Brahma dasa chooses to align himself with the branch of the Mädhva-Gaudiya-sampradäya tree that does not recognize the unique “nitya-siddha” symptoms, characteristics, pastimes, and teachings of His Divine Grace Srimad Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada which distinguish him from the his Godbrothers and place him in the category he belongs. I can hardly blame Brahma dasa, having been fed the subtle poison woven within the Zonal Acarya’s version of Srila Prabhupada's pastimes known as the 'Lilamrita'.

In 1977, the ambitious senior leaders of ISKCON opened themselves up to a contagious influence due to taking instruction from Gaudiya Matha leaders. The ground was fertile due to a mixture of familiarity with Srila Prabhupada and vaulting ambition. The seed of doubt was planted and flowered in their depiction of Srila Prabhupada as a sadhana-siddha rather than a nitya-siddha. I won’t get sidetracked down the path of exploring the psychology of the conditioned soul's quest to be God rather than attempting to purely serve God.

For those versed in our philosophy and accepting of the Truth that we can never become God, the next best position is as Brahma dasa stated: “Krsna says that the Acarya is to be seen as "My Very Self”. Oh no! Let’s not choose to humbly serve the Sampradaya Acarya when we can pretend we are on an equal level. To accomplish this we start with elaborately presenting Srila Prabhupada as a sadhana-siddha with the official verification of his sannyasis Godbrothers.

One of the most dangerous aspects of “taking shelter” of these erudite scholars of Vaisnava literature is that they can spontaneously quote or recite facts and pastimes from sources far beyond the experience of most disciples or followers of Srila Prabhupada. Of course, they seldom quote from Srila Prabhupada’s books.

Just see how Brahma dasa has adopted the same style as his Siksa gurus. Rather than going to Srila Prabhupada’s books, he points us to a prayer written on the Jaladuta or to a pre-ISKCON Vyasapuja offering. Other’s such as Audarya lila dasa give us the Sridhara Swami version of how Srila Prabhupada adopted the title and give credit to Sridhara Swami for declaring Srila Prabhupada as a Shaktavesa, although Sridhara Swami chose to take little or no role in ISKCON, even at Srila Prabhupada’s invitation.

Once one’s faith in the Sampradaya Acarya has been undermined, the Spiritual landscape takes on a new light. Just as mundane religious scholars who are atheist/agnostic at heart write convincing books depicting Christ in a “human” light, so also the faithless so-called followers present Srila Prabhupada in a demeaning manner although attempting to guise their intention in flattering language.

Brahma has been trained up by his Siksa in the fine art of expertly using excerpts from sources not commonly know by Srila Prabhupada's followers, such as his Bhaktivinode Thakura quotes on the gradation of disciples, obviously insinuating that the exponents of the proposition that “Srila Prabhupada as nitya siddha” are by divine definition immature, neophyte, flag-waving sectarians [bahirmukta sisya].

There are two assumptions we can make from Brahma’s statements on this subject:

1. That the only substantiation for our claim is Srila Prabhupada’s undisputable external magnitude of success. Other than that, there is no internal or philosophical basis in making that proposal.

2. Brahma dasa and others who have adopted a similar circumstance and opinion are the internal type disciples [antarmuka sisya] by the very fact that they don’t go out of their way to distinguish Srila Prabhupada from the myriad of other “manifestations of Krsna”, but instead show their respect by surrendering to become obedient Siksa disciples. These Siksa Gurus then enlighten their Siksa disciples in philosophy, literature and preaching techniques supposedly beyond the spiritual levels presented by Srila Prabhupada.

These wise, open-minded disciples receive the benediction of seeing the true “inferior” nature of Srila Prabhupada just as when a child grows up s/he recognizes that the parents are just ordinary, imperfect, struggling souls. Those who desperately hold on to their childish hero worship vision of their parents should be pitied for the simpletons they really are.

Brahma dasa has not refuted my claim that the Gaudiya Matha Camp does not accept A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami as on an equal level to Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakura. In fact, in so many words, he verifies that this is true and he believes as they do.

your servant,

Rocana dasa

"Such neophytes, unable to appreciate the exalted service of the advanced devotee, try to bring the Maha-bhagavata to their platform. We experience such difficulties in propagating this Krsna consciousness all over the world. Unfortunately, we are surrounded by neophyte Godbrothers...they simply try to bring us to their platform.

NOI, P. 64

We naturally conclude that Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu empowered Srila Prabhupada to undertake the “Mission” so as to please His “lost” devotees, particularly the millions of devotees born in the western countries who have, and will in the future, be introduced to Krsna Consciousness by reading his copious books. They will also eternally benefit by coming into the association of devotees who came to Krsna Consciousness directly or indirectly by the efforts of Srila Prabhupada. Granted, there are many other groups outside ISKCON who are now preaching in the west, such as yourself and Tripurari Swami. Your allegiance is directed towards the Gaudiya Matha and that mood is reflected in your preaching methodology. One still has to admit that if it wasn’t for Srila Prabhupada’s pioneer spirit, it is doubtful that any of these “off-springs” of the Godbrothers would have ventured afar. Their transparent and stubborn reluctance to give credit where credit is due astounds me.

So what is the essence of the disagreement? As I see it, Brahma dasa and his associates refuse to acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada is nitya-siddha, although their crowd gives Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati and Bhaktivinode Thakura that status. Brahma dasa claims the ISKCON-ites also think Srila Prabhupada is nitya-siddha. If they mouth this belief at all, it is strictly out of sentiment, as they have put forward the Lilamrita as ISKCON’s official version of the Pastimes of Srila Prabhupada. This offensive concoction was born out of the Zonal's quest for undeserved distinction, apparent in the deceptive title, "Lilamrita". This book not only doesn’t state that Srila Prabhupada is nitya-siddha, in many places the author goes out of his way to prove just the opposite.

If, in the name of glorifying His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada, someone also criticizes him by attributing to him such mundane qualities as destitution, insecurity, vulnerability, directionless-ness, familiar attachment, dependency on anyone and everyone, attainment of knowledge via material experiences, etc., then not only is Srila Prabhupada's spiritual authority brought into question but obviously his status as nitya-siddha is not established.

The Lilamrta mixes quotes by Srila Prabhupada, neophyte disciples, karmis, and Mayavadis. Regarding transcendental literature, His Divine Grace writes:

"He [Krsna das Kaviraja Gosvami] never claims to have written this transcendental literature by carrying out research work...This is the way of describing transcendental literatures, which are never meant for so-called "scholars" or "research workers."

C.C. Madhya 8.312

It is such a shame that Tripurari Swami, with all his abilities and publishing facility, is not inspired in this direction. The whole scenario reminds me of Srila Prabhupada’s circumstances prior to his fateful journey to the USA. Many of his Godbrothers had far greater facility and qualifications, but none had the sincere conviction Srila Prabhupada did.

Brahma dasa and company have justified their decision to seek shelter or surrender to their Siksa guru based on the principle found in the following quote:

Srila Prabhupada writes:

"A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden. There is no limit, however, to the number of instructing spiritual masters one may accept.

Adi-lila 1.35

Srila Prabhupada’s understanding of taking “instruction” from a Siksa doesn’t require the disciple to completely morph into a disciple of the Siksa, thus abandoning the established mood, practices and principles of the original Diksa. In our unique situation, Srila Prabhupada is not only a nitya-siddha but also provided his followers with copious scriptural writings, recorded lectures, conversations etc. Under these circumstances, there is no tangible rationale to go forth seeking re-initiation. It seems that this insistence on the total transformation of Siksa followers, not only by the Gaudiya Matha Siksa gurus but also by most of the ISKCON Zonals/diksas, is the root cause for the fractionalization and destabilization of Srila Prabhupada’s preaching momentum.

Just as we observed even during Srila Prabhupada’s manifested presence, there was a seeming need for many “weak” personalities to totally surrender to their regional leaders (Siksas). This was the case most notably in New Vrindabin, under the totalitarian direction of Kirtananada Swami, whose instructions, devotional engagements and overall mood was directly contrary to that of Srila Prabhupada’s. This is one of the downsides and risks in forming a large institution for the sake of extensive preaching, but it is also a litmus test for the disciples' faith. Srila Prabhupada expected the complete loyalty of his true disciples within the overall principle of Siksa, and was displeased with Siksa relationships that lead to directives and mood changes much different than Srila Prabhupada enshrined in his teachings and pastimes.

Brahma enjoys ad homonym depictions of me as politically incorrect, narrow minded, unscholarly and spiritually immature as a means to disprove my philosophical proposal that Srila Prabhupada is of nitya-siddha status. Regardless, I will not be shaken in my conviction that there is serious truth in my perception and that there is spiritual danger in become influenced otherwise. Time will eventually reveal what version of history Lord Sri Krsna wishes to offer to suffering humanity.

I realize the awkwardness of my situation, being a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada and thus running the risk of being accused of fanatical sentiment. Brahma dasa compares me to the immature disciples of Narayana Swami and Goura Govinda who have the same claim as I. The fact that Brahma das would go so far as to make this sort of comparison and be so insistent on hard cold facts before he can be motivated to repose his faith in Srila Prabhupada’s nitya-siddha status indicates ultimately where his faith lies.

Beginning with Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who out of humility displayed extreme dislike for being identified in his actual position as an incarnation of Lord Sri Krsna, the yuga Avatara, as far as I know none of the eternal associates of the Lord who accompanied Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu identified themselves as such. Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati didn’t publicly proclaim himself to be such due to the natural expression of humility found in all Maha-bhagavatas. Therefore, to declare that unless and until I manifest some direct quote by Srila Prabhupada wherein he declares himself to be such a devotee not only goes against the qualities of such a personality, it would disqualify him from being such.

Brahma dasa believes what he wants to believe. His belief structure is naturally influenced by where his love is reposed, which is not exclusively with Srila Prabhupada. Any designation that he attributes to Srila Prabhupada must at least be equally assigned to Sridhara Maharaj.

At this point, I would like to dismiss Brahma’s inventive terminology, conjured up in an attempt to discredit my position: “nitya siddha shaktavesa sampradaya acarya theology” and “shaktavesa trinity"... I never used these terms. They are red herrings used in a defamatory and condescending tone. I have repeatedly made my position clear and have not used these terms, nor has my message been encapsulated by these concocted phrases.

