In Seeker’s comment he links to a few posts on ISKCON guru Trivikrama Swami’s blog, quotes from them, and comments. He points out the bizarre status accorded to Prabhupada in those links, and in the ISKCON community in general. One thing Seeker wrote was this:

Fact is stranger than fiction – any amount of sarcasm to point out flaws in the concept of guru as understood by ISKCON is overcome effortlessly by the comments of ISKCON gurus. Nothing is more hilarious than reality, it seems. Their articles make me wonder what kind of inner world that these gurus must be dwelling in – for example, in this link, an innocent devotee asks what should he do if he hears Srila Prabhupada’s statements being commented as wrong and the guru replies that he should protest and should even be willing to give up his life – scary.

When I was in ISKCON 30-35 years ago, when it came to how Prabhupada was represented, it was quite different than it is now. You wouldn’t hear people speak about Prabhupada having a special position above everyone else. Of course he was spoken of as being special and above all of us, but the attitude was that because we were all so new to bhakti-yoga that of course someone like Prabhupada was special and above us (what to speak of non-devotees). His specialness was taught as being a relative specialness, and, that all of us could attain his level of being eternally liberated, 100% self-realized, and in a direct one on one relationship with Krishna. Of course, Prabhupada was promoted in awe and reverence, but not because he was being taught as some special type of being, as a one of a kind person in all of history—it was because of his books, and how ISKCON began, along with it’s rapid growth, that Prabhupada was held in special awe and veneration. That ISKCON origin story was presented as a miraculous event, as if it was a superhuman feat. But, it was presented as Prabhupada’s empowerment by Krishna due to Prabhupada’s devotion to strictly obeying his guru’s “orders.”

Prabhupada was used as an example of what we could achieve if we also strictly followed our guru’s orders. Prabhupada wasn’t taught as being above any and all faults; you weren’t assailed as a blasphemous demon if you disagreed with anything Prabhupada taught. It was the general mood that it didn’t matter if Prabhupada made mistakes in things he said, he didn’t have to be seen as above making mistakes. It was drilled into our heads that the sole qualification of the spiritual master was in not changing the teachings. If the guru made some mistakes about any variety of other things, that wasn’t seen as diminishing him, and it wasn’t forbidden to disagree with those things. The importance of the parampara was stressed, the strict adherence to “not speculating” was stressed. The all-importance of handing down the unchanged teachings as the qualification for being a guru was taught as what differentiated ISKCON from all the “bogey yogis” who presented themselves with possessing mystic powers as their qualification to be gurus. It was stressed that Prabhupada wanted all of us to be gurus just like him.

And that was why ISKCON transformed so seamlessly and completely into the zonal acharya era after Prabhupada left. Of course many didn’t like it, but that had to do with their belief that those gurus weren’t yet advanced enough to be treated as if they had attained the highest level of God consciousness, as was the presumption about Prabhupada’s position. It wasn’t the idea of the new gurus being treated like Prabhupada that was a problem that was spoken about (at first). The idea or paradigm of their being treated as if they were intimately relating with God, and that they should be surrendered to wholeheartedly as highly qualified empowered leaders, wasn’t the problem. The idea wasn’t the problem, it was the guys filling that paradigm that many had a problem with.

The ritvik ideology grew out of a lack of faith in those gurus. Not long after the zonal acharya era began in 1977-78, a few prominent members (Pradyumna dasa, Jadurani dasi, Kailasa candra dasa, and Yasodanandana dasa) began to criticize the new system, they wrote and gave out tracts in defiance of the new ISKCON. But, their criticism was limited to the qualifications of the new gurus, not the paradigm. They were expelled from ISKCON for their activity, but they affected many members, being as they were respected members of the community. As the years went by, the eccentric, cruel, or criminal behavior of some of the gurus became more and more apparent. In the early 1980s Yasodanandana created the ritvik ideology. Within a few years many people had bought into it, with different groups having different interpretations.

The ritviks appealed to the ISKCON community outside of ISKCON properties with endless written and verbal attacks on ISKCON gurus. It seems they felt the best way to affect change to the ritvik cause was to attack the credibility of the ISKCON acharyas. This had a profound effect on the gurus and would lead us to where we are today in ISKCON.

One guru, Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada, was sent to prison as part of a murder conspiracy against a ritvik devotee named Sulochana. Sulochana das was upset with his wife refusing to leave Kirtanananda’s ashram community in West Virginia to live with him. He was a mentally unsound person who couldn’t accept that his wife left him because of her dislike for him and the lifestyle he planned for them (living in a van or motorhome while travelling around selling stuff). Sulochana had bought wholeheartedly into the concept Prabhupada had taught on how a wife was supposed behave—she’s supposed to be a completely submissive slave-like worshipful disciple of her husband/guru. Sulochana’s wife refused to behave like that, and left him (she described him as a lazy, unwilling to support her and the kids, delusional, and constantly stoned). He blamed Kirtanananda for allowing her to stay in his country ashram community. He was incensed that Kirtanananda Swami didn’t agree with him, with Prabhupada, about the role of the wife. He expected and demanded his wife be sent to him. Thinking there was nothing wrong with himself, thinking he was someone whom his wife should worship, he couldn’t believe she would voluntarily leave him. He believed it was a conspiracy by Kirtanananda, who “poisoned” her mind against Sulochana so she would join the money making apparatus of Kirtanananda Swami.

Sulochana became obsessed with revenge, with writing a long diatribe on ritvikism, and generally speaking in a threatening manner about Kirtanananda. This would have serious repercussions for him, Kirtanananda, ISKCON, and the ritvik movement. Fearing a crazed Sulochana harming Kirtanananda (who had been attacked and almost died shortly before, by a mentally disturbed ISKCON member) and possibly fearing the dissemination of information revealing Kirtanananda’s homosexual and pedophile proclivity, a murder conspiracy was hatched by Kirtanananda and or his closest cohorts. Sulochana was shot and killed while sitting in a parked vehicle he was living out of, right near the ISKCON temple in Los Angeles, 1986.

It wasn’t long until newspapers and television shows around the world blared the story of the sordid murders orchestrated by leading members of the Hare Krishnas. This history is well known to most Hare Krishnas, if you need more info there is plenty on the Internet to read.

The ISKCON gurus were undoubtedly worried about the Sulochana affair. The ritviks propagandized heavily that Sulochana was killed because of his exposing the bogus guru ideology of the ISKCON gurus. The gurus probably saw it a bit differently, more likely they were afraid of people like Sulochana causing them physical harm, more so than any philosophical exposé. Because Prabhupada had casually advocated extreme violence or killing people for blasphemy as not only God sanctioned, but at times imperative; and because ISKCON membership had never lacked in the violent member department due to its then easy to join open-door policy on full-time membership—it’s than easy to understand the gurus being worried about the combustible combination of the ritvik claim of their punishable great offense for taking the role of guru, along with the number of potentially violent mentally unsound people in and around ISKCON.

It was then, after years of criticism for daring to act as gurus, or for not allowing any more gurus, that ISKCON guru policy began to change. They thought that if they could share their position with others then the criticism would damper. It did appease many, and many more gurus were added over the years, with a policy that allows anyone to become a guru if they pass strict qualifications. But the ritviks were not satisfied, as well as many others. The ritvik ideology was attractive to so many because it does away with the ISKCON gurus altogether. There were many disgruntled members and ex-members who blamed various gurus for all the problems in ISKCON, and many had personal troubled acrimonious dealings with the gurus over the years. Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if those problems and potential problems went away for good? And wasn’t Prabhupada special? Isn’t the proof of his specialness in the low caliber of the ISKCON gurus when compared to him? That was the genesis of how ISKCON and the wider community came to promote Prabhupada in the future as like a God among mere mortals.

As the ritvik groups began to gain more and more of a following, and because the Internet made it easy for them to try to convince everyone that ISKCON gurus were not only insincere egotistic usurpers; fools; redundant; thieves and fraudsters—but were also murderers in a poisoning conspiracy which killed Prabhupada—it became seen as prudent for ISKCON gurus to get out of the line of their fire. The guru policy shift hadn’t stopped the ritviks, and in many ways hardened them. A new guru theology began to emerge, which would radically change ISKCON in hopes of appeasing the ritvik movement, which was starting to gain more steam.

Laws were passed, speeches were written, the mood in ISKCON was changed. Prabhupada was no longer just another member of the parampara; his level of God consciousness was no longer just like our own potential; no longer were the gurus after Prabhupada ever to be seen as on the same level as Prabhupada, in fact they were no longer gurus in the traditional sense according to ISKCON law. The official ISKCON guru theology was changed to reflect the fear of ISKCON leaders and gurus of being constantly criticized on the Internet, and threats of bodily harm. They hoped that by putting Prabhupada on an unreachable special God-like level, and then actually make it written into law that the only role of the guru in ISKCON is to “connect the disciple to Prabhupada,” rather than to God, as is the traditional role of a guru—that all their unrelenting critics would finally relent. After all the new role of the guru in ISKCON is officially that of a ritvik priest in all but name. And after all, they’ve adopted a vision of Prabhupada as a demigod, full of mystical powers and possibilites of an infinite variety, a spiritual superhuman superman, a once in a planet’s history savior; like Krishna he has descended from heaven to save humanity, and whose every whimsical idea is perfect eternal law in ISKCON (officially). To disagree with Prabhupada, or present any idea of any other guru, or to compare anyone else to Prabhupada—can get you banned and demonized as a heretic blasphemer.

Till now, the plan hasn’t really worked. The ritviks and guru haters are more rabid than ever before. Once they realized the power of the Internet, the criticism went into overdrive. Every little guru is constantly examined and judged, and of course found wanting to say the least. The hatred for them is evident on a myriad of websites, blaming them for every sin under the sun, but especially for being rogue agents in their takeover as the worshipful gods of ISKCON from Prabhupada—thereby being “offenders” to Krishna, and even worse—to Prabhupada. Anyone who looks at the Sampradaya Sun website, or the Prabhupadanuga websites and others, besides the Prabhupada worship, can see their passionate denunciations of ISKCON leaders daily, as if there is an unlimited supply of Prabhupada related offenses to complain about. Really there’s just a handful, repeated in different ways ad nauseam. At the other end of the spectrum are the ISKCON and pro-ISKCON websites, which also display an unending supply of bizarre over-the-top Prabhupada worship, having him essentially supplant Krishna as the point and purpose of Gaudiya Vaishnavism for that community.

To all of them Prabhupada was Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Allah, Krishna, and Jehovah combined. He’s worshiped as the almighty perfect source of anything and everything worthy of mentioning about anything. If it ain’t Prabhupada—it’s somehow or the other pure unadultered crap—unless it’s from an acharya previous to Prabhupada. But they’re of course mostly relegated to obsolete redundancy.

This is the current ideology of not only the Prabhupada devotee ISKCON hater community, but also of ISKCON and it’s devoted community:

Srila Prabhupada, the most wondrous benediction moon, gave us everything—and all we will need, forever. Who do we think we are thinking that we can understand the previous acharyas anyways? As our guru and savior, we are meant for nothing but devoted servile loyalty to Prabhupada. Any other instruction from any other guru or person is a betrayal. After all, without Prabhupada we wouldn’t be saved, we would all have gone to hell. Prabhupada changed our destiny. We don’t even need scriptures, simply by worshiping Prabhupada; meditating on Prabhupada’s pastimes; offering food to Prabhupada; chanting Prabhupada’s names and bhajans in his glorification, we attain perfection

Simply by serving and worshiping him, Prabhupada has the ultimate ultimo super mystic super potency to magically transform us all into the highest level self-realized nitya-mukta parishad (eternally liberated associate of God). It will please God so much you’ll be liberated without delay if you make Prabhupada your life and soul. Nothing else is needed or even matters. Then, upon leaving our bodies, we will go live with and serve Prabhupada eternally as his menial servants. Until then we should pray to Prabhupada for he can see and hear us, he can reveal himself to us in dreams or through others. By revealing our hearts and minds to him as we beg for one drop of his divine mercy, our ever well-wisher will then grant us the boon of everlasting bliss in service to his lotus nectarean feet.

This first is a reply to a comment from Cacofonix, after that is a reply to a comment from Michael Schenk, both are comments to The Fall of the House of the Usher post.

He wrote:

just want to confirm if I fully understand what you are saying. Hence I am taking liberty of phrasing it in my own words.

Fact 1: Most sampradhaya have a diksha driven chain of links. However they portray only the prominent acharyas. It is not necessarily a complete historical record.The way we understand the “missing links” is by falling back to see if Siksha holds tight.

