The Pre-eminent Founder-Acaryas | oneISKCON.com

httpv://youtu.be/HgwYS36TLxA
video: 40th Anniversary of Bhaktivedanta Manor

By Bhakta Shishir R. Katote (oneiskcon contributor)

The Six Goswamis:  The only Theological Pre-eminent Founder-Acaryas and Greatest Siksa Gurus of the Gaudiya Sampradaya and ISKCON

BSD: The International Society for Krishna Consciousness is merely an institution belonging to the overall, greater Gaudiya sampradaya. The official legal founder-acarya of ISKCON is certainly Srila Prabhupada, but the theological founders of the whole sampradaya, and even ISKCON, are only the six goswamis and none else.

[PADA: The Six Goswamis are not the “theological founders” of Vaishnavism? They are however, perhaps the most famous followers of — Lord Chaitanya. The Goswamis are certainly immense contributors to the parampara, but the “theological founder” of Vaishnavism is — Lord Krishna? The ONEISKCON program does not seem to be able to get their facts straight, right out of the box. The main exponent of chanting Hare Krishna in this age of KALI is — Lord Chaitanya. The Six Goswamis expounded on the principles given by Lord Chaitanya. Of course, Narayan Maharaja also said, Srila Prabhupada is simply a representative of the overall greater sampradaya, as his means of emphasizing himself and his post-1936 Gaudiya Matha’s false gurus.

Now oneiskcon is adopting the same exact tactic and rhetoric. This is a means of minimizing Srila Prabhupada, plain and simple. Their idea is: Srila Prabhupada is not the main teaching, but not too worry, we represent the main teaching, and so we are going to save you from the deficient teachings of Srila Prabhupada. BVKS program has simply adopted the bogus Gaudiya Matha’s and NM’s ideas.

Of course “oneiskcon’s” writings simply beg more questions. If the writings of the Six Goswamis are more important than other literature, such as the Srimad Bhagatam, and in particular Srila Prabhupada’s literatures, why were they not translated first by Srila Prabhupada? The implication of Bhakta Shishir das (BSD) and BVKS’s oneiskcon site is — that Srila Prabhupada’s writings are deficient and lacking because he missed the alleged main core of the most important Vaishnava literature, namely the writings of the Goswamis. BSD is repeating what the Gaudiya Matha deviant’s folks also say, that we in ISKCON do not have the “rasika writings” of the Goswamis.

Have Bhakti Vikas swami and Danavir fallen into the bogus Gaudiya Matha’s ditch?

This begs another question, who is qualified to translate the writings of the Goswamis? For that matter, who is qualified to read the writings of the Goswamis? How will we know if the translations provided by BSD / Bhakta Shishir das / oneiskcon are authorized, or not? This simply opens another huge can of worms, who is going to translate all these writings of the Six Goswamis? Who is going to select which writings are fit for the mass of public to read? Who is going to insure the editing and translating are done properly, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum? And why would we back pedal on Srila Prabhupada’s writings to introduce another set of writings with questionable translations? And why is BVKS promoting these bogus ideas on his team’s oneiskcon web site?]

BSD: The principle of guru-parampara or disciplic succession is that later acaryas follow former acaryas and not vice versa.

[PADA: Right, and all the former acharyas agree that higher philosophical points, and especially rasika topics, are to presented only to select individuals, and not to the mass of neophyte devotees. All the acharyas also agree that only another acharya is qualified to translate and expound upon (i.e. give purports to) to the texts of other acharyas. BSD avoids answering ALL these issues? Who is going to do this translation work now? Is BSD going to volunteer to be the new “shastric editor and writer” that ISKCON needs for “the higher” teachings? Who is going to do this translating? And notice, BSD does not seem to mention who that translator will be, or even if there is anyone capable of doing that now? His whole idea is based on speculative principles.

The reason we follow the most recent of latter day acharyas is — that they are giving special dispensations required for our era. For example, its no longer practical to have people chanting 64 rounds a day. And therefore BSD and oneiskcon are very foolish to think this is practical for us in the Western world now, just because this was taught by the previous acharyas. BSD is trying to make the ISKCON movement impractical for the Western people.