My theory offends Brahma dasa primarily because, by elevating Srila Prabhupada, in his mind I am simultaneously diminishing the status of Sridhara Maharaja. There is a complex philosophical justification surrounding his stand, which has been embraced and elaborately expounded upon by the most of the “Acaryas” within the Gaudiya Matha. They passed on this vision, first to the Zonals and then the ISKCON/GBC types, gradually modifying it over time in their attempt to enjoy both sides of the equation (institutional and traditional).

Basically, it is the very same philosophical reasoning expounded by those holding power within the exclusive traditional lineages, which evolved from the many branches of the tree of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati challenged, or more accurately went to war, with many of these groups just as Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s preaching and teachings clashed with the caste Brahmins of his day. Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati’s own brother, Lalita Prasada, had a life long rift with Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati over this contentious issue of how and with whom the genuine teachings of the Sampradaya are carried forward into the future. He pointed out the spiritual need to recognize and then dutifully follow the truly advanced Sampradaya Acarya as a means to the mercy of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

Brahma dasa states, “Gaur Kishore was a Maha-bhagavata and in my view Sridhar Maharaja was a Maha-bhagavata as well.” Without offense, I would like to point out that Sridhara Maharaj is/was never a genuine Babaji, as was Gaur Kishore. Sridhara Maharaj established his own institution, maintained an ashram complex, initiated many followers, etc. He was attempting to preach using the same methodology as his other sannyasi Godbrothers. In other words, he had the same traditional status as Srila Prabhupada. In fact, it wasn’t until after Srila Prabhupada’s demise and the subsequent mass migration of “siksa” disciples that his teachings and organization began to flower. Srila Prabhupada’s diksa disciples infused Sridhara Maharaja’s with the same enthusiasm they experienced while in the pre-samadhi ISKCON, publishing (Sridhara’s writings), preaching, and setting up centers throughout the world. Of course, the results do not come close to matching Srila Prabhupada’s successes. Let’s face it - they where all striving for the same goals. Was Srila Prabhupada’s undeniable success story partially due to his nitya-siddha status? By proposing this hypothesis am I being offensive to other Vaisnava leaders? My intention was never to diminish the sincere Godbrothers of my Spiritual Master but what choice do I have? Success can be measured. One has to judge by the results, especially when all are in the same game.

I have brought up in the past the many distinct differences between Srila Prabhupada and his Godbrothers, not only on philosophical issues but in assigning priorities, dynamic mood, emphasis on preaching, adjusting traditional methods according to time and circumstance, etc. Either Srila Prabhupada was an expert political leader or an empowered Acarya, depending on your degree of faith. Srila Prabhupada implemented all the tried and true methods for enthusing, motivating and organizing all surrendered souls under his command. Considering the extreme cultural diversity and the age [Kali] we live in, the overall spirit of cooperation was nothing short of miraculous. Neither Godbrothers nor disciples have come close to matching his lifetime accomplishments. As his original mission gradually deteriorates due to reasons known to all in the Vaisnava Community, Srila Prabhupada's competitors never crease in their efforts to diminish Srila Prabhupada’s legacy and relegate him to the same status as all others. Brahma das personifies this mentality, although he has perfected the art of guising this attitude by expounding from the hymnbook of conjured philosophical rational.

There is no real spirit of true cooperation amongst the various Acarya-lead “mathas”, but one thing they all have in common is that they have perfected the fine art of diminishing Srila Prabhupada by externally appearing to praise him. The “one drop of urine” analogy fits this scenario. One way they try to undermine Srila Prabhupada is to project the subtle message that Srila Prabhupada’s successes were born from mundane circumstances. Srila Prabhupada “was in the right place at the right time" (lucked-out); he knew how to relate to low-life Westerners; he applied lessons learned from being a householder raising children; past business experience helped him organize..... there is an endless litany of envious excuses. These very dangerous storytellers know how to couch all their internally derogatory thoughts in expressions of poetic philosophical lingo. The naïve can’t see it for what it really is -- envy. So many devotees get co-opted into broadcasting these opinions and passing them off as wisdom.

All of the conditioned souls have a certain degree of envious towards God, which can easily be cultivated. Srila Prabhupada tried his very best to protect us from this overwhelming influence while he was present, but the leaders, moth-like enviousness drew us all to the fire as soon as he departed.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

"And Srila Prabhupada delineates this principal again in the purport of (CC Adi 1.47) where he writes, "There is no difference between the shelter-giving Supreme Lord and the initiating [diksa] and instructing [siksa] spiritual masters. If one foolishly discriminates between them, he commits an offense in the discharge of devotional service."

CC Adi lila 1 47 Purport excerpt:

"There are two kinds of instructing spiritual masters. One is the liberated person fully absorbed in meditation in devotional service, and the other is he who invokes the disciple’s spiritual consciousness by means of relevant instructions. Thus the instructions in the science of devotion are differentiated in terms of the objective and subjective ways of understanding. The Acarya in the true sense of the term, who is authorized to deliver Krsna, enriches the disciple with full spiritual knowledge and thus awakens him to the activities of devotional service."

Brahma dasa also quoted:

CC Adi lila 1 47 Purport excerpt:

When by learning from the self-realized spiritual master one actually engages himself in the service of Lord Visnu, functional devotional service begins. The procedures of this devotional service are known as abhidheya, or actions one is dutybound to perform.

Translation to CC Adi Lila 46:

“One should know the Acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods.”

Purport:

If one poses himself as an Acarya but does not have an attitude of servitorship to the Lord, he must be considered an offender, and this offensive attitude disqualifies him from being an Acarya.

Influenced by an envious temperament and dissatisfied because of an attitude of sense gratification, mundaners criticize a real Acarya. In fact, however, a bona fide Acarya is nondifferent from the Personality of Godhead, and therefore to envy such an Acarya is to envy the Personality of Godhead Himself.

Brahma dasa also quoted:

Srila Sridhar Maharaja replied:

That is because they are situated in a formal position, but when they enter into substantial spiritual realization, they will not have such a grievance because they will see what is guru. Guru means one who has come to give Krsna consciousness. The formal difference will be reduced when one can catch the very substance of the teachings for which the guru is respected. When one is intimately connected with the thread of divine love, which the guru comes to impart to us, he will accept it, wherever it comes from. He will see it as a friendly relation-not antagonistic, but cooperative. Although separate in figure, at heart both of the gurus are the same because they have a common cause. If we can recognize the real thing for which we are approaching the guru, then we will understand how to make the adjustment in our relationship with the siksa guru, diksa guru, and vartma-pradarsaka guru. We are infinitely indebted to all our gurus.

Now, as both personalities have departed, the excuse that Brahma dasa and company needed direct association in the person of Sridhara Maharaj has ended. If we study the actions, words, mood and style of these Siksa disciples, we discover that they exhibit a far great resemblance to Sridhara than to Srila Prabhupada. After reading some of Sridhara Maharaja’s writings, I can’t find any significantly deeper understanding of Vaisnava philosophy. The style is obviously more flowery and poetic, and is somewhat scholarly, but it lacks the direct, no-nonsense, straightforward, clear, unequivocal, writing/preaching style which set Srila Prabhupada apart from his Godbrothers. It is not that Srila Prabhupada couldn’t and didn’t write in that style and manner. If we read his pre-ISKCON writings we observe in his writings a likeness to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, which is much more Victorian English.

I maintain that Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu spoke directly through Srila Prabhupada in such a potent manner as to attract and convince millions of covered-over devotees to surrender. As his empowered nitya-siddha representative, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu had a transparent via media in the divine person of Srila Prabhupada, through which his unlimited potency could flow unimpeded. The Sridhara Maharaja camp of followers have had ample opportunity over the last twenty-three years to practically demonstrate that Sridhara Maharaja’s methodology and style are as potent and attractive as Srila Prabhupada's, but they have failed to do so. I acknowledge that their sincere efforts were not all in vain nor were they necessarily counter-productive. But I wonder whether the same energy, if directed into promoting Srila Prabhupada rather than Sridhara Maharaja, would have brought a much greater result. We are all aware of the barriers that the GBC/BBT autocratic controllers placed in the path of those outside their control who were inspired to print and distribute Srila Prabhupada’s literatures. Others found ingenious ways of circumventing their policies. By and large, Sridhara Maharaja’s siksa disciples exclusively printed and promoted his books and not Srila Prabhupada’s. Normally, they preach and write just like Sridhara Maharaja. They have adopted a life-style very similar to that of Sridhara Maharaja's. They are not Srila Prabhupada’s disciples.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

Sridhara Maharaja didn’t recognize Srila Prabhupada as such and his actions speak louder than words. Do you ever ask yourself the question, why was it that none of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers assisted him in his quest to come to the USA? Many devotees now wax poetically about Srila Prabhupada’s long sea journey on the old freighter, his heart attack enroute, his arriving penniless. But they seldom remind us of the many un-answered letters Srila Prabhupada sent to his Godbrothers asking for help. Who is foolish enough to think that all these unnecessary hardships were to Srila Prabhupada’s liking?

All these stories are now part of the Srila Prabhupada myth. Everyone seems to want to ignore the glaring fact that during the pre-ISKCON era, Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers obviously concluded that Srila Prabhupada's venture was doomed to fail. They looked upon his sojourn as a fool’s journey. Whether individually or collectively, many of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers were well established and financially well off - including Sridhara Maharaj. They could easily have provided Srila Prabhupada with at least an airline ticket and a little start-up capital! History reveals they were all proven to be the fools. Their lack of faith in Srila Prabhupada’s undying dedication and his spiritual qualities was obvious... what to speak of them appreciating his nitya-siddha status.

We also need to be reminded that Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati, throughout his manifest presence, was adamant about his disciples preaching in the west. Since his departure, not one of his senior disciples has ventured forth in order to satisfy his number one desire - with the exception of Srila Prabhupada. Yet, when the time came for him to leave, no one helped.

