their unauthorized speculative philosophy. Jesus said to such true heretics, "You cannot go into the Kingdom of God nor do you let others enter who follow your misguided teachings." Why do I so boldly say that you fit into this category? Well, you have mislead my two disciples from the sanga of Temple of the Heart, by destroying their faith in their Guru. At Temple of the Heart they both received so much genuine awakening and watering of the devotional creeper. You have given them so generously a shakti that imitates the real Bhakti creeper, but this creeper is impure because it is still material and full of pride, and envy of true Vaisnavas. Premanidhi and Nityanda are proof of this. They are now so advanced that they have the attitude that they are more spiritually elevated than their previous Guru, this is the effect and true nature of the shakti you dispense. It makes one envious of the true bhakti lata bija and the dispenser of it.
I wonder if you are not too proud now to admit that you actually do not know your own true devotional position, that you make mistakes, and you confuse and mislead people. In my book you are lower than a neophyte because you have taken a very high position and are very good at screwing up devotees' lives!
To many people both inside and outside the Movement, ISKCON’s current Guru system is a complete farce. Perhaps predictably, all the scandal, falldowns and endless self-contradiction amongst Srila Prabhupada’s wannabe successors (the 80 competing ISKCON ‘Gurus’) has opened the way for yet another personality, this time from outside ISKCON, with designs on Srila Prabhupada’s legacy.
The GBC have preached for many years that everyone must have a “living, physically present Guru” (or anyone but Srila Prabhupada), and now they are reaping their reward. His Holiness Narayana Maharaja a disciple of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrother, His Holiness Kesava Maharaja has had considerable success in attracting both ex and current members of ISKCON to his camp, by promoting his qualification as a “living, physically present Guru”, who is bona fide and won’t fall down, unlike the ISKCON Gurus.
Narayana Maharaja likes to portray himself as a mere humble servant of Srila Prabhupada, who simply wants to bring everyone to Srila Prabhupada through a deeper appreciation of his mission and teachings:
“You should know who your Prabhupada is. You should know. Then you can glorify him, otherwise you cannot.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Los Angeles, May 31st, 2000)
In this article we shall use Narayana Maharaja’s own words to see if he is bringing us closer to Srila Prabhupada.
Narayana Maharaja Claims To Be Srila Prabhupada’s Successor
Narayana Maharaja makes it clear that he is here not to bring people TO Srila Prabhupada, but to actually REPLACE Srila Prabhupada as his SUCCESSOR:
“I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Murwillumbah, Australia, February 18th, 2002)
Above, Narayana Maharaja boldly stakes out his pitch in direct competition with all the ISKCON Gurus who also want to succeed and replace, not complement, supplement or assist Srila Prabhupada.
Narayana Maharaja Competes Directly With Srila Prabhupada
In pursuance of the above stated aim to replace Srila Prabhupada, Narayana Maharaja has urged his followers to distribute HIS books in preference to those of Srila Prabhupada:
“Now Srila Gurudeva (Narayana Maharaja) has requested that we start what he calls ‘a second revolution’ in preaching and book distribution. He wants his books distributed in the same volume, ‘not less than Swamiji (Srila Prabhupada).’”
(Gaudiya Courier, Issue 15, July 1st, 2004)
Clearly the above goal of trying to match Srila Prabhupada can only be achieved if Narayana Maharaja’s books alone are being distributed by his followers, and that is generally what is happening.
Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Only Gave The “Basement”
To create the demand for his services, Narayana Maharaja claims that there is much spiritual knowledge that Srila Prabhupada failed to give, so that he can claim he has come to fill this gap:
“So Swamiji has at first cleared the atmosphere. Prepared the ground…by preaching name and the sandesh of Gita… he prepared. So very important work … so he has done this task and it was so necessary for that world…for all world…he has done but he has not done everything by doing that. It was only basement.[…] But…we are deprived of that… he could not complete his work.”
(Lecture given by Narayana Maharaja on September 19th, 1994)
Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Gave Everything
That the above statement is not actually true, can again be proven by the words of Narayana Maharaja himself, who said the following 17 years earlier to Srila Prabhupada himself:
“All of your duties are completed. You have fulfilled everything in your lifetime. There is no need to worry for anything.[…] Yes, you have done everything. Nothing is left unfinished.”