Even in India hardly anyone has time to chant 64 rounds. BSD is thus making unrealistic ideals by his over-stepping the current acharya. Some of the disciples of Narayan Maharaja are preaching the SAME exact concept as BSD, that Srila Prabhupada is wrong (or bogus) because he does not require 64 rounds a day. Thus BSD implies that Srila Prabhupada has over-stepped his acharya Srila Saraswati Thakura. This is an insult to Srila Prabhupada, and its amazing that BVKS’s oneiskcon is going in this direction. What other direction is left for them other than to join with the bogus Gaudiya Matha?]

BSD: But making Srila Prabhupada as the greatest siksa-guru of ISKCON will make it vice versa and this will hurt the basic fundamental concept of “anugatya” in the sampradaya.

[PADA: This is all starting to make much more sense now. This explains why BSD is promoting the BVKS / DANAVIR / ANTI-WOMEN web site and program. These folks want to turn back the clock and go back to the 1930s Gaudiya Matha’s era — when women were not even allowed to live in the temples, women were not allowed to do poojari work, and so on. BSD wants to take us back to that era, along with BVKS and oneiskcon, who have all been part of this anti-women “GHQ” program (along with Basu Ghosha and Gaura Keshava) which simply frustrated and infuriated women all over ISKCON.

Women have been fleeing the ISKCON temples in droves because of these fools. And now the same fools want to pour more coals on their anti-women fire that they already started. The reason we follow the most recent acharya Srila Prabhupada — the person who in fact introduced having much more women participation — is because: that is the ONLY WAY the PROCESS will work AT ALL in the West. These fools want to take us back to medieval India where women had little participation. Of course, and many people do ask me this all the time — is this so the pro-homosexual messiah’s agenda can make more progress?

Another problem here is that we now need BSD and his ilk to give us these alleged “higher teachings,” … which we are supposedly missing at present. This is what the deviated Gaudiya Matha folks like Sridhara Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja also told us, we need to get their “higher rasika” teachings and — how handy is this — they are handily going to provide us with them. And now BSD is going to be the new gate keeper for these “higher teachings.” We need BSD and his team of “oneiskcon” translators / scholars / ISKCON’s “shastric advisors” like Gaura Keshava dasa, to get the higher (rasika?) essence. This is exactly what the bogus Gaudiya Matha folks presented to us. We need them and their books for “rasika”, and not so much the writings of Srila Prabhupada. This begs another question, has the BVKS program finally revealed that they are full blown sahajiyas all along, and they just cleverly covered that up over they years?]

BSD: Madhva Sampradaya acaryas up to Laksmipati Tirtha should not be considered founding-acaryas of Gaudiya sampradaya because our Madhva connection is only nominal and Gaudiya philosophy has more than 80% difference with the Madhvite conception.

[PADA: OK except, we are called the Brahma / Madhva / Gaudiya sampradaya? We are not called the 10 percent “Brahma,” 30 percent “Madhva” 60 percent “Lord Chaitanya” etc. line? No one has said these things before, we get 20 percent from one source, 20 percent from another source etc.? No, all the teachings of all the acharyas are combined together as one “linked together chain” in our line. Srila Prabhupada does not parcel out the “percentages” of influence of the various acharyas in our line, with these BSD percentage calculations.

Madhvacarya’s contribution is — that he formed the basic foundations for our modern sampradaya. At the same time he taught what had to be taught in his era. No one has ever said that acharya “A” is superior to acharya “B” — or that this particular acharya, or that acharya — is a smaller or larger percentage link in the chain, as BSD is doing here. Its an insult to say one acharya is a lesser link than another, that is not our process. The entire process builds upon all the previous contributors.

This is called spiritual vision. All the gopis admire each other’s services equally, none of them is saying “I am the better percentage gopi.”  The gopis were lamenting that Krishna’s flute is more elevated than them, and so on, the spiritual world has none of these “percentages of services,” all the residents there are pure and respectful of one another. They think they are not doing very good service, everyone else is doing better. They are not saying, this is the 10 percent servant, 25 percent servant, and so on.]

BSD: Since, Caitanya Mahaprabhu appointed Rupa and Sanatana as his apostles to carry out three orders (refer to Caitanya Caritamrita, Madhya-lila), Rupa, Sanatana, Jiva and all the six goswamis are the foremost acaryas of the sampradaya.