Even after arriving here, Srila Prabhupada informed them of how receptive and cooperative he found the young people to be. His efforts were met with criticism and non-cooperation. Now, this camp wants us to re-write history and have it depict their heroes in a favorable light! If I tell it as I remember it from that pre-samadhi period of 1969 onwards, Audarya lila cries foul. Tripurari Swami prefers to tell a different story. I contend that for those eight years, I and all my associates heard little or nothing from Srila Prabhupada about his Godbrothers. For those of us preaching in the west, these Godbrothers seemed to be an insignificant part of Srila Prabhupada’s life. During the annual Mayapura festival there was a little talk and perhaps some limited contact with them, with the rare 'official visitation', but other than that we saw little of that branch of the family tree.

Srila Prabhupada went so far as to discourage us from wandering around to all the Mathas. He ordered us not to buy and read their books. So what are we to think now that Srila Prabhupada has departed without any pronounced directive or authorization permitting us to alter his pre-samadhi non-inclusiveness policy? According to the heads of the camp Audarya lila belongs to, after any guru physically departs, the shastra authorizes carte blanche for their disciples. They can either accept their own disciples whenever they personally feel qualified, or they can fully surrender to whomever appeals to them and ask for Siksa.

As you know, I don’t share this opinion. Personally, I don’t see the necessity, or feel the need, and as such I have little tolerance for those who are so driven. To me, the trade-off isn’t worth the risk. Audarya lila cannot categorically state that if he had continued to direct the same efforts and energy exclusively towards Srila Prabhupada as he have bestowed upon Tripurari Swami, that he may have spiritual benefited to a greater degree. Audarya lila, your conclusions are all subjective and speculative. You certainly are not qualified to ascertain to what degree Brahma dasa’s posts reflect Srila Prabhupada's mood compared to Sridhara Maharaja's.

Now that we are made aware of your circumstances, I can’t blame you for wanting to defend your past existential choices, but please see them for what they really are - relative opinions, not absolute truths. Time and death will ultimately reveal all.

My dear Audarya lila, you put extraordinary credence and pride in what you perceive to be your highly refined quality of thoughtfulness, sincerity, and honesty: “Honesty will dictate that we recognize those who are more advanced than ourselves and inspire us to serve them”. Yet you admit that many trusted spiritual authorities were in reality seeking adoration, distinction and profit. These charlatans unwittingly duped thousands of uneducated seekers into being their disciples. Spirituality without philosophy is sentiment; consequently, the sentimental types are easily taken in.

Audarya lila pictures himself as being so sincere that Krsna is obliged to protect him from bogus gurus. Has he never considered that Maya is also out to test his sincerity? Was it Krsna or Maya that put him under the “care” of the infamous Hansadutta back in the late seventies? The way he spins the story, he likes to kid himself that it was Krsna’s arrangement that Hansadutta was put in charge in Berkley. Due to his neophyte nature, he obediently and enthusiastically served him. Common sense alone should have allowed him to recognize the telltale symptoms of Han’s insanity. Audarya lila fancies himself to be in the spiritual position of “forgiving” this personification of offensiveness, and infers that this is the correct mood. Only Srila Prabhupada is in a position to forgive him.

If Audarya lila had taken the time to look more deeply into the Zonal Acarya phenomenon, he may have uncovered one of the sources of Hansadutta’s dictatorial mentality: BR Sridhara Maharaja was the official authorizer of the Zonal Acarya scheme. Ironically, Audarya ended up surrendered to him. In a previous post, we saw proof positive that Sridhara Maharaja was implicated. That evidence remains unchallenged.

It is my supposition that Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are not qualified to determine which, if any, of Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers we should accept as Siksa. For this analysis we must depend on the perceptions of the Maha-bhagavata, Srila Prabhupada, who offered such direction. This is especially true if he is our diksa guru. For reasons only completely know to him, Srila Prabhupada denied us access to the Gaudiya Matha during his ISKCON lila period. Why should it be any different after he entered samadhi?

Of course, if his Godbrothers convince you that they are Srila Prabhupada’s equal, they are in fact subtly undermining the faith of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples in his nitya-siddha status.

We can only hope that Audarya lila dasa’s personal story, combining epitaph with a fairytale “happily ever after” ending, will not serve as a recruitment incentive for those neophyte, sincere seekers on the Mela who are being wooed in that direction. The essence of his message is "follow me to the lotus feet of Tripurari Swami”. Good luck to all who choose that pathway. I pray that they first take a close look at the opportunity available directly from Srila Prabhupada, before they leap.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

All your name-calling and dismissive comments (interspersed with your criticism that I am insulting and derisive) are simply eyewash for the benefit of your public. If you had any strong arguments you would make them instead of resorting to this litany.

It is my position that Srila Prabhupada’s full manifestation of his nitya-siddha status took place during the ISKCON lila period, just as Bhaktivinode Thakur's nitya-siddha status become evident in his later life, as was confirmed by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. Quoting from statements made prior to that period, when he was keeping his glories behind the veil, isn’t proof of anything.

Brahma dasa wrote:

And the previous Acaryas all promote the same universal conception of Guru or in other words that Krishna is Guru who appears in an infinity of forms. And qualified siksa and diksa gurus are both manifestations of Sri Krishna.

To what degree Sri Krsna is manifested in the form of a particular Siksa is an important question in this debate. Obviously, it is the seeker’s spiritual qualifications that help him or her to determine the true nature of the Siksa. What knowledge can be accepted and what should be rejected is very important. In the circumstance under discussion, there is a potential contradiction between the teachings of the diksa guru and those of the siksa. If it is your rare good fortune that your diksa guru happens to be a nitya-siddha Acarya, that is all the more reason to be discriminating of imposters. If that self same Acarya, during his manifested presence, has forbidden his disciples to intimately associate with certain personalities - even though they may be Godbrothers - then one would assume the disciple would pause to wonder what he should do in regards to approaching these same forbidden “siksas” after his diksa’s departure.

Apparently your desire to seek advice elsewhere is overwhelming your common sense and intelligence, so you comb through quotes and shastra with the intent of circumventing that original order. Perhaps you depend upon the learned Siksa to provide you with the justifications you need to counteract the original order?

"There are two kinds of instructing spiritual masters. One is the liberated person fully absorbed in meditation in devotional service, and the other is he who invokes the disciple’s spiritual consciousness by means of relevant instructions. Thus the instructions in the science of devotion are differentiated in terms of the objective and subjective ways of understanding. The Acarya in the true sense of the term, who is authorized to deliver Krsna, enriches the disciple with full spiritual knowledge and thus awakens him to the activities of devotional service."

CC Adi lila 1 47 Purport

This purport clearly describes two types of Siksa Gurus. The liberated siksa guru has subjective experience of Krishna and is able to relay that along with his teachings and instructions to his disciples. The guru on a lower stage of realization is able to help disciples by means of relevant objective philosophy and instructions. Both of these are instructing spiritual masters (siksa gurus), but obviously the more the Guru is situated in subjective experience of Krishna the better he will be able to relate that experience to his disciples.

Where do you get this subjective and objective jargon? I have never read anywhere in Srila Prabhupada’s writings where he described an advanced devotee as one having a “subjective” experience of Krsna. Are you really referring to “realized” and "unrealized" Siksa gurus? What I understand you to say above is that Sridhara Maharaja, your Siksa Guru, was fully realized/subjective. In comparison to Srila Prabhupada, how much more or less subjective was Sridhara Maharaja? You are the one introducing this particular term, “subjective”, and we are left with the obvious question of how you rank Srila Prabhupada on the "subjective-objective scale". After all, we are all familiar with the declarations originating from many in your camp that Srila Prabhupada only gave us the “objective” concepts (or the "abc’s") of Bhakti Yoga. Consequently, serious disciples are obliged to take Siksa from the likes of Sridhara Maharaja if they have any hope of experiencing the advanced “subjective” levels of Krsna Consciousness. Is that the subtle message we are hearing from you?

Stop beating around the bush. Be straightforward by giving us your direct, honest opinion on the essence of what we are discussing. Please answer these questions:

1. Whom do you see as more advanced, Srila Prabhupada or Sridhara Maharaja?

2. Is it your opinion that Srila Prabhupada only had time to give us neophytes the basics?

3. Do you feel that Srila Prabhupada was hoping or expecting us to approach Godbrothers like Sridhara Maharaja as Siksas so that we can achieve the 'upper levels' of Krsna Consciousness?

Brahma dasa wrote:

More of Rocans personal opinions about the motives of SM and those who came to him for guidance. Rocan feels instead that everyone should come to him for guidance because he is with out personal motives and can teach them his “shaktavesa sampradaya hypothesis” and how to put SP in the center. I guess we are to believe Rocan is most qualified to be accepted as everyone’s non-siddha siksa guru.

Brahma, if you have a solid point to present then please make it without all the rhetoric. Just because I have an unpalatable opinion I am accused of desiring to be a personally motivated “non-siddha Siksa guru”. I suppose that status would put me in direct competition with your current leader, Tripurari Swami.

Brahma dasa wrote:

Here Rocan is complaining that everyone does not fit his pre-conceived notion of what a disciple of SP should be like. In other words Rocan is complaining that everyone is not exactly like him. He also thinks that any Guru must to be qualified do everything exactly like SP. (Talk, write, preach, etc.) One must ask here if SP did “everything” exactly the same as BSST?

Brahma dasa wrote:

Well I guess I could thank you for saying that we might have some sincerity in spite of your superficial assessment of our "failed efforts to spread Krishna Consciousness". Instead I will say here is another example of your narrow minded sectarian “only my Guru” philosophy and your idea that counting disciples is the only way to judge the merit of any acarya. Mahaprabhu made it abundantly clear that we were not to be just buildings and “disciple counters”. (na danam, na janam, na sundarim)

Your departing jabs included a copy/paste section of an email from Vaisasika das, a personality I am apparently supposed to spontaneously have reverence and deference for. I know absolutely nothing of his activities of late, so I cannot comment on anything other than what you have briefly stated. His affliction with ISKCON and his cooperation with your group comes as no surprise to me.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

I would also like to make it clear that I don’t belong to or identify with any particular group, including the Rttviks, Prabhupada-anugas, Padas or the IRM, nor do I have my own 'clan'. Frankly, at this point in time I have no desire to surround myself with special interest groups. I feel free to express myself without the handicaps of group-think. I just follow Srila Prabhupada, and those authorities I consider bonafide Acaryas representing the Sampradaya. I look forward to reading Brahma’s dasa's inevitable snide remarks concerning my circumstances. It’s quiet entertaining actually to read his inventive literary mud-pies.