(Translation of Bengali conversation between Narayana Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada from October 1977, provided by Narayana Maharaja’s own camp)
That Narayana Maharaja would go onto say the complete opposite of what he himself claimed 17 years earlier, demonstrates opportunism of the highest order.
Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Is Not The Founder-Acarya Of Iskcon
This opportunism is further displayed in Narayana Maharaja’s stating that Srila Prabhupada was not the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. It is surely a redundant point that Lord Krishna (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) is the origin of all Krishna consciousness, so one wonders why Narayana Maharaja feels it so important to belittle Srila Prabhupada’s position and promote his own position by stating such an obvious point:
“Also you should know that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the founder of ISKCON. Swamiji, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja is one of the prominent acaryas in this line only. He is not founder…”
(Narayana Maharaja 28th April 1999, morning speech, Caracas, Venezuela)
“Your Prabhupada, Srila Swami Maharaja, only changed the name into English. He is not the founder acarya of that eternal ISKCON… I am ISKCON. I’m not different from ISKCON. I am ‘Bhaktivedanta’ [Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja]. Like father, like son.
I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other. You should know this very openly. I am Bhaktivedanta and he is Bhaktivedanta, but he received this name after I did. I’m senior to him in this regard… I’m Bhaktivedanta, and I’m also ISKCON. Don’t think that I’m out of ISKCON.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Murwillumbah, Australia, February 18th, 2002)
But according to Srila Prabhupada:
“I am the founder-acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.”
(Srila Prabhupada letter to Dr. Bigelow, Allahabad, January 20th, 1971)
Narayana Maharaja Deviates From Srila Prabhupada 1)
Although he claims to be a successor to Srila Prabhupada, and that Srila Prabhupada is somehow speaking through him, it should be noted that Narayana Maharaja’s teachings often seriously differ from Srila Prabhupada’s. This is what Narayana Maharaja has to say about Prahlada Maharaja, who is worshipped on every altar throughout ISKCON as a completely pure devotee of Krishna:
“Prahlada Maharaja was a very bona fide bhakta, and he never wanted anything worldly, but he could not serve Krsna. His bhakti was mixed with jnana, knowledge of the Lord’s opulence. If you have some worldly desire, or any desire, then your bhakti may be sanga-siddha bhakti or aropa-siddha bhakti, but not pure transcendental bhakti”
(Narayana Maharaja, Hawaii, February 17th, 2001)
Yet Srila Prabhupada’s verdict is very different:
“Prahlada Maharaja is the topmost example of a Vaisnava”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.21.47, purport)
“So we see practically how Prahlada Maharaja immediately attained the state of prema… he first of all followed the instruction of Brahma, then immediately he got the favor of Lord Nrsimhadeva, and after getting that he got the prema state.”
(Srila Prabhupada lecture, Mayapur, February 14th, 1976)
“Consequently, instead of accepting the results of karma and jnana, Prahlada Maharaja simply begged the Lord for engagement in the service of His servant.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam 5.24.25)
Above we see Prahlada Maharaja described as a pure devotee who actually shunned the results of jnana (knowledge).
Narayana Mahara Deviates From Srila Prabhupada 2)
Narayana Maharaja claims that Advaita Acarya (one of the associates of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) was incapable of giving people Vraja-Bhakti (pure devotion to Krishna):
“Sri Advaita Acarya…He is a part of the part of the part of the part of Krishna. Being so far away, He can preach with kirtana, but He cannot give Vraja-bhakti. Never. He is not qualified for this. Only Krishna can do this.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Los Angeles, California May 31, 2000)
Contrast the above with the following verse from the Sri Caitanya caritamrta as presented by Srila Prabhupada:
“He (Advaita Acharya) delivered all living beings by offering the gift of Krishna-bhakti (pure devotion to Krishna). He explained Bhagavadgita and Srimad-Bhagavatam in the light of devotional service.”
