BY: ROCANA DASA
Jan 30, 2011 — CANADA (SUN) — This is a follow-up to my recent article, One Should Know that They Are asara, Useless”, in which I pointed out the fact that both Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja and Srila Prabhupada, as confirmed in his purports, have informed the Vaisnavas that one’s opinion cannot be different than the Spiritual Master’s opinion.
And if it is, then you become useless. We’ve been engaged in a back and forth debate for the last few weeks with supporters of the Gaudiya Matha – meaning the umbrella concept of the Gaudiya Matha, i.e., Srila Prabhupada’s godbrothers and the mathas and branches that comes from them – and we find there is a significant difference of opinion between us.
One has to appreciate the fact that Srila Prabhupada’s godbrothers, who for the most part are now departed, were very advanced in Krsna Consciousness and were aware of the import of what Srila Prabhupada was communicating in his purports to Caitanya-caritamrta Adi lila 12.8 to 12.12.
Consequently, they needed to let their followers know, or make them believe that their opinion and Srila Prabhupada’s opinion were actually the same. To support that notion they’ve done extensive research, presenting us with their supposedly conclusive arguments.
No matter what camp you go to – B.V. Narayana Swami, or Srila Puri Maharaja, or B.R. Sridhar Maharaja, or Tripurari Swami’s camp, they all stick to the same hymnbook. They tell us that Srila Prabhupada, in the course of preaching, appeared to commit offenses but he really didn’t commit offenses because he apologized for these offenses — the offenses being that he told his disciples not to have anything to do with his godbrothers.
A disciple who is naïve, inexperienced and neophyte needs to be protected from being confused. The confusion comes, of course, when such inexperienced neophytes come in contact with someone of advanced spiritual status who has a different mood or a different perception of Krsna Consciousness than Srila Prabhupada. When they hear such differing opinions, the confusion will cause doubts in their mind.
After Srila Prabhupada left, his movement was taken over by the Zonal Acaryas, who were then free to ignore his orders, which they did on several fronts. In retrospect, that’s very clear. I recall some of the letters that Rupanuga das received from Srila Prabhupada on the subject of the godbrothers.
Rupanuga was Prabhupada’s number one GBC. Rupanuga took these letters as an order, and some of them he was obliged to pass around to all the temple presidents, so we all heard the contents, and which we passed down to the devotees in the temples. So we heard Srila Prabhupada’s order, and we accepted it.
The orders of Srila Prabhupada – or even the orders of the GBC in those days were instantly accepted, with almost military precision. We did not question. Srila Prabhupada’s orders on his godbrothers were later reinforced by other letters, and when the Caitanya-caritamrta came out, it solidified our conceptions on the subject.
So we had this opinion. In other words, we knew what Srila Prabhupada’s opinion was. And the flimsy or conjured up evidence that’s supplied by those who feel we should give up this opinion, give up the Spiritual Master’s order, does not sway us. It’s not strong enough for us to abandon Srila Prabhupada’s order and opinion.
However, that is not the situation faced by those who are aligned with, or are taking shelter as siksa or diksa disciples of gurus who hold another opinions — an opposite opinion to Srila Prabhupada’s, like some recently expressed here in the Sun.
Those individuals are obliged, according to Krsnadasa Kaviraja’s instructions in the Caitanya-caritamrta, to obey their guru. So our discussing the matter back and forth is not going to resolve anything, because the same order holds for them as it holds for us. They must accept the opinion of their Spiritual Master.
There are all sorts of controversial topics to be discussed, even within ISKCON, what to speak of amongst the other Gaudiya Vaisnava branches. And even on this particular subject, there are persons within ISKCON who don’t share the same opinion we do. So this is a problem for them. Many of my godbrothers have differing opinions on the origin of the jiva.
They may have a different opinion than Srila Prabhupada about the qualifications for being a diksa guru. There are so many different opinions, but one has to make sure if one is a follower of Srila Prabhupada, either diksa or siksa, that he’s in line with Srila Prabhupada’s opinions.
That is our duty. This is our position as followers –we have to make sure we have the same opinion as Srila Prabhupada. Of course, to have the same opinion as Srila Prabhupada is not as easy as it may sound.
Thus we have the controversy created by the Gaudiya Matha and by disciples who do not understand or appreciate this principle, and by those who are Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, but who are also attracted to these other authorities.
Many such devotees have been convinced by these authorities that it’s fine to take shelter of them, and that you require a siksa guru, or a living guru. Those who fall for this deception are not told by their new authorities that they now have to adopt the opinion of their newly found guru – that it’s an obligation on their part.
But they expect them to do so, of course, and when their opinion differs from Srila Prabhupada’s opinion, the devotees are put in a quandary. Many of my godbrothers have been put in that position, and many have sided with their new living authority and guru, going against the opinions of Srila Prabhupada. Today this applies to so many of Srila Prabhupada’s own initiated disciples.
Even within ISKCON this same principle applies. If you have discovered, as a disciple of one of those who are supposedly representing Srila Prabhupada, that your guru’s opinion is different than Srila Prabhupada’s opinion, then you have to make a very serious decision.
So I just wanted to make this point abundantly clear. I’ve already stated that I can’t change my opinion, regardless of how many slokas are presented by our Gaudiya Matha friends, because none of them address the clear and simple instructions from Srila Prabhupada.
They ignore Srila Prabhupada’s opinions, which conflict with their own. So this is the position we’re in, and there is only one solution – to follow Srila Prabhupada’s opinions, and his alone – the ultimate opinion.
It is a question of faith and chastity.