I only ask for some common decency when it comes to debating an issue. My comments may hit some of Brahma dasa's hot buttons due to his intense attachments to certain personalities, for whom I don’t share the same degree of reverence. Blind obedience may be a prerequisite for participation in his little group. This is often one of the downsides of being a sold out Siksa disciple in so-called traditional asramas in modern America. My spiritual life, on the other hand, is much simpler due to my sole commitment to Srila Prabhupada. Brahma is one of those persons promoting the notion that advancement in Krsna Consciousness requires them to be serving under the watchful eye of a living spiritual superior. These perpetual searchers feel insecure unless they have surrendered to a living Guru. They reinforce this mentality by dwelling on the supposition that the siksa requirement is an essential ingredient in our noble tradition. I consider many persons to be categorized as Siksa gurus who have had a positive impact on my spiritual life. Some are living, some have passed away, some have wandered away into the material world and others are still actively engaged, but I can assure you that none of them have their picture beside Srila Prabhupada's on my altar.

Brahma dasa wrote:

Prabhupad gave money to have Sridhara Maharaja book Prappana Jivanamrita printed even though he laid stress on the reading and distribution of his own books.

You are free to introduce these generally unknown circumstances, such as sitting on the Vyasasana, printing a book for Sridhara Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada saying a particular shastra is a “must read”, etc. Some of your camp claim that Srila Prabhupada had a favorable relationship with Sridhara Maharaja based on mutual respect. As you are demanding proof from me of my positions, so I am challenging you to present proofs regarding Srila Prabhupada's authorization that we should not only take Siksa from Sridhara Maharaja, but should feel free to essentially become his primary disciple. You have provided no such proofs. Clearly, you and a few others are thoroughly convinced that this was Srila Prabhupada's wish, but there are far more Srila Prabhupada disciples who think the opposite. One historical fact from the pre-samadhi era is certain: when Srila Prabhupada wished to broadcast his desires there was no obstacle. When his desire was known, there was no hesitation.

In a dated 9 November 1975, Srila Prabhupada ordered:

"All my disciples should avoid all of my Godbrothers. They should not have any dealings with them nor even correspondence, nor should we give them any of my books, nor should we purchase any of their books, neither should you visit any of their temples. Please avoid them."

Brahma dasa wrote:

After the GBC edict (that I believe you supported) banning anyone in Iskcon from the siksa of Sridhara Maharaja he said, that one should be very careful about leaving Iskcon to come to him for guidance.

Brahma dasa wrote:

I never say that everyone must maintain the same exact faith in Srila Prabhupada and Sridhara Maharaja that I do. Faith moves in its own way and Love cannot be legislated or forced.

Brahma dasa wrote:

Srila Prabhupada gave those instructions everywhere in his books where he said one should seek out the association of advanced devotees.

Brahma dasa wrote:

I for one would be satisfied if you simply admitted that it was OK for some people to accept a siksa Guru. I believe in free flow of faith. I don’t expect or demand everyone’s faith to flow exactly the same way as mine. If you could do that with sincerity then we could shake hands and the debate would be over.

Brahma dasa, you have made it abundantly clear that my OK means absolutely nothing to you. In fact, you even disregarded the GBC edict. You state, “This is a matter of faith that cannot be forced it is not the siddhanta of Gaudiya Vaisnavism.” The Vaisnava siddhanta has a great deal to say about where one should focus one’s faith. I was under the impression that we were discussing a very specific aspect of our philosophy that has been a “hot issue” since practically time immemorial. It was contentious during Bhaktivinode Thakura's time. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur had a falling out with his own brother over this very point. Srila Prabhupada received all sorts of flak from his Godbrothers over his position regarding where and when to repose one’s faith.

Brahma dasa wrote:

Where does it say, “The scriptural license to seek Siksa association is contingent upon the approval of the Diksa”?

And in Cc. Antya-Lila, Srila Prabhupada writes this:

"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura explains that unless one is directly empowered by the causeless mercy of Krishna, one cannot become the spiritual master of the entire world (jagad-guru). One cannot become an acharya simply by mental speculation. The true acharya presents Krishna to everyone by preaching the holy name of the Lord throughout the world. Thus, the conditioned souls, purified by chanting the holy name, are liberated from the blazing fire of material existence. In this way, spiritual benefit grows increasingly full, like the waxing moon in the sky."

"In the beginning, during the presence of Om Vishnupada Paramahamsa Parivrajakacharya Astottara-sata Sri Srimad Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada, all the disciples worked in agreement; but just after his disappearance, they disagreed. One party strictly followed the instructions of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, but another group created their own concoction about executing his desires. "Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, at the time of his departure, requested all his disciples to form a Governing Body and conduct missionary activities cooperatively. He did not instruct a particular man to become the next (guru) acharya. 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 spiritual master....

"There is no possibility that a first class devotee will fall down, even though he may mix with non-devotees to preach." (Cc. Madhya Lila 22.71)

Srila Prabhupada: "So my guru maharaja will be very, very much pleased upon you, and bless you with all benefits. So he wanted this, and it is not....it is not that he is dead and gone. That is not spiritual understanding...he is seeing. I never feel that I am alone." (Lecture 2 March 1975)

"I shall remain your personal guidance, physically present or not physically, as I am getting personal guidance from my guru maharaja" (Srila Prabhupada to Tamal Krishna, 14 July 1977)

Prabhupada said: "So better remain a foolish person perpetually to be directed by guru maharaja. That is perfection. And as soon as he learns that guru maharaja is dead, `Now I am so advanced that I can kill my guru and I become guru.' Then he is finished." (Room Conversation, 16th Aug 76, Bombay)

Prabhupada: "So Sridhara Maharaja and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acharya, who later proved to be a failure. The result is that now everyone is claiming to be acharya, even though they may be Kanistha-adhikari with no ability to preach. In some camps, the acharya is being changed three times a year. Therefore," Srila Prabhupada begged, "We may not commit the same mistake in our ISKCON camp."

"Presently people are so fallen that they cannot distinguish between a liberated soul and a conditioned soul. A conditioned soul is hampered by four defects he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to be illusioned, he has the tendency to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. Consequently, we have to take direction from liberated persons." (SB 4.18.5)

"In this verse (N.O.I. text 5 pages 56-57) Srila Rupa Goswami advises that the devotee must be intelligent enough to distinguish between the Kanistha-adhikari (neophyte), Madhyama-adhikari (intermediate), and Uttama-adhikari (fully liberated, completely Krishna conscious). The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has given some practical hints to the effect that an Uttama adhikari can be recognized by his ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaishnavism. One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of Uttama Adhikari. A neophyte Vaishnava or a Vaishnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an Uttama-Adhikari as a spiritual master."

Brahma dasa wrote:

The question to objective readers is which one of us is in an idiomorphic mood a word not even found in the dictionary. I guess we can thank Rocan for his enlightening new concoction.

Characteristic: diagnostic, indicative, idiomorphic, proper characteristic, typical, representative. Special: characterizing, qualitative diagnostic, indicative.

Therefore it is easy to see why those who subscribe to your intolerant theories seem to despise Vaisnavas from any and all other Gaudiya camps. To subscribe to your theory puts a person at perpetual war with everyone but the fanatics in your own group. And in that mood they have no tendency toward cooperation or even mutual respect.

By the way, please keep in mind that I go to the effort to maintain the Dharma Mela so that individuals like you can freely speak their minds and discuss various (sometimes difficult) issues facing the disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Considering the tone of our exchange, I doubt very much whether you would continue to extend the welcome mat to me if the shoe was on the other foot.

For those of us who have long-held beliefs, and who have reposed their love and faith in a particular relationship for many years now, as Brahma dasa and I have, I don’t expect to see any change. But for those who are stilling investigating the alternatives, perhaps these discussions will shed some light on the principle points. Ultimately, we are forced to make our own choices. The path I’m pointing to may at first appear more difficult than the traditional “one guru-one ashram” scenario.

"He lives forever by His Divine instructions, and the follower lives with Him" (Preface to Srila Prabhupada's 1962 Bhgavatam)

"Yes I am so glad that your center is doing so well and all the devotees are now appreciating the presence of their spiritual master by following his instructions, although he is no longer physically present. This is the right spirit." (Letter to Karandhara 13 September 1970)

"Whenever an acharya comes," writes Srila Prabhupada, "following the superior orders of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or His representative, he establishes the principles of religion... Unfortunately, when the acharya disappears, rogues and nondevotees take advantage and immediately begin to introduce unauthorized principles in the name of so-called swamis, yogis, philanthropists, welfare workers, and so on...The acharya, the authorized representative of the Supreme Lord, establishes these principles, but when he disappears, things again become disordered. The perfect disciples of the acharya try to relieve the situation by sincerely following the instructions of the spiritual master." (SB 4.28.48)

Rocana dasa

You revealed that another 'flash' you obtained by reading Sridhara Maharaj is that you really require his divine association or, as it turns out, you needed to become his siksa disciple. This message is reinforced by what you term as “the appearance of divinity in both Siksha and Diksha Gurus… who are to be viewed as equal manifestations”. You fell for the double whammy of association and equalization. In price to be paid for association is the acceptance of seeing Srila Prabhupada and Sridhar Maharaj as equals.

In his recent posting, Audarya-lila dasa pasted in a section from Sridhar Maharaj’s book, "Sri Guru and His Grace":

"Student: How will we recognize the guru if he appears before us in another form or in a different body?