(Srila Prabhupada, Caitanya caritamrita, Adi-lila 6.28)
Thus Narayana Maharaja again disagrees with the siksa (instruction) given by Srila Prabhupada, even though he also rather immodestly claims to be his “dearmost siksa disciple”. (There are more examples of such contradictions on the back page of this magazine).
Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Asked Him To Guide His Disciples
Narayana Maharaja has claimed that Srila Prabhupada ordered him to instruct Srila Prabhupada’s disciples:
“He ordered me, ‘Help my disciples’ [...] You can get that cassette.[...] If anyone does not have belief in my statements, he can acquire and hear the cassette. At the time he spoke in Bengali so that others would not understand.”
(Salt Spring Island, Canada, April 2001, pm)
This claim is based on Srila Prabhupada stating “you kindly instruct them on this matter” to Narayana Maharaja, during a Bengali conversation spoken between the two sometime in October-November 1977.
However, as will be seen from the full translation of this conversation provided by the Narayana Maharaja camp themselves, Srila Prabhupada does not say anything of the sort. Whilst reading the relevant portion of the conversation below, please pay special attention to whom the word “them” in the above sentence refers to; what was the “matter” on which Srila Prabhupada wanted Narayana Maharaja to give instruction; and “when” this instruction was meant to be given:
Srila Prabhupada: Are any of my god-brothers in Vrindavana now?
Narayana Maharaja: Yes.
Srila Prabhupada: Who?
Narayana Maharaja: Van Maharaja might be there, as well as Indupati Prabhu from Caitanya Gaudiya Matha.
Srila Prabhupada: Any more?
Narayana Maharaja: Only these two at the moment.
Srila Prabhupada: Who is Indupati?
Narayana Maharaja: He comes here often.
Bhakticaru Swami: From Madhava Maharaja’s matha?
Narayana Maharaja: Yes. No one else is here.
Srila Prabhupada: Please call both of them. Van Maharaja and him.
Narayana Maharaja: This is very good proposal by you.
Srila Prabhupada: Please sit down. They will call them.
Narayana Maharaja: All right.
Srila Prabhupada: This cutting of arguments happens sometimes…
Narayana Maharaja: These are insignificant matters in such a substantial worldwide mission. A little something here and there is of no consequence. You have done this wonderful preaching work for the benefit of the whole world. There was no self-interest. You did everything only in devotional service to Krsna for benefiting all people at large.
Srila Prabhupada: It is all by your blessings.
Narayana Maharaja: You have done a wonderful thing. It is necessary to care for and preserve this mission, and see that it is managed skilfully.
Srila Prabhupada: You kindly instruct them on this matter. I’m unable to speak.
When we see the sentence in context, those three aspects become clarified:
1) The word “them” refers to Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers who were to arrive shortly, not to Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. The word “them” comes twice before the final sentence,and both times it refers to his Godbrothers, Indupati Prabhu and Van Maharaja.
2) The “matter” on which Srila Prabhupada wanted Narayana Maharaja to instruct his Godbrothers was that they forgive him for any “cutting of arguments” he may have done in the course of his preaching.
3) And “when” was this instruction to be given? There and then. Immediately after Srila Prabhupada asks Narayana Maharaja to give in struction he states: “I’m unable to speak”. This is the reason he is asking Narayana Maharaja to make these points to his Godbrothers on his behalf when they arrive.
So here we clearly see a false claim made by Narayana Maharaja to promote his agenda as being the “real successor” to Srila Prabhupada.
In conclusion, on the basis of all the above, it is clear from Narayana Maharaja’s OWN WORDS that he is not simply a “dearmost siksa disciple” of Srila Prabhupada whose aim is to help to bring us closer to Srila Prabhupada.
Rather he is no different to the 80 wannabe “successor Gurus” of ISKCON, doing and saying whatever is necessary to jockey for Srila Prabhupada’s position.
Narayana Maharaja Claims He is Srila Prabhupada's Successor
In a recent interview, Narayana Maharaja, one of the members of the Gaudiya Matha who has been visiting ISKCON communities to capitalise on the current joker-Guru program that ISKCON offers, openly stated the following:
"I am not his uttama adhikari (successor). Actually I am. Those who are falling down are his successors outwardly, but spiritually and transcendentally I am his successor."