[PADA: “Foremost,” except that Srila Prabhupada said our ISKCON members are not yet qualified to hear some of their teachings, because we are not that advanced at this stage. At the same time notice, the oneikscon site folks are saying that gurus in our line are falling into illicit sex. So they are saying the whole line is prone to maya? The oneiskcon site is saying the acharyas, such as the Goswamis, are prone to falling into intoxicants, drugs, illicit sex, even being accessories to murders. They have not resolved their first wave of insults upon the acharyas, that gurus fall down into maya on a regular basis, and now they are forwarding another wave of insults against the acharyas.

Why not first of all establish — what is the quality of the persons in the line — before telling us what percentage of influence this or that link has? This is a cover up for the fact that the oneiskcon site is promoting the idea that acharyas are — most of the time — falling into illicit sex with men, women and children. And now to add insult to injury, they are talking about our need for rasika, at the precise time that this is the worst topic to bring up when they are promoting the worst forms of criminal behaviors and debauchery as their messiahs?]

BSD: The history of recent acaryas like Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur and Srila Prabhupada and their organizations like Gaudiya Mission and ISKCON shows that just like Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur was highlighted on top of all other former acaryas of the line by his followers, the ISKCON followers also highlighted Srila Prabhupada as the most prominent acarya – which means even superseding his guru i.e. Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur.

[PADA: No, oneiskcon has superseded the acharyas by stopping their orders to form a GBC and not have bogus gurus. Oneiskcon is superseding the entire line.]

BSD: The GBC just passed a resolution making Srila Prabhupada’s position most pre-eminent in all 10,000 years to come in ISKCON. But a similar resolution had been passed by Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur’s disciples after Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur’s demise.

[PADA: After the demise of Srila Saraswati his leaders began to rubber stamp artificial gurus, and the GBC is doing that, and BVKS, Danavir and oneiskcon are all supporting this false gurus process. Why not address the root complaint people have these days about the GBC, that they are rubber stamping false gurus? As far as Srila Prabhupada being the diksha or shiksha guru for ISKCON for the next 10,000 years, he may or may not be the last acharya on the planet the next 10,000 years, or for ISKCON, this is all speculation and it diverts from the main complaint, that the GBC is making debauchees into gurus. Why not discuss the main complaint issue that everyone has?]

BSD: But still ISKCON was made and Srila Prabhupada’s position overruled the position of Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur. Even though, Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur’s disciples agreed that none after Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati shall be called as Prabhupada, our Srila Prabhupada was called as Prabhupada.

[PADA: Thats because they engaged in speculation. Of course notice, NARAYAN MAHARAJA was one of the biggest complaintants in 1972 that Srila Prabhupada is using the “Prabhupada” title. And BVKS’s pals on the GBC all went there and worshiped NM for years together, with BVKS cheer leading the whole bogus show. BVKS is up to his neck in supporting the worst offenders to the acharyas, and now he is adding rasika-ness to the mix, before settling the preliminary issues?]

BSD: Though there is nothing wrong in this, what I want to point out is that history repeats itself.

[PADA: Right, the Gaudiya Matha made debauchees into acharyas, and called that rasika-ness, and BVKS is now trying to add rasika-ness to his illicit sex messiah’s program, he is repeating exactly the same mistake they made. Correct.]

BSD: Srila Prabhupada has predicted that many self-revealed most ideally perfect charismatic acaryas will come in the future in his line (that time has not yet come). So, if this will happen, then the followers of these would-be acaryas will make their acaryas even more prominent than Srila Prabhupada. Just like ISKCON followers discarded Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur’s importance and gave it to their Srila Prabhupada. When time changes, old resolutions are thrown out. If such repetition of history occurs (and it will if things are not adjusted now), then every successive charismatic acharya will rise to pre-eminence and the old acaryas will be marginalized. To avoid such inconsistencies, it is better to always make the founding-acaryas of any sampradaya pre-eminent. And so, the six goswamis are there.

[PADA: OK, we need to emphasize the writings of the Goswamis over Srila Prabhupada’s writings because, maybe another acharya will appear in the future? Maybe? Possibly? Nobody knows? We have to stop everything now because, maybe lightening will strike us next week? This is all speculation, could be, maybe will be, might be, who knows, might never be, simply — speculation — mano rathena.]

BSD: Another reason why the six goswamis should be highlighted is that the writings of recent acaryas are full of apparent ambiguities and the writings of past acaryas are technically devoid of ambiguities. In any sampradaya which becomes deviant later on, the root factor of such philosophical deviation is the negligence of the writings of the founder-acarya of that sampradaya and making the current acarya’s writing pre-emiment.