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya argued that Sri Caitanyadeva could not have been an incarnation. Gopinatha Acarya told him, "You do not know the sastra. " "No, no," Sarvabhauma said, "In the scriptures it is mentioned that the Lord does not appear in Kali-yuga, but only in three ages and is therefore known as Triyuga. " Gopinatha Acarya replied, "You think that you know so much about sastra, but in the Srimad-Bhagavatam and Mahabharata, there is direct mention of the avatara of Kali-yuga. Have you no knowledge, no recognition of that?" Then Sarvabhauma apparently defeated, said, "You go and take prasadam, and afterwards come and teach me." Then Gopinatha said, "Not by the dint of one's study or intelligence can one understand God, but only through his grace" (athapi te deva padambhuja-dvaya-prasada 1esanugrhita eva hi).

Then Sarvabhauma said, "You say that you have that grace, and I do not? What is your reasoning behind this? You say that you have the grace of the Lord because you say that he is an incarnation. And because I can't give recognition to that, I have no grace? What is the proof of this?" Then Gopinatha Acarya replied, acarya kahe "vastu-visaye haya vastu-jnana vastu-tattva-jnana haya krpate pramana (Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya 6. 89). "It is evident that I have the grace of the Lord, because I know him, and that you have not, because you deny Him." The answer to your question is given here. Our own inner experience, our internal satisfaction, our connection or acquaintance with reality is the real evidence; nothing external can give any real proof.

According to Sridhar Maharaj, those who follow their heart in this manner are to be considered benedicted by the “grace of the Lord”, whereas the unfortunates, who are likened to the doubting Sarvabhauma, are “denied enlightenment”. Essentially, the direct association of Sridhar Maharaj is compared to coming out of darkness into the sun. Is this to be compared to the disciples of Srila Prabhupada, who don’t have the same experience as a result of reading his books? I acknowledge that I have a tendency to interpret the writings of Sridhar Maharaj from an entirely different angle than those I’m now debating with.

Twenty years ago, Audarya Lila was understandably looking for an alternative to Hansadutta. He mentioned in a previous post that Hansadutta’s policy was to alienate his followers from the rest of ISKCON by bad-mouthing his initiating Godbrothers. I certainly agree that Sridhar Maharaj is/was light years more advanced than any of the so-called Zonal Acaryas who were offered to the innocent by ISKCON in those days. One obvious alternative Audarya Lila had was to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada. But, the propaganda back then - which continues to this very day - from both sides of the fence (ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha) is that new-comers have only one choice: they must surrender to a living guru.

Unfortunately, Audarya Lila missed out on the opportunity to be come a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada by a year, as he joined Hansadutta’s concocted version of ISKCON in 1978. Srila Prabhupada's edict to avoid Sridhar Maharaj was still common knowledge amongst the rank and file at that time, but the GBC themselves had disobediently violated his instructions by procuring the rubber-stamp approval and philosophical justification from Sridhar for their Zonal Acarya hoax.

Audarya Lila dasa again tries to stigmatize me as “Rocana's ritvik camp”. I have repeatedly stated, apparently to deaf ears, that I am not an advocate of the Rttvik position. I have written extensively on my position regarding this matter. Quite recently, my wife engaged in a discussion with Brahma dasa on the matter, providing a summary of my viewpoint from previous articles. Once and for all, I declare I am not a follower of the Rttvik conclusion. Hello! Are you listening, Audarya Lila?

Audarya Lila dasa has again been moved to impart to us his heartfelt personal “enlightenment” saga, wherein he was finally freed from the effects of aparadha towards Sridhar Maharaj that was coming from the ISKCON-ites. Ignoring their insults and approaching Sridhar Maharaj has resulted in the saving of his faith and his spiritual rejuvenation. He blames his previous fall down on having being fed “offensive garbage concerning Sridhara Maharaja that Rocana is fond of quoting and reiterating”. As I explained earlier, this so-called “offensive garbage” is undisputable direct quotes coming from either the lips or the writings of Srila Prabhupada. Audarya's “born-again” authorities appear to have successfully brain-washed him into disregarding or marginalizing this evidence. What he does with his spiritual life is fine and dandy with me. My only wish is for him to be honest with the readers, himself and me. Please confess that you have essentially abandoned Srila Prabhupada in order to take shelter of Sridhar Maharaj. You can’t have it both ways, no matter how you try to juggle the facts.

Audarya lila can wrap himself in warm and fuzzy sentiment and try to fool himself and others into thinking that he is not a fanatic, that he has unclouded vision, and that he is following the true path which is inclusive and tolerant of everyone... with the exception of persons who believe, as I do, that Srila Prabhupada is a nitya-siddha. His claim is that he belongs to a group of “Real devotees, at least the ones I am interested in keeping company with, spend their time hearing about Krsna, chanting about Krsna, encouraging each other in devotion etc.”, which implies that those of us who are exclusive followers of Srila Prabhupada, and who engage in debates on these issues, are not sincerely engaged in the above activities.

Being an exclusive Srila Prabhupada disciple, according to his statements, is akin to being in a fault finding personality cult where, as he declares, “I take the instruction of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati on my head - 'don't try to see the faults in others.” This must mean with the noted exception of those who persistently challenge his so-called logic, reason and shastric justification for ignoring Srila Prabhupada’s orders. After all, according to what I hear from him, knowledge and reason is ultimately subordinate to his elevated and subjective 'feelings' towards Sridhar Maharaj. How is it possible to present logic, reason and evidence [objectivity] under this circumstance?

You continually remind us that it is Sridhar Maharaj's opinion that Krsna manifests equally in all the various gurus that may come along in one's life, and that one should just look at them all as equal manifestations of Krsna.

Srila Prabhupada bestows upon anyone who reads his books a degree of transcendental vision enabling them to observe the unlimited manners in which Krsna manifests himself. Krsna is everything, is everywhere, and is the energetic source of all things both material and spiritual. The most intimate aspects of Krsna’s nature are revealed for those whose “eyes are smeared with the salve of love”.

This insight, provided by my guru, Srila Prabhupada, has also allowed me to perceive the verbal smoke screen emitted by exponents of the Gaudiya Matha version of Krsna Consciousness, and especially their hazy perceptions of Srila Prabhupada. The more they talk, the more I understand why Srila Prabhupada rightly tried to protect us from their web of half truths.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

OK. Except there were some exceptions like when Prabhupad directed Achutananda to go to Sridhar M for shelter and guidance. In his letter to Achutananda Srila Prabhupada refers to Sridhara Maharaja as his siksa guru.

Just to keep the timeline straight, I would like to clarify that this 'Achutananda exception' letter was written many years prior to the society-wide decree, which did not exempt Sridhara Maharaja. Achutananda was one of the very few disciples in India at that time, and he was wandering into the ashram’s of rascals. I have already admitted that Srila Prabhupada said Sridhara Maharaja was the best of the lot, and he had a closer relationship with him than with any of the others. Srila Prabhupada seemed to trust Sridhara Maharaja not to try to adversely influence Achutananda. As it turned out, Achutananda didn’t surrender to Sridhara Maharaja anywhere near as intimately as you and your friends, which went far beyond simply taking shelter and guidance. Further, Srila Prabhupada didn’t relate very intimately with Sridhara Maharaja during his ISKCON lila days, regardless of his being referred to as a Siksa guru.

I presented a line of thought in my post to Audarya lila dasa that he declined to comment on. I would also like to hear Brahma’s feedback on it:

Sridhara Maharaja didn’t recognize Srila Prabhupada [as a siksa disciple] as such and his actions speak louder than words. Do you ever ask yourself the question, why was it that none of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers assisted him in his quest to come to the USA? Many devotees now wax poetically about Srila Prabhupada’s long sea journey on the old freighter, his heart attack enroute, his arriving penniless. But they seldom remind us of the many un-answered letters Srila Prabhupada sent to his Godbrothers asking for help. Who is foolish enough to think that all these unnecessary hardships were to Srila Prabhupada’s liking?

All these stories are now part of the Srila Prabhupada myth. Everyone seems to want to ignore the glaring fact that during the pre-ISKCON era, Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers obviously concluded that Srila Prabhupada's venture was doomed to fail. They looked upon his sojourn as a fool’s journey. Whether individually or collectively, many of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers were well established and financially well off - including Sridhara Maharaj. They could easily have provided Srila Prabhupada with at least an airline ticket and a little start-up capital! History reveals they were all proven to be the fools. Their lack of faith in Srila Prabhupada’s undying dedication and his spiritual qualities was obvious... what to speak of them appreciating his nitya-siddha status.

“That’s what freedom and faith in Guru is all about.”
“I am free to serve and hear from those that I do find faith in”.

“Faith moves in its own way and Love cannot be legislated or forced”.

As I see it, here’s how it unfolds. Brahma falls “in love” with Sridhara Maharaja after Srila Prabhupada departs. He justifies his wholesale transference of affection on the strength of Srila Prabhupada's having once mentioned, in conversation, that taking Siksa (asking questions on a specific subject) from Sridhara Maharaja is all right. In addition to that, he relies on the general shastric instruction that one should seek out higher association. Included in this mix is the concept that once Brahma becomes a Siksa disciple, then he is obliged to accept that both his gurus are equal manifestations of Krsna. All inquiries as to why it was that Srila Prabhupada felt the need to pass a society-wide decree forbidding his followers from going to Sridhara Maharaja at that point in time abruptly cease. Brahma dasa apparently believes that once one’s faith has broken through the floodgates and begins flowing downhill, it can never flow uphill again.

The Gaudiya Matha converts have learned to hate the quote found in the letter dated 9 November 1975, in which Srila Prabhupada ordered:

“All my disciples should avoid all of my Godbrothers. They should not have any dealings with them nor even correspondence, nor should we give them any of my books, nor should we purchase any of their books, neither should you visit any of their temples. Please avoid them.”

Brahma dasa replies:

OK I agree with you here. In 1975 Srila Prabhupada unequivocally wanted us to avoid his Godbrothers including Sridhar M. Of course in 1977 Srila Prabhupada said we could go to Sridhara Maharaja for philosophy and he also told NM (recorded on tape) to help his disciples. Both these things are hard to do if we are expected to follow to the letter the 1975 ban against associating with his Godbrothers.

