Why so few?

Srila Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji took babaji initiation from Srila Bhagavat dasa babaji,
who was a disciple of Srila Jagannatha dasa babaji.

At this time he met Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji there, who had a program by
which he moved every six months between Navadwipa and Vrndavana.
Meeting him, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura accepted him as his eternally
worshippable 'siksa' (instructing) 'guru'.


MollyThe Hippy

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura
Bhaktivinoda's diksha guru Vipin Bihari Goswami (Bipin Behari Goswami).
was coming in the disciplic succession from Sri Gadadhar Pandit the plenary portion of
Srimati Radharani.

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji as his siksa guru

Srila Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji took babaji initiation from Srila Bhagavat dasa babaji,
who was a disciple of Srila Jagannatha dasa babaji.

So MollyThe Hippy who is your diksha guru and what disciplic succession is he coming
from?
Are you saying Srila Prabhupada is not qualified because he is in this disciplic succession?
Are you saying all of Srila Prabhupadas disciples are not qualified?
Are you saying all of Srila Prabhupadas disciples are not qualified because some of them
did some bad things?

 

no, i am not saying you and your gurus are not qualified

i was only wanting some clarification on the inconsistencies on the disciplic line you presented which is a mix of diksha and siksha elements of which you seem to have some clarity on but many of your iskcon buddies are not aware of its subtleties as i've rarely seen in iskcon or gaudiya math in their presenting of their disciplic line, demonstrate that bhaktivinoda's guru was bipin bihari goswami

also, and to his credit due to fulfill the desire of mahaprabhu, bhaktivinoda sought to bring westerners into the fold of the teachings and disregard caste injunctions bringing great displeasure to his initiating (diksha) guru, bipin bihari goswami which led to his guru's rejection of him which as you mention, led to his taking siksha (spiritual instruction) from jaganatha babaji

i agree with the import of such a presentation of a disciplic line that siksha is more important than diksha

my guru is a she, mata amritananda and she is self manifest and follows no diksha or siksha line

 

True knowledge can only be achieved when one has true absolute knowledge coming
directly from god him self. That knowledge is transcendental which is beyond this material
creation and is past down through a chain of disciplic succession from spiritual master to
disciple in an unbroken chain. I am in such a disciplic succession and I have heard from
authorities on the subject of god. I am saying that Krishna is god and he gives the science
of understanding god and our selves in his Bhagavad gita.
http://www.asitis.com/1/21-22.html

Translated and commentary by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 

Is that Prabhupada's translation or an edited edition? Because we know that the so called 'gurus' who run Iskcon now have altered Prabhupada's words.
Are they sticking to the disciplic succession? Seems not.

 

To say that every guru in ISKCON is off the path is a big statement and who are you to judge. What is your qualification?

 

Most of the spiritual greats of modern India are in the same category - there is a big difference between such beings and those in these guru lineages I think.
No doubt Prabhupada had devotion - just as many catholic priests have it. Did he have jnana too? Was he 'enlightened'? I find it increasingly difficult to think he was. I think at best he was in a category similar to what in the west is called a priest, or sometimes even an Imam - but thats as far as it goes.

 

Well - I got 3 a levels, some vocational qualifications, first aid certificate - how 'bout you?

But look - it's you yourself who've posted an example of the revisions to Prabhupada's work I alluded to.
Who am I to judge? If not me, then who is going to judge for me? Should I let some idiot apointee 'guru' do so?
I've seen the results of the bogus gurus in Iskcon over the years - I judge partly on that basis, partly on the basis of interactions with Iskcon members over a period of time, including former devotees of bogus gurus such as Tirthapada, the 'acid guru', and also from the extremely narrow views I've seen expressed from time to time in these froums by Iskcon apologists.
No doubt there are good people in Iskcon - as there are outside Iskcon - considerably more in the second category.

 

It is unfortunate that you can’t see that Prabhupada had realized knowledge and that you are obviously posing as a realized soul.

 

Bill, in bhaktivedanta's time, even his words were not necessarily his words

Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva: Dispelling an Internet Myth
By Jayadvaita Swami
Posted May 7, 2003

All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

The story, posted some time back, of how Hayagriva Prabhu painstakingly sat with Srila Prabhupada for two years to fine tune the text of Bhagavad-gita As It Is is only just one more internet myth. Who says? Hayagriva.