Fact 2: Baladeva Vidhyabhushana did two things to establish Gaudiya as a Sampradhaya. Wrote Vedanta Sutra commentary called Govindhha Bhasya. Traced the links of the “new sampradhya” to brahma-Madhva sampradhaya.

Going by these facts, what we are saying is that Lord Chaitanya’s (for those who don’t believe that he is a reincarnation of Krishna and for sake of preaching) teachings are not some new age philosophy. It is grounded in sastra and have this sampradhaya link.

Once that is established, then the emphasis is on Sikhsha and not diksha part.

Please let me know if I got it right.

a) Diksha is not an important part of Gaudiya Sampradhaya. Siksha is what is emphasized

b) The link to Madha sampradhaya is done to establish it as a bonafide.

Note: Not that we are lying or anything about it. It is just that once the link is establish in a “unifying” sense, then we diverge to bring out the “different” take or interpretation of Sastra as per the Lord’s teachings.

Note: None of this is important for self realization. This is more a ordering of reality and hence a scholarly question and borne out of curiosity.

Like I said in my previous post, Baladeva Vidyabhusana specifically wrote a commentary on the Vedanta-sutra in order to establish the Gaudiya sampradaya as a serious school of Vedanta. There is a famous story on how that happened, you can read that story here. I believe he created that parampara list for the same purpose, seeing as it was a concern at the time in order to keep royal and other patronage for Gaudiya acharyas and temples in the face of jealous criticism from competing sampradayas. The accuracy of that list has been disputed by people in other Gaudiya parivars and in other sampradayas, and it has been defended and expanded upon in detail by various Gaudiya Math gurus. Although they stress the importance of pancaratrika diksha (ritual initiation) as well.

I don’t know about the importance of an unbroken parampara (succession of gurus) in other sampradayas, nor do I know if they have a concept similar to the siksa sampradaya. I’ve never investigated their beliefs in any depth in that regard. In the Gaudiya sampradaya there are many different parivars (guru sanghas or organizations) and vamshas (family lineages) e.g. the many offshoots of the Gaudiya Math: like ISKCON, Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, Vrinda, Sri Chaitanya Math, etc. Then there are the various babajis in Vrindavana and or Nabadvip, each with their own parivar; there are Goswami descendants; and descendants of other founders of Gaudiya Vaishnavaism (Nityananda vamsha and Advaita vamsha), plus others. Many or probably most of those who are seriously devoted to sadhana-bhakti take an unbroken parampara very seriously. It’s more the norm for most of those outside of the Gaudiya Math offshoots to believe that without proper diksha into a guru pranali (line of gurus) that your sadhana will only take you so far (i.e. not far enough), that in order for it to have full potency you absolutely need proper diksha into a proper parampara.

ISKCON and the other Gaudiya Math offshoots vary on their regard or preaching about the importance of diksha, running the gamut from teaching it’s absolutely essential, to teaching it’s not all that important. As you can imagine, the initiating gurus insist on it’s absolute necessity. As a consequence, their followers who see them as enlightened masters, also parrot those beliefs. The current siksa sampradaya conception was innovated by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, possibly with instigation from his father (different histories are given by different sources). As far as I know I don’t think he called it that, maybe the name came later from his disciples. The conception had always been present since the beginning of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, e.g. Sri Chaitanya didn’t give diksha as far as anyone can prove, the entire sampradaya is based upon his teachings. But over time diksha became all-important, some of Bhaktisiddhanta’s followers say that he wanted to challenge that ideology, that he wanted to bring back that original spirit of self-realization being dependent on self-realization, and not upon rituals or mystical charms of any type.

Prabhupada never taught about it. He went in the opposite direction, pushing the importance of the diksa guru. But some of his godbrothers, and in turn their followers who teach a lot in India, and spend time in the wider Gaudiya community there, and who have been led to believe the extreme importance of diksha, they’re the ones who teach about the siksa sampradaya. But, they also press the importance of diksha. This may have to do with trying to convince that they’re part of a legitimate parampara in the face of criticism over the legitimacy of Bhaktisiddhanta’s diksha. They may not really understand what Bhaktisiddhanta was trying to teach. It seems many of them consider the siksa sampradaya (or Bhagavata parampara) as an ideology about the relative non-importance of a diksha guru pranali (unbroken chain of gurus), whereas I believe it was more simply about the nonessential nature of diksha, due to diksha having erroneously gained such prominence as the be-all and end-all of sadhana-bhakti. By Bhaktisiddhanta’s neglect of the importance of the diksha parampara, he’s implying that diksha itself isn’t very important, if it all. If the importance is in the siksa parampara, if self-realization is just about jnana and vijnana (gaining spiritual knowledge and experience) rather than a mystic ritual connection to a guru, then what need at all of that mystic diksha connection? Of course a lot of gurus and guru wannabes saw that implication, and didn’t like it, not one bit. Bhaktisiddhanta became heavily criticized and disliked by the wider Gaudiya community, even by his own brother Lalita Prasada, who called him a liar and a deviant.

I never heard about siksa sampradaya when I was in ISKCON, it goes against Prabhupada’s mood I think, although sometimes some people mention it, but in the conception of the non-essentiality of a strict guru-pranali, I doubt they mention it in the sense of diksha not being important, seeing as ISKCON culture is so heavily focused on being a place for worshiping ISKCON’s gurus. This article at Dandavats.com (ISKCON’s offical news and blogging outlet) http://www.dandavats.com/?p=817 is what I assume is the dominant attitude.

This is a reply to what Michael Schenk wrote in his comment, he wrote:

Your thoughtful posts have made me re-think my attitudes. You have helped me to make peace with my experiences with the Hare Krishnas and even reconsider chanting the maha-mantra.

I would like to ask though, what your thoughts are on chanting the mantra, the so-called “mystic potency” that virtually every Hindu believes their guru to possess, whether this guru thing is relevant or even necessary to sadhana practice and how/why? I would also like to know your thoughts on practicing bhakti and/or Krishna worship in the modern day, where just about every guru is wrong and every group of followers is hell bent on promoting silly ideas and wants to take your money.

Here are some posts where I write about japa meditation. Kirtan is different, having more to do with reciprocation from God than japa, although both do—it’s just that japa has other purposes as well.

http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/mind-games/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/black-or-white/

I’ve written a lot on guru-tattva (truth about gurus). Essentially, my view is that the pre-modern world was dependent on gurus for spiritual knowledge due to the lack of books, and the lack of an ability to read them, and therefore the scriptural and sage writings from that time on the role of a guru reflects that reality of people’s utter dependence on gurus for spiritual knowledge. Since gurus were the only source of spiritual knowledge for most people, they are very heavily promoted in the books from that world. In the modern world, with modern technology giving fairly easy access to most people the writings of the ancient gurus, scriptures, and brahmin sages, their personal association is no longer so relevant in order for you to become God conscious. But since the books were written when the opposite was true, and those books are sacrosanct for so many ever since, the idea of the guru as the singularly most indispensable aspect of your path to God has been continually promoted as an eternal truth, rather than a relative one, for rather obvious reasons:

1. Many religious people are afraid to neglect whatever is said in scripture regardless of what it says, or it’s original source in human history. They fear angering God and the angels, they fear losing out on salvation if they are anything but humble and submissive to the literal words of scriptures. We see this phenomena in all religions.

2. The gurus, priests, popes, mullahs, lamas, roshis, pastors—get to be the scripturally sanctioned receiver of your devotional attitude and service. So of course there is a strong incentive for many people to maintain whatever scriptures or past ideals taught about devotion to a guru, even if those teachings are no longer relevant in our time.

My thoughts on bhakti-yoga in the modern day is spelled out all through this blog and would take a long answer to be fully satisfactory—but essentially my view is based on the same original teachings as that which Gaudiya gurus and monks teach from. The difference with them is I believe in a more personal approach to bhakti yoga, rather than a one-size-fits-all attitude they present. People have different needs due to being on different levels of spiritual realization, different levels of faith, and different abilities, mental and physical. I also have disagreements with their interpretation of various philosophical and social teachings. But since we come from the same source, much is also the same, i.e. the need of sravanam, hearing, reading, learning spiritual knowledge presented from the Vedas, Puranas, Pancharatras, etc. for those who need to come close to God. Also chanting is good for you.

All the aspects of sadhana-bhakti are of great help for neophytes. As you gain more knowledge and experience your sadhana should change as well. Some things should be less important and others more so. For neophytes temple worship is very beneficial, for more advanced bhaktas it doesn’t really help or give you what you need to advance. Once you’re closer and more knowledgeable there are more intimate types of sadhana, having more to do with direct experience of yourself and your ontological relationship with God, rather than the schooling and worship needed by neophytes. Meditating on God within, trying to understand God’s presence and control all around you, and your potential relationship with God, that becomes the focus as you advance. As Jiva Goswami says in Bhakti Sandarbha:

In the Gautamiya Tantra it is said:

“For they who are always fallen in love with the lotus feet of Lord Krsna there is no japa, no Deity worship, no meditation, and no rules.”

When attraction (ruchi) is not yet manifested even the best raganuga bhakti is considered to be mixed with vaidhi bhakti. Even a devotee who has attraction (ruchi) for the Lord may, in order to benefit the people of the world, engage in raganuga bhakti mixed with vaidhi bhakti. Therefore, in some situations it is appropriate to practice raganuga bhakti mixed with vaidhi bhakti.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead declares (in Brahma-yamala, also quoted in texts 9 and 24 of this anuccheda):

“The Sruti and Smrti sastras are My commands. Therefore one who disobeys the scripture disobeys Me. Such a person hates Me. He may claim to be devoted to Me, but in truth he is not.”

These words do not apply to the devotees engaged in raganuga bhakti, for such devotees are already on the right path in spiritual life. Rather, this verse is addressed to they who follow the wrong paths, the paths of heretics and atheists like Buddha, Rsabhadeva, Dattatreya and others.

The scriptures declare:

“A heretic opposed to the religion of the Vedas may worship his own deity. However, he will go to hell until the time when the universe is destroyed by floods.”

Even though many Vedic rules are not followed in it, raganuga bhakti is not outside the path of the Vedas. Actually raganuga bhakti is the perfection of the religion described in the Vedas and the scriptures that explain the Vedas. This is so because raganuga bhakti makes one attracted (ruci) to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the Vedas are described many heretics and atheists, such as Buddha, who are opposed to the Vedas and thus are outside the sphere of Vedic religion. For example, in Srimad Bhagavatam (1.3.24) it is said:

“Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.”

Therefore raganuga bhakti is proper and correct. It is much better than vaidhi bhakti. The previously discussed rules of the scriptures are meant for [those who seek] merging into the existence of the Lord [to purify non-devotees].

This is a response to a comment from Seeker to the Fiesta Forever post. In Seeker’s comment a link is given to an article on the Hare Krishna community’s main web outlet for revolt and angry diatribes against ISKCON’s leaders—and anything they see as against Prabhupada or his ideals—the Sampradaya Sun. The article was written by it’s owner and editor Rocana (Rochaan) Das.

The comment by Seeker goes into some valid complaints, and philosophical points being overlooked in the reaction to the current guru scandal going on in ISKCON with Prabhavishnu Swami. For those who don’t know: he was a major ISKCON guru and GBC (governing board) member who just resigned, writing a letter saying he’s going off to live with a lady in Thailand. This was after he had been seen a number of times with her, or other women in Thailand. For sannyasis, who are supposed to be celibate and single, that’s a big no-no in the more fervently conservative or fundamentalist Hindu society, where things like that can end with riots and violence against the guru and his followers. That’s generally due to their belief that the celibate monk has some special mystic power, and that their devotion to him is predicated upon his remaining celibate so he can confer upon them his mystic potency and favor from God. If he is found to be deceptive about his celibacy, they feel cheated about worshiping him and giving him money. In ISKCON it’s more personal, the disciples are expected to give their lives over to the guru, the guru is seen as the one whom you worship and serve, not because he’s able to confer mystic potency because he’s celibate, but because he’s “pure” in his devotion to Krishna. Your spiritual advancement is taught as being predicated upon your worship and servile devotion to him.

Since many feel it’s too difficult to give up their lives and submit to the guru as a servant and slave, as ISKCON would like, they end up seeing their worship and devotion as being satisfactory if they can give money, or property. Of course ISKCON gurus subtly and not so subtly promote this conception. Like I’ve said in the past, I believe they prefer less surrendered ashram devotees, for more outside householders making money to donate. This may be the cause of the change in ISKCON over the years in making it currently difficult to join the ashram if you are without funds or coming from a promising past, whereas it used to be very easy for almost anyone to walk in and be accepted.