By way of further clarification on this matter: I am in no position to do anything proactive surrounding this historical event. I can only offer up my thoughts. As far as convincing Brahma dasa otherwise, that is “mission impossible” and is not my goal. I can only add my voice to the arena, which is becoming increasingly overwhelmed by cheers from the Gaudiya Matha bleachers. As time marches on and the influences of Kaliyuga go about doing their business of obscuring and minimizing the unique appearance of the nitya-siddha Acarya sent by Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu to spread Krsna Consciousness throughout the planet, I can only take heart from the story of the small bird trying to empty the ocean.

I try to remember that the glories of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s pastimes were soon forgotten by the world and remained so for hundreds of years, until Lord Caitanya mercifully sent a succession of his close associates, beginning with Bhaktivinoda Thakura, then Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada. I can only express at every opportunity what I perceive to have unfolded. Predictably, the agents of Maya swoop in to try and kill off what they label as an “offensive” attitude. In Brahma’s case, perhaps if I had included Sridhara Maharaja as one of the nitya-siddha’s, he would have been pacified. The same goes for the Narayana Maharaja followers. But history cannot substantiate the addition of these lightweights to the heavyweight lineup of the three previous Acaryas.

Brahma dasa has been seduced into joining the “traditional” school of thought originally spearheaded by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s brother, Lalita prasad. He represented the well established groups present during the time of Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. These groups adamantly opposed the Acarya's methods and philosophy, which took power and prestige away from the traditional lineages. The claim to fame of these impudent groups was that they could trace their line back to some significant personality in Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s entourage. Naturally, they exploited their ancestral heritage as well as highlighting shastric statements on the spiritual necessity of being initiated into the Sampradaya.

Unwittingly, Brahma dasa has become an agent for this same school of thought. He is miraculously convinced that the dispersion of human energy into all these small branches will not result in the long-term dilution of the collective efforts of three successive nitya-siddha Acaryas. Brahma is under some strange illusion that division into the “many independent Mathas” scenario is Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s master plan for a worldwide preaching effort. Never mind that this reasoning goes against all historical logic. That line of thought isn’t of much importance to Brahma, who advocates placing his subjective feelings above common sense.

Thankfully, the capital “A” Acaryas didn’t share Brahma dasa’s conclusions. They prayed that their high-powered preaching missions would not be torn apart by the “many separate Matha” advocates. Sridhara Maharaja goes on record as a “form breaker" rather than a "form maker”. He is a pioneer of the “small is beautiful” movement.

There seems to be no awareness of the dangers of “divided we fall”. This attitude indicates a genuine lack of concern for the plight of the fallen conditioned souls. We have heard that Sridhara Maharaja created a nice warm and cozy atmosphere, which Brahma was obviously in need of back in the late seventies. Srila Prabhupada, on the other hand, sent his disciples far and wide into unknown territory for preaching purposes. He asked his disciples to worship him in absence, take inspiration from his journey, and depend on the mercy of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

It isn’t Brahma’s personal “free flowing” choices that I object to. Rather, it is his attempts to undermine what I see as the only hope of cohesive cooperative worldwide preaching. I feel there is a need to recognize these three Acaryas as being nitya-siddha, as well as having appreciation for their unique and unparalleled emphasis on preaching, which required a personal mood only they embodied.

If Braham wants to go off to the woods of Northern California with Tripurari Swami, following in the footsteps of Sridhara Maharaja, who am I to disagree? Two hundred years from now there may be a family lineage out in the hills, telling fables about how they can trace ancestors all the way back to the “incarnation of book distribution”, the great Tripurari Swami, and his Siksa guru, Sridhara Maharaja, who was the Siksa guru to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. Maybe Brahma’s children will be included in the line. Hundreds of years hence, they may still be chanting the Hare Krsna mantra and worshipping Sri Sri Radha Krsna. If so, there is some limited benefit.

In his olive branch posting, Brahma dasa wrote:

If this is acceptable to you than we can shake hands and forget this unending debate, providing that you are willing to shake hands with a weasel-wording bamboozler like me. I think we could actually find some common ground. If this is agreeable than lets be friends and agree to disagree at times like friends do.

I humbly admit that as a conditioned soul, my opinions - especially on contentious issues - are just that, my “opinions”. I don’t expect anyone to perceive my statements as absolutely correct. I haven’t the purity nor do I imagine myself a transparent via media of authority directly connected to Srila Prabhupada. The science of self-realization (Bhakti yoga) as taught by the Maha-bhagavatas, is simple and sublime and simultaneously very difficult to fully comprehend. I do think that it is important that everyone be prepared to publicly present and then expertly defend his or her positions. Refraining from taking a stand on the debatable aspects of our philosophy is a lazy cop-out. By leaving the thinking and debating to a few representatives while sitting around mumbling on tulasi beads, conjuring up images of how pure you are, you may discover that you are a member of a cult. That is a risky position to place oneself in.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

My perception is based upon years of involvement in pre-samadhi ISKCON and analysis of Srila Prabhupada’s overall policy as it applies to outside influences. I am ready to acknowledge that if you are compelled to seek “higher association” you were better off going to Sridhara Maharaj rather than to many other alternatives, even within ISKCON. Regardless, what I hear from Srila Prabhupada is that he was hoping and expecting his sincere disciples to find all they need within the spiritual legacy he left behind for us.

Whatever is to be learned of the teachings of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura can be learned from our books. There is no need whatsoever for any outside instruction. (S.P.Letter to Gurukrpa and Yasodanandana, 25/12/73)

Maybe he was a Paramahamsa who couldn’t/wouldn’t come down to the madhyama platform for purposes of preaching. Considering the results and the fact that Sridhara Maharaj spent very little time associating with Srila Prabhupada during those “glory years”, how was he to know what Srila Prabhupada expected of him as it applied to giving siksa to his initiated disciples? How much more angry Srila Prabhupada was/is at his own disciples for implementing the Zonal Acarya system is a matter for conjecture, but it is a legitimate consideration. In the end, we have to judge by the results. We are all familiar with the sordid history of the “dark-ages” brought on by the Acarya usurpers. We have also observed the results of the Sridhara Maharaj converters. Who was worse is a matter of opinion. My guess is neither were pleasing to the Founder-Acarya.

Brahma has enlightened us all about the details of what transpired back in 1937, directly after Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati departed. Keep in mind that this is the Sridhara Maharaj version of events. I’m certain there are other variations of the story. In fact, there is the Srila Prabhupada explanation wherein he summarized it all by saying both parties were useless. We can only assume this translates into “wrong”, or not what Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati wished by saying “no authority”.

It was interesting to hear that the party that opposed Sridhara Maharaj supported the 'many acarya' idea, which is non-different that the Zonal Acarya system Sridhara himself backed forty years later. Sridhara Maharaj ratified that bogus, cookie-cutter concoction. Is this the valuable knowledge Srila Prabhupada expected Sridhara Maharaj to impart to his young disciples when he authorized approaching him for siksa?

Brahma slyly devalues Srila Prabhupada as only a Calcutta businessman supporting a family. What would he know compared to the great sannyasis GBC advisor, Sridhara Maharaj? Brahma's sophistry shines brightly in his argument that Srila Prabhupada wasn’t actually referring to Sridhara Maharaj and his group, but only to Bon and Tirtha Maharaja. Nice try on that spin, which gives us a valuable glimpse at the extent of Brahma’s historical purification process.

Brahma dasa mentions in his explanation of what happened in '37 that both parties expressed an urgency to immediately replace the Acarya, believing that without implementing this action, the mission would be paralyzed. If that mentality isn’t an example of the “living guru concept”, I don’t know what is! Brahma applied that same principle to his anxious search for a siksa guru, only to replace the recently departed Srila Prabhupada. Either Sridhara Maharaj in '37 and Brahma in '78 were duped by politically motivated schemes in the guise of traditional rhetoric, or they truly believed this “living guru" idea was an all important aspect of the philosophy. Either way, it was wrong and that is why Srila Prabhupada stated that both parties were useless.

The facts of the circumstances in both Acarya scenarios is that, prior to samadhi, the Acaryas devoted their time to traveling from temple to temple. Consequently, all the temples were accustomed to operating without the Acarya's physical presence and oversight. Both Acaryas divested themselves of administrative duties, so day-to-day operations did not depend upon the Acarya being in attendance. In other words, there were no practical institutional pressures to quickly replace the Acarya. Consider the reality that both Acaryas didn’t leave an operational blueprint, but instead left the details to the leaders. Under rational, normal, sane circumstances, the leaders would involve themselves in in-depth discussions over how to keep the Acarya’s valuable preaching institution operating smoothly, which was clearly the expressed desire of both Acaryas. Any idiot would have concluded that the actions they almost spontaneously embarked upon was a sure recipe for institutional disaster. So, accusing them of being motivated by the “living guru” principle is a compliment compared to the verdict of “pure unalloyed greed for power”.

Perhaps we can be generous by describing Sridhara Maharaj, in both the '37 and '77 takeovers, as an innocent, scholarly, naïve, pawn in the hands of the aggressive political types. Whatever was going through his head at either time, the results were the same. He didn’t excuse himself or speak out, therefore he is unfortunately implicated. He even contributed to their philosophical justification. His very words were included on the “papers” which were distributed throughout the Society. It was partially the weight of his “wise" elderly comments which added creditability to their philosophical nonsense.

Brahma dasa now has the audacity to make a big deal out of my coining a term such as 'Sampradaya Acarya' or 'nitya-siddha Acarya', when his own siksa guru, Sridhara Maharaj, produced incorrect philosophical conclusions which helped in the justification of enthroning bogus Acaryas. His actions and words were catalysts that resulted in the destruction of not one, but two successive nitya-siddha Acarya's missions.

We all know Sridhara Maharaj projected a very saintly profile, as did our Godbrother, Satsvarupa Goswami, whose profile only proved to be a more deceptive guise. The conniving, manipulative, co-conspirators used the brahminical images of both Sridhara Maharaj and Satsvarupa very effectively as weapons in their propaganda war. These take-over types sadly lacked credibility amongst the institutional grassroots on that level of “saintliness”, despite the trappings of their saffron robes and tridundis. They correctly calculated that they needed to temporarily push to the front of the queue the most pious looking and sounding amongst them. And it worked. Brahma dasa and company are expecting us to flush these historical facts down the memory hole.