Criticism and insults I can tolerate. Fictitious history is harder to bear. So let's set things straight, shall we?

According to the published story, "While it is not generally known, for two years Srila Prabhupada sat with Hayagriva and patiently transformed His intimate realizations into a level of refined expression onto which He then comfortably placed His name. The resulting literary expression was the wondrous 1972 Bhagavad-Gita As It Is."

There's a good reason why this tale is "not generally known"— it's a falsehood.

In the words of Brahmananda Prabhu, who was there at the time, "It's out of the question." Why?

First of all, the supposed two years didn't exist. Fortunately, Hayagriva Prabhu has left us an excellent memoir of his early years in ISKCON, The Hare Krsna Explosion. And from that lively and informative book, and from the Folio VedaBase, you can easily find out when Srila Prabhupada and Hayagriva were together.

Without boring you with the details (available on request), during the period when Bhagavad-gita As It Is was being edited the total time that Hayagriva and Srila Prabhupada were even together in the same city, what to speak of sitting together working, was— two years? Forget it. At the most, less than five months.

And, again according to Brahmananda Prabhu (and Umapati Maharaja confirmed this for me), Hayagriva mainly worked on his own.

Nor was it Srila Prabhupada's method to sit with his editors for hours together, refining the details of the language. He gave you the work and you did it. And sometimes you might come and ask questions. But even then, though perhaps he'd answer a few questions, soon he'd be talking about any sort of Krsna-katha— preaching to you about Krsna consciousness, the way he preached to nearly anyone he came in touch with.

Hayagriva does speak of consulting Srila Prabhupada "daily" throughout the spring of '67. But Hayagriva's memory must have been tricking him: In the time he speaks of, he was in San Francisco, Srila Prabhupada in New York.

More reliably, Hayagriva tells in some detail of a time he worked closely with Srila Prabhupada. That was also in 1967, for a week or so in July. Srila Prabhupada had retired to Paridisio, an estate in Stinson Beach, California, to try to recuperate from a major stroke, and Hayagriva would go there from San Francisco, with the first five chapters of Bhagavad-gita in hand. He was especially concerned about the translations.

The translations, of course, are the most conspicuously literary part of the book. And here's Hayagriva's own account of how they were done:

"After the Rathayatra festival [in San Francisco on July 9, 1967], Swamiji tells me that I should live at Paridisio and work full time on the final manuscript of Bhagavad-gita. . . .

" 'It must be well stated in the English language,' Swamiji insists. 'If there are any questions about the translations, you may ask me. Remember, edit for force and clarity.'

"Daily, I try to clarify and strengthen the sentences without changing the style or meddling with the meaning, and, needless to say, this is very difficult. I soon find myself consulting Swamiji on every other verse, and occasionally he dictates an entirely different translation. The verse translations themselves are most problematical because they often differ from the word by word Sanskrit-English meanings accompanying them. What to do?

" 'Quit bothering him,' Kirtanananda tells me. 'Whenever anyone's in his room, he talks to the point of exhaustion.'

"True. He talks sitting up. Then he leans back and talks. Then rests on one elbow. Then lies on his side, still talking, still clarifying, still praising Krishna."

"Swamiji finally tires of my consulting him about Bhagavad-gita verses.

" 'Just copy the verses from some other translation,' he tells me, discarding the whole matter with a wave of his hand. 'The verses aren't important. There are so many translations, more or less accurate, and the Sanskrit is always there. It's my purports that are important. Concentrate on the purports. There are so many nonsense purports like Dr. Radhakrishnan's, and Gandhi's, and Nikhilananda's. What is lacking are these Vaishnava purports in the preaching line of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. That is what is lacking in English. That is what is lacking in the world.'

" 'I can't just copy others,' I say.

" 'There is no harm.'

" 'But that's plagiarism.'

" 'How's that? They are Krishna's words. Krishna's words are clear, like the sun. Just these rascal commentators have diverted the meaning by saying, 'Not to Krishna.' So my purports are saying, 'To Krishna.' That is the only difference.' "

The refined literary expressions in the wondrous 1972 Gita were the result of— two years of Srila Prabhupada intimately sitting with Hayagriva? Pure mythology. They were mainly the result of Hayagriva working with the manuscript on his own— and, for the translations, borrowing from other editions.

Hayagriva Prabhu, of course, was named after the horse-headed incarnation of Lord Krsna. And now you have the story in his own words— that is to say, right from the horse's mouth.