Thank you Rocana for being so chaste and faithful to Srila Prabhupada. That was always Prabhupa’s own spiritual prerogative. He repeatedly stated that if there was any success in His transcendental mission, than it was only because he was a chaste a faithfull disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, His revered Gurumaharaj. He simply wanted to please his Gurumaharaj – nothing more, and nothing less. That was His Divine Grace’s “secret of success”.
Hare Krishna Rocana Prabhu;
I enjoyed your presentation, but am just a little surprised to see your name here, of all places.
You said, quote, “I hate the ritviks”. So, exactly what sort of unity are you backing?
Or is it the albeit scholarly usual talk and no cooperative action, thus actually, instead of helping, diffusing the energies meant to conteract the usurpers and poisoners, and rebuild Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON As It Is ?
In the Cc Adi Lila 12.8-12.12 Rocana has interpreted the meaning of the english content of the purports in his way.That is to say there is more than one way to understand the meanings.
Where the word “useless” appears in these purports are as follows.
1) “But just after His passing away, His leading secretaries made plans, without authority to occupy the post of Acharya, and they split in two factions over who the next Acharya would be. Consequently, both factions were asara, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of the Spiritual Master.”
The word “useless” here can be applied to different subjects in the context of the sentence. Rocana has just applied the word “useless” in one definition and application, that it applies to persons, ie devotees.
But if you look carefully at this sentence the way the sentence is constructed the word “useless” applies to the “factions”(both), so it’s applicable to the actions of the devotees not the devotees themselves. We can separate the action from the performer of the action and there is a massive difference to the meaning of the sentence.
2) “The members of the self-appointed acarya’s party who occupied the property of the Gaudiya Matha are satisfied, but they could make no progress in preaching. Therefore by the result of their actions one should know that they are asara, or useless.”
This example is even more clear. Rocana emphasised the words “one should know” but that did not clarify the sentence or meaning and understanding any better, it just emphasised the point Rocana himself wanted to make. But if you again read the sentence carefully the meaning is different to Rocana’s idea.
What is “useless”- “they” are useless- and what is the “they” referring to-their actions are useless.
Again, what is being said in this sentence is that the actions of the devotees are useless not the devotees themselves. The difference is between the person and the action performed by the person.The action is not the person, as it is said in the Bible – Hate the sin not the sinner. And so it is here.
The “they” that is used in the sentence is referring to the actions, so the meaning of the sentence could also be,
“One should know the result of their actions are useless.” What are they useless in -Their preaching activities.
So finally we come to the conclusive meaning which could read like this. “One should know the result of the preaching activities are useless.”
Then Srila Prabhupada compares the Gaudiya Matha’s preaching efforts to that of Iskcon, which is successful and at that time was increasing daily.
Clearly the subject of this is the preaching activities not the uselessness of devotees in the Gaudiya Matha.That idea has come from Rocana’s mind not from the text of Cc 12.8-12.12.
Iskcon was successful because of Srila Prabhupada. Since Srila Prabhupada disappeared is Iskcon equally successful?
Can’t we see a mirror image of what happened to the Gaudiya Matha after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta disappeared and in Iskcon after Srila Prabhupada disappeared?
If we take Rocana’s piece to its logical conclusion then he is admitting uselessness as well. So Rocana prabhu are you useless too?
Most Sun readers and submitters are unaware of Rocana’s anti-ritvik opinion as he works it from the shadows of his website, filtering out pro-ritvik submissions on an individual basis.
Guru Krpa stated, “Prabhupada ordered ritvik†and Krsnakanta made the case, humiliating ISKCON; yet Rocana “hates the ritviks”.
I think Rocana is skating on thin ice, in this article, criticizing others, and assuming that his opinion, “The Church of Rtvik,” is Prabhupada’s opinion.
I’m convinced that Srila Prabhupada was deliberately vague about who would succeed him.
Rocana das
Interesting Rocana Dasa, now you should explain how you were convinced and why Srila Prabhupada
was deliberately vague about who should succeed him.
Rocana prabhu, you are “deliberately vagueâ€. Please put a sign on your website that says, “NO RITVIKS ALLOWED”.
Just a thought prabhu. After reading over the above comments
Rocan Das has pushed his version of everything – formally on the Sun site at least since 2005. That is now 8 years along.
His entire site is based upon a single premise or axiom: : Srila Prabhupada made no publicly recorded arrangement concerning the “formal” confirmation of initiation for a single soul after his departure in 1977.
That is it.
He offers no apology for this axiomatic conclusion. It ignores the actual record. It suggests no need to study what Srila Prabhupada clearly said on the subject. He replaces all that with his own wishful thinking.
His premise IS the problem; not only for himself – but for anyone who assigns value to his conclusions and the arguments he employs to promote them.
However the truth of the matter is either one thing or the other.
Either SP addressed the matter and made an arrangement – OR – he completely and utterly ignored it. Or worse – FORGOT to address the issue at all.
Rocan opines that SP DID NOT make any arrangement for initiation within his mission after he left us. He has now gone on record as saying that Srila Prabhupada – after accepting and directing the service of 4734 initiated disciples – for 12 years – and building a worldwide mission – decided that their faith and growing love and absolute faith in him – warranted no direction from him on the matter, no protection from the myriad of vicissitudes that might visit all of their tender devotional lives – were he to in fact reciprocate with their unbridled faith in him alone – by completely ignoring the future needs of them and his mission in this regard!
Rocan’s idea is that SP did not – because he COULD NOT have done so – and remained consistent with the teachings of the Acharyas in our Parampara. For this reason – Rocan Das insists that Srila Prabhupada avoided the issue altogether and deliberately left the matter “vague”; subject to the consideration of conditioned souls only to address the matter AFTER he had departed from our view.