(Narayana Maharaja, Interview quoted on the Gaudiya Matha website, VNN)
For those of you who thought that Narayana Maharaja was only visiting ISKCON to 'help', we have clear proof here that he intends to do a lot more than just 'help' - rather he wishes to help himself. He is revealing here his ambition to try and take the fruits of Srila Prabhupada's work, and be another competitor to the current pack of jokers who are also claiming that they are Srila Prabhupada's successors, and who as Maharaja has correctly pointed out, are usually 'falling down'. However we have news for him and the other 'pretenders to the throne' currently acting as 'successors' within ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada is not going anywhere soon - infact at least not for the next 10,000 years. He never left. So before announcing to us that you are a 'successor', please note the 'NO VACANCY' sign in the window.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That we are creating. We are creating these devotees who will handle. Hanuman: One thing he's saying, this gentlemen, and I would like to know, is your successor named or your successor will... Srila Prabhupada: My success is always there. (SP Room conversation, 12/2/75 Mexico)
Reporter: Are you training a successor? Srila Prabhupada: Yes, my Guru Maharaja is there. (SP Press conference, 16/7/75, San Francisco)
Narayana Maharaja also states the following:
"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura had so many very qualified disciples. Among them our Guru Maharaja was very prominent; and others were also, like Pujapada Srila Sridhara Maharaja, Srila Bhaktivilasa Tirtha, Srila Sauti Maharaja, Srila Giri Maharaja, Srila Bon Maharaja, Srila Vikaras Bharti Maharaja, Srila Madhava Maharaja, Srila Siddhanti Maharaja."
(Narayana Maharaja)
Yet Srila Prabhupada had to the following to say about 'Srila Bon Maharaja':
"Still he is so envious, black snake." (Room Conversation, 16/10/75)
For many more difference between the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja. Thus these differences alone prove that whatever elevated qualities Maharaja may possess, one thing he definitely is NOT, is the 'successor' to Srila Prabhupada, for what sort of a 'successor' is it that teaches the complete OPPOSITE to Srila Prabhupada?
Narayana Maharaja Confused About Ritvik
Narayana Maharaja (NM) has given a lecture which is supposed to be "A Response To The Ritvik System". Unfortunately rather than being a RESPONSE to the Ritvik System, it is actually nothing but a FABRICATION about the Ritvik system, wherein Narayana Maharaja has only presented his imagination regarding the IRM's presentation of Srila Prabhupada's instructions on the Ritvik system.
We will quote portions of his lecture below enclosed in speech marks thus " ", with our comments following underneath enclosed in parentheses, thus [ ]. The lecture was delivered by Narayana Maharaja on July 19th, 2001, in Polansk, Russia. The transcript of the lecture was typed and edited by Sripad Krishna Bhajana dasa Brahmacari, and proofread by Srimati Premavati devi dasi.
"Those who think, "There is no need to accept a guru as a mediator because we can chant the holy name, we can read books, and we can do arcana and sadhana simply by the rtvik system," are not within the guru-parampara. They deceive others. They are actually cheaters; not bhaktas."
Of course no one except NM has ever even proposed this. The Ritvik system is DEFINED as accepting Srila Prabhupada as the Guru who mediates. Thus the only person doing the 'deceiving and 'cheating' here is NM.
"Nowhere in the sastra is it written that a rtvik can ever give bhakti. This can never be the case. "
Nowhere has it ever been claimed by anyone that the 'Ritvik gives Bhakti'. Those who accept the Ritvik system receive Bhakti from the self-realised Guru, Srila Prabhupada.
"They say that in this world there are no pure devotees, and therefore there are no pure devotees to initiate anyone. This idea is very, very wrong and it is against the principles of bhakti."
No we do not say this. In "The Final Order" we actually state the opposite. There maybe many pure devotees. But this does not change the fact that Srila Prabhupada established the Ritvik system for ISKCON. Thus NM's idea is 'very, very wrong' and it goes against the principles of actual Ritvik system as given by Srila Prabhupada.