Due to Prabhavishnu’s zone of activities being in places with many Hindus, and in Eastern Europe, where ISKCON is more popular than elsewhere, over the years he has amassed many disciples and (supposedly) a lot of wealth and influence. One number I heard was 1500 initiated disciples, but due to where he worked, that could be a very low estimate. On the one hand, for Hindu gurus (he’s Irish BTW) that’s not an especially large number of disciples, but on the other hand many of those were westerners, with more wealth and influence than an average Indian—and it’s common in ISKCON that a large percentage of the Indians taking initiation are quite well off, financially speaking. And as is common practice for disciples of ISKCON gurus, they tend to be devoted and give them lot’s of money, property, work for them for free, etc. So we’re hearing the usual bitter complaints about a guru in ISKCON being a fake and amassing wealth and worship for himself, which we hear whenever this type of thing has happened in the past.

Whenever some guru from ISKCON has a public scandal which involves sex or some other sensual gratification, you can rely on Rocana das to wheel out his “Sampradaya Acharya” ideology as the cure-all for the inevitable fall-out and handwringing by, and over, “hurt disciples,” of whichever guru was caught not living up to the demands to follow strictly their vaidhi-bhakti rules and regulations they impose on others. ISKCON leaders and followers parrot Prabhupada’s representation of an über-strict vaidhi mentality and path as singularly defining bhakti-yoga and Vedic culture in their teachings.

To their vision the only truly authentic spiritual path or lifestyle is in strictly following, for life, the 4 regulative principles (no sex except for procreation, no intoxication, vegetarianism, no speculative gambling), as well as strictly following the rules and regulations of vaidhi-bhakti sadhana that Prabhupada demanded to be followed every day for the rest of your life: chanting at least 16 rounds of japa meditation (2-3 hours) every day; submissively serving as part of Prabhupada’s proselytizing mission (and no other, unless it’s in service to an ISKCON guru) as your reason for being; rising in the morning early enough to attend kirtan, japa, and satsang by no later than 4:30 a.m. etc.

Like I’ve pointed out in many posts here, they completely disregard the tenets of raganuga-bhakti, which doesn’t require the strict adherence to the rules and regulations Prabhupada put forth, and is considered the higher path in traditional Gaudiya teachings (pre-Prabhupada). And as I’ve pointed out, this puts the Prabhupada community in the unusual position of demonizing any guru who eventually is exposed for not strictly following their vaidhi mentality and path, even though he may be a spiritually advanced raganuga bhakta. Even Prabhupada said on a few occasions that raganuga-bhaktas shouldn’t be judged for not following rules and regulations because they’re not bound to the same rules and regulations that vaidhi bhaktas are. The harsh critics of the ISKCON gurus who get exposed for not strictly following vaidhi-bhakti and all the rest of what Prabhupada demanded, either don’t know or don’t care about the nature of raganuga bhakti being without the need or dependence on all the rules, regulations, and renunciative lifestyle Prabhhupada demanded—or if they do know, they’re are out to settle scores and don’t care if they ignore and pervert the authentic teachings in doing so.

That doesn’t mean that anyone who doesn’t follow what Prabhupada demanded is a raganuga-bhakta, but the critics don’t even take that into consideration as a possibility. I’ve seen recent demands that all the gurus in ISKCON should have to appear to follow all the demands of Prabhupada, or be demoted from their position. If they don’t show up for the early morning sadhana all the time, and if they don’t make it obvious to everyone that they’re doing nothing but working for ISKCON and Prabhupada all the time, always appearing to follow all the rules and regulations Prabhupada and ISKCON demands of it’s members, then they shouldn’t be accepted as spiritual masters. I’ve previously talked about that conundrum of the demonization in the Prabhupada community, of the lifestyle of the more advanced path or person, as being fallen from a state of grace, and symptomatic of a neophyte, or of an insincere exploiter, as if there is no other possible alternative for a spiritually advanced person but to submit to all the rules and regulations Prabhupada demanded—see Backasswards.

To someone like Rocana who sees Prabhupada’s instructions and attitudes towards any and all things as the descent of the divine revelation of God, any deviation from those instructions by a guru in ISKCON is seen as a really big deal. They get their panties in a twist because they’ve bought into the guru-as-savior paradigm that Prabhupada (and others) created in his teachings, and to them a guru is only qualified if he is “pure.” Which to them means free from the desire to do anything but follow the above mentioned rules and regulations for life. Raganuga-bhakti is not allowed into the equation, being as that it’s essentially verboten to them as that-which-must-not-be-named.

It’s not the lack of “purity” in and of itself which is the problem for them, it’s the betrayal, by their savior, by the person whom they’ve devoted themselves towards and worked for; whom they’ve worshiped and served as God’s human representative in the promise of their ability to free them from their past sins and gain them entrance into God’s good graces. They believe a guru is supposed to be self-realized and thisclose to God—which is supposed to manifest outwardly in being 100% pure in their lack of desire to do anything but live the already mentioned submissive strict vaidhi lifestyle.

Whenever an ISKCON guru shows himself to have some desire other than fanatical devotion to vaidhi-bhakti and Prabhupada’s demands, which then causes all the usual anguish and finger pointing among his disciples and the rest of ISKCON, that inspires all of the regular critics of ISKCON’s guru policy to put on their demagogue hat and wag their fingers with their well practiced “I told you so” speeches they’ve been incessantly boring us all with for years and years. Rocana stands out from the ritviks (ritvikism=no other gurus after Prabhupada are needed or wanted) with his ritvik-lite “Sampradaya Acharya” thesis. I never heard of it until Rocana began teaching it some years ago, it wasn’t taught in ISKCON when I was there, although some lesser form of it has always been taught in ISKCON without any official name for it. The Prabhupada-is-special-like-some-other-past-special-gurus mood has always been present in ISKCON, but until Rocana codified it into a [semi] coherent philosophy, I had never heard of “Sampradaya Acharya.”

Like you mention, traditionally that title has referred to the gurus who started a sampradaya (denomination)—like Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, etc. Rocana took that title and re-invented a new definition based upon a list of gurus Prabhupada presented in his books. Those gurus were never mentioned by Prabhupada as anything special like “Sampradaya Acharyas,” I always took them to be prominent members of the [siksa, shiksha=philosophical] sampradaya. Although a sampradaya is usually defined by a line of disciplic succession where an unbroken chain of gurus and disciples lead back to the founder through a diksha connection [initiation of disciples into the tradition by a guru in a ritual ceremony], the gurus in Prabhupada’s list were not that, they included people who weren’t connected through diksha.

That conception was/is derided by many in India as inventing a bogus sampradaya, with the Gaudiya Matha being created by Prabhupada’s guru as a bogus sampradaya because the founder guru (Bhaktisiddhanta) himself wasn’t properly initiated in a diksha ceremony by a guru. They claim he lied about being initiated, and to this day many people see him and his disciplic succession as unauthorized and impotent due to that lack of a bona fide diksha connection by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. To many in Indian traditions, unless you are initiated properly in a diksha ceremony by a proper guru in an unbroken disciplic succession, you haven’t received the mystic potency which enables your mantras and sadhana to work properly, and thereby grant you entrance into the higher levels of self-realization and God consciousness.

Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples taught that the diksha sampradaya was of lesser importance, and that the higher potency was in the tattva lineage, the siddhanta sampradaya, the unchanged teachings being handed down. They called this the siksa (shiksha) sampradaya, the unbroken, unchanged, philosophical succession. The list of gurus Prabhupada presented in his books is supposedly representing the Gaudiya Vaishnava siksa sampradaya. Rocana das then created a dogma which has those mentioned in that list as “Sampradaya Acharyas,” distinct from the gurus not mentioned in that list by being especially empowered by God. In what way? According to Rocana, they set the tone and mood of the sampradaya for the times, they are the examples to be listened to and followed above all others, they should be accepted and promoted as the guru of all other gurus until another one appears. How do we know when a new Sampradaya Acharya appears? It will simply be apparent to one and all. This idea is based upon something Prabhupada said about a guru being chosen due to being “self-effulgent,” by his own godbrothers in the Gaudiya Math, after the departure of Bhaktisiddhanta due to his not choosing a successor guru.

To Rocana, Prabhupada is the Sampradaya Acharya of our times, he must be taught as the premier guru, which all other gurus must present and use as the source for their teachings. If you don’t do that, then you’re an egotist who’s looking to exploit and con people into worshiping and supporting you. For all of his criticism of the ritviks for lacking scriptural pramana (backing) for their belief that no one should be allowed to be diksha gurus, because Prabhupada never appointed any, and therefore having the sampradaya continue on with ritvik priests performing ritual initiations as surrogates for Prabhupada—Rocana’s Sampradaya Acharya dogma also lacks any scriptural pramana. He made it up, yet still acts arrogant and demagogic towards the ritvik supporters and ISKCON leaders for not accepting his supposedly higher bona fide directives.

In fact, the list of gurus, the supposed siksa Sampradaya Acharyas according to Rocana, whom Prabhupada presented in his books, includes Madhva Acharya, and some other gurus who were followers of his— he being the founder of the Tattvavadi or Brahma Madhva sampradaya. While the Gaudiya Sampradaya (Hare Krishnas) is officially connected to the Brahma Madhva sampradaya through the diskha succession of it’s founder (Sri Chaitanya) to Madhva’s succession (disputed by some of Madhva’s followers), when it comes to the more important siksa sampradaya conception underpinning the Sampradaya Acharya dogma—i.e. the connection to an unbroken philosophical succession of teachings, Prabhupada and the entire succession of gurus following Sri Chaitanya are not connected to Madhvacharya or his followers. Of all the Vaishnava sampradayas, our Gaudiya sampradaya, while being officially connected to the Brahma Madhva sampradaya through a diksha connection, has the least in common with that sampradaya when it comes to the siksa, the teachings. We have much more in common with all the other major Vaishnava sampradayas, which we differ only a little from, whereas we differ in many fundamental ways from Madhva’s teachings, and of course from that of his followers. Which is why many in the Madhva or Tattvavadi community vehemently disregard the claim of our Gaudiya tradition as being part of their own.

This is the list of gurus that appears at the bottom of the introduction of Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita. The names in bold are Madhva and his followers. The next two names are not accepted by many of his followers as being part of their tradition, the Puri suffix in their names denotes initiation into a Shankarite order, but Gaudiyas claim they were also initiated into the Madhva sampradaya, that it shouldn’t be held against someone if they first took initiation into some other tradition before joining their final one. But since the history is murky, no one can say with absolute proof one way or another.