In my humble opinion – and I could be wrong – such thinking and speaking on his or anyone’s part – appears to be in fact an actual demonstration of their actual lack of FULL FAITH in Srila Prabhupada.
And all of that is covered with the veneer of his supposed esteem for Srila Prabhupada as the “Sampradaya Acharya”. He constantly alludes to HIS being the one person HE is confident accepts Srila Prabhupada as this “Sampradaya Acharya”! Again to me this appears as nothing more than pure hubris.
Srila Prabhupada was once asked on a walk by one of our Godbrothers “Srila Prabhupada? Is marriage a fall down for a devotee?” and Srila Prabhupada responded while chuckling – “What is the question of fall down – for a fallen fellow? Marriage is simply a proof of one’s actual real condition. That’s all.”
Now – by expressing this idea that Srila Prabhupada deliberately left this matter vague – his actual and real condition has been exposed. That’s all. He expects intelligent and sincere devotees to assign absolute importance to what he says he “thinks” Srila Prabhupada did or said, and what all that means, instead of absolute importance and significance to what Srila Prabhuapda actually “said”.
It is this “condition” – or lack of faith that informs Rocan’s original premise – and it likewise informs all that flows – in his mind “logically” from this poisoned postulate. It serves as the axiom upon which his 104 paragraph essay “The Sampradaya Acharya” is built. It is all his own “castle in the air”.
Rocan Das has never accepted that Srila Prabhupada arranged that his leaders and those he authorized to initiate on his behalf – could only do so – UNDER THE BANNER OF ISKCON – if they were always and only subject to the “vigilant observation and strong management” of GBC scrutiny and sanction that owes allllll of ITS authority from the publicly recorded instructions and guidance of Srila Prabhupada.
The funny thing about Rocan Das’s entire enterprise is that while he pretends to highly esteem Srila Prabhupada as our Sampradaya Acharya – he in fact denies this and denies Srila Prabhupada the actual authority to make any arrangement he damn well chooses being himself under the DIRECT ORDERS of Lord Krsna and Lord Chaitanya. I doubt that he does this deliberately. I am sure he is convinced of his standing upon solid ground in all of this. But at least to myself – it appears that his conviction in his ideas is so strong – his faith rendered insuperable – by Lord Krsna Himself – who makes everyone’s faith steady even unto complete ruin if they remain opposed to reason, experience, common sense and sastra – that he mght now be beyond relief.
Praghhosa
Rocan has long ago proven his “real and actual condition”.
What is the question of his falling – from an already proven “fallen condition”?
Praghosa
Rocana dasa is himself very vague being CONFUSED in his presentation when he writes in his comments ;
” I’m convinced that Srila Prabhupada was deliberately vague about who would succeed him.”
Rocana das. …..(i)
In this post Rocana dasa writes also ;
” So I just wanted to make this point abundantly clear. I’ve already stated that I can’t change my opinion, regardless of how many slokas are presented by our Gaudiya Matha friends, because none of them address the clear and simple instructions from Srila Prabhupada.
They ignore Srila Prabhupada’s opinions, which conflict with their own. So this is the position we’re in, and there is only one solution – to follow Srila Prabhupada’s opinions, and his alone – the ultimate opinion.” …… (ii)
Is Rocana dasa SINCERELY following and promoting HDG. Srila Prabhupada’s Instructions, the ultimate opinion of His VANI in which Srila Prabhupada boldly and clearly says that He is the Initiator – Diksha and Siksha Guru in His Spiritual Organiazation ISKCON world wide . ?????????????????
O R
Is Rocana dasa is merely a HYPOCRATE as it is evidenced from his two statements marked (i) and (ii) cited above ????????????????
I wish that Rocana dasa replies to it or anyone perhaps may wish to answer the question.
All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.
OM TAT SAT.
“
Praghosa Das says: What is the question of [Rocana’s] falling — from an already proven “fallen condition?”
Good point.
Dear Praghosa Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!
Nice to hear from you again after all these years.
How many children do you have now? (I still have only three: 2 boys and a girl.)
Any grandchildren? (My 12th grandchild (my 8th grandson) was born last month.)
I like what you said to me way back in early 1998 in the following open letter:
http://www.vnn.org/world/9804/24-1763/
Do you still agree with everything that you said to me in that letter?
Are you and your fairly large devotee family still members of ISKCON in good standing?
Your servant, Pratyatosa Dasa
Hello Pratyatosa Prabhuji! Multiple Obeisances.
All Glories to our dear Srila Prabhupada.
Nice to hear from you as well. Thank you for reaching out to me.
I only recently discovered you here in this site because of my doing a bit of research on the present situation with Mahanidhi Swami. This site and its various discussions come up. Ouila!
My last son was born in early ’99. My eldest Nimai (Nrsimha Palli Prabhu) our first son as you remember him well from Detroit and North Carolina gurukula (many thanks to you and Mother Urmila) is a most wonderful Vaisnava and with his good wife Srimamti Devi have 3 nice children. They reside in the town of Smith Creek Australia which is only 10 minutes from the New Govardhana farm in Australia. My other two sons – also nice devotees – one initiated one not yet – are married and reside in New Zealand.
I had not read or even seen this essay you provide – http://www.vnn.org/world/9804/24-1763/ – above in many years. Thank you for supplying it for my review.
The shortest answer to your question – “Do you still agree with everything that you said to me in that letter?” is ‘yes BUT it is a ‘qualified’ yes.
Not having read it in many years – I submitted this essay now some 15 years back, it appears to be burdened with some simple but damaging flaws. However, I do believe its intention is essentially honest and correct. If you like I could critique my own words and conclusions – as brutally honest as I would any other man’s offering on this. Perhaps it would be good to do it in the “Third Person” as if I was addressing ‘Praghosa Das” myself and ‘his” thoughts and conclusions. We could do it dispassionately. As I have often offered to do with Rocan Das in fact – to which I only ever received his rebuff to my offer.