"Beware of this rtvik system. Without a self-realized guru you cannot achieve bhakti in thousands of births. This is an established truth. This is siddhanta. You should therefore accept a sad-guru, serve him, and try to follow his instructions. Then you can develop your Krishna consciousness and all of your anarthas will disappear. Otherwise, it will never be possible for pure bhakti to come and touch your heart and senses."
Since the Ritvik system actually ENABLES one to 'accept, serve and follow the instructions of the self-realised sad guru', it is clear that one must 'beware of NM', for he is teaching the exact OPPOSITE of the truth. Otherwise 'it will never be possible for pure understanding to come and touch your heart and senses'.
"I would like to clarify one thing. I am not saying that all rtviks mislead others. Only those who say that there is no need of a guru do so. Real rtviks know all sastras, and all of them have gurus. A rtvik cannot be a rtvik without accepting a real guru."
Since a Ritvik is DEFINED as someone who accepts Srila Prabhupada, it is NM who is again misleading us by positing the existence of a non-existent entity.
"Nowadays, therefore, those who call themselves rtviks are all cheaters, and we should beware of them."
Here NM contradicts himself. He had JUST said that he is: "NOT saying that ALL rtviks mislead others." Here he says that: "Ritviks are ALL cheaters".
"There are so many gurus: caitya-guru, diksa-guru, siksa-guru, bhajana-guru, and others. Why go to a bogus-rtvik guru? If our siksa-gurus are Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Nityananda prabhu, and Radhika, why do we need to go to these rtviks?"
Since Ritviks accept all these same 'Gurus, and do NOT accept a 'ritvik-guru' (this term is never used by either Srila Prabhupada or "The Final Order"), since all the Ritvik does is perform a ceremony on behalf of the Real Guru - Srila Prabhupada - the actual conclusion is why do we 'need to go to NM', since he states nothing EXCEPT the actual OPPOSITE of the facts.
"This word 'rt' has come from the word 'Rg-Veda.' Those who know all Vedas, including the Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Atharva Veda, all the Upanishads, and all the Puranas, are actually rtvik. [...] (There are nineteen places in Prabhupada's books where the word 'rtvik' is used, and in all cases the word only refers to a priest officiating or performing a fire sacrifice). [...] After deliberation upon the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Puranas, it becomes obvious that rtviks have nothing to do with the supreme transcendental goal...'Rtau yajtiti rtviki.' One who conducts sacrifices according to Vedic mantras is called a rtvik. There is an arrangement of 16 types of rtviks to perform the sacrifices."
This is massive contradiction by NM. Earlier in an interview that he had given to the ISKCON Journal in 1990, NM had claimed that: I have not seen the word "ritvik" in our Vaisnava dictionary. (…) We have seen no such word as "ritvik".
(Narayana Maharaja Interview, ISKCON Journal, Page 23)
Now NM wants to enlighten us how the word Ritvik not only exists, but how he has seen it in many places from the Vedas to Srila Prabhupada's books!
"I think, however, that these modern rtviks don't even know the ABC's of the Vedas. [...] There are nineteen places in Prabhupada's books where the word 'rtvik' is used, and in all cases the word only refers to a priest officiating or performing a fire sacrifice. Even when the word used is 'rtvikacarya,' it is still defined as a priest performing a fire sacrifice for a secular gain."
The word 'ritvik-acarya' is NEVER used in Srila Prabhupada's books. It seems it is NM who does not know the ABC's of Srila Prabhupada's books.
"Those who advocate the rtvik system are misleaders, and their followers are misled. Do not go towards the rtvik system. In none of the sastras has it been said that this rtvik system will give bhakti. Be careful regarding the bogus rtvik system. [...] You should give up the idea that the rtviks can help. They can never help you. They have never even helped themselves, so how can they help others?"
As we have conclusively shown above via NM's numerous false statements and contradictions, it is NM who is the misleader, who is misleading all his followers regarding the IRM's advocation of the Ritvik system. Thus one must 'be careful regarding the bogus understanding of the Ritvik system' given by NM, and give up the idea that NM can help us regarding understanding the true facts about Srila Prabhupada's instructions regarding the ritvik system.