1) Krsna, 2) Brahma, 3) Narada; 4) Vyasa, 5) Madhva, 6) Padmanabha, 7) Nrhari, 8) Madhava, 9) Aksobhya, 10) Jaya Tirtha, 11) Jnanasindhu, 12) Dayanidhi, 13) Vidyanidhi, 14) Rajendra, 15) Jayadharma, 16) Purusottama, 17) Brahmanya Tirtha, 18) Vyasa Tirtha, 19) Laksmipati, 20) Madhavendra Puri, 21) Isvara Puri, (Nityananda, Advaita), 22) Lord Caitanya, 23) Rupa, (Svarupa, Sanatana), 24) Raghunatha, Jiva, 25) Krsnadasa, 26) Narottama, 27) Visvanatha, 28) (Baladeva) Jagannatha, 29) Bhaktivinoda, 30) Gaurakisora, 31) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, 32) His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

So, where did this list come from? Part of it came from Baladeva Vidyabhusana, a famous Gaudiya acharya who lived in the 18th century. He was a former disciple of the Madhva sampradaya who was tasked with giving credence to the bona fides of the Gaudiya sampradaya as being connected to one of the 4 scripturally authorized Vaishnava sampradayas, thereby giving them legitimacy in the eyes of people who took such things seriously. At the time the Gaudiya Vaishnavas were being criticized for not being connected to one of the 4 sampradayas, so he tried to change that. It had nothing to do with some Sampradaya Acharya mega-guru ideology. Besides the list he also famously wrote a Gaudiya commentary on the Vedanta-sutra for the same reason. That was seen by the other sampradayas as a necessary task for a bona fide tradition, which until Baladeva Vidyabhusana hadn’t been done. It’s called Govinda Bhasya. This is the list he created in his Prameya Ratnavali:

tatra guru-parampara yatha

shri-krishna-brahma-devarshi-
badarayana-samjnakan
shri-madhva-shri-padmanabha-
shriman-nrihari-madhavan

akshobhya-jayatirtha-shri-
jnanasindhu-dayanidhin
shri-vidyanidhi-rajendra-
jayadharman kramad vayam

purushottama-brahmanya-
vyasatirthamsh ca samstumah
tato lakshmipatim shriman-
madhavendram ca bhaktitah

tac-chishyan shrishvaradvaita-
nityanandan jagad-gurun
devam ishvara-shishyam shri-
chaitanyam ca bhajamahe
shri-krishna-prema-danena
yena nistaritam jagat

tatra—in this connection; guru—of bona-fide spiritual masters; parampara—the disciplic succession; yatha—just as; shri-krishna—Lord Krishna; brahma—Brahma; devarshi—Narada; badarayana—Vyasa; samjnakan—named; shri-madhva—Madhvacarya; shri-padmanabha—Padmanabha; shrimat-nrihari—Nrihari; madhavan—Madhava; akshobhya—Akshobhya; jayatirtha—Jayatirtha; shri-jnanansindhu—Jnanasindhu; dayanidhin—Dayanidhi; shri-vidyanidhi—Vidyanidhi; rajendra—Rajendra; jayadharman—Jayadharma; kramat- one after another; vayam—we; purushottama—Purushottama; brahmanya—Brahmanya; vyasatirtha—Vyasatirtha; ca—and; samstumah—offer prayers; tatah—then; lakshmipatim—Lakshmipati; shrimat-madhavendram—Madhavendra Puri; ca—and; bhaktitah—with devotion; tat—his; shishyan—disciples; shri-ishvara—Ishvara Puri; Advaita- Advaita Prabhu; nityanandan—Nityananda Prabhu; jagat—of the entire universe; gurun—spiritual masters; devam—the disciple; shri-chaitanyam—Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu; ca—and; bhajamahe—we worship; shri-krishna—of Shri Krishna; prema—of pure love; danena—by the gift; yena—by whom; nistaritam—delivered; jagat—the universe.

With great devotion we glorify the spiritual masters in the Gaudiya Vaishnava disciplic successions. A list of their names follows: 1) Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, 2) Brahma, 3) Narada, 4) Vyasa, 5) Madhvacarya, 6) Padmanabha, 7) Nrihari, 8) Madhava, 9) Akshobhya, 10) Jayatirtha, 11) Jnanasindhu, 12) Dayanidhi, 13) Vidyanidhi, 14) Rajendra, 15) Jayadharma, 16) Purushottama, 17) Brahmanya, 18) Vyasatirtha, 19) Lakshmipati, 20) Madhavendra Puri, and 21) Ishvara Puri, Advaita Prabhu and Nityananda Prabhu (who were all disciples of Madhavendra Puri). We worship Ishvara Puri’s disciple, Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who delivered the entire universe by granting the gift of krishna-prema (pure love of Krishna).

How do we know his purpose was to give legitimacy to the Gaudiya sampradaya? The list ends with the founder, Sri Chaitanya. Baladeva lived a few hundred years later, if the list was supposed to be “Sampradaya Acharyas,” why did he leave out the famous gurus that followed Sri Chaitanya until his own time? Certainly they were qualified, e.g. Rupa Goswami, Jiva Goswami, etc. Later, the rest of the names were added, it appears in a poem by Bhaktisiddhanta. The early ones directly following Chaitanya Mahaprabhu were the most famous gurus in the Gaudiya community, with the final few gurus directly connected to Bhaktisiddhanta and then Prabhupada.

According to Rocana’s Sampradaya Acharya thesis, the names on the list Prabhupada presented are in fact a revelation of the Sampradaya Acharyas of the past, they are supposedly leaders of the higher siksa sampradaya, which gives us our true connection to God. Yet quite a few on that list would vehemently disagree with even being included in a sampradaya which disregards so much of what they taught and believed. Rocana disregards much of what they taught and believed, and so do all the followers of Prabhupada and the Gaudiya tradition he claims to represent. Sri Chaitanya himself disregarded much of what they taught, he actually spelled out his differences with them and severely chastised the followers of Madhva. He certainly wouldn’t agree with all the names on that list being “Sampradaya Acharyas.” Also, Gaurakisora das babaji was a recluse, he certainly wasn’t the type of person Rocana describes as the guru of gurus for his times.

So, although Rocana tries to present his thesis as some well thought out and shastrically well supported alternative to ISKCON’s guru dynamics, and the rival ritvik dogma, in fact it’s a poorly thought out concoction which in practice would be no different than the ritviks he argues with, or with ISKCON official law. In all three dogmas Prabhupada is the only guru that matters, the others giving initiation are basically surrogates—either officially so with the ritviks and ISKCON, or unofficially so with Rocana’s Sampradaya Acharya dogma. ISKCON offically made it part of their by-laws that the sole role of the guru in ISKCON is to serve as a connector to Prabhupada, as his surrogate, they’re only allowed to teach what he taught, and disallowed to disagree with him on any topic or bring up any other teachings from another guru. Hilariously this leads to some funny stuff in ISKCON law about the origin of the jiva, due to Prabhupada’s tendency to contradict himself on that topic.

Rocana may disagree with that assessment, claiming he allows gurus unlike the ritviks, and that ISKCON gurus end up being the object of worship and devotion to their disciples regardless of ISKCON law, and he may be right—but still, when it comes down to what really matters in the life of the disciples, Prabhupada and his teachings are promoted as sacrosanct and infallible, which disagreeing with can get you ostracized or excommunicated as being the thoughts of a fool or a demon. In fact you don’t even have to disagree, all you have to do is not humbly submit to ISKCON, or the ritviks, or Rocana, and you’re considered on the wrong path and unworthy of respect—actually, actively disrespected. We see this all of the time. The ritviks are endlessly attacking ISKCON leaders on their websites or in person heckling them, Rocana and his followers are endlessly attacking ISKCON leaders and the ritviks on his website, ISKCON attacks the ritviks and people who speak like Rocana. And all of them attack those outside of ISKCON who have the temerity to think they have the right to act as gurus without being under the supreme controlling jurisdiction of Prabhupada or ISKCON, i.e. all the rest of the Gaudiya Vaishnava community.

He responded, and included in what he said was this:

in a way you make a distinction between the means and the end result in your above reply and I respect your decision to do so however you must know I am a bit of a simpleton focusing on whatever one plus one is actually contributing to maintaining a sense of how it is the method of Krsna consciousness in discussion of course the method goes on regardless

I’m glad he brought this all up, it showcases a problem I see in Prabhupada’s books, and not just in the purports. As many of you know, Prabhupada’s purports (commentaries to each verse) were written by using the commentaries of previous gurus or acharyas in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, translating them into English and adding what he wanted from that, and then adding his own words. The problem, from my perspective, is that it’s common for Prabhupada’s English translation to lack in clarity when it’s about something deeply philosophical or ontological. If it’s about some history, or story about a sage or king, then those are easier to translate. But when it comes to other topics, often the result is something that goes over most people’s heads because the translations are too cryptic.

The poem by Raghu Mishra Dasa is a good example of not knowing that what he did changed the purpose of what Prabhupada was trying to say. The part of Prabhupada’s purport he quotes is from the following, the part in bold is what he included in his poem:

This material veil can be removed at once by Krsna consciousness; thus the offering for the sake of Krsna consciousness, the consuming agent of such an offering or contribution, the process of consumption, the contributor, and the result are–all combined together–Brahman, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth covered by maya is called matter. Matter dovetailed for the cause of the Absolute Truth regains its spiritual quality. Krsna consciousness is the process of converting the illusory consciousness into Brahman, or the Supreme. When the mind is fully absorbed in Krsna consciousness, it is said to be in samadhi, or trance. Anything done in such transcendental consciousness is called yajna, or sacrifice for the Absolute. In that condition of spiritual consciousness, the contributor, the contribution, the consumption, the performer or leader of the performance, and the result or ultimate gain–everything–becomes one in the Absolute, the Supreme Brahman. That is the method of Krsna consciousness.

I would bet that most people who read that wouldn’t know what Prabhupada is talking about, especially if they read the translation of the verse he’s commenting on, which is so far off it’s really an interpretation, not a translation. Look at some other translations of the same verse in comparison to Prabhupada’s Gita:

brahmarpanam brahma havir
brahmagnau brahmana hutam
brahmaiva tena gantavyam
brahma-karma-samadhina

Prabhupada’s Gita
A person who is fully absorbed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness is sure to attain the spiritual kingdom because of his full contribution to spiritual activities, in which the consummation is absolute and that which is offered is of the same spiritual nature.

Ramanand Prasad
Brahman is the oblation. Brahman is the clarified butter. The oblation is poured by Brahman into the fire of Brahman. Brahman shall be realized by the one who considers everything as (a manifestation or) an act of Brahman.

Eknath Easwaran
The process of offering is Brahman; that which is offered is Brahman. Brahman offers the sacrifice in the fire of Brahman. Brahman is attained by those who see Brahman in every action.

Dr. S Sankaranarayan
The Brahman-oblation that is to be offered to the Brahman, is poured into the Brahman-fire by the Brahman; it is nothing but the Brahman that is to be attained by him whose deep contemplation is the said Brahman-action.

Swami Adidevananda
Brahman is the instrument to offer with; Brahman is the oblation. By Brahman is the oblation offered into the fire of Brahman; Brahman alone is to be reached by him who meditates on Him in his works.

Swami Sivananda
Brahman is the oblation; Brahman is the melted butter (ghee); by Brahman is the oblation poured into the fire of Brahman; Brahman verily shall be reached by him who always sees Brahman in action.

Edwin Arnold
The sacrifice is Brahm, the ghee and grain
Are Brahm, the fire is Brahm, the flesh it eats
Is Brahm, and unto Brahm attaineth he
Who, in such office, meditates on Brahm.

Narayana Maharaja
Brahma can be attained by one who performs yajna
in which the sacrificial instruments, the ghee, the
fire, the offerings and the priest (agent) are all
brahma. Such a person is qualified to attain brahma
because he is fully absorbed in karma which is of
the same nature as brahma.

As you can see Narayana Maharaja changes it quite significantly, the other translations are all more or less correct, except Prabhupada’s Gita, which is an interpretation rather than translation. Eknath Easwaran’s is the most literal, and the best. The point Krishna is making is trying to see that God is everything, not just in the substance of everything, but by the controlling of everything. Prabhupada’s and Narayana Maharaja’s translations miss the point of Krishna using the word samadhina. They both translated samadhina to mean something other than a meditative act, they translate it as absorption in something, but if that was what Krishna meant he would have used a word that wasn’t so related to meditation. You can see that almost in every other instance Prabhupada translated samadhina differently, almost exclusively having to do with trance or meditative state. These are the final two lines of the verse:

brahmaiva tena gantavyam
brahma: brahman; eva: truly, really; tena: on that account , for that reason; gantavyam: to be gone to, attained

brahma-karma-samadhina
brahma: brahman; karma: actions; samadhina: absorbed in contemplation

brahmaiva tena gantavyam: Brahman can really truly be attained by
brahma-karma-samadhina: being absorbed in meditating on Brahman in actions

The word samadhina, which is from samadhi, tells us that we are to meditate on seeing Brahman (God) in all actions—by that samadhi, Brahman is really and truly attained.

Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja translate those words as Krishna saying that by Brahman actions, spiritual actions, one can attain Brahman. Why would Krishna say “Brahman actions” if he meant spiritual actions? Wouldn’t a different more precise word, a word that actually makes sense, like yajna, have been used if he meant that? This verse is about the nature of Brahman realization, of meditating on seeing Brahman in everything, of being aware of God’s presence at every moment in everything you experience, it’s not about only seeing Brahman in directly related spiritual activities.

Krishna is first saying: “The sacrificial substance is Brahman, the instrument doing the offering is Brahman, Brahman is offering the sacrifice into the fire that is Brahman.” It would make no sense in that context to then say that by spiritual actions you attain Brahman—considering that was what he said in the previous verse. This one is a culmination of that line of thought, in this verse he’s telling us the nature of attaining Brahman—that when self-realized you will see that everything you experience is in truth all Brahman, that you can really truly attain Brahman by meditating on all actions being Brahman, i.e. understand and meditate on God being present and controlling everything and everyone, including yourself—by that you attain Brahman. That vision is the nature of God consciousness.