15 years of study and consideration – as well as experience have helped me to adjust the way I express myself and I would hope that is for the better.
As far as our family being in “good standing” within the ranks of ISKCON?
I am sure that some men have some reservations with myself. But as I have no actual functioning role vis a vis the management of any Iskcon project – and have always expressed myself – on any point with caution and a general tone of quiet respect -where and when it is legitimate to do so – and actual affection and unreserved respect where and when that is also due – I have never encountered any sense of being seen as anything but a brother, friend, and supporter in the absolute sense from anyone – from any direction.
Thus, my approach has remained necessarily neutral in the practical sense. I focus only on what is truly within my area of actual responsibility, which till today still – remains taking care of my family and while trying to advance in my appreciation for the Lord and Srila Prabhupada and remaining fixed in trying to infiltrate the world of the innocents with Srila Prabhupada’s books no matter what the situation. I regret not being able to do more up till now. Any blessings you can send me to help improve that – I welcome them with open arms.
Respectfully always
Praghosa
[Translate]
Praghosa Das says: Thus, my approach has remained necessarily neutral in the practical sense. I focus only on what is truly within my area of actual responsibility, which till today still — remains taking care of my family and while trying to advance in my appreciation for the Lord and Srila Prabhupada and remaining fixed in trying to infiltrate the world of the innocents with Srila Prabhupada’s books no matter what the situation. I regret not being able to do more up till now. Any blessings you can send me to help improve that — I welcome them with open arms.
Dear Praghosa Prabhu, your reputation as one of Srila Prabhupada’s all-time greatest book distributors is to your eternal credit. At the time of death, a man should be remembered for his greatest achievements, and you will certainly be fondly remembered for your famous book distribution exploits on behalf of our Divine Master. I’m sure that he is very pleased with you for that and also for you and your wife having succeeded in raising such a large devotee family without any divorce to mar your Krishna conscious legacy. These are certainly very great achievements for which you can be justly proud.
But perhaps your greatest achievement, in this relatively short lifetime, is yet to come. Please let me explain:
Lord Sri Krishna has very kindly bestowed you with the blessing of 4 devotee sons (if I have counted correctly). Therefore, you have no excuse for not beginning to give up your family attachments, taking vanaprastha (retired life) as Srila Prabhupada has repeatedly instructed, and turning over to your grown-up sons the sacred responsibility of protecting your wife and your still minor aged children. What is the difficulty? Then you would be able to stop being a fence-sitter, completely come out of the closet as the powerful proponent of Srila Prabhupada’s “ritvik henceforward” prescription for future initiations within ISKCON that your open letter to me 15 years ago indicates that you actually are, and please Srila Prabhupada in the best possible way.
What do you think, Prabhu?
Dear Pratyatosa Prabhu
Multiple Obeisances. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada
Thank you very much for this very nice reply.
As far as anything I was able to do for HDG Srila Prabhupada – that was all his generous mercy upon this fallen soul. He invited us into his inner circle – when he made the opportunity to distribute his books every day and I was fortunately able to take advantage of that opportunity to some degree in the company of about 1000 similarly blessed souls spread out across the globe. How such a fallen soul as myself was able to be included in his service in this way – remains a mystery to myself. I have no earthly idea how I was dragged into such a divine pastime. Srila Prabhupada told us some most amazing things about this most confidential service. He said that the “correct understanding of samkirtan”is “that sankirtana is Lord Caitanya’s lila, which He compares to the gopies trying to engage others in Krsna’s service”! He also told us that in this Krsna Consciousness movement – our “samadhi” consists in dedicating all our efforts to increasing the distribution of this Krsna Literature” and that “we should not divert our minds from this effort for a single moment”. He also said that “when I see that the quantity of my books being distributed more and more is always increasing — I know that all our other programs are proceeding very nicely”.
That I was given the chance to learn these principles early on and have them branded into my thinking process by Srila Prabhupada himself – I consider to be the single greatest gift I could have ever received in this or any lifetime and fall within the category of pure mercy from Guru and Krsna upon this tiny soul.
So – I will take your statement of the possible “future” that lies ahead for me “perhaps your greatest achievement, in this relatively short lifetime, is yet to come” with great great excitement and enthusiasm. However my “retirement” from household life unfolds – I know for sure and certain that it will be 100% informed by all I received from Srila Prabhuapda in the matter of keeping a laser like focus upon the quantitative and qualitative increase in the distribution of his books: his self described ‘devotional ecstacies”.
My sons ARE in fact pushing and helping me to do exactly that.
Thank you very much for adding a little nudge.
What my external situation looks like in all of that – is not at all important to me in this respect.
That will all take shape naturally if I can recapture that specific commitment and focus upon this amazing devotional service.
Most gratefully and respectfully
Praghosa
Pratyatosa pr says: “…beginning to give up your family attachments….”
This is correct, family attachment is surely an issue. In present age of most efficient, highly impious Kali-yuga governments citizens are continuously harassed, suppressed and tormented – 24/7.
So much so that grhasthas hardly develop any attachment whatsoever to their family situation. How can it be otherwise?
Prabhupada: “The citizens will be very much harassed by government taxation (in this age of kali-yuga). In this way the citizens will abandon their attempts to lead a peaceful life and will leave their homes and hearths and go to the forest in sheer disappointment…” (SB 5.13.6)
So this is what we have right now. There is no reason to panic and advise grhasthas to give up their families. This is not peaceful satya-yuga. Where is home in kali-yuga? Try to get it, all our grhasthas are living more austere than any sannyasi in satya-yuga. Besides in kali-yuga sannyasa is forbidden. What else is there – living like a bum at a garbage dump?