Any hope that this was simply a one-off aberration on the part of Maharaja is dashed by the fact that he has also repeated similar nonsensical statements in a magazine containing 6 of his essays called: “The True Conception of Sri Guru Tattva". Below we analyse some of these statements. Statements made by NM in the aforementioned magazine shall be enclosed in a blue tinted panel, with our comments following underneath in bold text.
“So in the tradition of our sampradaya there is a provision for Diksa- guru, siksa-guru, bhajana-guru, patha-pradarsaka-guru, caitya-guru and so on. But we will not find any statement in the scriptures which recommends accepting a ‘rtvik-guru’ or the rtvik tradition in order to perform one’s sadhana of paramartha (the highest transcendental goal).”
Nor will we find any statement from the IRM or “The Final Order” (TFO – the IRM’s position paper) proposing the same. No one has ever proposed that one accept a 'ritvik-guru' (this term is never used by either Srila Prabhupada or "The Final Order") as an alternative to accepting a Diksa Guru in order to perform one’s sadhana. Rather a ritvik priest is simply someone who officiates on behalf of the Diksa Guru when the initiation is being performed. Thus NM is presenting here a classic ‘straw-man argument’ – this is an argumentative device in which one attacks a position not held by one’s adversary and defeats this false position as an alternative to addressing the adversary’s real position, which one is unable to defeat.
“Thus, at the current time, some people put forward the idea that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj was the last sad-guru, and after his disappearance there is no longer a sad-guru present in the world, nor will there be one in the future.”
This is again another ‘straw-man argument’. “The Final Order” offers no opinion on the state of the world. It merely states what was the system of initiation established by Srila Prabhupada for ISKCON. And this, as established by his July 9th 1977 directive, was to have him as the initiating Guru for ISKCON.
“Therefore, after his disappearance there is not need for anyone to accept any living guru because rtviks will carry forward this sisya-parampara (disciplic succession) and they will give Diksa only by utilizing the cassette recordings of his own voice chanting the gayatri-mantras. This conception is completely speculative and is against the injunctions of the scriptures.”
It is the above statement which is completely speculative. Firstly no one, except NM’s fertile imagination it seems, has ever proposed that the ‘ritviks will carry forward this sisya-parampara (disciplic succession)’. Rather it is Srila Prabhupada who will carry forward the parampara as its current link. For parampara is NOT defined as the existence of a ‘physically present body’, but as the following:
“Parampara means to hear the truth from the spiritual master”.
(Room Conversation, 20/12/76)
“Parampara means they do not change the word of Krishna. That is parampara”.
(SB lecture, 11/8/74)
Srila Prabhupada is still giving us this truth and is not changing the word of Krishna. In this way HE is continuing the parampara, not ‘ritviks’.
Secondly in the July 9th directive Srila Prabhupada authorises representatives to give first and second initiation just as it was being done when Srila Prabhupada himself was physically accepting disciples, and this involved extensive use of ‘cassette recordings’ of Srila Prabhupada chanting the gayatri mantra.
“To say, ‘There is no sad-guru living in the world at present and neither will there be any in the future", is an atheistic opinion.”
Of course no one, except NM’s imagination has proposed such a thing. The position of TFO relates only to what Srila Prabhupada ordained for ISKCON, not what may or may not happen in every nook or cranny of the planet from now till the end of time.
“Some people talk about accepting Diksa through the medium of the audio cassettes of great personalities after they have disappeared. There are various flaws in this ideology. Before giving Diksa, a guru examines the characteristics, thoughts, intentions, and so on of the aspiring candidate. Similarly, for some period of time, the aspirant will also observe the gurutva (greatness), conduct, bhajana and attitude of his guru. When both of them are satisfied, then only is there an arrangement to give and to accept Diksa. This process is not possible through cassettes once the guru is no longer physically present.”
This process was also not possible through cassettes when Srila Prabhupada was physically present, since Srila Prabhupada second initiated the vast majority of his disciples via the medium of his audio recordings, having never met most of them. Thus NM is here directly attacking both the system by which Srila Prabhupada gave initiation when he was on the planet, and the system Srila Prabhupada set up for initiations to continue in ISKCON. NM’s contention that there is a ‘flaw in the ideology’ of using audio cassettes to give Diksa after the disappearance of the Guru thus applies equally to the use of audio cassettes even whilst Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, since even in the latter case mutual examination between Guru and disciple did not take place in the majority of cases. For as already stated Srila Prabhupada used this ‘cassette’ system to give second initiation to the vast majority of his disciples without having ever met them. Thus NM is saying therefore that there is a flaw in Srila Prabhupada’s ideology, since it is a proven fact that this is the system he used.