[PADA: So, we need to compare Srila Prabhupada’s writings to another set of writings, i.e. the writings approved of by the BVKS program, to make sure Srila Prabhupada’s are accurate, but we have no accurate translator to translate the materials we want to compare his to? Do you people ever think before you write? And now they are openly saying Srila Prabhupada’s writing are “full of apparent ambiguities”? This is the final step to spiritual suicide, attacking the writings of the guru. Sorry, shastra is not ambiguous at all: Anyone who questions the acharyas is going down the drain materially, spiritually, and into the lower species of life. Its really pretty simple here.]

Paul Howard: Considering that everything I know about Krishna consciousness is because of Srila Prabhupada, I think it would be extremely disrespectful to presume myself capable of checking his books against the writings of earlier acaryas to see if Srila Prabhupada deviated in his teachings. Even I wouldn’t dare entertain an idea like that.

[PADA: Right, anyone can see that challenging the writings of the acharya is “extremely disrespectful” and that the Bhakti Vikas swami program has fallen into a very dark well of ignorance and severe aparadha to the acharya.] 

BSD: … This is how heterodoxy starts. Though Srila Prabhupada’s writings cannot be compared as heterodox like Gunatitananda’s Vacanamritam, but still, if we make the writings of the current acarya as more prominent to the writings of the founding-acaryas, then how will we be able to detect any deviancy?

[PADA: This is the new job of Bhakti Vikas swami’s program, to detect if Srila Prabhupada is a deviant? These people are going totally berserk-ers. They think they are superior to the acharyas and its their job to monitor the acharyas for deviations. No! Its not our job to “detect if the acharya is deviating.” This shows how watered down BVKS program has become over the years, they have lost their ability to even know that it is an extreme offense to consider that its their job to monitor the acharyas for deviancy. Of course BVKS program is so foolish, his GBC program does that all the time, they monitor other “acharyas” for deviations, all in the name of acharyas. So this is the result of BVKS supporting all these bogus Gaudiya Matha ideas that acharyas are deviating, they now think Srila Prahbupada is another deviating person — like they are. Familiarity breeds contempt.]

BSD: Though there is not deviance in Srila Prabhupada’s writings, but nowadays even Srila Prabhupada’s writings are given less priority and the writings of current living leaders of ISKCON are forcibly imposed upon new devotees. So, if this principle of making current acarya’s writings more prominent than previous acaryas is kept intact, all sorts of deviancies will come later on.

PADA: This is real mumbo jumbo here, they seem to be saying simultaneously:

(A) There is no deviance in Srila Prabhupada’s writings, except — we need to read the other acharyas to make sure Srila Prabhupada is not writing deviancies. Of course, we have no other books to compare his to since we have no qualified translators.

(B) Making Srila Prabhupada’s writings more prominent will make all sorts of deviancies come later on, because he is not the pre-eminent acharya.

(C) Making the GBC guru’s writings more prominent will make deviancies, with no explanation why BVKS is part of this program.

(D) We cannot promote Srila Prabhupada’s writings because they GBC is instead forcing people to read their bogus books, and BVKS is writing some of his own books as well as the other GBC gurus.

(E) BVKS is supporting a program that is forcing people to read bogus books, and he is writing his own books? Why is he not saying we need to remove all the bogus books and only read Prabhupada’s books, ooops, which might also be bogus because they are perhaps full of deviancy?

We could to on here, but … OK if you are confused now, you should be! None of this is making sense, they are making contrary statements all at once.

Yes, this begs the question, why is BVKS supporting a program that is making all these cracker pot assertions? BVKS came out recently and said Radhanatha’s books are bogus, then that complaint disappeared from his web site. As soon as that complaint disappeared, we saw this article which says Srila Prabhupada’s writings might be the deviant writings? Now we need to verify that Srila Prabhupada is writing properly by verification with other writings, what writings? So, we better not criticize Radhanatha’s writings, but lets criticize Srila Prabhupada’s writings by saying they are “full of ambiguity” and might be full of deviance unless we can counter check his writings?

Even Radhanath is not so bewildered he writes that Srila Prabhupada’s works need to be counter checked for deviance? What is happening here really? Its called a cult melt down. The last teeny marble of sense rolling around in the heads of the BVKS site is dropping out. ys pd