Of course there are those who involuntarily had to give up their marriage life and figure that it is important to always remember other grhasthas to quit home at age of 50. But this is a whole other topic….
Dear Mother Darpana devi dasi
Obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I might suggest that you only considered the essence of Pratyatosa prabhus suggestions or urgings to me as his brother in the most philosophical and practical sense.
His suggestion that it might be time for me – or anyone over 50 to retire from family life – is really just his urging me to become as committed to serving Srila Prabhupada and samkirtan as I was in my youth. After all – vanaprastha or sannyasa life is not a question of changing anything but one’s consciousness. He is experiencing much relief from his own “retirement” and he just wants to share that experience with myself or anyone who might be able to capture that. He is seeing how it has provided him more time to directly engage in preaching. I did not address this aspect of his letter very much as it cannot apply to myself. I have a 14 year old son – who is also a ‘special needs child” as all my closest friends know. He requires his father – NOT father figure; even if that father figure was one or more of his brothers. Besides that – I absolutely adore my loving wife and she is my dearest friend in the world and in fact – in her own way my guardian and teacher by example. For 32 years she has yet to fail me in any way whatsoever. She is the emblem of chastity and dedicated motherhood. I would sooner eat broken glass than leave her valuable assistance in the continuing adventure that is the nurturing of the “Praghosa Clan”! So rest assured – this external focus by Pratyatosa Prabhu is neither too important to him or myself. I am sure he agrees with me on these aspects. Very few men are too terribly driven to leave their families – especially as the world is slipping into such chaos and uncertainty. We must all do our best to ensure the safety and Krsna Consciousness of our families – before we take off and share KC with everyone BUT our dear ones! It makes no sense to concern ourselves with “others” before taking all measures to ensure the future KC of every person dependent upon us for all that. I myself have worked with this understanding from Srila Prabhupada.
BUT his calling me to improve and commit to our duty to Srila Prabhupada to increase the distribution of his books and to emphasize the bonafide access to his mercy for all conditioned souls – is captured by me 100% and I thank him very much for that.
Respectfully
Praghosa
Darpana devi dasi says: In present age of most efficient, highly impious Kali-yuga governments, citizens are continuously harassed, suppressed and tormented, 24/7. So much so that grhasthas hardly develop any attachment whatsoever to their family situation.
There is a time when family attachment is good, but as soon as there is a grown son to take over a man’s homestead, it is time to try to give up that attachment.
Please consider the following:
1. Srila Prabhupada repeatedly ordered, including in early 1977, his male disciples to take vanaprastha (retire from family life) at age 50.
2. If the father does not turn the homestead over to the eldest son as soon as he is grown, the son may leave home, fall into maya (illusion), and become useless for protecting his mother in her old age.
3. If the husband does not leave the association of his wife at age 50 or soon thereafter, the wife may become pregnant when she is no longer ready, willing and able to properly raise another child. (Birth control is not only sinful, but it is extremely harmful to a woman’s health.)
@” the eldest son as soon as he is grown, the son may leave home, fall into maya (illusion)”
At one point Prabhupada considered that turning his disciples into Brahmanas creates lots of falldown. In order to solve this debacle Prabhupada upgraded his ISKCON society by introducing varnasram (“varnasram-dharma should be introduced”, Washington, D.C., July 8, 1976 – Evening Darsana).
Ksatriya type of personalities (Naara Narayana Visvakarma pr) are allowed to remarry. Prabhupada gives the example of Maharaja Santanu. Bhisma’s father was Maharaja Santanu. After the death of Bhisma’s mother, Maharaja Santanu wanted to marry again. At that time, Bhisma was elderly. Bhisma was about twenty years old. So Maharaja Santanu, instead of getting Bhisma married, he was himself very much anxious to again get married.
So Maharaja Santanu selected a very beautiful girl – that girl belonged to a low-caste family. Ksatriyas could marry from anywhere. That is the injunction. They are not within the boundary of caste system. So the girl was a fisherman’s daughter. So Maharaja Santanu wanted to marry that girl, and the father was very cunning. He said, “No, no. I cannot offer my daughter to you. You are old man. You have got your son. So I cannot offer.” He was bargaining. “No? Why? I shall give your daughter a palace. We shall enjoy so many years.” “No. I can offer you my daughter provided if my daughter’s son becomes the king after your death. Then I can offer.” “Oh, that I cannot agree, because my eldest son is living. That I cannot agree.”
So Bhisma understood that “My father wants to marry that girl, but the only impediment is that the father of the girl is making a condition that her son should be king, and my father is declining because I am present. I should be king.”
Bhisma at once approached the father of the girl: “What is your condition, sir?” “This is my condition.” “All right, I shall not accept kingdom of my father. Your daughter’s son will be king. I agree to this.” “Oh, no. You may agree, but your son will again claim, because you are the proprietor, you are the prince.” “Oh, you think so? Then I shall not marry. I shall not marry. Is that all right?” So then, he was so… He promised that “I shall never marry in my life. That’s all right? Then marry your daughter to my father.” Bhisma was so pious and so strict.
Manu is also mahajana, Prahlada Maharaja, and Janaka, Janaka Maharaja, the father of mother Sita, he is also mahajana. And Bhisma. Bhisma, the grandfather Bhisma, he is also mahajana. Therefore Bhisma’s instruction in the Bhagavata should be taken seriously.