In the purport quoted above, you can see Prabhupada try to explain that concept, but unless you know what he’s trying to say there’s a good chance you won’t understand, especially seeing how the verse is translated.

Love and kisses, V

This is a reply to a comment from Bhavaprema to the Jaiva Dharma post. He gave a link to a Dilbert comic strip over at Dandavats.com, it has to do with the brain and free will. After that is an article on free will by Kesava Krsna Das.

The comic made a good point, the author of that comic is a pretty smart guy, although a lot of people dislike him because of his support of Intelligent Design. I skimmed through the article by (the ever so self-assured Speculatron 9000 of the ISKCON web world) Kesava Krsna Das and the discussion that ensued in the comments. You can see the confusion caused by Prabhupada, none of them seem to have a firm grasp of what they believe or want to say. The problem is that on the one hand the unofficial ISKCON dogma is that we have free will, Prabhupada said it a lot, as do ISKCON leaders; on the other hand we have all the shastric verses saying in essence that we don’t have free will, that we’re not the doer, that antaryami is in control of us and guides us from within, that paramatma is in control of everything and therefore everything is a direct manifestation of God, etc.

In the discussion that ensues to that article you can see a common misunderstanding about the ontology of the jiva (taught by Prabhupada and ISKCON) used to promote the idea of our free will. The very first commenter quotes Prabhupada:

Swedish man (3): Is there free will?

Prabhupada: Yes, yes. Just like you are sitting here. If you don’t like, you can go away. That’s your free will. There is free will. Because we are part and parcel of God, God is completely free to do anything. And because we are part and parcel of God, therefore we have got minute quantity of freedom. Just like a drop of ocean water, it is also salty, but the quantity of salt in that drop is not equal to the salt in the ocean. Similarly, you have got a little quantity of freedom, but not as freedom as God has got. That is not possible. You are subordinate. Your freedom is subordinate to God’s freedom. Therefore if you misuse your freedom, then you become punishable. The government gives you freedom, but if you misuse your freedom, if you violate the laws, then you are criminal. Yes? >>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 7.1-3 — Stockholm, September 10, 1973

What he’s teaching is pure sophistry, there is no good analogy between a drop of water in the ocean and the ocean when it comes to abilities or qualities. That analogy only works for less complex comparisons, e.g. the water in the drop and in the ocean is like the soul within God, both exist together as one, two conscious being in one, but one is the whole and existing and encompassing far and wide, and very powerful—while the other is a small part of the whole, and very weak in comparison.

The jiva in no way contains all the qualities of God in minute quantities, although that’s a very common fallacy taught in ISKCON. God has many abilities we simply don’t possess, for example, the ability to control memory. We don’t have the ability to bring up memories, all we do when we want a specific memory is desire it to appear, it then appears or not. What else can we do? We don’t have direct access or control over our memories. You can’t have free will without control over memories because everything we know, and know how to do—is because of memory. How can you understand language (which is part of the thought process) without memory? How can you move your body in a coordinated fashion without memory? How can you do practically anything you do without memory? Newborn babies are the way they are because they are without memory—that is how we would be without memory. Unless we control our own memory, we do not have free will.

Without control over what we know, there is no way to have free will. We are dependent on Krishna at every moment for our memory. What we do from moment to moment is entirely based upon our memory—how would you know what to do next if you didn’t know what day it is, who you are, where you are, what you are, what you planned on doing, or even what words mean or how to comprehend anything in your environment? Krishna says that he gives you memory, and he takes it away when you don’t need it, and he gives you knowledge, from within: sarvasya cāhaḿ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaḿ ca—I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness.

People who believe God isn’t involved in our lives to that degree believe our memories our controlled by our brain. People who aren’t in that scientific field believe that it’s been proven conclusively that our brain, through some process, controls our memories. The reality is that scientists working in that field don’t actually know how memory functions. They believe they know the basic parts and what parts serve what function, but when it comes to explaining how a memory is stored from your experience, or how it’s retrieved to your mind, they’re still searching.

How does a brain, an unconscious machine, know what you want? Say you’re reading this and you get hungry and try to remember what you ate at your friends house last night that you liked so much. How does your brain know that? It’s logically impossible that your brain can understand your thoughts. It would need to comprehend the language of your thoughts, AND the concepts of your thoughts like: what does dinner mean? A computer could do that for your speech because a computer has a dictionary and voice recognition software. How can a brain recognize and search for the meaning of the words? It doesn’t have the ability to do that, even if it could store memories and retrieve them for you.

Think about how you’re comprehending these words. How would you’re brain be able to see these words, search in some storage area for the meaning of the words you’re reading, then make them understood to your conscious awareness, all done instantly? But before we even get that far it first has to be aware of the thoughts, aware of the needs implied in your thoughts, aware of the need in your unconscious emotional state—essentially it has to have a hyper aware, super smart, super empathic mind of it’s own to know what you want, or what you need, when you want or need it. A computer only works because it’s been created and programmed specifically for that task, and even then it doesn’t work on it’s own, it needs to be asked for information. We don’t ask our brain, it supposedly just knows what we want when we want it. The amazing thinking brain? I don’t think so. People don’t always remember what they want when they want it. Why? With a computer it always works because it’s been programmed to work, the computer isn’t deciding what to give you or what to withhold. But it appears our brain decides what and when to give us the information we desire or need, why? and how?

The scientists say they’re working on it, they don’t know how the brain does all those things, but they think they know the information is stored in certain places and moves along certain pathways, all the other details are still a mystery. And they will remain so. I’ve written a bit more on this topic at Things They Would Not Teach Me Of In College.

The topic of free will often causes confusion between Prsbhupada’s followers because they feel they have to agree with Prabhupada, even if they see the contradiction with shastra, and often-times with himself, i.e. Prabhupada will often teach something one way, and then teach it in a contradictory way elsewhere—for example his teaching on the origin of the jiva has caused a debate for years and years simply because he sometimes said you can and did fall from Goloka, and other times said you can never fall from Goloka, and also that you originated from Brahman.

They even made an official ISKCON law that you cannot contradict what Prabhupada taught on the origin of the jiva, which they then exemplify in the two contradictory teachings Prabhupada taught. The law is senseless because if you teach either one without also teaching the other, then you are in violation of ISKCON law. Here is the law:

Vaikuntha is that place from which no one ever falls down. The living entity belongs to Lord Krishna’s marginal potency (tatastha-sakti). On this we all agree. The origin of the conditioned life of the souls now in this material world is undoubtedly beyond the range of our direct perception. We can therefore best answer questions about that origin by repeating the answers Srila Prabhupada gave when such questions were asked of him:

“The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity, misusing his tiny independence, wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world.” (Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.28.54, purport)

No ISKCON devotee shall present or publish any contrary view as conclusive in any class or seminar or any media (print, video, electronic, etc.).

Why did Prabhupada teach in a contradictory way at times? I believe it was because he felt it would inspire people in a certain way. Prabhupada said we have free will, but he also would teach that we don’t, for example:

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 13.30

One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees.

PURPORT

This body is made by material nature under the direction of the Supersoul, and whatever activities are going on in respect to one’s body are not his doing. Whatever one is supposed to do, either for happiness or for distress, one is forced to do because of the bodily constitution. The self, however, is outside all these bodily activities. This body is given according to one’s past desires. To fulfill desires, one is given the body, with which he acts accordingly. Practically speaking, the body is a machine, designed by the Supreme Lord, to fulfill desires. Because of desires, one is put into difficult circumstances to suffer or to enjoy. This transcendental vision of the living entity, when developed, makes one separate from bodily activities. One who has such a vision is an actual seer.

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 3.27

The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature.

PURPORT

Two persons, one in Krishna consciousness and the other in material consciousness, working on the same level, may appear to be working on the same platform, but there is a wide gulf of difference in their respective positions. The person in material consciousness is convinced by false ego that he is the doer of everything. He does not know that the mechanism of the body is produced by material nature, which works under the supervision of the Supreme Lord. The materialistic person has no knowledge that ultimately he is under the control of Krishna. The person in false ego takes all credit for doing everything independently, and that is the symptom of his nescience. He does not know that this gross and subtle body is the creation of material nature, under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and as such his bodily and mental activities should be engaged in the service of Krishna, in Krishna consciousness. The ignorant man forgets that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is known as Hrishīkeśa, or the master of the senses of the material body, for due to his long misuse of the senses in sense gratification, he is factually bewildered by the false ego, which makes him forget his eternal relationship with Krishna.

I don’t know what Prabhupada really believed because of the contradictory teachings, possibly he believed we don’t have free will but would say we do so that his followers would feel responsible for being in this world, and conversely responsible for getting out, i.e. only by your choice to surrender to Krishna (through ISKCON) can you become free from future suffering in your next life. Someone may think that if we don’t have free will then there is no urgent need to surrender to ISKCON, whereas Prabhupada was always preaching the urgent necessity to not only surrender to ISKCON, but also to strictly follow all his rules and regulations and give up all desire for sensual pleasures (including entertainment).

Prabhupada’s preaching strategy was to put the jiva (human) in control of it’s destiny to a large degree. It’s by the choice of the jiva to: follow a guru, follow Krishna, renounce sensual pleasures, renounce all things disconnected to sadhana-bhakti, etc. Sure, Krishna is the ultimate controller, but when it comes to our own destiny, we are the controllers because we choose what path we go down in life, creating good and bad karma as we go. In fact we have so much control of our destiny that the reason we are in this world of suffering and death is because of our own choice.

That ideology is contradictory to what Prabhupada’s guru taught on destiny. He taught that no one can change anyone else’s destiny, no one can change anything at all of the destiny of this world. In ISKCON you hear the exact opposite taught. The mood and message of ISKCON is not only contradictory to Bhaktisiddhanta’s mood and message—ISKCON is completely centered around that contradiction.

In ISKCON the main thrust and mood of their self-defined reason to exist is in their ability to not just affect people’s lives or destiny, but in actually changing the course of people’s lives, changing the course of the cultural norms in society at large, and changing the course of it’s own destiny. Prabhupada taught that it’s by their efforts that a worldwide nuclear cataclysm was averted. They instil in their followers the idea that you have the ability to not only save people from going to some type of hell, but also you actually have the ability to save the entire planet from a dire fate that awaits.

Not only can you change other people’s and the entire world’s destiny, ISKCON’s fate itself is in our hands i.e. by your choosing to surrender and work hard for ISKCON it will succeed or not. A famous dictum in ISKCON is Prabhupada’s statement that the only thing which can stop ISKCON is a lack of cooperation among it’s members, that ISKCON can only be destroyed from within. Yet also they teach that ISKCON is predicted to last 10,000 years. This kind of contradictory philosophy is common in ISKCON, and in people who are educated by them.

The idea of having no free will, of there being a destiny set in stone that cannot be altered, for everyone and the world, seems so counter-intuitive only because we are ignorant on how we function. In fact, the world and ourselves have been fooled, on purpose. It’s not easy to come to terms with the reality of having no control, of there being a controller over everything you do and think, and of what everyone else does and thinks. When we’re ready, all the truths of God’s ontological presence and control in our lives is gradually revealed to us. Usually through religious philosophy, and ultimately through Vedanta.

As I’ve shown before, his English translators aren’t very faithful to his actual words and writings, famously his online Gita translation of 9.32, the verse that so much ill will was created over between ISKCON and Narayana Maharaja. Narayana Maharaja had claimed Prabhupada’s Gita made a mistake in grammar which changed the meaning of the verse. In Prabhupada’s Gita we find:

O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth–women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]–can approach the supreme destination.

The grammar makes it seem that Krishna is lumping together women, vaisyas, and sudras as low-born or papa-yoni. Narayana Maharaja said that was a mistake, and he was right. Krishna is saying the low-born (papa-yoni), and women, and vaisyas, and sudras. That is the grammatically correct translation, and how the verse has traditionally been translated by everyone but Prabhupada. Saying women, vaisyas, and sudras are papa-yoni makes no sense considering that papa-yoni explicitly referred to people who weren’t born following vedic birth samskaras (rituals). Papa-yoni means a sinful womb, it’s a dysphemism (opposite of euphemism), which is an intentionally harsh substitute word. It was commonly used to refer to people who weren’t born into Vedic culture. For example, all of us who weren’t born from practicing Hindu or Vaishnava backgrounds, would be considered papa-yoni.