Terms such as 'liberated', 'pure', 'conditioned' or 'under illusion', have little meaning unless they are qualified with a more elaborate explanation. Is Sridhara Maharaj liberated, pure, advanced, etc? No question about it. Are Srila Prabhupada and Sridhara Maharaj equal in all respects? I don’t believe it for a minute. If you want to interpret my opinion as the babbling of an immature sectarian, so be it. Your present spiritual lifestyle as a siksa disciple speaks for itself. I dismiss your claim that you have equally separated your allegiance between Srila Prabhupada and Sridhara Maharaj.

Brahma introduces Srila Prabhupada’s words:

Prabhupada: “We may be imperfect, but perfection means one who assimilates the perfect knowledge, he is perfect."

To equate the humorous statements Srila Prabhupada made to a feminist reporter about women’s brains to the mistake of choosing an unqualified Acarya to his Spiritual Master’s mission which resulted in its complete collapse, is desperate and dishonest. I am not only spotlighting Sridhara Maharaj's mistake of 1937. What I am saying is that core philosophical misconceptions, which contributed to the aforementioned event, were maintained in the mind and heart of Sridhara Maharaj throughout his lifetime and seriously impacted his entire life, his preaching style, and his reluctance to seriously assist Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON, which culminated in his direct involvement in the tragic Zonal Acarya debacle.

On every other aspect of the philosophy, he may have been right on. I honestly can’t say because I haven’t studied his writings and only met him a few times, many years ago. What I have described above I would classify as a chronic and serious mistake. Whether Srila Prabhupada tried in the early days to convince Sridhara Maharaj to abandon his seclusionist attitude, no one knows for sure. Srila Prabhupada certainly hinted on a number of occasions that what I said was true. You included the last conversation Srila Prabhupada had with Sridhara Maharaj in 1977. I happened to be present at that time. It was during the Gaura Purnima Festival. The phrase used by Srila Prabhupada says it all: “He told me quite a few times, "Why don't you pull him out?", meaning that Bhaktisiddhanta asked Srila Prabhupada to get Sridhara out of his matha and get him out preaching.

Srila Prabhupada commented to his senior disciples after Sridhara Maharaj departed that he knew full well that Sridhara Maharaj would decline his invitation. The invitation was put forth to make a subtle but significant point which wasn’t lost on Sridhara Maharaj, for it went back many years. You can take from this circumstance whatever you like. The rest of the senior disciples present came away with an entirely different message than the one you offer today.

There is no doubt that Srila Prabhupada saw the untapped preaching potential in Sridhara Maharaj throughout his adult life and wanted to employ it in the service of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, but Sridhara Maharaj was, for whatever reason, obviously reluctant. Keep in mind that we are not comparing Sridhara Maharaj to anyone else other than Srila Prabhupada. I go on record that he is light years more advanced than me. Brahma dasa will likely reply that I therefore have no right to criticize. Honestly, I don’t look at my statements as criticism, just as being straightforward and honest about how I see the facts. I don’t fear reaction because I see it as a service to Srila Prabhupada’s memory, which is badly in need of polishing. First, I have to remove the many Gulliver-like threads of minimalization surrounding his true glory. Your camp has contributed to this conspiracy to “normalize” Srila Prabhupada, and it is my duty to challenge. If you are offended, so be it.

Sri Uddhava said: You may take lessons from the great learned sage Maitreya, who is nearby and who is worshipable for reception of transcendental knowledge. He was directly instructed by the Personality of Godhead while He was about to quit this mortal world.

PURPORT

Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world. To be well versed in the transcendental science necessitates awareness of the techniques of spiritual science.

First offense is guror avajna, defying the authority of guru. This is the first offense. So one who is offensive, how he can make advance in chanting? He cannot make. Then everything is finished in the beginning. Guror avajna. Everything is there. If one is disobeying the spiritual master, he cannot remain in the pure status of life. He cannot be siksa-guru or anything else.

(Bhagavad-gita, lecture 17.1-3 Honolulu, July 4, 1974)

Prabhupad said many wonderful things about Sridhar Maharaja and seriously criticized him in one case as well. Therefore I can understand how the Rupanuga letter and other quotes he made about his Godbrothers and the breakup of the Gaudiya Math, may cause many to hesitate in establishing a siksa relationship with Sridhara Maharaj or any of his followers. In general I have no quarrel with these devotees and feel that they should go the way they are inspired by their individual faith. However if a person makes a blanket statement against the principal of accepting a siksa guru or against Sridhara Maharaj in particular than I often feel obliged to respond.

You are stuck on this idea that individual faith is paramount to any questioning or reasoning, therefore it cannot be held up to scrutiny. Whomever we preach to, we are essentially questioning or inviting them to examine their faith in some “ism” , or someone. If we followed your logic, we have no right to challenge anyone because as soon as we do, we are being offensive to the personality they have reposed their love in.

I must concede to the fact that I’m inclined to believe I made the right choice. It's only natural for Brahma dasa to feel the same. Admittedly, there are downsides to both choices. It’s a matter of individual objective application of knowledge and realization, and also the strength of the dam holding back the reservoir of fluid faith.

In the analysis of the “now”, Sridhara Maharaj has made his departure, and Tripurari Swami never was and never will be a siksa alternative for me. Obviously, I'm committed to getting everything spiritual I require from Srila Prabhupada. Brahma has been entangled in his hybrid guru relationship for over twenty years, so it’s wishful thinking to expect any monumental movement from him.

I’m willing to admit that I have learned many interesting and important bits of information as a result of this dialogue. It’s been educational, and I’m glad I participated. Whether or not I’m going to learn anything else of significance is doubtful as we now seem to be chewing the chewed. I could inject plenty of other topics I’m interested in discussing, but I’ve already been accused of straying from the initial topic. I'll save them for another thread of discussion, on another day.

Brahma dasa and I have both invited one another to visit. Even Tripurari Swami has extended a desire to meet and talk face to face. So, all’s well that ends well. Srila Prabhupada was a friend of Sridhara Maharaj. They had a relationship based on the principle of agreeing to disagree on certain aspects of the philosophy. I suspect their non-retractable differences were discovered after much discussion.

As a Srila Prabhupada disciple, I think I should follow closely in his footsteps. As for my Godbrothers such as Brahma and Tripurari Swami, would I send my disciples to them to take siksa? Not the type of siksa that they have taken from Sridhara Maharaj, that’s for certain.

Respecting one’s Godbrothers and other related members of the family of Gaudiya Vaisnavas, as Srila Prabhupada’s actions and words indicate, doesn’t require us to keep our doubts, questions, thoughts and opinions to ourselves in case some unquestioning follower becomes offended or a Godbrother takes it the wrong way. I have been accused many times of being so *offensive* by those brandishing the big “guru aparadha” stick. Well, nothing traumatic has happened and my faith in Srila Prabhupada grows by the day, so I’ve concluded that it’s just an emotional ruse used by those who can’t think for themselves or are so intellectually and philosophically handicapped all they can do is scream and point.

Srila Prabhupada said the war with his Godbrothers was over for him because he was about to leave his body. I don’t believe any of his derogatory comments were made in the mood of anger, malaise or combativeness. They were made in the spirit of protectiveness, out of concern for the spiritual well being of his disciples. That’s how I interpret them, and I for one am thankful for Srila Prabhupada’s bold, straightforward nature.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

If what I am saying is true, which seems only logical and consistent with all accounts, then why is it that Sridhar Maharaj accepted without question the Zonal Acarya's claim that Srila Prabhupada had decreed the same system he previously expressed such abhorrence for? Logic dictates that Sridhar Maharaj, more than anyone else, should have understood his old friend's mind on this matter. Sridhar Maharaj, according to what Brahma has revealed to us, was simply and easily hoodwinked by the exclusive members of the “good old boys club” of ISKCON when they came "across the river" for “siksa” advice. This freely imparted “knowledge/siddha” would detrimentally impact Vaisnava history and thousands of disciple’s lives.

Why didn’t Sridhar Maharaj speak-up and challenge this blatant abomination, which clearly went against all Srila Prabhupada’s previous opinions, traditions and precedent, what to speak of logic?

In a previous post, Brahma dasa tried to defended Sridhar Maharaj’s capitulation to the Zonal Acarya idea. It seems Sridhar Maharaj sighted a 500 year old event surrounding the passing on of authority after the departure of the six Goswami’s Vrindabin temples. In that case, however, there was no regional initiation exclusivity involved. Besides, how is a precedent set hundreds of years past relevant today, in this context?

All in all, these arguments just don’t pass the test. Sridhar Maharaj repeated his previous 1937 'mistake', but in 1977 it appears that he switched sides. Apparently it never occurred to him, as it had to Srila Prabhupada, that both sides were useless. It didn’t dawn on Sridhar Maharaj, as an advocate of the “living guru concept”, that there may have been a third option.

We understand that Sridhar Maharaj was non-confrontational, a real sweetie-pie compared to the tell it "as it is” style of Srila Prabhupada. That’s another aspect of the ways in which, by their natures, they were not alike, which was ultimately a siddha issue.

With this point made, I rest my argument.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa

Good question on a seemingly illogical move on Srila Prabhupada’s part. Of course, the faithful can offer a number of compelling and convincing answers. The superficial and most commonly used response is that Srila Prabhupada “gave them enough rope to hang themselves”. Another standard explanation is that Srila Prabhupada just followed in the footsteps of his Spiritual Master. Personally, I don’t feel these simplistic reasons stand-up in the light of day.

First and foremost, both Acaryas (Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura) were heading-up their traditional “Acarya in charge” preaching mission. They both hoped and wished that these valuable preaching tools would not go the way of many past powerful Acarya-led movements after the leader departed. Undeniably, they were fully aware of the vaulting ambitions and arrogance of their appointed institutional higher-ups. They also understood the temptation of these unqualified up-starts to revert back to the “old-ways”, euphemistically dubbed “traditional”. In other words, they could foresee these unqualified neophytes enthroning their pretentious Godbrothers simply on the strength of their position within the institution and adoption of the status symbol of sannyasa.