Pratyatosa Dasa (ACBSP) says: Dear Praghosa Prabhu…then you would be able to stop being a fence-sitter, completely come out of the closet as the powerful proponent of Srila Prabhupada’s “ritvik henceforward” prescription for future initiations within ISKCON that your open letter to me 15 years ago indicates that you actually are, and please Srila Prabhupada in the best possible way.
Dear Praghosa Prabhu, I just finished re-reading your open letter to me 15 years ago, and noticed that you contradict yourself.
You say:
…and yet you repeatedly quote the May 28th conversation by using the term “officiating acharya,” a term which, according to the VedaBase, Srila Prabhupada only used once. Prabhupada obviously decided that that terminology was misleading, so he never used it again! The correct terminology is, according to the July 9th letter and 3 personal letters soon thereafter, “ritvik representative of the acharya” or simply “ritvik.”
But of course, since you want to continue to associate with members of ISKCON, you are not allowed to even say the word “ritvik!” This is obviously because, according to those offensive ISKCON ritvik-bashers, who are actually far worse association than karmis, Srila Prabhupada’s own terminology is a dirty word!
For the sake of your own spiritual life, please stop associating with those demons!
Dear Pratyatosa Prabhu
Obeisances All Glories to Srila Prabhupada
Thank you for this letter.
You are correct -if you read the essay in question – written in 1999 and THEN read my essay of 2005 – found here –
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harekrsna.com%2Fsun%2Feditorials%2F09-07%2Fpraghosa.doc&ei=4tAUUsXSAaidyQGk_4CQDA&usg=AFQjCNHSlddkPosrV-kkLx8USdDYU0KVsQ&bvm=bv.50952593,d.aWc –
one could easily conclude that my conclusion appears a bit contradictory.
I openly admit to this. I do not run from the charge. I am happy to say so.
As I said previously in this exchange between us – when you asked me about this “The shortest answer to your question — “Do you still agree with everything that you said to me in that letter?” is ‘yes BUT it is a ‘qualified’ yes.”
You did not then ask me to elaborate on this point (qualified ‘yes’)
Are you requesting I do so now?
If so – I will be happy to do so. Though reading carefully my essay of 2005 should make my simple position clear enough.
I definitely saw over time and study that I was missing a very important principle in reviewing the guidance Srila Prabhupada left us. I was using logic that ignores the absolute nature of the Acharya’s every word. I saw that I was electing to assign more importance to a portion of his words than others; as if my conditioned intelligence and/or logic was capable of resolving this or any challenging issue. I admit to this and also admit – at least to my own self most importantly.
In my view my statement – which you kindly quote here “For anyone to continue quoting the conversations of May 28th as being relevant to Srila Prabhupada’s Final Order on the subject of initiations in ISKCON, is in reality-disgraceful!!” was and is – pure hubris on my part. There has been much life or “water under the bridge” for me since that time and I try very hard to avoid expressing myself in such a manner. I fail sometimes to avoid this BUT I am a conditioned soul and subject to the four defects. This is not an excuse. It is simply a statement of fact. My view today – after careful study of Srila Prabhupada and our Acharyas is the exact opposite. Today and since at east 2004 – I view the May 28th conversations and those prior and later – are every bit as significant and relevant to this topic as Srila Prabhupada’s specific directives on the matter in 1977.
You complimented me on my past service and then slammed me with the charge of “fence sitting” on this issue. You now charge me with associating with and/or personally assigning value to the association of (in your own words) “those demons”.
Well who is and who is not a demon – is not to be defined by you or anyone as far as my own consideration is concerned. I choose to honor and value a man on my own authority. I do not rely upon you are anyone to define that choice. You have also been described by some as a demon. I have never accepted this definition of you as even remotely close to reality. But your both referring to any group of devotees in either the general or specific sense – as “those demons” is in my humble view – a reckless display at best – and at worst – a possible act of spiritual suicide. Some may be confused. I myself admit to being sometimes confused or weak. at timesBut a demon? Moi? Hardly. Likewise anyone else. And I doubt you would agree to accept such a self description – no matter how you have come up short.
To be safe – I take Lord Krsna’s example as my guide. The moment a devotee commits to initiation in His line of disciplic succession , the Lord sees this soul to be non-different from Himself.
And Lord Chaitanya instructed that if one chants the Holy Name even one single time without offense – then he should be seen as a devotee and most worshipable.
Confused or otherwise – in my view we should “err on the side of caution’ before we cavalierly slander anyone who is trying to embrace and serve the Holy Names as one of “those demons”.
Why not approach the matter with a bit more humility? After all – you are not Lord Krsna. Neither you are Mahaprabhu. Neither are you Srila Prabhuupada. Why not simply consider that those who in your eyes are in error – might simply be confused and with a bit of your help and good example – could be helped. And all this – with the pleasure and satisfaction of Srila Prabhupada as the cynosure to everyone’s effort.
After all – as you point out – it really is only a matter of employing the simple “terminology” given us by Srila Prabhupada – that clarifies the matter and protects the future estate of his mission. That is all.
ISKCON has always worked under the system Srila Prabhupada gave us. They either don’t know it or have been reluctant to see and admit to this and employ the terms he gave us to define their actual roles as his representatives.
Sincerely
Praghosa
PS
The discussion moved a bit and I brought up an important point yesterday: essentially – the ability of every man to increase the quantitative distribution of Srila Prabhupada’s books – where they stand. I cited your own circumstances there in the UP as a simple example. No one there in the UP knows of – or even needs to know – of any controversial issue within the institution of ISKCON, You could initiate the whole process of daily book book distribution there in the UP and personally cultivate all those who come forward to learn more. No? What say you to this suggestion?