After all the ill will created by that “offense” by Narayana Maharaja towards Prabhupada, you would expect to see that verse correctly translated in his Gita translation. And it is, in the Hindi edition, which he wrote. But in the English translation, which his followers translated from his Hindi, we get the same mistaken grammar found in Prabhupada’s Gita. See the link in the previous paragraph for an image of that verse in Narayana Maharaja’s English Gita. I’ve been told that has been corrected in the printed version, but the version online which is widely available to everyone, has the mistake.

My point is I can’t blame Narayana Maharaja for the mistake in the English edition of Jaiva Dharma without seeing the original Hindi version, I looked online, and all I could find was a short truncated version. So I don’t know. Anyways, here is the part of Jaiva Dharma, chapter 9, I had a problem with since it’s such a big problem due to it being a sensitive and important teaching:

There is no difference between the potency and the possessor of potency.” This means that sakti is not a separate object. The Supreme Person who is the master of all potencies is the one truly abiding substance. Sakti is the quality, or inherent function, that is subordinate to His will. You have said that sakti is the embodiment of consciousness, that it possesses will, and that it is beyond the influence of the three qualities of material nature. This is correct, but only insofar as sakti operates fully under the support of a pure conscious entity, and is thus considered identical with that powerful entity. Desire and consciousness depend on the Supreme Being. Desire cannot exist in sakti; rather, sakti acts in accordance with the desire of the Supreme Being. You have the power to move, and when you desire to move, that power will act. To say “the power is moving” is merely a figure of speech; it actually means that the person who possesses that power is moving.

The part in bold type is what I have a problem with, the idea that we have no inherent ability to desire seems wrong, as I’ve said many times before it’s desire which is the only thing, besides emotion, which we inherently possess as personal characteristics. To me it seemed the word desire should have been the word will instead, i.e we posses no independent will power, not that we don’t have independent desires.

So I searched online and I couldn’t find the original Bengali version, all I could find was one other translation into English. And in it we find this:

When it is said that the potency has pure consciousness, that means that because the potency and the master of potencies are not different, therefore, like the master of potencies, the potency also has a form of spiritual consciousness, has desires that are at once fulfilled, and is beyond the touch of the three modes. It is not a mistake to say these things. Will and consciousness are qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By itself, the potency does not possess will, but rather it carries out the will of the Supreme. For example, you have power, and by Your will, your potencies act. If you say, ‘the power acted’, then that means that the possessor of the power was actually behind the action.

Now that makes sense to me. It’s taught in ISKCON that the jiva possesses free will; as I have shown the shastra says that we do not possess free will. Since Narayana Maharaja’s English translators are likely ex-ISKCON, it makes sense that they wouldn’t accept Bhaktivinoda saying we have no free will. That second translation, paradoxically is from Kusakratha Das, a Prabhupada disciple. The thing about him is that while he was a member of ISKCON, he was a bit of an independent, which is why his books weren’t supported by ISKCON’S BBT. He did what he wanted, so it makes sense that he wouldn’t toe the party line when it came to his translations. The idea that we have free will but no free desire, is self-contradictory. You have to have free desire in order to have free will, but you don’t necessarily have free will if you have free desire. Will is the ability to carry out your desire, the shastra teaches how to change your desires, but they make it clear you have no free will.

It can seem that if you don’t have free will then you can’t have free desire. For example: if I desire to go to the market tomorrow, and then I go, wasn’t that my free will since it was based upon by freedom of desire?

Because desire and will are closely related, so much of what we do is because of a desire to do it. When I say we have freedom of desire, I mean when it comes to desires that aren’t specific to the moment. For example: if you desire to go out to dinner tonite, that is paramatma giving you that desire. Your liking going out to dinner in general, is the bigger picture, that’s your own inherent desire. General “big picture” desires are usually your own inherent desires, more detailed common everyday desires are paramatma directing you. Generally, desires which are not moving you to do something, are your own. You desire to eat and enjoy food, that is your own inherent desire. But if you desire to eat right now, and have some tacos, that is paramatma.

I don’t know which word Bhaktivinoda used, but there are Sanskrit words that can mean either will or desire. For example from the Sanskrit dictionary we find the common word iccha:

इच्छा icchA f. want
इच्छा icchA f. will
इच्छा icchA f. wish
इच्छा icchA f. willingness
इच्छा icchA f. desire

Also in Hindi it means the same thing, from the Hindi dictionary:

इच्छा icchā noun

bent (f)
will (f)
wish (f)
yearning (f)
accord (f)
appetite (f)
care (f)
notion (f)
readiness (f)
willing (f)
wishfulness (f)
wishing (f)
volition (f)
stomach (f)
desire (f)

It’s likely the word used in the Jaiva Dharma is iccha, if not another common word meaning both will or desire is abhilasa in Hindi and abhilasita in Sanskrit. In Bengali iccha also means will or desire. There are more words that mean desire or will, irādā in Bengali, for instance.

I know this may all seem very pedantic, but it’s such an important point to understand for the development of self-realization. The fact that ISKCON has very aggressively promoted the idea of free will, and possibly Narayana Maharaja’s sangha as well, needs to be exposed for the apasiddhanta it is. As I’ve shown in my previous posts, there is nothing in shastra which backs up the idea of free will, and much to refute it. You cannot become self-realized as long as you think we have free will, we need to understand our ontological relationship with Radha Krishna in order to enter into complete and full direct realization:

Bhagavad Gita:

9.10

mayadhyakshena prakritih / suyate sa-caracaram
hetunanena kaunteya / jagad viparivarttate

Prakriti (comprises everything in the universe/sub-atomic energy) works under my supervision, mayadhyakshena prakritih, completely controlling all of creation, suyate sa-caracaram. This is how the universe works son of Kunti, hetunanena kaunteya jagad viparivarttate.

13.30

prakrityaiva ca karmani / kriyamanani sarvasah
yah pasyati tathatmanam / akarttaram sa pasyati

All activities taking place, in all respects, are performed by prakriti, prakrtyaiva ca karmani kriyamanani sarvasah. Who sees, yah pasyati, that the atma (human soul) is not the doer, atmanam akarttaram, he sees, sah pasyati.

18.59-61:

yad ahankaram asritya / na yotsya iti manyase
mithyaiva vyavasayas te / prakritis tvam niyokshyati

You were thinking that you will not fight, na yotsya iti manyase. But that is due to your misconception of your self and reality, yad ahankaram asritya . That resolution was in vain, mithyaiva vyavasayas te, prakriti will engage you (make you fight), prakritis tvam niyokshyati.

svabhava-jena kaunteya / nibaddhah svena karmana
kartum necchasi yan mohat / karishyasy avaso ‘pi tat

Your will not to act is illusory, kartum necchasi yan mohat. Bound by actions, nibaddhah svena karmana, born of your nature son of Kunti, svabhava-jena kaunteya, helpless, you will act karishyasy avaso ‘pi tat.

isvarah sarva-bhutanam / hrid-dese ‘rjuna tishthati
bhramayan sarva-bhutani / yantrarudhani mayaya

The supreme controller is at the heart of all beings Arjuna, isvarah sarva-bhutanam hrid-dese ‘rjuna tishthati, driving the movements of all living beings, bhramayan sarva-bhutani, who are mounted on the machine of his universal potency, yantrarudhani mayaya.

This is a reply to Cacofonix’s comments and questions to the Don’t You Forget About Me post. In that post I went on about how to directly perceive and experience Krishna in our day to day lives. I’ve gone over the same topic quite a bit at posts like these and others:

Through The Looking Glass
Final Fantasy
See Me, Feel Me

Cacofonix was wondering if there was some special way to get that experience, saying he was in anxiety over wanting to experience and relate directly with Krishna. This is my response:

People experience God at all times, yet people don’t realize that because they don’t understand how reality works under God’s control. For example, you wrote:

Between the time someone has understood “Krishna is source and essence of everything” and the time Krishna reveals it through direct perception, what will happen to the person?

For example, I have understood through Logic and through inspiration (from within and external, like this website ) that Krishna is sum and substance of everything. But I have not yet realized that.

I am consciously telling that (Krishna’s complete control and deep involvement) to myself when I experience anything (from a good meal to playing with my son to challenging experience at work).

Now, I guess I have to wait for the revelation. That can happen in a few minutes to a few Janmas. So I don’t know how long it will take.

Question: Is there anything I can do to placate my mind? The anxiety is too much to bear.

You’re seeing yourself in control of your thoughts, reminding yourself to see Krishna as the controller—when in reality Krishna as paramatma is the one reminding YOU. Practically all the verses on this topic say essentially the same thing—understand that Krishna is in control of everything you experience, 100%. By that understanding, automatically you see Krishna in everything and everyone, and from that Krishna will use that control to commune with you. But first you need to understand that this world, your life, is like a movie or play you’re taking part in and watching. You must understand there’s a script and a writer/director to bring it into fruition—and therefore everything is going on according to a script, it’s all planned out.

That means not only are the people you interact with acting out a script and being directed, but also any and all media, i.e. anything you read, watch or listen to is also scripted out for you to experience at the exact moment you experience it. Because of that Krishna can use that control over everything to communicate to you through what you experience. Every second of your life you’re experiencing what Krishna planned out for you, not only in the big picture, but in every single detailed thing you experience. Be open to seeing and hearing communication from Krishna directly to you through that control of the script of your life. Srimad Bhagavatam says:

Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

As the chariot of air carries an aroma from its source and immediately catches the sense of smell, similarly, one who has the vision of seeing everything united with God [yoga-ratam], can catch the Supreme Soul, who is equally present everywhere.

All you can perceive is what Krishna has planned for you, so relax, there’s nothing you can do but learn how to see the absolute truth of reality. As you become more used to that, you’ll see that what you’re reading right now is actually Krishna directly speaking to you. You’ll see Krishna speaking through everyone and everything you experience because you’ll constantly understand that Krishna is literally the only controlling factor in existence. Be aware of the truth, be open not only to understanding Krishna’s control, but also be open to Krishna using that control to communicate directly to you.

When you’re comfortable with the truth of reality, then Krishna will start to speak to you all of the time, in your mind, through others, through media—everything you experience will be a platform for constant communication. It’s not easy, it takes a lot of getting used to, it can be too stressful if you’re not ready. Krishna is a very high energy person who likes to communicate constantly, coming at you from all directions, including within your mind. It will literally be like living with a conjoined twin, experiencing the reality of two souls in the same body and mind—except only Krishna is controlling and creating your thoughts, movements, speech, memory, etc. The Upanishads use the analogy of two birds in the same tree:

Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating.

On the same tree man sits grieving, immersed, bewildered, by his own impotence (an-îsâ). But when he sees the other lord (îsa) contented, and knows his glory, then his grief passes away.

He who does not know that indestructible being of the Rig-Veda, that highest ether-like (Self) wherein all the gods reside, of what use is the Rig-Veda to him? Those only who know it, rest contented.

That’s a very foreign experience for people who are used to seeing only themselves in their body and mind. It’s really not something you want to experience until you’re ready. You’ll never be by yourself in your body ever again. Not that you ever have been, but since birth you feel as if you’re by yourself. Once self-realized, that goes away. You’ll be permanently aware of being with another person in your body and mind, constantly, always, everyday, every moment—and that you have no control. People aren’t used to that type of constant intimacy, you don’t want it sprung on you too soon, it can get very confusing and exhausting for beginners.

It’s not like Radha Krishna is a passive partner, just the opposite. Your constant attention will be sought, both internally and externally. Since Radha Krishna controls everything, when you get closer, Krishna likes to use everything to show off to you—like a school friend who likes to show off their skills, hobbies, etc. All art, music, dance, theater, movies, technology, animals, etc, all of it is created and controlled by Krishna. Krishna is the sole inspiration of everything for everyone. No one but Krishna has the ability to independently think or create anything. You’ll be expected to appreciate that fact and enjoy what the world has to offer as being Krishna’s personal gifts.

And that isn’t even including the more intimate aspect of your relationship. Krishna is looking for as intimate a relationship as he/she can get from you. That adds a whole other level of complication for you to deal with, and because it’s the basis of your eternal relationship (sthayi bhava), it’s not taken lightly. Radha Krishna will tell you what type of relationship they want from you.

I know in the Gaudiya tradition it’s usually taught that you choose what type of relationship you want, but that’s only for the practice of raganuga sadhana. In truth, because you have no free will, you can’t choose anything. After your sadhana phase, knowing you have no free will, and that your permanent bhava is already planned for you, Radha Krishna will reveal what type of relationship they want with you. Your sadhana phase is completely over once you begin directly relating with paramatma. Jiva Goswami writes in his Bhakti Sandarbha:

In the Gautamiya Tantra it is said:

For they who are always fallen in love with the lotus feet of Lord Krsna there is no japa, no Deity worship, no meditation, and no rules.