“It is not possible for the cassette to examine the aspirant before giving Diksa, and neither is it possible for the aspirant to observe the greatness, conduct and mode of bhajana of the guru though the medium of cassettes alone.”
NM again re-affirms that his criticism applies equally to the use of cassette recordings by Srila Prabhupada even whilst he was on the planet, since the above process of mutual examination between Guru and disciple was not undertaken in the majority of cases where Srila Prabhupada gave initiation. This is a new departure for NM in that he is attacking Srila Prabhupada’s conduct directly, implying that all those disciples of Srila Prabhupada who received second initiation by hearing the gayatri mantra on the cassette tape without having met Srila Prabhupada, which was the vast majority of them, were not correctly initiated. It may only be a matter of time therefore, before NM takes the further bold step of ‘re-initiating’ all the second initiated disciples of Srila Prabhupada who were incorrectly initiated via the ‘cassette tape’. This is the logical implication of his criticism of the method via which Srila Prabhupada gave second initiation.
“From the history of our sampradaya, it is well known that Krsna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa was a perfected saint or guru of Dvarpara-yuga. But yet his sat-sisya, Srila Madhvacarya, had direct darsana of Srila Vedavyasa who had appeared about 5000 years prior to him. Despite being so qualified, Srila Madhvacarya never thought he could become the disciple of Srila Vedavyasa without the latter’s physical presence.”
Yet the vast majority of Srila Prabhpada’s disciples became his disciples without ever receiving his ‘direct darsana’ or experiencing his ‘physical presence’. Thus Srila Prabhupada himself proved by his direct example that there is no link between becoming a disciple and associating physically with the Guru. Why is NM trying so hard to prove the opposite and thus try to prove that there was a ‘flaw’ in the way Srila Prabhupada initiated his disciples?
“For the common people, the process of accepting Diksa is to directly receive krsna-mantra from a sad-guru who knows krsna-tattva. But in the case of uttama-adhikaris, the example of bhagvata parampara is visible everywhere. Hence, it is not a proven fact that the cassette is a bona fide and effective medium to give Diksa.”
Yet Srila Prabhupada established through his world institution ISKCON that the COMMON method for the common people to receive Diksa was without his physical presence and via the cassette recording. Thus again NM is attacking Srila Prabhupada’s method of conducting initiations by stating that Srila Prabhupada did not give his initiations via a ‘bona fide and effective medium’.
“If, in modern times, in special circumstances a guru has given Diksa through his representative or through cassette, this still cannot be accepted as the ultimate principle for everyone at all times and in all places. A guru may give Diksa through the medium of his representative or cassette to a faithful person who is living in a remote place, and cannot personally come before his guru due to circumstances. But this is a temporary situation arising out of extreme circumstances only. Whenever it is possible, the guru will himself personally give Diksa.”
Here NM contradicts himself. Previously he had stated that giving initiation via a cassette was an ideology which had ‘flaws’ because the Guru and disciple could not examine each other, and was NOT a ‘bona fide and effective medium to give Diksa’. Now he claims it is acceptable when the disciple is not able to come before the Guru due to circumstances. Then the Guru’s representative or cassette CAN give initiation. Which is exactly what the Ritvik position states. This principle that NM has enunciated here is applicable whether the Guru is on the planet or not. Whenever the Guru is not present, either by being somewhere else on the planet or in the universe, the disciple is unable to come before him and he can receive initiation via a representative or cassette. The key point according to NM is only that the Disciple is faithful and he is unable to come before the Guru due to his circumstances. So in another flip-flop contradiction, NM is endorsing the ritvik system he is supposed to be attacking.
“Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami has neither accepted nor mentioned the tradition of rtviks as gurus anywhere in his bona fide books. Nor did he support the tradition of rtviks in his personal letters. Whatever Srila Swami Maharaj arranged, it was definitely not ‘rtvik-guru’, which is a contradiction of terms. To call it this is the cause of embarrassment for him among those who know the Vedic sastras. If any of his disciples have anywhere, on the pretext of his name, made such a declaration, then after the word ‘rtvik’, must be added the statement, ‘the representative of guru’.”
Neither has anyone else accepted the tradition of ‘ritviks as Gurus’. The Ritvik position IS that Ritvik means ‘representative of Guru’ as defined in the July 9th directive. Why NM is wasting his time defeating one ‘straw-man’ argument after another is baffling. He should at least make some attempt to learn about what he supposed to be talking about. Otherwise he should simply stay quiet, lest he ends up revealing his great ignorance on the subject, just as he has continually done here.
“And it must be understood that such representatives can only act on a timely or provisional basis.”
Understood according to whom, that such representatives can only act on a timely or provisional basis? NM has not presented one word from Guru, sadhu or sastra to back up this speculation of his.
“Therefore the sadhaka of suddha-bhakti, after thoroughly deliberating on these facts, must not neglect the principles of guru-parampara. If there is any doubt, then it is necessary to remove it by accepting the correct understanding of guru-parampara. One must accept the innermost thoughts or intentions of the guru, otherwise one will be deceived and misled from suddha-bhakti.”
Yes one MUST accept the correct understanding of Guru-parampara and accept the intentions of the Guru. These intentions of Srila Prabhupada are given by him in the July 9th directive, and his many teachings that parampara simply means transmitting the knowledge of Krishna without change, which Srila Prabhupada continues to do even today. Any assertions to the contrary as given herein by NM, will indeed lead us to “be deceived and misled from suddha-bhakti.”
“In consideration of this principle, can it be conjectured that a guru, being ignorant of the Diksa mantras and their conceptions, will appoint a rtvik more qualified than himself, who in turn will give Diksa to others, thus acting as the representative of the guru? Some people say that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja appointed rtviks who were to give Diksa to his disciples.”
No one except NM is conjecturing this. No one has ever proposed that the Diksa Guru appoints a Ritvik who is more qualified than him to give Diksa to others. For the umpteenth time - how much simpler can one make it – the Diksa Guru gives Diksa – the ritvik simply assists in conducting the initiation formalities. Thus NM presents yet another ludicrous ‘straw-man’ argument further revealing his gross ignorance of the subject.
“If this statement is accepted as true, then it means they are accusing Srila Swami Maharaj of being an unqualified guru, and ignorant yajman who, for the sake of fulfilling his material desires or perfection in spiritual life, would have appointed rtviks more qualified than himself. No, it cannot be true, for this is completely impossible. Therefore on the path toward attaining the supreme absolute reality, Bhagavan, this concocted rtvik conception is impractical and against the scriptural conclusions.”
No one is accusing Srila Prabhupada of this. Only NM’s fertile imagination is able to conjure up such useless notions, due to his poor fund of knowledge regarding the subject at hand. Therefore on the path toward attaining the supreme absolute reality, Bhagavan, this concocted rtvik conception as given by NM is impractical and against the scriptural conclusions, and also a gross mis-representation of the actual position advocated by the IRM.
Conclusion
As well as seeing yet again NM’s gross ignorance of the subject he is supposed to be enlightening us on, he has also revealed some more of his traits. He is very keen to undermine Srila Prabhupada by attacking the initiation methodology he employed. This merely reveals his lack of understanding of Guru tattva, since he incorrectly thinks that Diksa is not bona fide if given by an audio recording. The reality however, as demonstrated by Srila Prabhupada, is that Diksa is always bona fide as long as the Guru has authorised the system via which Diksa is given. And finally we have also seen that NM has infected himself with the GBC disease of contradicting himself. Self-contradiction is a common ailment when one does not have a consistent and coherent philosophy, but instead speaks due to a mixture of speculation and ignorance.
In conclusion, we see yet again how the ideology of NM regarding Guru tattva is at complete odds with that presented by Srila Prabhupada, and those who claim to be loyal and faithful to Srila Prabhupada should not continue to be in ignorance of this fact. Thank You.