Sincerely
Praghosa
Praghosa Das says: …one could easily conclude that my conclusion appears a bit contradictory. I openly admit to this. I do not run from the charge. I am happy to say so…In my view my statement — which you kindly quote here “For anyone to continue quoting the conversations of May 28th as being relevant to Srila Prabhupada’s Final Order on the subject of initiations in ISKCON, is in reality-disgraceful!!” was and is — pure hubris on my part.
You admit that there is a contradiction, but are you saying that your statement,“For anyone to continue quoting…is in reality-disgraceful!!” needs correction, and not your “officiating acharya” terminology, or are you saying that both need correcting?
Praghosa Das says: Well who is and who is not a demon — is not to be defined by you or anyone as far as my own consideration is concerned. I choose to honor and value a man on my own authority. I do not rely upon you are anyone to define that choice. You have also been described by some as a demon. I have never accepted this definition of you as even remotely close to reality. But your both referring to any group of devotees in either the general or specific sense — as “those demons” is in my humble view — a reckless display at best — and at worst — a possible act of spiritual suicide. Some may be confused. I myself admit to being sometimes confused or weak, at times. But a demon? Moi? Hardly. Likewise anyone else. And I doubt you would agree to accept such a self description — no matter how you have come up short.
I’m not saying that everyone in ISKCON is a demon. There are even many closet Ritviks within ISKCON, biting their lips until the time is right. There are also many who do not criticize the Ritviks for fear of committing an offense. Maybe there are even a few Ritvik-bashers who are genuinely and honestly, as you say, “confused” and/or “ignorant.” I’m sure that some of them are simply ignorant because their respective “gurus” tell them, “Avoid the Internet and don’t read The Final Order or Back to Prabhupada magazine.”
But for someone to knowingly try to make the word “ritvik,” Srila Prabhupada’s own terminology, into a dirty word, for self-motivated reasons, are simply, in my humble opinion, demons in the garb of devotees! But if you prefer to call them “confused, ignorant rascals,” that’s OK with me.
As for these demons (confused, ignorant rascals) calling me a demon, that’s simply an indication to me that I’m on the right track. I don’t mind.
I take seriously your suggestion for me to again go out on book distribution, and that may be a possibility for the future, but right now, my effort to distribute Srila Prabhupada’s unchanged books is going to have to be satisfied by my (ISKCON BBT approved) <http://causelessmercy.com/> website, which is read by untold thousands of spirit souls, all over the world, who are sincerely seeking spiritual enlightenment.
Praghosa Das says: …one could easily conclude that my conclusion appears a bit contradictory. I openly admit to this. I do not run from the charge. I am happy to say so…In my view my statement — which you kindly quote here “For anyone to continue quoting the conversations of May 28th as being relevant to Srila Prabhupada’s Final Order on the subject of initiations in ISKCON, is in reality-disgraceful!!” was and is — pure hubris on my part.
You admit that there is a contradiction, but are you saying that your statement, “For anyone to continue quoting…is in reality-disgraceful!!” needs correction, and not your “officiating acharya” terminology, or are you saying that both need correcting?
Praghosa Das says: Well who is and who is not a demon — is not to be defined by you or anyone as far as my own consideration is concerned. I choose to honor and value a man on my own authority. I do not rely upon you are anyone to define that choice. You have also been described by some as a demon. I have never accepted this definition of you as even remotely close to reality. But your both referring to any group of devotees in either the general or specific sense — as “those demons” is in my humble view — a reckless display at best — and at worst — a possible act of spiritual suicide. Some may be confused. I myself admit to being sometimes confused or weak, at times. But a demon? Moi? Hardly. Likewise anyone else. And I doubt you would agree to accept such a self description — no matter how you have come up short.
I’m not saying that everyone in ISKCON is a demon. There are even many closet Ritviks within ISKCON, biting their lips until the time is right. There are also many who do not criticize the Ritviks for fear of committing an offense. Maybe there are even a few Ritvik-bashers who are genuinely and honestly, as you say, “confused” and/or “ignorant.” I’m sure that some of them are simply ignorant because their respective “gurus” tell them, “Avoid the Internet and don’t read The Final Order or Back to Prabhupada magazine.”
But those who knowingly try to make the word “ritvik,” Srila Prabhupada’s own terminology, into a dirty word, for self-motivated reasons, are simply, in my humble opinion, demons in the garb of devotees! But if you prefer to call them “confused, ignorant rascals,” that’s OK with me.
As for these demons (confused, ignorant rascals) calling me a demon, that’s simply an indication to me that I’m on the right track. I don’t mind.
I take seriously your suggestion for me to again go out on book distribution, and that may be a possibility for the future, but right now, my effort to distribute Srila Prabhupada’s unchanged books is going to have to be satisfied by my (ISKCON BBT approved) <http://causelessmercy.com/> website, which is read by untold thousands of spirit souls, all over the world, who are sincerely seeking spiritual enlightenment. What other Internet website allows one to “bookmark” the exact location on a page where one left off?
Dear Pratyatosa prabhu
Obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thanks again for this comment.
“You admit that there is a contradiction, but are you saying that your statement,“For anyone to continue quoting…is in reality-disgraceful!!” needs correction, and not your “officiating acharya” terminology, or are you saying that both need correcting?”
Is it not obvious? I am directly saying that – at least to myself – and this is ultimately all that matters – to myself – the May 28th Conversation is most certainly every bit as relevant and important as the July 9th Letter. And I directly admit that this quote you have taken from that essay appears – at least to myself – as hubris only on my part. The term officiating acharya was the immediate nomenclature employed by Srila Prabhupada to describe the men he stated he “would select after this is all settled up” to act as officiating acharya. I personally choose to assign this simple term used by Srila Prabhuapda the importance I believe it merits and requires.