Don’t feel you need to be closer to Krishna than you are, so much so that you’re in anxiety over it. It’s Krishna who wants to take it slow, for your own good. Be aware of the truth of what and who is in control of everything you experience—so much can be revealed to you, communicated to you, with that attitude.

This is a response to a comment from Seeker to the Born to Be Wild post. Seeker wrote:

So many insane theories get manufactured day-in and day-out by ISKCONites to cover up the various bizarre points that have been put forth by Prabhupada. Looking back in history, people will realize that Prabhupada’s followers have caused him more embarrassment than he himself might have caused through his writings. By glorifying him as God-like, projecting him as a personal sakha or sakhi (depending on whether you side with Tripurari Swami or Narayana Maharaj:), etc.., his followers will eventually expose Prabhupada by literally following him, more than what anyone else can do from outside to expose him. I was able to notice couple of examples today:

a) I had a good laugh with this link – http://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/?p=19040

52. There were chapatis for all of the devotees, for lunch prasādam, everyday, as Prabhupāda instructed; now rare.

53. Steaming hot milk was served every evening (except Sunday) at 9 p.m. as Prabhupāda instructed; now non-existent.

They think that everything will be alright if they follow Prabhupada literally – good luck with putting down the fire by pouring ghee into it, and when it doesn’t subside, pour even more fanatically. As you have mentioned earlier, if they don’t realize Prabhupada’s inaccurate representation of sastra and his other tangential agenda unrelated to bhakti like vedic model of society, etc.., are the source of problems, there is little hope for ISKCON.

The list of complaints you noted, which came from http://www.oneiskcon.com/2011/04/the-good-ole-days-of-iskcon/ is probably a fairly common mindset among older ISKCON veterans. Many of them may think that the culture and rules Prabhupada inspired or demanded in ISKCON, are sacrosanct for all time. As if what he set-up was a type of descent of divine heaven on earth. As you point out, they tend to have a sentimental emotional view of ISKCON’s “Prabhupada lila” period, which can manifest in being upset with any social or philosophical changes in ISKCON and the wider community from those early days.

I’m sure many newer members of ISKCON and the wider community also have the same feelings about the old versus the newer versions of ISKCON. The complaints are all trivial, and usually the changes have been for the better—which is why they were changed in the first place, e.g. the new ISKCON typically has some type of futon or bed to sleep on vs. the old ISKCON of seeing comfort as some type of selfishness, ending up with everyone being told they must sleep on the hard floor or on wooden bunk beds without mattresses. Prabhupada’s attitude was that if you could survive without comfort, then that was better for you, more spiritual, more devotional than being comfortable.

Like I’ve said it before: he taught a sadomasochistic doctrine, where the purpose of your life is to live a life of sensual deprivation in service to Krishna’s pleasure. Not only because sensual stimulation is a distraction from higher pursuits, but also because the inherent desire to enjoy is not only a sin, but so sinful as to be the very cause of your suffering in samsara. Prabhupada taught that you were kicked out of heaven because you desired to be an enjoyer, that in heaven only God is allowed to be an enjoyer, and you’re only allowed there if you have an attitude of a neutered submissive servant, with no desire to enjoy.

When Prabhupada’s followers speak of being “pure,” what they mean is becoming selfless to such a degree that you literally don’t desire enjoyment, you only desire to please others. Any desire for enjoyment is seen and taught as “impurity,” and the cause of your separation from God in this world of suffering.

That ideology is so prevalent among Prabhupada’s followers, that they think when they attain Goloka (Krishna’s heaven) they will live a life somewhat similar to what Prabhupada asked of them, i.e. they will follow the “regulative principles” of no sex and no intoxication. They often think that Krishna and his personal expansions will be getting intoxicated and having lots of sex, while their own roles will be as submissive celibate teetotalers, there to “worship” the supreme God.

That vision of your higher self is basically the opposite of what is actually taught, which is that the goal of bhakti is to develop the mood of Krishna’s friends, family, and lovers, as written about in shastra and the books of past Gaudiya acharyas. When we see what is written about that Vraja lila mood, we don’t see a mood of submissive worshipful neutered servanthood with no desire to enjoy. We see just the opposite. They have normal relationships, humanlike relationships of family, friends, and lovers. That is in fact the whole point of Krishna’s youthful pastimes in Vrindavana. It’s to showcase the desire for intimacy, of sharing life and love among equals, that Krishna displays his Vrindavana lila. To make that point clear, it’s written that in lila he hides his true identity so that he will be treated as a human.

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmrita Ādi 4.18

āmāre īśvara māne, āpanāke hīna
tāra preme vaśa āmi nā ha-i adhīna

āmāre — Me; īśvara — the Lord; māne — regards; āpanāke — himself; hīna — low; tāra — of him; preme — by the love; vaśa — controlled; āmi — I; nā ha-i — am not; adhīna — subservient.

If one regards Me as the Supreme Lord and himself as a subordinate, I do not become subservient to his love, nor can it control Me.

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmrita Ādi 4.21-22

mora putra, mora sakhā, mora prāna-pati
ei-bhāve yei more kare śuddha-bhakti
āpanāke bada māne, āmāre sama-hīna
sei bhāve ha-i āmi tāhāra adhīna

mora — my; putra — son; mora — my; sakhā — friend; mora — my; prāna-pati — lord of life; ei bhāve — in this way; yei — those who; more — unto Me; kare — do; śuddha-bhakti — pure devotion; āpanāke — himself; bada — great; māne — he regards; āmāre — Me; sama — equal; hīna — or lower; sei bhāve — in that way; ha-i — am; āmi — I; tāhāra — to him; adhīna — subordinate.

If one cherishes pure loving devotion to Me, thinking of Me as his son, his friend or his beloved, regarding himself as great and considering Me his equal or inferior, I become subordinate to him.

Prabhupada knew that about Gaudiya Vaishnava theology since he wrote on the nature of Krishna’s youthful pastimes in his books, and it’s clearly stated that Krishna lila is where Krishna wants to be treated without awe and veneration, without the worship of himself as the supreme Godhead. He also knew that Gaudiya Vaishnavism promotes the giving up of religious rules and regulations (vaidhi bhakti) in favor of an intimate natural approach to God (raganuga bhakti), as a family member, or friend, or lover.

In ISKCON they teach that the approach of strictly following all religious rules and regulations is what Krishna wants, otherwise you commit a great offense and anger God. They teach that worshiping God as vastly above your station is what Krishna demands of us, that we must approach God with trepidation and fear of offense, acting as servile as possible, while seeing yourself as the lowest of the low in relation to God. That is what we must strive for, according to ISKCON.

The opposite is what Gaudiya Vaishnavism is supposed to be all about. They claim that the intimate approach (raga-marga) is for people so advanced that if you think you’re advanced enough that you must be a fake, or what they call a sahajiya. The idea being that the more advanced you are, the more humble you should be. If you believe you’re advanced enough for the raga-marga, then you’re not. In that way they have concocted an ideology which keeps people fearful of practicing what the bhakti-yoga tradition of Sri Chaitanya actually promotes over everything else.

They teach that humility means seeing yourself as garbage, when what it really means is seeing that we are not the source, or power, or talent behind anything we do. It’s knowing that whatever we are or do is due to God because we aren’t in control of anything, including our own skills or actions. True humility means a lack of false pride. Whereas ISKCON teaches it means seeing yourself as lowly, seeing yourself as worthless. You can see this attitude being promoted even among the leaders whenever they write or say something where they talk about themselves, e.g. if they write a letter they will often end it with something like this:

Your worthless fallen servant begging for your service and mercy, Bhakti Bananas Swami.

That false humility is standard ISKCON-speak. It showcases the mood that they believe they are supposed to have, so they speak that way about themselves in order to look properly humble to each other. You see it in most people in or around ISKCON, they’re always going on about how horrible, sinfully fallen, and worthless they are. It’s become the social standard to refer to yourself in as negative a way as you can. They may spend 20 minutes berating someone, but will end it with some display of false humility. They usually miss the entire point of what humility for a Vaishnava is supposed to be about.

Ironically they usually think just the opposite of what they say about themselves. One thing most ISKCON devotees don’t lack, is a strong sense of false pride in themselves, usually seeing themselves as superior to practically everyone because they’re Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Prabhupada instilled that in them through his constant vicious berating of everyone who didn’t follow his teachings. That’s why it’s so easy for them to get vicious with each other over perceived slights or other trivial stuff.

They think that because Prabhupada could be so “heavy,” in his service to Krishna by demeaning so many while demanding their submission to his rules for society, and to “the truth” of whatever he was talking about—that his followers tend to think they have the same license whenever they perceive some deviation or something they see as ungodly (not in line with Prabhupada). Especially if it’s something to do with raganuga bhakti. The raga marga is anathema to them, and anyone who promotes it is usually attacked incessantly as fraudulent deviants, to be avoided like the plague because they can “contaminate” you. They still attack Narayana Maharaja, long after his passing on, for his “unauthorized sahajiya” teachings. What to speak of anyone else. I wonder where they got that idea about the raga-marga?

From Prabhupada’s purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 4.24.45-46:

These demons who print books and write lyrics on the raga-marga principles are surely on the way to hell. Unfortunately, they lead others down with them. Devotees in Krsna consciousness should be very careful to avoid such demons. One should strictly follow the vidhi-marga regulative principles in the worship of Laksmi-Narayana, although the Lord is present in the temple as Radha-Krsna. Radha-Krsna includes Laksmi-Narayana; therefore when one worships the Lord according to the regulative principles, the Lord accepts the service in the role of Laksmi-Narayana.

He must be referring to himself:

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmrita Ādi 4.15-16

prema-rasa-niryāsa karite āsvādana
rāga-mārga bhakti loke karite pracārana
rasika-śekhara krishna parama-karuna
ei dui hetu haite icchāra udgama

prema-rasa — of the mellow of love of God; niryāsa — the essence; karite — to do; āsvādana — tasting; rāga-mārga — the path of spontaneous attraction; bhakti — devotional service; loke — in the world; karite — to do; pracārana — propagation; rasika-śekhara — the supremely jubilant; krishna — Lord Krishna; parama-karuna — the most merciful; ei — these; dui — two; hetu — reasons; haite — from; icchāra — of desire; udgama — the birth.

The Lord’s desire to appear was born from two reasons: the Lord wanted to taste the sweet essence of the mellows of love of God, and He wanted to propagate devotional service in the world on the platform of spontaneous attraction (raga-marga). Thus He is known as supremely jubilant and as the most merciful of all.

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmrita Ādi 4.32-33

ei saba rasa-niryāsa kariba āsvāda
ei dvāre kariba saba bhaktere prasāda

vrajera nirmala rāga śuni’ bhakta-gana
rāga-mārge bhaje yena chādi’ dharma-karma

ei — these; saba — all; rasa-niryāsa — essence of mellows; kariba — I shall do; āsvāda — tasting; ei dvāre — by this; kariba — I shall do; saba — all; bhaktere — to the devotees; prasāda — favor.

vrajera — of Vraja; nirmala — spotless; rāga — love; śuni’ — hearing; bhakta-gana — the devotees; rāga-mārge — on the path of spontaneous love; bhaje — they worship; yena — so that; chādi’ — giving up; dharma — religiosity; karma — fruitive activity.

“I shall taste the essence of all these rasas, and in this way I shall favor all the devotees.

Then, by hearing about the pure love of the residents of Vraja, devotees will worship Me on the path of spontaneous love (raga-marga), abandoning all rituals of religiosity and fruitive activity.”

Prabhupada taught another doctrine that directly contradicts the teaching of Krishna wanting to be treated as an equal—he taught that the cause of your existence separate from Krishna in the “material world” of birth, death, disease, and old age—is because you wanted to be like Krishna, not God exactly, but wanted to be “an enjoyer” like Krishna. According to Prabhupada, supposedly we became “envious” of Krishna’s position as the enjoyer in his pastimes, we also wanted to be an enjoyer, and therefore we were sent to this world to try and be the enjoyer, to try and be the Krishna of our own world.

Why did he teach that? It’s not found in any shastra or previous acharya’s writing. They’ve been consistent in stating the jiva didn’t originate in lila, that the jivas didn’t come to the world of birth and death because they were envious of Krishna being an enjoyer, that we didn’t get kicked out of heaven and won’t be allowed back if we have an enjoying spirit.