Hare Krsna.

 

BlackBillBlake

Krishna says: 1972 version Bhagavad gita

Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he
is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated. 9.30

He quickly becomes righteous and attains lasting peace. O son of Kunté, declare it boldly
that My devotee never perishes. 9.31

To error is human. The conditioned soul is sure to commit mistakes and the guru is on the
path to rectification like everyone else. He may be more advance than the disciple but still
a third class devotee and may have the tendency to cheat but if he is trying to rectify his
faults, then he is properly situated.

 

Molly

Thank you

That was very enlightening

 

Srila Prabhupada stated that an uttama-adhikari should be sought and accepted as a spiritual master, and that one should not become a spiritual master until he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. (Nectar of Instruction, Text Five)

With all due respects, Prabhu, using those particular Gita verses to justify the fact that there are some unqualified persons acting as initiating gurus is nothing but dodging.

 

I'm stating my opinion, based on experience. Nothing more.

 

But look at it like this - if during the time from the early 80's on I'd wanted to accept an ISKCON guru, who would have been my choices? I'll tell you.

In the first period it would have been Tirthapada who was originally zonal archaraya for the UK, until he left to form his lsd version of Krishna Consciousness, and was eventually murdered by de-captation.

Candidate no. 2 - Bhagavan Gurudev - a moron with an extremely arrogant attitude whom I met briefly in 1982, shortly before he eloped with his secretary and a pile of ISKCON cash. Later I believe he went to jail for embezzlement of funds. To my certain knowledge he ordered people beaten up.

A more recent candidate



Vipramukhya Swami. Would you seriously accept this idiot as a guru? Or expect any person endowed with the least intelligence or judgement to do so?

There's no justification whatsoever for ther bogus gurus. They are simply people on a massive ego trip. They have misled many and no doubt that still continues now.

 

That doesn’t mean that those devotees are not trying to sincerely carry out the order of
there spiritual master. Prabhupada gave sannyasa to some young men because it was an
emergency and now the rule is no one under the age off 50 years are given sannyasa
because of so much embarrassment. These devotees are fighting the very powerful illusory
energy of the Lord, it is not that easy to defeat and until you are in that position, don’t
criticize

 

I didn't know that Prabhupada's order was to tell often vulnerable young people to take drugs - thats what Tirthapada did. A friend of mine was in fact his secretary for a couple of years. I have also read Tirthapada's book, and met others of his devotees. They are all pretty much screwed up.

Nor was I aware that intimidation, violence and theft such as manifested by Bhagavan were among SP's instructions.

Well it was obviously wrong then, because as I say, Bhagavan ran off with a woman to have a sexual relationship, and Tirthapada had begun to sleep with the wives of devotees.
So these were no sanyasis. To dub a man sanyasi will not make him so.

Until I am in what position? I'd never put myself in the position of misrepresenting myself to others like these bogus gurus do - I couldn't stand it - I'd hear them chant my name and I'd feel like Hitler. They must have a lot of work to do indeed fighting the illusory energy with such massively inflated egos.

 

I am not saying that there are not cheaters out there and that these people that were in
ISKCON didn’t do some bad things but don’t criticize everyone that is in ISKCON.

I this world there is going to be cheaters, we have to use your intelligence.

 

I know there are good devotees in ISKCON.
I don't criticize anyone who is trying sincerely to follow any spiritual path. Not until they begin to do just that themselves, and say things like 'this is the only way' or 'all other paths are wrong'.
However - the stakes are high in all of this. Could there be higher stakes than immortality? Thus I dislike it when those who are not really very enlightened put themselves forward as spiritual guides - and there's the effect that falling of a guru has on followers to think about too.

 

razor_hot_sticks

I would like to apologize for the way things turned out on your thread. I was trying to give some truthful insight to what you wanted to discuss and it got out of control. Please forgive me. I pray that you will find true enlightenment and happiness. Understanding your self and god is very important. Few people ask what the purpose of life is. I would have to say from my years of endeavoring on this path that developing our relationship and love for god is the ultimate goal in life.

 

Molly's you said your guru is mata amritananda!

That is so awesome, I got a hug from her once, and everyday, I am realizing "Amma's hug is here now"

Here is a picture of her...



She has such devotion!


Praise be her as a guru, and all the great gurus...

"When you know how to listen, everybody is the guru." - Ram Dass