The term officiating acharya by the way is simply the English expression given by Srila Prabhupada -of the term ritivk acharya. This is clear from the May 28th Conversation.
Selecting or Appointing “some men” as Srila Prabhupada did – was perfectly natural – as well as logical.
We should not try to evade the term –as it perfectly describes the duties and relationship between the self realized soul – who is acting in full knowledge of Lord Krsna and one who – while not actually KNOWING Lord Krsna in full truth – has implicit faith in the guidance of the self realized spiritual master and willingly abides by his directions with full confidence in the spiritual master’s promise of eventual full realization of the Absolute Truth. We should not give the term “officiating acharya or ritvik acharya” a negative definition; turning it as you say – into a ‘dirty word”. This term and its actual definition were provided us by Srila Prabhupada.
They are perfect, all blissful and descended to us from Lord Krsna himself. Srila Prabhupada said himself –“when I say ‘He is guru’ he’s guru. That’s it.”But one who is selected to act as guru – while still in the non-liberated stage – if he is honest – KNOWS that he does not yet actually KNOW anything of Krsna really. He knows that he has faith in the self realized soul’s every affirmation on the matter. Strong faith even! BUT he knows and honestly admits to himself and all others – that “I am a conditioned soul. And but for the shelter I have taken at the lotus feet of the spiritual master – I don’t actually KNOW anything at all. Nothing but what I have been told in fact and accepted on faith. I am faithfully teaching you what I believe to be true. Not what I KNOW to be true.” So — this much guru I can be: A man whose faith is strong – teaching you or others how to gain at least this much faith also!”
The amazing thing is – even when one IS self realized, still he will always present himself with the above mentioned relationship with his guru and Lord Krsna. In this sense then – no guru actually sees himself as making “his” disciples etc. He always and only sees himself unqualified for anything other than bringing all sincere souls to His Guru and His perfect expression of the message of our Parampara.
“I’m not saying that everyone in ISKCON is a demon. There are even many closet Ritviks within ISKCON, biting their lips until the time is right. There are also many who do not criticize the Ritviks for fear of committing an offense. Maybe there are even a few Ritvik-bashers who are genuinely and honestly, as you say, “confused” and/or “ignorant.” I’m sure that some of them are simply ignorant because their respective “gurus” tell them, “Avoid the Internet and don’t read The Final Order or Back to Prabhupada magazine.”
But for someone to knowingly try to make the word “ritvik,” Srila Prabhupada’s own terminology, into a dirty word, for self-motivated reasons, are simply, in my humble opinion, demons in the garb of devotees! But if you prefer to call them “confused, ignorant rascals,” that’s OK with me.”
If one is deliberately obfuscating the meaning or intent of Srila Prabhupada’s words – then yes such description would be warranted. However in my own estimation – both sides of the issue are in error. Would it be cogent on my part to conclude and proudly “therefore” both confused parties are doing this deliberately and just demons? My own opinion on the matter is that both parties to this vexing polemic that has rankled ISKCON since 1978 – are simply confused. As for the cause of this confusion I will not bother to assess motive. It has been very expensive in men and especially in money. It has cost Srila Prabhupada’s treasury upwards of 30 Million dollars and counting! That is a bit tragic. No?
As I said previously – ISKCON has always acted within the context of Srila Prabhupada’s directives; just not yet perfectly. I do believe the whole mess could be resolved in less than an hour’s discussion to the satisfaction of all those parties that wish to move forward with the preaching.
Additionally – you write “But if you prefer to call them “confused, ignorant rascals,” that’s OK with me.”
You place quotation marks “ “ around the words “confused, ignorant rascals” as if I actually said this. Look again at the quote you provide. I said even if you considered them “confused” and/or “ignorant.”. You juiced it up with your own obvious antipathy. I did not add include this distracting ad hominem.
“As for these demons (confused, ignorant rascals) calling me a demon, that’s simply an indication to me that I’m on the right track. I don’t mind. ”
Ah….OOOOKAY.
“I take seriously your suggestion for me to again go out on book distribution, and that may be a possibility for the future, but right now, my effort to distribute Srila Prabhupada’s unchanged books is going to have to be satisfied by my (ISKCON BBT approved) website, which is read by untold thousands of spirit souls, all over the world, who are sincerely seeking spiritual enlightenment.”
I encourage you in all ways prabhu.
It is a wide open field out there. Have at it and Srila Prabhupada will bless you more and more.
Sincerely
Praghosa
Praghosa das says: …the May 28th Conversation is most certainly every bit as relevant and important as the July 9th Letter. And I directly admit that this quote you have taken from that essay appears – at least to myself – as hubris only on my part. The term officiating acharya was the immediate nomenclature employed by Srila Prabhupada to describe the men he stated he “would select after this is all settled up” to act as officiating acharya. I personally choose to assign this simple term used by Srila Prabhuapda the importance I believe it merits and requires.
No, Praghosa Prabhu. You are living in a dream world. No self-respecting Ritvik is going to accept your proposal, and I don’t think that very many ISKCON “gurus” are going to accept being demoted to “officiating acharyas!” Also, the May 28th conversation is not nearly as important as the July 9th letter. Hansadutta Prabhu hit the nail on the head more than 20 years ago when he wrote:
(<http://www.hansadutta.com/ART_NAMHATTA/prSPMAY05.html>)
The title, “officiating acharya” was replaced by the more clearly defined, “ritvik representative of the Acharya” by Srila Prabhupada himself, but, in my humble opinion, ISKCON’s current crop of pretender gurus don’t even necessarily qualify to be “ritvik representatives of the Acharya,” a position which Srila Prabhupada carefully honed over the years.
Here’s a better idea:
How to fix ISKCON in 9 easy steps