Prabhupada knew that wasn’t taught, he knew it was a deviation. I think Prabhupada taught that new theology because he wanted his followers to completely give up the enjoying spirit, to learn to see the enjoying spirit as sinful, to see it as the cause of our separation from God in the world of suffering. I believe he wanted his followers to think that unless they become “purified” from the enjoying spirit, and develop a purely selfless submissive spirit, we can never return to heaven, we can never go “back to Godhead.”

It’s on threat of endless punishment from God that his followers have been conned into seeing Krishna, and relating to Krishna, in the opposite intent of Sri Chaitanya’s stated purpose above. They’ve been quite creative in making up all sorts of nouveau philosophies to support the idea of our needing to give up the enjoying spirit as the prime purpose of bhakti and life. Mostly we see that creativity expressed by the leaders of ISKCON, for obvious reasons, the same reasons Prabhupada created it in the first place. They want people to give up all pursuits outside of serving them.

Some of the leaders I’m sure actually believe in that ideology, those are the very renounced ones, having themselves been conned into believing it by Prabhupada. But the ones that are obviously enjoying the fruits of their followers labors, they most likely know that Prabhupada was conning them, and now they’re trying to take advantage of the system he put in place.

This will be a continuation of my last post, Who’s On First? This following is a response to some questions from Seeker in the comments to that post.

Seeker wrote:

I am still trying to understand how the undifferentiated Brahman being the source of Krishna does not diminish His position or why it is not expounded that way clearly.

We get lots of verses saying Brahman is the source of everything, and also we get verses saying Krishna and Brahman are two aspects of the same being, with Krishna as the supreme due to Krishna being the personality of Brahman. It just depends on the source. Books like the Bhagavatam and the Gita focus on promoting Krishna, but in the Upanishads we get lots of stuff like this from the Taittiriya Upanishad:

He wished, “Let me be many, let me be born. He undertook a deliberation. Having deliberated, he created all this that exists. That (Brahman), having created (that), entered into that very thing. And having entered there, It became the formed and the formless, the defined and the undefined, the sustaining and the non-sustaining, the sentient and the insentient, the true and the untrue. Truth became all this that there is. They call that Brahman Truth. Pertaining to this, there occurs this verse:

In the beginning all this was but the Unmanifested (Brahman). From that emerged the manifested. That Brahman created Itself by Itself.

That last line refers to the creation of the physical forms god manifests, e.g. Radha Krishna, Sita Rama, and everything else.

I think your slight confusion has to do with how ISKCON and related teachers instruct and interpret shastra about Krishna in relation to Brahman. The way they teach tends to create the impression that Krishna’s bodily form is literally the original source from which everything else finds it’s origin. Obviously, when thought about logically, that makes no sense, i.e. the human male form is obviously a design, specifically designed for among other things—sexual relations with it’s counterpart, the human female form.

Prabhupada’s teachings stress the non-difference between Krishna and his form, in a way that you get the idea that Krishna’s form is somehow the original source of everything. He made the simple and obvious fact of the necessity for the design of human forms (and all forms) conspicuous by it’s absence in his teachings. Most people who learned from him are so confused by that type of teaching that they find it very difficult to understand the simple logic of the necessity for human forms (and all other) to have been first designed, and then created, at some distant time in the past.

For example, Prabhupada’s translation of Gita 14.27 which you quoted. In it he has Krishna saying he is the basis of Brahman. The word he translates as basis is pratistha, although in the word for word translation he has it meaning rest, as in Krishna saying “I am the resting place of Brahman.” While both translations are viable, they aren’t the primary meanings of pratistha, which are:

pratiSThA ( %{sthA}) P. A1. %{-tiSThati} , %{-te} , to stand , stay , abide , dwell

All Krishna is saying is that he’s not a product of Brahman in the sense of being some lesser or temporary creation or manifestation. He’s saying that he’s the personality of Brahman, he’s Brahman in personal form. In a sense he’s the basis of Brahman, but only in the sense that he’s an infinite being upon which Brahman is an aspect of that infinite being, i.e. the impersonal aspect, the aspect without a body. Krishna as Brahman has no form, therefore all the characteristics pertaining to the body of Krishna are not manifest in Brahman. They are one and the same being, but the one which displays more characteristics can metaphorically be said to be the basis for the one that displays less characteristics.

It’s a mistake to think these teachings are meant to instruct us that Krishna, in his form of Govinda, is the literal source of, or existed before, or created Brahman. They are just meant to emphasize Krishna as the personality of Brahman, instead of as a creation of Brahman, as some may think. The form of Krishna is a creation, as are all forms, by necessity. But the personality of Krishna is not a creation of Brahman, it’s the supreme (male) personality of Brahman.

You also quoted another of Prabhupada’s Gita verses, which directly relates to the above:

avyaktaḿ vyaktim āpannaḿ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam

avyaktam — nonmanifested; vyaktim — personality; āpannam — achieved; manyante — think; mām — Me; abuddhayaḥ — less intelligent persons; param — supreme; bhāvam — existence; ajānantaḥ — without knowing; mama — My; avyayam — imperishable; anuttamam — the finest.

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

Here Krishna is making it clear that he’s not a product of an impersonal higher reality, he is that higher reality in the flesh.

Seeker also wrote:

I am trying to reconcile this point with the understanding that I have gathered earlier. I have presented a few slokas below and I am willing to hear from you about any incorrect translations in them or the holistic interpretation of these slokas in conjunction with the others like the one from Rig veda, etc..,

1) yasya prabha prabhavato jagad-anda-koti-kotishv-ashesha-vasudhadi vibhuti-bhinnam tad brahma nishkalam anantam ashesha-bhutam
govindam adi-purusham tarn aham bhajami>>

I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads, being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth. (Brahma Samhita, 40th sloka)

It’s meant to once again show that Krishna is Brahman by having Brahman as an aspect of Govinda, i.e. Brahman as Govinda’s power, not the other way around. The point being that since Krishna is the personality of Brahman, therefore Brahman is the power of Krishna, his prabha or effulgent radiance. Sometimes it is metaphorically stated that Brahman is the effulgence of Krishna’s body, but that shouldn’t be taken literally, it’s just meant to promote the conception that Brahman is a partial manifestation of the complete Para-Brahman, i.e. Vishnu, Krishna, Radha, Rama, Sita, etc.

You can see the confusion Prabhupada and others like him can cause very clearly in the debate I had with Tripurari Swami and a few of his followers on this very topic. He argued, and even got testy and condescending, when I told him that because Krishna’s forms, and all the forms of all the things of the world (including the “spiritual world”) are designs—they therefore had to have been conceived of, designed, and then created at some point. Because of that, before that point they didn’t exist. He got very snooty and called me essentially a materialist who was relying on rationality and logic to explain the spiritual, that because shastra says lila is anadi (which he translates as beginningless, but which can also mean endless or perpetual) therefore we have to believe that it always existed as it is, regardless of how irrational or illogical it is to believe that.

He’s telling us we must renounce the possible for the impossible in order to understand the message of shastra, that we must accept and believe that designed things have no beginning, even though it’s illogical, if we are to be “followers of Chaitanya.” I asked him:

How can designed things have always existed? How can a chair or a house or an apple or a body have always existed? They are designs and need a beginning, don’t they?

All lila had to have a beginning because lila does not take place in a vacuum. All lila takes place in “nature,” with human bodies, vegetation, animals, human technology of various types such as houses, clothes, furniture, musical instruments, cooking tools, transportation, etc. All of those things had to have been created otherwise they would not exist. They are all designed and therefore created things. Therefore all lila had a beginning. Lila began after those things were created, and it didn’t exist before than.

But he wasn’t having it, he insisted that I was the one who didn’t understand that lila is achintya, inconceivable, that it’s “trans-rational.” I thought that was absurd, transrational means: beyond the rational; believed without logic or evidence. He had been trained to see the ontology of Krishna, lila, and everything else, in an illogical and impossible to sustain way—if you’re a rational person.

I postulated in a comment to that debate that possibly Tripurari Swami was playing dumb, that because he had hitched his wagon as a guru to the conception that Prabhupada was perfect in his spiritual teachings; and also that as a guru himself he didn’t want to be seen admitting to such an obviously mistaken idea, that he argued against the obvious truth simply because he didn’t want to admit he was wrong in front of his followers. In the epilogue to the debate I summed up what was wrong with his vision:

Sanskrit words generally have many meanings, so context is important to understand which meaning is the correct one, sometimes many of the meanings are implied. If one meaning is illogical than another meaning must be used even if you have been told something else by your guru. Here are all the meanings of anadi from http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=anadi&trans=Translate&direction=AU:

अनादि anādi

अनादि anAdi adj. without beginning
अनादि anAdi adj. eternal
अनादि anAdi adj. having no beginning
अनादि anAdi adj. existing from eternity
अनादि anAdi ind. incessantly
अनादि anAdi ind. perpetually

The correct definition for anadi in relation to lila is eternal, or incessantly, or perpetually, and not “without beginning,” since it’s impossible for lila to exist without a beginning. Eternal can mean always existent, or it can mean endless and perpetual — two different meanings. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal:

Definition of ETERNAL
1
a : having infinite duration : everlasting b : of or relating to eternity c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God
2
a : continued without intermission : perpetual b : seemingly endless

Anadi in relation to lila means endless, not always existent. Lila started after Krishna conceived of everything. Krishna then designed and created everything that exists in and as a part of lila. Lila could never have existed before all the integral components were created: human and animal bodies; vegetation; the physical geographic environment; air; earth; water; fire; plus all of the accessories of human society like houses; furniture; etc.

Before that, before those things were originally designed and created, they had to have been conceived of by Krishna. Before then they had never existed. Therefore lila had never existed until Krishna created it because lila doesn’t take place in a vacuum with disembodied spirits. Lila has not been always existent due to it being impossible to exist without first design and then creation — even a 5 year old child can understand. It’s eternal in the sense that after it’s been designed and created — it will go on forever, endlessly.

Tripurari Swami has been misled and is clearly attached to an obvious error in judgement. That’s bound to happen when you take Sanskrit words too literally all of the time. In all languages, combining the literal meanings of the roots of words aren’t necessarily what the words always mean. The roots of anadi are “an” [negative meaning, like "not"] and “adi” [first, primary, chief, beginning, principal, preeminent]. But when put together anadi doesn’t necessarily have to be the product of the two meanings of it’s roots.

An example in English is the word honeymoon. It’s roots joined together too literally wouldn’t tell us what the word actually means. An example in Sanskrit is papayoni. Papayoni was used in Vedic society to describe people who didn’t take part in Vedic culture. It’s roots are papa [evil, sinful, wicked, vicious, etc] and yoni [female reproductive organs]. Papayoni specifically referred to people who didn’t take part in Vedic birth samskaras [purificatory rituals], i.e. people not part of Vedic culture didn’t practice Vedic birth rituals, therefore their birth was considered inauspicious.

It’s the same as modern Catholics insisting on baptism in order to be considered Catholic. Baptism is one of the seven sacraments (equivalent to Vedic samskaras) which must be performed by all Catholics. Papayoni didn’t literally mean an evil or sinful womb, which is what it’s roots mean. How can a womb be evil, and why would you call someone an evil womb? Papayoni is a dysphemism, which is the usage of an intentionally harsh word or expression instead of a polite one—the opposite of euphemism.

Tripurari was simply wrong in insisting that my definition of anadi in that instance was “the opposite of it’s literal meaning.” It’s in fact a direct meaning of the word in Sanskrit, just not a literal meaning of it’s roots. Any other definition is impossible to be true when anadi is used to describe the nature of lila.

At the end Tripurari also resorted to lying about what I wrote, he said:

You positions are that:

1. The nitya-lila of Krishna has a beginning in time
2. The material world has a beginning in time

You scriptural support for these positions is non existent, and with regard to the material world involves interpreting a scriptural term that has been explained to mean exactly what it literally says such that it says the opposite.

You logical support for your positions displays ignorance of the nature of transcendence. It is a logic in which logic applicable to material things is forced upon things not material.

I presented a number of shastric citations which did strongly support my claims, he was the one who presented no shastra to support his, the few words he quoted had nothing to do with the debate, their only purpose was to stifle dissent of his teachings by promoting this concept: “you can never understand God, so don’t even try.” He actually argued that logic and reason are antithetical to spiritual knowledge and God, he unbelievably said:

If God is understandable by reason, who needs him?