This microcosmic phenomena found within spiritual groups was in the context of the macrocosmic practice known as the Caste system. For centuries in India, one’s social status was exclusively based on which family you were born into. The spiritual lineages also tended to mirror these types of social practices. Both Acaryas introduced many improvements of a foreign origin into the traditional model, beginning with the institutional organizational paradigm rather than the ashram -- what to speak of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s radical modernization of the sannyasis lifestyle. On his instructions, Srila Prabhupada broke the shastric prohibition of journeying to the western countries. These are just a few examples of the many we could mention. These Acaryas were prepared to break with tradition in order to enhance their preaching opportunities. The eventuality of their missions being broken up due to a continuation of the Acarya system, with the appointment of unqualified replacements, was predicted.

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura tried to prevent this from happening by introducing the GBC idea. The Board of Directors, who oversee companies and organizations, was borrowed from the western model where it's an essential component of the business structure. In fact, Srila Prabhupada’s original GBC description of responsibilities was far closer to the western business model than what later morphed into a 'merger' of the chief executives with the board members, which is what we find today.

The Acarya's main motivation was to establish a system that not only functioned smoothly and produced great preaching results while they were present, but continued on after their eventual departure. As long as they were fulfilling the Acarya role there was no problem, but unless they could be replaced with an equally empowered personality, a different type of organizational model was required after their departure.

The western model naturally works well if there is good leadership, but it isn’t based on the principle that the leader is an absolute personality beyond accountability. There are methods in place to replace those who are not performing their duties to the 'shareholders'. In our circumstance, the shareholders were the dedicated members who had voluntarily sacrificed their lives to serve the founder-Acarya, who is the via media to Lord Sri Krsna. That’s how the system works. That is the direction I feel the Acaryas hoped their disciples would take. Considering the framework they had set in place, the requirement was for it to keep functioning once the Acarya vacated his absolute position. Srila Prabhupada was expecting and hoping that the westerners, who were culturally accustomed to this type of system, could successfully make the transition. But, as history reveals, they succumbed to the temptations of being small time absolutists by adopting the Indian model. How they would elect the different executives is obvious, as they had used the democratic voting system in GBC meetings. While the Zonal Acarya program was operating it dominated the GBC, so in reality there was no GBC. It was simply used as a tool for their selfish purposes.

Brahma’s doubts as to Srila Prabhupada’s institutional arrangements, particularly his apparent loyalty to certain questionable characters, have encouraged many followers to leave the service of Srila Prabhupada. Many of these disillusioned individuals have abandoned every aspect of the spiritual process. At least Brahma found somewhere within the Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya to re-situate himself after the shock and confusion of discovering his previously revered institutional leaders were actually great rascals. Using Brahma’s 'free flowing faith' analogy, once the faith in Srila Prabhupada has been shattered it is a humpty-dumpty situation. The pieces are hard to put back together.

The atheists find fault in the concept of God because they can’t imagine a God who could/would create such a miserable place as the one we all exist in, where so many supposedly innocent souls are suffering for no apparent reason. There are some within our own tradition who can’t work out in their minds why Lord Sri Krsna is considered an incarnation if he stood by and allowed the Battle of Kuruksetra to take place, or allowed his closest friends to be cheated, persecuted and unfairly exiled. Then there is the whole “dancing with the married gopis in the middle of the night” pastime, which bewilders so many moralists. Many mysterious births, activities and deaths of the incarnations have to be carefully explained by a bonafide guru to a faithful disciple before they begin to make sense. In Srila Prabhupada’s case, I certainly don’t feel that the degree of plausible explanation supported by sastra has been properly presented, especially by the shadow-ISKCON authorities in their Lilamrita novel. The Gaudiya Matha's faithless depiction of Srila Prabhupada is also tainted and flawed, but is more tolerable and understandable, at least to me.

What bothers me more than anything is the deceptive practice of claiming to be very loyal and loving toward Srila Prabhupada, speaking so many flowery and poetic words that are all for show. Most publicly pontificate on the qualities and glories of Srila Prabhupada only because it’s the “thing to do” and it makes them appear so saintly, but in their heart of hearts they don’t really believe their own words. In fact, now it has become almost vogue to have a more “human” perspective of Srila Prabhupada. This is something along the lines of the academic’s version of Jesus compared to the faithful's New Testament depiction.

Brahma has already dismissed me as far too foolish and unqualified to be respected as the “official” presenter of Srila Prabhupada’s pastimes. He's probably right. I’m only sharing with the reader my thoughts on the subject after a great deal of research, thought, discussion and writing. Unquestionably, I could use far more purification, inspiration, association and serious application of the process of Bhakti Yoga. But more and more, I am convinced that I must sort out for myself the apparent mysteries and contradictions surrounding Srila Prabhupada’s birth, pastimes and death. Once I’m clear on these issues, the many spiritual alternatives for spending my limited time become more attractive.

Basically, that is the reason I have directed so much of my time and energy to going back and forth in the Dharma Mela with Brahma dasa. Unwittingly, he has assisted me in unraveling some nagging dilemmas that have bothered me for a long time. It is easy enough to casually dismiss those who re-enter their karmic lifestyle on account of their faith being eroded by doubts concerning Srila Prabhupada. I recall hundreds of previous acquaintances over the last thirty years who have faded in varying degrees into the modes. Today there is an upsurge of interest among those who were previously identified as strong Srila Prabhupada followers, who are now dedicated to the “latest and greatest” Gaudiya Matha manifestation, Narayana Maharaja. Surely this phenomena deserves our examination!

Conversing with a well-seasoned Gaudiya Matha convert like Brahma dasa was a golden opportunity I couldn’t pass up. It isn’t that I particularly enjoy sparing with the likes of Brahma. I would rather just take prasadam and enjoy kirtan with he and his pals, and let bygones be bygones. Once I understand the reality of this phenomenon, it will be a lot easier to associate on the basis of “agree to disagree”. The prerequisite for me to come to this point of acceptance is to accurately know what we all are disagreeing about.

Brahma dasa quoted in his latest post from a 1972 letter to Upendra where Srila Prabhupada says, “There is no reason why acharyas cannot have different opinions." Who can argue with Srila Prabhupada’s statement? But Brahma had previously stated that he fancies himself a sort of 50/50 hybrid of Srila Prabhupada and Sridhara Maharaja. We can only scratch our heads after reading his most recent revealing, doubt-laden, accusatory outbursts directed squarely at Srila Prabhupada. We have all had a chance to witness exactly which side of the differing opinions between Srila Prabhupada and Sridhara Maharaja Brahma is on. So much for his hybrid disciple claim. It took a lot of “hitting his hot buttons” before he blurted out the truth of where his fluid faith has flowed.

I wonder whether we can get a truthful admission from Brahma as to when he last actually read one of Srila Prabhupada’s books, or how many of Prabhupada's books he reads compared to Sridhara Maharaja's, Tripurari’s, or some other past Acarya's writings. I agree that Srila Prabhupada didn’t categorically forbid us from reading other writings, by the Six Goswamis for instance. Keep in mind, however, that most of these texts had to first be translated into English by someone other than Srila Prabhupada and many of them have added commentaries by other Acaryas who, as Brahma dasa points out, had “other opinions”. So, doesn’t it seem logical that Srila Prabhupada was concerned about his disciples becoming bewildered by doubts due to being exposed to these “other opinions”? Don’t say that this hasn’t been a problem! We all know about the origin of the Jivatma issue. The bottom line is that the unalloyed quality of one’s faith in Srila Prabhupada directly effects the manner with which we read Srila Prabhupada’s writings, especially his purports. Even the attraction to read Srila Prabhupada's books rather than some other Vaisnava literature is proportionate to the quality and quantity of one’s faith.

Personally, I not only want to play it safe, I also wish to keep my spiritual life simple by not introducing all these inevitably “differing opinions”. I am not going Guru shopping, and don’t even want to put such temptation in my way. I don’t think for a moment that the grass is greener or I’m missing out. Brahma and Tripurari make the claim that their spiritual life has immeasurably increased on account of taking shelter of Sridhara Maharaja. They also like us to believe that their motives for making this move are based on the principle of seeking beneficial spiritual association, as decreed by shastra. Now we can all see that Brahma’s doubts in Srila Prabhupada were a contributing factor to his crusade to holier lands.

No doubt Brahma dasa and Tripurari have radically changed as a result of this association, but whether or not it was a big spiritual improvement is debatable. None of us will ever know for sure what the spiritual results would have been if they (and others like them) had stuck exclusively with Srila Prabhupada and devoted the same amount of energy in Srila Prabhupada’s service as they did to Sridhara Maharaja. All they can provide as proof is a testimonial to the quality of their feelings, which to me is totally meaningless.

Brahma dasa wrote:

One Guru or many Guru’s is not the in problem 1937 and 1978. It is that those who accepted the post of Guru were unqualified. If they had been selfless highly qualified Vaisnavas than one or many would not have mattered.

Well! The above “stroke of genius” declaration by Brahma makes everything so crystal clear. It is the equivalent of saying that if the material world were only of the same nature as the spiritual world, we wouldn’t have any problems. Are you saying that if only Sridhara Maharaja were appointed Acarya in 1937, and Tripurari Swami in 1977, our problems wouldn’t have manifested? If yes, then end of story. If no, then essentially you are agreeing with my “hypothesis” -- namely, that if there wasn’t anyone spiritual qualified enough to fill the position of Acarya, then it would be best to introduce a governance system which doesn’t rely on there being a nitya-siddha at the helm. How do you think the present democracies emerged from of the failure of the “ordained by God” absolute monarchs? Are these democracies functioning well compared to the alternatives? Unquestionably yes! Why can’t we learn from these many success stories? We can, as long as we don’t have to deal with all these competing absolute Acaryas, fighting ruthlessly over power. Their outcries cite precedent, tradition, ancient wisdom, the way of our forefathers... a whole chorus is coming from those most fearful of losing their personal power. There was/is absolutely no consideration for the preservation of the preaching mission or the shattered lives of the hardworking grassroots members. These pretentious tribal lords only thought was about self-preservation of power. Kind of reminds me of what is taking place in Afghanistan, as we speak.

Your servant,

Rocana dasa